Full text of "Military construction appropriations for 1994 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session"

See other formats

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FOR 1994 H

Y 4. AP 6/1: M 59/6/994/
PT.5

riilitarg Construction Appropriation... UNGS

,.cT,»..««aBairat- BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPKOPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina, Chairman

THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada

CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland

JULIAN C. DIXON, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio

VIC FAZIO, California
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas

WiLUAM A. Marinelu, Henry E. Moore, and Mary C. Arnold, Subcommittee Staff

PART 5

Page

Army Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base

Closure 1

Navy Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base

Closure 101

Air Force Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base

Closure 183

Guard and Reserve Components 255

Defense Medical Facilities Office 341

European Construction Program 389

Testimony of Members of Congress and Interested

Individuals and Organizations 457

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

•"=«*,-*'•

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FOR 1994

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPEIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina, Chairman

THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada

CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland

JULIAN C. DIXON, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio

VIC FAZIO, California
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas

WiLUAM A. Marinelu, Henry E. Moore, and Mary C. Arnold, Subcommittee Staff

PART 5

Page

Army Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base

Closure 1

Navy Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base

Closure 101

Air Force Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base

Closure 183

Guard and Reserve Components 255

Defense Medical Facilities Office 341

European Construction Program 389

Testimony of Members of Congress and Interested

Individuals and Organizations 457

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-354 O WASHINGTON : 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-040945-4

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky, Chairman

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi,

Vice Chairman
NEAL SMITH, Iowa
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois.
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES WILSON, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JULIAN C. DIXON, California
VIC FAZIO, California
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
BOB CARR, Michigan
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
NANCY PELOSI, California
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JOSfi E. SERRANO, New York
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ED PASTOR, Arizona
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida

RALPH REGULA, Ohio

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana

JERRY LEWIS, California

JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky

JOE SKEEN, New Mexico

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia

TOM DeLAY, Texas

JIM KOLBE, Arizona

DEAN A. GALLO, New Jersey

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada

JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa

RON PACKARD, California

SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama

HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland

JAMES T. WALSH, New York

CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio

ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma

HENRY BONILLA, Texas

Frederick G. Mohrman, Clerk and Staff Director

(II)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FOR 1994

Tuesday, April 20, 1993.

U.S. ARMY
WITNESSES

PAUL JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTAL-
LATIONS AND HOUSING), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS, LOGISTICS & ENVIRONMENT)

MAJOR GENERAL JOHN F. SOBKE, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DE-
PARTMENT OF THE ARMY

COLONEL WILLIAM T. HARVEY, CHIEF, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLO-
SURE OFFICE, MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF
STAFF, ARMY

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Hefner. The hearing will come to order. Today, we will
review the Military Construction, Family Housing and Base Clos-
ing programs in the Army.

Our witnesses today are Mr. Paul Johnson, Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of the Army; Major General John F. Sobke, Assistant Chief
of Engineers and Colonel William T. Harvey, Chief of the Army's
Base Realignment and Closure Office.

Gentlemen, we appreciate your appearing before this committee
this afternoon. I understand that you have one single statement.
You offer a statement which will be made part of the record and it
will be made part of the record. And, Mr. Johnson, we'll start with
you and you can proceed in any way you see fit, sir.

Statement of Paul W. Johnson

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are happy to be
here to discuss today the 1994 military construction request and
base realignment and closure actions. I have with me Major Gener-
al Sobke, Assistant Chief of Engineers, and Colonel Harvey, Chief
of the Army Base Realignment and Closure Office. We each have
brief statements and also have a joint statement which has a lot of
detail.

Before discussing in any detail, I'd like to say that this budget
reflects constraints and a reduced military force structure that we
are projecting. We are in the process of restructuring to a power
projection, continental United States Army. The Army of the
future will be much smaller and more versatile and based primari-
ly in the continental United States.

(1)

The actual component portion of the budget suggests our highest
priority of military construction and housing requirements, in addi-
tion to funding facilities for the execution of the Chemical Demil
program, and the Homeowners Assistance Program which the
Army manages for each department.

For the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, you will hear
on the 22nd, Brigadier General D'Araujo and Brigadier General
Kilmartin. In the realignment and closure area, the Army is
making great progress in shaping our base structure throughout
the world. We are progressing well. The overseas closures total 461
sites to date. We are in the implementing phase of BR AC 91. We
will continue the Army re-shaping effort when the BRAC 93 recom-
mendations are final.

And lastly, I would also like to talk about an important source of
resources for the Army facilities and that's the real property main-
tenance activity. The appropriation for these funds are provided in
part by the Bill. These funds are requested to operate and main-
tain the physical plant. We would also ask your support in this
area because it will also play a very critical role in our facilities
revitalization.

Now I would like to go to more specifics of the MILCON program
and I would turn it over to General Sobke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Major General Sobke. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
I will review some slides to talk informally to you about our pro-
gram.

[The information follows:]

c
«

inl

Icoi

i°i

: CI
liSI

CO S

^ ^

^ -c

<5 <0

£ S

C t3

.0 C

'^ (0

s ^

Q. 2

^ -r

^ S,

p ^

ex. <Q

;<0

i95

lOO

i?
Is

c
p

E ^

ml
IP

O CO

iZ O

>• Q.

(0
Q) ^

r^ 5 T- CO 00
h- 5 in CO o
h* CO T- 1- m

CO
CM

in ^ CO CM CO
CM CM CO in T-
'^ in T- CM <o

00
CM

T- 00 ^ 1- <o
00 ^ 00 ^ CO
00 LO CO ^

CO
CO

2 £ S o 2

S ^ 3: (C QQ

c
«
p

0)P

0)
(0

C*5

ego

Q •*= '^

§^--

ilk Q p>
Q «!: ^

(o O
S ^ to

^^g

p OQ ^
Q t-i CO

COI

■ c
re

lO
M

!o)
!w

joo
o
c

c
«
p

Csl

(/)

^ '— «^

k ,

■^B

o 1

C
0

w ^

■a
1

Q-H

■■■i

^ ^

•

■I

■^^

■ ■B

ffi

75
c

^ ^ o

(0 ^

o
c

f^
ol

T3I

JS!

a>
o

(0
(0

□1 1

-r-|

i: 1

0) P P (Q

£ fc« ^ o o
S O O 3 §•

CO
iO

■o

I c
1«

(0
W

■(0

.« 5 O)

oz<

o
o

e
.o

I 2

f2 2

S-s§-

15 5 CO
5 5c

3 3

ooi

i§

001

IT— I

:oi

lOI
I Ml

™"

u. (D

Sl^o^J

l£)

oTU^

□

■n
o»

|5
ico
o

o
■o
c
«
p

c
o

«ol

oooqocqoNooco

CM nnCMT-NrT-N

"(3
o
o

0)0
C 13

c E 0

0) (0 c

k W U k k

0 0 0 0 0
IL IL IL LL U.

0
■0

0)0

0) .

2 =
= on

0 0
U. IL

■0
0
0

<
>

9
V

<
>

u u u
0 0 0
IL U. IL

4=*

-a
o
o

E
o
o

1?!

00
!0

! C

c
o

■^^

n
at

001
Ol

!=■'

c:
.toi

Ol
'Ml

E
S

c
o

r^ m (o o

■ ■ ■ •

00 ^ CO CM

o s

c/)

■

0) *-

O) c

(0 o

o E

.ti CO >

o ^ ^

S .2 S-

o> c —

== -o ^

<=) S o

w Q. —

(0 X ra

O LU CC

Q, *^

. (n

.2 £

(T3
N

^
£

c
'<5

c
o

It
:co
o

ini

I c

;evi

1^
c
ffi

CO (0

« ^

Si' o 0)

.5 8 2

(Q ^id

(/>

0) M

0)
O
Q)

W Q

CO
CM

(0
N

■c

Li.

CO
N

c
o

0)OCMO^C0NO(0O00O

■ ■■■■■■■■■■a

inT-o(0(ocooooooinr-co

O jo

o
o

»l

c
o

o
o

1- CM

c
o

0
LL

W 1- 1- T-

E «

^ O S

Q .

c
en
0)

>-
z

>
E

"D
(Q
O

0
LL

C
0
0)

0) Is

5 CO
5 D

" m (3)
o o

LL LL

O
O

-J

O
0

C
0

0
LL

>
O

0
LL

•o
c
n
p

•o

■c

jec

■^2

■\

■5^

CO
CO

-S2
O

■s

o
S
(0

E
o

■

^ •*

■^z

.s>

■t3

■^^

^^^^

i^^^

.s>

^^^^

if^

'Si

•2

:§

■ ^^

68-354 O— 93 2

Major General Sobke. The Army facilities for fiscal year 1994.

We will start with the vision that we have for formulating our
facilities which includes the notion of power projection platforms,
again reflective of the national military strategy; the fact that we
will work to be environmental leaders, and, that we will continue
to work to provide excellent facilities for our soldiers and civilians
to live, work and train.

We think that that is an important link to the quality of the
Force which has done so well for the country in the past few years.

Our strategy of course is to seek sufficient resources to execute
that vision. Next is to focus the investment in the right places, the
right installations, the right functions that go to serve these and to
reduce the facilities as far as our Army is downsizing.

This breaks out the Military Construction funds for fiscal year
1994 in our request. You can see that the total is $2,900,000,000.
For family housing it is $1,300,000,000 and you can see the others.

This further breaks it out and shows a comparison for fiscal
years 1992 and 1993. When I testified before you last year, Mr.
Chairman, we were in the so-called five-year; you can see that we
have built up our MCA request now considerably from that margin
last year.

Overall we remain about the same because the Army's family
housing now reflects the diminution of our housing inventory as
the Army has been downsized. We are, of course, in an era of
change. We do believe we have more facilities than we need any-
more or can afford. We are working of course to reduce that
through the base-closing business that Colonel Harvey will talk
about. And we are in an era of fewer resources to take care of this.

We do need to reduce our facilities inventory. Shown on the
bottom drawing on the right hand side, we have over a billion
square feet of facilities in the Army and we need to reduce that
down to some 850,000,000 square feet by the end of the decade. We
are doing that across the Army — we have been doing that for a
number of years but we are doubling our efforts to take down fa-
cilities across the Army that were left over from World War II.
That costs money, of course, and we will talk about that later.

The major programs, we are working to take care of those facili-
ties where the solider lives, in the barracks, and where his family
lives — family housing areas. To that end together with the former
Secretary of the Army, Mr. Stone, and my current Chief of Staff,
General Sullivan, we've put considerable resources toward what we
are calling whole barracks renewal and whole neighborhood revi-
talization. We have increased the standards for our barracks from
90 square feet for soldiers to 110 square feet and added to that a
20-foot square closet which gives the square footage to the soldier
at 130-square feet versus the 90 that they had before. We are work-
ing to increase the privacy to provide one latrine for every two sol-
diers as opposed to one latrine for every four soldiers. These all
result from the tri-services barracks survey work. Soldiers, airmen,
sailors and marines told us what they wanted in terms of their
living condition. So the Army has responded to that by providing
an increase in the standard which has been approved.

This reflects the fact that it is going to take us some 15 years to
build out this program here in the United States. If we are able to

sustain a level of funding at $250,000,000 to $300,000,000 a year.
The focus is on quality, both interior and exterior and the entire
environment which the soldier will live to include improve master
planning in all of the physical fitness attributes of that neighbor-
hood— the PX, the Chapel, the track, adequate parking, lighting,
security and that kind of thing. So that is what we are working for
and we are starting in fiscal year 94 to accomplish that.

This slide shoWs the barrack's room conditions in the past which
the members of the Committee are well familiar with. This gang
latrine does not reflect the privacy that we would like to have for
our soldiers and this slide shows you where whole barracks renew-
al projects are in the fiscal year 94 program. That totals up to some
$265,000,000. There is another $10,000,000 which is focused on
Kwajalein which is intended to take care of most of the contractor
personnel in fiscal year 94.

This is the standard that we are seeking. This is actually a 2 plus
2 room but it is a renovation of the barracks at Fort Hood. This
slide shows better day rooms which the soldiers could really use;
better than our game rooms in the past have been. We think we
are doing a better job in this area and this is the type of atmos-
phere that we are trying to create in our military. This is one of
the old rolling pin barracks which has been modified to put the
balconies on the exterior, provide private entrances to the rooms
and increase the size of the rooms by using up the stairway that
has been in the center of the building to provide some additional
room for the soldiers.

Looking out to the second important program is the Army Stra-
tegic Mobility program. We have some $27,000,000 worth of
projects in the program. We are taking care of those things which
relate to our ability to deploy the Force. We of course see that we
will be asking you for some $550,000,000 worth of support over the
next seven years for this important program. This is one of the
problems that we have — a warehouse where you can see on the
right hand side they park a fork lift. That's the only way that they
can push that door open to use that warehouse at Fort Campbell.
There is a similar facility at Fort Stewart. We learned during
Desert Storm that when you handle the large vans to deploy the
equipment of the 24th Division as we did here at Fort Stewart that
it is an inefficient operation. This particular project will provide
hardstands and overhead cranes which will replace that fork lift
and adequately do this operation.

This slide shows you the projects in the Strategic Mobility pro-
gram at those three locations and as I said before, about
$27,000,000 for that program. The Kwajalein Atoll carries a very
important mission. At Kwajalein is our missile defense research
deep space tracking, and support for NASA and research for high
energy laser programs. Conditions there are very corrosive because
of the environment and things rust and deteriorate very very rap-
idly. We have in the program two projects there to provide a better
place for the contract people to live and to comply with environ-
mental agreements.

This shows the type of conditions that exist at Kwajalein and we
are hoping to improve that.

Looking at our Army housing we are using the concept of whole
revitalization of the barracks. We intend to use that same sort of
approach on our family housing and you can see the level of fund-
ing that we are putting into this program. These two pictures show
Army family housing neighborhoods that look like this at Fort
Bragg or [slide 25] they look like these back yards. You can see
where our projects are focusing on this issue all over the United
States.

We would like to make the neighborhoods look like this which is
Fort Leavenworth. Also at Fort Leavenworth this is a revitalization
of the kitchen and I call that my Good Housekeeping family. So
this then brings us back to our vision in my short presentation to
you today. This budget supports power projection platforms being
an environmental leader, and providing those excellent facilities
which this committee has supported for so long.

This concludes my presentation. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, I'll be happy to answer questions; then I'll be fol-
lowed now by Colonel Harvey who will talk about base realignment
and closure.

Statement of Colonel William T. Harvey

Colonel Harvey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you and discuss the Department of the Army's pro-
gram for implementing and executing the various base realignment
and closure initiatives. And my comments today will briefly de-
scribe the status of the BRAC programs in the Army.

Our efforts in the base closing program revolve around three fo-
cuses. First, we want to close our bases expeditiously and obtain
predicted savings. And second, we are making every reasonable
effort to assist our civilian employees caught in the turbulence of
realignment and closures. And finally, we are working with local
communities to re-use the closed bases in a manner which will help
them recover from the economic loss of the base.

The Army is in the midst of a massive program to divest itself of
excess installations on a worldwide basis. We must look across the
full spectrum of our bases and determine which best meets future
requirements as defined by the changing of the national military
strategy. We must keep and maintain those that provide facilities
necessary to respond to crises throughout the world.

The first round of base realignments and closures developed by a
commission chartered by the Secretary of Defense in 1988 included
initiatives to eliminate unnecessary installations and improve the
efficiency of the base structure. This initiative called BRAC I by
the Army is progressing and is on track. In terms of actual realign-
ment and closures to date, we've closed 59 sites including 49 stand-
alone housing sites.

The fist major installation to close in this program will be Fort
Sheridan, Illinois which will close in June — in approximately one
month. The Army has generated net revenues from the sale of
property. So far in this program of $15,400,000. All required actions
in this round will be completed by September 1995. The force re-
duction overseas allowed the return of Army installations to host
nations. Since September of 1990, the Army has announced the

return of 461 of these sites. The return process involves preparing
the environmental status reports which provides the current condi-
tion of property being returned to the host nation. We are not en-
gaged in any environmental restoration at those bases being re-
turned to host nations as we have in the United States.

The Army is currently in the initial execution phase for the rea-
lignments and closures announced in 1991. During fiscal year 1993,
the Army is focusing on four areas: completion of appropriate na-
tional environmental policy act documents, planning and design of
facilities, execution of construction projects and realignment of
units to gaining installations.

Activities in fiscal year 1994 will continue this effort.

In summary, we are making significant progress in the re-shap-
ing of our worldwide base structure. The three re-shaping initia-
tives I just described reflect the commitment to rationally tailor
the base structure to a decreasing force structure. We will continue
this same effort when the 1993 recommendations are finalized and
approved for execution. We have already commenced planning for
implementation of these recommended actions. This concludes my
opening remarks.

[The prepared statement of Paul W. Johnson follows:]

PART I

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

First, I will present the Active Army's portion of the
Military Construction budget request for Fiscal Year 1994 (FY
94). This program will provide essential construction to con-
tinue the reshaping of the Army, especially in the barracks
modernization program, together with the construction of chemical
demilitarization facilities, power projection facilities and a
modest construction program in the family housing area.

The FY 94 budget requests appropriations for Military
Construction, Army of $776,642,000, and $1,343,886,000 for Army
Family Housing. We are also requesting $151,400,000 in FY 94 for
the Homeowners Assistance Program, which the Army manages for the
Department of Defense.

The Army is an organization made up of Active, Reserve, and
National Guard units, soldiers, civilians, family members,
installations, facilities, weapons systems and equipment. The
Army's mission is to fight and win the Nation's wars. Even with
the budgetary constraints and organizational changes, the
American people will demand nothing less from the Army than
quick, decisive victories with minimal loss of life if we must
fight. The Army of the future will be smaller, more versatile
and based primarily in the United States. We will rely on
quality people, competent leaders, tough realistic training,
modernized equipment, and sound doctrine.

This budget reflects the fiscal constraints and reduced
military force structure that we are projecting. We are in the
process of restructuring to a power projection, continental
United States based force, while still maintaining a minimum
forward presence. One of the largest challenges we face in our
constrained resource environment is to maintain our facilities'
readiness while downsizing the Army. The requirement to shape
the Army for the future and reduced defense resources have
produced this FY 94 Military Construction budget. The budget
funds our highest priority military construction and family
housing requirements, in addition to funding facilities for the
execution of the Chemical Demilitarization program.

The most important challenge facing our policy-makers,
commanders, soldiers and civilian employees as we make our way
into the 21st Century is how to keep the various components of
the Army in balance while maximizing effectiveness, efficiency,
and responsiveness from the limited available resources. There
is a constant struggle to keep the capabilities of the Army in
equilibrium with the requirements placed on it as an element of
national power. Recent history shows that we must meet the many
demands of a changing, uncertain world immediately. There is
little time to build response forces when an unexpected crisis
occurs. Therefore, we have set out to build our United States
installations into power projection platforms to enable direct
execution of the National Military Strategy to project forces
beyond our borders anywhere in the world with little advance
notice.

The Army continues to adjust to both reduced defense
resources and an environment that continues to change on almost a
daily basis. We are becoming a smaller, better trained, more
mobile force -- an Army better postured for the changing world in
which we find ourselves. The Active and Reserve components have
carefully crafted a structure with proper size and composition to
retain and improve its versatility, deployability and decisive
combat capabilities to meet the defense needs of our nation in
the 1990's and beyond. Our challenge is to maintain the ability
to respond to a broad spectrum of possible contingencies. Essen-
tial to meeting this challenge is maintaining a clarity of pur-
pose. We must remain uncompromising in our readiness standards
while moving forward on the challenge to shape the force.

I would now like to talk about our facilities strategy as
it affects fielding of modern weapons systems, maintaining opera-
tional efficiencies and, most importantly, caring for our sol-
diers and their families. Our facilities mission is to meet the
demands of a ready fighting force, support National objectives
such as environmental protection, and provide quality living and
working conditions within the resources available to ensure we
attract, train, equip and retain quality soldiers.

FACILITIES ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The Military Construction, Army (MCA) program constitutes
approximately 1 . 3 percent of the total Army budget request in FY
94, while the Army Family Housing (AFH) program represents
another 2.2 percent of the total Army budget. These funds
finance both new construction and the revitalization of the
facilities that protect the health and safety of our soldiers,
provide suitable living facilities for our personnel, and
protect the environment and living conditions of all personnel.
Our request provides facilities and family housing operation and
maintenance funding needed to partially satisfy the many
requirements of today's Army.

The Army's facilities strategy is applied in our allocation
of funds within the total funds available to the Army. The
Army's strategy is to provide sufficient resources, to reduce our
facilities inventory and to focus our facilities budget on
ensuring and sustaining quality of life and the environment at
our remaining installation structure. In addition to Base
Closure and Realignment in the U.S. and OCONUS reductions, we are
continuing a facility reduction program to further reduce our
inventory. This program consists of consolidating into our best
facilities, specific reduction targets for each Major Command,
and demolishing one square foot of existing facility for every
square foot of new construction. On the resource side, we strive
to obtain sufficient funds and focus them on the areas of highest
payback .

Due to overall budget constraints, our request for Military
Construction and Family Housing is modest. Regardless, we remain
committed to taking care of what we have before building new.
Any decision to provide a new facility is made only after a
detailed analysis of the alternatives shows that there is no
other economically acceptable solution. Thus, projects that are

classified as facility upgrade or modernization do not have a
lower priority, they merely represent the optimum alternative as
the facilities strategy is applied.

As the Army transitions to a smaller force, we must not
presuppose that construction of new facilities is unnecessary.
We must plan for a reduced force structure by not only reducing
the facilities that are not required, but also by replacing the
facilities that are laneconomical to operate and maintain. This
new construction represents revitalization through facilities
replacement. Additionally, we must continue to streamline our
base structure with selected base closures and realignments.

The FY 94 MCA request supports a program aimed at improving
the quality of life of our unaccompanied personnel and providing
mission essential construction. Approximately 70 percent of the
MCA program funds these two areas. This year, 14 percent of the
MCA request is dedicated to the Chemical Demilitarization program
by funding the construction of the Anniston Army Depot facility.
The remaining MCA balance provides for planning and design and
unspecified minor construction projects, which totals almost 16
percent in FY 94. All of this request is essential for the Army
to successfully perform its mission and care for its people.

As in the past few years in the family housing area, our
thrust is to operate, maintain and modernize what we own. Almost
69 percent of our resources in FY 94 is going to pay for opera-
tions, utilities and maintenance expenses and improvements to
existing units. Additionally, 19 percent will pay for the
leasing of homes to provide adequate housing for our military
families. Much of the operations and maintenance and leasing
costs are an offset to the Military Personnel, Army (MPA)
account, since the Service members give up their housing
allowance. The remainder will be used to construct 1,183 new
homes, accomplish planning and design, and provide the final debt
service payment for the remaining mortgage for Wherry housing.

Now, I would like to discuss the various parts of the budget
that I will present today.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)

SPECIAL PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
WHOLE BARRACKS RENEWAL INITIATIVE

In our efforts for achieving Army communities of excellence,
the Army has initiated a long range Whole Barracks Renewal
program to provide funding for new construction and modernization
projects. This program represents a significant, long-term
commitment on our part to improve the living conditions of single
soldiers and provide them with the best facilities possible.
Current times require we provide a living environment conducive
to attracting and retaining quality soldiers. With the advent of
a smaller, CONUS-based force we must provide a quality of life
for our single soldiers that is comparable with living off the
installation.

As part of the effort to improve the living conditions, we
are planning 12 projects to either construct new facilities or
provide barracks modernization, $264,800,000, and one dining

facility modernization, $3,500,000. Whole barracks modernization
includes upgrading the current facility to our new barracks
standards of providing additional space for service members, as
well as providing amenities such as upgraded day rooms, land-
scaping, and additional parking. Thus, the whole barracks
renewal program not only looks at the living facilities but at
the entire living environment of our single soldiers.

STRATEGIC MOBILITY

After Operation JUST CAUSE and Operation DESERT STORM, the
Army has undertaken an upgrade of the strategic mobility
infrastructure. The FY 94 budget includes six projects,
$26,650,000, at three installations to support this upgrade
program. Four projects at Fort Stewart will provide increased
storage area, railroad and container handling improvements and a
staging area for future mobility requirements. At Fort Campbell
we are adding a mobilization warehouse and at Hawthorne Army
Ammunition Plant we will provide additional container holding
pads. These projects will provide initial upgrades to facilities
required for future mobilization.

ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The FY 94 program includes three projects for environmental
compliance, totaling $12,490,000. The largest project for a
sewage treatment facility, $11,200,000 at Kwajalein Atoll, will
eliminate the discharge of landertreated domestic sewage into the
ocean. The project will permit the United States to comply with
the Environmental Mitigation Plan defined in the Compact of Free
Association between the United States and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands. One project, $750,000 at Tobyhanna Army Depot,
will provide a water pollution abatement facility and another at
Fort Bragg, $540,000, will provide an upgrade to the sewage
treatment plant to meet the operating requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION

Construction of the first CONUS chemical demilitarization
facility is continuing at Tooele Army Depot, Utah, and is now
approximately 86 percent complete. Construction is scheduled for
completion in July 1993, followed by operational tests starting
in August. The FY 94 program does include a project, $1,500,000,
to build an office, storage and laboratory building to provide a
treaty verification facility at Tooele Army Depot.

In our FY 92 and 93 budget, we had included a project for a
chemical demilitarization facility at Anniston Army Depot,
Alabama, After submission of these requests, the overall
chemical demilitarization program schedule was revised. The
construction of the Anniston chemical demilitarization facility
is now planned for FY 94. The total project cost is
$145,000,000. Appropriations and an authorization of appropria-
tions of $110,900,000 in FY 94 are required for construction

of the Anniston facility, which equates to $145,000,000 less the
$4,900,000 from FY 91 and $29,200,000 from FY 92. This project
includes the construction of an office, storage and laboratory
building costing $2,000,000 to provide a treaty verification
facility at Anniston.

In FY 94 the total chemical demilitarization program is
$112,400,000, or 14 percent of the MCA request.

REVITALIZATION OF ARMY FACILITIES

We clearly recognize the importance of building an
infrastructure that provides a solid foundation for sustaining a
quality Army. Our facilities revitalization program accomplishes
this by renewing the foundation with modern facilities to meet
the needs of our high quality force. With declining defense
budgets and reductions in our force structure, we must streamline
our military base structure. Our goal is to reduce our existing
facilities base. The smaller Army of the future will allow us to
consolidate activities into our best facilities and revitalize
those facilities remaining after force reductions. Even as our
facilities base declines, we must continue to maintain an
adequate level of funding. The current budget has a
revitalization investment rate, in the revitalization portion of
both Military Construction, Army (MCA) and Real Property
Maintenance Activities (RPMA), of about 1.33% of the Army's
facilities Plant Replacement Value, a 75-year cycle. Although
this funding rate is below our goal of 1.75% and 57 years, it is
an improvement on our position last year and does provide a
minimum level of construction to continue our efforts to provide
adequate living and working conditions for service members and
their families. We continue to be committed to improving this
rate of investment and believe it can be accomplished as force
structure and basing decisions are made. These actions, coupled
with execution of Army's strategy of providing sufficient
resources, reducing our facilities inventory and focusing our
resources on ensuring and sustaining quality of life at our
remaining installation structure, should provide the means
necessary to maintain quality facilities for our high quality
force.

BUDGET REQUEST ANALYSIS

The FY 94 MCA budget request includes a request for
appropriations of $776,642,000, along with a companion request
for authorization of appropriations for the same amount. The
total authorization required is for $665,742,000.

The difference in the authorization and appropriations
requests in FY 94 is due to the chemical demilitarization project
at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, as shown below.

Authorization Authorization Appropriations
of
Appropriations

Anniston Army Depot, Alabama $0 $110,900 $110,900

There is no additional requirement for authorization for
construction of the Chemical Demilitarization Facility at
Anniston Army Depot in FY 94, since authority approved in FYs 91,
92 and 93 provides sufficient authority to execute the project at
its current scope. The request for appropriations and authoriza-
tion of appropriations is $110,900,000.

The appropriations and authorization request, by facility
category, is shown in TABLE 1 :

TABLE 1 - PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1994
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY, PROGRAM
FACILITY CATEGORY APPROPRIATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION

FACILITY CATEGORY

FY 1994

AUTWRIZATION

OF
APPROPRIATIONS
($000)

FY 1994

APPROPRIATIONS
($000)

PERCENTAGE

Operation & Training

74,310

9.6

Maintenance & Production 174,000

Research, Development, 33,150
Test and Evaluation

174,000
33,150

22.4

4.3

Supply & Administration

37,700

4.9

Unaccompanied Housing

278, 300

278,300

35.8

Community

20,351

2.6

Utilities & Real Estate

37,390

4.8

Design

109,441

14.1

Minor Construction

12,000

1.5

TOTAL

$776,642

100.0

TABLE 2 shows the FY 94 distribution of the appropriations
request among major commands in the United States and overseas.

TABLE 2 - PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1994
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY, PROGRAM
COMMAND SUMMARY

FY 1994

PERCENTAGE
OOMWND COST ($000) OF TOTAL

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

23.3

Forces Command

239.241

30.8

Training & Doctrine Command

180.800

Army Materiel Command

167.300

21.5

Army Pacific Command

18.600

2.4

US Military Academy

13.800

1.8

Military District of Washington

7.660

Other

3.000

0.4

lOIAL

$630,401

81.2

Army Strategic Defense Command

Other

3.600

TOTAL

$24,800

MORLDMIDE

Planning and Design

109.441

Minor Construction

12.000

lUIAL

$121,441

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS

REQUESTED:

$776,642

1.0

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

21.200 2.7
0.5
3.2

Total Major Construction $655,201 84.4

14.1

1.5

15.6

100.0

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING

I would now take this opportunity to present the Army's
family housing portion of the Military Construction budget
request for FY 94. The family housing program is one of the most
important programs in the Army budget.

Adequate housing continues to be one of our top goals. The
family housing request reflects the Army's attempt to provide
suitable housing for our soldiers and to maintain the quality of
the facilities entrusted to our stewardship. The family housing
program provides quality of life improvements necessary to
attract and retain dedicated individuals to serve in the Army,
thus attempting to reduce the turbulence in recent force struc-
ture actions. We will be facing a changing Army both in the
niomber of personnel we will have to provide housing for, as well
as the location of those personnel. With a power projection,
predominately continental United States based force, we will
require additional housing at our installations in the United
States as military personnel return from overseas. In foreign
countries, we will be looking to keep adequate government con-
trolled housing, using the leasing program to provide flexibility
to field commanders during the draw down process, and helping
personnel find economy housing as required. The FY 94 family
housing budget request for appropriations and the accompanying
authorization of appropriations request is for $1,343,886,000.

HOUSING PROGRAM ACCOUNTS

The Army Family Housing budget request includes resources
for a new construction program in FY 94, a modest revitalization
program for our aging housing inventory, planning and design of
future construction projects, and funding of the majority of the
annual costs of operating, maintaining, and leasing housing units
for military families. This request provides resources to slow
the deterioration of the existing inventory at enduring United
States installations. TABLE 3 summarizes each of the categories
of the Army Family Housing program and the percent of the total
request for each category.

TABLE 3 - ARMY FAMILY HOUSING

FISCAL YEAR 1994 BUDGET SUMMARY

FACILITY CATEGORY SUMMARY

FACILITY CATEGORY

New Construction

Post Acquisition Construction

Planning and Design

Operations

Utilities

Maintenance

Leasing

Debt Interest

Debt Principal

TOTAL

PT 1994

APPROPRIATIONS

($000)

PERCEMTAGE

138.950

10.3

67,530

5.0

11,805

0.9

187,157

13.9

281,348

20.9

388.528

29.0

268.139

20.0

<0.1

412

<0.1

$1,343,886

100.0

NEW CONSTRUCTION

The Army's new construction program provides family housing
where additional housing is required to help satisfy a validated
housing deficit, or provides for replacement of housing where it
is more economical to replace current housing than to renovate.

Army policy directs that the first source for providing
family housing will be the civilian community. The concept of
the Variable Housing Allowance (VHA), funded in the Military
Personnel Army appropriations, supports this policy. At Army
installations where off-post housing is not available, too
costly, or substandard, the Army must take positive steps to
provide adequate housing for military families. New construction
for deficit reduction is programmed only when these conditions
exist, and it is the most economical alternative.

This year we have requested 433 units at two locations to
reduce current family housing deficits. We are requesting 213
units for personnel assigned to Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii.
This is one of the highest, if not the highest, cost area in the
United States. Another 220 units are requested for Fort Irwin,
California, to partially satisfy the deficit at this isolated
training installation. In addition to these two locations, we
are requesting an additional 750 units to replace family housing
at five locations where it is more economical to replace versus
renovate the current housing.

POST ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION

The Post Acquisition Construction program consists of our
revitalization program (such as whole-neighborhood revitalization
and upgrade of substandard units) to bring units up to contem-
porary standards. Due to the aging of our inventory, we must
continue to place emphasis on this type of work. In doing so, we
will protect the government's investment and provide long-lasting
benefits to our soldiers and their families. Our investment in
family housing continues to play a large role in the revitaliza-
tion of Army Family Housing. Over the past ten years, we have
invested over $800 million in the housing inventory.

Specifically, this request will provide whole-neighborhood
revitalization of 1,122 units and improvements to 3 units. All
projects will be at CONUS locations. Included in revitalization
are efforts to improve energy conservation and to eliminate
environmental hazards. This request continues the initiative
that you approved two years ago to revitalize not only the
housing unit, but the entire living environment of the military
family. This program will provide systematic upgrade and repair
of the existing housing inventory, while concurrently improving
neighborhood amenities. All projects recommended for this
program are based on life cycle economic analyses and are
comparable to new construction standards.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The operation, maintenance and utilities programs comprise
the majority of the FY 94 budget request; almost 64 percent.
The request provides for the Army's annual expenditures for
municipal-type services and utilities. It only partially
provides for the maintenance of the existing inventory, which is
needed in order to protect the Army's investment and provide
stewardship of the family housing inventory. The request
includes some funding for major maintenance and repair work, a
vital component of our revitalization program, which was not
completed in prior years due to insufficient funding. The FY 94
request continues programs which were in effect during previous
years, but only provides minimum resources for our total
maintenance and repair requirements when including the backlog.

This budget funds the anticipated requirements for
operations and utilities in FY 94. The request also continues
funding for the installation, operation and maintenance of an
Army-wide computer system. Housing Operations Management System
(HOMES), which is improving many phases of housing management.
Due to continued management emphasis and the impact of previously
approved energy conservation projects, a reduction in energy
consumption has been factored into the utilities request. This
budget supports the Army energy conservation goal of a 1.3
percent reduction in overall facility energy requirements.
Revitalization of family housing lanits provides savings in
energy, since the energy efficiency of the improved quarters will
be comparable to new construction standards. A continuing objec-
tive of the operation and maintenance program is the improvement
of living conditions for military families throughout the world
by accomplishing the annual maintenance and repair of our inven-
tory. However, this budget request will not accomplish all the
maintenance and repair work which is needed to meet this
objective.

REVITALIZATION BACKLOG

The revitalization backlog includes replacement new
construction, improvements, major maintenance and repair work,
and associated planning and design, which are required to meet
DoD criteria, and which were scheduled for accomplishment in a
prior fiscal year, but could not be accomplished due to insuffi-
cient funding. Foreign currency losses and fiscal constraints
since FY 86 created funding shortfalls which resulted in a
significant rise in this backlog. In the short-term, deferring
projects is the least difficult way of meeting federal deficit
reduction goals and paying for currency losses, but this deferral
adds to the backlog of requirements, increases the rate of
facility deterioration and increases both the amount of work and
associated costs to revitalize or replace required housing in
future years. Although the FY 94 budget does slow the deteriora-
tion to the inventory, the revitalization backlog will still be
considerable by the end of FY 94. This has a severe negative
impact on our overall program goals.

LEASING

The leasing program provides another way of adequately
housing our military families. Our leasing program includes
Section 2836 (formerly 802) rental guarantee housing, domestic
leases, Section 2835 (formerly 801) and temporary domestic, and
foreign leases.

We have constructed and are fully occupying a 276 unit
Section 2836 rental guarantee project in Hawaii. This project
provides some of the additional housing so sorely needed in this
area.

We are requesting $69,815,000 for the domestic leasing
program for FY 94 to fund the existing Section 2835 project
requirements and the temporary domestic leases. This will
support an average of 5,025 leases in the contiguous United
States, Alasl^a and Hawaii.

One of the larger portions of this budget presentation is
the foreign leasing program. For this program, we request
$198,324,000 in FY 94. This will support an average of 14,089
units to be occupied during the fiscal year. This is a reduc-
tion of $69,062,000 from the FY 93 appropriation, and reflects
decreased stationing requirements in Europe. The program also
continues to support execution of the Government Rental Housing
Program (GRHP) in Europe. Under this program the Army leases
directly with European landlords and pays all lease costs while
our soldiers forfeit all housing allowances. The soldiers then
stay in these leased units for their entire tour and are relieved
of the high out-of-pocket expenses associated with renting on the
economy in Europe. We foiind that soldier morale is improved and
there is no additional cost to the government since monies that
would have been paid in housing allowances from the Military
Personnel, Army (MPA) account are now transferred to the housing
leasing account. Also, the GRHP leases will help in the orderly
reduction of soldiers in Europe by providing flexibility to
Commanders to shift leases from location to location or cancel
leases no longer required.

Our total leasing program request supports an average of
approximately 19,100 units in FY 94 to satisfy requirements in
the United States, Europe, Korea, Panama, and other locations.
These are our high priority locations where providing flexible
family housing solutions is essential to improving the quality of
life of our soldiers.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Army is the 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 the military installations at or near where they
are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope of
operations reduced. The FY 94 request is for appropriations and
authorization of appropriations of $151,400,000.

This request includes known requirements prior to any
additional base realignments and closures. The request will
provide assistance to personnel at approximately 1 4 locations
that are impacted with either a base closure or a realignment of
personnel resulting in adverse economic effects on local
communities. The Homeowners Assistance Program is funded not
only from the resources being requested in this budget, but is
also dependent in a large part on the revenues earned during the
fiscal year from sale of properties. Any additional base
realignments or closures due to Base Closure law will incur an
additional requirement in the Homeowners Assistance Program.

Currently, a Request for Proposals (RFP) to use a private
national relocation contractor for the management and resale of
homes acquired under the Homeowners Assistance Program was issued
in January for Loring AFB, Maine; New London, Connecticut; and
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, New Hampshire. A pre-proposal
contract meeting was held in February with a contract award
anticipated in the April 1993 time frame.

We awarded management -maintenance contracts to local
companies at all other installations with an approved Homeowners
Assistance Program. Most of the management-maintenance contracts
give the contractor the responsibility for the security and
maintenance of the property and also provide the contractor with
exclusive listing privileges for the sale of the homes. The
resale of homes at Chanute AFB, Illinois; Castle AFB, California;
and Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, however, is being performed by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Districts.

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

I would now like to talk about another important source of
resources in support of the Army's facilities, the Real Property
Maintenance Activities (RPMA) . The appropriation for these funds
is provided as a part of the Defense Appropriations Bill.

RPMA ACCOUNTS

RPMA is a major program with four major functional accounts-
Operation of Utilities, Maintenance and Repair of Real Property,
Minor Construction, and Engineer Support. RPMA reflects the cost
to operate and maintain the Army's Physical Plant. Following is
a list of these functions:

Operation of Utilities - includes the procurement,
production and distribution of all utilities, such as electrical
energy, steam, hot water, fuels, utilities and water. This area
also includes the operation of Army-owned utility systems and
plants.

Maintenance and Repair of Real Property - pays to maintain
areas such as the utilities systems, buildings, grounds,
railroads and other surfaced areas.

Minor Construction - funds projects under $300,000, such as
the erection, installation and assembly of a new real property

facility. Additions, expansions, extensions, alterations, con-
versions or replacement of an existing real property facility are
also f landed from the minor construction account. Additionally,
the relocation of a real property facility from one installation
to another would be paid for from this account.

Engineer Support - funds services normally provided by
municipal governments. Support services such as fire prevention
and protection, refuse handling and disposal, and snow and ice
removal are provided within this account. Other services
provided include facilities engineering management, rental of
real property and real estate administration, pest control
services, master planning, and supervision of the Director of
Engineering and Housing Staff.

SOURCES OF RPMA FUNDING

RPMA is the single largest component of installation
operating costs. The several appropriations which finance
installation operations include RPMA funds: Operation and
Maintenance, Army; Operation and Maintenance, Army National
Guard; Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve; Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation; Defense Business Operations
Fund. RPMA is augmented by reimbursable customers (Army and
other Department of Defense tenants), nonappropriated fund
activities, and host nation support. Additionally, the Defense
Real Property Maintenance appropriation, established in FY 92
provides funds spec?if ically earmarked for major repair and minor
construction projects in excess of $15,000.

BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

When we cannot fund the annual recurring maintenance and
repair requirements, the result is a Backlog of Maintenance and
Repair (BMAR) . The BMAR is defined as an aggregation of major
maintenance and repair projects that were planned for accomplish-
ment in previous fiscal years but were not accomplished due to
lack of resources. The BMAR projects are routinely revalidated
at least once each three years and on occasions more often.

There are several ways to reduce BMAR. By funding and
completing outstanding maintenance and repair projects, we remove
them from the backlog list. The requirement is also removed by
accomplishing a new construction project and removing an older
facility from the inventory. Another way we reduce BMAR is by
deactivating or demolishing the facility requiring maintenance
and repair work or by closing all or part of the installation.
However, BMAR cannot truly be reduced unless the annual recurring
maintenance and repair requirements are fully funded and addi-
tional funds are applied against backlog requirements. This will
not happen in FY 94.

The BMT^ is an indicator of the condition of our Real
Property Assets. A high level of BMAR indicates a poor condition
of facilities, and this will impact on the living and working
condition of the soldier and his family. It will also result in

a more rapid deterioration of facilities, some of which will then
be in violation of environmental compliance laws and require
immediate repair at a significantly higher cost. Poor facilities
conditions can have a direct impact on force readiness. At the
start of FY 93, the BMAR for the Army was $2,767 million. Based
on current funding projections, the BMAR is projected to grow to
$4,773 million at the end of FY 94.

BMAR IMPACT ON REVITALIZATION

Revitalization of the Army's physical plant is defined as
the systematic replacement or renovation of the Army's real
property facilities to current standards for mission
accomplishment and physical condition. As I mentioned earlier,
the funding sources for Army revitalization are primarily the OMA
and MCA appropriations. Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation; Nonappropriated Fund and private sector financed
facilities (3rd party arrangements) also support revitalization
of utility plants, the industrial base and other associated Army
facilities. Revitalization funds basically come from either
major maintenance and repair projects or "current mission"
construction projects (MCA). In FY 94, we have requested $969
million to fund these two areas.

The major maintenance and repair projects provide
revitalization through renovation of existing facilities while
construction provides revitalization by building new facilities
or complete modernization of current assets. Coupled with
efficiency and productivity enhancements, innovative business
practices, and some financial flexibility from Congress, full
funding of our RPMA requirements and BMAR reduction funding could
begin a slow but steady decrease in the backlog.

SUMMARY

In summary, the FY 94 requests for appropriations for
Military Construction Army, Army Family Housing, and Homeowners
Assistance Program is $2,271,928,000. With approval of this
request we will continue to: provide safety, health and environ-
mental compliance facilities; provide additional adequate housing
for soldiers; meet statutory and regulatory requirements; and
repair essential facilities. This request will provide for
family housing leasing, and operate and minimally maintain the
current inventory. The Homeowners Assistance Program request
will also show our personnel that even in these times of change,
we will assist personnel who are adversely affected by our
actions. Approval of this request will provide some minimum
revitalized facilities infrastructure with the environmental and
safety requirements .

PART II
ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) INITIATIVES

Next, I will review the base realignment and closure (BRAC)
initiatives currently underway in the Army. As you are aware,
OSD has forwarded a list of recommendations to the BRAC 93
Commission for consideration. The BRAC 93 Commission recommenda-
tions will not be finalized until later this year. My remarks
concerning BRAC will not address any of those actions. I will
restrict my comments to the following four BRAC initiatives:
BRAC I, BRAC II, BRAC III and BRAC 91. The distinctions are as
follows:

BRAC I - BRAC I refers to the realignments and closures
resulting from the 1988 Commission, as codified in PL 100-526.
The Commission's recommendations, as they affected the Army,
required that the closure of 77 installations (including 53
stand-alone housing sites) and realignment of 57 other Army
installations be completed by September 30, 1995. The Commis-
sion's recommendations were based on requirements as projected in
December 1988. The Commission's recommendations began a long
overdue streamlining of the base structure of the Army and
focused primarily on installations, and not on force structure.
Their overall recommendations provided the Army a baseline to
restructure the installation requirements of what in the future
would be dramatically altered troop levels.

BRAC II - BRAC II refers to the Service Secretaries'
proposals for additional realignments and closures, as announced
by the Secretary of Defense on January 29, 1990. The 1988
Commission's recommendations (BRAC I) aligned known requirements
in 1988. BRAC II reflected the Army's initial transition into a
smaller force, as reflected in the Army's FY 91 budget submission
and changes in the threat environment and fiscal realities. BRAC
II did not reflect, and was not intended to reflect, the pace of
change in Eastern Europe, which occurred following the fall of
the Berlin Wall on November 1, 1989. Rather, BRAC II was the
mid-term transition into the smaller force, which was reflected
in full scope in the FY 92/93 budget. BRAC II proposals that
triggered the thresholds of 10 U.S.C. 2687, and were subject to
the base realignment and closure process mandated by PL 101-510,
were not pursued. All other actions are complete or currently
being executed.

BRAC III - At the time that the first base realignment and
closure (BRAC) proposals were announced. Congress expressed
concern that they did not include OCONUS installations. OCONUS
installations were not included in BRAC II because Conventional
Forces Europe (CFE) Treaty negotiations were expected to cover
European force structure. Subsequently, force structure was
removed from the CFE treaty, which only addressed the reduction
of certain types of military equipment.

On September 18, 1990, the Secretary of Defense announced
the first round of overseas bases to be returned to host nations.
These OCONUS announcements subsequently became known as BRAC III
within the Army and should not be confused with the 1993 round of
BRAC Commission recommendations for CONUS. Follow-on OCONUS
closures and realignments have continued with this terminology.
To date, ten rounds of BRAC III have been publicly announced.

BRAC III is the Army transition vehicle to a smaller force
overseas. Additional OCONUS closures will occur to reflect the
continuing drawdovm of forward deployed Army forces.

BRAC 91 - Public Law 101-510, the National Defense Authori-
zation Act for FY 91, established a new process for DoD base
realignment and closure actions in the United States through
1995. The first phase of this new process is referred to by the
Army as BRAC 91 .

The process applies to closures or realignments that trip
the thresholds of 10 U.S.C. 2687. These thresholds are reached
when the installation proposed to be closed is authorized to
employ at least 300 direct-hire, permanent civilian personnel,
or where a proposed realignment of an installation that is
authorized to employ at least 300 civilians would be reduced by
more than 1,000, or by more than 50% (whichever is less), of the
number of authorized civilian employees. The Act directed the
formation of an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission to review base realignment and closure recommendations
made by DoD. All DoD recommendations are made based on a force
structure plan submitted as part of the FY 92/94/96 budgets, as
well as selection criteria, which are published in the Federal
Register; receive public comment; and are submitted for
congressional review. The law requires the Commission to convene
in calendar years 1991, 1993 and 1995 (hence, the terminology of
BRAC 91, BRAC 93, BRAC 95).

This legislation also required the Army to cancel the base
closures announced under BRAC II, which exceeded the 10 U.S.C.
2687 thresholds. All future proposals through FY 95 that breach
the 10 U.S.C. 2687 limits will be referred to the commissions
established by the legislation. The new legislation did not
affect the execution of base closure initiatives mandated under
PL 100-526 (BRAC I), except for changes forwarded to the
Commission for approval, those actions that do not exceed 10
U.S.C. 2687 thresholds, or those which occur outside the
Continental United States (BRAC III). The Army is currently
implementing the recommendations of the FY 91 Commission.

With this background of the various base realignment and
closure initiatives underway in the Army -- BRAC I (PL 100-526),
BRAC II (January 29, 1990 proposals), BRAC III (OCONUS), and BRAC
91 (PL 101-510) -- the following sections will update the Army's
implementation and execution of each of the BRAC initiatives.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ARMY BASE
REALIGNMENTS AND CLOSURES

The Army is guided by a number of basic principles. During
a time of transformation, they have been the cornerstone and
provided great assistance in the decision-making process for the
various base realignment and closure recommendations. These
principles are:

1 . Provide power projection platforms from which the Army
can execute the national military strategy to project forces
beyond our borders anywhere in the world with little advance
notice.

2. Pursue closures, realignments and consolidations where
they make good sense over the long term as cost-effective
alternatives to existing basing.

3. Identify excess capacity for closure, consolidation and
realignment created by combinations of reduced workload,
management initiatives, budget reductions and lower troop
strength.

4 . Provide training and readiness support and services in
the most cost-effective, responsive, and efficient manner
possible.

5. Preserve the mobilization capacity for the active and
reserve components to assemble, concentrate, train and deploy
reinforcing forces and formations.

For BRAC I, II and III, these were our guiding principles.
For BRAC 91 , these principles were reflected in the selection
criteria published in the Federal Register on both November 23,
1990, and February 15, 1991.

COMMITMENT TO BASES PROPOSED FOR
REALIGNMENT OR CLOSURE

The Army continues to be keenly aware of the inherent
hardships which accompany base closures and realignments, not
only to our own soldiers, civilian employees, and their families,
but to the surrounding communities and states in which these
installations are located. We work hand-in-hand with the OSD,
Office of Economic Adjustment, and state and local redevelopment
committees and officials in an effort to minimize hardships to
the extent possible.

To help partially alleviate the hardships in this process,
the Army will continue to be sensitive to the needs of the
workforce at all affected installations. We fully understand the
dilemma facing each civilian employee. It has been long-standing
Army policy to provide placement assistance and to make all
reasonable efforts to fund continued employment for affected
employees .

Army civilian employees who lose their jobs as a result of
base realignments or closures will continue to be given priority
rights to other vacant positions in DoD and in other Federal
agencies. They also will be given assistance in locating jobs in
private industry if they so desire. The Army cooperates with the
Department of Labor and state employment services to enhance the
assistance given to employees who desire to relocate to new
positions outside of DoD.

Mitigation of the impact on affected state and local
communities is of paramount importance when base realignments and
closures are announced. The very words "base closure" incite the
full range of emotions from anger to fear to uncertainty for both
Department of Defense personnel and the local community. Rarely
does it instill a sense of opportunity. Based on historical
experience from previous base closures, however, we know such
opportunity indeed exists. This negative perception can and must

be turned around; but to do so requires an intensive campaign by
local communities to market the possibilities for base redevelop-
ment by other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and
most especially the private sector. Many communities have
successfully converted former military bases to both public and
private enterprise uses. The reuse plan for the Kapalama
Military Reservation in Hawaii is an excellent example of
military and local officials developing an alternative use for
an Army installation affected by BRAC. The redevelopment con-
ferences, sponsored by the Army and the DoD Office of Economic
Adjustment for BRAC 91 affected communities, is another example
of the effort to assist the local communities impacted by BRAC
actions. The Army has held eleven of these conferences to assist
the communities around four BRAC 91 closing installations and
three BRAC 91 realigning installations. These conferences have
proven to be highly successful. Normally chaired by a local
member of the U.S. Congress, they bring together all the key
players who will participate in the alternative redevelopment
planning for the closing or realigning installation.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

The Army continues its commitment to compliance with all
environmental statutes. We anticipate expending over $539.1
million in BRAC I and BRAC 91 for Army-wide environmental
compliance and restoration to comply with existing regulatory
laws in executing base closure and realignment recommendations.
The Army is continuing studies in accordance with its Installa-
tion Restoration Program (IRP) to identify contamination at
installations that will be closed. These actions are ongoing for
BRAC I, BRAC II, and BRAC 91 installations. The essential steps
of the Army's IRP are:

- Preliminary Assessments/Site Investigations (PA/SI). This
step examines existing documentation on an installation for
evidence of any handling, treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous materials/wastes. Interviews are held with past
employees to supplement documentation, and a visual inspection of
the site takes place.

- Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS). If the
PA/SI step concludes that hazardous materials/wastes might have
been handled, treated, stored or disposed on the installation,
then samples of soil, surface water and ground water will be
taken and analyzed to confirm or discount any contamination. If
contamination is confirmed, the feasibility study will analyze
alternatives for remediating the contamination.

- Record of Decision (ROD). This formal document selects
the alternative among those analyzed in the feasibility study as
the methodology to remediate the site.

- Remedial Design/Remedial Action. This step performs any
design necessary and implements the selected alternative to
remediate the site.

- Statement of Condition/Finding of Suitability to Transfer.
This document is prepared by the U.S. Army Environmental Center
and provides an environmental condition of property that is being
considered for disposal.

The Army will ensure that environmental contaminants, either
migrating in the ground water or present in the soils, are
treated, contained, eliminated or managed to comply with human
health or environmental standards. The Army's cleanup goal is to
accomplish land disposal actions with no restrictions based on
the property's designated future use.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION
FOR OCONUS BASES

The Army has developed an OCONUS environmental restoration
protocol for application at those sites to be vacated and
returned to the host covintry. Ongoing review of the OCONUS
disposal process confirms there is no need to establish a base
closure account or defense environmental restoration account to
fund OCONUS closures. Consequently, environmental restoration
overseas is funded from the Army's Operation and Maintenance
account .

An Environmental Status Report (ESR) is prepared for each
installation that is to be turned over to the host nation. The
ESR will document the environmental conditions at the installa-
tion and will be developed from known information, and generally
not through new studies. The ESR would also contain a determin-
ation of the significance of the environmental impacts associated
with the turnover of the installation to the host nation, and
whether any further analysis must be prepared in connection with
the installation turnover. The ESR would be used by U.S.
negotiators during residual value negotiations with the host
nation. Negotiations to date have not indicated a need for an
alternative environmental document.

The following sections of this testimony provide a status
report on the Army's implementation and execution of each of the
base realignment and closure (BRAC) initiatives — BRAC I, BRAC
II, BRAC III and BRAC 91.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE I (BRAC I):
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

BRAC I Overview. This initiative is progressing smoothly
and is on-track. The Army is executing the Commission's
recommendations, which affected 134 Army installations.
Seventy-seven installations, including 53 stand-alone housing
sites, are being closed. Seven installations are both losing and
gaining activities. Six installations will lose activities,
while 44 will gain activities. The Army's program will
accomplish all the relocations and closures within the statutory
time limit, while minimizing costs and maximizing savings.

In terms of actual realignments and closures to date, we
have closed 65 sites, including stand-alone housing sites. The
training mission at Fort Dix, New Jersey, will be realigned by
the end of FY 93. We have completed all the environmental
documents required to execute the remainder of our initiatives.
Sixteen of the closures are assorted Army properties throughout

CONUS. The first major installation closing will be Fort
Sheridan, Illinois, in June 1993. The Presidio of San Francisco
and Lexington Depot will close in mid-FY 94. With respect to the
53 stand-alone housing sites, 49 have been closed, including 13
permitted to other Services. The remaining 4 sites will be
closed in FY 93. The Army has generated net revenue to date of
$15.4 million for 15 sites, and an additional $34.0 million is
anticipated in FY 93 for the sale of the Kapalama Military
Reservation in Hawaii. The Navy will transfer $27.8 million in
FY 94 to the base closure account for housing units at Fort
Sheridan, Illinois, and 3 stand-alone housing sites.

BRAC I Financial Summary. Our request for FY 94, $27.9
million, is shown at Table 1 . This request is approximately
$166.0 million less than the FY 93 budget submission. This
reduction is not caused by a reduced program, but the loss of
revenues. The Army has been required to reduce its program to
available funds. Had the anticipated revenues not been lost
through "free land" transfers, the Army could have executed its
original program. One-time implementation costs during the
period FY 90-95 total $1,296.5 million. Savings during the same
period, primarily due to elimination of 2,269 military and 3,657
civilian personnel, total $775.7 million, the same as last year's
budget. Proceeds from land sales, shown at Table 2, are
anticipated to be $257.8 million, $32 million less than last
year. The continued loss of anticipated land revenues through
Congressionally-directed transfers to other government agencies
has caused the Army to lose approximately $541.0 million in
anticipated land revenues. Savings during FY 94 result pri-
marily from the avoidance of operation and maintenance expenses.
Savings also accrue from elimination of military and civilian
personnel positions. The continued decline in anticipated
revenues from the sale of real property will not meet the
expectations of the 1988 Commission. Leases to providers of
services to the homeless; discounts on sales to state and local
governments where the sales will result in housing for transi-
tional or low income families; special legislation involving no
cost transfers enacted on properties at Fort Meade and at Fort
Douglas, are factors contributing to lower expectations.
Although these actions are based on meritorious considerations,
they undermine the opportunity to generate needed revenues, while
we continue to fund the costs associated with these actions.

BRAC I Environmental Compliance. The Army is fully
committed to compliance with all environmental statutes. We
programmed $121.7 million in FY 92 on BRAC I environmental
cleanup and plan to spend over $80.9 million in FY 93.

BRAC I Summary. By the end of FY 93, the Army will be over
midway in the execution of BRAC I initiatives. Although the loss
of anticipated revenues will decrement the execution of BRAC I,
we will complete all BRAC I initiatives required by law by
September 30, 1995.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE II (BRAC II)
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

BRAC II Overview: On January 29, 1990, the Secretary of
Defense announced a set of proposals that affected the Army's

force and base structures. This announgement , with adjustments,
is shown at Table 3.

BRAC II Status. Public Law 101-510 also made it necessary
for the Army to discontinue studies for several of the BRAC II
closure and realignment proposals because they exceeded the Title
10 U.S.C. 2687 thresholds.

The remainder of the BRAC II initiatives listed in Table 3
are completed or are being executed. The Army is financing these
initiatives from its operating funds, since no special funding
account exists for BRAC II. The Army, to date, has completed:
the inactivation of the 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, Texas;
the inactivation of the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized), Fort
Lewis, Washington; the inactivation of the 194th Separate Armored
Brigade, Fort Knox, Kentucky; inactivation of the 4th U.S. Army,
Fort Sheridan, Illinois; inactivation of the Mississippi Army
Ammunition Plant (AAP), Picayune, Mississippi; and layaway of the
Sunflower AAP. Layaway of three additional ammunition plants,
Louisiana, Scranton and Longhorn, will be completed in FY 93.

The BRAC II proposal to terminate tank production at the
Detroit and Lima Army Tank Plants has been modified. Upon
layaway of assembly operations at the Detroit plant, the
government ' s prime contractor for the Abrams tank made the
management decision to manufacture the 36 prime component parts
at the Detroit plant. This action has been completed. Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) will extend tank production at Lima if the
quantities ordered can support an economic production rate.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE III - OCONUS
(BRAC III) IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

BRAC III OveiTview. As stated previously, on September 18,
1990, the Secretary of Defense announced the first closure or
reduction of operations. To date, 461 overseas U.S. military
facilities have been returned to host nations. Table 4 arrays
the total number of installations, by country, returned to host
nations .

The responsibility to determine which OCONUS installations
close continues to be delegated by Congress to the Secretary of
Defense. The process of site selection remains the same through
Round 1 0 . The Secretary of Defense works through the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the Commanders-in-Chief (CINCS) of the
geographically oriented, unified commands for whom our overseas
Army commanders work. Army's OCONUS major commanders (Commander,
U.S. Army Europe, (USAREUR); Commander, Eighth U.S. Army (Korea),
EUSA; Commander, U.S. Army South (Panama), USARSO; and Commander,
U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC)) continuously reassess their instal-
lation requirements based on the revised force structure require-
ments of their Unified CINC, as well as resources provided by
Army headquarters. The sites selected for closure are determined
by the in-theater commanders and recommended to the Unified
Commander, who submits the proposed list to the JCS and then to
the Secretary of Defense for final approval .

The Army of the future is currently projected to be
primarily CONUS-based. OCONUS forces, and their supporting

installations, are being reduced to the minimum levels sufficient
to maintain credible deterrence and to demonstrate our commitment
and resolve to our allies world-wide. We are moving ahead
aggressively with our overseas closures.

The process is working smoothly, but with the acceleration
during FY 92 projected to continue through FY 93, the process is
becoming more complex. We are arduously trying to retrograde
Class V (ammunition) and Class VII (major end items) to multiple
locations in OCONUS and cross-level these items to stay in Europe
to support the forward deployed force. The entire project is
called RETRO-EUR and FUTURE-EUR. The end state will be a smaller
forward deployed OCONUS force based on budget reductions and our
vision to become a more CONUS-based force.

Troop reductions have been the driver in our ability to
reduce the number of European installations. This includes
consolidations as some units will backfill better facilities
left by inactivating units and leave the less economical and
unsuitable facilities vacant for turn back to the host nation.
As European force structure is further reduced, additional
overseas installation closures will occur.

The Army's plan to close Korean installations continues to
be tied to a change in mission requirements. All announced
closures in Korea are on schedule. A strategy has been developed
by the Commander of the Eighth U.S. Army, which includes a
prioritized list of closures as forces are reduced,

BRAC III Residual Value. Two areas of particular interest
with regard to our overseas closures continue to be residual
value and environmental concerns. The Department of Defense
policy on residual value is to extract as much value as possible
based on the U.S. funded capital improvements we have made over
time to our facilities. This has become very meaningful given
Congress' establishment of the "DoD Overseas Military Facility
Investments Recovery Account . " Some Status of Forces Agreements
(SOFAs) and SOFA Supplementary Agreements permit the payment of
residual value when the U.S. turns over facilities to the host
government. This is the case in Germany. We can expect a pay-
ment to the U.S. for the value of U.S. funded capital improve-
ments escalated to current value and then reduced based on
depreciation and damages (both failure to maintain and environ-
mental claims). Under the SOFA Supplementary Agreement with
Germany, the U.S. is liable for 75% of the costs of any claims,
with Germany paying 25%. However, for the OCONUS closures,
offsetting claims will no doubt just be negotiated as a decrement
to the residual value. This process has become slow and arduous.
The German government has greatly reduced the amount of funds
available to fund negotiated residual value payments for 1993.

In Korea, the SOFA between the Korean government and the
U.S. does not provide for the payment of residual value; however,
we also can turn over the facilities in an as-is condition. In
Greece, the U.S. right to recover residual value is contained in
a 1953 facilities agreement, with negotiations determining the
amount and manner of compensation. We are carefully watching the
residual value issue to ensure our interests are represented. It
must be pointed out that in Germany, Greece, and Korea, the host
nation owns the land and they lease this land to the U.S. rent-
free; therefore, any appreciation of the land value is not

included in residual value negotiations -- only the escalated
value of U.S. funded capital improvements to real property, as
adjusted for age and condition.

BRAC III (OCONUS) Environmental Policv. The Army has an
environmental policy for our overseas installations. As a
foundation, this policy uses the provisions of Executive Order
12114 which reflect the U.S. Government's policy on environmental
actions abroad. Our goal is to leave a good environmental
footprint when we close our overseas installations. However, we
do not plan on undertaking cleanup actions solely for the purpose
of turnover. In Germany, the cost of cleanup for known environ-
mental problems will be used in the residual value negotiations.
Known environmental problems have been documented, and we will
continue to remove all toxic and hazardous wastes, as well as
clean up Category 1 actions. In Korea, we will also clean up
Category 1 actions, as well as dispose of all hazardous and toxic
wastes. The SOFA with Korea contains no language as to
responsibility for environmental clean up. These countries have
agreed to this process and we do not anticipate changes. German
negotiations continue to move slowly due to the large number of
troops from other nations which are also leaving. The focus of
the German government at this time is the removal of the Russian
forces.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 91 (BRAC 91):
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

The National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 (PL 101-510)
established a new process for the DoD to submit a list of recom-
mended CONUS base closures and realignments. This law estab-
lished a series of three commissions to meet in FY 91, FY 93, and
FY 95. DoD will submit to these commissions, accompanied with a
force structure plan, a listing of proposed realignments and
closures. The Commission evaluates DoD's submission and forwards
their recommendations to the President, who, in turn, forwards
the report to the Congress. The Army is currently in the second
year of executing the FY 91 Commission recommendations, called
BRAC 91 by the Army.

BRAC 91 Overview. The Army is currently in the initial
execution phase. During FY 93, the Army will focus on four
areas: completion of appropriate environmental dociamentation;
planning and design of facilities; execution of construction
projects and realignment of military units to gaining instal-
lations. No military end strength reductions are shown in the
BRAC 91 plan. Those savings are shown in the Army's end
strength reductions programmed through FY 95. Savings from
defense management review decisions are included in the various
packages. Those savings have already been withdrawn from the
Army s program. No actions programmed in FY 93 will have an
adverse impact on the missions of the affected units. BRAC 91
actions will be executed with no adverse impact on BRAC I
actions. The requirements of the FY 88 Commission will be
executed within the congressional time limits set by PL 100-526.
To date, the Army has awarded 50% of its BRAC 91, FY 93 MILCON
program. The movement of major Army units has started and all
are projected to be complete by the scheduled milestones.

BRAC 91 Financial Summary. The FY 94 budget request is
$479.9 million, as shovm at Table 5. One-time implementation
costs during the period FY 92-97 total $1,551.5 million. Savings
during the same period remain at $1,606.8 million, primarily
due to the elimination of 5,648 civilian positions and reduced
operating costs of installations being realigned or closed.
Proceeds from land sales are anticipated to be $671.0 million, as
shovm at Table 6. This reflects a reduction of $83.0 million
caused by the loss of all anticipated revenues from Fort Dix, New
Jersey. All revenues are anticipated in FY 97, after environ-
mental restoration is complete at the five installations at which
disposal of excess land is expected. Therefore, the net cost to
the Army for the implementation of BRAC 91 is a possible savings
of $552.3 million, should all land revenues be realized. It
should be noted that approximately $1.4 billion of savings in
BRAC 91 from FY 92-97 are the results of DMRDs. Recurring
savings are estimated to be $348.0 million, starting in FY 98.

The Army received approximately $34.0 million from the BCA
II account and $25.3 million from the DoD Defense Environmental
Restoration Account. The programming of these funds are shown at
Table 5. A portion of the remaining costs ($48.6 million) was
paid from Army appropriations. The funds to execute BRAC 91 in
FY 93 will come from the BCA II established in FY 92 as the sole
source of BRAC 91 funds. The Army will expend $360.8 million
in FY 93 for BRAC 91. A legislative reduction to the BRAC 91
account in FY 93 caused the Army to reduce and reprogram approxi-
mately $73.0 million of BRAC MILCON.

BRAC 91 Environmental Compliance. The Army's cleanup goal
is to accomplish land disposal actions as quickly as possible,
with no restrictions on the property's future use.

We will also determine if potential non-Army future use
exists that are complimentary and compatible with existing lands.
Where appropriate, these properties may be disposed of with
restrictions placed on their future use. Such a disposal will
not take place where an unacceptable human health or environ-
mental hazard would exist. A final decision will be made only
after existing environmental conditions have been assessed in an
environmental baseline survey which considers contamination,
endangered species, cultural resources, and other environmental
issues. These are the same procedures used in the BRAC I process
and found to be effective in the identification of environmental
restoration requirements.

BRAC 91 Summary. By the end of FY 93, the Army will have
accomplished the initial baseline NEPA requirements and commenced
the planning and design of all FY 94 military construction
projects. Execution plans will be distributed to guide the Army
major commands through the various stages of the BRAC 91
execution process.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 93
(BRAC 93) STATUS

The National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 required DoD
to siibmit three lists of recommended CONUS base realignments and
closures. As stated above, the Army is currently in the second

year of execution of the first congressionally approved list.
The second round of recommendations has been forwarded to the
Base Realignment and Closure Commission on March 12, 1993. As
specified in law, the list must be justified in terms of the
approved base realignment and closure selection criteria and
the Joint Chiefs of Staff force structure plan submitted as
an enclosure to the FY 94 DoD budget. The Commission will
evaluate each Services' submission and release its report to the
President not later than July 1, 1993. The results of this
Commission's work will become known as BRAC 93 within DoD once
they have been published.

The Army's process for identifying the recommendations on
BRAC 93 is accomplished through an independent study group
process. The Total Army Basing Study (TABS) breaks the task into
three phases.

Phase I was an evaluation of the CONUS installation inventory
in terms of military utility. The Army's Major Commands (MACOMs)
conducted an analysis of their installations using a set of
quantifiable attributes designed to compare installations and
produce relative rankings based on military value only.

In Phase II, TABS uses the JCS Force Structure Plan, a
stationing vision prepared by the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations and Plans, the MACOM Phase I evaluations,
and MACOM visions of the future, based on their operational
concepts and anticipated funding, to produce a list of potential
closures and realignments.

During Phase III, TABS will work directly with the BRAC 93
Commission, in order to justify the analytical methods used and
provide additional information that they may require.

To ensure continuity in the collection of data and the
integrity of analytic process, the Army conducts internal audits
which focus on the data collection in both phases. The purpose
of the audits is to ensure the data was accurate and that it was
applied consistently throughout the analysis. The GAO has also
been monitoring the TABS process and is now in the midst of
preparing a report to the Base Closure Commission, due April 19,
1993.

As one can see, the Army has again utilized the same process
to identify recommendations to the BRAC 93 Commission and has had
independent oversight of its actions from both the Army Audit
Agency and GAO.

Summary

The Army continues to execute all initiatives of the BRAC
process, as directed by PL 100-526 (BRAC I), the January 29,
1990, SECDEF decision (BRAC II), OCONUS troop reductions (BRAC
III) or currently called RETRO-EUR/future-EUR and Round One of PL
100-510 (BRAC 91). We view these initiatives as an opportunity
to achieve economic efficiencies and improve our operational
effectiveness. The current administration has placed a specific
focus on reducing the size of the United States Armed Forces. As
the Army is reduced, the associated basing structure must also be

reduced. We have taken great strides in this area in our OCONUS
bases and will continue to do so in the remainder of FY 93 and
the follow-on years. The BRAC process established by PL 100-526
and PL 101-510 allows the Army to reduce the excess basing
structure created by the reduced force structure in CONUS. The
fiscal realities are requiring a reshaping of the Army. We are
attempting to do this in a manner which will minimize the impact
on soldiers, civilian employees and communities affected by the
various base closure and realignment actions. We will not
abdicate our responsibility to the environment and the
preservation of the historic and cultural resources at our
closing installations in all BRAC initiatives. The Army will
continue to work with the local communities to structure a
redevelopment plan for the bases impacted by various BRAC
actions. Once complete, the Army will have a reduced CONUS
basing structure which will provide the power projection
platforms necessary to deploy the United States Army around the
world to meet global conflicts.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.

ewE.TIME lyPLEMEWTATIQH COSTS:
Miktvy Consimaion
ftn\»f HDuaing

Con«lrudton

OpeoloAS
Environm«nial
Opwaiion and Mainitnanc*
Miliary Panonnti-PCS
OtMr
TOTM. ONE-TWC COSTS

E*lim«l«d Land Ravanua
ButfgM Raqumi

FUNDED OUTSIPg OF THE ACCOUNT:
Miliiary Con«injc1ion
Family houains

Conttnjaion

Opamiona
Environmanlal
Oparallon and Mamiananoa
Oinaf
Ho<ntowr>ar3 Aaaisianca Program

TOTAL OUTSIDE THE ACCOUNT

TABLE 1

PL. 100-52S BRAC

BASE REALK>#-ieNT *ND CLOSURE 1

ARMY etVtKlX SUMMARY

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

TOTAL

_uu

FY 1090

FY 18(1 FY

1112

FY 1»1

FIllH

EX. J ill EI

n»

e.ooe

12*. too

167. t*>

161.060

111.550

42.760

0.000

66] iO>

0.000

0.560

0.126

0.000

0 (05

0.000

0.560

0.000

O.SIO

0.000

0 000

0.000

0.126

0.000

0 )}•

0.000

101.540

121.744

(0.66(

1.100

0.000

JU 453

0.000

2*. 204

62.571

52.715

(1.511

1.620

0.000

257 (41

0.000

1.166

0.000

1.1K

0.000

t.2tf

10.166

4.(71

17.450

0.000

42 0S>

0.000

10S.170

400.160

171.0(0

111.726

45.(00

0.000

1,2««.44l

0.000

(1.676)

(1.»42)

(56.(26)

(16.010)

(175.100)

(257.670

0.000

16S.170

1(6.461

171.146

252.600

27.670

0.000

1.016.5((

1J.71J

0.000

11.71)

2.S2(

0.000

2 521

0.000

2.S2(

0.000

} i:i

».2«0

16.675

0.000

21 .56}

ir.jTi

0.000

0.040

1.(15

0.000

0 000

t( 1)1

0.000

0 000

o.Obo

0.066

0.054

0.032

0.000

0.1 52

S(.t07 16.741

0.0(4

1.647

0.000

8AV1NQS:

MiWary ConstmOian

Family Housng

Consiruaton

Operations
Operaiion and Mamtananca
Miltary Paiaonnal.PCS
Oirwr
CMianES
MiMary ES

TOTAL SAVINCS:

NET IMPLEMENTATION COSTS:
Military Construction
Family Housrtg

Cenairuoiion

Oparaiiena
EnvironmanI

Oparaiion and MairMananoa
Miltwy Parsonnal-PCS
Oilwr

Homaowners Ass'Stanca Program
Ravanuaa From Land Salaa (-)

NET IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Laaa Eatlmaiad Land KntMit*

23.000

t.200

15.100

K.lOO

1(.400

16.400

1«.400

125.000

0.000

15.011

17.257

16.6(1

45.541

45.417

141.01

0.000

0 000

0.000

0 000

0.000

15.0))

17.257

16.68)

45.541

45.417

141 »)1

0.000

1)56

).741

4.511

20. (0(

(0.762

110.651

252.1)0

0.000

(0.516)

0.666

15.401

60.(66

67.146

60.177

244.225

0.000

0.1(2

0.201

4.040

(.006

12 441

0.000

(0.025)

(0.012)

(1.47()

(1.165)

(1.657)

().6)7)

0.000

(0.145)

(0.(75)

(1.644)

(2.141)

(2.269)

21.000

10.216

14.(42

56.661

120.164

247.066

26). 651

775.727

((.267)

117.700

172.5(5

171.760

112.150

21.160

(16. 400)

570.(16

2.526

0.000

(15.011)

(16.677)

(16.155)

(45.541)

(45.417)

(1)6 499)

0.000

0.560

0.000

0.560

2.526

0.000

(15.011)

(17.257)

(16.155)

(45.541)

(45 417)

(1)9 07J1

5.2(0

16.675

106.540

121.744

60.66(

1.100

0.000

))4 416

17.178

27.646

66.670

50.116

60.622

(66.(42)

(1)0.651)

24 642

0.000

0.5)6

0.116

(15.401)

(60.(6(1

(67.146)

(60.177)

(24) 0)9)

0.000

(266

10)66

4.77»

17.247

(4.040)

(6.006)

29 614

0.000

0.066

0.054

0.0)2

O.OOO

0.000

0 1 S2

0.000

(1.67()

(1.642)

(56.626)

(16.010)

(175.100)

(257 679)

15.(07

171.6(1

161.611

116.412

112.616

(211. 21()

(456.751)

120.9)1

TABLE 2

BRAC Z

».L. 100-526

AMTICIPATXD LAND RZVXNUX
($ in thousands)

iior.ftTinH

rY92

jixia.

- ARMY

TY9t

'•y""

TOTAL

Pr«8ldlo of S«n Francisco, CA

Hamilton Azmy Air£i«ld, CA

Tacomy Warehouse, PA -

Kapalama Military Res., HI

Pontiac Storag* Facility, IN

Indiana AAP,IM

Fort Oes Moines, lA -

liexlnTton-Bluegrass AD,KY

I«xington portion -

Axay Material Technical Labs
Massachusetts, Michigan
New Jersey, Virginia

Fort Meade, MD

USA Reserve Ctr, Gaithersburg, MD

Fort Sheridan, IL -

Cameron Station, VA

Defense Mapping Agency Herndon, VA -

Stand-Alone Housing,
Various Locations: NOTE #1

5.821

TOTAL

NOTE fl
FY91.

5,821

1,750

40,000
4,700

505

14.228 15.775

1,750

40,000

4,700

267

11,000

58,926 18,030

11,000

13,911

505

1,000

43,387

104,335

1,200

35.824

175,100 257,879

53.879 MILLION OF Fy92 STAND-ALONE HOUSING REVENUES WERE REALIZED IN

68-354 O— 93-

34
TABLE 3

BRAr TI - FORCE STRUCTORE & BASE REALIGNMENTS

IMPLEMEWTATIQW SCHEPPLS

TMPT.EMENTRTTOM ACTION FISCAL YEAR*

Reduce Active Army** 90-94

Reduce Reserve Components 90-94

Inaetivate 2d Armored Diviaion 90-91

Downsize 194th Armored Brigade 90

Downajge Otrh Tnf«n»rv Diviaion (MtZ) 90-91

nclocQte 7th Infantry Divioion and Clooc Fort Ord 02 03

Layaway Miaaiaaippi Army Ammunition Plant 90-91

Layaway Indiana Army Ammunition Plant 93

Cease Workload at and lease Kansas AAP 93

Layaway Louisiana AAP or Scranton AAP 94

Layaway Sunflower AAP 92

Layaway Longhorn AAP 93

Partial Inactivation Tank Production at Detroit ATP*** 91

Partial Inactivation Tank Production at Lima ATP*** 95

Realign Supply Function at Red River AD 00 03

ClooG Fort McClellan -93

Warm Doac Fort Cillcm -9*

Inaetivate EQ^ 4tb Amy 92

ClooG SaegQiBGnto AD 02-03

Eliminate Treep Cuppert Command -92 — 93

Convert Health Services Command 92-93

Tnaetivafce lat Region. CIPC 91

Reorganize AMC Headquarters 91-95

Reorganize DESCOM Headquarters 91-95

Streamline AMC Management Engineering Activity 91-95

Streamline Information Systems Command 91-95

* Subject to proposals being approved following completion of required

analyses and notification to Congress under TITLE 10 U.S.C. 2687, if
appropriate

** Partially satisfied by actions outlined below.

•**These proposals have been modified to permit some work to continue beyond
the implementation period.

NOTE: 1 Underlined proposals have been executed.

2 Overstruck proposals were rescinded in accordance with the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.

TABLE 4

BRAC III SUMMARY

AmCTtO ARIA* 'MCUJDf VTfS IM

Tm P0U.OWMO oovtmua

nouNik
coimthy

■OUNOI

KOUMOl

KOajNOl

M0UM04
WAJtl

KOUNOI
IIMtvtl

IIOUNOt

IIOUH0 7

aumtn

KOUNOi

nooNO •

NOUNO 10
W-Har-tl

TOTALS

BELGIUM

FRANCE

QERMANT

ir.

397

OREECE

rTALY

KOREA

N-LANDS

TURKEY

TOTALS

113

3«

461

TABLE 5

P.L. 101-510; BRAC91

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 91

ARMY FINANCIAL SUMMARY

(DOLLARS IN MILUONS)

TOTAL

FY 1BS2

ISTS;

FY1993

-JEllBM

FY 1BS9

FY 1996

FY 1897

FY i\-V

QHETIME IMPVEMEHTATBH «

Mililary Conttruction

23.600

139.910

301.930

91.190

2.900

1.000

999.990

Family Hoo«ng

0.000

0.299

0.000

8.966

0.000

8.829

Contirucoon

0.000

Opariboni

0.000

0.299

0.000

8.966

0.000

8.829

Environineni

39.700

49.983

17.800

114.600

4.400

4.100

226. 5e^

Oparaliont and Maintananoa

0.000

146.009

124.711

16B.061

83.633

72.900

9B6.310

Mililary Parsonnel

0.000

O.OOC

Olhaf

0.000

24.743

39.408

49.872

21.267

32.900

19B.7B0

TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS

99.300

360.800

479.849

429.249

111.800

110.900

1,991.498

RavanuM From Land SalM (■)

0.000

(671.000)

Budget Request

99.300

360.600

479.849

429.249

111.900

0.000

880.498

RJNPINg QVT5IPE TtiE ACCQUrffi

Military Construction

7.477

0.000

7.477

Family Housing

0.000

Construcbon

0.000

Operations

0.000

Environmental

0.000

Operations and Maintananoa ^

44.728

0.000

44.728

Other

4.139

0.000

4.139

Homeowners Assistance Progr

0.129

16.941

37.160

16.373

0.000

70.199

126.943

TOTAL OUTSiOE THE ACCOU

96.469

16.941

37.160

16.373

0.000

SAY1NQS;

Miliury Construction

0.000

Famly Housing

0.000

2.080

Construction

0.000

Operauons

0.000

2.080

Operation and Maintenance

101.900

172.239

283.349

331.078

347.891

368.396

1,604.805

Military Personnel

0.000

Other

0.000

CivCanES

(1.397)

(2.296)

(4.180)

(4.704)

(9.317)

(9.648)

Military ES

0.000

TOTAL SAVINGS

101.900

172.239

283.349

331.078

347.891

370.436

1,606.889

HET IMPLEMENTATION COSTS;

Military Construction

31.077

139.810

301.930

91.190

2.900

1.000

967.467

Family Housing

0.000

0.259

0.000

8.S66

0.000

(2.080)

6.745

Construction

0.000

OperaDons

0.000

0.2S9

0.000

8.966

0.000

(2.080)

6.745

Environment

39.700

49.983

17.800

114.600

4.400

4.100

226.583

Operaiaions and Maintenance

(97.172)

(26.230)

(198.634)

(162.017)

(264. 2S8)

(299.496)

(963.767)

Military Personnel

0.000

Other

4.139

24.743

39.408

49.872

21.267

32.900

163.929

HorT>eowners Assistance Proga

0.129

16.941

37.160

16.373

0.000

70.199

Revenues From Land Sales (■)

0.000

(671.000)

NET IMPLEMENTATION COST

13.S69

209.106

233.664

114.944

(236.091)

(930.936)

(599.844)

LESS LANG REVENUES

N0TE#1; $7.ei8MOFTHISA

WAS OBUGATEO IN FY91 .

37
TABLE 6

BRAC 91

P.L. 101-510

ANTICIPATED LAND REVENUE - ARMY
($ in thousands)

'■PCHTIPN FY 1994 FV1995 fv iggs fv igg?

Fort Onl. CA ..... 400.000

Fort Dcvens. MA ,j2,ooo

104.000

00,000

30,000

■- ■- : z 2LQQQ

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN
Fort Dix. NJ NOTE #1
Harry Diamond Lab (ARL). VA
Sacramento Depot, CA
TOTAL

671.000

NOTE #1: THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES FROM FORT DIX WERE REDUCED FROM S83 0
MILLION TO ZERO, BASIS OF THE REDUCTION IS THE PROPOSED UTILIZATION OF FORT
DIX BY OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES PRECLUDES DISPOSAL OF THE ANTICIPATED
EXCESS IaANDS .

INSTALLATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Hefner. Anyone else have any statements?

Someone alluded this morning and I think someone here earlier,
that our respective requests over last year's level is under the pre-
vious fiscal year 1992 level. In fact the total fiscal year 1994 re-
quest for all services is approximately the same level as two years
ago. And, we want the members to understand, and I think they
do, not be misled about the increase over last year's level and the
reason is that, has already been pointed out, was because of the
pause or other — other reasons.

I have just a couple of questions. The Army is becoming less for-
eign deployed and more U.S. based and that will increase the im-
portance of the strategic mobility. What kind of deficiencies do you
have in the infrastructure at U.S. installations that hinder mobili-
ty? And how are you going about correcting these deficiencies if
there are any?

Mr. Johnson. Well we have a strategic mobility program that we
mentioned a little earlier. We will continue to try to get NATO to
support some of that around the country.

Mr. Hefner. You think there will be some NATO money that
will be used in

Major General Sobke. Yes, sir. In fact we've got NATO money in
Bayonne, Sunny Point and Fort Benning, Fort Riley and we are in-
creasing the action in the NATO arena in order to take advantage
of the slice money that comes out. And so

Mr. Hefner. That is a source of funding.

Major General Sobke. The overall program, Mr. Chairman, is to
try to pump some $550,000,000 into this area in the next seven
years. We are taking an effort. This will of course take care of the
runways, taxi ways, brief rooms, rail systems and war time storage
in the operation site.

NEW barracks standards

Mr. Hefner. The budget request includes $278,300,000 for 14
projects to provide troops housing facilities. Most of these projects
are modernizations or renewals. And one project in Fort Bragg will
provide a replacement complex for an entire brigade. What extent
is this work being driven by the new standards for barracks? In
other words, can you say how much of this work is rehabilitation
or replacement of worn out barracks as opposed to enhancement to
meet the new standards?

Major General Sobke. That's easy. We are not trying to take
anything that met the old standard 2 plus 2 and bumping that up
to meet the new standards. We're going back to take those bar-
racks that are clearly of the 1950's era and bringing those up to
the new standards. So there's nothing in the budget or programs
that would attempt to meet the new standard if it is an inadequate
facility under the 2 + 2 standard.

Mr. Hefner. How long will it take you to buy-out your barracks
program?

Major General Sobke. Sir, we estimate at this point in time that
it will take us about 15 years if we are able to sustain some
$250,000,000 to $300,000,000 a year.

Mr. Hefner. I have some other questions that I will direct but at
this time I'll yield to the lady from Nevada, Ms. Vucanovich.

FAMILY HOUSING

Mrs. Vucanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I am
particularly interested in the family housing in your inventory.
How many family housing units are in the Army's inventory?

Major General Sobke. At the end of fiscal year 1993, ma'am,
we'll have in the United States some 111,964 units. And overseas
we'll have 35,782 for a total of 147,746—148,000 units.

Mrs. Vucanovich. When General Shall was here, he stressed the
need to maintain the facilities that we're keeping in Europe. Does
this request adequately address his concerns, do you feel?

Major General Sobke. It probably doesn't because even — even
here in the United States where we are trying to focus the invest-
ment, maybe you will see an increase in the deferred maintenance
and repair margin from some $720,000,000, I think it is to — let me
get a number here for you, ma'am. Well, from 1993 to 1994, we'll
see DMAR increase from $720,000,000 to $840,000,000. In point of
fact, the Army family housing in Europe is funded at a less level
than we are here in the United States.

QUALITY OF LIFE OVERSEAS

Mrs. Vucanovich. Do you think the quality of life projects over-
seas are being given a priority?

Major General Sobke. They are being given, I would say, a lower
priority than the ones here in the United States.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Where is your largest deficit area?

Major General Sobke. Our largest deficit, ma'am, is in Hawaii
with some 1,847 dwelling units short just for the Army. If you put
all of the services together, and we are the executive agent in that
area. We have a recognized figure of some 3,600 units short in
Hawaii.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Is there a long waiting list time?

Major General Sobke. Well, it reflects the fact that there is a
waiting list of course. In fact for the Army the waiting list is 25,000
soldiers overall. But really what it means is that the soldier is
paying more out of his pocket to live in Hawaii because of the econ-
omy there. It has gone up so quickly over the last five or six years.
I might add that the U.S Army, Pacific command estimates the
deficit in Hawaii is even more — even more than the 3,600 figure
that I gave you. It's over 5,000 units short.

Mrs. Vucanovich. During our conversation yesterday, General,
you pointed out to me an inequity in how we house our single
versus our married soldiers. And as I said, I'm concerned about the
family housing and troop housing. We also had an opportunity to
talk about the Army's initiatives on the whole barracks moderniza-
tion. I understand that the Army Chief of Staff Sullivan has placed
a high priority on this program.

Can you briefly describe this program, how many barracks are
planned for this renewal and how long it would take?

Major General Sobke. Yes, ma'am. We have a requirement here
in the United States for about 160,000 spaces in the barracks. At

this point and time, we have some 32,500 spaces which meet what
we call the 2 plus 2 standard or the standard that was in effect just
prior to this increase that we had.

So therefore you can see the distance that we've got to make up.
So we're talking about an investment of about $250,000,000 a year.
At that rate, we think it'll take us about 15 years considering the
size of the Army remains about the same for the foreseeable
future. But it's a very good program.

And, what we are going to see there in Fort Bragg, Mr. Chair-
man, is a first-class brigade facility. It has been well-planned, well-
designed and

BARRACKS PROGRAM

Mrs. VucANOViCH. What are the key features of the program
besides the fewer people and more space?

Major General Sobke. Well the key features are indeed recogni-
tion of the fact that the soldiers deserve more privacy than he or
she has had before. Recognition of the fact that we've got to not
only treat the place where they live but the entire environment to
provide all of the features that would go into making a community
for that soldier to live — A quality environment which includes the
things that sustain life and make it interesting and worthwhile.

Those are the things that are going into this program and even if
we don't have the money to do it right away, I would like to master
plan those so that we can do them later on.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. As you know, I talked to you the other day
about Hawthorne and I'm just curious — how many Army ammuni-
tion depots are there in the Materiel command besides Hawthorne?

Major General Sobke. There are 25 in the Army.

HAWTHORNE ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I noticed that you — in your fiscal year 94 re-
quest, you asked for $7,000,000 to construct container holding pads
at Hawthorne. Could you just briefly explain this project?

Major General Sobke. Well, we learned our lesson from Just
Cause and Desert Storm and we need to have adequate facilities in
order to make this ammunition ready for shipment. So that is the
purpose of this program — this particular project.

The container holding pad packaging are needed for grading, and
preparation of ammunition for shipping, those kinds of things. And
they've got to be placed so that they have access to rail and road.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. I have several other questions and I'll submit
them for the record. I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Coleman.

801 HOUSING

Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As various moderniza-
tion programs are going on for the last decade, it has been kind of
tough. We haven't had any requests from the military from the Ad-
ministration's budget and this committee has seen fit to move for-
ward with a program that I think is critical in terms of improve-
ment and retention. I just want to say I think that we often times

don't emphasize enough that this area of the defense budget, I
would hope we would continue to be on the same side and continue
to provide what I consider to be the real foundation for real im-
provements. I can assure you we will see these facilities — when you
talk to the soldiers, the men and women with various salaries and
different units, they can assure you of their new found confidence
that their government cares. They feel good when they see that
people are willing to be there. The military cares, the government
cares, willing to spend the money necessary to help them.

I would say to you that I think the 801 housing thing is working.
I am interested in knowing, for examples, what your numbers are.
I know that you gave the family housing — I was wondering if you
had some statistics on that as well.

Major General Sobke. 801 has been in the effect, I think, since
1983. And since that time, some 4,280 units have been going to 801.

Mr. Coleman. 4,280?

Major General Sobke. 4,280 units. 2,000 of those, sir, were put in
at Fort Drum. We activated the division up there. Now, 802 is an-
other story. We've had one successful project in 802 and that is just
recently in Hawaii. Those are the numbers. That's been a success-
ful program.

Mr. Coleman. Is it showing the economics

Major General Sobke. Well, right now we suffer from the fact
that there's a scoring issue that goes into these whether or not we
will be able to have any additional progress in the future under
what is now. Section 2835 — it is now no longer the 801 program.
Section 2235 seems to be a good program. We discussed that last
year.

Mr. Coleman. I heard the Secretary of Housing and Urban De-
velopment make a comment not to long ago about utilization of old
barracks. The photograph you showed might be in deed not suita-
ble. But I noticed in his comments he proposed using those bar-
racks. Do you have any comments specifically as to whether or not
such a move could be made?

Major General Sobke. I'm going to defer to Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson. You know those old World War II barracks — we've
moved out of them there. They are really not suitable for use. We
would not want to use them. The only way we would go to any of
them, is if we could have access

screening brag properties

Mr. Coleman. I kind of suspect the Secretary might have been
referring to those facilities where may be undergoing base closures.
I think it might be very good to be very clear on what happens at
base closures or what transpires. Not all of those properties are
kept by the federal government. I'm wanting to see, for example, I
think you said, the bases would go through all the necessary
phases before a closure. What happens to facilities —

Mr. Johnson. Where we have a base closing, one of the screening
processes, it has to go through us for use.

Mr. Coleman. What happens with Sheridan?

Mr. Johnson. Not for family housing. You see it's kind of left up
to the community how we do this. The community and the zoning

people get together and determine whether they can — whether a
home should be on an installation. Bear in mind they have to
follow the law and we screen that.

Mr. Coleman. Well, have you given some thought to the idea of
making any changes? Making any changes/revisions, changes or
determine in some way how you might facilitate the suggestion of
the Secretary?

Mr. Johnson. We screen them and if they are available and
HUD comes up with a sponsor, the sponsor can be bonded at one of
the facilities, we turn them over on a one-year lease. We are com-
plying fully with the law and it is too bad we have homeless but
the thing about is that we do have is screening. The problem usual-
ly is do we have a sponsor to come down and get the lease. The
sponsor really doesn't have any money to run it. We do have some
home. A good example is Fort Belvoir.

Mr. Coleman. Any other examples?

Colonel Harvey. Sir, in the base closure program, I mentioned
that 49 of our stand-along housing sites had been closed. We've al-
ready transferred six of those to homeless providers — six of those
sites. There are six other applications pending. These are stand-
alone family housing sites and at a number of our other installa-
tions, there has been interest expressed by homeless providers
when they are screened in securing family housing units to help
provide homes for the homeless.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

Mr. Coleman. I wonder if I might, just to say as my last question
at this time, with respect to the clean up ordinance, I know that it
has historically been a fact that much of the effort, or much of the
funds have been dedicated for that purpose have requests back up
to the job. Much of it I think is a result of base closing but also
toxic waste and clean up issues generally because of the magnitude
and size of the problem. It is my understanding, and I don't know
if this comes necessarily within your purview as much as it might
in another segment of the Department of Defense, but I am inter-
ested in what priorities are being given to that in terms of a re-
quest from the Department of Defense?

Major General Sobke. Yes, o.k. We execute environmental resto-
ration which includes two components — of the Installation and Res-
toration Program and the Formerly Used Defense Sites program
which we are the Executive Agent; those installations which are no
longer part of the defense but were at one point and time. Now
with regard to the first, the Installation Restoration Program,
which pertain to Army sites, we've got some 10,600 actual sites
where we have initiated some sort of preliminary assessment, start-
ed an investigation and then if something needs to be done, why
then we can proceed all the way through remedial investigation,
remedial design and remedial action. So far we have completed 159
of those sites. In future we see that some 1,300 sites may eventual-
ly require clean up action. Our goal is to have all of the remedial
designs completed by the year 2000. So I think that's a very aggres-
sive program. As a matter of fact, if we look at the accounts we are
asking for in fiscal year 1994, the total is $1,247,000,000 for both

the formerly used defense site program and the installation and
restoration program. That's a

Mr. Coleman. Let me just ask one follow-up question then. You
said just formerly used defense sites?

Major General Sobke. Right.

Mr. Coleman. For example, at current military installation, you
might have properties or land on which you formerly utilized for
targeting or some other purpose and that that land may not in fact
now be used for normal purposes such as building houses or selling
it off to the civilian sector or utilizing it — or those kinds of things.
It cannot be used for housing. Does that fall under the same cate-
gory?

Major General Sobke. Let me give you an example. Spring
Valley, right here in Washington is now a formerly used defense
site because of the conditions that were discovered there and are
being cleaned up under that program by our environmental office.

Mr. Coleman. I just wanted to make sure of the categorization —
not how to utilize the military at all, but nonetheless, because it
was used during the war — or artillery range, it's not specifically
today. In fact, during the Civil War it was not. In terms of the
overall importance of the issues that you have to deal with, we've
had immediate performance. I never thought it appropriate to try
to adjust the order. I was just curious about — we might not get an
idea about where you are. Fifty-nine so far you've already done —
well remedial design or remedial action.

Major General Sobke. Well, sir, I'd be happy to have Dick Brown
to come see you on that.

Mr. Coleman. Certainly.

Major General Sobke. I think that will work with what your im-
mediate requirements would be.

Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Callahan.

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking this of all
the panelists that are here before us on base closure. Do you feel in
a very brief answer, that you gave adequate input to the Army Re-
serves in the determining factors that went into the recommenda-
tions on base closure? Were they a part of the loop or were they
just advised that this was what was going to happen?

Mr. Johnson. They were part of the loop. As a matter of fact
they have members on the past committee that sit with the delib-
erations. They recommended on the closures and realignments.

PANAMA canal

Mr. Callahan. Secondly, where are we on the Panama Canal at
this point? I know that what — we have to move by 1995? Are we on
schedule there? Do we still

Major General Sobke. Yes, sir, I can answer that. We are con-
tinuing year-by-year to return those installations which we have
felt for quite a number of years the Panama Canal. There is a
schedule which completes itself before the deadline in 1999. We see
a continuing need at this time, although this is a little bit out of
my purview, we see a continuing need for SOUTHCOM but no deci-
sion has been made by the Secretary of Defense as to whether the

SOUTHCOM headquarters is to go. It should relocate from
Panama.

Mr. Callahan. But when — do you have to move out by 1995? Is
that your understanding?

Major General Sobke. 1999, sir.

Mr. Callahan. 1999.

Major General Sobke. According to the Treaty.

RED COCKADED WOODPECKERS

Mr. Callahan. Okay. But you have not made any plans as to
where SOUTHCOM will be moved to at this point? Further, at Fort
Bragg, I think you've made a request for some additional housing.
Is there an environmental problem there with the — I mean an en-
dangered species problem with redheaded, cockaded woodpecker?
And do you think this is going to have a series impact?

Major General Sobke. In January —

Mr. Hefner. We're moving those woodpeckers to Alabama.
[Laughter.]

It's much better and they fit right in with all of these programs.
[Laughter.]

Major General Sobke. It's been very helpful. Of course my team
started January a year ago. Those range — multi-purpose range
complexes in Fort Bragg shut down because of the concerns over
the red cockaded woodpeckers and we have worked very closely at
the local level and at the national level — General Sullivan has
been working with Mr. Turner of the Fish and Wildlife to try to
resolve the issues so that you would be able to co-exist with the
red cockaded woodpeckers. The range is now open and we're very
happy about that.

We are in the process — of course we had to come up with a plan
which would provide for green hill for these birds that migrate
back and forth for their colonies and link up so that they can re-
produce and prosper. That caused some delay of some projects
which were under the purview of history. All of that is back on
track now. We did have to change about 40 percent of the projects
under the old master plan because of this new accommodation of
the Fish and Wildlife. It worked out well.

Mr. Callahan. In the Philippines, it's my understanding that we
had some very severe severance pay contracts that when we moved
out we have to pay the civilian employees a great number of
months. I know that's factual because I read it in the Parade Mag-
azine. [Laughter.]

Do we have any contractual obligations of severance pay or con-
tingent, or unemployment pay at any of these installations that we
are closing down overseas that you are aware of?

Major General Sobke. Ah, I can't give you details, Mr. Callahan,
but I can tell you that in Europe we have to work very closely with
the Works Council to ensure that the laws of the nation are met
and there are, it seems to me, you have to give them quite a bit of
notice before you let one of those national workers go. It seems to
me it's six months, eight months, a year or something like that.

DOWNSIZING

Mr. Callahan. And, one last question. Secretary Christopher
tells us that there's a problem in downsizing the Russian Army be-
cause their people in their Armies don't have any place to go. Do
we have a similar program in our country where if we are going to
downsize by what 400,000 or, well I get from 188,000 to 140,000. Do
we — are we affording the same type of opportunity to provide any
type of housing for our retired military who don't necessarily want
to go but just caught in the downsizing?

Major General Sobke. I know of no program specifically set up to
make that kind of a transition for people leaving the services.

Mr. Callahan. Well, let me just put you on the spot here and
just answer if you want to and this will be my last question, Mr.
Chairman. Do you think it's fair for the United States of America
to send Russia aid to provide housing for the downsize of their mili-
tary when we are not providing it for our own people? Thank you,
sir. [Laughter.]

Major General Sobke. I don't feel comfortable answering that,
sir.

Mr. Callahan. I understand then.

Mr. Hefner. I don't know if the General was here the other day
when I had already heard from one of the subcommittees that one
of their their number one priorities would be in NATO for funding
for housing in the Soviet Union which surprised me. I can under-
stand where he's coming from and my response to him was that
regardless of where you put the money, whether you put it in for-
eign aid or whether you put it in here it's going to be a tough sale.
General Sobke just talked about using the barracks for the home-
less. I can see if you get passed the rhetoric, I can see where it
would probably be as good an investment you can make in base
area.

But that's one of those deals ideal for a campaign issue.

Mr. Callahan. I understand that. I didn't want to infuse rheto-
ric into this conversation. But you know I have to run in South
Alabaman and the people are

Mr. Hefner. I'm familiar with that part of the country.

Mr. Callahan. I don't quite understand, Mr. Chair. I'm just
looking for answers.

Mr. Hefner. That's what I was telling the General. This is going
to be a tough sale regardless of which way you go at it is to get
enough votes for housing for troops in Russia when we are — they
say the picture is not as bad as usual. You used the phrase. Gener-
al.

Major General Sobke. Things are better, you see.

Mr. Hefner. But I don't know where the General's coming from.
It's not unlike Apex, North Carolina.

Mr. Foglietta.

MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT

Mr. Foglietta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you update me
on the ammunition plant in Mississippi? I understand that the
Army has closed that plant but retained it but not full status but
negotiations have taken place which would allow the Army to

retain ownership but it will also allow commercial work to be done
at the same time. Has that happened or is that in the process of
happening? What's the status?

Mr. Johnson. That's right. We've inactivated the installation;
however, we have hired a contractor who has made a way to retain
it and at the same time go out and get other private sector contrac-
tors in there. As a matter of fact we now have five different con-
tractors to do work inside the facility.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. But, are they using the actual facility whatever
was left over from the plant whether machine shops or any kind of
the shops which may be there? Are they actually using them?

Mr. Johnson. Absolutely.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. Are they utilizing or using the work force that
was there prior?

Mr. Johnson. They're hiring local people to do the job. Now they
are different types of work forces of course. You got xeroxing — but
they do hire

Mr. FoGLiETTA. You may have a sheet metal worker or steel
worker who could do both jobs if you trained him. They wouldn't
have hired those people.

Mr. Johnson. We are working very closely with the guys down
there. We are really — we think that's real successful — we plan to
use that place — as a matter of fact it brings down the cost of main-
tenance in the facility.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. Which is the main reason.

Mr. Johnson. We are trying to save money.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. I think that's a great idea. We are trying to do
the same thing. Is there any relationship between the federal gov-
ernment or the Army and the civilian contractors in hiring, pay,
benefits, etc.?

Colonel Harvey. Sir, the relationship is between the Army and
the base contractor which is to maintain the facilities. Basic tech-
nologies then will lease out the other facilities.

Mr. FOGLIETTA. Does the Army have direct contract — contact
with those other contractors, those that are occupying space?

Colonel Harvey. No sir.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. Thank you so very much. I am going to make ar-
rangements to go down and look at that.

Mr. Hefner. Ms. Bentley.

child care facilities

Mrs. Bentley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me say gentlemen, I understand there is about
$5,000,000 in your budget for child care facilities. We need a new
center in Edgewood. The building is now being used for child care.
It goes back to World War II and was once a horse barn.

Major General Sobke. That was Edgewood, ma'am?

Mrs. Bentley. Yes.

Major General Sobke. Yes, ma'am. We've got that in our fiscal
year 1994 program.

CLOSED BASES FOR HOMELESS

Mrs. Bentley. Secondly, Mr. Coleman was talking about using
some of the shut down bases for the homeless. Has anybody ever
suggested that some of them might be used for training centers
such as boot camps for young people who have gone astray and
who need some discipline and training. We do have a boot camp
operation in Maryland which is doing very well and Fort Meade
has been suggested as an area that — one of the places that would
assist in this program.

Mr. Johnson. We have a number of requests from areas that
would like to do that and we entertain those requests when they
come along. We would be very happy to do that. If the State would
run it. We can't run it ourselves.

Mrs. Bentley. No, the State of Maryland would be involved in
this.

Mr. Johnson. Okay.

CHEMICAL demilitarization

Mrs. Bentley. Now, I have spent — almost all of my eight and one-
half years since I've been in the Congress on the Chemical Demil
issue which is under your purview. And today is — a little while ago
DoD released a list of non-stock pile chemicals — nerve agents that
are located at different posts. It is my understanding that nine of
these sites are at Aberdeen Proving Ground. My questions are.

First, as you well know since 1986, Aberdeen has been conduct-
ing an expensive search for chemical munitions on posts. Does this
list include anything that's not been reported before?

Mr. Johnson. I have our program manager here. I just saw the
report a little while ago.

Project Manager. Ma'am, if I may. I think that the information
in this report has been reported before. I'm the Program Manager
for the Stockpile

Mrs. Bentley. I know who you are.

Project Manager. But basically what they're saying is there are
contaminations from various agents as well as mustard agents at
Edgewood. I think that is not new. They're saying there may be
buried munitions containing various chemicals at a primarily "o"
field. I don't believe that is new.

Mrs. Bentley. Second, in view of the fact that Public Law 99-145
provides that only stock-piled chemical munitions may be de-
stroyed at the eight proposed chemical sites. Do you foresee that
any of these new weapons being folded into current existing stock-
piles then being destroyed in the proposed Chem Demil facilities
such as the one at Edgewood?

Project Manager. I think, ma'am, it would be the interest of ev-
erybody if consideration was given to the use of an existing facility
that's designed to get rid of lethal chemicals. However, each of the
situations must be looked at individually in terms of getting rid of
them. However, I think that we'll have to look at the munitions on
an individual basis.

For an example, if we built a facility at Edgewood, it will have
no explosive capability. Therefore if rounds are found at Edgewood

with explosives, then one would say, no we should not put it into
the new plant. So again I think we'll look at it case by case.

Mrs. Bentley. Do you foresee or do you know of any plans that
they will be moving any of these non-stockpiled weapons to Edge-
wood should this new facility be built?

Project Manager. I think it's safe to say that one of the consid-
erations that the non-stock pile people will have is to consider
transport from let's say a site that's in the civilian area rather
than in a military area. But whether or not it would be specifically
to Edgewood, ma'am, I could not say.

Mrs. Bentley. My constituents are very concerned, first, they
don't want the incinerator built there. Second, they're afraid that
if it is built that you are going to be bringing in a lot of other
waste — Mr. Chairman, how long do you want to go?

Mr. Hefner. If the two ladies will yield. Mr. Hobson has no ques-
tions, he said. If you could finish yours, we have ten minutes before
we vote. So — unless somebody else has some

Mrs. Bentley. I'll hurry through these and then submit the rest
of them.

Project Manager. May I add something. If these munitions are
moved anywhere, they would be considered a hazardous waste be-
cause they would be moved for the purpose of disposal. For us to be
able to move it to any particular state, we must get a permit from
that state. The state could stop the movement simply by not grant-
ing that permit.

Mrs. Bentley. So therefore you would have no plans at this
moment about what form of transportation you might use to go
anywhere, right?

Project Manager. That's correct, ma'am.

Mrs. Bentley. It is my understanding within the next 60 days re-
sults from Johnson Atoll will be forwarded for study and review.
And at a citizen's hearing that I attended on Saturday, I was asked
if these results will reflect the emissions during the whole destruc-
tion process including the cooling down period of the incinerator
when emissions or dioxants, etc. are supposedly higher?

Project Manager. Yes, ma'am. I'll be brief. We do basic RCRA
during the emission test trials under the EPA auspices. Those re-
sults are summarized in published reports. However, we monitor
the agent 24 hours a day, seven days a week whether we are oper-
ating or not operating and those results will be available.

Mrs. Bentley. All those will be available?

Project Manager. Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Bentley. And, what do you say the impact of the alternative
technology study on the Chem Demil program will be?

Project Manager. It's difficult for me postulate right now what
we'll come up with. I think the range could be very varied — from
improvements to incineration to perhaps an alternative technology.
So I don't know right now.

Mrs. Bentley. Mr. Chairman, I'll stop with that question. I do
have some I'd like to submit concerning Chem Demil program in
the record.

Mr. Hefner. Okay, without further questions, thank you, gentle-
men. The meeting stands adjourned until the call of the Chair on
Thursday.

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Chairman
Hefner:]

NEW BARRACKS STANDARDS

Question. Tell us about the changes involved in the new barracks
standards, and what led to them.

Answer. The previous standard was a two-person, 180 net square
feet (NSF) room (90 NSF per person) with a shared bath per two
rooms. The new standard is a two-person, 220 NSF room (110 NSF
per person), two closets, one bath per room and more personal stor-
age space. The improved standard also includes interior and exteri-
or improvements, e.g., bulk storage, better laundry facilities, land-
scaping, recreational areas, and additional parking. There is a
modest cost increase for extra square feet per person, additional
bath, and relocation of administration and supply.

The changes in the standards were the result of a 1992 Tri-Serv-
ice Survey of barracks occupants. The survey solicited the opinions
of enlisted personnel regarding how barracks influence their qual-
ity of life in the military. The survey was conducted at twelve in-
stallations, covering all branches of the military. Utilizing the re-
sults of the survey, the Army developed new barracks design stand-
ards. The Chief of Staff, Army requested and received approval
from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to implement these new
standards beginning in fiscal year 1994.

FACILITIES REDUCTION PROGRAM

Question. Please give us several examples of actions that you are
taking to reduce the Army's inventory of facilities that are excess
to requirements.

Answer. The Army is aggressively pursuing the issue of excess
facilities capacity. Recommendations for Base Closure and Realign-
ment are only part of the picture. We are also:

Implementing a disposal program which will result in the reduc-
tion of 34 million square feet (sf) of facilities through annual tar-
gets. An additional 10 million sf will be reduced to offset new con-
struction. Army is disposing of facilities on a "worst, first" basis
and those which offer excess capacity, while constructing and re-
taining facilities which support current mission needs for facilities.
FY94 reductions are slated at 8.1 million sf.

Continuing to analyze the capability on Army installations with
an eye to the future to determine if realigning units would provide
more efficient use of the particular types of existing facilities.

Making the development of a Capital Investment Strategj^ part
of the installation Real Property Master Plan. This requires the
consideration of converting excess facilities to satisfy shortage re-
quirements. It also requires a plan for disposal of any remaining
excess facilities.

Question. If Congress were to set up a line item account for dem-
olition or to allow use of bid savings and project cancellations for
demolition, how big a program would you be able to execute during
fiscal year 1994?

Answer. Our capability for contracting for disposal (which in-
cludes remediation, demolition, and debris cleanup) is at least

$80M in FY94, however bid savings will not be sufficient to cover a
program of this size.

Question. Why can't you do this work within our O&M funds?

Answer. A portion of the work can be accomplished within our
O&M funds. In FY92, Army spent $33M of its O&M funds on facili-
ties disposal. We project that amount will again be spent in FY93
against facilities disposal. However, there is a pent up requirement
for disposal of excess capacity at our aging production, research
and industrial facilities, which are not funded from O&M accounts.
Without funding from other sources (such as OPA, RDT&E, PAA,
and MILCON) this disposal will not be accomplished.

panama/southcom

Question. What is the current status of the Panama Canal Treaty
Implementation Plan, and of the relocation or reorganization or
disestablishment of SOUTHCOM?

Answer. Drawdown of US forces in Panama, and turnover of
DOD facilities to the Government of Panama, is proceeding accord-
ing to the schedule outlined in the approved Panama Canal Treaty
Implementation Plan. Services our planning for the relocation or
disestablishment of their Component's individual units, according
to Service force structure plans. However, USSOUTHCCOM mis-
sion will continue, and therefore, there is no plan to disestablish
the Command. The decision on timing of the relocation of HQ, US-
SOUTHCOM was deferred by the Secretary of Defense in 1992.

Question. Is Homestead AFB being considered?

Answer. On 12 March 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin ap-
proved and sent the "1993 Defense Base Closures and Realign-
ments" report to the Defense Base Closures and Realignments
Committee Chairman, James Courter. The SECDEF recommended
the closure of Homestead AFB and accordingly DOD is not consid-
ering it as a possible relocation site for HQ, USSOUTHCOM.

Question. What is the timetable for turnover of installations to
the Panamanian government?

Answer. The current schedule of significant facility turnovers to
the Government of Panama through the end of the Treaty imple-
mentation period (31 December 1999) is:

Schedule of Turnovers

Facility: Years

CampChagres 1993

ChivaChiva 1993

Fort Amador 1994

Curundu Flats 1994

Fort Davis 1995

Fort Espinar 1995

Fort Clayton 1997

Albrook Air Force Station 1997

Gorgas Hospital 1998

FortKobbe 1999

Howard Air Force Base 1999

East and West Corozal 1999

Fort Sherman 1999

Rodman Naval Station 1999

Marine Corps Barracks 1999

Galeta Island 1999

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION

Question. The budget request includes $112.4 million for the
chemical demilitarization program, $1.5 million for Tooele, Utah
and $110.9 million for Anniston, Alabama. What is the schedule for
requesting construction funds for the six remaining locations, to-
gether with the estimated amount for each location?

Answer. For planning purposes, over the next five years, FY 95-
99, the Army's requirement for construction funds for the chemical
demilitarization program and the chemical treaty facilities for the
remaining sites includes an estimated $181.0 million for Umatilla
Depot Activity, Oregon, $95.0 million for Pine Bluff Arsenal, Ar-
kansas, $157.0 million for Pueblo Depot Activity, Colorado, $184.3
million for Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, $121.6 million for
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and $107.0 million for New-
port Army Ammo Plant, Indiana.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Question. How big is the impact on the Army's Construction Pro-
gram of concerns for endangered species, such as the situation with
the Red-cockaded woodpecker at Fort Bragg?

Answer. The impact on Army construction projects has been sig-
nificant in the past. Since accurate data on the total impact
throughout the Army is not available, the impact can be illustrated
with the following significant examples:

a. During FY92 eight construction projects at Fort Bragg
were halted or delayed pending formal consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on impacts on the endan-
gered Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW). This action was neces-
sary to prevent exceeding the incidental "take" limit (8 RCWs)
established by the FWS. Delay in the MCA projects during
FY92 resulted in an additional $2.2 million in administrative
and penalty costs. All projects which were halted are now pro-
ceeding. Since August 1991, approximately 40% of the MCA
projects in the approved master plan have been resited to
avoid conflicts with the RCW.

b. Based on a FWS endangered species survey and a Nation-
al Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assess-
ment, construction of a Multipurpose Range Complex (MPRC)
was initiated in 1988 at the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA),
HI. Subsequently, in settlement of a law suit challenging the
Army's NEPA documentation, the Army agreed to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In conducting a more
intensive botanical survey in support of the EIS, 6 threatened
and one endangered species were found near, or within, the
MPRC. The preparation of a biological assessment of the
impact on these species from operation of the MPRC is ongo-
ing. Currently the MPRC is complete but is unused pending in-
stallation of targets and completion of the EIS ($17 million for
construction has been expended). It is estimated to be oper-
ational in FY95.

We are conducting more comprehensive endangered species sur-
veys and planning which should prevent many of the conflicts ex-
perienced in the past. However, we cannot anticipate impacts

which are related to newly listed species or the identification of
species in an area where they were not previously known to exist.

Question. What is the Army's position on the management of
family housing in Hawaii?

Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directed
the consolidation of all family housing in Oahu effective October 1,
1983. The Army was selected to be the executive agent for the oper-
ation and management of the 19,000-unit family housing inventory.
Accordingly, fiscal years 1984-1988 operations and maintenance
funds were transferred from the other services. No new construc-
tion and only 7 million in improvement funds were transferred be-
cause there was neither a reported deficit nor an existing improve-
ments revitalization program in the Services' future year pro-
grams.

By early fiscal year 1991, the family housing deficit for all serv-
ices had grown to over 5,000 units and the improvements revital-
ization backlog was expected to reach $1.5 billion by the year 2000.
Although the Army was not specifically responsible for the other
Services' investments, the Army has already spent over $70 million
on the other Services' deficit and revitalization backlogs to make a
consolidation a success. This additional funding for the other serv-
ices could not be sustained without affecting the Army's ability to
fund internal requirements. Because of this, the Army notified the
other services in FY93 that they should fund their own invest-
ments.

The Army is now leading the CINCPAC effort to perform a com-
plete analyses of revised requirements, land availability, and a
future year development plan to satisfactorily reduce the deficit.
This planning effort is being funded with a $15 million O&M ap-
propriation in FY93.

Question. The Army has programmed $52 million for family
housing units at Schofield Barracks in the fiscal year 1994 budget,
but no construction is programmed for Navy, Marine Corps, or Air
Force installations on Oahu. I would just note that this gives some
weight to complaints that you may not be meeting their needs.
Would you care to comment?

Answer. The Army continues to meet all of its operational and
managerial executive agent responsibilities for the family housing
inventory in Oahu. Investments' funding is not a part of these re-
sponsibilities. That is, the other Services are responsible for pro-
gramming funds for their deficit elimination and improvements' re-
vitalization programs.

This position was reinforced last year when the Senate, in its
Military Construction Appropriation Bill, 1993: (1) increased Navy
funding $117 million for new construction in Oahu; and (2) directed
each Service to program its own fiscal year 1994 and out family
housing investments (new construction, replacements and improve-
ments). Also, the Senate, in its Department of Defense Appropria-
tion Bill, 1993, provided $15 million in Operation and Maintenance,
Army funds for design and planning activities (including master
plans and studies) related to deficit reduction for all Services. All

Services are participating in the development of a plan to use these
funds.

Question. How do you assure that all existing military family
housing units on Oahu get treated fairly for O&M expenses, espe-
cially maintenance?

Answer. The Army, through the Oahu Consolidated Family
Housing Office, has the responsibility for funding the maintenance
and repair requirements for all military family housing on Oahu.
All Services are represented on various advisory boards and work-
ing groups which advise and recommended policy and funding to
the Commander, U.S. Army Pacific who makes the final determi-
nation on the distribution of funds.

In regard to maintenance, the other Services receive a higher
share than the Army. For example, the following data shows the
average obligation per dwelling unit for recurring maintenance
and repair, excluding major projects, for fiscal years 1991 and 1992.

Fiscal year

1991 1992

average per average per

DU W

Service:

Army $1,847 $2,170

Air Force 2,456 2,626

Navy/Marines 3,312 3,479

The Army is currently programming a new funding allocation
scheme that assures that the Army and the Air Force receive a
fairer share of the O&M funds.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Question. Please provide a list of installations from which Home-
owners Assistance claims are pending, separately identifying each
service.

Answer. Army — Fort Hood, TX. No additional claims are being
accepted. Housing market has sufficiently recovered from the deac-
tivation of the 2nd Armored Division.

Navy — Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, NH/ME; Naval Undersea
Warfare Center (NUWC), New London, CT; and Chase Field Naval
Air Station, TX.

Air Force— Loring AFB, ME; Carswell AFB, TX; Castle AFB, CA;
Chanute AFB, IL; Eaker AFB, AR; England AFB, LA; Homestead
AFB, FL; Myrtle Beach AFB, SC; and Pease AFB, NH (No new ap-
plications. HUD disposing of acquired homes.)

Question. Last year's appropriation act included $133 million for
this program. What is your current estimate for obligations against
this appropriation during fiscal year 1993?

Answer. Current estimate for obligations of the appropriated
$133 million for FY93 is $84,444 million. The remaining funds will
be needed for subsequent Homeowners Assistance Programs. Obli-
gations have been slower than estimated due to a number of fac-
tors:

Programs were slower coming on line than anticipated; Appli-
cants were less than anticipated; Inability to hire realty specialists
and appraisers precluded speedy processing of applications.

Question. To what extent is the private sector involved in the ad-
ministration of the Homeowners Assistance Program?

Answer. All appraisals and title work is contracted out to the
private sector; Management information services are being devel-
oped by private contractors; Private sector firms are involved in
the upkeep and resale of acquired homes; A contract for the serv-
ices of a national relocation firm is currently being processed. Bids
have been received and the bids are being evaluated. Award of a
contract is expected by the end of May 1993; A request for propos-
als for the processing of applications as well as the upkeep and
resale of homes has been developed and will be tested at an appro-
priate installation in the near future.

REORGANIZATION

Question. Please describe in some detail your plans to reorganize
the military construction and family housing functions into an
Army Chief of Staff/Installation Management Office.

Answer. Per the direction of the Secretary of the Army, a task
force examined the feasibility of developing an Army Staff organi-
zation to concentrate on the needs of our installations. The task
force recommended to the Secretary that an Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management, known as the ACS(IM), be cre-
ated. The Secretary approved this concept on 15 March 1993 with
an implementation date of 1 October 1993.

This new organization will serve as the Army Staff proponent for
installation planning, policy, and programming of resources. Func-
tions performed include management of facilities, housing, environ-
ment, family support, and intra/interservice installation support.

Resources to support the military construction function will be
transferred from the Office of the Chief of Engineers to the new
ACS(IM) organization. Likewise, family housing resources will be
transferred from the US Army Engineering and Housing Support
Center to the ACS(IM) organization.

KOREA/ BURDENSH ARING

Question. For the record, please describe the differences between
the two Korean burdensharing programs, CDIP and ROKFC.

Answer. For Combined Defense Improvement Projects (CDIP),
Republic of Korea (ROK) approval criteria limits funding of
projects to those which support/enhance combined warfighting ca-
pability, such as hardened command centers and facilities for new
weapon systems. ROK awards and administers all construction con-
tracts. ROK will not design and construct to U.S. life safety and
quality standards. However, they will accept and use U.S. oper-
ation and maintenance funded designs meeting U.S. standards to
award construction contracts. Thus, most CDIP projects are U.S.
designed by necessity. ROK will only pay for Korean made con-
struction materials and installed equipment. If materials and
equipment must meet U.S. standards, U.S. must pay for these "off-
shore" items. Service component's operation and maintenance and/

or other procurement dollars are used to fund offshore materials.
With constrained U.S. Service budgets, only critical life safety re-
lated items are designated as offshore. U.S. surveillance during
construction is accomplished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
using MILCON Planning and Design funds. Since these are not
U.S. contracts, the Army has no authority over the ROK contrac-
tor. This limitation combined with use of Korean materials often
results in poor quality construction. For Republic of Korea Funded
Construction (ROKFC), project approval criteria is more lenient
than CDIP. ROK will fund most projects with the exception of
clubs, theaters and bowling centers. It is a "cash" program. ROK
provides cash for construction projects. US Amry Corps of Engi-
neers awards all design and construction contracts. ROK will pay
for designs meeting U.S. standards and required offshore materials
and installed equipment.

Question. Together, are these two programs meeting your facili-
ties needs in Korea?

Answer. Although the projected growth in the $80 million /year
HNFC program is positive, it still does not meet USFK's minimum
construction /facility revitalization requirement of over $200 mil-
lion annually.

INVENTORY

Question. How many family housing units do you have in the
United States, and how many overseas, excluding Sections 801 and
802, and excluding leases.

Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 1993, 111,964 units in the 50
United States and Puerto Rico, and 35,782 units in foreign overseas
areas.

Question. How many Section 801, Section 802, and leased units
do you have in the United States, and how many overseas?

Answer. In FY94, the Army has requested funding for 4,280 Sec-
tion 801 units, 745 temporary domestic leased units, and 276 Sec-
tion 802 units in the United States. In foreign overseas areas 14,089
leased units.

HOUSING DEFICITS

Question. What is your current worldwide housing deficit?

Answer. The end of fiscal year 1993 programming deficit for the
Army is approximately 5,400 family housing units. This number is
expected to change as a result of base realignments and closures.

Question. Where are your three largest deficits, and how large
are they?

Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 1993, the three largest defi-
cits of the Army are Oahu, HI (1,847), Fort Campbell, KY (904), and
Fort Bragg, NC (731).

Question. Where are your most expensive deficit locations based
on actual payments of housing allowances?

Answer. The most expensive deficit locations based on payment
of housing allowances are Hawaii, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Question. What percent of the family housing maintenance and
repair requirement will be met within the fiscal year 1994 budget
request?

Answer. The fiscal year 1994 maintenance and repair require-
ment in $598 million. With a fiscal year budget estimate of $388.5
million ($322.1 million in the U.S.; 66.4 million foreign), only 71 per-
cent in U.S.; 46 percent foreign of the annual requirement will be
met.

Question. What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance?

Answer. The deferred maintenance and repair (DMAR) backlog
for fiscal year 1992 was $638.6 million ($430.6 million in the U.S.;
$208.0 million foreign). The projected DMAR for fiscal years 1993
and 1994 are $717.1 million ($482.1 million in the U.S.; $235.0 mil-
lion foreign) and $840.5 million ($572.5 million in U.S.; $268 million
foreign) respectively.

Question. How much additional maintenance and repair work
could be performed during fiscal year 1994, beyond the budget re-
quest, and what are the limiting factors?

Answer. The Army could execute approximately $200 million
more in maintenance and repair over and above the current budget
request during fiscal year 1994. These funds would be used to ac-
complish necessary repair projects and prevent further growth in
DMAR. Limiting factors are: (1) time it takes for project design; (2)
lead time for the contracting process; and (3) availability of in-
house staff for inspection and supervision of the increased work
load.

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

Question. How much additional construction improvement work
could be performed during fiscal year 1994, beyond the budget re-
quest, and what are the limiting factors?

Answer. With adequate lead time (normal budget process), the
maximum funding that the Army could executive for revitalization
and replacement of family housing in approximately $550 per fiscal
year. Design and contract solicitation lead times reduce the Army's
ability to fund additional projects to $150M to $200 for contract
award in 1994. This would require projects to be identified by the
July/ Aug 1993 timeframe with a majority of this work being re-
placement housing using the "Turnkey" concept (i.e., design and
construct) contracting procedure. All of this work would be in
CONUS, including Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico installations.

Question. Howmany family housing units are programmed for
whole house revitalization within the budget request, and what is
the funding increment for this work?

Answer. There are 1,872 family quarters programmed for whole
neighborhood revitalization or replacement at a total funding in-
crement of $150,460,000. All work is to be performed at CONUS in-
stallations.

CONTRACT CLEANING

Question. For how many units are you requesting contract clean-
ing funds, what is the average cost per unit, and what is the total
amount requested?

Answer. During fiscal year 1994, the Army will contract clean
approximately 32,062 overseas units with a total cost of $7,534 mil-
lion and an average cost of $235 per dwelling unit.

Question. Describe in some detail how you document savings for
each contract cleaning expenditure.

Answer. The Army's saving result from allowing families to
vacate quarters earlier and allowing incoming families to get into
quarters faster thus limiting Temporary Lodging Allowance (TLA)
payments. Incoming families are authorized up to 60 days. TLA
and departing families 10 days. The contract cleaning program
limits TLA (estimated as $100 per day) to three days in lieu of the
10 days for departing families. Since families vacate faster, incom-
ing families get into quarters sooner thus saving additional TLA.
TLA savings more than offset contract cleaning costs.

CURRENCY FLUCTUATION

Question. What currency gains or losses are projected for your
overseas housing programs during fiscal years 1993 and 1994?

Answer. Estimated losses will be approximately $24 million in
fiscal year 1993 at an estimated disbursement rate of 1.57 German
Deutschmark (DM) per U.S. dollar (average rate through February
1993). The greatest foreign currency fluctuation impact is the
result of the DM which has approved budget rates of 1.61 DM and
1.65DM in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 respectively. The majority of
these losses are for the Operations and Maintenance account. The
prior year foreign construction projects are essentially complete
and few are anticipated in the near future. The amount of foreign
currency loss incurred is a function of the size of the foreign pro-
gram, the approved budget rate, the actual disbursement rate and
the outlay rate during the fiscal year. Losses incurred include pay-
off of prior year as well as current year obligations.

OFFICER QUARTERS

Question. Please submit for the record a table showing: (a) how
many general/flag officer quarters (GFOQ) you have, separately
identifying CONUS and OCONUS locations, (b) how many of these
quarters exceed the statutory space limitation, and (c) the average
O&M cost per unit.

Answer. The following data by major Army command and coun-
try is provided. Also, 323 sets exceed the statutory space limita-
tions, and the average FY 94 O&M cost per unit for all GFOQs is
$22,157.

U.S.MACOM Number of (^„„,^ Number of

AMC 21 Belgium M7

FORSCOM 91 Germany 54

HSC 04 Italy 03

MOW 68 Netherlands 02

U.S. WACOM

Number of
units

Country

Numt)€r of
units

TRADOC...
USAISC ....
USARPAC.

USMA

MTMC

53
01
■34
03
02

Japan

Panama..
Korea

03
08
13

Total CONUS .

277

Total OCONUS.

100

' 13 are Army.

2 5 are Army.

Note: 377 total general/flag officer quarters.

Question. Please submit for the record a table showing all GFOQ
projects included in the budget request, identifying the number of
quarters and the amount requested for each installation. This table
should separately identify new construction projects, construction
improvement project, and maintenance and repair projects.

Answer. The following data is provided in response.

Installation

Numt)er of
GFOQ

Project type

Amnt req
($K)

Fort Mason

Fort McNair

Fort Benning

Fort McPherson

Fort Shatter

Hickam AFB

Pearl Harbor

Fort Knox

Picatinny Arsenal

West Point

Fort Sam Houston

Fort Myer

Belgium

Heidelberg

Camp Zama

Seoul Korea

Panama

Fort Monroe

Fort Leavenworth

Fort Jackson

Aberdeen PG, MD

' Funds from proceeds of land sale.

Malnt & Repair

do.

Construe Improv

do.

48.8
285.0

34.2

76.2
132.0

63.2

26.8
112.8

48.9
213.5
681.9
103.8
100.5

53.8
118.3
144.1

61.4
568.0

20.0

(M
110.0

COOPERATIVE HOUSING

Question. Please bring us up-to-date with any proposals you rnay
have for military cooperative housing, such as the Soldier Housing
and Retirement Equity program.

Answer. The Army has worked to attempt to develop this hous-
ing concept for several years, however, there are still several major
unresolved issues being worked by OSD and Army officials. Be-
cause of the unresolved issues, OSD made the decision to not for-
ward proposal for enabling legislation.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Question. Please provide a list of your Service's installations
from which Homeowners Assistance claims are pending.

Answer. Army — Fort Hood, TX. No additional claims are being
accepted. Housing market has sufficiently recovered from the deac-
tivation of the 2nd Armored Division.

Navy — Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, NH/ME; Naval Undersea
Warfare Center (NUWC), New London, CT; and Chase Field Naval
Air Station, TX.

Question. Is the program meeting the needs of your Service?

Answer. Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) met the needs
of those individuals affected adversely by the deactivation of the
2nd Armored Division. The market has rebounded with the influx
of new troops, therefore, the program is no longer needed at Fort
Hood.

PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED

Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the FY94 request or in prior years' unobligated balances,
that are no longer required due to force structure changes, base
realignments or closures, mission changes, bilateral or multilateral
agreements, or other reasons. Please include on this list military
construction projects, family housing construction and construction
improvement projects, and projects financed under the base re-
alignment and closure accounts.

Answer. All FY 94 projects are needed. FY 93 and Prior projects
that are no longer needed are listed below. The funds from these
projects will be reprogrammed in accordance with Appropriations
Committee rules to pay for necessary cost increases, contractor
claims, and emergency construction requirements.

[In millions of dollars]

Amount Reason

Military construction, Army (MCA) projects:

FY90— Fort Polk, LA, multipurpose range up- 9.60 BRAC 91

grade.
FY92— Fort Polk, LA, consolidated maintenance 11.00 BRAC 91
fac.

FY92— Fort Eustis, VA, access road 2.80 No agreement with State.

FY92— Senaca AD, NY, fire station 1.15 Mission reduction.

Army family housing (AFH) projects:

FY91— Walter Reed AMC, DC, renew family 0.44 Cost increase— scope change

housing.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Projects: BRAC projects
are not appropriated on a line item basis, but Congress is notified
of individual projects as they are developed. The following projects
are no longer required, but these prior year funds will be used to
fund unresourced BRAC requirements.

[In millions of dollars]

Installation Project Amount

Fort Polk, LA Administrative facility 0.39

RedstoneArsenal, AL Fuse evaluation facility 1.90

FISCAL YEAR 1994 BUDGET REQUEST

Question. I know this may be a problem that goes above your
level, but there is a real issue with how the Department is budget-
ing for the 1993 round of Base Realignments and Closures (BRC
III). The fiscal year 1994 request for BRC III is contained in a legis-
lative contingency account in the Defense Appropriations Bill,
rather than making a straightforward budget request in this bill.
We understand that the contingency account includes $1.2 billion
estimated to be required in fiscal year 1994 for BRC III, offset by
$1.0 billion in savings. How do you see this working?

Answer. The Army has approximately $35.0 million of the $1.2
billion in the legislative contingency account for BRC III, FY94.
Our intent is to use these funds for: BRC III Planning and Design
(P&D) requirements in the MILCON program; BRC III, FY94 envi-
ronmental restoration requirements; and assorted O&M require-
ments for BRC III in FY94. The Army will refine their total BRC
III requirements as part of the FY95 budget process in the fall of
CY93.

Question. Is OSD expecting that you will pay for BRC III out of
your routine O&M accounts?

Answer. It is possible that the Army will incur some BRC III,
FY94 costs out of Army Appropriations. We will not have a firm
handle on these requirements until the various Army BRC III plan-
ning MACOMs submit their BRC III Implementation Plans to
HQDA, and the BRC III Commission process is complete. After
analysis there may be requirements excess to the funds identified
for Army use in the Legislative Contingency Account in FY94.
These costs would be absorbed by the Army Appropriations.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION COSTS

Question. The base closure accounts are the sole source of funds
for the Environmental Restoration (ER) of closure locations. Are
sufficient funds included in the fiscal year 1994 budget to fully
fund this work?

Answer. The Army has, at this time, sufficient funds in the
BRAC I account to support identified ER requirements for the re-
maining years of the program. BRAC 91 funding requirements are
evolving as reuse plans and site conditions are determined through
environmental studies. We hope to further refine these require-
ments based on reuse and disposal plans currently being developed
and adjust the requirements during the FY95 budget submission.

[Clerk's note.— End of questions submitted for the record by
Chairman Hefner.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Vucanovich:]

HAWTHORNE ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, NEVADA

Question. Hawthorne's mission covers conventional ammunition.
First, could you please explain their mission, and second, is there a
possibility that the mission might be changed to include non-con-
ventional weapons?

Answer. Hawthorne's mission is to receive, issue, store, renovate,
inspect, test, demilitarize and dispose of conventional ammunition;
to maintain capability to load, assemble, and pack ammunition
items; to produce selected ammunition items as assigned; and, to
maintain the capability to accommodate the receipt and shipment
of containerized cargo. There are no plans to alter the mission at
this time.

Question. In your fiscal year 1994 request you ask for $7 million
to construct container holding pads at Hawthorne. Could you brief-
ly explain this project.

Answer. The project provides for construction of three ammuni-
tion containerization sites. Each facility will provide a loading/un-
loading pad with road and rail access, pad lighting for 24-hour op-
erations, two container storage areas, and a combined administra-
tive and block and bracing shop.

Question. Is it fair to say that these pads are necessary if there
are ever any plans to expand the mission at Hawthorne?

Answer. These pads are required to meet the current mission at
Hawthorne. If this project is not provided, the capability of this
major ammunition storage site to rapidly load and ship containers
with required ammunition quantities will continue to be signifi-
cantly impaired. The quick reaction time that allowed the major
buildup during Desert Shield is widely credited as having critical
impact on the outcome of Desert Storm. If the mission at Haw-
thorne changes, the facility requirements would have to be evaluat-
ed based upon the nature of the change.

Question. I noticed in reviewing your budget estimates that,
under "Future Projects", None were requested for FY 1995. And
none are planned in the next four program years. Do you foresee
the possibility of any increased activity or expansion of the mission
at Hawthorne due to the downsizing of the military and base clo-
sures?

Answer. Hawthorne gains conventional ammunition missions
from Navajo Army Depot, Fort Wingate and Umatilla Army Depot
as recommended by the 1988 Base Closure Commission. The only
project at Hawthorne Army Depot required to complete the 1988
relocations is a $520,200 Inspection /Parking area. This project is
complete. The 1988 actions will be completed 30 September 1994.

Question. In the late 1970's and early 1980's a demil facility was
built at Hawthorne to disassemble bombs, mortar shells, and am-
munition. It cost approximately $80 million to build. Trial runs
were conducted but the facility was then shut down. Do you have
any future plans for this facility?

Answer. The Western Area Demilitarization Facility (WADF) at
Hawthorne is presently being operated by the Army, and, in FY91
underwent $450,000 in upgrades. Since starting operations in FY91,
WADF has demilled more than 4,500 short tons of munitions, and
has reclaimed for resale approximately $5 million in residue explo-
sives, and another $5 million in scrap metals. Demil operations at
WADF are planned to be an ongoing mission well into the 21st

Century. .

[Clerk's note.— End of questions for the record submitted by

Mrs. Vucanovich.]

[Clerk's note.— Questions for the record submitted by Mr.

Dicks:]

FORT LEWIS

Question: One division from the 7th Infantry Division is in the
process of relocating to Fort Lewis. Will the 7th's move require any
specific military construction requirements as a result of their relo-
cation?

Answer. No additional construction is required to relocate one
brigade of the 7th Division to Fort Lewis.

YAKIMA EXPANSION

Question. What is the status of the Yakima expansion?

Answer. The land purchases are about 5% complete. Most of the
rest will be completed by the end of this year. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) portion will take the longest because they
have to obtain statutory approval, BLM has initiated the required
legislative requests (in FY94 Legislative Package) and final trans-
fer will be completed about a year from now. The facilities con-
struction is at the 65% design point. The Army is developing the
construction plan to allow start at the earliest time land become
available.

FORT LEWIS

Question. The Congress was given notification that the Army
would begin the Environmental Impact Study for the return of Ar-
mored Troops from Europe to Fort Lewis. Do you have an antici-
pated date when the EIS will be completed?

Answer. The Fort Lewis EIS is expected to be completed by Apr
94.

Question. It is my understanding that the renewal of the North
Fort Whole barracks is not going to be requested until FY 1995 and
1996. Given the Army's intent to withdraw troops from Fort Lewis,
wouldn't it be better to get a head start on these barracks in order
to have them available when the troops are actually withdrawn?

Answer. The Army deferred barracks projects at Ft. Lewis in
order to complete a master plan and economic analysis to deter-
mine if renovation or replacement by new construction was the
best alternative. This has recently been completed and new con-
struction will now be programmed.

Question. Pending the completion of the EIS, what modifications
to the Fort do you anticipate will be needed to accommodate the
heavier forces.

Answer. As a minimum we know that Ft. Lewis will need to add
strategic mobility capability with a railhead upgrade and ammo
storage point. Improvements to Yakima to sustain heavier training,
store equipment, and modification of the multi-purpose range com-
plex will also be required. Throughout the EIS process, as alterna-
tives are refined MCA requirements and the environmental impact
of siting will be developed. Depending on the size of the inbound
force we expect that additional billets, maintenance and other sup-
port facilities will be required.

Question. The FY 94 Army MILCON request included funds to
complete the incinerator project. Can you comment on the condi-
tion of the equipment that is on site at Fort Lewis since the incin-
erator project was halted?

Answer. The partially completed construction and associated
equipment is in good condition. There is limited damages because
the Army awarded contracts to "moth-ball" the incinerator. The
equipment and materials were moved inside and openings in the
incinerator were sealed with plastic.

Question. Does the current estimate assumes full/some utiliza-
tion of materials and equipment on-site, and has there been a
survey of the condition of that material to assure that it can be
completed within cost/time?

Answer. The current estimate assumes full utilization of the ma-
terials and equipment that are on-site. The condition of the partial-
ly completed facility and the materials on-site have been carefully
evaluated to ensure accuracy of estimate. In addition, the new esti-
mate increases the project scope to meet new requirements for an
ash disposal landfill and recycling separation point.

Question, Will this project require an additional Environmental
Impact Statement prior to restart?

Answer. Yes. While Federal law does not require an EIS, the
State of Washington now requires one before they issue the per-
mits that we must obtain. A public scoping meeting was held in
November 1992. The Draft EIS is scheduled for distribution in June
1993 with a public meeting planned for September 1993. We expect
to have the EIS process finalized in January 1994.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Dicks.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mrs. Bent-
ley:]

RUSSIAN CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

Question. How much funding from the Nunn-Lugar funds is
available to support the Russian chemical demilitarization pro-
gram? What actions have been taken to support the Russians?

Answer. Under Public Law 102-229, the 1992 Dire Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (commonly known as the Nunn-
Lugar Act), the Secretary of Defense was authorized to transfer
$400 million to facilitate the transportation, storage, safeguarding
and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in the former
Soviet Union. This amount was increased to $800 million in Public

Law 102-396, which is commonly referred to as the Freedom Sup-
port Act. Of the funding authorized for assisting the Russians, only
$25 million has been approved for chemical weapons (CW) destruc-
tion support (an additional $30 million out of the $400 million au-
thorized under the Freedom Support Act is targeted for CW de-
struction support but has not been approved by Congress).

In July 1992, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Presi-
dent's Committee on Conventional Problems of Chemical and Bio-
logical Weapons of the Russian Federation Concerning the Safe,
Secure and Ecologically Sound Destruction of Chemical Weapons
(hereafter referred to as the Presidents' Committee) signed an
Agreement which outlined the following five areas of support
which the U.S. would provide to the Russian chemical weapons de-
struction program; funding for these five areas is not to exceed $25
million U.S. dollars:

(1) Development of a concept plan, including systems analysis
and design for chemical weapons destruction.

(2) Provision for detection, systems of analysis and alarm systems
for the transport of chemical weapons and/or for safety and warn-
ing purposes at chemical weapons destruction sites.

(3) Establishment of a familiarization program for Russian Feder-
ation chemical weapons destruction experts and engineers at facili-
ties in the U.S. selected by the DoD.

(4) Visits by Committee technical representatives to chemical
weapons destruction facilities in the U.S.

(5) Demonstration of protective equipment and provision of other
training and tutorials related to chemical weapons destruction.

In addition to preparing numerous information papers for Acade-
mician Kuntsevich, Chairman of the Committee, U.S. efforts in
support of the Russian chemical weapons destruction program have
focused on elements 1, 3 and 4 of the July Agreement.

(1) Exchange Visits. Since July 1992, the U.S. has hosted three
visits by Academician Kuntsevich, who was accompanied by mem-
bers of his Committee, members of the Supreme Soviet, and repre-
sentatives from the local communities adjacent to the proposed
Russian chemical weapons destruction facilities. During the visits,
briefings and tours were conducted at the Chemical Demilitariza-
tion Training Facility (CDTF) and the Tooele Chemical Agent Dis-
posal Facility (TOCDF) construction site. Additionally, in February
1993, the delegation, which visited the U.S., also toured the John-
ston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS).

(2) Concept Plan. In September 1992, the U.S. awarded a contract
to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to assist
the U.S. in establishing a field office in Moscow and assembling the
Statement of Work for preparing a comprehensive Concept Plan
for the Russian chemical weapons destruction program. In addi-
tion, a Notice was published in the Commerce Business Daily re-
questing U.S. firms to notify the Army if they were interested in
preparing the concept plan (over 53 firms responded). Russian in-
ability to meet their commitment on providing Moscow office space
to collect, the data required to develop a comprehensive destruction
plan, as well as a reluctance on the part of Academician Kuntse-
vich for the U.S. to assist in preparing the concept plan, have pre-
vented the U.S. from proceeding with this effort.

(3) Intern Familiarization Program. The U.S. has set-up a pro-
gram to provide the interns with insight to the U.S. chemical weap-
ons destruction experiences and management techniques which
they can, in turn, apply to their program as appropriate. Current-
ly, the U.S. is waiting for Academician Kuntsevich to provide the
U.S. with a list of the proposed interns.

Question. Assuming Congress appropriated sufficient funds, what
more could be done to help the Russians in expediting efforts to de-
stroy the Russian chemical weapons stockpile?

Answer. The primary obstacle to the Russian CW destruction
program appears to be the lack of a technical basis for selecting
the destruction locations. This, combined with a dysfunctional
public outreach /interaction program, has effectively killed any for-
ward progress.

Efforts to expedite the Russian CW destruction program should
include the following efforts:

(1) Establishment of a proactive public interaction program. One
of the major stumbling blocks with the current program is the lack
of communication between the President's Committee and the leg-
islative bodies, as well as the general public living adjacent to the
proposed destruction sites and transportation corridors. For the de-
struction program to succeed in the current climate of democracy
and public involvement, the President's Committee needs to active-
ly engage the public and legislative bodies, not only to explain the
proposed CW destruction program, but to identify and address con-
cerns.

(2) Obtaining Russian commitment for the development of the
concept plan described in the July Agreement. The plan would pro-
vide a comprehensive, programmatic description of the entire Rus-
sian chemical weapons destruction program from storage through
closure of the destruction facilities. The plan would serve several
key functions including: documenting treaty and national require-
ments for the program, providing a basis for defending funding re-
quirements, providing a forum for documenting the measures
taken to address public concerns, and serving as the foundation for
executing the program.

Question. Would DoD consider training Russians in chemical de-
militarization management, methods and procedures?

Answer. Yes. Our initial proposal on this has been the Russian
Intern Familiarization Program described above. The first group of
interns would be limited to a total of six individuals consisting of
three or four "corporate" personnel and two or three "plant" per-
sonnel. Corporate personnel would include program managers,
process designers, public affairs specialists, resource management
specialists, risk/safety specialists, etc. Plant personnel would in-
clude plant managers, shift engineers, plant safety personnel, labo-
ratory personnel, etc. All interns will be required to be fluent in
English. All interns would first receive approximately five days of
orientation training at the CDTF located in the Edgewood Area of
Aberdeen Proving Ground. A U.S. "mentor" (U.S. Army Chemical
Materiel Destruction Agency or Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization employee) would then be assigned to guide and
assist the Russian intern. Corporate personnel would spend the ma-
jority of their time at Edgewood with short trips to the JACADS

68-354 O— 93-

and the TOCDF. Plant personnel would spend the majority of their
time at either JACADS or TOCDF with short trips to Edgewood.

The focus of the corporate personnel training will be on the
macro or "big-picture" issues associated with managing a CW de-
struction program on a national scale. Key issues which would be
discussed include technology selection and development, program
management, resource allocation and management, environmental
protection, Government and legislative coordination and liaison,
public interaction, risk and hazard analysis and mitigation.

The training for plant personnel would be more focused on the
construction, start-up and operation of a CW destruction facility.
Key topics would include site management, quality assurance/qual-
ity control procedures, operations and maintenance scheduling and
management, environmental compliance, chemical agent monitor-
ing, and personnel training.

The key aspect about the Familiarization Program is that the
U.S. is not attempting to force the U.S. approach to CW destruction
on the Russians. Rather, we are attempting to provide the Russians
with insight to the U.S. experiences and management techniques
which they can in turn, apply to their program as appropriate.

Question. In your opinion, should the United States offer to build
a demilitarization facility for the Russians? And how much would
such a facility cost?

Answer. Not at this time. Even if we try to build the facility, the
siting issues remain a problem. The Russians are experiencing
public opposition to siting of the facilities. If the U.S. Government
builds a demilitarization facility for the Russians, and if the facility
is not operated correctly or is mismanaged and a release of agent
occurs, a difficult situation will exist. The accusations from one
side may be the design was faulty; and from the other side that the
operations were not done in accordance with the design of the
plant.

Question. Have the Russians selected a technology? If so, what
and how does it differ from the United States' technology?

Answer. No. The plan, which was submitted to the Supreme
Soviet (unsatisfactorily) in December 1992, specified three technol-
ogies for three sites; however. Academician Kuntsevich stated in
February 1993 "these were only examples."

Question. Are other countries destroying chemical agents? If so,
by whom and how? Also, are these countries' efforts tied to contin-
ued U.S. chemical weapon destruction?

Answer. Chemical weapons destruction programs are currently
underway in Germany, Italy, and Iraq (under the auspices of the
United Nations Special Commission). In addition, Canada and the
United Kingdom have completed chemical weapons destruction
programs; France and Japan are reportedly developing methods to
destroy chemical weapons. These programs deal primarily with old
and recovered weaspons — and not deterrent stockpiles as in the
case of the United States or Russia. In Germany, Iraq, Canada, and
the United Kingdom, mustard agent was, or is, destroyed by direct
incineration; in Italy, because the mustard was mixed with an ar-
senical compound, the mustard agent is chemically neutralized and
the resulting reaction mass is mixed (stabilized) with concrete. In

Canada, Iraq and the United Kingdom, nerve agents were chemi-
cally neutralized.

The U.S. chemical weapons destruction program is based on
Public Laws 99-145 (unitary stockpile) and 102-484 (binary stock-
pile, non-stockpile CW materiel and former chemical weapons pro-
duction facilities) and is not predicated on the destruction of chemi-
cal weapons in other countries.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Mrs. Bentley.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Fazio:]

HAMILTON AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

Question. How do you intend to award the contract to clean up
the landfill at Hamilton Air Force Base in Novato, California?

Please outline the milestones through award, particularly any
Small Business Administration participation and/or 8-A require-
ments to be imposed on the project.

Answer. Currently, the award is scheduled to be accomplished
using competitive 8-A contracting procedures in accordance with
previous agreements with the Small Business Administration
(SBA).

As background, an agreement to set aside this project for small
business was initially made by the Omaha District to the SBA
when this project was nearly half its current estimated cost. Criti-
cal execution goals and technical complexity of landfill No. 26 ef-
fluent treatment plant required splitting the project procurement
into two phases for construction. The Phase 1 treatment plant was
competitively bid and is under construction. The Phase 2 landfill
cap construction was set aside for small business to honor the pre-
vious commitment to the SBA. A change and expansion in the SBA
program now requires that this procurement be competitive 8-A
due to the project's higher estimated construction cost.

We are continuing to review our procurement strategy for ac-
complishing Phase II construction. In this regard, we have sched-
uled a comprehensive review of our procurement strategies on May
11 and 12 and further discussions with state regulatory agencies
and the New Hamilton Partners (NHP). Information on changes in
the procurement strategy and schedules based on these reviews
will be provided to the committee on May 24, 1993.

The current design and procurement schedule in 1993 is as fol-
lows:

Activity Sclieduled Actual

60 percent design review April 9 April 8-9

Draft final design submission May 10

On-board review May 11-12

Final design submission June 14

Advertise August 2

Open bids September 7

Award September 21

Question. Currently, the purchaser of Hamilton Air Force Base is
scheduled to close on phase I of the project in July 1993. How will
the Army be able to assure the purchaser that by the time of this
closing:

A. the clean-up contract will be awarded by the Army in FY
1993;

B. the clean-up will be completed by October 1994.

Answer A. We are fully aware of the July 1993 Phase I closing
date and will take all reasonable measures to assure an award in
FY 1993. The Army Corps of Engineers is fully committed to a Sep-
tember 1993 award date and is intensively managing all aspects of
the procurement schedule. We are continuing to review the pro
curement strategy to advance the contract award.

Answer B. As stated, the Army wants to complete the clean-up
at the earliest possible date. Based on the original design, February
1995 was the estimated date of construction completion provided
earlier to the NHP. It is our intention to specify a minimum
achievable construction period for this project. Since the design is
still ongoing, our best estimate of this minimum period will not be
available until after the May 11-12 review of the 90 percent design.
The minimum construction period will be discussed at this meet-
ing. The estimated construction period will be provided to the com-
mittee as soon as it is clearly established.

Question. What specific requirements can the Army impose in
the procurement process to expedite the clean-up schedule to meet
the October 1994 completion requirement of the purchaser, and
how can the Army enforce the contract to the satisfaction of the
purchaser?

Answer. The Army is totally committed and focused to achieve
the earliest possible completion date. However, because the design
is not yet complete, it may not be possible to guarantee an October
1994 completion date. Additionally, this project also entails consid-
erable involvement by state and local regulators which could also
complicate the completion schedule.

With regard to enforcing a Phase II construction contract to the
purchaser's satisfaction, we have offered to implement the author-
ity under section 9099(g) to involve the purchaser directly in the
management of such contract. We remain open to such a concept
and, moreover, as discussed are continuing to reevaluate the entire
procurement plan for Phase II of the clean-up.

Question. The FY 1993 Defense Appropriations bill provided sole
source procurement authority to the Army for the cleanup of the
landfill. This provision was included in the bill to ensure that the
clean-up would be accomplished in a timely manner, to ensure that
redevelopment of the base would be achieved in accordance with
private sector financing requirements for the projects, and to
ensure that the reimbursement rights, currently worth approxi-
mately $20 million, would not be exercised by the purchaser. Why
has the Army not utilized Congress' direction to use the sole source
procurement authority for the clean-up?

Answer. To date, the Army has not elected to use this discretion-
ary authority because we believe that we are making satisfactory
progress on the overall clean-up effort. We are continuing to evalu-
ate, however, whether use of this authority would provide for effi-

ciencies in completing the clean-up. Secondly, we will discuss this
at our overall procurement review on May 11th and 12th 1993.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Fazio:]

[Clerk's note. — Questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Lewis:]

GEORGE AFB — FT. IRWIN

Question. Why hasn't that study been completed as promised?
What do you anticipate that it will recommend as the location for
the NTC airhead and the rotary-wing operations?

Answer. Since the original Analysis of Alternatives Study (AAS)
was completed and submitted for Major Command (MACOM)
review, two developments required additional analysis. First, the
U.S. Navy announced planned development of an airfield at Twen-
tynine Palms, CA. In Apr. 93, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center (MCAGCC) confirmed Twentynine Palms was not construct-
ing a military airfield. Secondly, San Bernardino County has tenta-
tively proposed to donate Barstow-Daggett Airfield to the Army. In
light of these developments, NTC was asked to prepare a revised
Economic Analysis (EA) to compare the final five (5) proposed air-
head sites. The EA is nearing completion. NTC has recommended
construction of Barstow-Daggett provided the airfield is donated by
San Bernardino. Final selection, however, will not be determined
until the Department of the Army staff has reviewed the alterna-
tives to include the MACOM-preferred alternative.

Question. Why were you unable to reach a negotiated interim use
lease with the Air Force? Are you currently in negotiations for
that purpose?

Answer. The Air Force decided an interim use permit was not a
sufficient instrument to enable the Army to occupy the facilities at
George AFB. This decision required an agreement between the
Army and the Air Force to complete a permit, an operating agree-
ment, and Air Force National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation. The Army completed an environmental assessment
on 31 Dec. 92. The Air force continues to complete the required en-
vironmental documentation. Negotiations between the Army and
the Air Force continue.

Question. With regard to the cost estimates for the Barstow-Dag-
gett option, were you aware that the County of San Bernardino has
tentatively agreed to donate the current facility thus reducing your
estimated costs by between $12-$ 15 Million?

Answer. Yes, discussions with San Bernardino County continue.

Question. What are the annual operating costs associated with
the current rotary-wing operations at Barstow-Daggett Airfield?

Answer. The annual operation costs of rotary-wing operations at
Barstow-Daggett is $799,000.

Question. What were the annual operating costs of the NTC air-
head when it was operated at Norton AFB? What will you spend in
FY 94 to transport the approximately 60,000 troops and the various
training rotations to Fort Irwin?

Answer. Two major costs were incurred at both Norton and
McCarran International; commercial charter costs and NTC sup-

100

port costs. Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) pays
the commercial charter costs. Commercial carrier costs remain
fairly constant between then-Norton AFB and the current airhead
at McCarran International Airport. MTMC charter costs at Norton
AFB were $15 Million. Projected charter costs for FY 94 remains at
$15 Million. NTC support costs for Norton AFB was $0.7 Million.
Projected NTC support costs for FY 94 is $1.33 Million.

Question. Is $1.5 Million still an accurate estimate of the annual
costs if a le£ise at George could be arranged?

Answer. $1.5 Million was the rough order of magnitude estimate
used to establish projected operating costs in preliminary negotia-
tions with local officials. The estimate has been revised to $1.7 Mil-
lion with some recurring costs (maintenance, utilities, garbage, haz-
ardous waste removal, etc.) to be determined.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Lewis.]

Thursday, April 29, 1993.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

WITNESSES

REAR ADMIRAL JACK E. BUFFINGTON, CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS, U.S.
NAVY, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

BRIGADIER GENERAL CLAUDE W. REINKE, U.S. MARINE CORPS, DIREC-
TOR, FACILITIES AND SERVICES DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Hefner. The Committee will come to order.

Good morning, gentlemen. Today we will review the fiscal year
1994 program for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Our witnesses
are Rear Admiral Jack Buffington, Commander of the Naval Fa-
cilities Engineering Command, and Brigadier General Claude
Reinke, Director of the Facilities and Services Division.

Gentlemen, we want to thank you for appearing; and your pre-
pared statements will be entered in full as a part of the record.
You can proceed as you see fit. Admiral, I will start with you.

Statement of Rear Admiral Jack E. Buffington

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and Members of
the committee, it is a real honor to be here today to testify before
you on the MILCON and Family Housing program and our BRAC
programs.

Let the record show that while Claude is from Texas and I am
from Oklahoma, our relatives are all from North Carolina, sir.

Mr. Hefner. I guess that gives us a leg up already.

Admiral Buffington. Sir, we have a MILCON request this year
of $655 million.

Mr. Hefner. That is okay, we will grant that. Since I am directly
responsible for keeping all the bases open in North Carolina, which
I am taking full credit for, it is sure good to have you.

I am sorry, I didn't mean to add a little levity here. As soon as
my colleague from Maryland gets seated, we will begin.

Mr. HoYER. How are you?

Admiral Buffington. Just fine, sir.

Mr. HoYER. I am just moving myself up in this committee so I
can see you.

Admiral Buffington. Certainly.

Mr. HoYER. Well, I am sorry I interrupted your meeting, Mr.
Chairman.

I apologize for that, sir.

Admiral Buffington. We requested, about $838 million last
year, but there were some changes with what was actually appro-

(101)

102

priated, about $369 million. We had — several other things came in,
like the Philippine withdrawal and a few other changes, but this
year we are requesting about $655 million.

Now, one of the big changes in our request is for environmental
and safety, one of our big issues. About 25 percent of our budget
this year is for upgrading wastewater sewage treatment plants,
hazardous waste storage facilities and fire protection facilities.

Also, the other thing is quality of life. About 25 percent of our
budget is for quality of life this year.

We have some fences to mend here for over the years. We had
some people in our last secretariat. Under Secretary Howard, Ms.
Pope, Ms. Drew, and Admiral Kelso who supported quality of life a
great deal.

For years and years in the Navy, if it didn't float or didn't fly,
we didn't need it; and we have not taken good care of our people.
And so we recognize that, and we are going to try to do better at
that in the future; and that is why 25 percent of our budget is for
quality-of-life projects.

The remainder then would be going to mission-essential projects,
some replacements, modernization, and primarily, the Philippine
withdrawal to Guam.

Now, in Family Housing, we are asking for $1.2 billion this year,
which is about a 19 percent increase. We have a $2.1 billion back-
log here, and we are going to work hard in the future to take care
of the people. We know it will be a smaller Navy, but we want to
take care of the people we have and we want it to be a better
Navy.

Down in the base closure and realignment, we are not real happy
about leaving any of these places we have to leave, but our budget
six years ago, in 1988, in 1993 dollars was $125 billion. Next year, it
looks like it will be about $70 billion, and maybe less than that.
That is a 45 percent reduction in a period of six years, and unfortu-
nately, we are going to have to close some bases to keep up with
that or else we will have a Navy with no ships and no airplanes
and a whole lot of bases to take care of.

We are asking for $18 million overseas. We have a couple of
child development centers, one in Rota, Spain, and another at Si-
gonella, Sicily. We have some work on some mess halls and BEQ's
in Naples.

We are asking also for about $15 million for some 81 housing
units that we can get at a really good bargain. We need those units
badly, and this is the last year we have the option to buy it or else
the prices will go up considerably. The original agreement allows
us to buy them for considerably less than if we bought them on the
open market.

Overseas, we only have about 19 Navy bases overseas, and we
have reduced around the Mediterranean. We don't anticipate re-
ducing any more major bases. The overseas bases, in the last few
years have gone down 50 percent in manning. The bases that are
in the Mediterranean are extremely important because of Bosnia
and everything else going on over in the Middle East and Eastern
Europe.

We are looking forward to answering your questions, and I will
let Claude here have a say for the Marine Corps.

103

Mr. Hefner. General, I am afraid I mispronounced your name.
General Reinke. It is Reinke.

Mr. Hefner. Reinke, okay. I am sorry I mispronounced your
name.
General Reinke. That is fine, sir.

Statement of Brigadier General Claude W. Reinke

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. I
would like to first of all thank you for your past support for the
facilities you have provided the Marine Corps, and the Marine
Corps has benefited greatly from them.

This year, the Marine Corps military construction program is
$108 million and family housing is $23.7 million, which constitute
approximately 1.3 and 1.5 percent of our total budget.

These funds finance everything from new construction, revital-
ization to support our operational requirements, health and safety,
environmental concerns, as well as quality of life. Our request,
however, only partially satisfies the many needs we have in the
base Marine Corps.

Our fiscal year 1994 budget is significantly higher than our fiscal
year 1993 budget, but you have to remember that the fiscal year
1993 budget was abnormally low due to military construction pause
that was placed on us. As a matter of fact, our overall MILCON
budget has steadily declined since the late 1980s.

This reduction in MILCON funding should not be interpreted as
a declining need for facilities, rather as the result of a very diffi-
cult budget decision affecting the keen competition for scarce re-
sources. We face many challenges in our current resource-con-
strained environment, one of which is trying to maintain a bal-
anced program.

As you know, we find more and more of our MILCON being de-
voted to environmental projects at the expense of quality of life
and operation and training. We try to maintain a balanced pro-
gram, but it is very, very difficult.

We are going to have base closure challenges this year. We do
support the Secretary's recommendations to the Commission, and
we know we are going to have some problems carrying those out,
but we will work through those issues as we come to them.

In summary, I would like to emphasize our appreciation for your
continued support; and I would say that our military construction
and family housing budget for 1994 is austere, but it does reflect
our best assessment of the minimum requirements we need to do
the job you ask us to do.

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, General Reinke.

[Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Jack E. Buffington fol-
lows:]

104

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL
RELEASED BY THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

STATEMENT OF
REAR ADMIRAL JACK E. BUFFINGTON, CEC, U.S. NAVY

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

OF THE

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

THE FISCAL YEAR 1994

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY

APRIL 29 1993

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL
RELEASED BY THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

105

REAR ADMIRAL JACK E. BUFFINGTON
CrVIL ENGINEER CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY

Rear Admiral Jack E. Buffmgton, CEC. USN, a native of Westville,
Okla., and a graduate of the University of Arkansas in civil engineer-
ing, was commissioned in February 1962. He assumed duty as Com-
mander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Chief of Civil
Engineers on Sept. 18, 1992.

RADM Buffington's first assignment was in public works at the New
York Naval Shipyard. Following a tour as Aide and Flag Lieutenant to
Director, Bureau of Yards and Docks, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, he reported
to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Nine, serving as Company Commander on Okinawa, on a
detail in Alaska, and Officer in Charge of Seabee Team 0906 in Vietnam. RADM Buffmgton served
in the Seabee Division at the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and later at Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Alexandria, Va.

Following postgraduate school at Georgia Tech, RADM Buffington reported to Public Works Center
Subic Bay, Philippines, as Planning Officer. His next assignment was Executive Officer of Naval
Mobile Construction Battalion Four in Okinawa and in Rota, Spain, followed by a tour as Operations
Officer at PWC Subic.

RADM Buffington's next duty station was Assistant Resident Officer in Charge of Construction,
New Orleans, followed by duty at the Armed Forces Staff College, Chief of Naval Operations Equal
Opportunity Task Force, and Resident Officer and later Officer in Charge of Construction, Bethesda.
Following that, RADM Buffington became Commanding Officer of Naval Mobile Construction
Battalion One. While Commanding Officer, NMCB One won Best of Type and the Peltier Award
as the top Seabee battalion in the Navy and led all battalions in retention, winning the Commander
in Chief, Atlantic Fleet Golden Anchor Award. RADM Buffington's next tour was Public Works
Officer at the Naval Academy followed by duty as Commander, Naval Construction Battalions, U.S.
AUantic Fleet. As COMCBLANT, RADM Buffington was in charge of Seabees working in Europe,
Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. RADM Buffmgton was Commanding Officer, Navy
Public Works Center, Norfolk, Va., and then Director, Shore Activities Division (OP-44), Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics). In 1990, he reported as Commander, Pacific Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, and Commander, Naval Construction Battalions, U.S. Pacific
Fleet. He was promoted to rear admiral (upper half) Oct. 1, 1991.

RADM Buffington's decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with
three gold stars. Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal with two gold stars, Navy
Achievement Medal, Vietnamese Medal of Merit Second Qass, and various other personal
campaign and service medals.

RADM Buffington is the son of Ernest and Maxine Buffington of Wesrville, Okla., and is married
to the former Robin Bush of Lakeland, Fla. They have two daughters: Shawn, who is married to
Captain Kurt Lohrmann, USMC, and Kelly, who is married to Specialist Brian Corey, USA.

106

Mr. Chairman, I am Rear Admiral Jack E. Buffington,
Conunander of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. I
appreciate the opportunity to represent the Secretary of the Navy
and the Chief of Naval Operations in reviewing the Fiscal Year
1994 budget submission for Military Construction (MCON) and
Faunily Housing, Navy, and the Navy's portion of the Base Closure
budget with you. Brigadier General Claude W. Reinke, United
State Marine Corps, will review the Marine Corps' portion of the
request .

First, I would like to thank you for the continued support
this Committee provides the Navy's Military Construction and
Family Housing programs. In the past five years, your Committee
has supported funding levels commensurate with, or above, our
budget requests. This support has enabled us to make progress in
improving the Quality of Life for our sailors and marines, and
correcting critical facility deficiencies.

Our Military Construction request this year is lower than
our fiscal year 1993 amended request, but higher than the fiscal
year 1993 enacted appropriations. However, the fiscal years'
1993 and 1994 requests cannot be directly compared, inasmuch as
the fiscal year 1993 request included the transfer of $551.3
million in repair and minor construction funds from the
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account to the MILCON account,
which was denied. The fiscal year 1993 request also reflected
the MILCON "pause", which severely limited the amount of

107

construction funding requested.

Our Family Housing request is nineteen percent higher than
the amended fiscal year 1993 request. This increase reflects
Navy leadership's commitment to its premier Quality of Life
program, in the development and support of the Navy's
"Neighborhoods of Excellence" program.

The Navy is currently implementing two domestic base closure
and realignment authorizations. Under the 1988 authority, the
Navy is closing six installations and realigning one. The 1991
Commission recommended closing 16 Navy installations and
realigning 18 activities. Included in the Secretary of Defense's

1993 Base Closure and Realignment recommendations were 60 active
Navy and 52 Navy and Marine Corps reserve installations, and six
changes to the 1991 BRAC Commission recommendations.

This budget request reflects the Navy's commitment to
provide essential quality facilities within this austere fiscal
environment. Additionally, it should be noted that the Navy's
Military Construction, Family Housing and Base Closure budgets
were prepared independent of the 1993 Base closure and
Realignment recommendations. Accordingly, the Navy's fiscal year

1994 funding requirements may have to be reassessed based on the
final resolution of the 1993 Base Closure and Realignment
recommendations .

108

Military Construction. Naw fMCON)

The fiscal year 1994 budget request for Military Construction,
Navy is $655.1 million. As mentioned above, this requested
amount is lower than our fiscal year 1993 amended request of
$838.8 million, but it is significantly higher than the enacted
appropriations of $368.9 million. The following table compares
the fiscal year 1994 budget request to the fiscal year 1993
amended request:

MILCON Request Summary
(Millions of Dollars)

FY 1993 ABS FY 1994

Conventional MILCON $287.5 $655.1

Real Property Repair 551.3 0 i/
& Minor Construction

Total Request $838.8 $655.1

1/ Funds requested in Operation and Maintenance accounts

He have made a concentrated effort to ensure that within the
funds available, our budget request provides funding for
essential Mission Support and Quality of Life projects, and non-
deferrable Environmental and Safety Compliance projects necessary
to support our operating forces. It reflects a consistent
increase in support of Quality of Life projects, such as
construction and modernization of bachelor quarters, while
maintaining a balanced funding of Mission Support and
Environmental and Safety Compliance projects. The Navy
anticipates increased emphasis on deferred replacement and
modernization projects in future budget requests.

109

The Navy's Military Construction request includes 104
projects, compared to 39 requested in fiscal year 1993, and
reflects a deliberate approach to fund those requirements that
can not be deferred. Each of the requested projects meets one or
more of the following program criteria:

CRITERIA

Environmental and Safety Compliance

Quality of Life

Mission Support

Philippine Withdrawal to Guam

Treaty

P&D and UMC

No.

PROJECTS

fSM^

149

148

211

104

655

As indicated in the table above, the majority of the Navy's
request is for Environmental and Safety Compliance, Quality of
Life, and Mission Support, which includes both new requirements
and replacement and modernization projects.

The $149 million requested for Environmental and Safety
Compliance projects includes construction or upgrades to 11
sanitary and wastewater treatment systems, 4 hazardous waste
storage and handling facilities and 5 fire protection upgrades.
These projects will correct existing violations of environmental
and safety laws, regulations and codes.

To improve the Quality of Life for our sailors and marines,
this budget requests $148.3 million for the construction of seven
barracks, providing 2822 new living quarters, and 9 new Child
Development Centers, and modernization of 5 existing barracks.
Quality of Life projects account for nearly one quarter of the
Navy's fiscal year 1994 Military Construction request, compared
to only 15 percent of recent years' programs.

We have requested $141.4 million for facility replacement,
modernization and improvements, as part of our Environmental and
Safety Compliance, Quality of Life, Mission Support and
Philippine withdrawal categories. This equates to approximately
one quarter of our Military Construction budget. The Navy
anticipates placing renewed emphasis on the replacement and
modernization of our aging shore establishment in future budgets.
Efficient facilities that enhance productivity, improve quality
of life in the workplace and reduce the cost of ownership will be
essential as budget, personnel and force structure are reduced.

The fiscal year 1993 request for Navy Military Construction
overseas projects was $12.5 million. I respectfully request that
you give favorable consideration to our somewhat larger, but
critical, $18.1 million request this year. This year's overseas
program includes three Quality of Life projects: dining and
recreational facilities for Naval Support Activity, Naples,
Italy; and Child Development Centers at Naval Station, ,Rota,
Spain and Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Italy.

Ill

Family Housing

The Department of the Navy's total fiscal year 1994 budget
request for family housing is $1,208 million. This 19 percent
growth in family housing over our fiscal year 1993 request
reflects Navy leadership's commitment to its premier Quality of
Life issue by providing the necessary resources for Navy's
"Neighborhoods of Excellence" program. This program will upgrade
our aging inventory; provide quality customer services to our
families; and acquire a limited number of new homes in keeping
with our projected force level. The following table summarizes
our fiscal year 1994 request in comparison to the fiscal year
1993 amended budget:

Family Housing Request Summary
(Millions of Dollars)

New Construction
Improvements
Planning and Design
Family Housing Support
Total

The fiscal year 1994 request provides for 3,309 new and
replacement homes at six locations. The new homes are critical
to support our families stationed in areas where suitable housing
in the local community is not available. Over one-half of the
new construction request will replace homes that are
deteriorated, structurally unsound, and not economical to

FY 1993 ABS

FY 1994

$108.5

$160.1

198.3

190.7

14.2

22.9

696.7

835.1

$1,017.2

$1,208.8

112

revitalize. Also included in this request are three support
facilities that provide space to warehouse appliances, store and
distribute self-help materials, and provide a convenient place
for family/neighborhood activities.

This request includes $190.7 million for the Improvements
program to revitalize our aging homes and bring them up to
contemporary standards; comparable to those found in the local
community. This $59.8 million increase over the enacted fiscal
year 1993 appropriation includes funds to reduce our $2.1 billion
backlog. In keeping with the Neighborhoods of Excellence
concept, our fiscal year 1994 request emphasizes whole
neighborhood revitalization projects where all required
improvements and repairs in a housing area are done concurrently.

Our leasing request of $113.3 million supports our ongoing
domestic build-to-lease projects and the foreign leasing program.
The Navy has 1485 build-to-lease units occupied at five
locations: Earle, New Jersey (300) ; Norfolk, Virginia (300) ;
Mayport, Florida (200) ; Woodbridge, Virginia (600) ; and Staten
Island, New York (85). Additionally, 2,529 units are under
construction at five locations: 915 at Staten Island, New York;
300 at Port Hueneme, California; 600 at MCAGCC Twenty-nine Palms,
California; 300 at NAS Pensacola, Florida; and 414 units of a
joint Navy/Air Force 1,242 unit project in Prince George's
County, Maryland.

113

Our Operation and Maintenance request of $721.7 million
includes $3 66.1 million for operations and utilities and $355.6
million for maintenance. The increase in the operations
accounts, over our fiscal year 1993 request, will assist families
in finding affordable housing on the economy by enhancing housing
referral services through expanded office hours, automated
housing/neighborhood listings and information, and showing
services. The increase in the maintenance account will allow for
an expanded self-help program, service calls performed evenings
and weekends and minor repairs to reduce the repair backlog.

Base Closure

The Navy is currently implementing two domestic base closure
and realignment authorizations: (1) the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (PL 100-526) ,
referred to as "BRAC 88"; and (2) the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510). The BRAC 1990 Act
established three "rounds" of base closure nominations in 1991,
1993, and 1995. Under BRAC 88, the Navy is closing six
installations and realigning one. As a result of the 1991
recommendations, referred to as "BRAC 91", the Navy is closing 16
installations and realigning 18 activities. With one exception,
the realignment actions are tied to Navy's lab consolidation
initiative.

Our base closure implementation plans are on schedule to
meet or precede the six-year closure deadline, with the exception

114

of some environmental restoration actions. The following is a
partial schedule of our BRAC 91 closure and realignment actions:

HAS Chase Field, TX Ceased mission September 1992

Deactivation closure 1 February 1993

CBC Davisville, RI Closure fiscal year 1994

NS Long Beach, CA Cease mission fiscal year 1996

NAS Midway Drawdown fiscal year 1992

HAS Moffett, CA Cease mission fiscal year 1994

NS/NSY Philadelphia, PA Cease mission fiscal year 1996

NS Sand Point, WA Cease mission fiscal year 1995

MCAS Tustin, CA Cease mission mid fiscal year 1997

The Navy is establishing action offices, within existing
organizational structures, to most effectively execute base
closure actions. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Installations and Environment) , the Chief of Naval Operations
and the Marine Corps Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations and
Logistics provide policy and oversight. The Naval Facilities
Engineering Command provides design, construction, environmental
studies and cleanup, real estate disposal actions, and serves as
caretaker for operationally closed bases. Finally, the base
commanders of affected installations plan, budget, and execute
the closures or realignments.

The Navy's portion of the fiscal year 1994 domestic base
closure request is $906.2 million for BRAC 91. No funding is
requested for BRAC 88 actions. Of these amounts, approximately

115

$593.4 million are for conventional military construction and
family housing projects. The following table illustrates the
funding profiles and total costs for fiscal years 1990 through
1997.

ONE TIME COSTS
NET SAVINGS

Base Closure 1988

(Millions of

Dollars)

FY90 FY91

FY92

FY93

FY94

FY95

$79 $70

-8 -26

$71 $44

$36

-77

$-41

$97
-66
$31

-81

$-81

-77

$-77

Base Closure 1991

ONE TIME COSTS
OTHER APPROPS
SAVINGS

(Mi

llions

of Dollars)

FY92

FY93

FY94 FY95

FY96

FY97

$68

$352

$906 $249

$-452

$-47

-0-

-0- -0-

-0-

-99

-136

-302 -490

-564

-574

$216

$604 $-241

$-1016

$-621

Approximately one-third of the Navy's $593 million BRAC 91
fiscal year 1994 construction requirement results from the
closure of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin, California.
$228 million is requested to fund construction of facilities at
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twenty-nine Palms.
However, as indicated above, if the BRAC 93 recommendations are
approved, these construction requirements would be reassessed.

Environmental efforts are a significant part of the
execution of base closure actions, especially under the BRAC 1990
authority. As part of the Navy's ongoing environmental

116

management efforts, more than 160 sites requiring remedial action
have been identified. Additionally, four of the BRAC 91 closure
installations are included on the National Priorities List, and
cleanup of these installations is expected to extend beyond the
six-year closure window. The Navy is continuing to coordinate
with DOD, federal, state and local regulatory agencies to
expedite our restoration efforts.

In accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990, on March 12, 1993, the Secretary of Defense
recommended closure of 31, and realignment of 12, major domestic
installations. Additionally, the Secretary recommended closure,
realignment, disestablishment or relocation of another 122
smaller bases and activities.

Included in the 1993 recommendation was the closure,
realignment or disestablishment of 60 active Navy and 52 Navy and
Marine Corps reserve installations, and six changes to the 1991
BRAC Commission recommendations. In anticipation of 1993
closures, realignments and disestablishments, referred to as
"BRAC 93", a legislative contingency account has been included in
the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations request for $1,200
million to initiate implementation of BRAC 93 closure actions.
The Navy's portion of this contingency account in fiscal year
1994 is $759 million. The following table lists the recommended
Navy closure and realignment candidates:

117

Major Base Closures

Naval Station Mobile, Alabama

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California

Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, California

Naval Air Station Alameda, California

Naval Aviation Depot Alameda, California

Naval Hospital Oakland, California

Naval Station Treasure Island, San Francisco, California

Naval Supply Center Oakland, California

Naval Training Center San Diego, California

Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Florida

Naval Aviation Depot Pensacola, Florida

Naval Training Center Orlando, Florida

Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii

Naval Air Station Glenview, Illinois

Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center, St. Inigoes,

Maryland
Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi
Naval Air Station South Weymouth, Massachusetts
Naval Station Staten Island, New York •
Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Charleston Naval Shipyard, South Carolina
Naval Station Charleston, South Carolina
Naval Air Station Dallas, Texas
Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk, Virginia

118

Major Base Realignments

Naval Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut
Naval Surface Warfare Center (Dahlgren) White Oak

Detachment, White Oak, Maryland
1st Marine Corps District, Garden City, New York
Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island
Naval Air Station Memphis, Tennessee

Smaller Base Closures. Realignments.
Disestablishments or Relocations

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Western Engineering

Field Division, San Bruno, California
Planning, Estimating, Repair and Alterations (Surface)

Pacific, San Francisco, California
Public Works Center San Francisco, California
Naval Electronic Security System Engineering Center,

Washington, D.C.
Naval Hospital Orlando, Florida
Naval Supply Center Pensacola, Florida ■
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Carderock, Annapolis

Detachment, Annapolis, Maryland
Navy Radio Transmission Facility, Annapolis, Maryland
Sea Automated Data Systems Activity, Indian Head, Maryland
Naval Air Facility Detroit, Michigan
Naval Air Facility, Midway Island

119

Submarine Maintenance, Engineering, Planning and

Procurement, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Naval Air Warfare Center - Aircraft Division, Trenton, New

Jersey
DOD Family Housing Office, Niagara Falls, New York
Naval Air Technical Services Facility, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania
Planning, Estimating, Repair and Alterations (Surface)

Atlantic (HQ) , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center, Charleston,

South Carolina
Naval Hospital Charleston, South Carolina
Naval Supply Center Charleston, South Carolina
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Port Hueneme, Virginia Beach

Detachment, Virginia Beach, Virginia
Navy Radio Transmission Facility, Driver, Virginia
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Norfolk Detachment, Norfolk,

Virginia
Planning, Estimating, Repair and Alterations (Surface)

Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia
Planning, Estimating, Repair and Alterations (CV) ,

Bremerton, Washington

Navy National Capital Region (NCR) Activities

Security Group Command, Security Group Station, and Security

Group Detachment, Potomac, Washington, DC
Bureau of Navy Personnel, Arlington, Virginia (including the

120

Office of Military Manpower Management, Arlington,

Virginia)
Naval Air Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia
Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia
Naval Supply Systems Command, Arlington, Virginia (including

Defense Printing Office, Alexandria, Virginia and Food

Systems Office, Arlington, Virginia)
Naval Recruiting Command, Arlington, Virginia
Tactical Support Office, Arlington, Virginia

Navy/Marine Corps Reserve Activities

Naval Reserve Centers at:

Gadsden, Alabama
Montgomery, Alabama
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Pacific Grove, California
Macon, Georgia
Terre Haute, Indiana
Hutchinson, Kansas
Monroe, Louisiana
New Bedford, Massachusetts

ttsfield, Massachusetts
Joplin, Missouri
St. Joseph, Missouri

121

Great Falls, Montana
Missoula, Montana
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Jamestown, New York
Poughkeepsie, New York
Altoona , Pennsylvania
Kingsport, Tennessee
Memphis, Tennessee
Ogden , Utah
Staunton, Virginia
Parkersburg, West Virginia

Naval Reserve Facilities at:

Alexandria, Louisiana
Midland, Texas

Navy/Marine Corps Reserve Centers at:

Fort Wayne, Indiana
Bi 1 1 ings , Montana
Abilene, Texas

122

Readiness Command Regions at:

Olathe, Kansas (Region 18)
Scotia, New York (Region 2)
Ravenna, Ohio (Region 5)

POD Data Center Consolidation

Facilities Systems Office, Port Hueneme, California
Fleet Industrial Support Center, San Diego, California
Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake,

California
Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Point Mugu,

California
Naval Command Control & Ocean Surveillance Center, San

Diego, California
Navy Regional Data Automation Center, San Francisco,

California
Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, San Diego,

California
Bureau of Naval Personnel, Washington, DC

Naval Computer & Telecommunications Station, Washington, DC
Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida
Naval Air Station, Mayport, Florida
Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station Pensacola,

Florida
Trident Refit Facility, Kings Bay, Georgia

123

Naval Computer & Telecommunications Area Master Station,

EASTPAC Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Enlisted Personnel Management Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
Naval Computer & Telecommunications Station, New Orleans,

Louisiana
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River,

Maryland
Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Naval Supply Center, Charleston, South Carolina
Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia
Naval Computer & Telecommunications Area Master Station,

Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia
Navy Data Automation Facility, Corpus Christi, Texas
Navy Recruiting Command, Arlington, Virginia
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington
Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound, Washington
Trident Refit Facility, Bangor, Washington

In addition to domestic base closure actions, the Navy
continues to pursue overseas closure and realignment actions.
Our overseas base structure is relatively small, with only 19
bases of any significant size. Each of these bases is linked to
forward deployment of Fleet and Marine Corps units. Since the
requirement for such forward deployment is anticipated to
continue, any overseas base structure changes would generally be

124

tied to changing needs of the Fleet or specific changes in
international relations. Since 1990, the Navy has begun actions
to return (close) six overseas bases (25 sites) , including Naval
Support Activity (NSA) in Holy Loch, United Kingdom, and the
Subic Bay/Cubi Point complex in the Philippines. Additionally,
we are reducing (realigning) three other bases in response to
such things as improved communications technology.

Base closure and realignment actions provide the Navy the
opportunity to reduce facility costs, concurrent with force
structure draw-down, and in keeping with the fiscal realities
with which we are faced. Along with these benefits, however,
come the potential negative impacts on our sailors and marines,
their families, our civilian employees and the neighboring
communities. As we progress through the base closure process we
are striving to remain sensitive to these negative impacts to
ensure we do everything possible to minimize them.

125

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the request before you includes those facility
requirements considered essential in fiscal year 1994,
commensurate with force structure reductions, and vital quality
of life facility initiatives. We urge your favorable
consideration of this request.

I will be pleased to answer questions you and the

subcommittee members may have.

126

Mr. Hefner. I have quite a few questions, but I am going to wait
until the end and then decide whether I want to ask the questions
or ask them for the record.

I know Members are very busy. This is a very important hearing,
and at this time I will yield five minutes to the gentlelady from
Nevada, Mrs. Vucanovich.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
may submit some questions for the record, but there are e couple
of things I wanted to ask Admiral Buffington.

FALLON NAVAL AIR STATION, NEVADA

You know that I represent Fallon Naval Air Station, and I am
sure you are aware about the Dixie Valley buy-out and the activi-
ties that went on there that have been going on there for a long
time.

I think the Navy has been wonderful. They bought out a lot of
properties. But it is my understanding that we still have three
owners who were interested in selling their land, and I understand
the Navy is interested in that but needs an appropriation.

Can you tell me what the Navy would need or what your plans
are in relation to those three?

Admiral Buffington. I can't tell you exactly what that is. I can
get that for you, but we are interested in buying those last three
parcels; and I will get that information for you.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Fine. It is key to my State to have Fallon
doing as well as it is, and it certainly is a good reason, but we need
to satisfy these people if we can.

Let me just talk about the Base Closure Commission. In deciding
which bases will ultimately shut down — and that is not one of my
problems, but it is my understanding that Congress and the serv-
ices decide where the displaced units will be deployed; is that cor-
rect?

Admiral Buffington. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Do you then anticipate the decision to move
Top Gun to Fallon could maybe be changed by either Congress or
internal decisions of the Navy?

Admiral Buffington. I don't anticipate that change. I think it
will be going to Fallon.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Do you think it will continue?

Admiral Buffington. That is the way it is tracking now. I am
not part of the Base Closure Commission, so I can't speak for them,
but that is what it appears right now.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Well, they have their problems, we know that,
but it would be very nice for our area if we did get Top Gun. We
are anxious to have it there and we feel that we have a good facili-
ty-
Admiral Buffington. We certainly appreciate your support up

there.

family housing

Mrs. Vucanovich. Just very quickly, how many family housing
units are in the Navy's inventory?

127

Admiral Buffington. Right now we have about 25 percent of our
people in housing. I believe we are looking at about 73,000 units of
housing we have.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. Where are the largest deficit areas?

Admiral Buffington. San Diego.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. San Diego. Everyone wants to be in San
Diego.

Admiral Buffington. I tell you.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I don't blame them.

Mr. Hefner. No, not everybody.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Sorry about that.

Can you tell me, what is the average time on a waiting list for
government-provided housing?

Admiral Buffington. It can be up to two or three years in that
area in certain ratings. But I will tell you what the problem is now:
We are about 9,000 houses short there. We anticipate this will go
up to about 12,000 with the moving around we are going to have.
So we do have a considerable shortage.

Hawaii is another shortage area, with anywhere from a year to
two years' wait. We are pretty well getting that one under control
down there.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. Would you comment too. General, on how
many family housing units that you have?

General Reinke. We have 22,435 family housing units. Our big-
gest deficit is in southern California, Camp Pendleton, north of San
Diego; and Twenty-nine Palms, which is in the desert in southern
California.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. What is the average waiting time?

General Reinke. It varies, of course, from location to location.
The average waiting time across the board is 11 months. We have a
7,435-person waiting list.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. Well, you know, I think all of us really care —
it is a different emphasis than there used to be on taking care of
families, and the child care centers and so forth; and those are the
issues that I particularly care about.

I have some other questions and I will submit them for the
record, because I understand some people have some other ques-
tions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Mrs. Meek.

quality of life

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, as usual, I am concerned about the
quality-of-life issues, and I have not heard any branch of the serv-
ice talk too much about what you are doing and how much atten-
tion you are paying to those issues. I am sure, because of the con-
straints caused by budgetary factors, you have had to really look
strictly at the construction phase of what you do. As I listen to
people as they come in for the hearings, there are a lot of things
that don't seem to fall within the purview of this committee. They
either fall in Defense or some other committee.

I am concerned as to whether they really fall within the purview
of any committee, if there is any really strong look at quality-of-life

68-364 O— 93-

128

issues that are associated so closely with the military, to the people
who are serving in the military and their families.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, ma'am, we are working hard. As a
matter of fact, of the entire budget, 25 percent is dedicated to qual-
ity of life. We are going to work hard on that in the future and do
our best to start taking better care of our people, because we have
not taken that good of care of them in the past.

General Reinke. You are correct, we are faced with many con-
straints in our budget. As our budgets come down, there is less and
less we can do. We had a high, I think, in 1989, when almost half
our budget was on quality-of-life issues, and we considered things
like family housing, child care centers, new barracks for the Ma-
rines and all the community support facilities that go along with
supporting our Marines.

We do the best we can. We think we have done a good job in the
past, and as our fiscal environment improves, we will do more in
the future. We have two child care centers, for example, in this
year's budget.

Mr. Hefner. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mrs. Meek. Yes.

Mr. Hefner. It has always been a real burning issue with this
committee, certainly not a partisan issue; and when Ralph Regula
was the Ranking Member, where Mrs. Vucanovich is now, Ralph
Regula and I crusaded for quality of life. And we were very, very
upset at last year's budget when we had a so-called "pause." That
was totally unacceptable to us.

I have to put the blame where the blame belongs, because when
the budgets come over here. Quality of life has had a tendency to
take second place to everything else in the budget that is put to-
gether across the river. We have fought for the enlisted man and
woman in the service and quality of life, their living conditions.

I have been all over this country, seen where troops were operat-
ing the most sophisticated weapons ever known to mankind and
living in World War I and World War II conditions. It has been to-
tally unacceptable.

We have done, I think, an admirable job with what few dollars
we have had.

So I am glad to hear you say you are going to go to bat when you
put together your plan. Whatever you are doing at the Pentagon
you are going to be a little more hard nosed, because — just to draw
an analogy, a general from NATO was in before this Committee
and also before our Defense Subcommittee. His number one con-
cern in NATO is, number one desire, would be for some money for
some housing for the Russian soldiers.

Just shows you what you have to do to get — the things you need
to do for the quality of life.

Last night on television they were talking about the high rate, in
California, of suicide in the Marine Corps because of the anxiety.
This is a quality-of-life thing.

And we have long since had to give up because it was the subject
of national inquiry on the talk shows and the Rush Limbaughs and
people like that talking about swimming pools and things like that
and all the perks our military get. We had to give up doing some of

129

these things that, in my view, we should continue to do. But just
the pressure was so immense, we were unable to do it.

I am glad to hear you say, and I am glad to see you brought this
to our attention, that we are going to concentrate on quality of life.
We don't fund weapon systems, we don't build ships and planes,
but we do look after the men and women that are in our armed
forces.

I am sorry for taking your time.

Admiral Buffington. We certainly appreciate your support on
that.

General Reinke. We sure do.

Mrs. Meek. That is it for me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Okay. Who is next?

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but I am glad to
hear those comments about the quality of life. I am real happy to
hear the Navy is concerned about that, because I want to tell you,
if you close down my naval station, you are going to make my life
miserable.

Mrs. Bentley. Your quality of life will deteriorate.

Mr. Callahan. My quality of life will tremendously diminish,
which is part of the question I want to ask.

I see that you are asking, and this is the first time I have seen in
any presentation that has been presented to us the words in antici-
pation of the total inaction of the recommendation you have sent
to the Base Closure Commission for the entire thing.

You are requesting $1.2 billion, $800 million for the Navy for
fiscal year 1994, which you will only have ten months because it is
going to be — I guess you will have 12 months. It will be October
before we do that. So what would be the total cost of base closure
over a six-year period, which is what Admiral Kelso indicated to
me that the total close-down factor in here would be, from four to
six years.

What is the total amount of base closure costs, and what are you
projecting four years into the future?

Admiral Buffington. It is a pretty significant figure, Mr. Calla-
han. I am giving you a pretty wild guess right now, but it is prob-
ably somewhere under $5 billion over a several-year period of time
if you closed all the bases in BRAC III. However, by 1997, you
would start to be getting some payback and by 1999, you would get
a $1.6 billion payback.

So it is a short payback period if you close down this many bases.

Mr. Callahan. It is a short payback, but what is the net in the
next four years? What is the net cost to the Navy in base closing?

Admiral Buffington. In net, you will lose over the next four
years.

Mr. Callahan. What is the net loss?

Admiral Buffington. I could not tell you exactly, sir. I will have
to check that. You are probably talking $2 to $3 billion. I can get
you figures on that.

Mr. Callahan. Get some figures on the gross cost less the sav-
ings and, therefore, the net cost.

Admiral Buffington. You have to talk four or five years before
you start saving money, once you start closing bases. You start
saving money from salaries and people and everything, but by the

130

time you talk about moving people and building facilities elsewhere
and ever3^hing, it is a problem.

Mr. Callahan. How much in 1991 — in anticipation of the base
closures, then, how much did the Navy project the cost of the 1991
closures would be?

Admiral Buffington. I don't have those figures. I will get you
that

Mr. Callahan. Get me that and give me what you presented to
this committee in 1990 in anticipation of the 1991 closures.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir.

Mr. Callahan. And tell me also — and do this by next Monday,
which is when the Base Closure Commission comes to Alabama —
tell me what you projected the cost would have been, and what it
actually has been to date, and what obligation is still outstanding.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir.

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

[The information follows:]

The total estimated one-time costs, excluding Environmental Restoration costs for
the Navy to accomplish the Base Realignment and Closure 93 recommendation is
$4,675,800,000.

It is anticipated that the savings to Department of Defense (DoD) and Navy, will
begin to exceed one time costs in 1997; the net cost to the Navy from FY 94 to 99 is
estimated to be a net savings of $2,146,000,000.

The FY 92 DoD request for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 91 was
$100,000,000. This was a first year budget wedge that was submitted before the DoD
or BRAC 91 Commission recommendations were known. There was no program cost
identified for BRAC 91 in FY 92.

In Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 91 the Navy's initial budget request in
January 1992 was for a one-time cost of $930,500,000 for the six years of the pro-
gram. Our April 1993 request is for $1,075,000,000 an increase of $145,000,000 or
15%, with projected savings of $2,166,700,000, and a total net savings of
$1,050,400,000. The Navy currently has net savings of $1,050,400,000. the Navy cur-
rently has unobligated balance of $309,000,000 in its BRAC 91 account, but has firm
plans to obligate all of that prior to the end of the fiscal year. The Navy's portion of
the DoD BRAC 91 request was reduced by $40,000,000 by Congress in FY 93.

NESEA IN ST. INIGOES

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Hoyer.

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

I am glad to see you here, gentlemen.

As you know, I have a great interest in three of the facilities lo-
cated in my district, one of which I perceive to be the premier facil-
ity of its type in the world. Also I am interested in NESEA, as you
know, which was on the base closure list in 1991 and was rejected
by the Base Closure Commission; and is now, in a modified form,
on the Base Closure Commission. And because of its modified form,
I want to ask you about your April 1993 notice that the three MIL-
CONs-P-723, P-712 and P-720 have either been deferred or frozen
at this point in time?

After NESEA was removed from the list, the Navy had given the
green light for those projects, it is my understanding. In April of
this year — I have the notice here — they were frozen.

This might make sense if the recommendation was the same in
1991, but as you know, sir, the air traffic control and the automat-
ed carrier landing system activity at NESEA is scheduled by the

131

Secretary's recommendation to stay at NESEA, as is AEGIS as
well, but this MILCON is going on.

In addition, as you know, a major move is proposed, which we
are very strongly supportive of, as you can imagine, for Patuxent
and I would like you to tell me about these three MILCONs, be-
cause they all seem to relate to activities that will be remaining,
unless one assumes that the Base Closure Commission rejects the
Navy's determination that ATC/ACLS should stay there or that
NAVAIR should move those functions related to NAVAIR systems.

It seems to me those MILCONs ought to go forward.

Admiral Buffington. Those will go forward, sir. We are working
on that right now, you are right. Those support things will remain
there, and we will proceed forward with those.

Mr. HoYER. We will send a release out today that the Navy suc-
cumbed to my excellent argument.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hefner. With the strong backing of the committee.

Mr. HoYER. Right. The release will say only through Mr. Hef-
ner's and Mrs. Vucanovich's strong intervention was this able to be
accomplished. Let me go to Pax River itself then, P-383 jet engine
test facility. What is the status of the F-18 program?

Admiral Buffington. What we are doing on that, we are giving
the word to go ahead and design that facility, sir. We don't have
the funding for it now, but we are giving the okay to go ahead with
the design.

Mr. HoYER. Excellent. Let me go to another item I am concerned
about, and as you know, I think the Navy should be concerned
about; and I specifically have some troubling information that has
just come to me.

I don't know whether you have had the opportunity to see this
audit report dated March 29th, 1993. Specifically, it relates to Kirt-
land Air Force Base in new Mexico.

Admiral Buffington. No, sir, I have not seen it.

anechoic chamber

Mr. HoYER. And the construction of an anechoic chamber. His-
torically, the anechoic chamber has dealt with Edwards and with
Pax. Pax, as you know, has about 250 to 400 million, depending
upon how you cost it, of laboratory facilities adjacent to and inte-
grated into the existing anechoic chamber. We authorized $10 mil-
lion last year; excuse me, we authorized $61 million, of which we
appropriated $10 million.

I am hopeful this committee will see its way clear to appropriat-
ing the balance of those funds this year.

Can you tell me what the status of the design work is on the
large anechoic chamber-authorized and funded?

Admiral Buffington. We have given the okay to go ahead with
the design. We don't have the funding worked out, of course, as you
know, but we are working on the design.

Mr. HoYER. Is work currently going on on the design?

Admiral Buffington. We are starting that this year.

Mr. HoYER. Starting it. Boy, oh, boy.

Mr. Hefner. Better leave something for Mrs. Bentley.

132

Mrs. Bentley. That is right.

Mr. HoYER. Some days are just good, Helen.

Mr. Hefner. It just all depends on who you know.

Mr. HoYER. I just grow to love the Navy more and more.

Admiral Buffington. On the test facility you asked me about
there.

Mr. HoYER. P-383.

Admiral Buffington. I might give you some better information
on that. I thought it was under design, but let me check this out on
the test facility.

Mr. HoYER. Okay. So you will get back to us on that.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir, I will.

[The information follows:]

Design process is currently underway. A/E award anticipated Sep 93 and 35%
design equivalent complete by Nov 93.

Mr. HoYER. Let me go back to this. I am pleased about our an-
echoic chamber, but the Navy needs to know about this. This is the
report that indicates the Air Force had an equipment request.
They are going ahead with a anechoic chamber construction. Audit
report, IG, says that ain't right. Plus the fact-can you tell me how
much work we do at the present anechoic chamber, for the record,
at Pax River that is purple.

Admiral Buffington. I can't tell you exactly, sir. I know we use
it pretty extensively.

Captain Woomer. It is multipurpose and used extensively, sched-
uled basically wall to wall.

Mr. HoYER. Can you get me that information?

Captain Woomer. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hoyer. Obviously, that will be important for me as we
moved forward, and because of the constriction of the budgets,
purple work is going to be more and more dual-use, all that sort of
stuff; and we are really looking at it, and we think we do it well
down there. On your behalf, we want to argue that case as persua-
sively as we possibly can.

Admiral Buffington. I understand.

Mr. Hoyer. You tell me when my time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Time is up.

Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Admiral.

Mr. Hefner. Had you finished, I would yield.

Mr. Hoyer. Can I pursue one more issue?

Mr. Hefner. You can have one more minute because I yielded
my time.

Mr. Hoyer. I appreciate that. I want to say. Admiral, I really do
appreciate how well the Navy has worked with me. I know you are
interested in these three facilities as well. These are new to me,
and frankly, I have become very excited about these facilities be-
cause of the quality of people; and the work they do as we downsize
our force, the technological capabilities of our force, is going to
become geometrically more important. And that is, of course, what
we do at these three facilities, research and development testing,
integration, and we do it very well, moving on, P-113 hazardous
waste treatment facilities at Indian Head.

133

Does the current program, do you know-and if you don't know,
we can get this information-comply with the EPA and State of
Maryland hazardous waste regulations?

Admiral Buffington. I will find out for you, sir.

Mr. HoYER. My information is that it does not. You have this 113
program for fiscal year 1996.

I would appreciate your looking at that in the context of whether
or not we need to bring that forward because of the noncompliance
that might exist.

[The information follows:]

The current program at Indian Head, does currently comply with EPA and State
of Maryland regulations. NSWC-IH is currently conducting open burning of PEP
contaminated cardboard, wood, rags and plastic at the Caffee Road Thermal Treat-
ment Point. This a HW treatment operation under RCRA. A Subpart X permit was
submitted to the EPA under the Part B RCRA permit. The Subpart X permit appli-
cation is under technical review at EPA's direction. A Notice of Deficiency may be
issued challenging the assessment of the PEP-contaminated material as a reactive
waste. A NOD could result in prohibition of open burning and commercial landfill
will accept the material since it cannot be certified to be non-reactive without ex-
pensive testing. If this happens certain mission operations will have to be halted.

A MILCON project is established to bring this operation inside so that the gases
can be treated. It is unknown whether EPA will declare this operation to be in non-
compliance before 1996. If the project was moved up the regulatory agencies might
let them continue operations with the corrective project ongoing earlier.

RADFORD ARMY ARSENAL

Mr. HoYER. I said one more question. Let me bring one other
thing to your attention that perhaps you can answer for the record,
that I am concerned about, and that is the Radford Army Arsenal.
They have a secondary-source contract with Indian Head, as you
probably know, or may know. It is my understanding that they
may not be pursuing that secondary-source contract, which I think
is probably not good policy, but I think it is concern about Rad-
ford's downsizing.

I would like you to check that and see what the status is of that
possibility.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

The Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP) does not have a secondary-source
contract with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (IHDIV).
However, both the IHDIV and RAAP currently produce MK 90 propellant grains for
use in the 2.75 INCH Rocket. The Army, Armament Munitions and Chemical Com-
mand (AMCCOM) established these dual sources (IHDIV and RAAP) for MK 90*8
during the early 1980's to ensure adequate manufacturing capacity, enhance mobili-
zation readiness and reduce program risk. Declining requirements and the downsiz-
ing occurring at RAAP threaten the continued existence of dual sources for MK
90^8.

The Army notified the IHDIV in April 1993 that there were not enough require-
ments to keep both the IHDIV and RAAP production lines operating at or above
their economical rates. The economical rate for the IHDIV is 6,000 per month. The
Army says the economical rate for the RAAP is 20,000 per month. The total require-
ment for MK 90's is approximately 18,000 per month in 1994 and 1995. Hence, the
Army has stated that the IHDIV will not receive any more production orders unless
requirements are reinstated. This means the IHDIV production line will shut down
in the August/ September 1994 time frame. The Department of Defense will lose its
second-source for MK 90 propellant grains at that time. History has shown that
dual sources for MK 90's are required to ensure an adequate; continuous supply for
2.75 INCH Rockets.

The IHDIV developed an improved 2.75 INCH Rocket in the late 1970's. The 2.75
INCH Rocket is used by all three services. The improved Rocket uses the MK 90

134

propellant grain. There are only two domestic sites that have the capability to
produce MK 90 propellant grains; the IHDIV and RAAP. The IHDIV began produc-
ing MK 90 propellant grains in 1983, and helped the RAAP develop their manufac-
turing process shortly thereafter. The RAAP began producing MK 90's in 1986. Both
facilities have produced MK 90's at various rates over the last 10 years. Periodic
shutdowns have also occurred, the most notable of which was the explosive incident
at the Radford facility in March 1988 which halted production for over a year.
During that time period the IHDIV surged production from 15,000 units per month
to 30,000 units per month to maintain an adequate supply of MK 90 propellant
grains. Both facilities are currently producing; the IHDIV at 6,000 per month and
the RAAP at 20,000 per month.

INDIAN HEAD

Mr. HoYER. Indian Head does excellent work. The work is fine.
The Army likes the work being done at Indian Head, but there is
some question, they may not wants to continue to do that; and I
think the Navy needs to look at that, and I want to look at that.

Mr. Chairman, you have been kind with the use of your time. I
will submit some other questions for the record and if we can get
answers to those, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Hefner. Without objection.

Mr. HoYER. Thank you. Admiral. General, thank you.

Mr. Hefner. Mrs. Bentley.

Mrs. Bentley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral to assure you, to let you know that we have in Mary-
land a strong bipartisan delegation working for the State of Mary-
land, I want you to give everything that Mr. Hoyer has asked for.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Hoyer. I am going to keep poking you, too; I want you to
know that.

Mr. Hefner. And Buy from America.

Mrs. Bentley. And Buy from America.

Mr. Hoyer. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mrs. Bentley. Yes.

Mr. Hoyer. We said that facetiously. Admiral, but I want you to
know that is absolutely true. We have eight Members from Mary-
land, and we are in lock-step. Frankly, we are enthusiastic about
the proposals. On the one hand, I am fighting — I want to keep St.
Inigoes, but I am tickled pink about NAVAIR.

Our Governor, our legislature, everybody there is going to do ev-
erything in their power, including me and Mrs. Bentley and every-
body else, to make sure that that works 110 percent. We just want
you to know how enthusiastic we are about that.

Admiral Buffington. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Bentley.

Mrs. Bentley. Thank you. I also want the record to show. Admi-
ral, that whenever a Navy ship comes into the Sparrow's Point
Shipyard for repair, the crew is treated better in the State of Mary-
land than anywhere else in the United States.

Mr. Callahan. Come on what about when they come to Ala-
bama.

Mrs. Bentley. I am just telling you.

Mr. Hoyer. I think I had better leave at this point before they
decide to start to argue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

135

U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY

Mrs. Bentley. Getting on down, as you well know, I have always
been a strong supporter of the Navy since I am a strong believer in
seapower; but I am also very pleased at this point that you all are
concentrating on the quality of life; and we need more good child
care centers throughout the service, and we need to push on those.

Now, a couple of specific questions. Bancroft Hall, I am on the
Board of Visitors at the Naval Academy, and we have talked about
Bancroft Hall, but I am looking in the budget and I don't see any
monies specified for Bancroft Hall. I thought specific provisions
had been made.

Admiral Buffington. We are doing that with O and M money,
starting on Wing 7 Air; starting the rehab and everything.

Mrs. Bentley. That's fine.

Admiral Buffington. Isn't that correct, guys?

It is in the Defense bill. Yes, ma'am. Not in here, but we do have
it. I used to be the public works officer down there, so I am very
concerned with that place, too.

Mrs. Bentley. It needs it so badly. I don't think there have been
any improvements there since Admiral Kimmell was a cadet.

Admiral Buffington. Let me tell you, from being the public
works officer there once, you get below surface paint you have
some real problems. We need a lot of work there and a lot of
money spent there, absolutely.

Mrs. Bentley. On page 18 of the Navy's request I see a line item
for $190,696. Where is this going to be used?

Admiral Buffington. What is that again, ma'am?

Mrs. Bentley. On page 18 of the Navy's request, it is under vari-
ous locations.

Admiral Buffington. I will have to get you an answer on that,
ma'am. I don't know.

Mrs. Bentley. Okay.

Admiral Buffington. We will get back to you on that.

Mrs. Bentley. All right, sir.

JAPAN

Mrs. Bentley. I would be particularly interested whether any of
this money is going to be spent in Japan. I hope it is all going to be
spent here.

[The information follows:]

The $190,696,000 line item on page 18 of the Navy's request is for family housing
improvement projects at Navy and Marine Corps locations included in the Construc-
tion Improvements section of the Family Housing Program request, pages 375
through 428. The $196,696,000 will revitalize and repair 6,282 Navy homes and 577
Marine Corps homes by bringing them up to contemporary standards, making them
more energy efficient, and increasing their useful life and livability. This request
reflects Navy leadership's commitment to the "Neighborhoods of Excellence" con-
cept of providing quality housing, neighborhoods and services that meet the needs of
the customers, enhance morale and retention, and support the operational readiness
of the Navy. Of the $190,696,000 total request, $2,848,000, 1.5 percent is to revitalize
and repair 923 homes at Yokosuka and Iwakuni, Japan.

Mrs. Bentley. I also did not notice an inclusion of any more
money to abate the environmental problems at Bainbridge. Are

136

any more monies needed? And when will the facilities be turned
over to the State of Maryland?

Admiral Buffington. Okay, I will check on that and get that in-
formation for you. We are working hard on that. We would like to
get that cleaned up and finished up, absolutely.

[The information follows:]

We do not anticipate needing any more MCON money to finish the demolition/
cleanup of Bainbridge. We will be using FY 94 DERA funds to cleanup the two IR
sites, the old landfill and the fire fighting training area.

The Navy and the Maryland Economic Development Corporation still plan to exe-
cute a purchase agreement for the Bainbridge property, with settlement to occur
upon satisfactory completion of the building demolition and asbestos removal cur-
rently underway at the site.

ASBESTOS ABATEMENT

Mrs. Bentley. In all of your rebuilding and refurbishing of build-
ings, are you running into major costs for the asbestos and lead-
based paint abatement, and what are you doing about it, and how
much will it run?

Admiral Buffington. I cannot give you an exact estimate, but
every place we go it is a problem. You have the floor tile, the tile
on the roofs and everywhere else; and, yes, it is getting to be a
major problem, because we have to clean it up everywhere we go.

It used to be — demolition, you knock something down, no problem
at all; but now it is getting to be a major cost every time you de-
molish a building. We cannot afford to demolish some, and we need
to get rid of some of those buildings because they are tying up ev-
erything.

Mrs. Bentley. Are you coordinating cost-effective methods of
mitigation?

Admiral Buffington. We are working real hard on that, ma'am.

Mrs. Bentley. One of the things at Bainbridge, since the Navy
has been burying the asbestos there, I also understand that asbes-
tos, like tires, rises to the surface over time; and from what I have
been told, the asbestos will not be a problem at Bainbridge because
the Navy intends to cap off the storage area.

But having said that, what does the Navy plan to do about the
ongoing liability of asbestos and lead caused by storage in hazard-
ous waste dumps?

Admiral Buffington. The Navy always has to back up our liabil-
ity wherever, on anjdihing.

Mrs. Bentley. Forever?

Admiral Buffington. We have no choice; that is U.S. law. So we
have to back up whatever we have now.

Asbestos has not particularly been a problem in most places, be-
cause in a lot of applications it is not even considered hazardous,
you know.

Mrs. Bentley. One last question. The U.S.N.S. Comfort, the hos-
pital ship, I understand is on standby to go into the Adriatic.

Admiral Buffington. I don't know that.

Mrs. Bentley. You don't know that?

Admiral Buffington. No, ma'am.

Mrs. Bentley. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, ma'am.

137

RELOCATION OF MCAS EL TORO TO MIRAMAR

I have a question, General Reinke. You are going to recommend
the closure of Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro and going to relo-
cate it at Miramar, California?

General Reinke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hefner. What kind of problems is this move going to cause,
because it is going tq be moving into a very high cost area? What
do you perceive is going to be the consequence of this?

General Reinke. If the Commission's recommendation is enacted
and we do have to close and move to Miramar, we see we are going
from one high-cost area into another high-cost area.

Mr. Hefner. Miramar would be an even higher cost area than at
El Toro, or would it?

General Reinke. I am not sure it would, sir. I think they are
fairly close.

Mr. Hefner. They are both high cost?

General Reinke. Yes, sir, Orange County; and Los Angeles is
high cost as well.

We see the normal problems associated with any move. There
will be requirements for refurbishing some of the facilities there to
meet our needs for our particular type aircraft. We are going to be
bringing a lot of aircraft down to Miramar that normally they
don't have in their operation. They will be a different type aircraft.

We may need to enter into some new kinds of flight patterns-hel-
icopters, for example, as opposed to F-14s and

Mr. Hefner. You won't have to do any renovation of runways
and this sort of thing. The facilities are adequate there. You will
just have a different type of aircraft.

General Reinke. We may very well have to do some renovation,
because some of their facilities are designed for the F-14, and they
will have to be modified for the F-18s and the helicopters. There
will be new construction required there because we are bringing
more aircraft than they presently have there.

In the areas of maintenance facilities, parking aprons and what
have you, we are bringing an awful lot of aircraft down there; and
we will have to work out some new problems with the FAA be-
cause the air control circumstances around Miramar are somewhat
different than they are in Orange County. Miramar is under what
is called a TCA for Lindbergh Field, which is the commercial air-
port in San Diego; and the different flight profiles and flight pat-
terns of helicopters are far different from the fixed-wing aircraft
that have traditionally worked out of Miramar.

It will require some consultation and working together with all
the agencies.

Mr. Hefner. Have they in the past had some joint use capabili-
ties there?

General Reinke. They may fly some helicopters in their occasion-
ally, but they do not routinely base them there.

Mr. Hefner. Before you all move there, if the move takes place,
did they have some joint use that they used for the commercial air-
port and for the

General Reinke. Not for the commercial, not at Miramar. Just
the air space around there.

138

Mr. Hefner. Do you anticipate having some base closure money
to use for your transportation there, for housing at Miramar?

General Reinke. Sir, to my knowledge, the data that was submit-
ted did not include funding for additional housing at Miramar.

Mr. Hefner. I have some other questions for the record, but let
Mr. Dicks

Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral welcome; and General, we are glad to have you here.

EVERETT, WASHINGTON

Admiral I want to ask a couple of quick questions. Navy fiscal
year 1994 request includes $12 million for the steam plant at Ever-
ett. What other infrastructure projects or what other immediate
projects are still necessary to complete that base and the infra-
structure?

Admiral Buffington. We need to get our breakwater in there
also, and then we have — oh, let's see, I have got some ten outyear
projects there that we need, but we are coming along pretty good
there, sir.

Mr. Dicks. When would the base open?

Admiral Buffington. Fiscal year 1994. NS Everett would not
operationally open until 1996, until we have the carrier up there.
But there will be two frigates there in 1994. In 1995, we are bring-
ing two more destroyers. And in 1996 we will have two destroyers
coming in at that time; and that will be the time that we would
operationally open the base.

Mr. Dicks. I also see fiscal year 1993 MILCON appropriation 5.6
million for the oil and water separator. Is that project going okay?

Admiral Buffington. We are going to award it, we hope, in May
or June.

Mr. Dicks. Does this strategic home port remain a high priority
for the Pacific Northwest?

Admiral Buffington. I will tell you why, the Navy is going to
four megaports in this overall theme. We have the Norfolk area on
the East Coast on down to Mayport, Florida, Jacksonville, and that
area. Then out of the West Coast, San Diego complex, and then up
in Puget Sound would be Bremerton, Bangor, and Everett complex.
If Everett was out in a place by itself, it would not be a high priori-
ty, but it is high priority because of its location in connection with
the other bases.

Mr. Dicks. I called Admiral Kelso after the Department provided
the closure recommendations to the BRAC Commission, and basi-
cally, he said that in order to save any money, you have to shut the
entire complex down, as you have done at Charleston.

I know these are painful decisions, and my sympathy goes out to
the communities involved and the Members of Congress that have
to deal with these problems. I have had to deal with them in the
past, but as Admiral Kelso indicated, unless you shut down almost
everything in an area, you don't save any money.

So you pick one base here and one there, but you still have the
hospitals and the supply center, and as a result, you just don't save
any money. Is Admiral Kelso accurate on that?

Admiral Buffington. That is absolutely correct.

139

Mr. Dicks. I thought it was. For the record, I would like you to
provide the Navy's strongest possible case for why Everett should
not be added to the base closure list, and/or just the strategic mili-
tary reasons why you made the decision not to put it on — maybe
characterize it that way.

I want to defend the Navy's decision before the Base Closure
Commission, and I want to be in the best position I can be to do
that.

Then you describe when the base will be open, and it is also im-
portant to further discuss the planned active duty ships starting
with frigates, then the destroyers, and eventually the carriers.
That is the plan for Everett, isn t it?

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir, as we get the construction com-
pleted up there.

Mr. Dicks. How many carriers could Everett accommodate?
There was a question raised by Admiral Foley in Alameda about
how many carriers could be accommodated at Everett. As I under-
stand it, you could accommodate two aircraft carriers at Everett,
and up to — I was told by Admiral Clark, up to five aircraft carriers
at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

Admiral Buffington. No, sir, not with full facilities; we could
not do that.

Mr. Dicks. How many could you accommodate at these installa-
tions?

Admiral Buffington. I will have to get that for you, but we plan
on one in Everett, and of course having one in Puget Sound at the
shipyard.

Mr. Dicks. There has been a question raised about ultimate ca-
pacity.

Admiral Clark is the former shipyard commander at Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard. I have asked him, and he said that the
shipyard could hold five carriers. So I want an accurate number,
because there is some confusion here. I want to get an accurate
number, because this becomes an issue in the sense of how many
piers do we have.

Admiral Buffington. It is not how many can tie up there. It is
how many people you have. There are a whole lot of folks on a car-
rier.

Mr. Dicks. Well, I believe we could accommodate three. How
many carriers can San Diego accommodate?

Admiral Buffington. At San Diego?

Mr. Dicks. One or two?

Admiral Buffington. We can handle three now, but we can only
handle two

Mr. Dicks. So that between San Diego and Puget Sound complex
we can handle all of the Pacific carriers; is that not accurate?

Admiral Buffington. That is correct.

Mr. Dicks. But can we do it?

Admiral Buffington. That is the plan. Now, we cannot, but we
are eventually working for that, yes sir.

Mr. Dicks. One other thing I would point out, too. There are
some serious questions about Alameda in terms of the condition of
the facilities there and the dredging that is required and other
issues.

140

Isn't it true, with Everett, that you have the Navy's newest most
modern, most environmentally compatible base that has been con-
structed? I have been there personally, walked over the area; I
think it is the finest looking military base except maybe for Bangor
I have ever seen.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir, it is going to be a good base; and
it is going to be one that doesn't require dredging.

That is the major problem we are dealing in San Francisco right
now. San Francisco Bay enforces-silts up to the tune of about two
feet a year. It is getting hard to be able to dredge anywhere down
there and find anywhere to dump it. And it is not just the Navy;
the Navy is a small part of this problem.

The main shipping in the San Francisco area is starting to shut
down. They are unloading the container ships down at Long Beach,
and Long Beach is happy about this. They are building up their fa-
cilities; by 2020, they will have the major container port on the
West Coast.

And Seattle is doing the same thing, but there are some major
silting problems in the San Francisco area, and there will continue
to be.

Mr. Dicks. Regarding other important MILCON projects, last
year, we were able to do some work on bachelor enlisted quarters
at Puget and the Bangor area. How we are doing on that project?

Admiral Buffington. We are working on that. We have not fig-
ured out where the funding is coming from.

Mr. Dicks. This committee gave you the money, I think; this was
the bachelor enlisted quarters.

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir. We are working on that, yes, sir.

Mr. Dicks. Everything is going all right, sir, on that?

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir. I am sorry.

Mr. Dicks. Everything is on schedule?

Admiral Buffington. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.

KEY WEST, FLORIDA

Mrs. Meek. I will make this quick. Admiral Buffington. I am new
on this committee, and its looks like, before I can make a tour to
see what is going on with the naval facilities, you will have closed
them all. I am from Florida, and as I look on the list, I see most of
the bases in my area either up for closure or realignment.

But I have a question about Key West because that is very close
to me. Would you give me a little update, as far as you know, about
Key West in terms of the naval air station there? I have not been
in contact with them. Admiral, but before next time, I will be.

Admiral Buffington. We are continuing to use Key West down
there for drug operations and other things; and to my knowledge,
we are still present and the Key West area is not on the list, that I
know of.

Mrs. Meek. It is not on the closure list at all?

Admiral Buffington. We continue business as usual at Key
West.

Mrs. Meek. That is my question, Mr. Chairman.

141

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, Mrs. Meek.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today; it is good to see you
again.

The committee stands adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.

Admiral Buffington. Thank you, sir.

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Chairman
Hefner:]

INVENTORY

Question. How many family housing units do you have in the
United States, and how many overseas, excluding Sections 801 and
802, and excluding leases?

Answer. Excluding Section 801, Section 802 and leases, as of 30
September 1992 the Navy had 70,174 homes; 58,340 homes in the
United States and 11,834 homes overseas. The Marine Corps had
22,650 homes; 22,178 homes in the United States and 472 homes
overseas.

Question. How many Section 801, Section 802 and leased units do
you have in the United States, and how many overseas?

Answer. Currently, the Navy has 1,585 Section 801 homes occu-
pied in the United States: 300 at Norfolk, Virginia; 200 at Mayport,
Florida; 300 at Earle, New Jersey; 600 in the Washington, D.C.
area, located at Woodbridge, Virginia; 145 at Staten Island, New
York; and 40 at Pensacola, Florida. An additional 1,829 homes are
under construction: 855 at Staten Island, New York; 300 at Port
Hueneme, California; 260 at Pensacola, Florda; and 414 for the
Public Works Center, Washington, D.C, part of a joint Navy/Air
Force 1,242-home project to be located in Prince George's County,
Maryland. The Navy also has 65 domestic leased homes in the
United States and 1,504 leased homes overseas.

The Marine Corps has 600 Section 801 homes at Marine Corps
Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, recent-
ly completed and occupied. The Marine Corps also has 75 leased
homes at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California,
but none overseas.

There are no Navy and Marine Corps Section 801 or Section 802
projects located at overseas locations. There is only one Section 802
project in the United States, 276 hemes for Marine Corps families
at Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.

HOUSING DEFICITS

Question. What is your current worldwide family housing deficit?

Answer. The worldwide housing deficits projected for the Navy
and Marine Corps are 21,100 and 9,854, respectively.

Question. What are your three largest deficits, and how large are
they?

Answer. The three Navy locations with the largest projected defi-
cits are: San Diego, California, 9,099 homes; Norfolk, Virginia,
3,122 homes; and Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia, 865
homes. These deficits are based on January 1992 survey and
market analyses results. It is anticipated that the results of the
January 1993 survey, now being finalized, and BRAC 93 decisions
will change the deficits at many locations. The three largest defi-

142

cits for the Marine Corps are: Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton,
California, at 6,972; Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms, California, at 2,193; and Marine Corps Air Sta-
tion, Beaufort, South Carolina, at 585. These deficits do not include
the effect of Base Realignment and Closure 1993 recommendations.

Question. What are your three most expensive deficit locations,
based on actual payment of housing allowances?

Answer. Based on a comparison of Variable Housing Allowance
rates, the three most expensive Navy deficits are: San Francisco
and Port Hueneme/ Point Mugu, California; and Earle, New Jersey.
The Marine Corps' three most expensive deficit locations are:
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro and Marine Corps Base, Camp
Pendleton, California; and Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizo-
na.

WAITING LISTS FOR FAMILY HOUSING

Question. How many families are on waiting lists for govern-
ment-provided family housing, and what is the average waiting
time?

Answer. As of 30 September 1992 there were 31,000 families on
waiting lists for Navy family housing. The waiting times for assign-
ment to family housing vary from one to 36 months with an aver-
age wait of 4 to 8 months. The number of families on the waiting
list reflects a combination of families who: would prefer to live in
government housing; are unsuitably housed in the private commu-
nity; or expect assignment to government quarters during their
tour of duty. The waiting list excludes families who decided not to
apply for assignment to government quarters because it would not
become available during their entire duty at that installation.

As of 30 September 1992 there are 7,727 families on the Marine
Corps waiting lists with an average waiting period of 11 months.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Question. What percent of the Family Housing maintenance and
repair requirement will be met within the fiscal year 1994 budget
request?

Answer. The Navy's Fiscal Year 1994 budget request meets 94
percent of the total maintenance and repair requirement, 69 per-
cent of the Marine Corps' maintenance and repair requirement will
be met within the Fiscal Year 1994 request.

Question. What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance?

Answer. The current backlog of deferred maintenance is $1.5 bil-
lion for the Navy and $94.7 million for the Marine Corps as of 30
September 1992.

Question. How much additional maintenance and repair work
could be performed during fiscal year 1994, beyond the budget re-
quest, and what are the limiting factors?

Answer. The Navy could perform and additional $21 million in
maintenance and repair work beyond the Fiscal Year 1994 request.
The limiting factors for the Navy include design status of the
projects and the availability of additional maintenance and repair
funds to commence design on projects. An additional $18 million in
maintenance and repair work could be performed by the Marine

143

Corps beyond Fiscal Year 1994 request. The limiting factors to per-
forming additional maintenance for the Marine Corps are the
amount of maintenance required, manpower available to perform
the work, the amount of projects designed or able to be designed,
and ability to award or modify service and repair contracts to ac-
complish the work.

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

Queston. How much additional construction improvement work
could be performed during fiscal year 1994, beyond the budget re-
quest, and what are the limiting factors?

Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps could perform an addition-
al $46 million and $35 million, respectively, in construction im-
provement work in Fiscal Year 1994. The Navy and Marine Corps
have projects that are designed and ready to execute. The limiting
factors to performing additional construction improvements include
the number of projects currently designed or in the process of
being designed, and the amount of improvement design funds cur-
rently available to do any additional design of improvement
projects.

WHOLE HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS

Question. How many family housing units are programmed for
whole house revitalization within the budget request, and what is
the funding increment for this work?

Answer. In Fiscal Year 1994, the Navy has programmed 2,716
units costing $137.2 million for whole house revitalization, and the
Marine Corps has programmed 533 units costing $23.3 million.

CONTRACT CLEANING

Question. For how many units are you requesting contract clean-
ing funds, what is the average cost per unit, and what is the total
amount requested?

Answer. The Navy's fiscal year 1994 request includes $1,239 mil-
lion to clean 5,727 units at an average cost of $216 per unit. The
Marine Corps has no costs for contract cleaning in the Fiscal Year
1994 budget.

Question. Describe in some detail how you document savings for
each contract cleaning expenditure?

Answer. The Navy is performing contract cleaning only at over-
seas locations where an offset in temporary lodging allowances can
be documented to result in savings to the government. The Marine
Corps has no expenditures for contract cleaning.

CURRENCY FLUCTUATION

Question. What currency gains or losses are projected for your
overseas housing programs during fiscal years 1993 and 1994?

Answer. The Navy does not anticipate any currency gains or
losses in Fiscal Year 1993. As was the case last year, currency pro-
jections appear to be on target. The Navy will review the Fiscal
Year 1994 projects at the beginning of the fiscal year to assess
whether there will be gains or losses depending on the foreign cur-
rency rate in effect at that time.

144

The Marine Corps has not had any reported gains or losses from
the currency fluctuation at its only overseas location, Iwakuni,
Japan.

OFFICERS QUARTERS

Question. Please submit for the record a table showing: (a) how
many General /Flag Officer Quarters you have, separately identify-
ing CONUS and OCONUS locations, (b) how many of these quar-
ters exceed the statutory space limitation, and (c) the average O&M
cost per unit.

Answer. A table showing the number of General and Flag Officer
Quarters, average operation and maintenance costs, and number of
quarters exceeding statutory space limitations for the Navy and
Marine Corps follows:

.. „, AVG O&M pJlL,

«il''^'>''^P^rt'"^'" units Cof'r «S

""" slat. limR

Navy total > 140 $41,637 118

CONUS » 129 42,553 110

OCONUS > 11 30,900 8

Marine Corps:

CONUS 26 23,337 15

OCONUS 0 0 0

' End of FY 1991 data.

Answer. A table showing Navy and Marine Corps General and
Flag Officer Quarters projects included in the Fiscal Year 1994
budget request follows:

[In thousands of dollars]

'"stallation quarter's ^'"°""'

Navy:

New/ construction projects:

NAB Little Creek, VA 2 ' $191.0

Improvement Projects:

NASPatuxent River, MD

PWC Norfolk, VA

PWC Yokosuka, JA

Total improvements

Maintenance and repair projects:

PWC San Diego, CA

Naval District of Wastiington, DC

PWC Pensacola, FL

PWC Great Lakes, IL

NASPatuxent River, MD

PWC Norfolk, VA

30.4

10.1

14.0

54.5

184.8

1,524.2

178.8

48.1

41.5

840.4

145

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation q^°rte!s *™""'

PWC Yokosuka, JA 1 25.9

Total M&R 32 2,843.7

Marine Corps:

New construction projects— none

Improvement projects— None

Maintenance and repair projects:

MCB Camp Pendleton, CA 5 343.4

MCAGCC Twenty Nine Palms, CA 1 50.0

MCCDC Quantico, VA 1 72.7

Total M&R 7 466.1

» Units included in PWC Norfolk/NAB Little Creek, VA, project. Unit construction costs only are identified. Site development costs are included for
ttie entire 392 home project, and not broken-out by unit. Pro-rata costs would increase construction cost to approximately $294,000.

MIUTARY COOPERATIVE HOUSING

Question. Please bring us up-to-date with any proposals you may
have for military cooperative housing, such as the Soldier Housing
and Equity program.

Answer. The Navy is continuing to explore public/private ven-
ture alternatives to meet family housing requirements. Presently,
the Navy is pursuing a Section 802 368-home project on Oahu.
Also, a study to investigate the feasibility and develop a concept of
how and where cooperative housing would work is underway. Co-
ordination with the Army in these efforts is continuing. The
Marine Corps has no proposals for military cooperative housing.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Question. Please provide a list of your Service's installations
from which Homeowners Assistance claims are currently pending.
Answer. There are currently three Navy location with pending
claims: Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Naval Air
Station, Chase Field, Texas; and Naval Submarine Base, New
London, Connecticut. The Marine Corps currently has no Home-
owners Assistance claims pending.
Question. Is the program meeting the needs of your Service?
Answer. Inadequacies have been identified by Commander in
Chief, Atlantic Fleet, for Naval Submarine Base New London:

The law allows up to 90 percent of prior fair market value to
be used as the basis for benefits in the case of Government
purchase. However, the program uses 75 percent.

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled, based on wording in

the law, that benefits received under Homeowners Assistance

Program be treated as income.

Closing costs associated with home sale are not provided for.

The 90 percent rate was initially used when there were few base

closures. With Base Realignment and Closures 91, and the many

bases announced for closure, the Office of the Secretary of Defense

amended the payment to 75 percent, with the intent of encouraging

more private sales.

146

The Army Corps of Engineers, executive agent for Homeowners
Assistance Program, has twice appealed the Internal Revenue
Service determination that Homeowners Assistance Program bene-
fits are taxable as ordinary income attributable to employment.
Both appeals were denied by the IRS.

A new initiative for tax relief is included in the 1993 DOD Omni-
bus Bill to amend the current tax code, to be effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 1989. The amendment would:
Permit amounts received in connection with the sale of a
principal residence under the Homeowners Assistance Pro-
gram to be treated as an amount realized on the sale of a prin-
cipal residence, and thus not treated as compensation for serv-
ices for tax purposes.

Permit homeowners 55 years of age and older to exclude
from taxable income up to $125,000 of gain on the sale of a
principal residence.

Exempt from taxes, income which results from discharge of
mortgage indebtedness pursuant to the Homeowners Assist-
ance Program.

PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE

Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the fiscal year 1994 request or in prior years' unobliged
balances, that are no longer required due to force structure
changes, base realignments or closures, mission changes, bilateral
or multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include on this
list military construction projects, family housing construction and
construction improvement projects financed under the base realign-
ment and closure accounts.

Answer. In the event the Department of Defense recommenda-
tions provided to the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commis-
sion are approved, the following fiscal years 1990-1994 projects
would no longer be required due to base closure realignments or
closures:

FY 1994 PROJECTS IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE

[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year State Installation Project Title Amount

MCON:

1994 CA NTC San Diego P-067 Fire Sprinkler Washers 700

1994 CA MCASEIToro P-624 Maintenance Hangar Add 1,950

1994 CA NAS Alameda P-053 Control Tower Complex 4,700

1994 CT NSB New London P-438 SUB Ind Waste Treat Fac 5,700

1994 CT NSB New London P-421 Utilities Improvements 8,190

1994 CT NSB New London P-391 Steam Turbine Generator 6,600

1994 CT NSB New London P-441 Haz Waste Transfer Fac 1,450

1994 FL NAS Cecil Field P-831 Sanitary Wastewtr Treat 1.500

1994 HI NAS Barbers PI P-253 Fire Figtiting Trng Fac 1,350

1994 TN NAS Memphis P-292 Fuels Trainer Facility 600

147

FY 1994 PROJECTS IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE— Continued

[In tliousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

State

Installation

Project

Title

Amount

1994

NADEP Norfolk

P-327

Aircraft Rework Facility

. 17,800

Subtotal

. 50,540

FHN:
1994

NY
CA

NS Staten Island

H-04-87

Mitchel Manor Whisite, II

Upgrade HVAC Sys, Stockton ...

7,161

1994

Subtotal

San Francisco

H-1093

400
7,561

BRAG II:
1994

CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI

MCAS 29 Palms

P-004S

Airfield Ops and Maint

. 47,720

1994

MCAS29 Palms

P-999S

Runway, Site Prep & Infra

Access Road

. 165,700

1994

MCAS 29 Palms

P-521S

. 14,200

1994

NAR Alameda

P-320S

Hangar Modifications

4,100

1994

NAS Alameda

H-206S

Family Housing (71 units)

Consolidated Trainer Fac

8,670

1994

NAS Barbers PT

P-261S

. » 5,500

Subtotal

. 245,890

Total (FY94)

. 303.991

> Requirement for this facility will transfer to Kaneohe Bay if BRAC 93 recommendation are approved.

Other FY 94 projects may become available pending investiga-
tion of continued need in light of BRAC 93 recommendations.
These projects will be identified to the Committee after determina-
tions are made.

PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS (FY 90-93) IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

State

Installation

Project

Title

Amount

MCON:

1992

CA
CA

MS
MS

NSY Mare Island

P-295

Computer Operations

Center.
Boiler Plant

Modifications.
H-VAC Modifications...
Hazardous &

Flammable Stor.
Submarine IMA

Facilities.

Pier 17 Upgrade

Jet Engine Test Cell...
Access Roads

9,000

1992

NADEP Alameda

P-715

800

1992

NADEP Alameda

P-726

1,250

1993

NSY Mare Island

P-282

8,000

1992

NSB New London

P-394

5,800

1993

NSB New London

P-428

12,500

1993

NAS Cecil Field

P-266

5,850

1991

NAS Meridian

P-191

500

1992

NAS Meridian

P-280

Expand/Modify Fire

Stas.
Fire Training Facility ..
Child Development

Center.
Access Roads

418

1992

NAS Meridian

P-277

1,200

1993

NAS Meridian

P-281

1,100

1990

NB Charleston

P-190

3,000

1992

FMWTC Ctiarleston

P-624

Advanced FF Trainer ..
Firemat Training

Mockup.
Fire Rescue Training

Fac.
Fire Rescue Station...

14,620

1993

Subtotal

NAS Memphis

P-291

P-170

P-011

3,300

9,060

1,750
78,148

148
PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS (FY 90-93) IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE-Continued

[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year State Installation Project Title Amount

MCNR:

1990 CA NRC Bakersfield P-129 Land Acquisition 1,000

1993 IL NASGIenview P-158 Fuel Farm 6,500

Modifications.

1991 MA NAS S. Weymouth P-059 Fire Station Addition .. 780

1991 TX NAS Dallas P-355 Community Center 400

1991 TX NAS Dallas P-208 GSE Shop 1,640

Subtotal 10,320

FHN:

1990 CA NAS Alameda H-071 Family Housing » 34,000

1993 CA MCASEIToro H-115 Family Housing ^ 14,100

(200 homes),
1993 CA MCASEIToro H-125 Family Housing Land ^0

Sale.
1993 CA MCASEIToro H-126 Family Housing Land ^0

Sale.
1993 FL NAS Cecil Field HRC-191 Repair/lmprv 200 => q

Units.

1993 MA NAS S. Weymouth HC-586 Repairs to 48 Units ... =»0

1993 MA DODFH Westover HRC-191 Repairs/lmprov 183 » 0

Homes.
1993 TX NAS Dallas HCR-191 Repairs to Qtrs A =» 0

and B.

Subtotal 48,100

BRAC I:

1990 NY NS Staten Island P-120R Outdoor Recreation 2,600

Facs.

1991 NY NS Staten Island P-118R Police Station 1,200

1991 NY NS Staten Island P-llOR Automotive Hobby 640

Shop.

1993 NY NS Staten Island P-113R BOQ 9,000

1993 NY NS Staten Island P-108R Storage Facilities 1,600

Subtotal 15,040

BRAC II;

1993 HI NAS Barbers PT P-255S COMPATWINGSPAC 2,600

BIdg (II).

HUGO:

1991 SC NS Charleston P-937H Gear Locker/Auto 3,250

Hby Shop.

1991 SC NS Charleston P-646H Fleet Ops Control 2,350

BIdg.

Subtotal 5,600

Total (FY90-93) 159,808

' Reprogramming of funds originally slated for NS Long Beacti has been requested. Congress awaiting results of BRAC 93. If BRAC 93 approved,
this project is no longer required. However, there are continuing critical housing shortages in Southern California, such as San Diego.

2 Housing projects on hold pending final determination of need and required scope to support San Diego County deficit. Obligation of $900K
lodged against H115.

^ Project cancelled prior to BRAC 93 due to $57M Congressional reduction to Navy's FY 93 Construction Improvement Account.

Other projects FY90-93, including those under construction or
with obligations incurred, may become available pending investiga-
tion of continued need in light of the BRAC 93 recommendations.
These projects will be identified to the Committee after determina-
tions are made.

149

Projects no longer required due to force structure change or mis-
sion change:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year State Installation Project Title Amount

MCON:

1991 AK FSSC Amchitka P-001 Electronic Installation '5,656

1992 AK NSGAAdak P-076 Classic Wizard 3,600

1992 AK NSGAAdak P-069 BEQ 9,100

1991 CA NAWSPTMugu P-063 Security Improvements 2,070

1992 CA NWS Concord P-289 Missle Test Cell 1,250

1992 DC NAVDISTWash P-304 Haz Waste Stor Fac 2,050

1991 FL NAS Key West P-620 EOD Mobile Unit Fac 3,010

1992 FL NIC Orlando P-479 Barracks 7,980

1992 GA NSB Kings Bay P-444 Trident Train Complex Addn 9,200

1992 MD NRTF Annapolis P-810 Antenna Modifications 2,400

1991 VA NAS Oceana P-178 Weapons Sys Trnr Addn 3,670

1992 VA NS Norfolk P-638 Fire Alarm Sys Imprvments 340

1992 WA NASWhidbeylS P-511 Fit area Ctrl and Surv Fac > 3,349

1991 VARLOCS P-091 Land Acquisition 3,999

• Previously cited as a source of savings for reprogrammings. Amounts represent funds currently available for additional reprogramming: P-001,
5656; P-511, 3349).

BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE

Question. I know that this may be a problem that goes above
your level, but there is a real issue with how the Department is
budgeting for the 1993 round of Base Realignments and Closures
(BRC III). The fiscal year 1994 request for BRAC III is contained in
a legislative contingency account in the Defense Appropriations
Bill, rather than making a straightforward budget request in this
bill. We understand that the contingency account includes $1.2 bil-
lion estimated to be required in fiscal year 1994 for BRC III, offset
by $1.0 billion in savings. How do you see this working?

Answer. A legislative contingency account was established by the
Department of Defense Comptroller to finance the fiscal year 1994
Base Closure and Realignment 1993 (BRAC 93) national costs.
While a detailed explanation of this account is best addressed by
the Department of Defense Comptroller, it is my understanding
that this account is funded by transferring resources from compo-
nents' operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts. These trans-
fers are to be based on the anticipated savings resulting from the
final resolution of the 1993 Base Closure and Realignment recom-
mendations.

Question. Is OSD expecting that you will pay for BRC III out of
your routine O&M accounts?

Answer. Upon final resolution of the Base Closure and Realign-
ment 1993 (BRAC 93) recommendations, transfers of anticipated
savings will be made from impacted components' accounts to the
BRAC 93 legislative contingency account. It is anticipated that the
majority of fiscal year 1994 savings will be accrued in the O&M ac-
counts.

150

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION COSTS

Question. The Base Closure accounts are the sole source of funds
for the Environmental Restoration of closure locations. Are suffi-
cient funds included in the fiscal year 1994 budget to fully fund
this work?

Answer. Yes, adequate funds have been allocated in our fiscal
year 1994 budget to address known requirements at closure loca-
tions. Studies are presently being conducted which could have an
impact on funding requirements, due to unforseen conditions.

BASE CLOSURE III

Question. Admiral, you indicate in your prepared statement that
a legislative contingency account for Base Closure III has been in-
cluded in the fiscal year 1994 Defense appropriations request for
$1.2 billion. To clarify the record, there has been no legislative con-
tingency proposed by the President for Base Closure III funding
thus far. In other words, to date the President has not requested
one dollar for Base Closure III.

Answer. While there are no funds requested in the Military Con-
struction Appropriation for the Base Closure and Realignment
(BRAC) 1993 account (BRAC II), $3.0 billion is requested for Au-
thorization. Of this $3.0 billion, approximately $1.8 billion is for
BRAC 91 actions and $1.2 billion is a wedge for BRAC 93 recom-
mended actions. Additionally, $200 million is requested in the De-
partment of Defense Appropriations Allowance account; page Ap-
pendix-74 in Budget of the United States Government (H. Doc. 103-
3). It is my understanding, the remaining $1.0 billion is to be
funded by transferring resources from impacted component's ac-
counts.

CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT

Question. You indicate that the Navy's portion of the so called
contingency account is $759 million. Do you have the capability to
obligate these funds in fiscal year 1994?

Answer. Yes. A large portion of the FY 94 planned expenditures
are for civilian personnel expenses (separation, relocations, etc)
which are necessary to begin some long daisy chain moves. The
other areas of obligations in FY 94 will be engineering design of
projects we want to construct in FY 95/96 and environmental
clean-up of already known sites.

Question. How much of the Navy Base Closure III funds for FY
1994 would be for non-construction activities such as permanent
change in station costs, planning and environmental clean up?

Answer. The details of the FY 94 BRAC III closure schedules &
budgets are being developed right now by the Commanding Officers
of the closing activities. It is anticipated that all of our FY 94 re-
quest will be spent on non-construction actions.

BASE CLOSURE PROCESS

Question. What problems will it give the Navy in executing the
base closure process, if the base closure account is structured the

151

same way as the military construction accounts, that is, down to
the project level of detail?

Answer. Project specific line item approval of BRAC projects
may impose additional impediments to execution of the Program
within the six years allotted by Law. Currently, we are able to
adjust and revise project scopes and costs as necessary during the
design and execution phases as the details of the closure schedule
dictate. These changes if significant are subject to detailed audit by
the DoDIG.

BASE CLOSURE III

Question. What types of activity for base closure requires exclu-
sive use of base closure funds?

Answer. Base Closure and Realignment account Part II (BRAC
II) is the sole source of funding for Environmental Restoration and
military personnel issues at impacted activities. Additionally, the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (PL 101-510, 5
November 1990) allows the use of BRAC II, Military Construction
Planning and Design, Unspecified Minor Construction or Oper-
ations and Maintenance funds to implement BRAC II actions.

BASE CLOSURE — MARINE CORPS AIR STATION EL TORO

Question. General Reinke, with the recommendations to close
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro and relocate its aircraft and per-
sonnel to Miramar, California, what type of problems do you forsee
with this move? For example, will this create a financial hardship
for the service man or women since Miramar is in a high cost
area?

Answer. It must be clarified that the move to Miramar includes
both the relocation of Marine Corps Air Stations Tustin and El
Toro. The problems foreseen with this move include:

The operation of over 100 more aircraft out of Miramar with mis-
sions that are dissimilar to those currently being flown.

The requirement to establish helicopter access /egress routes
within San Diego's positively controlled airspace.

The limited time available to execute this multi-tiered move.

All three air stations, Tustin, El Toro, and Miramar are in high
cost areas. With the complete closure of MCAS Tustin and El Toro
the Marine Corps will loose 2,927 family housing units. If the
access to existing military family housing in San Diego is suffi-
cient, the impact on our Marines will be insignificant.

Question. Will you program base closure funds to construct
family housing at Miramar?

Answer. Programming will be dependent on access to the San
Diego housing market and final decisions of the Base Closure Com-
mission.

AGANA, GUAM

Question. Does the Navy have any plans to relocate its activities
from Agana?

Answer. The Navy has no plans to relocate Naval Air Station
(NAS) Agana to Anderson Air Force Base (AFB) and the Depart-
ment of Defense did not include NAS Agana on the 1993 realign-

152

ment and closure list submitted to the Base Closure Commission.
NAS Agana was recently added to the base realignment and clo-
sure list by the Base Closure Commission as a candidate for reloca-
tion to Anderson AFB. Costs, environmental impacts, and oper-
ational constraints for this proposal need to be evaluated.

Question. What would it cost to relocate facilities from Agana?

Answer. Under the scenario whereby the Air Force remains at
its current force level at Anderson Air Force Base, the cost of relo-
cating operational units and families from Naval Air Station
Agana to Anderson is around $350 million. This preliminary esti-
mate covers the cost of relocation, upgrade of existing facilities,
and construction of new facilities. It does not include any environ-
mental clean-up or mitigation cost that might be associated with
the move.

MARINES PROGRAM LEVEL

Question. General Reinke, since 1989 your military construction
program has been shrinking year by year from a level of $242 mil-
lion in 1989 to $108 million in 1994 — a 55 percent reduction. How
do you explain this reduction?

Answer. Since 1989 the Department of Defense budget has taken
larger and larger budget reductions. The Marine Corps has taken
commensurate reductions to its total budget. This has created keen
competition for scarce resources. Since the majority of the Marine
Corps budget goes toward essentials such as family housing
upkeep, minimum field training days for infantry battalions, re-
cruit training, and manpower salaries there are fewer dollars avail-
able for other important requirements such as military construc-
tion.

HAWAII FAMILY HOUSING

Question. Last year the conference action on the Military Con-
struction bill appropriated $117 million to construct 758 new hous-
ing units at various locations in Hawaii. The conference action was
$65 million less than the amount recommended by the Senate to
build the same number of units. Is the Navy able to build the same
number of units at the reduced level?

Answer. Based on conventional townhouse construction, the
Navy is comfortable with the amount of funds available. However,
if as a result of the dynamic situation on Oahu, there is a require-
ment to build mid-rise housing due to site constraints, cost would
be a problem.

MARINES QUALITY OF LIFE

Question. General Reinke, similar to your program level for mili-
tary construction, quality of life program for the Marines has been
reduced dramatically since 1989. How do you explain the drop?
When will we begin to see more emphasis on quality of life
projects?

Answer. Since 1988, the quality of life portion of the Marine
Corps Milcon program has gone from a high of 38% in 1989 to a
low of 12% in 1993 and 1994. This drop is a result of keen competi-
tion for scarce resources. In order to keep pace with the overall re-

153

ductions to the Department of Defense budget the Marine Corps
has been required to provide increasingly larger portions of its
budget to essentials such as family housing upkeep, minimum field
training days for infantry battalions, recruit training, and man-
power salaries.

Quality of life has been a high priority for the Marine Corps. Be-
tween 1980 and 1993 the Marine Corps has supported quality of life
by investing $657 million in new construction for bachelor housing.
This investment improved the living conditions for over 38 thou-
sand Marines. Although some new bachelor housing construction is
still needed, the Marine Corps' current plan is to invest primarily
in the upgrade and modernization of our current inventory.

Of the total funds for maintenance and repair the Marine Corps
has increased the amount expended on barracks and troop messing
facilities since 1989. The following percentages apply:

Fiscal years

1989

1990

1991 1992

1993

1994

Percent

20 17

The Marine Corps has been working on Bachelor and Family
Housing campaign plans which call for more emphasis on quality
of life projects in the upcoming budget cycle.

Question. Do you still have Marines in open bay barracks?

Answer. Yes, the Marine Corps currently billets approximately
11,000 recruits and trainees in adequate open bay barracks annual-
ly and approximately 5,000 permanent party Marines in inad-
equate open bay barracks. Camp Pendleton has our largest bar-
racks deficit and must billet approximately 3,400 Marines in inad-
equate open bay barracks.

CAMP PENDLETON, CAUFORNIA

Question. What is the status of recovery efforts from floods at
Camp Pendleton? Do you plan to submit a supplemental request or
reprogramming request for restoration of damaged facilities?

Answer. Emergency repairs, to primary paved roads, the Stuart
Mesa Bridge, temporary bridge and road repair at Basilone, water
line connections, and rechannelling the river at Ranch House and
26 area are complete or underway.

Design and planning are underway for further rechannelling of
the Santa Margarita River, a permanent Stuart Mesa Bridge, utili-
ty river crossing at Basilone Road, diversion weir, housing erosion,

A Supplemental request of $57,295,000 for Fiscal Year 93,
$18,016,000 in Fiscal Year 94 and $24,080,000 in Fiscal Year 95 has
been submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
breakout by appropriation is as follows:

154

Fiscal years
1993 1994 1995

n.M MP 20.667 11.066

i£oN(Mcy::::::::::::::i:ii::i:i:;' 3.000 6.550 24,o8o

FAMHSG (MC) "-345

PMC ■

RPM, D ^^-^^^

.400

Total.

57.295 18.016 24.080

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Question. Approximately $142 million of the Navy and Marine
Corps program is requested for environmental type projects. How
much of this is for environmental compliance reasons?

Answer. All of the projects included in the $142 M for environ-
mental projects are to address either Class I or Class II compliance
requirements except two, which are categorized as "pollution pre-
vention." Class I projects remedy a situation where the Base is al-
ready in violation of Federal, State or local laws. Under Class II
conditions, operations will be out of compliance with an impendmg
or projected deadline if action is not taken. Pollution prevention is
taking action "today" so that there will be no pollution "tomor-
row." The two pollution prevention projects are listed below:

NSB Kings Bay, GA, Utilities & Site Improvements ($7.2 mil-

NAS Memphis, TN, Potable Water System Improvements ($0.3
million).

DEMOLITION PROGRAM

Question. Do you have a program for identifying and demolishing
surplus inventory of facilities?

Answer. No, the Navy does not have any uniform program to
identify or demolish surplus facilities.

Question. Do you think a demolition program would get a priori-
ty if a special line item was established under the niilitary con-
struction account or would you prefer to continue using Defense
O&M funds for demolition?

Answer. A fenced program would help, if not funded at the ex-
pense of Operations and Maintenance or Military Construction re-
quirements. Demolition of facilities can be very expensive because
of the presence of asbestos, lead-based paint, PCB and other haz-
ardous materials. The presence of these materials drives removal
costs up, and reduces potential salvage value. It is often more cost
effective to maintain structural integrity of a facility than to de-
molish it. A decision to demolish a facility should be based on life
cycle economic analysis, together with safety and security consider-
ations.

DEMOLITION PROGRAM

Question. Are there savings to be achieved by demolishing un-
needed buildings?

155

Answer. Some savings could be achieved by demolition of un-
needed facilities. Basic structural maintenance requires very little
Operations and Maintenance funding, compared to the one time
cost of building demolition. A decision to demolish a facility should
be based on a life-cycle economic analysis, together with safety and
security considerations.

MARINES — ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUANCE

Question. General Reinke, I understand environmental compli-
ance comprises 50 percent of your construction program. Do you
expect the Environmental Compliance Program to dominate your
program next year?

Answer. We anticipate that environmental compliance will con-
tinue to dominate our program in the coming years. Our infra-
structure is approximately 40 years old. This aging infrastructure,
along with stringent environmental compliance requirements, will
cause these expenses to continue to take a large portion of the
Marine Corps Milcon program.

MARINES — FAMILY HOUSING

Question. When was the last year that you had no new construc-
tion of family housing units? Why are you proposing no new units
when you project a total deficiency of 9,854 units? Is base closure
and manpower reduction going to help reduce the deficiency?

Answer. Fiscal Year 1980 was the last year the Marine Corps
had no new construction of family housing units.

Recent budget cuts resulted in a decision to postpone a 105 unit
new construction project for MCB Camp Pendleton, CA from Fiscal
Year 1994 to Fiscal Year 1995. The Marine Corps places higher em-
phasis on maintaining and revitalizing our existing housing inven-
tory over constructing new units. It does not make sense to con-
struct new units while we are closing existing units because we are
unable to maintain them in a habitable condition.

Our deficit is concentrated in the southern California area. The
projected closure of MCAS Tustin has already resulted in a reduced
projected deficit for MCAS El Toro but will result in increased defi-
cits at other installations in the southern California area. The pro-
posed closure of MCAS El Toro will eliminate their remaining defi-
cit but add to the Naval Complex San Diego deficit.

SUBIC RELOCATION TO GUAM

Question. In the fiscal year 1992 Supplemental, $60 million was
appropriated in connection with relocation of Navy missions from
Subic Bay to Guam. This year the Navy is requesting $72 million
in construction for Guam. How much more is required to complete
the relocation to Guam?

Answer. One additional Military Construction project is required
to complete the construction program supporting relocation of
Navy units from Subic Bay to Guam. The cost of this Cold Storage
Warehouse project is $15.5 million.

156

NAPLES

Question. Is the FY 1994 request associated with relocation of
any faciUties from Agnano?

Answer. No. The faciUties provided in the FY 94 Quality of Life
(I) project, Dining Hall, Consolidated Club, Recreation Facility,
Bank/Credit Union/ITT Services, are long standing requirements
that have existed at the Capadichino airport site. Prior to 1989
when we acquired additional property at the airport from the Ital-
ian Air Force we did not have room to construct these "support fa-
cilities" so we made do with an undersized, inadequate mess hall at
Capodichino and relied on facilities across town in Agnano, Bag-
noli, or Carney Park to support the other needs. The increased
military population Capodichino now make these requirements a
priority.

GUAM NON-IMMIGRANT ALIENS

Question. Current law prohibits funds from being obligated or
spent for any military construction project in Guam if any work is
performed by a "non-immigrant alien" (i.e., hire only Guamanians
or U.S. citizens). With the current unemployment rate on Guam at
about one percent, are contractors having a problem hiring skilled
labor?

Answer. In recent years contractors have had a problem hiring
skilled labor. With current unemployment near one percent,
anyone who wants a job can find one. There are basically two alter-
natives for contractors: 1) hire from off Island; or 2) increase wages
to attract labor from existing resources.

Question, do you expect a problem in hiring skilled labor in view
of the large construction program that is just getting underway?

Answer. Given the Navy's large construction program that is get-
ting underway, the current hiring situation is expected to worsen.
Bid prices are beginning to rise in Guam. The labor shortage, in-
creased wages and moving and living expenses are contributing fac-
tors.

Question. Do you see a need to amend the current law dealing
with hiring only Guamanians and U.S. citizens?

Answer. Amending the law to broaden hiring options beyond
Guamanians and U.S. citizens would probably result in lower bid
amounts. However, there would be a risk of lowering the quality of
construction resulting from using less skilled workers. There is also
the potential for language problems during construction which
might lead to lower quality construction. Consequently, the Navy
does not advocate an amendment to the existing laws.

AMERICAN PREFERENCE POLICY

Question. American Preference Policy for the Pacific states that
for a foreign firm to be awarded the contract, its bid must be 20
percent less than the lowest responsive bid of a U.S. firm. What
has been the success rate of Navy contract awards to U.S. firms for
projects in Guam since adoption of the American Preference Policy
for the Pacific region?

157

Answer. Since the American preference policy for the Pacific has
been in effect, the success rate for Navy contract awards to U.S.
firms has been in excess of 90 percent.

FORD ISLAND, HAWAII

Question. Could you update the Committee on Ford Island,
Hawaii proposal requiring the State to construct a causeway to
Ford Island in exchange for conveyance of Naval property to the
State of Hawaii.

Answer. The Navy, the State of Hawaii and the City and County
of Honolulu have agreed to the terms for conveyance of the Navy
land and payment of funds for construction of the causeway. A
Memorandum of Understanding between the parties to implement
the Agreement has not been executed however, because of the
newly imposed environmental indemnification requirements con-
tained in the 1993 Department of Defense Appropriation Act
(Public Law 102-396). The Department of Defense will not agree to
transfer its lands subject to the new environmental indemnity pro-
vision and the city and State will not agree to waive the provision.

Question. What is your program for facilities development on
Ford Island?

Answer. The Navy is considering construction of 700 to 800 units
of family housing and some personnel support facilities on Ford
Island. This plan is contingent upon completion of the Ford Island
Causeway to provide direct access to Ford Island. There are cur-
rently no plans for constructing additional operational facilities on
Ford Island.

JAPANESE FACIUTIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (JFIP)

Question. Provide for the record a list of the Navy and Marine
Corps projects that will be funded under the Japanese Facilities
Improvement Program in Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994.

Answer. The following is a list of projects approved by the Japa-
nese Government for JFIP funding in Fiscal Year 1993. The JFIP
fiscal year begins 1 April. Funding levels for Fiscal Year 1994 have
not yet been determined by the Japanese government.

JAPANESE FISCAL YEAR 1993 NEW START PROJECTS

[In thousands of dollars]
Location Title Cost

Akaski Utilities 1,604

Akaski POL Facility 237

Akaski Warehouse 59

Akaski Oil Filter/Separator 65

Akaski Warehouse (Conforming) 12

Akaski POL Facility 3,459

Akizuki Warehouse 781

Akizuki Disaster Preventing Facility 119

Army POL Pipeline (Submarine) 108

Army POL Pipeline 1,555

Aska Security Fence 22

Atsugi AB POL Related Facility 788

Atsugi AB Sewage Treatment Facility 122

Atsugi AB Commissary 3,764

Atsugi AB Family Housing 634

158
JAPANESE FISCAL YEAR 1993 NEW START PROJECTS— Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Location Title Cost

Atsugi AB Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 606

Atsugi AB Family Housing 13,270

Atsugi AB Family Housing 806

Atsugi AB Sports Facility 7,018

Atsugi AB Maintenance Hangar 50

Atsugi AB Maintenance Hangar 5,651

Atsugi AB Warehouse 545

Atsugi AB Utilities 8,186

Atsugi AB Parking Apron 44

Atsugi AB Maintenance Hangar 6,877

Atsugi AB Guest House 482

Atsugi AB Elementary School 2,060

Atsugi AB Sports Facility 81

Atsugi AB Telephone Exchange 4,669

Atsugi AB Education Facility (Multi-purpose) 6,022

Atsugi AB Education Facility (Maintenance) 1,069

Azuna Fire Protection Facility 1,846

Courtney Vehicle Shop 179

Fugi Warehouse (Equipment) 1,414

Fugi Administrative Building (Headquarters) 3,468

Fugi .; Vehicle Shop 1,163

Fugi Sports Facility 925

Fugi Post Office 168

Fugi Bachelor Officers Quarters 968

Fukaya Sewage Drainage System 368

Futenma AS Sports Facility 4,615

Futenma AS Administrative Building ( Laboratory) 29

Futenma AS Bachelor Officers Quarters 540

Futenma AS Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 6,801

Futenma AS Vehicle Shop 902

Futenma AS Parking Apron 165

Futenma AS Utilities 79

Futenma AS Maintenance Hangar 14

Futenma AS Ground Support Shop 1,488

Futenma AS Vehicle Shop 53

Hachinohe POL Facility 65

Hansen Post Office 1,005

Hansen Administrative Building (Training) 2,148

Hansen Administrative Building (Headquarters) 4,137

Hansen Dental Clinic 2,339

Hansen Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 413

Hansen Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 326

Hansen Storm Drainage System 65

Hansen Administrative Building 145

Hansen Communication Shop Ill

Hansen Vehicle Shop 4,241

Hansen Road 248

Hansen Warehouse (Equipment) 106

Hansen Vehicle Shop 51

Hansen Vehicle Shop 2,709

Hario Medical/Dental Clinic 1,736

Hario Community Center 2,545

Hario Child Care Center 1,223

Hario Commissary 2,595

Hario Family Housing 118

Hiro Disaster Preventing Facility 118

Ikego Waste Disposal Facility 10,329

Ikego Telephone Exchange 1,775

Ikego Utilities 22,798

Ikego Family Housing 47,616

Ikego Family Housing 9,723

159

JAPANESE FISCAL YEAR 1993 NEW START PROJECTS— Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Location Title Cost

Ikego Sewage Treatment Facility 4,315

Iwakuni Administrative Building (Aircraft) 2,003

Iwakuni Administrative Building (Headquarters) 2,366

Iwakuni Administrative Building 68

Iwakuni Administrative Building (Data Process) 94

Iwakuni Vehicle Shop 105

Iwakuni Security Facility 33

Iwakuni Security Fence 16

Iwakuni POL Facility 147

Iwakuni Family Housing 2,501

Iwakuni Family Housing 317

Iwakuni Sewage Draining System 992

Iwakuni Post Office 237

Iwakuni Sports Facility 631

Iwakuni Storm Draining System 38

Iwakuni Warehouse (Cold Storage) 3,377

Iwakuni Warehouse (Package) 649

Iwakuni Maintenance Shop 1,481

Iwakuni Utilities 1,129

Iwakuni Warehouse (Parts) 1,232

Iwakuni Warehouse ((informing) 48

Iwakuni Runway 2,293

Kadena Administrative Building (Headquarters) 4,320

Kadena Il/Iedical/Dental Clinic 528

Kadena Administrative Building ( Engineer) 27

Kadena Administrative Building (Headquarters) 5,855

Kadena Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 153

Kadena Bachelor Enlisted (Quarters 158

Kadena POL Facility 404

Kadena Child Care Center 145

Kadena Sewage Treatment Facility 46

Kadena Utilities 13

Kadena Vehicle Shop 5

Kadena Security Facility 11,455

Kadena Warehouse (Conforming) 647

Kadena Warehouse (Parts) 224

Kadena Maintenance Facility (Aircraft) 12

Kadena Administrative Building (Cargo) 20

Kadena Fire Fighting Facility 563

KamiSeya Utilities 2,644

Kami Seya Gas Station 455

Kawakani Warehouse 13

Kawakani Storm Drainage System 61

Kawakani Administrative Building (Headquarters) 2,367

Koshiba Disaster Preventing Facility 818

Koshiba POL Related Facility 4,201

Kuwae Warehouse (Medical) 240

Kuwae Administrative Building (Health) 406

Makininato Paint Shop 676

Makininato Communication Shop 12

Makininato Administrative Building (Vehicle) 6

Makininato Child Care Center 22

Makininato Elementary School 1,120

Makininato Gas Station 289

Makininato Bank 416

Makininato Road 473

Makininato Warehouse (Conforming) 414

Makininato Sports Facility 6,511

Makininato Vehicle Shop 12

Makininato Warehouse (Cold Storage) 1,245

McTureons Fire Station 999

68-354 O— 93-

160

JAPANESE FISCAL YEAR 1993 NEW START PROJECTS-Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Location Title Cost

Misawa AB : Family Housing 1,959

Misawa AB Administrative Building (Supply) 837

Misawa AB Family Housing 2,369

Misawa AB Administrative Building (Air Terminal) 269

Misawa AB Family Housing 12,945

Misawa AB Road 503

Misawa AB Hard AC Shelter 13,712

Misawa AB Hospital 10,148

Misawa AB Administrative Building (Headquarters) 660

Misawa AB Family Housing 5,036

Misawa AB Administrative Building (Sec Police) 26

Misawa AB Hard AC Shelter 2,245

Misawa AB AC Shelter 1,678

Misawa AB Guest House 266

Misawa AB Warehouse 1,286

Misawa AB Garage 218

Misawa AB Administrative Building (Headquarters) 137

Misawa AB Maintenance Shop 5,740

Misawa AB Utilities 749

Misawa AB Storm Drainage System 244

Misawa AB Maintenance Hangar 52

Negishi Storm Drainage System 62

Sagani Warehouse 178

Sagani Warehouse 665

Sagani Test Shop 26

Sagani Warehouse (Equipment) 40

Sagani Utilities 4,233

Sagani Garage 41

Sagani Warehouse (Flammable) 47

Sagani Sports Facility 1,496

Sagani Storm Drainage System 864

Sasebo Pier 2,083

Sasebo Utilities 305

Sasebo Telephone Exchange 5,022

Sasebo Special Service Facility 96

Sasebo Vehicle Shop 136

Shields Utilities 10

Shwab Sports Facility 173

Shwab Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 273

Shwab Communications Shop 3,631

Shwab PostOftice 458

Tana Storm Drainage System 30

Tategani Warehouse (Flammable) 63

Tategani Warehouse (Multi-purpose) 150

Tategani Warehouse (Conforming) 71

Terii Bachelor Officers Quarters 289

Terii Storm Drainage System 20

Terii Warehouse 515

Urago Safety Measures Facility 486

White Beach Warehouse (Hospital) 172

Yokohama Vehicle Bridge 1,453

Yokose POL Facility 181

Yokosuka Fire Station 1,090

Yokosuka Exchange 112

Yokosuka Special Service Facility 550

Yokosuka Pier 203

Yokosuka Utilities 84,842

Yokosuka ., Dredging 2,868

Yokosuka Administrative Building (Headquarters) 7,638

Yokosuka Admin Building (Waterfront Support) 44

Yokosuka Shop (Electric/ Electronics) 373

161

JAPANESE FISCAL YEAR 1993 NEW START PROJECTS— Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Location Title Cost

Yokosuka Family Housing 1,158

Yokosuka Family Housing 937

Yokosuka Family Housing 3,417

Yokosuka Family Housing 995

Yokosuka Family Housing 819

Yokosuka Family Housing 153

Yokosuka Oil Filter/Separator 1 13

Yokosuka Family Housing 4,977

Yokosuka Family Housing 320

Yokosuka Family Housing 150

Yokota AB Fire Station 607

Yokota AB Administrative Building (Aeromedic) 5,163

Yokota AB Administrative Building (Bandstiell) 876

Yokota AB Post Office 98

Yokota AB Youth Center 2,362

Yokota AB Special Services Facility 133

Yokota AB Warehouse (Medical) 2,520

Yokota AB Parking Apron 4,905

Yokota AB Utilities 722

Yokota AB Administrative Building (Headquarters) 3,960

Yokota AB Security Fence 1,161

Yokota AB Warehouse (Material/Equipment) 28,862

Yokota AB Oil Filter/Separator 44

Yokota AB Child Care Center 340

Yokota AB Family Housing 658

Yokota AB Dining Facility 4,511

Yokota AB Family Housing 5,947

Yosami Security Facility 246

Zana Storm Drainage System 1,807

Zana Disaster Preventing Facility 728

Zana Sports Facility 44

Zana Family Housing 1,877

Zana Family Housing 3,643

Zana Sew/age Treatment Facility 373

Zana Vehicle Shop 990

Zana Warehouse (Housing) 419

Zana Utilities 10,407

Zana Medical Clinic 30

Zana Medical/Dental Clinic 1,114

Zana Community Center 1,385

Zana Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 2,036

Zukeran Administrative Building (Headquarters) 49

Zukeran Administrative Building 2,775

Zukeran Administrative Building (Vehicle Reg) 1,655

Zukeran Warehouse (Communication) 8

Zukeran Administrative Building (Photography) 31

Zukeran Administrative Building (Communication) 49

Zukeran Bank 11

Zukeran Vehicle Shop 80

Zukeran Vehicle Shop 29

Zukeran Vehicle Shop 960

Zukeran High School 2,477

Zukeran Warehouse (Furniture) 162

Zukeran Warehouse (Hospital) 2,280

162

Question. Have the Japanese declined to fund any projects that
you requested in fiscal years 1993 and 1994? If so, what projects
were denied, at what cost, and for what reason?

Answer. The Japanese have turned down several Navy projects
in the 1993 request. The reasons for denials include need for site
acquisition and/or clear building sites, and projects deemed politi-
cally sensitive to the Japanese government. The U.S. has not yet
requested formal approval for the fiscal year 1994 Japanese Facili-
ties Improvement Program (FJIP) candidates and, therefore, there
have been no denials in the current year program.

LONDON, U.K. FAMILY HOUSING

Question. The budget request includes $15.5 million to exercise a
purchase option for 81 leased family housing in London, England.
Please provide economic analysis supporting this purchase.

Answer. The executive summary of the economic analysis sup-
porting purchase of 81 West Ruislip units follows. A complete copy
can be provided upon request. The economic analysis supports pur-
chase as the most cost effective alternative for the United States
Government. The purchase price is $191,000 per unit versus
$250,000 to purchase a three-bedroom townhouse in London. Homes
in London are very expensive, small, and lack American amenities.
Fiscal Year 1994 is the last year to exercise the purchase option
contained in the existing lease agreement.

163

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study reviews conceptual alternatives to provide adequate family bousing
in order for Commander. U. S. Naval Activities, United Kingdom (COMi^IAVACTUK) to
perform its assigned mission. An existing lease agreement with Peter Gordon Blacker
covers 81 family housing units and includes a provision that gives the U.S.
Government an opportunity to purchase the property at a stated time during the lease
termand for a stated price. This analysis examines the conceptual alternatives of 1)
continued leasing; or 2) continued leasing through FY-94 with purchase of the facility
with FY-94 funds, and cessation of annual rent at the end of FY-94. Both Alternatives 1
and 2 are capable of being implemented. For informational purposes these alternatives
were compared with continued leasing through FY-95 with a hypothetical FY-94
Military Construction of a family housing to meet COMNAVACTUK's needs. No land is or
will be available for pursuit of MILCON construction, however, and Alternative 3 is
incapable of implementation. Inclusion in the analysis was solely for bueristic
purposes. The Net Present Value (NPV) projections of the three alternatives are shown
below:

Alternative Mtaiis tiEii USS Equiv.

1 Status Quo/Leasing £9.453.000 $13,733,000

2 Lease w/Purchase Using FY-94 Funds £5.729.000 $9,610,000

3 MILCON-FY-94 £6.026.000 $10,136,000

Alternative 2 has the lowest NPV of the three alternatives. A description of
each alternative is summarized below:

Alternative 1 (NPV is £9.453,000) considers continued leasing of 81 family
housing units through FY-2009; the existing lease began October 1, 1984 and runs for
ten years with 15 additional one-year renewable options ending in FY-2009. Rents
were escalated every five years based on provisions in the existing lease. The lease
allows for restoration costs at the end of the lease. Based on on-going negotiations
with Mr. Blacker on other leased properties, the restoration costs may be substantial.
Therefore, an estimated cost for restoration has been included.

Alternative 2 (NPV is £5,729.000) considers the purchase of the existing
propeny with FY-94 funding with Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) in FY-95. The
purchase option and stated price are in conformity with provisions in the existing
lease. Leasing terms will be the same as in Alternative No. 1 through FY-94. A
composite residual value for the buildings and related land is included in this
alternative.

Alternative 3 (NPV is £6,026.000) considers the same leasing scheme as
Alternative 1 through FY-95. A MILCON Project would be included in the FY-94
MILCON program; it is assumed that land will be purchased in FY 94 for construction
and that MILCON will take two years with BOD occurring in FY -96. Residual values for
land and buildings are shown in this alternative. An estimated cost for restoration of
the existing leased units has been included.

The U.S. Government will be responsible for annual utility, maintenance and
operation costs under all three alternatives. Therefore, these cost have been
eliminated from the analysis. All costs were escalated annually based on appropriate
inflation factors.

164

BASE CLOSURE ACCOUNT

Question. The Navy is doing what we have advocated for a long
time (i.e., closing bases), but now you are doing it all at once. What,
if anything, can you do to soften the blow of the local economy?

Answer. First, the Navy is expediting relocation planning, oper-
ational closure, and McKinney Act/Governmental reuse screening
to allow the earliest possible disposal /transfer of base property to
local non-DOD use. Second, when the community has identified po-
tential users for the base property, the Navy is utilizing interim
leases to allow community access to Navy held property in advance
of actual disposal/transfer. Third, in the absence of an identified
community end use, the Navy is maintaining the structural integ-
rity of closed facilities to preserve their value for reuse until actu-
ally transferred. Fourth, the Navy is accelerating environmental
restoration whenever possible to stimulate basic property reuse
planning. Finally, the Navy is functioning as a community advo-
cate in liaison with other State and Federal agencies to assist in
obtaining conversion funds to help transition the use of closing
Navy facilities. This aid includes grants from DOD's Office of Eco-
nomic Adjustment, the Homeowner's Assistance Program, separa-
tion bonuses to civil service personnel, job retraining reimburse-
ment and incentives to employers. Also available are School Impact
Aid, and grants through the Department of Labor and the Depart-
ment of Commerce's Economic Development Administration. Infor-
mation is passed through Navy conducted, jointly sponsored com-
munity conferences.

BASE CLOSURE III

Question. Explain the problem of having three separate base clo-
sure accounts.

Answer. It is my understanding that the two Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) Acts we're currently operating under (BRAC
88 and 90) each established a single account to fund their respec-
tive closure and realignment actions. The Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 (PL 101-510, 5 November 1990) estab-
lished a single account to fund the 1991, 1993 and 1995 actions. I
don't perceive any difficulties with maintaining separate distinct
accounts for each round of closures. However, funding the remain-
ing BRAC actions from a single account may provide some addi-
tional fiscal flexibility.

STATEN ISLAND SECTION 801 PROJECT

Question. If Homeport at Staten Island is approved for closure,
what will the Navy's position on the build-to-lease project for 915
housing units? Will the Navy terminate or buy out the lease?

Answer. Based on Office of the Secretary of Defense guidance,
there is no Termination for Convenience of the United States Gov-
ernment clause included in this contract. Therefore, Navy is con-
sidering a wide range of alternatives to avoid breakage costs. These
alternatives include housing residual military families, bachelors
and Department of Defense civilians in the New York City area,
and possibly subleasing to the public.

165

EVERETT, WASHINGTON

Question. How much has been appropriated for construction of
the strategic homeport at Everett, Washington and how much is re-
quired to complete construction?

Answer. The amount appropriated from Military Construction,
Navy (MCON) projects through fiscal year 1993 is $240.9 million.
There are two projects in the fiscal year 1994 MCON budget total-
ling $34 million. MCON projects totalling $86.8 million are planned
for future MCON budget requests.

Question. How much in base closure funds are allocated for con-
struction at Everett?

Answer. As part of the base closure appropriations parts I and II,
$88.4 million has been appropriated through fiscal year 1993 for
construction and land acquisition at Everett. Two additional base
closure 1991 projects, totalling $5.5 million, are in the current
budget. No additional base closure projects are anticipated.

QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECTS

Question. I wish to commend both the Navy and Marines on the
request for $148 million in quality of life projects of which $23 mil-
lion is for nine child development centers.

Answer. Thank you. The Navy is continuing to make improve-
ments in quality of life for both living and working environments.

BASE CLOSURE — ACCELERATED CLEAN UP

Question. As you know, one of the major problems in the base
closure process is the length of time to perform necessary remedial
clean up. What is being done to shorten all the planning, investiga-
tory and review periods so that remedial clean up can be accom-
plished in a more expedited fashion.

Answer. The Navy is working closely with other Federal Agen-
cies and state regulatory authorities to implement procedures for
moving sites rapidly from the investigation phase to cleanup. One
effort is to integrate overlapping programs and emphasize the final
clean up of the site rather than the process. Another effort involves
conducting interim removal /remedial actions at sites when it is
prudent to proceed before all phases of study are completed. An ad-
ditional effort involves the establishing of a team or partnering ap-
proach with regulatory authorities for selecting remedies at Na-
tional Priorities List installations. The U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency has final approval authority at NPL installations. At
non-NPL installations, the Navy involves Federal and state regula-
tory authorities early on to promote coordination and concurrence
in the proposed site cleanup. Finally, in FY93, the Navy estab-
lished the Pilot Expedited Environmental Clean-Up Program at 5
installations (4 BRAC installations: NAS Chase Field, MCGACC
Twenty-Nine Palms, NCBC Davisville and NS Long Beach). Results
have been mixed but the tendency has been toward quicker clean-
up because of higher visibility.

166

JOBS BILL

Question. What is the state of the construction industry? Is it
down? Is there a heavily competitive market? Could you elaborate
on how long, in terms of the shortest time to the longest time, it
takes to get a project on the street once the bill is enacted into
law?

Answer. We believe that the construction industry across the
country is basically down with the exception of the Northwest por-
tion. Bidding on our military construction projects has been ex-
tremely competitive with relatively narrow bid ranges for the past
year. The construction industry in Hawaii and Guam is particular-
ly competitive at this time due to the tightening of Japanese banks
on their credit lines, resulting in a virtual stoppage of major Japa-
nese investment in new construction. Construction firms in Guam
which have not sought work from us since the early 70's are now
actively bidding our projects.

The length of project award lead time is a difficult question to
answer precisely in that so many different things significantly in-
fluence the outcome. However, as a rough rule of thumb for
medium-sized projects ($5-$25 Million), our experience has been
that the pre-design phase of selecting and contracting for a design
firm is about 6 months, the actual design another 10 months, and
the construction pre-award phase an additional 4 months. This
totals 20 months in all from a fresh start. We try to accomplish
much of the design effort before bill enaction, thereby substantially
reducing the time from authorization to award. These average
times can vary greatly depending upon the amount of additional
design required to meet various environmental permitting require-
ments, type of procurement strategy selected for solicitation, and
inherent complexity of the facility being constructed. Therefore, de-
pending on how much design work has been accomplished, the
shortest time between authorization and award can be as little as
two months and as much as twenty months for a straight-forv.'ard
construction project.

Question. How long would it take for a housing repair project to
get out on the street as opposed to a housing improvement project?

Answer. There really is not much difference, except for funding
source. Both types of projects are designed and executed the same
way. Projects that would be recommended for inclusion in a Jobs
Bill would already be designed. Generally, we could award Jobs
Bill family housing repair and improvement project in two to five
months.

PARAMETRIC DESIGN

Question. How has parametric design helped you in cutting plan-
ning costs and streamlining the design process from 35 percent con-
cept to final design?

Answer. The parametric process substitutes a project engineering
phase in lieu of direct design to obtain information needed to devel-
op the budget estimate submittal. A direct comparison between
"traditional" design and parametric design costs is not feasible be-
cause all projects must be designed from 0-100%, regardless of the
method used for budget estimating. The benefit from use of para-

167

metric process is that it provides better cost estimating and control
through improved communication between users, agents, designers,
contractors, and reduces design breakage by starting final design
only after the project is in OSD's budget.

Actual design "board time" for both the traditional process and
parametric process is about the same. Timeliness of project execu-
tion may be improved by use of the parametric process, in that
delays and disruptions through the design are minimized. However,
we have insignificant experience at this time to quantify anticipat-
ed savings, either in cost or time.

FY 1994 PROJECTS IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE

Question. For the record, list all the projects (and amounts) in
the fiscal year 1994 budget that are impacted by the Secretary of
Defense's 1993 Base Closure and Realignment recommendations.

Answer. In the event the Department of Defense recommenda-
tions provided to the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commis-
sion are approved, the following projects would no longer be re-
quired due to base closure realignments or closures:

[In thousands o

if dollars]

Fiscal years

State

Installation

Project

Title

Amounts

MCON:

1994

CA
CA
CA
CT
CT
CT
CT
FL
HI
TN
VA

NTC San Diego

P-067

Fire Sprinkler Washers

Maintenance Hangar Add

Control Tower Complex

700

1994

MCAS El Toro

P-624

1,950

1994

NAS Alameda

P-053

.. 4,700

1994

NSB New London

P-438

SUB Ind Waste Treat Fac

Utilities Improvements

5,700

1994

NSB New London

P-421

8,190

1994

NSB New London

P-391

Steam Turtiine Generator

Haz Waste Transfer Fac.

.. 6,600

1994

NSB New London

. ... P-441

1,450

1994

NAS Cecil Field

P-831

Sanitary Wastewtr Treat

1,500

1994

NAS Barbers PT

P-253

Fire Fighting Trng Fac

Fuels Trainer Facilitv

1,350

1994

NAS Memphis

NADEP Norfolk

P-292

P-327

600

1994

Aircraft Rework Facility

.. 17,800

Subtotal

.. 50,540

FHN:

1994

NY
CA

NS Staten Island

H-04-87

Mitchel Manor Whisite, II

Upgrade HVAC Sys, Stockton ...

7,161

1994

Subtotal

San Francisco

H-1093

400
.. 7,561

BRAC II:
1994

CA
CA
CA
CA
CA

MCAS 29 Palms

P-004S

Airfield Ops and Maint

.. 47,720

1994

MCAS 29 Palms

P-995S

Runway, Site Prep & Infra

Access Road

.. 165,700

1994

MCAS 29 Palms

P-521S

.. 14,200

1994

NAR Alameda

P-320S

Hangar Modifications

4,100

1994

NAS ALameda

NAS Barbers PT

H-206S

P-261S

Family Housing (71 units)

Consolidated Trainer Fac

.. 8,670
.. » 5,500

Subtotal ....

.. 254,890

Total

.. 303.991

' Requirement for this facility will transfer to Kaneohe Bay if BRAC 93 recommendations are approved.

Other FY 94 projects may not be required pending investigation
of continued need in light of BRAC 93 recommendations. These

168

projects will be identified to the Committee after determinations
are made.

PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS IMPACTED BY BASE CLOSURE

Question. For the record, list all prior year projects not yet
funded that are impacted by the Secretary of Defense 1993 Base
Closure and Realignment recommendations. The list should show
project name, fiscal year appropriated and amount.

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

State

Installation

Project

Title

Amount

MCON:

1992.
1992.
1992.
1993.
1992.
1993.,
1993.
1991.
1992.
1992.,
1993.,
1990.
1992.
1993.,
1993.,
1993.

Subtotal .

MCNR:

1990.,
1993.
1991.
1991.
1991.

Subtotal .

FHN:

1990.
1993.
1993.
1993.
1993.
1993.
1993.
1993.

Subtotal .

BRAC I:
1990.
1991.
1991.
1993.
1993.

CA NSY Mare Island P-295

CA NADEP Alameda P-715

CA NADEP Alameda P-726

CA NSY Mare Island P-282

CT NSB New London P-394

CT NSB New London P-428

PL NAS Cecil Field P-266

MS NAS Meridian P-191

MS NAS Meridian P-280

MS NAS Meridian P-277

MS NAS Meridian P-281

SC NB Charleston P-190

SC FMWTC Ctiarleston P-624

TN NAS Memphis P-291

TN NAS Memphis P-170

TN NAS Memphis P-OU

Computer Operations Center....

Boiler Plant Modifications

HVAC Modifications

Hazardous & Flammable Stor..

Submarine IMA Facilities

Pier 17 Upgrade

Jet Engine Test Cell

Access Roads

Expand/Modify Fire Stas

Fire Training Facility

Child Development Center

Access Roads

Advanced FF Trainer

Firemat Training Mockup

Fire Rescue Training Fac

Fire Rescue Station

CA
IL
MA
TX
TX

NRC Bakersfield

NAS Glenview

NAS S. Weymouth..

NAS Dallas

P-129
P-158
P-059
P-355
P-208

Land Acquisition

Fuel Farm Modifications.

Fire Station Addition

Community Center

GSEShop

CA
CA
CA
CA
FL
MA
MA
TX

NAS Alameda

MCAS El Toro

NAS Cecil Field

NAS S. Weymouth..
DODFH Westover...,
NAS Dallas

, H-071

, H-115

H-125

H-126

, HRC-191

HC-586

HRC-191

HCR-191

Family Housing

Family Housing (200 Homes).

Family Housing Land Sale

Repair/lmprv 200 Units

Repairs to 48 Units

Repair/lmprov 183 Homes

Repairs to Qtrs A and B

NY
NY
NY
NY
NY

NS Staten Island.

P-120R Outdoor Recreation Facs .

P-118R Police Station

P-llOR Automotive Hobby Shop..

P-113R BOQ

P-108R Storage Facilities

9,000

800

1,250

8,000

5,800

12,500

5,850

500

418

1,200

1,100

3,000

14,620

3,300

9,060

1,750

78,148

1,000

6,500

780

400

1,640

10,320

' 34,000
2 14,100

20
20
30
= 0
'0
"0

48,100

2,600
1,200
640
9,000
1,600

169

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year State Installation Project Title Amount

Subtotal 15,040

BRAC II:

1993 HI NAS Barbers Pt P-255S COMPATWINGSPAC BIdg (II) ... 2,600

HUGO:

1991 SC NS Charleston P-937H Gear Locker/Auto Hby Shop 3,250

1991 SC NS Charleston P-646H Fleet Ops Control BIdg 2,350

Subtotal 5,600

Total 159,808

' Reprogramming of funds originally slated for NS Long Beach has been reouested. Congress awaiting results of BRAC 93. If BRAC 93 approved,
this project is no longer required. However, there are continuing critical housing shortages in Southern California, such as San Diego.

2 Housing projects on hold pending final determination of need and required scope to support San Diego County deficit. Obligation of $900K
lodged against H115.

3 Project cancelled prior to BRAC 93 due to $57M Congressional reduction to Navy's FY 93 Construction Improvement Account.

Other projects FY93 ands prior, including those under construc-
tion or with obligations incurred, may not be required pending in-
vestigation of continued need in light of the BRAC 93 recommenda-
tions. These projects will be identified to the Committee after de-
terminations are made.

[Clerk's Note. — End of questions for the Record submitted by
Chairman Hefnor.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Dicks:]

NAVAL STATION EVERETT

Question. The Fiscal Year 93 Military Construction appropria-
tions bill provided $5.6 million for the Oil and Water Separator;
can you tell me the current status of this project?

Answer. Design of the Oil/Water Separator (P-085) was complet-
ed in early April 1993. Invitation for bids was advertised in late
April 1993. Bid opening is set for early June 1993. Construction
award is scheduled for mid to late June 1993.

Question. Does this strategic homeport remain a high priority for
the Navy for the Pacific Northwest?

Answer. Naval Station Everett remains a high priority for the
Navy. As part of the Base Closure process, the Navy is consolidat-
ing its berthing requirements, with a goal of reducing infrastruc-
ture costs. Completion of facilities at NAVSTA Everett allows con-
solidation of Naval presence in Pacific Northwest. A nuclear-pow-
ered aircraft carrier and six surface combatants will be homeport-
ed at NAVSTA Everett. Existing berthing facilities resources on
Puget Sound (Bremerton, Bangor, Keyport) are essentially at ca-
pacity and their ability to absorl) new functions is limited. The
completed carrier pier and the planned breakwater pier at
NAVSTA Everett will provide the needed berthing facilities to sup-
port the carrier battle group. The first two ships will arrive in 1994
with the remainder scheduled in 1995 and 1996. NAVSTA Everett
will be an operational component of the Puget Sound region along
with the shipyard, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Bangor Sub-

170

marine Base, Indian Island Ordinance Annex, Keyport Weapons
Engineering Station and other supporting installations. In addition
to the Naval Shipyard, there are a number of master ship repair
contractors in Puget Sound which offer overhaul, maintenance and
repair services to the Navy.

Puget Sound's deep water, wide shipping channels, storm protect-
ed waters, and absence of significant navigational restrictions, such
as bridges and shallows, make it one of the west coast's prime har-
bors. A feature of the region's population distribution is the array
of life style options it offers. Puget Sound's life styles vary from
very urban in Seattle to quiet rural life styles in the northern and
western regions. The opportunity for duty assignments at Puget
Sound Naval installations which offer these advantages is a much
desired feature for many service families. The small community
settings allow service families to become involved in local commu-
nity activities, a major factor contributing to the good community
relations which exist at most Puget Sound installations. High qual-
ity and availability of housing throughout the Puget Sound region
are generally good.

Question. The Navy's fiscal year 1994 request includes $12 mil-
lion for the steam plant at Everett. What other immediate projects
are still necessary to complete the infrastructure?

Answer. The Navy also has requested $22.2 million for a break-
water in its fiscal year 1994 MILCON budget. Additionally projects
totalling $86.8 million are required in the outyears to complete the
infrastructure at Naval Station Everett. These include: family
housing; bachelor quarters; training facilities; maintenance facili-
ties; and some personnel support facilities. The most important
project will convert the breakwater into a fully capable ship berth-
ing pier.

Question. What projects are planned in the outyears and are
these projects fully funded?

Answer. Additional projects totaling $86.8 million are required to
complete the infrastructure at Naval Station Everett. These
projects are included in the Navy's Future Years Defense Plan.

Question. Given the current MILCON projects, and those the
Navy has planned for, when does the Navy expect the base to
begin operations?

Answer. The base will be ready to support the first two ships to
be homeported at Naval Station Everett in 1994. Initial Operating
Capability (IOC) will be reached when all the facilities required to
support the Carrier Battlegroup are in place in 1996. Key to IOC is
completion of the Breakwater which is included in the Navy's
fiscal year 1994 request. Land for the off-site support complex, pro-
vided by BR AC 88 and 91, has been procured. Designs for the off-
site facilities are underway. The planned off-site operational date is
mid 1995.

Question. How many and what kind of ships will be homeported
at Everett, starting when? Exactly how many carriers would the
Everett homeport actually be able to accommodate?

Answer. The port is constructed to accommodate one aircraft car-
rier. A schedule of ship arrivals is provided below:

171

1994 2 FFGs (Perry Class) from Long Beach; 1995 2 DDs
(Spruance Class) from Long Beach; 1996 2 DDGs (Burke Class) from
San Diego; and 1996 1 CVN (Nimitz Class) from Bremerton.

Question. A great deal of effort by the Navy has been expended
during the construction of this base with the full intention of pro-
tecting the environment. Can you remind the committee of all of
these efforts? What specific projects at Everett address environ-
mental concerns?

Answer. The Navy has made protecting the environment a high
priority during the planning, design and construction of Naval Sta-
tion Everett:

Planning

The Navy complied with all required criteria for issue of environ-
mental permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Puget Sound
Air Pollution Control Association (PSAPCA), Everett Port Author-
ity, and the city of Everett.

(Careful preparation of Environmental Impact Statements de-
tailed how the planned construction will affect the environment
and the Navy's plans to mitigate any impacts.

Design

Alarmed sluice gates on the carrier pier to prevent accidental
spills of waste, oil, and sewage from entering the storm drain
system.

Comprehensive testing of dredge spoils.

Monitoring and counting of fish migration and population.

Use of clean burning natural gas in boiler facilities.

Extensive water quality monitoring.

Buildings designed with energy conservation as a major factor.

Ship waste processed through an oil/water separator.

Upland storm drainage passed through an oil/water separator to
ensure that run off contains no oil contaminants.

Station has documented procedures for spillage prevention, and
hazardous materials clean-up.

Station will maintain sufficient number of booms to contain a
major oil spill.

Construction

Rip-rap deflector constructed to divert migrating fish away from
ship berthing areas.

Environmental protection plans required on construction con-
tracts include dust control and disposal of excess construction ma-
terials.

Construction contractors are required to filter storm water to
prevent excess soil and construction debris from leaving site during
construction.

Industrial hygienist required to monitor all excavation proce-
dures and earth moving to direct appropriate disposal of suspected
problem materials.

In-water work scheduled to avoid fish migration periods.

172

The following projects address environmental concerns at Naval
Station Everett:

P-085 Oil/Water Separator, fiscal year 93

This facility will collect nonhazardous oily bilge water discharged
from ships berthed at Navy Station Everett. Oil and sludge will be
separated from the water and recovered for disposal under the Sta-
tion Solid Waste or Hazardous Waste Recovery Programs.

P-08Jf Hazardous Waste Transfer and Storage Facility, fiscal year
95

This facility will provide safe, temporary storage for hazardous
wastes generated at Naval Station Everett prior to disposal in ac-
cordance with environmental regulations.

P-003 Steam/ Compressed Air Plant, fiscal year 94

This facility will provide steam and compressed air allowing
ships to shut down their boilers and compressed air systems while
in port. Shutdown of ships boilers reduces fuel consumption and,
therefore, impact on air quality.

P-113 Shoreline Improvements and Seawall, fiscal year 87

The construction of a seawall has stabilized the shoreline and
protect if from erosion.

BACHELOR QUARTERS

Question. Last year's Military Construction Appropriations Bill
provided $26.6 million for Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard. Can you tell me the status of this Military
Construction project?

Answer. The $26.6 million represents two (2) Military Construc-
tion projects. Their status is listed below:
P-283— Budget is $13.3 million

Design is 90% complete and will be released for bidding
early July 1993.
P-297— Budget is $13.3 million

This project was added by Congress to the Fiscal Year 1993
Military Construction Program.

The architectural-engineering design firm has been selected
and design has started. The project will be available for bid-
ding first quarter Fiscal Year 1994.

KITSAP COUNTY

Question. The Navy's Fiscal Year 1994 request includes approxi-
mately $27 million for family housing at Bangor. This funding is
crucial for this area. If the funding is provided this year, when
would the Navy hope for these to be available?

Answer. The Fiscal Year 1994 project is combined with the two
FY 1993 projects. Anticipated construction award is early FY 1994.
The planned date for completion of construction, when all homes
will be available, is December 1995. The usual practice is for ac-
ceptance of housing in phases, and the first homes are likely to be

173

turned over to the Government between August and December

1994.

WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION

Question. Do you know what the waiting period is for affordable
family housing in Island County? How many units of housing will
be needed to bring this waiting period closer in line with other
Navy bases?

Answer. The average waiting period for assignment to Navy
family housing for enlisted members is 18 months. The latest
family housing survey and market analysis reflect a requirement
for 659 additional homes. A preliminary review of migrations to
Whidbey Island recommended by BRAC 93 indicate that, if ap-
proved, the housing shortfall will increase to approximately 780
homes.

Question. How much is estimated environmental cleanup cost of
NAS Alameda?

Answer. According to the latest Pollution Control Report for
NAS Alameda, cleanup costs are estimated to be $72 million.

Question. To the extent that remedial measures are required to
meet "best management practices" at NAS Alameda, what major
construction projects will be required and what are these estimated
costs?

Answer. There are no major Military Construction projects in
NAS Alameda's backlog for remedial measures. Future construc-
tion solutions for remediation have not been defined.

Question. What percentage of the overall Department of Defense
employment is in the state of California?

Answer. Approximately 15 percent of active military and civilian
employment is in the State of California. This percentage was de-
rived from a 1992 DEFENSE ALMANAC "Where Military Dollars
Are Spent" table for fiscal year 1991. Current percentage of em-
ployment in California is anticipated to be proportionately the
same.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Dicks.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Hoyer:]

Question. Navy had requested and Congress had approved three
MILCONs for NESEA:

P-723, FACSFAC Systems Integration Facility $4M.
P-712, ACLS Integration & Test Facility $1.75M.
P-720, AN/SPN-46 Support Facility $5.82M.

After NESEA was removed from the 1991 Base Closure list,
Navy had given the green light for these projects.

In April, however, all three were frozen. This might make sense
if the recommendation was the same as 1991. However, it is not.
The 1993 recommendation does not close NESEA entirely, but in-
stead makes clear that Naval Air programs, specifically the ACLS
Program, shall remain at St Inigoes and be transferred to
NAVAIR.

That being the case, why would a freeze be put on the P-712
ACLS MILCON?

174

Answer. As good stewards of the taxpayers money, the Navy con-
ducted a thorough review of all projects at activities on the 1993
proposed closure and realignment list. Projects at St Inigoes re-
quired special attention due to the complex nature of the realign-
ment and the change in lead responsibility for the ACLS mission
from Space and Naval Warfare Command to Naval Air Systems
Command.

Question. Navy had requested and Congress had approved three
MILCONs for NESEA:

P-723, FACSFAC Systems Integration Facility $4M.
P-712, ACLS Integration & Test Facility $1.75M.
P-720, AN/SPN-46 Support Facility $5.82M.

After NESEA was removed from the 1991 Base Closure list,
Navy had given the green light for these projects.

Why would this facility be constructed anj^where else but where
NAVAIR will be consolidated?

Answer. The temporary delay was necessary to permit the new
property custodian, NAVAIR, an opportunity to review the require-
ment and location of the project in view of its overall responsibil-
ities for naval aviation workload.

Question. Navy had requested and Congress had approved three
MILCONs for NESEA:

P-723, FACSFAC Systems Integration Facility $4M.
P-712, ACLS Integration & Test Facility $1.75M.
P-720, AN/SPN-46 Support Facility $5.82M.

After NESEA was removed from the 1991 Base Closure list.
Navy had given the green light for these projects.

The P-720 is the same case: It is a NAVAIR function as well and
that testing will continue at St Inigoes. Why would this project be
deferred?

Answer. As mentioned above, the Navy conducted a thorough
review of all projects at activities on the 1993 proposed closure and
realignment list. The temporary delay was necessary to permit the
new property custodian, NAVAIR, an opportunity to review the re-
quirement and location of the project in view of its overall respon-
sibilities for naval aviation workload.

JET ENGINE TEST FACILITY AT PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND

Question. What is the status of the F-18 E/F program? I note
that the FY 96 budget plan has a $4.9 million request for the P-383
jet engine test cell facility. Regardless of the F-18 program, the

175

Naval Air Warfare Center's ability to test and evaluate jet engines
will be compromised by lack of proper facilities required for more
advanced jet engines and current environmental constraints. If
funds are not requested until FY 96, and the F-18 E/F program
moves forward, this project will not be online in time for the test-
ing and development program to begin. This could lead to delays
and increased costs. Could you please provide the committee with
more data regarding the P-383 project? Specifically, which jet en-
gines it would be utilized for and its impact on environmental qual-
ity standards at Patuxent?

Answer. Seven F-18 E/F aircraft are under contract and being
produced (five E models and two F models). They are scheduled to
arrive at NAS Patuxent River in June 1995 to begin development
testing. In addition to testing the aircraft and its subsystems, there
will be significant testing that will be required for the new F414-
GE-400 engine. The F414-GE-400 cannot be tested in the existing
engine test facilities without costly modifications. Also, if the
engine is not tested in the TIO facility, the accuracy that is re-
quired during a development testing program will not be available.

Project P-383 is required to replace the two existing engine test
facilities at NAS Patuxent River that are over 30 years old and in
poor condition. Project P-383 will erect a standard TIO engine test
facility now on-hand at Patuxent River at a cost of about five mil-
lion dollars. It was originally located at NAS Cubi Point, Philip-
pines. This test facility was dismantled in the Philippines and
shipped to Patuxent River in October 1992. The facility is only a
few years old and is in excellent condition. If a new standard T-10
engine test facility were to be built the cost would approach eight
million dollars.

NAS Patuxent River tests about 25 engines a month in the
present facilities. Engines now being tested included the J-85, J-52,
TF-30, and F-404 engines. At the present rate of deterioration of
these facilities it will be only a couple of years before all engine
testing will have to be done outside (open air). Testing engines out-
side will seriously jeopardize the engine test results and ultimately
the safety of the aircraft. Also to be considered is the degradation
of environmental quality (noise) problem. An F-404 open air engine
run generates about 140 dba at 250 feet. If run in the T-10 facility
the noise level will be only 80 dba at 250 feet.

LARGE ANECHOIC CHAMBER

Question. Last year, the Congress authorized the full $61 million
for this project and appropriated $10 million for design and con-
struction.

What is the status of the design work?

Answer. We authorized the start of the design process this year.

Question. Last year, the Congress authorized the full $61 million
for this project and appropriated $10 million for design and con-
struction.

Have any contracts been let on this project to date? If not why
not?

Answer. No contracts have been let yet. DoD only released the
money to the Navy on 17 April 1993.

176

Question. Last year, the Congress authorized the full $61 million
for this project and appropriated $10 million for design and con-
struction.

What is the hold up?

Answer. Until DoD released the project, we were unable to pro-
ceed with design contract. The process has now begun and will take
up to six months to sign a contract for design services.

Question. Last year, the Congress authorized the full $61 million
for this project and appropriated $10 million for design and con-
struction.

When will the design begin?

Answer. We expect to have an A&E firm under contract by Sep-
tember 1993.

Question. Last year, the Congress authorized the full $61 million
for this project and appropriated $10 million for design and con-
struction.

Why were no funds requested in the FY 94 program for Navy?

Answer. By the time the FY 92 MILCON Bill, which added the
first portion of the project and directed the balance be added in FY
94, was enacted in October 1992 the Navy TOA was fixed and
under review at OSD. Declining Defense budgets did not allow de-
ferral of other budgetted priorities to accommodate the direction
contained in the 1992 appropriation act.

ANECHOIC CHAMBER AT KIRTLAND AFB

Question. A March 29 1993 Inspector General of DoD Audit
Report on Advanced Test Facilities found the following had oc-
curred: that the Air Force had moved ahead and spent $5.4 Million
in R&D funds at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico to construct a large
anechoic chamber. The IG report found that they had wrongly clas-
sified the chamber as "equipment" instead of as a MILCON which
is what it was.

Is the Navy aware of this report?

Answer. Yes, the Navy has been provided a copy of the DoD IG
report on Advanced Test Facilities.

Could the Anechoic Chamber at Patuxent perform the testing
that is being done at Kirtland?

Answer. Yes, to the best of our knowledge, the Kirtland anechoic
chamber supports high powered microwave testing. It is construct-
ed of similar materials as the Patuxent chamber. Therefore, the
same radio frequency/ power combinations as the Kirtland chamber
can be accommodated at the Patuxent chamber. The limiting factor
to such testing is the ability of the anechoic material in the cham-
ber to safely absorb the radio-frequency power. Additionally, the
chambers are similarly sized. The Kirtland chamber is 76' X 76' X
40', while the Patuxent chamber is 100' X 60' X 35'. Therefore

177

similar equipment can be tested in the chamber. Finally, equip-
ment being developed at Kirtland will be used to simulate high
powered microwave weapons. This equipment is of similar technol-
ogy that is used to conduct electromagnetic environmental effects
(E3) testing at Patuxent. The only unknown factor at this time is
the amount of workload at the Kirtland chamber and if the Patux-
ent chamber and/or the other existing Air Force chambers can
absorb that workload.

Was the Navy consulted as to the possibility of using Patuxent's
Chamber for the Air Force testing?

Answer. No, however, some liaison has occurred since the Kirt-
land AFB facility was constructed.

Question. A March 29, 1993 Inspector General of DoD Audit
Report on Advanced Test Facilities found the following had oc-
curred: that the Air Force had moved ahead and spent $5.4 Million
in R&D funds at Kirtland AFB. New Mexico to construct a large
anechoic chamber. The IG report found that they had wrongly clas-
sified the chamber as "equipment" instead of as a MILCON which
is what it was.

For the record, please provide a listing of all inter-service testing
that is done at Patuxent, including Air Force. Specifically highlight
those projects that are similar in nature to that the Air Force is
doing at Kirtland.

Answer. Table 1 provides the break down of tri-service E3 and
electronic warfare testing performed at Patuxent. Programs of note
being the Army's UH-60A in May 87 to help solve some severe
electromagnetic interference problems and the Air Force C-17 at
Patuxent now conducting EMI and lightning tests. These tests
have occurred in the anechoic chamber, shielded hangar and out-
doors.

TABLE 1. -TRI-SERVICE E3 AND EW PROGRAMS PERFORMED AT PATUXENT RIVER

Date User

Aircraft:

AH-64 January 1987 USA

CV-580 February 1987 NASA

F-16 April 1987 USAF

HH-65A April 1987 USCG

UH-60A May 1987 USA

HU-25A May 1987 USCG

HU-25A July 1987 USCG

HC-130H August 1987 USCG

OH-58D August 1987 USA

F-15 October 1987 USAF

HH-3F November 1987 USCG

F-15 December 1987 USAF

S-70A December 1987 Australia

HC-130H March 1988 USCG

178
TABLE 1.— TRI-SERVICE E3 AND EW PROGRAMS PERFORMED AT PATUXENT RIVER— Continued

Date User

HC-130H April 1988 USCG

HC-130H July 1988 USCG

F-18 July 1988 Australia

CF-18 August 1988 Canada

F-16 September 1988 USAF

G-IV September 1988 USCG

S-70A-9 September 1988 Australia

HH-65A November 1988 USCG

F-15 November 1988 USAF

P-3 November 1988 USCG

HH-65A January 1989 USCG

AH-IF February 1989 USA

VC-llA March 1989 USCG

E-2C May 1989 USCG

HDL June 1989 USA

HH-3a June 1989 USCG

VC-4A July 1989 USCG

UH-60A September 1989 USA

S-70B-2 September 1989 Australia

F-27 September 1989 Thailand

HC-130H October 1989 USCG

DNA Field Map February 1990 USAF

CF-18 March 1990 Canada

F-18 February 1990 Canada

HU-25 June 1990 USCG

MH-47E May 1991 USA

C-130 May 1991 USAF

HH-60J November 1990 USCG

AH-64 October 1991 USA

MH-60K October 1991 USA

AH-IS October 1991 USA

MH-47 November 1991 USA

HM-60K January 1992 USA

HC-130H January 1992 USCG

T-39 May 1992 USAF

CANADAIR October 1992 Canada

C-17 March 1993 USAF

CH-47D April 1993 USA

AH-64 (Longbow) July 1993 USA (scheduled)

SUMMARY.— JANUARY 1987-APRIL 1993

Army AF NASA ^f^ Foreign

424

259

262

Total number days 234

Total projects 13

Average number days/projects 18

HAZARDOUS FLAMMABLE MATERIAL STORAGE FACILITY

Question. The FY 96 Program also shows $3.4 MilUon for a
HAZMAT FaciUty at Patuxent.

What is the current condition of the faciUties at Patuxent that
store hazardous materials?

179

Answer. Existing facilities are inadequate based on limited ca-
pacity, incompatible storage, lack of fire separation, lack of spill
containment.

Question. The FY 96 Program also shows $3.4 Million for a
HAZMAT Facility at Patuxent.

Do the current facilities allow for the proper separation of vari-
ous chemicals, that when combined, can become dangerous or un-
stable?

Answer. No. Current storage lacks the necessary containment
and separation barriers necessary for incompatible material stor-
age. Proper storage cannot be obtained using present equipment or
existing facilities.

Question. The FY 96 Program also shows $3.4 Million for a
HAZMAT Facility at Patuxent.

Do the current facilities comply with Navy health, safety and en-
vironmental policies and regulations?

Answer. No. Listed as a Risk Assessment Code 2, we are in viola-
tion of occupational safety and health standard (OSHA) 29 CFR
1910.106 (Hazardous and Flammable Liquids), National Fire Protec-
tion Association Codes (NFPA) and Navy standards.

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, NSWC INDIAN HEAD

Question. Again in the FY 96 Program, there is a request for a
MILCON that will keep Indian Head in compliance with the clean
air act requirements. Does the current program comply with EPA
and State of Maryland Hazardous Waste Regulations for disposal.

Answer. Presently, open burning of propellant, explosive or pyro-
technics (PEP) contaminated cardboard, wood, rags, and plastics is
performed on the ground at the Caffee Road Thermal Treatment
Point. This open burning is currently being conducted as a hazard-
ous waste treatment operations under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The open burning area is in close prox-
imity to the Mattawoman Creek and Potomac River. The operation
is also impacted by other environmental regulations and initiative,
specifically the Clean Air Act and the Chesapeake Bay Initiative.

The RCRA permitting is a two part system; Interim Status (Part
A) and 40 CFR 265, and the Part B under 40 CFR 264. As currently
conducted under Interim Status, the operation meets permit re-
quirement. The Subpart X permit application under the Part B has
been submitted to EPA on time but has not undergone technical
review. Until then, the operation is being conducted under an in-
definite extension of Interim Status. Technical review of the Sub-
part X permit application is at EPA discretion and could occur at
any time. The technical review will probably result in a Notifica-
tion-of-deficiency challenging our assessment of PEP contaminated
material as a reactive waste, and therefore of PEP contaminated
material as a reactive waste, and therefore contend that open burn-
ing under Subpart X is not justified. This will elevate this Class II
environmental compliance project to Class I. A preliminary review
of Subpart X permit applications in other regions (IV and VII)
have shown that EPA will consider only waste that "has the poten-
tial to detonate" for Subpart X permitting. While the generated
waste poses a definite safety hazard and is best treated by open

180

burning, providing the "potential to detonate" on every item being
treated at Caffee Road Thermal Treatment Point would be long, te-
dious and expensive undertaking.

Runoff of contaminated rainwater currently seeps into the
ground water resources and into the surface water. There are no
existing facilities capable of eliminating open burning of PEP con-
taminated cardboard, wood, rags and plastics. Under the Clean
Water Act and Chesapeake Bay Initiative, a Notice-of-Deficiency
would probably result from the potential to contaminate adjoining
surface waters from the rainfall runoff.

A proactive stance demonstrated by this proposed project to
eliminate open burning of PEP contaminated material should be
viewed favorably by the regulatory agencies.

REPROGRAMMING REQUEST

Question. Has the Navy submitted a reprogramming request for
Indian Head? It is my understanding that an additional $3.5 mil-
lion is required to complete the Mix, Cast, and Cure Facility at
Indian Head. What is the status of this reprogramming request?

Answer. Yes. The reprogramming request for FY90 Military Con-
struction project P-059 Mix, Cast, and Cure Facility at Naval Ord-
nance Station Indian Head, Maryland, in the amount of $3.5 mil-
lion was provided to the House and Senate Appropriation Commit-
tees on 28 April 1993.

RADFORD ARMY ARSENAL

Question. How does Indian Head interact with Radford Army Ar-
senal?

The working relationship between Radford Army Ammunition
Plant (RAAP) and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Di-
vision (NAVSURFWARCENDIV) goes back many years and, for
the most part, has been harmonious and technically profitable rela-
tionship. RAAP manufactures propellant sheetstock for itself and
NAVSURFWARCENDIV Indian Head for extrusion into various
propellant grains. At present, we have both received funding and
are jointly working on a product improvement program to substi-
tute the lead used in the existing MK 90 Propellant formulation
with a more environmentally friendly burn rate modifier.

Army armament Munitions & Chemical Command (AMCCOM)
provides production orders for both RAAP and NAVSURFWAR-
CENDIV Indian Head. On one program, the MK 90 Propellant
grains, both RAAP and Indian Head Division (IHDIV) produce
grains; RAAP at 15,000 grains/month, IHDIV at 6,000 grains/
month. Current orders at IHDIV expire in August-September 1994
timeframe. AMCCOM has stated they will not keep IHDIV in pro-
duction of MK 90 grains past this date, stating that 20,000 grains/
month is the minimum sustaining rate for RAAP, and future
orders will only support this rate.

Answer. It is my understanding that Indian Head serves as a
backup facility or second source for the manufacture of rockets.
The technology used at Indian Head in these rockets spins off for
naval rockets as well. Word is that the Army is going to pull its

181

second source work from Indian Head and consolidate all of its
work at Radford.

Question. What impact will this have on Indian Head's produc-
tion capabilities? Their workforce?"

Army armament Munitions & Chemical Command (AMCCOM)
provides production orders for both RAAP and NAVSURFWAR-
CENDIV Indian Head. On one program, the MK 90 Propellant
grains, both RAAP and Indian Head Division (IHDIV) produce
grains; RAAP at 15,000 grains/month, IHDIV at 6,000 grains/
month. Current orders at IHDIV expire in August-September 1994
timeframe. AMCCOM has started they will not keep IHDIV in pro-
duction of MK 90 grains past this date, stating that 20,000 grains/
month is the minimum sustaining rate for RAAP, and future
orders will only support this rate.

Answer. Loss of 80 work-years.

Loss of warm production base to allow immediate response
should Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP) experience prob-
lems similar to those experienced in the past.

Loss of surge capability.

Loss of rapid response in conducting engineering malfunction in-
vestigations, product improvement programs, and analysis of tech-
nical problems.

Loss of technical knowledge and assistance in manufacturing
which has been provided to the Army in the past.

Loss of "on hands" experience as these employees will be re-
leased/reassigned.

Grains are Government Furnished Material (GFM) to the loaders
and there is a cost to the government if supply is interrupted. More
likely to happen when there is only one source.

Loss of work will contribute to an increase in cost of other
IHDIV products.

Question. Will this have a negative impact on the Navy's own
rocket program:

Answer. If there are any further problems that would cause Rad-
ford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP) to cease operations, the
Navy's rocket program could be adversely impacted.

Question. Does it make sense to dismantle a second source capa-
bility in light of the problems that have been experienced at Rad-
ford (explosions and environmental)?

Answer. From a cost sense, perhaps, though exact savings are
subject to debate.

From a readiness point of view and in light of the previous prob-
lems at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP), this action
could return to haunt us.

182

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Hoyer.]

SCOPE REVISION

[Clerk's note. — End of questions. The Navy submitted the fol-
lowing information to the Committee to be inserted in the record.]
Changes in scope are listed below. Revised 139rs are attached:

Project New Scope Remarks

PWC Norfolk, VA Family Housing Office (H- 14,000 vice 10,000 Revise block 9, supporting facilities to reflect

258). current requirement. No change in project

cost.

Tuesday, April 20, 1993.
U.S. AIR FORCE

WITNESSES

JAMES F. BOATRIGHT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)

GARY D. VEST, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (EN-
VIRONMENT, SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH)

BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES E. McCARTHY, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGI-
NEER

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Hefner. The committee will come to order. Today we will
review the Military Construction, Family Housing and Base Clo-
sure programs of the Air Force.

Our witnesses today are Mr. James Boatright, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force; Mr. Gary Vest, Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health; and Gener-
al James McCarthy, the Air Force Civil Engineer.

Gentlemen, we appreciate you appearing before the committee,
here this morning. I think you have a single composite statement
that will be made a part of the record.

I will start Mr. Boatright, but before we proceed, I understand
that you are going to retire, sometime soon, next February?

Mr. Boatright. Yes, sir, February 3rd.

Mr. Hefner. Unless we have another hearing between now and
then I guess this will be sort of our swan song. I just want to tell
you that over the years, I think the Air Force is losing a very valu-
able person and you have been very candid with us. We have had
some exchanges at times that weren't all that pleasant, but that's
the name of the game here.

I want to congratulate you on a job every well done, and I think
the Air force is going to be missing a very valuable cog in their
wheel in their overall situation.

Your replacement, I am sure, will be equally adapted to do the
thing that needs to be done. But over the years, it has been a pleas-
ure to work with you. You have been very candid with us, and we
have had our differences in a very honest way and we have certain-
ly enjoyed working with you over the years.

Mr. Boatright. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Hefner. Now, you can say something nice about me. [Laugh-
ter.]

Mr. Boatright. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something
nice about you and this committee.

Mr. Hefner. That's not necessary. [Laughter.]

(183)

184

Mr. BoATRiGHT. The Air Force certainly appreciates all of the
outstanding support that this committee has given to the Air Force
in building a base structure that we believe is second to none
within the Department of Defense, and one that is extremely valu-
able to the outstanding airmen that serve this country throughout
the world.

And we sincerely appreciate all of that fine support over these
many years.

Mr. Hefner. Well, you can proceed with your statement and
your entire statement will be a part of the record. You can summa-
rize but the entire statement will be a part of the record.

Statement of James F. Boatright

Mr. Boatright. Yes, sir.

What I would like to do is say a couple of things here this morn-
ing in regards to what my role has been in the Air Force for the
last six months. I have been spending most of my time dealing with
base closures and the base disposal business. And my colleague
here, Mr. Vest, has been so kind to take over my normal installa-
tion responsibilities so that Mr. Vest will serve as our principal
witness here today and he will be assisted by General McCarthy,
the Air Force Civil Engineer.

I will be prepared to answer any questions the committee may
have in regards to base closures, or base disposal issues.

Mr. Hefner. Does anybody else have a statement.

Mr. Vest. Yes, I do.

Mr. Hefner. You may proceed, and your entire statement will be
made a part of the record.

Statement of Gary D. Vest

Mr. Vest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have had the good fortune over the last 20 years of either
having worked for or worked with very closely, Mr. Boatright, so
that I guess an5rthing that I might do right or wrong we can at-
tribute to some degree or another to Mr. Boatright's mentorship.

We have submitted a statement and I would ask that it be incor-
porated into the record.

Mr. Hefner. Without objection.

Mr. Vest. I would like to take a few moments to overview a few
things from that statement and highlight two things of great con-
cern to us.

One of the things that is most challenging today is the dynamics
not only of the world situation, but activities in this country. And
these are dynamics of downsizing — we are in the process, as you
know, of closing 19 bases in this country and we have already
drawn down 26 major bases overseas, plus 153 smaller activities.

We are dealing with changing concepts, changing doctrine as we
respond to the changing world situation. We are also having to
deal with the well known budget pressures. All of these dynamics
drive pressure on the installations, and facilities business in the
Air Force.

One of the things that we must keep in mind as we go about
dealing with these dynamics is that the quality of installations and

185

facilities in the United States Air Force is absolutely critical to the
manner in which we are able to perform our defense or war-fight-
ing capability mission.

Therefore, our challenge is to maintain and enhance our installa-
tions and facilities through quality maintenance and repair activi-
ties; through a quality upgrade program; through facility consolida-
tions; through replacements of inefficient, ineffective facilities; and
also the demolition of those facilities.

We do this through a very comprehensive process and program
of set priorities. Our military construction program that we bring
to you, prioritizes as follows: We meet all of our environmental
compliance requirements first, and we meet our treaty and agree-
ment, our international treaty and agreement requirements; we
satisfy the requirements of new mission bed-downs, and mandatory
force realignments.

We have a major program of upgrade for deteriorating living and
working conditions with particular emphasis on infrastructure.
Our criteria as we go about building this program simply stated is
quality, timeliness, and cost effectiveness.

But as we look at our overall program, one of the things that we
do realize as you look into the out-years is at the rate that we are
making investment, it will be very difficult to get from here to
there.

So among the things that we are doing within the Air Force is
looking at alternative ways, better ways of doing things, including
alternative financing mechanisms.

Our fiscal '94 military construction program request is $2.13 bil-
lion. Of that, the active Air Force is requesting $1,932 billion; the
Air Reserves components, the remainder.

Of the $1,932 billion, $906 million is for traditional military con-
struction projects; the remaining $1,027 billion is for our military
family housing.

It is important to note that our request this year is 25 percent
over our '93 budget, but that it is 10 percent less than the fiscal '92
program.

So in actuality we are pretty much just holding the line.

In our program, for environmental compliance, we are asking for
$140.8 million; this is down from $300 million in our request last
year. We view that decrease as a very positive sign in that we are,
in fact, making very, very good progress in terms of capital invest-
ments against our environmental requirements.

For treaty implementation, we are asking for $9.5 million; for
new missions and force realignments over $233 million; to deal
with the deteriorating living and working infrastructure require-
ments, $452 million; planning and design, $63 million; and unspeci-
fied minor construction, $6.8 million.

I would like to specifically highlight our unspecified minor con-
struction requirement. We are very aggressively obligating our P-
341 program these days. We currently have $22 million worth of
validated projects which we are simply unable to fund.

And as I spoke to the dynamics of the Air Force and the world
situation as it pressures our installations and facilities program we
are going to have tremendous pressure and requirement on the un-
specified minor construction because of emerging requirements.

186

I would also like to note that our overseas MILCON requests are
very, very modest. Overseas non-Europe, we are asking for $23,552
(includes Anderson) million. I emphasize overseas, non-Europe,
these are primarily requirements to support our worldwide space
mission. In Europe we are only asking for $10.3 million to deal
with two dormitories at our installation at Incirlik Air Base, a
child development center at Ramstein, in Germany, and a facility
at RAF, Mildenhall, in the UK to support a Navy requirement.

Now, in the military family housing program we are asking for
$63 million for improvements. To further implement our whole
house/whole neighborhood program we are asking for $110 million
to replace facilities — in this case 876 units at nine bases. And
$853.9 million is necessary for operations, utilities and mainte-
nance, of which 80 percent is simply must pay. Of that total only
20 percent is being used against our backlog of repair in family
housing, which we estimate in excess of $1 billion.

We are also asking for $113.7 million for construction related to
base realignment and closure activity.

Mr. Chairman, that is a brief summary of the fiscal '94 MILCON
program and we would be happy to respond to any questions at
this time.

[The information follows:]

187

INTRODUCTION

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

GOOD MORNING. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING TO DISCUSS THE AIR FORCE MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR
1994. WITH ME TODAY IS BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES E MCCARTHY, THE
AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER.

OVERVIEW

AS YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE OF A DECLINING DEFENSE
BUDGET AND CHANGES IN THE PERCEIVED THREAT, THE AIR FORCE IS
NOW UNDERGOING A MAJOR REORGANIZATION, COMBINED WITH
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN ITS FORCE STRUCTURE. AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF OUR STRATEGY FOR DOWNSIZING OUR FORCES IS A CONCURRENT
REDUCTION OF THE PHYSICAL PLANT COMMENSURATE WITH THE REDUCED
ACTIVE FORCE LEVELS. IN OTHER WORDS, OUR AIM IS TO BRING DOWN
OUR FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN A MANNER THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE REORGANIZATION AND REDUCED FORCE
STRUCTURE. WE MUST REDUCE TO A SIZE WE CAN AFFORD TO OPERATE
AND MAINTAIN, WHILE STILL PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SUPPORT TO AIR
FORCE MISSIONS AND PEOPLE. THE AIR FORCE IS PROUD OF THE
QUALITY OF ITS INSTALLATIONS AND, WHILE MUCH REMAINS TO BE
DONE, WE HAVE DELIBERATELY ALLOCATED THE NECESSARY RESOURCES
WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE AIR FORCE BUDGET IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN QUALITY AIR FORCE FACILITIES. WE HAVE
DONE THIS BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THE BENEFITS IN READINESS,
PRODUCTIVITY AND LIFE-CYCLE COST SAVINGS. A REDUCED BASING
STRUCTURE WILL GENERATE THE SAME BENEFITS FOR A SMALLER FORCE
SO LONG AS THE QUALITY OF FACILITIES REMAINS HIGH. FOR THIS
REASON, WE ARE COMMITTED TO PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF THE
FACILITIES, UTILITIES, AND OTHER SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT
THOSE BASES WE RETAIN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE ALSO COGNIZANT THAT THE AIR FORCE
COULD NOT MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF OUR FACILITIES AND THE
ADVANTAGES THEY PROVIDE WITHOUT THE INDISPENSABLE AND
CONTINUING STRONG SUPPORT WE HAVE ALWAYS RECEIVED FROM THIS
COMMITTEE, FOR WHICH WE ARE MOST GRATEFUL.

THE AIR FORCE HAS ALREADY TAKEN MAJOR STEPS TO REDUCE THE
SIZE OF OUR PHYSICAL PLANT INVENTORY. THROUGH THE BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT PROCESSES BOTH IN 1988 AND 1991, WE HAVE CLOSED
OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CLOSING 18 AIR FORCE BASES IN THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, AND ARE CONDUCTING A MAJOR
REALIGNMENT OF A 19TH. THE 1993 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CLOSURE
RECOMMENDATION COULD CLOSE AN ADDITIONAL THREE ACTIVE BASES AND
REALIGN THREE MORE ACTIVE BASES DEPENDING ON THE FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT
COMMISSION.

IN ADDITION, THE AIR FORCE HAS A MAJOR EFFORT UNDER WAY TO
WITHDRAW FROM A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OVERSEAS INSTALLATIONS.
WE ALREADY HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM OR CONVERTED TO STANDBY STATUS
THIRTEEN OVERSEAS MAIN OPERATING BASES. FROM FY 1993 TO FY
1995 WE WILL MAKE SUBSTANTIAL WITHDRAWALS FROM THIRTEEN MORE
BASES. FINALLY, IN ADDITION TO THE INSTALLATIONS MENTIONED
ABOVE, WE WILL RETURN TO HOST GOVERNMENTS BY FY 1997 SOME 153
SMALLER SUPPORT SITES AND ANNEXES AT OVERSEAS LOCATIONS. MANY
OF THESE ALREADY HAVE TERMINATED OPERATIONS,

188

AS YOU KNOW, BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS IN THE U.S.
MUST BE ADDRESSED ONLY BY THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT COMMISSION PROCESS. HOWEVER, WE WILL BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO ADDRESS WITHDRAWALS FROM OVERSEAS BASES AS CHANGING
REQUIREMENTS DICTATE.

WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH SEVERAL NEW INITIATIVES TO DOWNSIZE
OUR FACILITY STRUCTURE IN ADDITION TO THE BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT ACTIONS MENTIONED ABOVE. THESE INCLUDE DOWNSIZING
LOGISTICS DEPOTS, CONSOLIDATION OF OUR LABORATORIES AND OTHER
RESEARCH FACILITIES, AND IMPROVING UTILIZATION OF FACILITY
SPACE. THESE INITIATIVES ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE
DOWNSIZING THAT WILL BE ACHIEVED THROUGH BASE CLOSING AND
REALIGNMENT ACTIONS.

HOWEVER, TO ACHIEVE AN OPTIMUM BASING STRUCTURE WITH
MAXIMUM FACILITY UTILIZATION, AND TO PERMIT NECESSARY
CONSOLIDATIONS AND STREAMLINING OF OUR PHYSICAL PLANT, WE
EXPECT THAT SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL MILCON FUNDING WILL BE
NECESSARY IN FUTURE YEARS. AT THOSE BASES WE INTEND TO RETAIN,
WE NEED TO REPLACE MANY SMALL, WORN-OUT FACILITIES THAT ARE
INEFFICIENT AND EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN, WITH MODERN,
DURABLE AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT FACILITIES. FOR EXAMPLE,
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONSOLIDATED SUPPORT CENTER PERMITS
COLOCATION OF MANY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (E.G., PERSONNEL,
FINANCE, CONTRACTING, LEGAL, ETC.) IN A SINGLE,
HIGHLY-FUNCTIONAL FACILITY AND DISPOSAL OF NUMEROUS OLD,
EXPENSIVE BUILDINGS. WE HOPE THE COMMITTEE WILL LEND ITS FULL
SUPPORT TO THE AIR FORCE IN ACHIEVING A COST-EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT DOWNSIZED FACILITY STRUCTURE.

AS WITH OTHER FACILITIES, WE WILL DOWNSIZE OUR INVENTORY OF
FAMILY HOUSING COMMENSURATE WITH THE REDUCED REQUIREMENT. A
REDUCTION OF OVER 20,000 OWNED AND LEASED UNITS IN THE AIR
FORCE HOUSING INVENTORY IS ALREADY BEING ACHIEVED THROUGH THE
APPROVED CLOSURES. IN ADDITION, WE WILL IDENTIFY SURPLUS
INVENTORY AT REMAINING BASES TO BE SURE WE KEEP ONLY THOSE
HOUSING UNITS WE NEED.

DURING THIS TIME OF GREAT CHANGE AND CONSIDERABLE
UNCERTAINTY FOR AIR FORCE PERSONNEL, IT IS VITAL THAT WE
MAINTAIN OUR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE QUALITY HOUSING FOR THEIR
FAMILIES AND DEPENDENTS. THUS WE ARE CONTINUING TO EMPHASIZE
THE "WHOLE HOUSE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM" WHICH BRINGS OLDER UNITS
UP TO TODAY'S STANDARDS. IN OUR BUDGET REQUEST, WE HAVE ONCE
AGAIN REQUESTED FUNDS FOR THIS MOST IMPORTANT PROGRAM, AND WE
ASK FOR YOUR CONTINUED STRONG SUPPORT. AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
THE "WHOLE HOUSE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM", WE ARE REVALIDATING THE
REQUIREMENT FOR ALL UNITS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF
THE PROGRAM. WHEN WE FIND THAT WE HAVE TOO MANY UNITS, WE WILL
EITHER ELIMINATE THE HOUSING OR PLACE IT IN "MOTHBALLED"
STATUS, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. AS YOU ARE
AWARE, IT IS DOD POLICY TO RELY ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES FIRST TO
PROVIDE HOUSING FOR AIR FORCE FAMILIES AT NEARBY BASES, AND
THIS POLICY IS BEING FOLLOWED WHEN PERSONNEL FROM CLOSING BASES
ARE REASSIGNED TO OTHER INSTALLATIONS. FORTUNATELY, MOST OF
THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AT RECEIVING BASES RESULTING FROM
PRIOR BASE CLOSURES ARE BEING SATISFIED THROUGH COMMUNITY
RESOURCES .

MAINTAINING ADEQUATE-QUALITY WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS
FOR AIR FORCE PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS IS ESSENTIAL, BOTH
BECAUSE IT IS AN OBLIGATION TO OUR PEOPLE, AND BECAUSE IT IS A

189

GOOD BUSINESS DECISION. THIS OBLIGATION EXTENDS FROM THE SHOPS
AND OPERATIONAL FACILITIES WHERE THEY WORK, TO THE DORMITORIES
AND HOMES WE PROVIDE FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. PRESERVATION
OF EXISTING FACILITIES BY AN ADEQUATELY-FUNDED REAL PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF OUR MISSION AND TO PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF
LIFE OF OUR PEOPLE. THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PAYOFFS WHICH ACCRUE
AS A RESULT OF PRUDENT REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. FIRST, WE
CAN REDUCE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY EXTENDING THE LIFE OF EXISTING
FACILITIES VERSUS CONSTRUCTING NEW ONES. LIKE YOUR OWN HOUSE,
AIR FORCE FACILITIES DO NOT MAINTAIN THEMSELVES. THE AVERAGE
AGE OF OUR NON-HOUSING FACILITY INVENTORY IS OVER 3 2 YEARS, AND
FOR OUR FAMILY HOUSING IT IS 31 YEARS. IF WE FAIL TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, BUILDINGS, UTILITIES AND
SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SIMPLY WEAR OUT, RESULTING IN
THE REQUIREMENT FOR REPLACEMENT CONSTRUCTION AND, MORE
IMPORTANTLY, INADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR MISSIONS AND PEOPLE. THE
SECOND MAJOR PAYOFF RESULTS FROM THE QUALITY ENVIRONMENT WE
PROVIDE IN THE WORKPLACE AND IN THE HOMES OF OUR PERSONNEL.
ADEQUATE WORKING FACILITIES AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING WHICH
MEET SOCIETAL STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS CONTRIBUTE MAJOR
DIVIDENDS TO THE AIR FORCE THROUGH INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY AND
IN RETAINING HIGHLY TRAINED PERSONNEL, THEREBY REDUCING
RECRUITING AND TRAINING COSTS.

SINCE THE PURPOSE OF ANY AIR FORCE INSTALLATION IS TO
SUPPORT AIR FORCE MISSIONS AS EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY AS
POSSIBLE, IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TODAY THAN EVER BEFORE TO PLAN
AND JUSTIFY OUR FACILITY NEEDS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM DESIGNED TO BE RESPONSIVE TO
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW FORCE.

WITH THIS BACKGROUND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED
NOW TO DISCUSS THE MAJOR PROGRAM AREAS OF OUR TOTAL MILCON
BUDGET REQUEST. THESE MAJOR PROGRAM AREAS REPRESENT HIGH
PRIORITY MILCON REQUESTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE.
THESE AREAS ARE: OUR ACTIVE FORCE PROGRAM, MILITARY FAMILY
HOUSING, AND A SUMMARY OF THE AIR FORCE MILCON CONTAINED IN THE
REQUESTS FOR THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACCOUNTS.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

OVERVIEW

THE ACTIVE AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST FOR FY
1994 TOTALS $1,93 4 BILLION. WHEN THE AIR RESERVE COMPONENTS

(ARC) PROGRAM OF $198.1 MILLION IS ADDED, THE TOTAL DEPARTMENT
OF THE AIR FORCE PROGRAM IS $2.13 BILLION. INCLUDED IN THE
FIGURE FOR THE ACTIVE FORCES IS $906 MILLION FOR TRADITIONAL
MILCON PROJECTS AND $1,026 BILLION FOR MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

(MFH) . THIS COMPARES TO A FY 1993 REQUEST OF $2,383 BILLION,
INCLUDING $673 MILLION FOR TRADITIONAL MILCON, $1,264 FOR MFH
AND $446 MILLION PROPOSED TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT. THE FY 1993 APPROPRIATION APPROVED BY
CONGRESS TOTALLED $1.9 BILLION, CONSISTING OF $718 MILLION FOR
MILCON AND $1.2 BILLION FOR MFH.

OUR FY 1994 MILCON REQUEST REFLECTS A 2 5% INCREASE OVER THE
FY 1993 APPROPRIATION. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FY 1993
REFLECTED THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE "MILCON PAUSE" AND IN
REALITY OUR FY 1994 REQUEST IS 10% LOWER THAN OUR FY 1992
APPROPRIATION OF $1,006 BILLION, A MORE TRADITIONAL FUNDING

190

LEVEL. THE MFH PORTION OF OUR REQUEST IS A 15.2% DECREASE FROM
THE FY 1993 APPROPRIATION, REFLECTING A REDUCTION IN OUR "WHOLE
HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS" PROGRAM.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROJECTS

THE ACTIVE AIR FORCE MILCON PROGRAM FOR MANDATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTINUES TO RECEIVE
STRONG EMPHASIS. WE HAVE REQUESTED FOR FY 1994 A TOTAL OF
$140.8 MILLION FOR 58 PROJECTS. OUR PROGRAM FOCUSES ON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS,
HYDRANT REFUELING SYSTEMS, FIRE FIGHTER TRAINING FACILITIES,
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AND
TREATMENT FACILITIES.

THESE PROJECTS WERE DEVELOPED TO SATISFY THREE SPECIFIC
CATEGORIES OF REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST CATEGORY RESPONDS TO
LEVEL I REQUIREMENTS, REFERRING TO FACILITIES CURRENTLY OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS INCLUDING
THOSE WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. THE
SECOND CATEGORY IS LEVEL II, PROJECTS NECESSARY TO MEET A
FUTURE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE, BUT WHERE FY 1995 FUNDING WOULD BE
TOO LATE. THE THIRD CATEGORY CONCERNS UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS. WE ARE REQUESTING THE FUNDING NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN FIVE YEARS AND BEFORE THE
COMPLIANCE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 1998.

PROJECTS SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES OR AGREEMENTS

OUR FY 1994 REQUEST TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION
TALKS (START) IS $7.3 MILLION. THIS WILL BE USED TO UPGRADE
EXISTING MUNITIONS STORAGE IGLOOS TO SAFELY STORE DEACTIVATED
MISSILE PROPULSION COMPONENTS. THE NAVAJO DEPOT IN ARIZONA WAS
SELECTED AS THE MOST ECONOMICAL STORAGE SITE.

EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING (ENJJPT)

THE EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING PROGRAM, KNOWN AS
"ENJJPT", IS CONDUCTED AT SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, UNDER
A COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH ELEVEN OTHER NATO NATIONS. IT
INCLUDES UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING AND PILOT INSTRUCTOR
TRAINING. AIR FORCE STUDENT PILOTS PARTICIPATE IN THIS
PROGRAM. OUR FY 1994 REQUEST IS $2.2 MILLION FOR THE U.S.
SHARE OF THE COST OF AN ALTERATION OF A PILOT TRAINING
FACILITY. THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE FOURTH AND FINAL PHASE OF A
PROGRAM THAT BEGAN IN FY 1991.

CRITICAL DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT PROJECTS

B-2 BOMBER FACILITIES

OUR CONSTRUCTION TO SUPPORT THE B-2 DEPLOYMENT TO WHITEMAN
AIR FORCE BASE, MISSOURI, BEGAN WITH THE FY 1988 MILCON PROGRAM
AND CONTINUES WITH OUR REQUEST FOR $43.5 MILLION AT THAT BASE
IN FY 1994. THIS REQUEST IS IN LINE WITH THE REVISED B-2
ACQUISITION PROGRAM AND IS BASED ON THE REDUCED ACQUISITION
TARGET OF TWENTY AIRCRAFT. UNDER THIS CONCEPT, WHITEMAN AIR
FORCE BASE WILL BE SOLE OPERATING LOCATION FOR THE B-2.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS PLANNED TO PERFORM DEPOT MAINTENANCE AT
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA, BUT THE MAINTENANCE CONCEPT IS
NOW BEING REEVALUATED AND THEREFORE, NO PROJECTS ARE BEING
REQUESTED FOR FY 1994. FUTURE MILCON BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE

191

B-2 WILL BE ADJUSTED WHEN THE OPERATIONAL AND DEPOT MAINTENANCE
CONCEPTS BASED ON AN INVENTORY OF TWENTY AIRCRAFT ARE FINALIZED,

C-17 AIRCRAFT FACILITIES

WE ARE REQUESTING $6.9 MILLION FOR THREE PROJECTS AT ALTUS
AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA, AND $8.2 MILLION FOR THREE PROJECTS
AT KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE THE FACILITIES
NEEDED TO SUPPORT ACTIVATION OF THE C-17 TRANSPORT. THIS
AIRCRAFT WILL MODERNIZE AND ENHANCE THE AIR FORCE'S STRATEGIC
AND TACTICAL AIRLIFT CAPABILITIES.

T-1 TRAINER FACILITIES

THE NEW T-1 TRAINER AIRCRAFT WILL BE USED IN WHAT WE CALL
"SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (SUPT) " TO TRAIN
PILOTS FOR MULTI-ENGINE TRANSPORTS AND TANKERS. SINCE FY 1990
THE CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED $20.3 MILLION FOR FACILITIES TO
BEDDOWN THESE NEW TRAINERS. WE EXPECT OUR REQUEST IN FY 1995
WILL COMPLETE THE PROGRAM. OUR FY 1994 REQUEST FOR THIS
BEDDOWN IS $2.7 MILLION TO UPGRADE THE SUPT MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
FACILITY AT VANCE AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA. OTHER BASES THAT
WILL RECEIVE T-1 TRAINERS ARE COLUMBUS AFB, MISSISSIPPI;
LAUGHLIN AFB, TEXAS; REESE AFB, TEXAS; AND RANDOLPH AFB, TEXAS.

SPACE LAUNCH INFRASTRUCTURE

THE SPACE LAUNCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO
CORRECT FACILITY DEFICIENCIES THAT HAVE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
SPACE LAUNCH OPERATIONS AND THE RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY
OF SPACE SYSTEMS. IN FY 1994, WE ARE REQUESTING $23.9 MILLION
FOR EIGHT PROJECTS WHICH COMPRISE THE SECOND PHASE OF A
MULTI-YEAR REVITALIZATION PROGRAM. THE FIRST PROJECT IS A $1.0
MILLION UPGRADE TO THE STANDBY GENERATOR AT ANTIGUA AIR STATION
IN THE PACIFIC. THERE ARE FOUR PROJECTS AT CAPE CANAVERAL AFB,
FLORIDA FOR $6.9 MILLION: UPGRADING THE WATER MAINS, FIRE
SYSTEM AND STANDBY POWER. THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS ARE AT
VANDENBERG AFB, CALIFORNIA: ONE FOR $2.4 MILLION TO PROVIDE A
PERMANENT, RELIABLE RADAR FACILITY; ANOTHER FOR $1.6 MILLION TO
UPGRADE THE FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM IN THE TITAN TEST AND
SUPPORT FACILITY; AND THE THIRD FOR $11.5 MILLION TO UPGRADE
THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.

OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

WE ARE REQUESTING $21.45 MILLION FOR THE FOLLOWING
NON-EUROPEAN OVERSEAS PROJECTS: THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SPACE
LAUNCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT FOR THE STANDBY GENERATOR AT
ANTIGUA AIR STATION; TWO LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS,
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, AT THULE AIR BASE GREENLAND AND
ASCENSION ISLAND; AND TWO PROJECTS TO SUPPORT SATELLITE
TRACKING AT DIEGO GARCIA, A GPS SATELLITE CONTROL FACILITY AND
A SATELLITE TRACKING STORAGE FACILITY. THESE PROJECTS ALL
SUPPORT U.S. SPACE PROGRAMS, ARE NOT A HOST NATION
RESEPONSIBILITY, ARE NOT NATO ELIGIBLE, AND ARE NOT AFFECTED BY
ANY FORCE STRUCTURE REDUCTIONS IN EUROPE.

THE PROJECTS WE REQUEST FOR EUROPE ARE LIMITED TO ONLY
THOSE DEEMED MOST CRITICAL TO SUPPORTING OPERATIONS AND TO
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS FOR
PERSONNEL STATIONED OVERSEAS. WE HAVE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH
THE GUIDANCE BY THIS COMMITTEE AND THE CONGRESS TO REDUCE OUR
OVERSEAS MILCON EXPENDITURE TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL, AND

68-354 0—93-

192

TO SHIFT TO HOST NATIONS WHENEVER POSSIBLE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN
OF SUPPORTING U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED OVERSEAS. IN
ADDITION, ALL OVERSEAS MILCON PROJECTS WERE RIGOROUSLY SCREENED
AGAINST PLANNED FUTURE FORCE REDUCTIONS AND OTHER MISSION
CHANGES.

THE $11.6 MILLION FOR EUROPEAN PROJECTS COVER UPGRADING TWO
DORMITORIES AT INCIRLIK AIR BASE, TURKEY THAT ARE BEING USED TO
SUPPORT TRANSIENT PERSONNEL DEPLOYED IN OPERATION PROVIDE
COMFORT; A CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER AT RAMSTEIN AIR BASE,
GERMANY; AND A PROJECT FOR A NAVAL AIR FACILITY TO PROVIDE
GENERAL PURPOSE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE FOR NAVY AIRCRAFT AT RAF
MILDENHALL, UNITED KINGDOM. THE EXISTING NAVY OPERATION IS
BEING DISPLACED TO SUPPORT USAFE REALIGNMENTS.

PLANNING AND DESIGN

OUR REQUEST FOR FY 1994 PLANNING & DESIGN IS $63.2
MILLION. THESE FUNDS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE DESIGN FOR THE
FY 1995 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND TO ACHIEVE 3 5% DESIGN FOR OUR
FY 1996 PROJECTS. OUR REQUIREMENT WAS CALCULATED USING THE OSD
PLANNING AND DESIGN COST TARGET OF 9%, AND WAS BASED ON
PROJECTIONS THAT THE FY 1995 AND FY 1996 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF $850 MILLION TO $900 MILLION. WE NEED
TO HAVE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS FUNDING LEVEL TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO REVITALIZE OUR DETERIORATED LIVING AND
WORKING FACILITIES AND OUR INCREASINGLY UNRELIABLE UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE.

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION (P-341 FUNDS)

WE HAVE REQUESTED $6.8 MILLION IN FY 1994 FOR UNSPECIFIED
MINOR CONSTRUCTION FUNDS (P-341), WHICH PROVIDE THE AIR FORCE
WITH ITS PRIMARY MEANS OF RESPONDING TO SMALL, UNFORESEEN
MILCON REQUIREMENTS. THIS REQUEST IS IN LINE WITH THE $7
MILLION APPROPRIATED IN FY 1993 BUT LESS THAN HALF THE AVERAGE
APPROPRIATION MADE DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS. THE RAPID RATE
OF CHANGE TAKING PLACE IN THE AIR FORCE IS PUTTING A STRAIN ON
THIS ACCOUNT. THE FY 1992 AND FY 1993 FUNDS ARE ANTICIPATED TO
BE FULLY OBLIGATED BY MAY 1993. THIS WILL HAMPER OUR ABILITY
TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES DURING THE REMAINING FIVE MONTHS OF
FY 1993. WE HAVE VALIDATED REQUIREMENTS TOTALING $22 MILLION
UNDER DESIGN. OF THAT, $17 MILLION WILL BE READY TO AWARD BY
THE END OF FY 1993 AND $5 MILLION BY EARLY FY 1994.

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

AS IN YEARS PAST, THE AIR FORCE LEADERSHIP CONSIDERS
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING TO BE ONE OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT
DISCRETIONARY FACILITY PROGRAMS. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT NO
OTHER FACILITY PROGRAM INFLUENCES THE PERFORMANCE AND
COMMITMENT OF OUR PEOPLE AS MUCH AS HAVING A QUALITY HOME FOR
THEIR FAMILIES. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT CONGRESS
HAS GIVEN US FOR OUR FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AS WE STRIVE
TOGETHER TO SUSTAIN THE QUALITY OF HOMES FOR OUR PEOPLE.

MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF OUR FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM IS
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IN THIS NEW ERA OF MASSIVE OVERSEAS
REDUCTIONS, DOMESTIC BASE CLOSURES, MAJOR FORCE REDUCTIONS AND
AN ONGOING REORGANIZATION OF THE AIR FORCE. THESE UNAVOIDABLE
ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR FORCES AND FACILITIES ARE A REFLECTION OF
THE TIMES WE LIVE IN AND ARE NECESSARY TO DOWNSIZE OUR DEFENSE

193

ESTABLISHMENT. BUT THESE ADJUSTMENTS, HOWEVER DESIRABLE, ALSO
ARE DISRUPTIVE TO MILITARY FAMILIES, AND THEREFORE IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT WE PROVIDE THEM THE SECURITY AND QUALITY OF
LIFE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO FOR THEIR FAMILY HOMES.

OUR FY 1994 BUDGET REQUEST FOR FAMILY HOUSING INCLUDES
REPLACEMENT CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR EXISTING
HOUSING INVENTORY, AND MAINTAINS AND MANAGES THIS INVENTORY IN
THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF AN AUSTERE
AIR FORCE MILCON BUDGET.

HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS

A TOP PRIORITY IN THE AIR FORCE HOUSING PROGRAM IS
REVITALIZATION OF OUR EXISTING HOUSING INVENTORY THROUGH OUR
"WHOLE HOUSE/WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD" IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. THIS
PROGRAM HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL. UNDER THIS CONCEPT,
WORN-OUT BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS ARE UPDATED, OBSOLETE UTILITY
AND STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS ARE REPLACED, ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE IS
PROVIDED AS PERMITTED BY LAW, AND OLDER HOMES ARE UPGRADED TO
CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS. AT THE SAME TIME, ALL REQUIRED
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ARE ACCOMPLISHED. THE RESULT IS A VERY
COST-EFFECTIVE INVESTMENT THAT EXTENDS THE LIFE OF THESE HOUSES
BY AN ADDITIONAL 2 5 YEARS. IN ADDITION, THE "WHOLE
NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM" WILL PROVIDE RECREATION AREAS,
LANDSCAPING, PLAYGROUNDS AND UTILITY SUPPORT SYSTEMS SO THAT
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL WILL HAVE ATTRACTIVE AND FUNCTIONAL LIVING
AREAS.

OUR FY 1994 REQUEST IS FOR $63 MILLION AND INCLUDES
PLANNING AND DESIGN. THIS AMOUNT WILL REVITALIZE ABOUT 588
HOMES AND PROVIDE THREE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT OUR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET
REQUEST INCLUDES FUNDING FOR BOTH REPAIR AND ALTERATIONS. THUS
THE AIR FORCE REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENTS IS HIGHER THAN THOSE OF
THE OTHER SERVICES, BUT OUR REQUEST FOR REPAIR FUNDING IS
LOWER. HOWEVER, THIS RESULTS IN COMPARABLE TOTAL PER-UNIT
COSTS THROUGHOUT DOD.

NEW CONSTRUCTION

WE ARE REQUESTING A TOTAL OF $110 MILLION IN FY 1994 TO
CONSTRUCT 87 6 REPLACEMENT HOUSES AT NINE CONUS AIR FORCE BASES,
FOUR HOUSING SUPPORT FACILITIES AT CONUS BASES, AN
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AT ONE CONUS BASE AND THE BUYOUT OF THE
BUILD/LEASE AT COMISO AIR BASE, ITALY.

THE 876 REPLACEMENT UNITS ARE REPLACEMENTS FOR UNSUITABLE
EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE NO LONGER ECONOMICAL TO IMPROVE. THE
118 UNITS AT BARKSDALE AFB, LOUISIANA; 104 UNITS AT FE WARREN
AFB, WYOMING; 111 UNITS AT LACKLAND AFB, TEXAS; 155 UNITS AT
PATRICK AFB, FLORIDA; 118 UNITS AT ROBINS AFB, GEORGIA REPLACE
OLD WHERRY UNITS. THE VANDENBERG AFB, CALIFORNIA PROJECT FOR
166 UNITS REPLACES WORN-OUT CAPEHART UNITS. THE ONE UNIT AT
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON; 48 UNITS AT HANSCOM AFB,
MASSACHUSETTS; AND 55 UNITS AT MAXWELL AFB, ALABAMA REPLACE
UNSUITABLE UNITS. THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AT TYNDALL AFB,
FLORIDA IS PHASE I OF A FIVE PHASE PROGRAM TO REPLACE 3 38 OLD,
DETERIORATING UNITS LOCATED TOO CLOSE TO AN OPERATIONAL
AIRFIELD. THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE ALL THE PAVEMENTS,
UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE NEW UNITS.
FOLLOW ON PHASES WILL BE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE REPLACEMENT
AND DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING.

194

WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING $2 0.2 MILLION TO BUY OUT THE LEASE
FOR 460 UNITS AT COMISO AB, ITALY. OUR ANALYSIS SHOWS WE WILL
SAVE $8.6 MILLION BY BUYING OUT THE LEASE IN FY 1994 RATHER
THAN TO CONTINUE TO PAY $7,2 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE NEXT FOUR
YEARS. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE WHICH
REQUIRES THE BUYOUT OF LONG TERM LEASES IF IT IS MORE COST
EFFECTIVE.

FINALLY, WE ARE REQUESTING MODEST FUNDING TO REPLACE FOUR
INADEQUATE, NON-FUNCTIONAL FAMILY HOUSING MANAGEMENT OFFICES OR
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE AN
ADEQUATE WORKPLACE WHERE AIR FORCE FAMILIES CAN BE PRODUCTIVELY
ASSISTED IN THEIR HOUSING SEARCH BY OUR FAMILY HOUSING
PROFESSIONALS.

OPERATIONS. UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE

OUR FY 1994 REQUEST FOR FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS,
UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE IS $853.9 MILLION. THESE FUNDS ARE
NECESSARY TO OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR THE NEARLY 129,000
HOMES IN THE AIR FORCE INVENTORY - REPRESENTING A REPLACEMENT
VALUE OF WELL OVER $13 BILLION. APPROXIMATELY 80% OF THIS O&M
FUNDING IS FOR "MUST-PAY" ITEMS SUCH AS UTILITIES, REFUSE
COLLECTION AND SALARIES. THE REMAINING 20% IS APPLIED TOWARD
OUR $1,198 MILLION BACKLOG OF REPAIR REQUIREMENTS. WHILE OUR
WHOLE HOUSE REVITALIZATION PROGRAM WILL REDUCE A SMALL PART OF
THIS BACKLOG, A VIGOROUS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROGRAM IS
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THESE UNITS UNTIL THEY CAN BE REVITALIZED.

LEASING

WE HAVE REQUESTED $118.3 MILLION FOR THE COST OF LEASING
BOTH DOMESTIC AND OVERSEAS HOUSING UNITS. THE LAST OF THE AIR
FORCE SECTION 801 BUILD-LEASE HOUSING PROJECTS IS UNDER
CONTRACT. CHANGES IN THE BUDGET SCORING RULES, TOGETHER WITH
REVISIONS TO THE AUTHORITIES, HAVE IN EFFECT MADE FUTURE
SECTION 801 PROGRAMS UNEXECUTABLE.

OUR FY 1993 FAMILY HOUSING REQUEST REFLECTS OUR COMMITMENT
TO SUSTAIN QUALITY HOMES FOR OUR PEOPLE. TOO MANY AIR FORCE
FAMILIES STILL LIVE IN UNSUITABLE HOUSING. WE REQUEST THE
SUPPORT OF THE COMMITTEE IN APPROVING THE FULL REQUEST FOR OUR
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM.

MILCON FOR BASE CLOSURES

ALL AIR FORCE BASE CLOSURE FUNDING COMES FROM THE DOD BASE
CLOSURE ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE PART OF THE DOD MILCON
APPROPRIATION. FOR FY 1994, THE AIR FORCE HAS $47.0 MILLION IN
REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN PART I, WHICH COVERS THE FIVE BASES
CLOSED BY THE 1988 COMMISSION, AND $414.6 MILLION IN PART II
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE 13 CLOSURES AND THE MACDILL
AFB REALIGNMENT ORDERED BY THE 1991 COMMISSION. THESE FUNDS
COVER ALL ONE-TIME COSTS ATTRIBUTED TO CLOSURES IN THE
CATEGORIES OF O & M, ENVIRONMENT, MILITARY PERSONNEL, OTHER
PROCUREMENT AND MILCON. THE REMAINING FY 1994 MILCON PORTION
OF PART I IS $10.2 MILLION, AND THAT WILL COMPLETE THE
CONSTRUCTION FOR THE 1988 COMMISSION CLOSURES. THE AIR FORCE
DEVELOPED AN ACCELERATED SCHEDULE FOR PART II CLOSURES WHICH
GENERATED A REQUIREMENT FOR $103.5 MILLION IN MILCON IN FY
1994. THUS THE TOTAL AIR FORCE BASE CLOSURE MILCON FUNDING
REQUIREMENT IN FY 1994 IS $113.7 MILLION.

195

CONCLUSION

IN CONCLUSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR ITS STRONG PAST SUPPORT OF THE TOTAL AIR FORCE MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND THE BENEFITS THIS HAS PROVIDED TO THE
AIR FORCE IN BOTH READINESS AND IN RETENTION, RECRUITING,
REDUCED TRAINING COSTS AND QUALITY PERFORMANCE OF OUR PERSONNEL.

IN THIS TIME OF DECLINING DEFENSE BUDGETS, IT IS VITAL THAT
WE USE EVERY SCARCE DOLLAR TO MAXIMUM ADVANTAGE. TO DO THIS,
IT IS IMPORTANT WE IDENTIFY OUR MILCON REQUIREMENTS BASED ON
TOTAL FORCE REQUIREMENTS.

AS THE ACTIVE FORCE IS REDUCED IN SIZE OUR SUPPORTING
FACILITY STRUCTURE MUST BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. IN ADDITION,
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE COST-SAVING POTENTIAL OF PROPER
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF OUR PHYSICAL PLANT, WHICH CAN RESULT
IN SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS BY PREVENTING MORE COSTLY REPAIRS IN THE
FUTURE. WE THEREFORE ASK FOR THE COMMITTEE'S FULL SUPPORT OF
OUR FY 1994 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. WE
WILL BE MOST HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

196

Mr. Hefner. This committee in order to accommodate its mem-
bers, we have a member here who has a tight schedule to be on. I
will forego my questions and I will yield to the gentlelady from
Nevada.

Ms. VucANOViCH. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield first
to the member who has to leave if that would help you.

Mr. Hefner. Well, Mr. Fazio has another meeting and he has
some questions. I appreciate that consideration and at this time, we
will yield to Mr. Fazio.

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Fazio. I thank you both very much and I apologize to the
other members of the committee. I will jump right into this.

First of all I want to say to the gentleman at the table that I
apologize for having to take an occasionally negative approach to
the Air Force this morning, because that is not my traditional ap-
proach. I have had a lot of good years of friendship and cooperation
but there are some concerns that I have that I need to take this
opportunity to develop and I am going to do it.

I would like to ask initially some questions about Kirtland Air
Force Base in the MILCON proposal for FY '94.

The budget contains five MILCON projects for the base, three of
which trouble me. They are the aerospace engineering facility, the
space structures laboratory, and the composite materials laborato-
ry, some $15 million worth of projects, part of an effort to consoli-
date all of the aerospace research activities at that facility.

My first question is, how many people would be affected by that
consolidation?

Mr. Vest. We have 74 authorizations, actually it would be from
Hanscom in Massachusetts and 103 from Edwards. So that would
be a total of 177 positions that would move to Kirtland under that
proposal.

I could break that down into the various elements.

Mr. Fazio. Yes, I would appreciate it if you would do that for the
record.

[The information follows:]

The breakout of the 74 authorizations from Hanscom AFB is 46 from Space Ex-
perimental Laboratory, 14 from Space Technology Laboratory, and 14 from Advance
Weapons Laboratory. The breakout of the 103 authorizations from Edwards AFB is
47 from Space Experimentation, 43 from Space Technology, and 13 from Advance
Weapons.

Mr. Fazio. I guess my real concern here is that while I under-
stand your desire to consolidate your lab activities at Kirtland Air
Force Base, we do have excess capacity, while not a huge amount,
but we do have it in the Air Force labs. I am wondering how you
can justify replicating labs there, when you are not really taking
into consideration the closure of other facilities, other bases where
these other labs are located.

Don't you think you will be adding to the problem of excess ca-
pacity by building those facilities without having closed any
others?

Mr. Vest. Well, as you are probably aware, this is part of the
overall program in the Air Force to further implement the four
super-lab consolidation project.

197

I would have to go back and look at the places of origin to really
answer your question specifically, which I will do, however, what
we are attempting to do is to get the economies and the efficien-
cies, of the synergism of getting these folks together.

That is overall what we are trying to do and we have achieved a
great deal of streamlining in efficiencies already just with the orga-
nizational adjustments.

And we believe it is very important to the maximum degree pos-
sible is to get these folks co-located at the four principal lab loca-
tions. Now, having said that, there are some elements of the Phil-
lips Laboratory that just simply will not move to Kirtland, namely
some of the rocket propulsion activity at Edwards.

That is largely because it simply does not make economic sense
to do it. We have looked at those kinds of things, but I can look in
further detail at these three if you would like.

Mr. Fazio. Well, I am concerned that we are going to be adding
to the problem of excess capacity, doubling our lab space when we
really have not made decisions to eliminate others. At least they
have not been presented.

Mr. Vest. What I need to do. Congressman, is go back and re-
spond to you on the places of origin and what is actually happening
to that space.

Mr. Fazio. Can you do that for the committee and for us as
quickly as possible?

Mr. Vest. Certainly.

[The information follows:]

Kirtland AFB — Excess Capacity

The consolidation of space technology and weapons research laboratories from Ed-
wards AFB to Kirtland AFB vacates approximately 75,000 SF. This space will be
turned over to the base and used to offset existing organizational space deficits at
Edwards AFB. The consolidation of the above mentioned laboratories from Hanscom
AFB to Kirtland AFB vacates approximately 11,000 SF. This space will be used by
the existing Geophysics Laboratory Directorate at Hanscom AFB. This consolidation
will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the physically separated directorates
and significantly strengthen our space-related science and technology program.
There are no programmed base closure/realignment actions anticipated at Hanscom
or Edwards AFBs.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Can I just add one comment in regard to excess
capacity. At a number of our bases we have some facilities that
still need major modernization and I don't know the particulars of
these two locations in this regard, but quite frankly, building new
buildings to house laboratory functions could, in fact, be cost-effec-
tive and when we are doing the construction we can put it in a lo-
cation that achieves the consolidation.

Then we can close down some older facilities that are not very
efficient and cost effective to continue to operate. That has been
part of our analysis. I will defer on the details here that we will
provide in regard to both Hanscom and Edwards as it relates to
this.

Mr. Fazio. In order to agree with your presumption we are going
to have to see the evidence of that because you are hard pressed to
convince the committee that building new buildings in lieu of using
existing facilities is going to be cost effective.

198

Now, there may be some other benefits, as you say, the S5nier-
gism. There may be some things that are harder to quantify but
maybe those are the kinds of trade-offs that this committee needs
to look at.

Mr. Vest. To pursue a httle what Mr. Boatright said, we are
going to have to look at more and more facility consolidation asso-
ciated with demolition, simply because what we are seeing is that
the costs of running, maintaining, repairing and operating a
number of smaller facilities often times just simply doesn't make
sense in lieu of new construction.

BASE CLOSURE EXECUTIVE GROUP

Mr. Fazio. I would like to go on and discuss the decision-making
process of the base closure executive group called BCEG. I gather it
was more or less a committee process where the members were
briefed on bases, agreed to certain criteria, and then voted ulti-
mately on criteria gradings, deciding therefore which bases would
be submitted for closure.

Could you characterize it that way or do you think that there is
some other way to describe that process?

Mr. Boatright. I think that is a fairly good characterization. Ba-
sically what the Air Force did this time in the base closure round
was essentially what we did in '91, and that was that we created a
base closure executive group that reported directly to the Secretary
of the Air Force.

That group was made up of general officers, and SES civilians. It
cut across the whole functional gamut of the Air Force in regard to
the functional responsibilities within the Air Force. So that we had
the expertise that we needed there that crossed the spectrum.

And we took about 160 sub-elements of criteria that relate to the
eight criteria that were approved by the Department of Defense
and were agreed to by the Congress, and we measured each of the
bases using these sub-elements.

We put a rating on each sub-element. We used a red, yellow and
green rating. And then once we had the bases rated within a cate-
gory of bases, we grouped the bases from best bases, middle group
of bases, to the lowest group of bases being the ones that were the
least desirable to retain.

That is the process we used and as I said it is essentially the
same process we used in 1991.

Mr. Fazio. Well, I have reviewed the minutes along with my
staff of the BCEG group and I have looked at the questionnaire
data that was submitted and obviously been very much affected by
the resultant ratings that each criterion was given.

I must say the process seems quite fluid and there doesn't seem
to be at least in the minutes a lot of documentation. I know that
the GAO found that many of the decisions were undocumented and
that they didn't believe that there was sufficient justification in-
cluded in the material that they were given to analyze.

A lot of people that I talked to, both within and without the Air
Force, suggest that the process was somewhat subjective. I am sure
that the expertise in the room was confident of its capability to

199

make these calls, but there does seem to be a lack of documenta-
tion.

I guess I am troubled by that fact because my analysis of the
depot questionnaires leads me to some different conclusions. I
would like to go through a couple of issues and see if I can either
get additional documentation from you or some agreement as to
the fact that there seems to be some subjectivity.

On December 21st, BCEG minutes state that, "They also agreed
that the ratings for potential regional encroachment at McClellan
should be changed from a Y to an R" — a yellow to a red. In other
words, from modestly acceptable to unacceptable.

The minutes don't contain any explanation for that change. The
data I looked at indicated that all of the developments in the APZ
or the accident potential zone, at both ends of the runway, north
and south are in compliance with current requirements.

Some of the developments within the APZ south of the facility
are incompatible land uses — that amounts to about 20 percent of
the total — but they were developed prior to the adoption of the
comprehensive land use plan, the CLUP, which was put in place in
1987.

It is interesting that we are the only one of the five air logistic
centers that has such a CLUP in place. The other four don't have.
So it wouldn't be really possible for them to be evaluated on this
basis anyway.

In our investigation most of the other facilities have worse en-
croachment than we do at McClellan, and yet, we are moved from
a Y to an R.

Could you tell us how the BCEG was able to reach that conclu-
sion?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Let me just comment in general here. I can't re-
produce that right here today. I can if I go back and review the
data that we have. We have far more data than you have referred
to here in regards to the analysis that we accomplished.

I remember this deliberation that took place within the BCEG.
We discussed this at some considerable length and I can and we
will be pleased to reproduce the rationale that we used in regard to
changing that particular sub-element from yellow to red.

Mr. Fazio. I guess I am going in the direction of sajdng that we
have been led to believe by some very knowledgeable people that
once a decision is made people have to find appropriate rationale.
And in some cases the rationale was made in what seems to be on
the surface here a very undocumented way.

I would be more than happy to look at all the documentation
that you can get us. Because, frankly, we find as we look at more
and more levels of documentation, more and more questions arise.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. We would be pleased to take that question and
provide you the documentation that we used to reach our conclu-
sions.

Mr. Fazio. Okay.

Mr. Vest. When you first started speaking I was thinking of the
air space. You are referring in this particular case to land use, be-
cause much of the discussion, at least my recollection, on so-called
encroachment things regarding McClellan had to do with the re-
gional airspace.

200

So is that — ^but we are definitely talking about the land use?

Mr. Fazio. Well, we are certainly convinced that part of the ra-
tionale was land use around the facility. If you want to add some
additional documentation on air space encroachment that is fine
too.

Mr. Vest. I think it is appropriate because there were, in fact,
several of the members of the BCEG who had quite a bit of experi-
ence in flying in and out of the facility and I know that they
brought some of that to hear.

Mr. Fazio. Well, APZ is land use.

Mr. Vest. That is correct.

Mr. Fazio. And that was the reference that I was making here. If
you want to bring up air space issues, that is fair, and we would be
happy to get the documentation.

Mr. Vest. Fine, just a point of clarification.

MC CLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Fazio. I was not concerned about that rating as much as I
was the land use issue.

Another example of where green was transformed to yellow,
which obviously wasn't helpful in the overall final ratings, the
members changed the ratings — I am going to state from the min-
utes here, I guess a quote from you, Mr. Vest — "The members
changed the ratings of McClellan for its capability to support fight-
er and bomber missions from green to yellow based on limitations
on the carriage of ordinance and heavy off-base development."

"Mr. Kuhn questioned how this change could best be document-
ed. Mr. Vest stated that he managed Air Force environmental and
encroachment issues for 10 years, personally worked on them for
21, and that based on this experience he could readily attest that
fighter and bomber missions at McClellan would be very unlikely
to be possible because of environmental considerations."

Now, I would not dispute the questions about bombers. I mean
we have not had bombers there for as long as anybody can remem-
ber. But fighters are our mission. And it is hard for me to believe
that there are environmental considerations at this facility that
don't exist at the other four that would have prevented us from
supporting fighters.

I mean we know all of our logistic centers have environmental
problems. We may have found out about them earlier than the
others, but we know that they are all seriously impacted. Could
you give me some of that experience that you cited in the minutes?

Mr. Vest. Sure. As I recall, we were talking about issues and we
were talking about not just the depot function of servicing fighters,
but of fighter mission and then as you probably know, some of the
other depots do, in fact, have assigned tactial fighter activities.

Mr. Fazio. Yes.

Mr. Vest. And we have never rejected one assignment, I can tell
you that. Frankly when we speak of the 21 years, there has been
more than one exercise over the years to look at McClellan to, in
fact, put operational missions there, and I can recall on more than
one occasion over those years the consensus was that probably
about the only thing that would environmentally fit into McClel-

201

Ian, in terms of tactical fighters, would be something like an A-10,
largely because it is fairly quiet.

In reference to the ordinance, as you probably know the fighters
that are currentl}^ using McClellan, in this case, the fighter
bomber, the F-111,'I don't believe ever are using the facility with
ordinance on them.

That was the reference there, that was our concern expressed.

Mr. Fazio. Well, we have in some direct questionnaire responses
here, I think it is pretty clear that the base runway, taxiway, ramp
infrastructure can support a fighter mission in groups one and two
but not in three. But yet, we get downgraded because of that?

Is that the reason why we went from green to yellow?

Mr. Vast. For the reasons that were stated in the record, yes.

Because the whole discussion, and I look to Mr. Boatright, too,
because he was there, is that that whole discussion revolved
around the ability to accommodate the fighter mission in terms of
the greater environment.

I don't think that there was ever a question about the ability to
accommodate in terms of the on-base activities, like ramp, runway
or whatever.

Mr. Fazio. Well, these are the kinds of things that are not any-
where near visible in the documentation of the BCEG decision
process. Again, we would like much more analysis if we could get
it.

I have only one further question. I have others, but I know the
members are being patient. This is under public transportation.
Under criteria seven, the column was rated red for public transpor-
tation.

Under the Air Force detailed analysis, the green means that
there is public transportation and a red means there isn't any. We
are given a red. I can't understand it. We have a light rail station
just down Watt Avenue from the base. It is a multi-modal transit
system. It won national awards as recently as last year. I can't
imagine that that facility would not have qualified us to have a
green rating instead of a red.

Maybe the Air Force felt that it was too far to walk. I mean I
don't know. How can we have a station right at the edge of the
base and be given a red for not having public transportation?

Mr. Boatright. I have a problem with that, as well. What I
would like to do is that we go back and research that and then pro-
vide to you the information that we used and why we came up with
the red rating in lieu of another color.

Mr. Fazio. I would appreciate that.

Mr. Boatright. We would be pleased to do that.

Mr. Fazio. These questions are not the end. I have a number of
others and what I would like to do is to submit them but rather
than just get them back for the record, or for the committee, at a
time when it may be less relevant to other things that are happen-
ing before the BRAG, I would appreciate it if we could get some of
these answers by the end of the week.

Is that possible?

Mr. Boatright. Yes, sir, it is and I will make a special effort to
make sure that they are delivered to you directly and then we will
provide them for the record here, as well.

202

Mr. Fazio. I thank you, very much, and I appreciate the indul-
gence of the Chairman and the ranking member and the other
members of the committee.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, very much. I have questions but I am
going to defer my questions until later. We are not going to invoke
the five-minute rule. People are concerned about base closings in
their districts and this is one of the forums that is used.

BASE CLOSURE EXECUTIVE GROUP

At this time, I will defer my questions until later.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me what BCEG
means?
Mr. BoATRiGHT. Base Closure Executive Group.
Mr. Callahan. I remember that closure is spelled with a C.
Mr. Hefner. We use K as a code.
The gentlelady from Nevada.

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE

Ms. VucANOViCH. I thank the Chairman and the committee. All
of us have lots of questions, but I am interested in two projects at
Nellis Air Force Base that are in the pipeline for fiscal year 1995.
The first one is $4.1 million for a bomber crew training facility.

I understand that Nellis has just recently added a bomber mis-
sion to its flag exercises, and as it was explained to me the project
is needed because there is limited bomber-capable ramp space
available on the visitors ramp and also because ground and air
crews can't train with live ordinance due to explosive safety limita-
tions.

Because of the significance of this project to the Nellis bomber
mission, I am hoping that we could consider moving this project
into the fiscal year 1994 program. Could you provide me with more
information on the bomber mission, and also could you tell me how
far along in a design phase the project is?

Mr. Vest. If I may I would like to ask General McCarthy to re-
spond to this.

Ms. VucANOViCH. That would be fine.

General McCarthy. Yes, Ma'am, good morning.

As you stated, the bomber training is new at Nellis because of
their inclusion in Red Flag and they have begun the training. How-
ever, the training is inhibited by the lack of training space. The
Air Force, as you say, has put it in the '95 budget submittal; it is
there today.

Design has begun but not much at all has transpired on it, and it
is a valid and strong requirement, we believe.

Ms. VUCANOVICH. Is there any chance that we could move that
along? Do you know? Is it far enough along in the pipeline to move
it to fiscal year 1994?

General McCarthy. The Air Force could execute the project if it
were in the '94 budget.

Ms. VUCANOVICH. They could?

General McCarthy. Yes.

Ms. VucANOViCH. The other question, the second project adds
21,000 square feet and alters 5,000 square feet of the existing Nellis

203

Base gym. It is my understanding that this includes additional
space for lockers, and shower rooms and aerobic rooms, and cardio-
vascular exercise room and weight-training areas.

I recently visited this facility and I think that this addition is
badly needed to relieve the extremely over-crowded conditions that
exist. I think we could consider moving this project into the fiscal
year 1994 program. Do you know how far along that design project

is?

General McCarthy. That design has not started at all because it
is not even in the '95 budget, it is beyond that. Nothing has start-
ed. If it were in the '94 budget, we would probably need some
design money to be put into the budget, and to move forward the
bomber crew training a year, we would probably need a little bit of
design money to help us accelerate the work.

They are both very valid requirements, it is just that the gym
project was not in the budget this year.

Ms. VucANOViCH. Well, there is one other concern that I have at
Nellis and that is the Nellis Terrace housing which serves junior
NCO's. As I know you know, these quarters are over 50 years old.

It is my understanding that the minor improvements were made
in the early 1980's, but most efficiencies were not addressed. As
you know, this housing situation is of great concern to me. Can you
tell me how far along that project is, and whether there is any-
thing that we can do to help it move along expeditiously?

General McCarthy. The project is not in the Air Force's '94 or
'95 budget. It is a valid project, and it fixes housing totally for our
young NCO's and we strongly support that; it just did not make the
budget. It is a phase of several phases to completely overhaul that
housing for those young families out there. We could execute it. It
would take a year to complete and award a contract, but the
sooner we get started the sooner we could get the work done, of
course.

Ms. VucANOViCH. Well, the needs are there and I think that we
all understand that.

General McCarthy. The first phase is 70 units of about $4.9 mil-
lion.

Ms. VucANOViCH. Yes. I looked at it while I was out there, and
certainly the need was there. Well, I do have a couple of questions
that I would yield back the balance of my time. I know there are a
lot of people that have questions.

Thank you. General, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Just a question, we have had Red Flag for years
and years; is this something new, the bomber exercise that we are
adding at Nellis?

General McCarthy. The Red Flag has changed over the years. It
used to be just the fighter guys who were going out there and prac-
ticing among themselves. Now, as a result of Desert Storm and the
changing concepts, we are integrating our forces, and bringing the
bombers, and the tankers, the fighters, and the airlift together,
similar to the way we actually fought the war.

Mr. Hefner. Who all takes part, participates in these?

General McCarthy. Principally it is the Air Combat Command
which now under the new organized Air Force has all of the bomb-
ers and the fighters in it and some of the tankers.

204

Mr. Hefner. We have some of our NATO allies that took part in
that?

General McCarthy. I can't answer that question.

Ms. VucANOViCH. I think so, yes, because I have seen them from
all over the world.

Mr. Vest. Not only do we have that occurring at Red Flag, there
are other exercises around the country. If I may also add, for a
number of years now B-52 aircraft have been participating in Red
Flag, but they do it from another location, so we would, in some
cases, we would deploy the B-52 from some base to another place,
and then run missions into Red Flag.

It was very, very important that our fighter crews get the oppor-
tunity to work with the bombers. In fact, it was in part because of
our experience in Desert Storm, we moved to the composite wings,
we just recently deployed the entire 366th from Mt. Home down to
Nellis to deploy as a unit, just like they would do in war time as a
total package.

And that total package does include B-52's that are currently
merging up with fighters. So it is very, very important to put the
whole package in somewhere just like we would do if we had to use
those activities in war time. So we are changing

Ms. VucANOViCH. That ramp is pretty full when they are all
there, it is a zoo.

General McCarthy. Well, the whole concept here is that where
we have these regional requirements or whatever, we have these
folks, they live together, they trsiin together, and then they exer-
cise together. And what we don't want to have happen is for them
to learn how to do that when they have to go to war. They have got
to do it in peace time.

Mr. Hefner. I will defer my questions until later.

Ms. Meek?

HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE

Ms. Meek. Mr. Chairman, thank you, very much. I would like to
say hello again to the Air Force, with whom I have had some dis-
cussion, much of it regarding the Homestead Air Force Base. Mr.
Chairman, I have five minutes to ask the few questions that I have
and then I will place the rest in the record.

The first thing I would like to know is if, as you see Homestead
Air Force Base, having been recommended for closure, having been
really devastated or wiped out by Hurricane Andrew, I wonder if
the Air Force might have a — I have a duty on my part as a repre-
sentative of that area — what is there in the Air Force that is left
that could assist that community in terms of bringing that facility
back to civilian use?

A support program which would not necessarily be military but
an associated support service that the Air Force could say to me
today, Ms. Meek, these are some kinds of things that we have done
in other areas, where base closure was imminent. It is more than
imminent in Dade County in that usually base closure takes three
to five years, and our base is already closed.

So my question to you is what kind of programs do you have, for
example, that could be placed at Homestead that will have the ca-

205

pacity to create jobs in that area? What have you done in the past?
I think I read your Sacramento report where some things were left
there or not even left there, but put together and used as a center.

Did I make my question clear?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Yes, Ma'am. I think that the effort that the De-
partment of Defense is already involved in at Homestead is the
right track. As you know, we have $76 million that was appropri-
ated in military construction as a supplemental appropriation, and
$10 million of that was for design and $66 million was for construc-
tion. That was to restore the airfield.

We believe it is very important to try and get an agreement with
the local authorities as to how they want to redevelop Homestead
into a civil airport and we have already embarked on this.

We urgently need this agreement so we can begin to design and
spend those construction dollars in a way that would provide facili-
ties that would give the Department of Defense some contingency
capability in the future, that would be geared toward the restora-
tion of the airfield, and would be usable by a civil airport.

As I said, there was a meeting held last month, down at Home-
stead, to try to bring the parties together. We had the FAA repre-
sented there, as well as the Department of Defense. I think the
WTiite House was represented, as well, and then there were all
sorts of community leaders there to begin to focus on how we
should go about creating a civil airport at this location.

Once that basic decision is made by the local community in
regard to how they want to do this, then the Air Force can get on
with designing and beginning the construction of these projects.

The actual construction activity will create a considerable
number of jobs in the local community and we are prepared to ex-
pedite both the design and the construction. In fact, I think we are
ready to do some concurrent design and construction using a fast-
track approach.

We believe that this kind of decisions could be made by the local
community in regard to how they want to use it in the next 60
days that we could, in fact, begin some construction prior to the
end of this year.

Mr. Vest. Could I add something?

I have had the opportunity over the years to work a great deal
with Mr. Boatright on base closure, and one of the things that I
think is very, very important to underscore for you is that the com-
munity has got to come together as a single community and point
the direction because the way this has always been done, the Air
Force can't make it happen. The community has got to say this is
what we want it to be.

Once that is determined and there is a single community, if you
will, then things can begin to happen. I think that for at least my
understanding in the Homestead situation that coming together
has not quite yet occurred. And frankly, it is much, much more
acute in your situation as you stated, because you don't have the
luxury of a couple or three year transition, because the reality is
almost now.

The community has got to point the way.

Ms. Meek. I will see if I can help a little bit with that. The com-
munity has undertaken a very distinct process and it is all coming

206

together and they are meeting. My question is other than that. I
am just asking the Air Force if there is anything from your
memory, from your institutional memory, as to what the Air Force
has done in the past. Maybe the Air Force needs a research station
or some other kind of center. That is the question I am asking.

That community is well aware of the things you are talking
about. It took so long for the $76 million to be released that I have
had someone to attend all of those meetings. They have been well
monitored. I have attended some of them.

My question is, from your institutional memory, what can be
done in terms of what the Air Force needs, a kind of defense-relat-
ed center that will help — that is the question.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. I think that the

Ms. Meek. If you can't tell me that now, I would appreciate it
anytime in the near future. I don't want to hold the hearing up all
day but that is information that I would like to have so that when
I go back to my district I can sit down with the people there who
are planning and say this is a model that was used some place else
for the Air Force, this is something that is strictly from the Air
Force.

I am going to ask the x\rmy and I am going to ask everyone for
some help in this regard. I am asking you first because I figured
that you, Mr. Boatright, were in on the decision making in terms of
this particular base.

So my request is that you can give it to me later, but I would like
to receive some information. What Air Force-related activities
could possibly be centered there. It is something that I would say to
the community, this is something that the Air Force has done in
other places.

Mr. Boatright. I must tell you that the plan of the Air Force
and the plan of the Department of Defense has been submitted to
the base closure commission and it we would not leave any activi-
ties at Homestead.

Ms. Meek. I don't want to prolong this question. I don't think
you understood. I don't want you to leave it. I want an idea.

Mr. Hefner. Something along the lines of maybe it the Air
Guard and if the local entity decided that they v/anted to utilize
this airport and the Air Guard could use it in a joint use capacity.
Is that something along the lines of what you are thinking about?

Ms. Meek. Related to the airport.

Mr. Boatright. I think our recommendation to the base closure
commission is that we have an Air Guard alert activity down
there, they fly F-16's and they fly the Air Defense Alert down
there, and v/e would like to leave that activity at Homestead. But
we would leave it there only if a civil airport was established. And
we have indicated that we would work with the FAA, with the
local airport authority to establish a civil airport and then we
would build the necessary facilities to support the Air Guard Unit
there that could be a tenant on that civil airport.

It is my belief that the kinds of things that the community
should look to reuse Homestead Air Force Base for would be air-
port related things — the kinds of activities that are normally relat-
ed to an airfield. Because you have an extremely valuable asset
there today in the form of an airfield.

207

And much of the airfield is still there. I mean the pavements
were not damaged extensively by the storm and so we can take
that infrastructure that exists there, and we can convert that to a
civil airport in a very short time period.

And if we can begin to, if the local community can begin to at-
tract some airport-related activities to become tenants on that civil
airport you can get some economically viable recovery very quick-
ly-

Ms. Meek. Would you give me the status of the funds, the $76
million that is going to be released?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. General McCarthy can give that to you.

General McCarthy. As you know, none of the money h£is been
spent yet, however, relating to what Mr. Boatright said, we have
met with the Metro Dade County representatives, Mr. Rick Bush,
and we have plans to begin in July the repair work on the Nation-
al Guard Alert Facility, the hanger, the control tower, primary
electrical distribution system, navigation aids and airfield lighting
to restore the airfield up to full capacity.

That will be about $30 million of the $76 which we can begin, at
least the initial contracting, in July. So we are getting started, and
so of the $76, $30 is about to get underway.

Ms. Meek. What will happen with the rest of that?

General McCarthy. We have to further develop what we want
the base to be, between us and Mr. Bush's staff. He is coming up on
the 27th, next week, to sit down with us, here in Washington, and
go over that.

Ms. Meek. I think time is extremely important. I hope you will
hear my appeal as well as my frustration with the fact that the
people in that community are waiting to see how that $76 million
is going to be spent, since it has already been appropriated. It was
slow in being released and now it is being released. My entire
power of my being here, in Congress, is to be sure that that $76
million is spent with great dispatch, because that community has
undergone enough pain as it is.

My last question is in regard to the rationale for moving the re-
serve units that were there, and money was appropriated for the
reserve units at the Homestead Air Force Base, I wonder just in
terms of comparative analysis, how much money was spent and
how much money is it going to cost to move those units from
Homestead to Patrick and move the other one to McDill.

I wonder in terms of the cost analysis whether it was expedient
to do that? Can you give me a little update on that?

Mr. Boatright. Yes, I would be pleased to provide for the record
the specific

Ms. Meek. Would it be better to keep it at Homestead was my
question.

Mr. Boatright. No, it was not. It was considerably more expen-
sive to leave it at Homestead. One of the problems with leaving the
reserve unit, the F-16 reserve unit at Homestead was the fact that
the Air Force wants to convert that unit to 135, KC-135 tankers.
Homestead is not a good location for the tankers. McDill is a much
better location.

So from an operational standpoint, we had a desire to move the
unit further north and McDill was a very suitable alternative.

208

From a cost standpoint, it is greatly less costly to move the units
and to establish them at McDill and Patrick than it is to restore
and rebuild facilities at Homestead to accommodate that.

Ms. Meek. That particular cost was not deleted. Was it deleted
from the $76 million, or was the $76 million utilized in moving the
reserves to those other places?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. None of the $76 million w£is used to move the
reserve units. The money that we will spend to bed down the re-
serve units at both Patrick and McDill will come out of the base
closure account should be Base Closure Commission approve that
proposal.

Ms. Meek. Mr. Chairman, if I may close, I'd just like to say to
the officials here from the Air Force that it's very important that
you understand the impact, both economic as well as physically
and mentally, of closing that air force base. We know that the Clo-
sure Commission will use every insight possible when you make
the decision to do that.

I also feel that you still have — I feel if not commitment, you have
some responsibility now to be sure that No. 1, the money is re-
leased as quickly as possible; that changes come in the local com-
munity from the money, as well as doing as much as you can to be
sure that things associated with the Air Force, such as the Air
Force Reserve or any others, would be as much as possible left
there.

I sit as a member of this committee. I don't know how I got
there, but I thank God made it so, and my message to you is that I
will represent that committee very well, and as the Air Force
comes before me, my voters are going to count the things that
make a difference to the people I represent.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Yes ma'am. We can understand and appreciate
that. We also are very sympathetic to the needs of Homestead Air
Force Base and the needs of the surrounding community. We will
be very responsible and very responsive in our actions to carry out
whatever the Base Closure Commission decides in regard to the clo-
sure of Homestead Air Force Base, and we will work with the local
community, first to expedite the construction, the spending of the
$76 million that has already been appropriated by the Congress,
and to assist the community in developing an economically viable
reuse of that facility, and in disproving of the property there so
that the community can in fact be able to use that property at an
early date.

Mr. HoYER. Mr. Callahan.

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Bentley says she has another
meeting. Could she go first?

Mr. HoYER. Absolutely.

ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PLAN

Ms. Bentley. I extend my thanks to Mr. Callahan. First of all, I
want to commend for Air Force for moving ahead to rebuild and to
not drag this thing out. I don't have any Air Force installations,
but we are working with the Army and I think this is very impor-
tant to the overall welfare to our troops.

209

According to your list of items, there are several installations
that were pointed out; you alluded to them here about destroying
some of the old buildings of the Air Force. If those buildings were
constructed before 1975, there is a good chance that they have as-
bestos in them, and it so happens that a lot of ongoing legal mat-
ters concerning asbestos are going on in the State of Maryland.

So I'm going to ask you first of all what is the current projected
cost of the Air Force asbestos abatement plan?

Mr. Vest. I don't believe we actually have a single figure for
that. What we did several years ago, as I recall it, in 1984 or '85,
was that we issued a very comprehensive asbestos policy for the
Air Force. Frankly, what it did was focus on asbestos as a manage-
ment challenge, and obviously the first priority was that anything
that was in a friable state, that it would have to be removed or en-
capsulated. So that is our high priority.

Frankly, today in the United States Air Force, I would be sur-
prised if there were — if many or very many cases of where there's
actual friable asbestos, because we've worked at it very, very hard.

Now where the asbestos problem really comes to play for us
today is in major rehabilitation or upgrade projects. Where the cost
factor becomes a real problem is where in the planning of the
project, for whatever reason, we did not do extensive intrusive
analysis; didn't know it was there and didn't find it until we got
into the project.

But what we're finding is that particularly in our family housing
activities, that's been a problem. As I recall, it was just last year
that the Congress — and I think this committee was very helpful in
giving us some ability to deal with those things when they occur, at
least in terms of the lost limits of the various projects.

I think — with that flexibility, and recognizing that there is an
additive cost for these kinds of projects, that the situation in the
Air Force is basically manageable.

You do come into it when you demolish a facility. But we know
how to deal with that. We know what the procedures are. Once
again, it's a little bit of additive cost.

If I may, however, take an opportunity here to point out that the
problem that we're facing in this regard is not only asbestos. Prob-
ably the most problematic situation we have now is lead in lead-
based paint. Frankly, what we're beginning to see in some of the
older facilities where there's been extensive lead-based paint over
the years, particularly some of the family housing, the cost to deal
with that when you rehabilitate the house, go through the whole
house, is going to be very, very significant.

One of the things that we need and we are looking to the Con-
gress to give us some help again, is to give us some ability very
similar to the flexibility you gave us on asbestos, to deal with the
lead-based paint issue.

Ms. Bentley. I've been told that you're working on a new asbes-
tos abatement procedure at Griffiss.

Supposedly this process destroys all the chemical structure of as-
bestos, thereby dramatically cutting the cost of ongoing liability. Is
the Air Force studying other procedures as well, and what does the
Air Force plan to do to limit the government's ongoing liability ex-
posure? Let's take asbestos first, and then lead paint.

210

Mr. Vest. Okay, I must say, and I apologize, because I am not
familiar with the reference to Griffiss. I should be and you certain-
ly scooped me on that one.

To my knowledge at this moment, there's no part of the Air
Force that is investigating any — how should we say — techniques
along the lines that you're speaking of, and I would say that on as-
bestos, at least from the feedback I'm getting from the field and
the regulators and the like, that the policies that we have in place,
that our management approach has been satisfactory.

You've just kind of caught us up short on the Griffiss thing. But
I will look into that.

[The information follows:]

Griffiss AFB — Abatement Procedure

Griffiss AFB is exploring a new asbestos destruction process developed by DSI In-
dustries Consolidated, Inc. It uses a chemical/mechanical action on asbestos contain-
ing materials to convert them to common silica.

The current Air Force policy emphasizes the in-place management of lead based
paint and asbestos containing materials to minimize liability, as well as risks to
workers and the public. The project at Griffiss applies only to the removal and dis-
posal of asbestos containing materials. Normally this occurs during major renova-
tion or disposal of facilities.

Griffiss AFB officials met with DSI representatives, discussed proposed proce-
dures, and conducted a small table top and a larger experiment with 40 pounds of
asbestos containing material. The results of both tests were successful in producing
an asbestos free product. Consequently Griffiss plans to expand evaluation to a full
test program.

Potential benefits include a five year payback; projected labor savings; elimina-
tion of specialized waste packing, transport, and disposal requirements; and reduced
liability.

Potential drawbacks include licensing agreements required with DSI Industries to
purchase and use their proprietary chemicals; specialized training; high process
costs; and annual operator certification.

The results of the Griffiss AFB test project will be evaluated to determine the ap-
plicability of the process Air Force wide. We know of no similar process for lead
based paint.

LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT

Ms. Bentley. On the lead paint, is there any high tech procedure
to get rid of this?

Mr. Vest. Well, our folks are looking at all the alternatives very,
very carefully. Frankly, there are a limited number of ways you can
deal with lead paint.

One of the things that you don't want to do is to sand it. One of
the approaches that we've tried is to put a chemical stripper on it,
which will then actually force the paint to separate from the sur-
face being covered. At a project in Alabama at Maxwell, we did
some of that. What we found was that the chemical penetrated the
wood. I mean it sure got the lead paint off and it was easy to
handle, but now we're having trouble getting the new paint or pro-
tective coating to adhere to the surface because of the chemicals.

I was just down there recently to go through that whole situation
in the family housing, and what we're finding is that if we work
very, very closely with the contractor, get a credible contractor
who knows how to do it, it's basically manageable.

But so far, we haven't found any

Ms. Bentley. Such person.

211

Mr. Vest [continuing]. Silver bullets to work that. It's going to be
a tough one, and it's not just an Air Force problem.

Ms. Bentley. And I certainly know this, of course, is raising the
cost of your overhauls, of the base closings are difficult enough. But
overhauls are tough, unexpected costs.

Mr. Vest. These do raise the costs; there's no question about it.

Ms. Bentley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. On this lead paint issue. Is it ever addressed by put-
ting a covering over the lead paint?

Mr. Vest. It is in some cases.

Mr. Hefner. I don't mean to be simplistic.

Mr. Vest. You could. However, I trust you're familiar with the
housing we're speaking of at Maxwell. I don't think the historic
preservation people would let us do that. Those are very historic.
So it is really tough, and the case at Maxwell

Mr. Hefner. There's ways of getting around that if you want to.
I say there are ways of getting around that if you want.

Mr. Vest. It's a tough one. You know, in those housing units in
question, the wood surfaces, the metal surfaces, as well as the
stucco, all of it has lead paint in them. The problem is that we've
even found in the ground around the facilities, some lead in the
ground.

Now when you have children in the area, that becomes a fairly
significant thing. So we're — in fact I think General McCarthy is
fairly close to issuing a very comprehensive lead policy. Would you
like to speak to that for just a moment?

General McCarthy. My biggest concern is inside the house,
where the children are playing and possibly chewing. When the
paint becomes deteriorated and starts flaking off, or somebody
works on it and sands it. Most of the lead-base paint is already cov-
ered up with subsequent coats of regular paint.

So what we're trying to do is identify areas where there are prob-
lems right now. There may be paint flaking, and we've got to get
on that immediately and cover it up or remove it.

What we're trying to avoid is wholesale just removing paint ev-
erywhere at a terrific cost. So we're working on a policy now to try
to identify the problem areas and then the next time the house
comes in for major overhaul, then perhaps we take all of the paint
off, and concentrate on those areas where children are right now.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Callahan.

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might suggest with
the paint problem that maybe you ought to engage the services of
Auburn University, which is close in proximity to Maxwell. The
Chair and General McCarthy would agree with me that they're a
very qualified educational institution, since he graduated from
Auburn.

General McCarthy. Thank you, sir. I was not an honor graduate.

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Callahan. Two or three points. I specifically encourage you
to continue the expansion of the runway at Maxwell.

212

I see it's in your overall budget request. I just want to be assured
that the runway extension and a taxiway at Maxwell are still on
the way.

Mr. Vest. Indeed it is. I had occasion just — in fact, General
McCarthy and I, as well as — about 20 other senior folks, had occa-
sion to understand the significance of all of that, because we had a
major meeting down at Maxwell, and we took one of our larger air-
planes down and we had to land at Dannelly, since we couldn't
land at Maxwell. We didn't have enough capability there. So yes
indeed, that is planned.

TURKEY

Mr. Callahan. Very good. Secondly, you mentioned in your Eu-
ropean operation that you're requesting $10.3 million, part of
which two dormitories in Turkey are to be refurbished or remod-
eled. How much of that $10.3 million is for refurbishing or remod-
eling the dormitories in Turkey?

Mr. Vest. Just a second.

Mr. Callahan. You can come back with those numbers.

General McCarthy. I think we have it here.

Mr. Vest. The project is for $2.4 million to bring two dormitories
up to modern-day standards. They're 30 year-old buildings; they
have central latrines, poor lighting, inadequate insulation, and
we're putting people into those dorms, living there now, who are
over there now.

Mr. Callahan. How much of the $10.3 million goes to that, to
those two dormitories?

Mr. Vest. $2.4 million.

Mr. Callahan. I know there are other projects included there.

Mr. Vest. In that package, $2.4 million.

ALTERNATE FINANCING

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Vest, you mentioned in your opening state-
ment that you are considering some type of alternative financing.
What do you mean by "alternative financing?"

Mr. Vest. Well, as you may know or probably know, we've had in
the past, at least in family housing, some build lease authority and
some rental guaranty authority, which for all practical purposes,
those programs are unexecutable at the moment.

What has given rise or what really gives rise to my statement is
that over the last several months, while I've been filling in for Mr.
Boatright, one of the things that I had the opportunity to do, with
General McCarthy, was to look at all of our programs and look out
in the future of the Air Force to see what our requirement really
is.

One of the things that strikes you very forcefully is that our re-
quirements, at current annual funding levels, simply aren't going
to be met. If you really — in our case, certainly we're committed to
really quality facilities in the Air Forces, then you have to say
"Well, what do you do?"

This gave rise to dusting off various concepts of alternative fi-
nancing, privatization if you will. It just so happened that we start-
ed looking at family housing first. We've had the opportunity at

213

one of our installations in Illinois to look at an approach in this
case as to where we would actually take some appropriation, in
this case a $20 million appropriation from the Congress last year in
this committee, marry that with $30 million that is put forward by
the county, and then have the remaining 50 percent for a $100 mil-
lion project, financed by county bonding.

Then what we would do is that we would retire those bonds
through sort of rental guaranty activity, where our people's hous-
ing allowance would be transferred to the county to retire the
bonds. In that particular case, what we would end up with is a pay-
back in about 11 years.

So as we built that, then we began to say "Well, how might these
kinds of things apply elsewhere?" It would seem that with some re-
moval of some of the barriers to the 801-802 build lease rental
guaranty or perhaps a new Capehart type program, is really what
we need to do.

Frankly, we are just not going to be able to get from here to
there.

Mr. Callahan. Right. Let me get to this. I understand what
you're saying. You're sajdng that you're going to capitalize on the
ability of a local government to possibly floating bonds for build-
ings

Mr. Vest. In this case, yes.

Mr. Callahan. And you're going to rent them back so they can
retire their bonds. But if this is going to be the trend of the Air
Force, well then why wouldn't you do this for all of your military
construction projects?

Because if indeed you did, who do you have to come to or go to to
get approval to sign such an obligation of the United States govern-
ment? Do you have to go through a Congressional committee
or

Mr. Vest. Certainly. Actually, I think there's a couple of ques-
tions there. One is that in order to do even what I just laid out,
there would need to be some additional authority given to the Air
Force, and then also some approval from Appropriations to use an
existing $20 million appropriation in that manner.

Clearly, the kinds of things that I'm speaking about in general
would take a new authorization and a new authority to do it.

When you speak to the totality of military construction, at least
as we're looking at it, there are some things that certainly in my
view and I think in others that it really just simply doesn't make
sense to do that. But those things such as family housing, unaccom-
panied housing, particularly if you would begin to think in terms of
unaccompanied housing that is more like apartment-type living
rather than the sort of thing that we've been doing, dining halls
and some of those kinds of things, at least on the surface, look like
they would make very good sense for some type of privatization.

Wastewater treatment plants. In fact, I think the Army's already
done one of those. That would seem to make sense. A flight line
squad ops facility, I don't think that makes any sense.

214

BASE CLOSURE PROCESS AND AIR FORCE RESERVE

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield in a moment.
Just one thing, just a yes or no answer. In your formulation of the
presentation you made to the Secretary of Defense with base —
BCEG, did you — do you feel as if you gave adequate representation
to the Air Force Reserve in the decisionmaking process? Were they
included in the loop?

Mr. Vest. Yes, they were. In fact, the Air Force Reserve and the
Air National Guard were both represented on our BCEG, Base Clo-
sure Executive Group, and they participated throughout the analy-
sis that was conducted by the Air Force, which spanned over about
a four- or five-month period of time.

Mr. Callahan. I'm happy to hear that, because the Navy — ^I
don't have an Air Force installation in my district, but the Navy
closed one, which was a Naval Reserve training facility, and the
undersecretary that was in charge of Naval Reserve Training was
unaware that he was even on the base closure list.

So I'm happy that you did that. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back my
time so that other people can ask some questions.

Mr. Hefner. We may have a suggestion on the runway at Max-
well. We may just put a restroom there. Either that, or take a
smaller plane, because it's terrible to have to ride from the airport.
Mr. Hobson.

Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for finally put-
ting a face with a name. It's really quite infamous in Ohio; it goes
all the way back when I was in the state legislature, so it's nice to
see you, sir. I hear you have a tough job; you all do. It's not easy to
do. I agree with some of your decisions; I disagree with others.

First of all, I hope we don't put everything on one base, like I
heard you comment in connection with all this training stuff. I
hope we learned at Pearl Harbor not to cluster everything. Each
unit is different and you never know. It really concerned me when
I heard about everybody is going to be there, but maybe that's just
for a training session. I don't know. We clustered once and we clus-
tered in Beruit, too. I worry about the clustering, but that's just a
comment.

ECONOMIC sense

I'm very concerned about the term "economic sense," because, in
a lot of cases, I'm worried that it doesn't make sense in a lot of
ways to a lot of people. I'm talking about spending very precious
dollars. These pots of money look to me like "Well, so long as
there's a pot, who in the heck cares that we've got pots."

Let me give you a couple of examples. One I won't go into great
detail today, and that's the moving of the 4950th test wing from
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to Edwards Air Force Base,
California. I don't think it makes any economic sense in dollars
and cents. It may in some four star's mind some place in a room
somewhere. It may for the Navy, someplace down the road. Howev-
er, whether it makes economic sense to the taxpayer worries the
heck out of me.

215

The other thing I'd like to question is filling a hole on a base.
What I'd like to run through is the scenario that says "What is eco-
nomic sense?"

A move is projected to cost $3 million, and your number is $3
million, and it turns out that it costs five times that, six times,
eight times, ten times, where does it make economic sense to move
for an operating savings of a million-one? Is it when you spend $10
million, $20 million, $30, million? If you have to reduce a runway,
take nine inches off, or redo a runway? If you've left two units on
the installation that you didn't even know were there when the de-
cision was made?

Those kind of things. I'm not talking about a community action.
That's the basis on which decisions are made to fill a hole with
which I've got a lot of problems. We will have to come back later
on and spend a whole bunch of money on milcon to replace facili-
ties that don't need to be replaced unless you are filling a hole.
That's the basis for a lot of economic decisions.

What is the economic sense? What does that term mean? Is it
two times, three times, five? That's the point that I don't under-
stand. I picked an isolated situation. But there are other situations
about which I'm told where the same type of thing occurs.

I'm also very concerned about putting Air National Guard units
on active Air Force bases. I don't think it make any sense to do
that. They have different types of missions. You recreate the guard
base over here in a little corner of the active duty base and you
don't integrate. Where you can put a reserve unit in there, you do
integrate. You put fighter aircraft in where heavy aircraft would
go better. These kinds of things just drive people nuts when they're
looking at what is so-called economic sense in decisionmaking.

But I tell you, there's already a problem at Wright-Patterson.
Before you finance construction projects for a move, you'd better
look at what's already out there. I think there's a facility at
Wright-Patterson which may have been incorrectly financed. The
Air Force and the Guard are fighting over it now. Who's going to
pay off to the developer on the building. That's a problem in the
movement of a Guard unit into Wright-Patterson.

So, what is economic sense? When does it change, I mean, in real
dollars?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Well, I — let me respond this way. We think that
it makes economic sense to do things when you get a reasonable
payback. You make an investment. You achieve some savings
through that investment. If it pays back within a reasonable time,
then, you will continue to benefit from those annual recurring sav-
ings.

Mr. HoBSON. What is a reasonable time?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. I say a reasonable time is less than eight years.
Most all of the Air Force base closure proposals are in the neigh-
borhood of two to three years of payback. Some of them go out a
little bit longer than that.

Let me just give you an example, however, of the '93 recommen-
dations, which the Secretary of Defense made to the Base Closure
Commission. The cost for those closure and realignment actions in
'93 is $748 million. That's what it will cost us to close and realign
those installations. That's over a six-year period of time.

216

In that same six-year period of time, the Air Force will realize
$2,168 billion worth of savings. That means that for those six years
we will have a net savings of $1.42 billion. In our opinion, that
makes economic sense. That is what we refer to as economic sense.

Now you can take the base closure proposals of the Air Force
and break them down into pieces. Some of the pieces have — are
more cost effective. That is they return quicker than others. Some
of them are a bit longer. But all of them fall within what we be-
lieve is a reasonable period of time for payback.

Mr. HoBSON. Mr. Boatright, what if I suggested to you that
you've got one in there for $3 million and it's really going to cost
$20 to $42 million. Is that still reasonable because we're still within
the big number?

Mr. Boatright. No sir.

Mr. HoBSON. That's where I part with the word reasonable in
your big number.

Mr. Boatright. If we have estimated a cost of $3 million for the
movement of the unit from Springfield to Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base

Mr. HoBSON. At a savings of $1.1 million.

Mr. Boatright [continuing]. And if we estimate a savings of $1.1
million. And if we should find out, as we do our detailed site sur-
veys— which are in process. All of the work we've done to date has
been model generated, because of the nature of the business we're
involved in, analyzing all of our bases in a fairly short period of
time and coming up with recommendations. Once we make those
basic recommendations to the Commission, then we go out and we
do site surveys and we refine those numbers, and by the firs of
June we will provide those refined numbers, that is the cost and
the savings, at a budget quality level to the Base Closure Commis-
sion.

If for example the $3 million went to $20 million or $30 million,
and our savings were only at $1.1 million, that no longer would be
a cost-effective proposal. We would recognize that and we would of
course provide that information to the Commission. The Commis-
sion at this point in time is the only organization that has the au-
thority to decide. The Air Force can't make a different recommen-
dation, or the Secretary of Defense make a different recommenda-
tion to the Commission, but we will provide refined information to
the Commission, and we would expect that the Commission would
act on that refined information.

Mr. HoBSON. Who makes the decision when an opening occurs?
It's going to happen. There is no way, in my opinion, that some-
body decided, "We don't care. It's going to happen." So, when a
hole occurs, who determines what is the best way to fill that hole?
Is it the Base Closure Commission or the Air Force?

For example, with DESC moving, there is some thought that
things at Wright-Patterson might be better with some of the stuff
in there. There are other people who are saving, there not be this
much space here as we thought. There may be a better use of the
heavy aircraft hangars that are already there. An F-16 needs an
excellent grade runway where a tanker only needs a good grade
runway. So, it might be better to take a regular or reserve tanker
unit and put it in the hole at Wright-Patterson.

217

Who makes this elsewhere? Who decides whether it's better to
let it sit there with a little hole for a while, until the Air Force
figures out what they want? How is that made? I asked one day,
why can't we put a reserve unit in? Who makes the decision as to
what's the best fill for that particular base?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. The Air Force leadership makes the decisions if
it has to do with a Reserve unit or a Guard unit. They participate
in our deliberations with the final decision being made by the Chief
of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force in regard to where
we're going to bed down certain units.

I have to tell you that this Air Force disagrees with you in
regard to whether or not the 4950th

Mr. HoBSON. Oh, I know they do.

Mr. BoATRiGHT [continuing]. Should be moved.

Mr. HoBSON. Oh, I know that.

Mr. BoATRiGHT [continuing]. They think it's an excellent^

Mr. HoBSON. I mean, that is a task — that was made some place,
some where with "We're going to do this and we don't care what
anybody says. This is going to happen." So

Mr. BoATRiGHT. No, sir.

Mr. HoBSON [continuing]. As far as I'm concerned, that was done.

Mr. BOATRIGHT. No, sir. I don't think that's the case. It wasn't
made in that context at all. It was made as a part of a recommen-
dation to the 1991 Base Closure Commission and the 1991 Base Clo-
sure Commission agreed with the Air Force's recommendation and
the movement of that unit was a part of a recommendation to close
Rickenbacker Air Force Bsise.

So it wasn't done in a smoke-filled room, or on the back of an
envelope, but it was done with careful deliberation by the Air
Force, with a carefully considered deliberation by the Air Force,
with a carefully considered recommendation by the Secretary of
Defense, and we assume a careful evaluation by the Base Closure
Commission with a recommendation to the President that ultimate-
ly came to the Congress.

Mr. HoBSON. Well, we

Mr. BoATRiGHT. The only point I wanted to make was-

Mr. HoBSON. Are you telling me the Secretary of the Air Force
decided that the best way to fill Wright-Patterson's hole was to put
an Air National Guard F-16 unit over there?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Yes, sir. I'm telling you that was a part of the
recommendation that was made to the 1993 Base Closure Commis-
sion, was to relocate the Guard unit from Springfield to Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base in order to take advantage of some space
that was available at Wright-Patterson. Wright-Patterson is an ex-
cellent location for the F-16s.

In fact, when Homestead Air Force Base suffered from the hurri-
cane damage, we moved the aircraft from Homestead to Wright-
Patterson. They operated out of Wright-Patterson very effectively
on an interim basis.

Mr. HoBSON. That's a different model, sir.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Yes, sir, but the F-16 aircraft, as far as the Air
Force is concerned is very suitable. Any model will be able to oper-
ate out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. So, we're comfortable

218

that the F-16 that is presently located at Springfield can in fact
operate very effectively out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

With regard to the numbers? That is the cost associated with
that, as I said before, we are going to refine those numbers. We're
going to be sure that the estimate that we made is a valid estimate,
and if those numbers do change, we will report those changes to
the Base Closure Commission before the Base Closure Commission
completes their deliberations.

Mr. HoBSON. Well, I'm not going to ask any more questions, I'll
just make this comment.

The runways were all rebuilt for the F-16s that are there now on
one side of the field. If you move additional FIGs over to the other
side of the field, you've to redo that same runway again. I don't
think that was taken into consideration. The cost of doing runways
is bigger than the $3 million alone. Plus, you have the cost of the
hangars. It just doesn't make economic sense. The move is not rea-
sonable in my mind. In my opinion, it's a gnat in the Air Force.

If that's the basis on which decisions are made, these numbers
need to be correct. I'd like to feel that these numbers are accurate.
I'm very concerned about those numbers.

I know you've got a difficult decision.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. Yes, I'd like to submit to you that I have no pre-
conceived notion on how the number should come out. What I hope
that we do is we do a valid site survey, and that we do a very de-
tailed estimate, and that we come back with the actual cost that
will be associated with that.

Mr. HoBSON. That would be my way, I'd be back to you.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. I can guarantee you that whatever numbers
come back to us are the numbers we're going to use. We're certain-
ly not going to try to shoehorn a unit into a Air Force base just for
the sake of being able to say we were right and somebody else was
wrong. We're not in that kind of business. We very sincerely want
to do this right.

The Air Force will make every effort to make sure that we pro-
vide the Commission with the most accurate cost information that
we can provide.

Mr. HoBSON. Thank you.

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, maybe we can move part of that
runway from Wright-Patterson down to Maxwell. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hefner. Makes sense to me.

I'd like to ask unanimous consent that some comments that I
have will be inserted in the record, along with some questions. Just
a couple of questions that go along with what you were talking
about.

PAYBACK

Some of us thought that maybe part of the six-year payback was
not a realistic thing when we went into it. What we're finding now
on base closures.

We're finding now that the estimates on the over-estimated value
of the property is falling short. Cost of cleanup is costing more
than we projected, so our payback is not going to be an3rwhere near
what we projected on base closings. I support the base closing issue,

219

because I don't think we've had a base closure. I mean, we haven't
actually closed many bases. Our record's not all that good. I'd like
to have some questions for the record.

Have you had any communities — and I don't know if this is even
possible — ^but, have you had any communities that said, "Hey, look,
we'll take this transfer of this property. We'll take responsibility
for cleaning it up." Have any communities done that?

Mr. BoATRiGHT. No sir, not to my knowledge, have we had any
community that's been willing to accept the responsibility of clean-
up. We've had a number of communities that are willing to come
in and take over and use the property, provided that the govern-
ment continues with its responsibility for the cleanup.

I'll let Mr. Vest add to that.

Mr. Vest. You know, as we've learned over the last several years
about this conversion process, it drives you to look at a lot of differ-
ent things. I personally believe that sooner or later we as a govern-
ment are going to have to change substantially the way we do base
closures by conversion. I think one of the things that needs to be
done is to allow what you ask about. That is, if indeed an entity, a
company or somebody, if they want to take that facility over and
are willing to assume the responsibility, legally — of course, we'd
have to change a lot of it — ^but are willing to assume the responsi-
bility to complete whatever cleanup is required, and then to allow
the military department to actually withdraw, but very clearly in
law have the responsibility transferred. I think we're going to have
to take a look at that.

Because when you take the combination of provisions of
CERCLA, the 120(H) provision which we've spoken about with you
before that says we must have the remedial action in place before
we can deed over the property. Now, as we begin to see the impact
of the Clean Air Act, the conformity determination factor says that
in effect, until we deed over the property, we are responsible for
assuring conformity for Clean Air Act requirements for whoever
the user is.

So, what we've got is we've got the Clean Air Act conformity de-
termination that says, you've got to deed it." You've got the clean-
up on this case — CERCLA — you can't deed it. And what happens is
you can't get reuse. Sooner or later, what is going to happen is
we're going to understand what a tremendous burden this is going
to be, at least in the context of this subcommittee, a burden on the
military department budgets.

I look to my colleague here, but as I see it, we are rapidly becom-
ing, or we have the prospect of becoming, a major landlord of other
users. Frankly, there are a lot of hidden costs in there. I mean I
can see coming to the turn of the century and having most of these
bases that were so-called closed, still being owned by the federal
government will all manner of tenants.

Mr. HoBSON. Then you get into the leasing business in another
way.

Mr. Vest. Absolutely.

220

FAMILY HOUSING

Ms. VucANOViCH. I have questions I want to submit for the
record, but I would like to briefly about family housing. I notice
that family housing accounts make up 47 percent of the total Hill
account of appropriations. How many family housing units are in
the Air Force?

General McCarthy. A hundred and twenty-nine thousand.

Ms. VucANOViCH. where are your largest deficit areas?

General McCarthy. I know we have 38,000 people on waiver. If I
may at this point — I think everything — in terms of new construc-
tion this year in the program is replacement. I don't believe we're
working on the deficit in dollars for new construction.

Ms. VUCANOVICH. I'll submit my questions, but I'm serious as to
what the impacts are regarding the withdrawal of troops from
overseas, base closures and realignments. What is happening on
that?

General McCarthy. We've dropped about 20,000 over the past
several years.

Ms. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I'll submit all the rest of my
questions for the record. Thank you all for coming in.

REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE

Mr. Hefner, what is your replacement schedule, 15 years?

General McCarthy. Right now with the line of funding we have
it takes 23 years to bring all our housing up to standard.

Mr. Hefner. We're still on the schedule.

Ms. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I submit my questions for the record.

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, I submit to Mr. Vest or Mr. Boa-
tright, if your' re up on the Hill some times and you've got 15 min-
utes, I'd like to discuss in my office some day, that alternative fi-
nancing thing. Not as an obstructionist, but rather as an encour-
agement. But I need to find out something for another branch of
service.

Mr. Vest. I'd be pleased to do that. I should emphasize that my
comments are — the things we're looking at

Mr. Callahan. I just like to pick up your brain.

Mr. Vest [continuing]. The proposal. But I think these are things
we do need to look at.

Mr. Callahan. Let me make this point because I've been dealing
with this business of trying to find alternative ways to finance Air
Force construction for many years. The biggest problem that you'll
run into is the budget scoring issue. Unless somebody can resolve
the budget scoring issue as it relates to third-party financing, we'll
simply be unable to resolve this.

Ms. Meeks. Yes, I'd just like to ask Mr. Boatright or Mr. Vest if
he would please send me a copy of the time frame for the spending
of the $76 million.

Mr. McCarthy. I'll do that, ma'am.

Ms. Meek. Thank you.

(The information follows:)

221

Time Frame for Spending

Our objective is to obligate all resources appropriated and complete projects as
soon as possible consistent with Congressional direction, Air Force needs, and the
Base Realignment and Closure process. We are in the initial stages of planning and
design for the construction of essential facilities using 476 million in MILCON
funds: major construction contracts are scheduled to be awarded starting in Septem-
ber 1993, and construction will continue well into the future. Specifically, we are
proceeding with work to repeiir/replace facilities such as the Air National Guard
Alert Facility, Hangar 741, Control Tower, Primary Electrical Distribution Lines,
Airfield Navigational Aids, and Airfield Lighting System.

Mr. HoBSON. I just have one question. The other day when we
had another hearing, and the person said, "If I just had the
number of troops I was going to have and I knew it was stable, I
could forecast better." Do you feel that you're still in this state of
flux where you don't really know and your numbers aren't suffi-
cient?

What worries us — as committee members or private citizens — is
that we're going to be spending money on bases that two years
from now will be closed. We spend $30 or $40 million on this or
that, then the next thing you go around and say, "Well, that's
gone, now we're going to shut down the base." Do we know our
force configuration, do we know where we're going pretty well, or
are we just throwing darts?

Mr. Vest If I may just respond. I think having been a participant
in that process I think we're far better off than you think we are.
Frankly, the structure that we have today, based on the base force
structure that we've had to look at as we go down the base closure.
I think we've got a very good map.

I think as there is the new base force, whatever that is developed
by the new administration, that the Air Force will very, very rapid-
ly understand what the means. That will be reflected in our invest-
ment strategy very, very, very rapidly. So I think the effect in my
view is better than perhaps it would happen to be.

Mr. BoATRiGHT. I think I would have to add that it's most likely
that in 1995 — base closure round '95 — that the Air Force will have
to close additional bases. So I think there is that additional risk as-
sociated with any new construction on an installation. Because the
projections that we see now in the Defense budget, while we
haven't resolved force structure that's going to be associated with
those reductions, it's quite likely going to have to come down —
meaning both the number of aircraft and other weapons's systems,
and the personnel that are associated with those weapons' systems.
It's my belief that these reductions will equate to an X number of
additional bases that will be excess to our requirements. We will
need to make those kinds of recommendations in order to keep the
Air Force in balance. Keep the force structure and the base struc-
ture in some sort of balance.

Mr. HoBSON. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Hefner. If there are no further questions, this subcommittee
stands recessed until one o'clock this afternoon.

Thank you, gentleman.

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Chairman
Hefner:]

222

INVESTMENT BILL

Question. I would like you to briefly comment on military con-
struction as an investment bill that yields economic returns as well
as cost avoidance in other parts of the Defense bill. What comes to
mind is the savings that ultimately accrue from programs like base
closure and realignment, family housing improvements as it im-
pacts on allowances, energy conservation and so on. Would you
care to expand on this bill as an investment bill.

Answer. The military construction bill provides significant sav-
ings in other portions of the Defense budget. Under the base re-
alignment and closure program, we are able to make a relatively
small investment of realignment funds and move units into excess
space at other installations, allowing us to close bases. We save
money in reduced maintenance costs and lower operating over-
head.

Our military family housing (MFH) improvements program is an-
other investment area where we are able to reduce costs in other
parts of the Air Force budget. As part of our MFH improvements
program, we spend about $.68 of each $1 to correct maintenance
and repair deficiencies. This takes care of our capital maintenance
for 5 years, and results in significant reductions in recurring main-
tenance costs. And we target 30% for energy conservation items
such as improved insulation, thermopane windows and doors, and
improving the efficiency of the HVAC systems, all of which reduce
utility, maintenance and repair costs.

Although it may be obvious, I would also like to underscore that
through the military construction program we are able to replace
older, high maintenance facilities with more energy efficient ones
that will require much less maintenance in the future.

JOBS BILL

Question. Another point that occurs to me in these times of rela-
tively high unemployment, is how the military construction bill
contributes to jobs. First, what is the state of the construction in-
dustry, is it down? Is there a heavily competitive market?

Answer. The US construction industry is not down. Overall it is
operating at about the same level as it has in previous years. Some
segments of the industry are more stable then others. Industrial
and infrastructure construction are up slightly, however building
construction is down. Currently, the construction market is moder-
ately competitive; bids are coming in slightly below estimates. Mili-
tary construction generates jobs and spending in construction and
other related industries.

Question. Could you elaborate on how long, in terms of the short-
est time to longest time, it takes to get a project on the street once
the bill is enacted into law?

Answer. The time required to "get a project on the street once
the bill is enacted into law" depends primarily on the stage of
design the project is in when the bill is enacted. If design is com-
plete before the bill is enacted, we consider "advance advertising"
to expedite construction award (with the provision that the con-
tract can only be awarded if funds become available). In that case,
a contract award can be made in about 45 days after bill enact-

223

ment for funds to be relesised by the Treasury to DoD and then
transferred to the construction agent (e.g., to the Army Corps of
Engineers). It takes an additional 45 days to open and evaluate bids
and award a contract, assuming no protests are lodged.

In the case where project design has not been completed prior to
bill enactment, the process can take significantly more time, de-
pending primarily on the time required to complete the design
(which varies with the complexity of the project). Once design is
complete, it takes from 45 to 90 days to advertise and award a con-
tract. Our objective is to award projects as soon as possible after
the design is complete.

Question. How long would it take for a housing repair project to
get out on the street as opposed to a housing improvement project?

Answer. When an improvement project must be completely de-
signed, it normally takes about 16 months to award the design con-
tract, accomplish the design, and award the project. In the case of
an O&M (repair) project, it normally takes about 7-9 months to
complete the design and award a contract.

In support of a Congressional initiative to stimulate the economy
and create new jobs, the Air Force has more than $180-million in
additional housing O&M projects that are already designed, but not
included in our FY 94 funding request. An additional $140-million
in O&M projects will be designed by Oct. 93. If authorized and
funded, these projects could be awarded in as little as 60-90 days.
The Air Force also has an additional $80 million of improvement
and replacement construction projects that could be awarded in as
little as six months. However, the Air Force does not support accel-
erating the funding of these additional repair and improvement
projects at the expense of higher priority requirements included in
the Air Force's FY 94 budget request.

BASE CLOSURE — RE-USE PLANS

Question. What do you see as the key or the problem to effective
re-use planning caused by base closure?

Answer. The biggest challenge with base closure re-use planning
deals with the inability of communities to come together rapidly
with an effective re-use plan. A community which can speak with a
single voice strengthens its ability to foster re-use. Further, the
complicated Federal disposal process can be less cumbersome, since
the length of time for the Air Force to reach a decision can also be
shortened when a fewer number of alternatives must be consid-
ered. Working with the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment, we en-
courage communities to organize quickly and work together to
solve differences.

Question. Are bases being closed too efficiently and creating a
considerable gap between the time of actual closure and reuse of
property? This must be a serious problem with local communities.

Answer. In some cases early closure of bases does create econom-
ic stress to the local communities. However, both operational mis-
sion requirements and the need to use limited military funds effi-
ciently tend to dictate such early closures. The length of time to
close a base once approval to proceed is received is dependent upon
the disposition of the force structure or mission. The Air Force can

68-354 O— 93 8

224

save considerable operating funds if it can retire the forces and
close the bases quickly. If a realignment is part of the closure
action, the actual closure can take longer as replacement facilities
could be required at the gaining base. However, the period of con-
struction and realignment will not take an inordinate amount of
time when compared with a community's need to replace the eco-
nomic loss. There is often a gap created between the period of draw
down and closure and the community's reuse of the property.

Question. Are environmental laws (CERCLA) continuing to slow
down the process of land transfers to local jurisdictions?

Answer. Some progress has been made but CERCLA continues to
be an impediment, imposing restrictive conditions on Federal
agency property transfer that do not impede such transfers of pri-
vate sector property. CERCLA Section 120(h) requires that a cov-
enant be provided before Federal property can be transferred by
deed warranting that all remedial actions necessary to protect
human health and the environment have been "taken". Under the
CERCLA amendments in the Community Environmental Response
Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992, this requirement is met once the
remedial action is in place and operating properly and successfully,
to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulators. The Air Force
does not have to wait until cleanup efforts are complete to transfer
title to the property, although the Air Force is legally obliged to
complete the cleanup expeditiously thereafter. However, the
CERCLA cleanup process is a sequential process that requires sev-
eral years to adequately characterize a site and design and install a
remedial action, and thus reach the stage when the necessary ac-
tions have been "taken". Thus Federal property frequently cannot
be transferred as soon as private sector property could be. This
delay is unjustified, since the Federal agency's obligation to com-
plete all required cleanup actions extends past transfer of title.

The Air Force supports interim use leases as the stop-gap method
to give the local communities immediate access to property at clos-
ing Air Force bases until remedial actions can be "taken" or some
other legislative relief is provided.

BASE CLOSURE — LAND SALES

Question. I understand that land sales revenue are significantly
overestimated for Base Closure Round One. Can you indicate the
reasons why expected revenues were not achieved?

Answer. Yes, estimates for Round One were grossly overstated;
however, much more realistic estimates were used for Rounds Two
and Three. Several other factors contributed to the poor achieve-
ment for Round One.

Virtually no consideration was given to no-cost public benefit
transfers in the initial estimates and policy to sissist communities
with timely conversion for economic recovery encourages such
transfers.

Legislation directing no-cost transfers to public bodies or Federal
agencies (e.g.. Pease Wildlife Refuge).

Sales are not occurring in the years projected because of newly
discovered contsimination which delays actual sales.

225

The Air Force may need to permit installment sales since com-
munities are "cash poor".

Confusion or lack of local harmony delaying reuse implementa-
tion.

Stagnation in the overall real estate market.

BASE CLOSURE — ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Question. Explain why environmental costs are exceeding fore-
casts.

Answer. Many of the closure bases were in the early phases of
investigation (RI/FS) and did not have sufficient characterization
to make accurate cost estimates.

Cleanup costs depend on the type of contaminants, the hydrogeo-
logical conditions found at the site, and the technologies selected to
accomplish the cleanup. Decisions concerning the technology and
scope of cleanup effort at closure bsises are driven by data collected
and analyzed on contamination at sites, often collected during the
last field season. Conversely, forecasts are developed two to three
years earlier based on inadequate information and often are proved
incorrect when the site is fully characterized and a final decision
on remedial actions can be made.

Another factor that needs to be addressed is the CERCLA clean-
up process. It results in management by a committee comprised of
representatives from the Air Force, EPA Region, and State Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Cleanup decisions essentially require
unanimous agreement among these three parties before they can
be implemented. The process, especially as driven by the attitudes
of the regulators, puts a premium on conducting extended studies
to reduce uncertainties, even though that approach drives up long-
term costs and greatly delays accomplishment of rapid cleanups
which are needed for productive civilian reuse of closed bases.

Question. Do you not agree that before you can determine the
extent and plan of remedial action on cleanup, you need to have a
re-use plan in place for use of the property.

Answer. There is no legal requirement for a closure base re-use
plan to be in place, but it is certainly desirable. Having a re-use
plan in place can assure integration of the cleanup process with
community redevelopment needs. It can also reduce the cleanup
costs in the case of many re-uses of military bases in which a
follow-on industrial or commercial use will not require cleanup to
residential standards (which are usually most costly). Where re-use
plans are not available in time for the Air Force to use in making
remedial action decisions, the Air Force can make assumptions
that current land uses are representative of what is likely to occur
in the future and base cleanup decisions on current land uses. This
can limit future reuses that require more conservative cleanup
standards to be in place or drive cleanup costs up if follow-on ef-
forts are required to meet higher standards.

BASE CLOSURE — ACCELERATED CLEANUP

Question. As you know, one of the major problems in the base
closure process is the length of time to perform necessary remedial
cleanup. What is being done to shorten all the planning, investiga-

226

tory and review periods so that remedial cleanup can be accom-
plished in a more expedited manner?

Answer. As you know, CERCLA establishes a sequential process
that requires regulator oversight and concurrence at major steps
along the way. The Air Force does not have the authority to vary
much within this framework. And the framework and review proc-
ess, which are defined within the National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), are responsible for the
lengthy timeliness by putting the emphasis on consensus instead of
prioritized cleanup process. However, the Air Force has pursued
several initiatives internally and together with the regulators:

DOD, the Air Force, and the other Services have held confer-
ences vfith three different EPA regions to promote teaming and
risk sharing with the regulators in an effort to streamline and
speed up the cleanup process.

The Air Force has tried to shorten the review process for draft
and draft final documents both internally and with the regulators.
This is difficult because these documents are long and address tech-
nically complex issues. Both the EPA and the Air Force rely heavi-
ly on contract support to accomplish these reviews.

The Air Force also has put in place full service contracts that
vsdll minimize the time needed to put remedial actions in place by
accomplishing much of the design effort during the RI/FS stage.

BASE CLOSURE — CONTAMINATED PARCELS

Question. Are there situations where local jurisdictions are will-
ing to utilize contaminated parcels? In other words, what type of
use could be made on a contaminated parcel?

Answer. Within the present restrictions the Air Force does en-
courage interim leases during the remedial process, which permits
some types of re-use of property that presents no immediate threat
to human health or the environment, before the transfer of title
could take place.

Question. What are examples of local communities agreeing to
utilize contaminated parcels? In other words, what type of use
could be made on a contaminated parcel?

Answer. The most common example is the case of contaminated
groundwater underlying uncontaminated surface property. We cur-
rently have a long-term lease in place at Pease AFB, NH, where
this has occurred. A commercial passenger airport functions safely
on the surface while cleanup continues well underground.

Very rarely has the contamination prevented the Air Force from
using the property in its current capacity. Property being used for
residential commercial and industrial functions can normally con-
tinue to be used during the environmental remedial process. The
Air Force has encouraged immediate reuse to occur through inter-
im use leases.

Where health and safety conditions pose a threat, those condi-
tions are corrected before the use of the property is continued.

BASE CLOSURE — MERGING THE ACCOUNTS

Question. You indicate that merging of Part I and Part II ac-
counts would help to alleviate Part I shortfalls until land sales ma-

227

terialize and would provide for better cash flow management. If the
Congress were to agree to such merging, does the Air Force have
the capability to provide an audit trail of expenditures for each
round of closures?

Answer. The Air Force tracks all base closure related expendi-
tures to the same quality level as all other Air Force funds. In the
case of base closure actions, the Air Force wants authority to use
funds from the Base Closure Account (BCA) Part II to pay Part I
(BRAC 88) costs and use Part I land sales revenues as they become
available to pay Part I and Part II costs. If provided this authority,
the Air Force can provide an audit trail of expenses by accessing
the specific details by budget activity account number (BAAN) and
budget program /project currently recorded by DFAS and docu-
mented in obligation reports.

HOUSING

Question. What is the annual cost of housing (including amor-
tized cost of construction) as compared with housing allowances? Is
it cheaper for the government, on the average, to simply pay hous-
ing allowances?

Answer. A better comparison would be the total budgeted cost
that we pay to run and maintain our houses (including invest-
ments) versus the cost of allowances that we would have to pay our
people that currently live in on base housing.

Our average cost per unit for FY 94 is $7,126 ($5,683 for O&M
and utilities only). This includes all operations, maintenance, utili-
ties, improvement and replacement costs averaged across the Air
Force. If it were possible to put all the people that live in family
housing on the economy, the average cost for BAQ/VHA for FY 94
would be $6,921 per unit.

The government would roughly break even. However, the gov-
ernment effectively transfers a portion of the cost of private sector
housing to the individual. The member must then pay out-of-pocket
expenses that on the average are greater than 20 percent of the
housing costs. (The allowances authorized by Congress are intended
to cover about 85%, so the members would expect to spend 15%
out of pocket.) If we increased the members' BAQ/VHA to compen-
sate, the cost would average $8,305 per member in total allowance.

This comparison assumes suitable off base housing is available —
which it isn't. Most of our bases show deficits already without
transferring off base those families now in MFH.

Question. Do you believe the current housing allowances places
more demand for family housing?

Answer. Yes! The current level of allowances forces many to live
in base housing. The allowances are not adequate to prevent out of
pocket expenses by members living off base. The current BAQ/
VHA only covers 80% of the documented cost, with some areas like
Alaska and Hawaii having even greater differentials. The allow-
ances authorized by Congress were intended to cover about 85% of
the members costs. More of our families would elect to live down-
town if the allowances offset the cost of housing.

This is not just a cost issue. Sometimes our personnel do not
have a choice due to lack of off base housing or location-specific

228

problems such as those in some metropolitan areas. We do not
have sufficiently housing available at many of our bases now. In
many metropolitan areas base housing offers security, transporta-
tion savings, time savings, support facilities, etc. that make MFH
the preferred option.

Question. If you exclude base closure amounts, housing for the
Air Force constitutes over 50 percent of the Air Force military con-
struction budget mainly because 44 percent of it is needed to oper-
ate and maintain existing housing units. Could you just elaborate
on why we need to maintain such level of housing? I happen to
support this program because of its contribution to quality of life
but it would be important for the record to know why we need such
housing.

Answer. Our goal is to depend on the local housing, but as you
are aware suitable off base housing is often not available.

Also, we believe it is helpful to compare like programs. By com-
paring the FY94 MILCON ($906 Million) to FY94 capital invest-
ments for housing ($163 Million), MFH represents only 15 percent
of the combined capital investment programs.

Maintaining an adequate quality-of-life standard for our person-
nel is essential to our mission and is an obligation to our people.
Providing good maintenance is good management of our resources
because it fulfills our ownership responsibilities and reduces oper-
ating costs.

HOMESTEAD AFB — STATUS OF FUNDING

Question. In the fiscal year 1992 Disaster Supplemental Bill, for
Homestead Air Force Base, $66 million was appropriated to restore
airfield operations and $10 million was appropriated for planning
and design provided that none of the funds are available for the
Air Force Active mission until completion of the base closure proc-
ess. In addition, $16 million was appropriated to cover clean up and
demolition costs of the Homestead housing area. Can you update
the Subcommittee on the Status of such funds?

Answer. Determining a prudent course of action for the demoli-
tion, repair, or replacement of Homestead AFB facilities has been
and continues to be a very complex task, especially since the 1993
Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission has not made
its final recommendations concerning the future of Homestead
AFB. We have, however, developed a plan to repair and replace fa-
cilities that may be needed to support contingency operations. This
plan is consistent with our current recommendations to the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission and is in compliance with
P.L. 102-368.

The $76 million appropriated for military construction (MILCON)
requirements at Homestead AFB is available and will be released
to our construction agent as facility requirements are finalized and
construction contracts are ready for award. We have identified ap-
proximately $30 million worth of facility and infrastructure work
that will be placed under design and construction this summer.
This first $42 million will be used to repair, replace, or construct
facilities such as the Air National Guard Alert facility. Hangar
741, the Control Tower, Airfield Navigational Aids and Airfield

229

Lighting Systems. Before we begin design on the remaining re-
quirements, we want to work with the local community officials to
ensure the facilities and systems we repair or replace are, to the
greatest degree possible, consistent with and support future civil
aviation reuse plans.

In regards to the $16 million provided for the clean up and demo-
lition of the military family housing (MFH) units at Homestead,
the Air Force will begin the first phase of demolition on or about
June 1, 1993. While some minor clean up and demolition has been
done in the housing areas with O&M funds, no major demolition
could take place until personal property was removed and insur-
ance claims were resolved. These hurdles were cleared on April 15,
1993, and once all government equipment such as refrigerators,
ovens, and air conditioners are removed, demolition will begin.

Question. How much in O&M funds has been obligated for clean-
up and restoration of facilities at Homestead?

Answer. Approximately $20 million of the $60.7 of O&M funds
provided in the FY 92 Supplemental (P.L. 102-368) for Homestead
Air Force Base facilities. The Air Force has used and will continue
to use these funds to clean up debris; demolish unsafe and unsalva-
ble buildings; weatherproof salvable buildings, and repair buildings
needed for the immediate recovery and operation of Homestead Air
Force Base.

Question. What specifically has been done to restore airfield op-
erations at Homestead Air Force Base?

Answer. Airfield operations have been restored at Homestead
AFB on a temporary basis. Within a week after the hurricane, the
airfield was put back into operation with a temporary control
tower, fire/crash rescue station, and Airfield Navigational Aids.
The airfield is currently being operated during daylight hours. Con-
struction of a new control tower, repair of the base electrical distri-
bution system, and additional repairs to the Airfield Lighting
System will be required to restore complete airfield operations. The
Air Force is proceeding with the design and construction of this
effort.

Question. Does the Air Force plan to restore certain facilities at
Homestead, such as hangars, in order to provide for a military con-
tingency if a civilian authority assumes control and operation of
the airfield.

Answer. The Air Force plans to repair or replace facilities that
may be needed for contingency operations and, to the highest
degree possible, will be consistent with potential civil aviation oper-
ations at Homestead AFB. The very nature of contingencies cou-
pled with the uncertain outcome of the 1993 Defense Base Realign-
ment and Closure process has made it very difficult to identify ex-
actly what facilities will be needed at Homestead AFB for potential
contingency requirements. As such, the Air Force plans to first
repair or replace facilities and systems that have the highest prob-
ability of being needed under almost any scenario. In keeping with
this strategy the Air Force has initiated efforts to replace facilities
such as the Air National Guard Alert facility, Hangar 741, Control
Tower, Primary Electrical Distribution Lines, Airfield Navigational
Aids, and Airfield Lighting System. The Air Force is working close-
ly with Federal agencies and local Homestead community leaders

230

to ensure that facility repair and replacements for contingency re-
quirements are also consistent with potential civil aviation oper-
ations at Homestead AFB.

Question. Homestead is on the National Priorities List for envi-
ronmental clean up. Have any funds been obligated for clean up?

Answer. Yes, approximately $10M ($7M thru 1992 and $3M so
far in 1993) has been obligated thus far to clean up environmental
contamination that put Homestead Air Force Base on the NPL. We
plan to spend an additional $13M ($3M more in FY 93 and another
$10M for FY 94-97) to complete the environmental clean up at
Homestead Air Force Base. All total these funds will be used to
clean up the remaining 25 IRP sites.

HOMESTEAD — HOUSING AREA CLEAN UP

Question. I understand that demolition of existing housing units
has not started because of legal impediment involving claims.
When is the legal impediment expected to be lifted and demolition
begin?

Answer. While some minor clean up and demolition has been
done in the housing areas with O&M funds, no major demolition
could take place until personal property was removed and insur-
ance claims were resolved. These hurdles were cleared on April 15,
1993, and once all government equipment such as refrigerators,
ovens, and air conditioners are removed, demolition will begin on
or about June 1, 1993.

BASE CLOSURE III

Question. We understand that requested funds for round III of
base closure have not been officially transmitted but will be re-
quested as newly proposed legislation. Our understanding is that
the proposed legislation will request a transfer of $1 billion from
Defense O&M funds together with a request of $200 million for
base closures, for a total requirement of $1.2 billion for round III.
Can you tell us what the Air Force's requirement is for round III of
base closure?

Answer. The Air Force portion of the request for BRAG 93 funds
in fiscal year 1994 is $203.4 million. This estimate was developed
using the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model and is
not budget quality. Further refinement of the Part II, BRAC 93
numbers will be provided to the Commission by 1 June 1993 follow-
ing completion of site surveys and refined cost estimates. Any re-
finement will not result in a change to the FY94 President's
Budget request.

WHOLE HOUSE REPLACEMENT

Question. You indicate "Whole House Improvement Program" is
one of your top priorities. What is the average cost per unit and
how would it compare in cost to constructing a completely new
unit?

Answer. The average costs per unit for the FY92-94 Air Force
budgets are:

231

FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Avg.

Improvements $69,020 $66,235 ' $76,248 $68,575

Construction 97,750 99,050 93,650 96,662

' The FY94 improvements average is greater due to a larger percentage of projects in high cost areas.

Question. What features are normally added when performing a
whole house renovation?

Answer. The objective of whole-house improvement is to provide
families with homes and communities that are comparable in
design and amenity to current private sector housing. Typical unit
improvements include renovating and/or relocating kitchens and
baths; adding master bathrooms and half-baths on ground floor of
two story units; adding family rooms; increasing unit size within al-
lowable statutory square footage and/or reconfiguring the floor
layout to improve functionality, livability, and accessibility; up-
grading mechanical and electrical systems to current code require-
ments; and accomplishing all major and minor repair simultaneous
with the upgrade (historically 68 cents of every whole-house im-
provement dollar goes to maintenance and repair costs).

We upgrade energy efficiency of units by incorporating energy
conscious design with proper thermal protection, windows and exte-
rior doors, high efficiency appliances and heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning systems. These measures can realize energy con-
sumption reductions of up to 50% (average is 30%).

We also correct life and safety deficiencies such as smoke and
heat detectors, upgrading electrical outlets in bathrooms, etc.

Environmental hazards such as lead-based paint, asbestos, radon,
etc, are remediated.

Exterior improvements are provided to give a sense of neighbor-
hood identity through compatible housing styles, architectural fea-
tures and landscape development. This is done by adding adequate
storage areas for each unit; providing two off street parking spaces
for each family (one covered) if possible; and providing private out-
door spaces through thoughtful use of landscaping and fencing for
each unit. Typical neighborhood amenities that are provided are
structured, functional, and uncluttered open spaces; complete land-
scape development for public spaces that encompasses and compli-
ments the private spaces; improved utility and transportation in-
frastructure systems to include street lighting and sidewalks; con-
veniently located tot-lots and playgrounds; exterior upgrades/
repair to improve quality of life and "curb" appeal of the neighbor-
hood; informal gathering and relaxation spaces; properly designed,
convenient off street parking for visitors; "family" support facili-
ties; and recreation facilities and athletic areas.

Question. What is the average age of units being renovated?

Answer. The average age of all family housing units requiring
renovation is over 31 years. The average age of those units to be
renovated in the FY94 program is 28 years. Most of the units were
built in the 1950s and 1960s.

Question. What is the extended life after the house is renovated?

Answer. Renovation extends the life of the housing units by at
least 25 years.

232 ^

Question. How would whole-house improvements impact on
energy and maintenance savings?

Answer. Each improvement project includes significant mainte-
nance and repair (average per project is 68%) accomplished concur-
rently with the improvements. About 30% of the repair and main-
tenance work of each project contributes to improved energy fea-
tures.

DEMOUTION PROGRAM

Question. You indicate in your statement that you will downsize
your inventory of family housing consistent with the reduced re-
quirement and identify surplus inventory. Do you have an aggres-
sive program to demolish unneeded surplus housing as well as
other unneeded buildings?

Answer. The Air Force in FY 94 will have Housing Community
Plans at all bases. Currently 75% have HCPs completed, with
plans beyond the 35% design stage at another 20% of our bases.
HCPs take the overall housing requirement, subtract suitable off
base housing, and build a phased construction plan to improve and
construct on-base units to meet the requirement.

Integral to the plans is identifying surplus MFH units. These
would include units in advanced disrepair, units poorly located to
serve as quality housing, and units that require "thinning" to
reduce density, create community areas, or offer better traffic and
pedestrian access within housing areas.

Even though there are surplus units at some bases, where it is
more economical to operate and maintain units than to pay BAQ/
VHA, the units are retained in service. Where units are surplus
and the occupancy rate cannot be retained sufficiently demolition/
mothballing is appropriate.

Question. Are there savings to be achieved by demolishing un-
needed antiquated buildings?

Answer. Yes. Where it is more economical to operate and main-
tain units than to pay BAQ/VHA, the units are retained in service.
Where units are surplus and the occupancy rate cannot be retained
sufficiently high, demolition/mothballing is appropriate.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Question. This Committee over the years has always given priori-
ty to energy conservation for the simple reason that it is one pro-
gram that generates savings by almost 10 to 1. Could you expand
on how much the Air Force has reduced energy costs and what
type of programs contribute to such savings?

Answer. The Air Force is committed to the federal goal of reduc-
ing energy consumption in federal facilities 20% in terms of BTUs/
SF by FY 2000 based on a FY 1985 baseline. Our progress against
this goal is 12.2% as of the end of FY 1992 (19.2% in Military
Family Housing). This does not however equate to a one-to-one re-

233

duction in energy costs. Our energy consumption has dropped by
over 6,000,000 MBTUs yet total cost has only gone down roughly
$4,000,000. This is due both to addition of new facilities and
changes in cost. Using the average cost per MBTU for FY 1985, the
cost reduction would be over $50,000,000 if there had been no other
changes.

The savings the Air Force has achieved are due primarily to a
consistent effort to increase energy efficiency in new facilities as
they are constructed and to improve existing facilities as work is
done on them. The MILCON funded Energy Conservation Invest-
ment Program (ECIP) has only recently been revitalized so no
direct savings can be attributed to this renewed program yet. In
family housing set-back thermometers, energy efficient hot water
heaters, furnaces, and appliances, dual-pane windows, and insula-
tion contribute to the energy conservation savings. Energy conser-
vation is imbedded in our operations and maintenance program for
all other facilities as well. Projects are usually done in these facili-
ties to accomplish a number of objectives of which energy conserva-
tion is only one.

In addition to the normal construction-type programs, the Air
Force is conducting energy conservation survey training at our in-
stallations. Training was conducted at nine bases in FY 1992 and
we plan to continue this training. This vehicle is used to train in-
stallation personnel to identify energy conservation opportunities
and take appropriate action.

The Air Force uses a number of avenues to identify energy con-
servation investment opportunities and increase general aware-
ness. We appreciate your past and continued support for our
energy conservation activities.

REDUCED REQUIREMENT

Question. Could you summarize how the reduction in force struc-
ture and aircraft compares with the reduction in major bases? In
other words, is the base closure process keeping up with reductions
in force structure and aircraft?

Answer. The Air Force is maintaining a good pace in matching
base structure reduction with force structure drawdown. Imple-
mentation of the Air Force recommendations for the 1993 round of
base closures/realignments would bring the Air Force CONUS base
structure in line with the approved DoD Force Structure Plan.
However, future budget reductions already being considered will
likely drawdown force structure to the extent that additional base
closures/realignments will be required in 1995.

A capacity analysis was performed (including 48 on-site capacity
surveys) which analyzed base data in light of programmed force
structure and requirements for accommodating it. This knowledge
of excess capacity was used in conjunction with the approved DoD
Force Structure Plan in determining base structure requirements.
The Air Force determined there was one excess small aircraft base
(fighter operations), four excess large aircraft bases (bomber,
tanker, and airlift operations), and an excess depot maintenance
capacity of 8.7 million Direct Product Actual Hours.

234

WHITEMAN AFB

Question. What is the remaining cost to complete construction at
Whiteman Air Force Base for beddown of 20 B-2 aircraft?

Answer. In addition to the $43.5 million request in FY 94, Air
Force has currently programmed an additional $50.1 million
through FY 96 for beddown of 20 B-2 aircraft. The Bottom Up
Review is looking at total future force structure which could have
an impact on the total Military Construction requirements for the
B-2 program.

PARAMETRIC DESIGN

Question. How has parametric design helped you in cutting plan-
ning costs and streamlining the design process from 35 percent con-
cept to final design?

Answer. Parametric cost estimates do not significantly affect
planning costs or the time required to complete the final design
from the 35 percent concept design phase. However, the parametric
cost estimating technique allows us to produce the equivalent of a
35 percent concept design cost estimate in much less time. That
means we can delay starting the concept design and cost estimate
until we are assured the project has been included in the Presi-
dent's Budget. We can now avoid wasting planning and design dol-
lars on projects that aren't included in the budget request. Experi-
ence indicates parametric cost estimates are just as accurate as the
conventional 35 percent concept design cost estimate and a sound
basis for Congress to use in considering our MILCON projects.

Question. What portion of your program utilizes parametric
design?

Answer. Parametric cost estimating methods were used as part
of the design on 79 projects worth $350 million. To clarify, parame-
trics is not a design method, but a cost estimating method that is
part of project design.

VANDENBERG AFB

Question. What is the current status of the land acquisition at
Vandenberg AFB involving the Bixby Ranch?

Answer. The Air Force acquired a restrictive easement over
17,680 acres comprising Bixby Ranch on December 26, 1992, for
$22.1 million. The Air Force intends to acquire restrictive ease-
ments over another 5,597 acres comprising 13 ownerships within
the adjoining Miguelito Canyon. Appraisals for 10 of these proper-
ties are complete and letters soliciting offers to sell have been sent
to the owners. Appraisals for the other three properties are expect-
ed to be complete by May 10, 1993. Upon completion of these ap-
praisals, letters soliciting offers to sell will be sent to the remain-
ing owners.

fols/dobs

Question. What is the current status of forward operating loca-
tions and dispersed operating bases in Canada?

Answer. Congress denied FY 92 MILCON funding of $20.7M and
FY 93 MILCON funding of $19.5M. The reason was a question of

235

the continuing need for the bases in view of the apparent reduction
in threat. On 28 Dec 92, Secretary Cheney sent a letter to the Ca-
nadian Minister of Defense stating that the U.S. regrettably could
not continue funding the FOLs/DOBs program without the support
of Congress. A clause in the original agreement with Canada states
that our obligation to pay is subject to the appropriation of funds.
No further MILCON funding is being programmed at this time.
Construction at these FOLs/DOBs is substantially complete. Due to
the reduction in threat and the fact that the U.S. didn't meet our
financial commitments, we do not plan to deploy any aircraft or
people to these FOLs/DOBs.

B-2 DEPOT MAINTENANCE

Question. In fiscal year 1991, we appropriated $31.8 million for
three projects at Tinker Air Force Base related to B-2 depot main-
tenance, but the first cycle of this work will be performed else-
where under contract. Are these funds still required?

Answer. To clarify, the amount appropriated in FY 90 was $31.8
million for three B-2 depot level maintenance projects at Tinker
AFB. These three projects are all under construction and will be
used for B-2 maintenance. In FY 91, $21.4 million was appropri-
ated for three additional B-2 depot maintenance projects at Tinker
AFB. The rapid reduction in B-2 acquisition to 20 aircraft caused
uncertainty over the first cycle of depot maintenance and aircraft
modification requirements. This uncertainty made it prudent to
use existing capability and facilities at Air Force Plant 42, Palm-
dale, CA. Currently, the Air Force is planning to do the first cycle
of depot maintenance by contract at the B-2 production facilities.
This arrangement gives the Air Force time to develop long range
plans, which currently calls for the second cycle of B-2 depot main-
tenance at Tinker around the year 2000. The 1992 annual Congres-
sional report provided notification that the three FY 91 projects
were cancelled and the funds were used on other urgent Air Force
requirements. We expect to program for additional MILCON to
complete the Tinker Depot in a future budget request.

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT

Question. Real property maintenance (RPM) is funded in the De-
fense Appropriations Bill, but it has a direct effect on the quality of
your facilities and thus the need for military construction. I under-
stand the RPM account has been split into two parts this year. The
services can spend their RPM only for projects valued at less than
$15K. All projects with a cost of $15K or greater can only be
funded from OSD. Is that true? If it is true, has this caused any
problems for you? If it has, please explain and expand on your
answer to give the committee a full understanding of the impact.

Answer. The FY93 Defense Appropriations Bill established the
FY93 Real Property Maintenance, Defense Account (RPMDA) to
fund Real Property Maintenance projects costing more than
$15,000 for repair and between $15,000 and $300,000 for minor con-
struction. Repair and minor construction less than $15,000 and all
maintenance remain funded by the O&M appropriation.

236

The RPMDA has caused several problems for the Air Force.
First, major command and installation commanders no longer have
the flexibility to reallocate service O&M funds to major repair and
minor construction projects costing greater than $15,000. These
projects historically represent 90 percent of the Air Force RPM-by-
contract program. This is an underfunded program the Air Force
has migrated money into during all but one of the last 13 years to
cover both known and unforeseen needs and changing missions.
The RPMDA is also not covered by a Foreign Currency Fluctuation
Account, which has a potential adverse OCONUS impact, since
money must be withheld from the RPMDA to cover currency
changes. In addition, the potential also exists for inadvertent prior-
fiscal-year RPMDA funding violations caused by in-scope contract
changes that arise in later years with no subsequent RPMDA fund-
ing to cover them. Finally, host installations are unable to execute
funds received from tenants wishing to accomplish additional RPM
projects greater than $15,000 because these tenants typically have
no access to RPMDA funds.

The services jointly proposed enabling language to allow the use
of O&M funds for RPMDA-t3T)e work in FY93. This language was
approved by the OSD Comptroller and General Counsel staffs and
is on the Hill awaiting action. In the FY94 President's Budget,
RPM is back in the Air Force O&M appropriation. Because
RPMDA limits the ability of Air Force commanders to invest avail-
able O&M funds in RPM, we recommend the use of RPMDA be
eliminated in the future.

INVENTORY

Question. How many family housing units do you have in the
United States, and how many overseas, excluding Sections 801 and
802, and excluding leases?

Answer. The average number of family housing units supported
in FY94 are:

United States: 99,213; Overseas: 30,234.

Question. How many Section 801, Section 802, and leased units
do you have in the United States, and how many overseas?
Answer. Number of leased units for FY 94:

United States: Units

Section 801 4,035

Section 802 None

Leased 722

Overseas:

Leased 4,323

HOUSING DEFICITS

Question. What is you (your) current worldwide family housing
deficit?

Answer. 34,013.

Question. What are your three largest deficits, and how large are
they?

Answer. Peterson AFB, CO— 3,076 units. Boiling AFB, DC^2,378
units, March AFB, CA— 2,325 units.

Question. What are the three most expensive deficit locations
based on actual payments of housing allowances?

Answer. The three most expensive areas with significant deficits
are: Anchorage, AK area (Elmendorf AFB), Military District Wash-

237

ington area (Andrews AFB, Boiling AFB, Pentagon, etc), San Ber-
nardino, CA area (March AFB).

WAITING LISTS

Question. How many families are on waiting lists for govern-
ment-provided family housing, and what is the average waiting
time?

Answer. The overall average number of families on waiting lists
is 38,586. The average waiting time is 4.4 months.

Average months

Officers 4.1

E9-E7 4.4

E5-E4 5.0

E3-E1 3.9

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Question. What percent of the family housing maintenance and
repair requirement will be met within the fiscal year 1994 budget
request?

Answer. The 1994 budget request will meet 29 percent of the
total maintenance and repair requirements. The annual mainte-
nance and repair requirement of $601 million along with the back-
log of $1,096 million totals $1,697 million. The $404 million in
maintenance funds requested along with help from improvement
and replacement construction will cover $499 million or 29 percent
of the requirement.

Question. What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance?

Answer. At the start of FY94 the backlog totals $1,096 Million.
With the lower level of funding in FY94, the backlog will grow to
$1,198 Million by the end of FY94.

Question. How much additional maintenance and repair work
could be performed during fiscal year 1994, beyond the budget re-
quest, and what are the limiting factors?

Answer. We have unfunded projects designed and ready for
award which could utilize $183 million. Another $143 million will
be ready to award by October 93. There are no limiting factors in
awarding this additional $326 million in maintenance and repair
projects.

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

Questions. How much additional construction improvement work
could be performed during fiscal year 1994, beyond the budget re-
quest, and what are the limiting factors?

Answer. There are $80 million of improvement and replacement
construction projects ready to award in FY94 beyond the budget re-
quest. There are no limiting factors in awarding this additional $80
million in maintenance and repair projects.

Question. How many family housing units are programmed for
whole house revitalization within the budget request, and what is
the funding increment for this work?

Answer. The FY94 President's budget contains $53,070,000 for
the whole house improvement of 588 housing units.

238

CONTRACT CLEANING

Questions. For how many units are you requesting contract
cleaning funds, what is the average cost per unit, and what is the
total amount requested?

Answer. For FY94, the Air Force projects supporting 17,200 units
with contract cleaning funds. The air Force cap is $4.3M. To oper-
ate within this limit, the Air Force goal is to maintain an average
cleaning cost of $235 per unit.

Question. Describe in some detail how you document savings for
each contract cleaning expenditure.

Answer. Commands with overseas contract cleaning programs
are required to report status quarterly, with a final year-end
report. There were documented savings of $2.8M in FY92, and
$400,357 in savings as of the 1st Qtr FY93.

The Air Force report consists of eleven steps which compare
costs before the program with TLA costs during the current report
period. Documented data includes number of units cleaned for
members departing PCS, average unit cleaning cost, and the sav-
ings derived from TLA cost reductions.

For example: Dollars

TLA days prior to contract cleaning: 8 days x $72 (TLA Rate) 576

TLA days after implementing contract cleaning:

3 days x $72 (TLA Rate) -216

TLA savings 360

Cost of cleaning —235

Actual savings per unit cleaned 125

CURRENCY FLUCTUATION

Question. What currency gains or losses are projected for your
overseas housing programs during fiscal years 1993 and 1994?

Answer. The projected foreign currency gain in FY94 of $19.2
million has been taken out of our request. During fiscal year 1993
we experienced a net gain of $1.3 million through Feb 1993.

OFFICERS QUARTERS

Question. Please submit for the record a table showing: (a) how
many general /flag officer quarters you have, separately identifying
CONUS and OCONUS locations, (b) how many of these quarters
exceed the statutory space limitation, and (c) the average O&M cost
per unit.

Answer.

No. over
No. of units statutory space
limits

US 255 163

US overseas 3 3

Foreign 52 29

Total 310 195

Based on the FY92 GOQ cost report, the average costs per unit
are:

239

Dollars

Operations $5,140

M&R 9,662

Total 14,802

Answer.

Program Base ,^^"1^, Cost/Threshold

New Const

RepI Const Fairchild

Impr Elmendorf

Maint 4 Repr Edwards

Randolph

Rhein Main

Vogelweh

Kadena

184

298

108

307

2 91

' None.

^ $50,000 was approved in P^92 but a typhoon disrupted the work and Increased scope.

MILITARY COOPERATIVE HOUSING

Question. Please bring us up-to-date with any proposals you may
have for military cooperative housing, such as the Soldier Housing
and Retirement Equity Program.

Answer. The Air Force does not have any proposals for Military
Cooperative Housing.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Question. Provide a list of your service's installations from which
Homeowners Assistance Claims are currently pending?

Answer. The Homeowners Assistance Program is authorized at
the following bases: Castle AFB, CA, Eaker AFB, AR, England
AFB, LA, Homestead AFB, FL, Loring AFB, ME, Wurtsmith AFB,
MI, Pease AFB, NH, Chanute AFB, IL, Carswell AFB, TX, Myrtle
Beach AFB, SC.

Question. Is the program meeting the needs of your services?

Answer. The Homeowners Assistance Program is a favorable
benefit for those who qualify. There is, however, concern that the
benefits paid are insufficient and the member is required to pay
too great a percentage of the loss.

PROJECTS NO LONGER NEEDED

Question: Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the fiscal year 1994 request or in prior years' unobligated
balances, that are no longer required due to multilateral agree-
ments, or other reasons. Please include on this list military con-
struction projects, family housing construction and construction
improvement projects, and projects financed under the base re-
alignment and closure accounts.

240

Answers: The following projects may be no longer be required de-
pending upon Congressional action on the Base Closure Commis-
sions' base realignment and closure recommendations.

I.— MILCON PROJECTS IN BUDGET WHICH MAY NO LONGER BE REQUIRED DUE TO FORCE STRUCTURE

CHANGES

Fiscal year

Base

Project title

PA (thousands)

Status (percent)

$1,200

35 DSN.

1,200

35 DSN.

3,000

35 DSN.

2,000

35 DSN.

800

35 DSN.

1994 Lackland

1994 Memphis

1994 Tinker....

Vehicle maint fac

Renovate dorm

ADAL hi-bay tech trng fac

Alt tech trng fac

MILSTAR comm ground term.

II.— PRIOR YEAR MILCON PROJECTS WHICH MAY BE NO LONGER BE REQUIRED DUE TO

RECOMMENDED CLOSURE

Fiscal year

Project title

Unobligated

balance
(ttiousands)

Status (percent)

1990 Homestead.,

1990 Newark

1991 Homestead.,

1991 March

1991 McClellan...,

1992 Griffiss

1992 Homestead.,

1992 McGuire

1993 March

1993 McClellan...,

1993 McGuire

Add to trans dorm $1,950 100 DSN.

Alter dorms 5,395 1 CNS.

Child care ctr 680 100 DSN.

Alter dorm 5,500 100 DSN.

Troop subsist whse 1,050 100 BID.

ADAL depot corr cnti fac 11,200 95 BID.

Alter ta.xiway barr 1,200 100 DSN.

Alter dorms 4,900 100 DSN.

Child dev cntr 3,800 89 DSN.

Alter dorms PH 5 5,200 100 DSN.

Undgrnd fuel stor tanks 2,200 65 DSN.

Renov depot plating shop 7,000 15 DSN.

Upgr ind waste coll sys 1,750 95 DSN.

Undgrnd fuel stor tanks 1,150 100 DSN.

Undgrnd fuel stor tanks 5,600 4 DSN.

Upgr sanitary sewer sys 2,400 9 DSN.

Upgr storm sewers 970 9 DSN.

Projects in DSN status have been put on hold at the next phase
point pending decision on base realignment and closure.

Projects in BID status:

If bid solicitation is out, it will be cancelled and project put on
hold pending decision on base closure.

If bids have been opened, award will be placed on hold pending
decision on base closure.

Projects in CNS status are under contract but construction work
is not started and cancellation costs will reduce the unobligated
amount available.

III.— FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED

Fiscal year

Base

Project title

Unobligated

balance
(ttiousands)

Status (percent)

1993..
1993..

Kl Sawyer Impr 143 Units..

McClellan Impr 18 Units....

$10,650 100 DSN (BID).
1,846 35 DSN.

241

III.— FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED—

Continued

Fiscal year

Base

Project title

Unobligated

balance Status (percent)
(thousands)

1993

.... March

... Rep! 320 Units

38,351 100 DSN.

IV.-

-BRAC MILCON DELETIONS

Fiscal year

Base

Project title

Unobligated

balance Status (percent)
(thousands)

Round I:

1992.

1993.
Round II:

1993.

March

Bergstrom.

Lowry

McClellan..
McClellan..
McClellan..
McClellan..
McClellan..
McClellan..
Fairchild....
Fairchild....

Alt AAFES Svc outlets $1,900 100 DSN.

Add to AAFES exch ctr 4,200 100 DSN.

Add/alt hosp 12,800 93 DSN.

Add/alt mun area 560 90 DSN.

Cantonment area 1,600 35 DSN.

Social actions fac 1,100 55 DSN.

Alter main! sup 6,100 50 DSN.

Squadron Ops/HQ fac Fuel sys maint 7,500 35 DSN.

Corrosion cntrl 6,200 35 DSN.

Hydrant refuel sys 11,400 75 DSN.

Composite maint fac 1,400 40 DSN.

Fit Sim fac, 24,000 20,270 0 DSN.

Combat crew tng, 7,800 7,800 0 DSN.

Fiscal year

Base

Project title

PA (thousands) Status (percent)

1994..

Orlando Sim research fac .

POL ops and refueler pkg..

Alter support facs

Command maint

Command hqtrs

JACC/CPfac

Alter QRC

JTF fac

1994 Bergstrom

1994 Charleston JCSE

1994 Charleston JCSE Veh maint

1994 Charleston JCSE Parachute shop

1994 Charleston JCSE Mun stg

1994 Charleston JCSE Supply complex

1994 Charleston JCSE Add to utilities.

1994

Fairchild Add/alt hydr fuel sys, 16,000..

Fairchild Enl dorm (200 PN), 4,650

Fairchild Stud offs qutrs, 7,300

Fairchild Add/alt comp med, 2,100

Fairchild Alter Dental Clinic, 600

$4,400

1,230

2,800

4,600

600

670

300

2,700

5,600

450

2,150

1,150

3,000

16,000

4,650

7,300

2,100

600

ODSN.

35 DSN.

ODSN.

BASE CLOSURE III

242

base closures, for a total requirement of $1.2 billion for round III.
Can you tell us what the Air Force's requirement is for round III of
base closure?

Answer. The Air Force portion of the request for BRAC 93 funds
in fiscal year 1994 is $203.4 million. This estimate was developed
using the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model and is
not budget quality. Further refinement of the Part II, BRAC 93
numbers will be provided to the Commission by 1 June 1993 follow-
ing completion of site surveys and refined cost estimates. Any re-
finement will not result in a change to the FY94 President's
Budget request.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE FY 94 BUDGET REQUEST

Question. Is OSD expecting that you will pay for BRAC III out of
your routine O&M accounts?

Answer. No. OSD has requested funds for BRAC 93 be authorized
and appropriated to a legislative contingency account, which re-
quires legislation. If enacted, these funds are anticipated to be
transferred to the Part II Base Closure Account and distributed to
the services to execute BRAC 93 actions.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION COSTS

Answer. If the OSD request for funds in the Part I and Part II
base closure accounts is authorized and appropriated, the Air Force
anticipates it will have sufficient funds to execute the environmen-
tal restoration program for base closures through fiscal year 1994.

BASE CLOSURE III

Question. How much of the Base Closure III funds are for non-
construction activities such as personnel and transfer costs?

Answer. The budget request for BRAC 93 is an initial estimate of
expenses derived from the Cost of Base Realignment Actions
(COBRA) model. The COBRA estimates are not budget quality nor
are they in sufficient detail to provide a specific figure; however, a
rough estimate is that approximately 27 percent are non-construc-
tion costs. The major commands are conducting site surveys and
developing detailed estimates that will refine the costs and differ-
entiate between construction and non-construction costs.

Question. Why is your requirement for Part III so high in the
first year as compared with first year funding for Parts I and II?

Answer. The Air Force is pursuing an aggressive closure sched-
ule that requires a significant portion of the funding in the first
two years immediately following the recommendations being en-
acted as law. In Part I (BRAC 88), four of the five bases were not
scheduled to close for three or more years after the recommenda-
tions became law and funding requirements were planned accord-
ingly. Part II, BRAC 91 was not anticipated in time to request
funding prior to the first year of execution, fiscal year (FY) 92,
after the recommendations became law. Consequently, no funds

243

were budgeted until FY 93. To meet the accelerated closure and re-
alignment schedules of four of the bases, the Air Force expended
its own funds outside of the base closure account. Therefore, the
actual first year requirements of both BRAC 88 and BRAC 91 were
substantially higher than the original budget figures indicate.
Review of these experiences, projected realignment schedules and
Part II, BRAC 93 closure dates required programming the amounts
in the years requested.

HOUSING O&M

Question. I see where you are requesting $73 million less for Air
Force housing O&M. What do you attribute to the reduction?

Answer. Although there is a decrease in our housing inventory of
three percent, the O&M budget reduction is nearly eight percent
below the fiscal year 1993 request. Forty-four percent of the $73
million is from reduced lease requirements, but the remainder is
from Defense budget reductions. This reduction will primarily be
absorbed in major maintenance and repair projects, further impact-
ing the current $1,096 million backlog of deferred maintenance and
repair.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Hefner.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Vucanovich.]

Question. Operation and Maintenance makes up 72% of the total
Air Force Housing request. What types of things are accomplished
with this account and why do we need it?

Answer. Operations and Maintenance dollars are required to pro-
vide for the cost of ownership and include the following:

Operations

Management. — Salaries, training, and housing market analyses.

Services. — Custodial service, refuse collection, fire protection,
snow removal, street cleaning and other municipal type services.

Furnishings. — Purchase, repair and replacement costs for govern-
ment owned furnishings and appliances.

Maintenance

Change of Occupancy. — Work such as painting to prepare unit
for new occupant.

Service Calls. — All urgent work such as leaking faucets, broken
windows, etc.

Facility Maintenance. — Major repairs to components such as
roofs, windows, and furnaces.

Infrastructure Maintenance. — Major repair to roads, grounds,
utility systems and support facilities.

Question. Provide an example of the yearly O&M expense for an
average Air Force house?

Answer. Average O&M cost per unit for fiscal year 1994 is
$5,683.

Operations $932

Utilities 1,630

Maintenance 3,121

244

WHOLE HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS

Question. I understand the Air Force's top priority has been on
Whole House Improvements. Please explain this program for me.

Answer. The objective of whole-house improvement is to provide
families with homes and communities that are comparable in
design and features to current private sector housing. We do this
by: correcting any environmental, safety, or health deficiencies; up-
grading the unit to current Air Force standards for square footage,
modernized kitchens and bathrooms, family rooms, etc.; accom-
plishing all maintenance and repair, improving energy efficiency;
and enhancing the livability of the unit interior and exterior to in-
clude neighborhood improvements, all in one project. Accomplish-
ing all this work in a single project is more cost effective than
piecemeal approaches and not as disruptive to the occupant.

Question. How many houses are in need of renovation, and what
is the average age of these houses?

Answer. We have 65,000 units requiring renovation. The average
age of family housing units in the Air Force inventory is 31 years.

Question. What is the average cost of whole house improvements
compared to new construction?

Answer. The average costs per unit for the FY92-94 Air Force
budgets are:

FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Average

Improvements $69,020 $66,235 • $76,248 $68,575

Construction 97,750 99,050 93,650 96,662

' The FY94 Improvements average is greater due to a larger percentage of projects in high cost areas.

Question. What features do you normally add?

Answer. Typical unit improvements include renovating and/or
relocating kitchens and baths; adding master bathrooms and half-
baths on ground floor of two story units; adding family rooms; in-
creasing unit size within allowable statutory square footage and/or
reconfiguring the floor layout to improve functionality, livability,
and accessibility; upgiading mechanical and electrical systems to
current code requirements; and accomplishing all major and minor
repair simultaneous with the upgrade (historically 68 cents of
every whole-house improvement dollar goes to maintenance and
repair costs).

We also correct life and safety deficiencies such as smoke and
heat detectors, upgrading electrical outlets in bathrooms, etc.

We remediate environmental hazards such as lead-based paint,
asbestos, and radon.

We provide exterior improvements to give a sense of neighbor-
hood identity through compatible housing styles, architectural fea-
tures and landscape development. This is done by adding adequate
storages areas for each unit; providing two off street parking
spaces for each family (one covered) if possible; and providing pri-

245

vate outdoor spaces through thoughtful use of landscaping and
fencing or each unit.

Question. What savings (energy and maintenance) are associated
with the program?

Energy conservation features include set back thermostats, 86%
energy efficient water heaters, furnaces that have a 90% energy ef-
ficiency rating, windows with dual pane/insulated glass, insulated
doors, appliances that have a 75% energy efficiency rating and; in-
creasing insulation of exterior walls, crawl and attic spaces. These
energy features reduce energy consumption by about 20% on each
unit. Overall the improvement project eliminates the requirement
for further capital maintenance and repair for five years after com-
pletion and recurring maintenance and repair is reduced initially
by 25%.

Question. When doing an improvement project, what type of
neighborhood work is done?

Answer. Typical neighborhood improvements that are provided
are structured, functional, and uncluttered open spaces; complete
landscape development for public spaces that encompasses and
complements the private spaces; improved utility and transporta-
tion infrastructure systems to include street lighting and side-
walks; conveniently located tot-lots and playgrounds; exterior up-
grades/repair to improve quality of life and "curb" appeal of the
neighborhood; informal gathering and relaxation spaces; properly
designed, convenient off street parking for visitors; "family" sup-
port facilities; and recreation facilities and athletic areas.

Question. Does this extend the life of the housing for another
twenty years?

Answer. Renovation extends the life of the housing units by at
least 25 years.

Question. When does the Air Force intend to buyout the pro-
gram?

Answer. At present funding levels it will take the Air Force 23
years to buyout the existing whole house improvement require-
ment. A modest goal to reduce the buyout period to 20 years is de-
sired but will require an annual investment of $215 million per
year.

Question. In your FY 94 MILCON submission you requested $1.65
million to repair and upgrade fuel storage tanks at Nellis Air
Force Base in my district. I understand that this storage area has
been assessed under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) as
an IRP site and is considered an environmental cleanup project.
Could you explain the IRP program?

Answer. The installation Restoration Program (IRP) is designed
to cleanup sites contaminated as a result of a release of hazardous
substances that occurred prior to 1984. The IRP is funded by the
Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA). DERA funds
cannot be used to repair or upgrade facilities.

246

Question. What requirements do projects like this one at Nellis
have to comply with under the IRP program?

Answer. A MILCON project at an IRP site is required to comply
with all applicable environmental restoration regulations. This
could include requirements covered by the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state
requirements. The Air Force will ensure the construction activities
have no adverse impact on the investigation or selection of poten-
tial remedial alternatives for the IRP site. The tank upgrade and
repair project for Nellis Air Force Base is a current mission re-
quirement. There is also an IRP project, which consists of work to
clean up the plume of contamination from the fuel storage area.
The MILCON project will not affect the investigation or cleanup of
the plume nor will new construction be impacted by the contami-
nation. There has been and will continue to be close coordination
between these programs.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Mrs. Vucanovich.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Meek.]

homestead air force base

Question. I am interested to find out the status of funds provided
to restore certain non-active facilities at Homestead Air Force
Base. Where are you in the actual planning and obligation of the
$76 million at the moment?

Answer. To date, we have completed an extensive study to evalu-
ate alternatives for the reconstruction of Homestead Air Force
Base consistent with Congressional direction, Air Force needs, and
the Base Realignment and Closure process. We have made contact
and are working with other Federal Agencies and local Homestead
community leaders to insure our plans are consistent with their's
to the greatest extent possible. We have directed our construction
agent, the Corps of Engineers to begin planning and design for the
reconstruction of essential facilities. Specifically, we are proceeding
with work to repair/ replace facilities such as the Air National
Guard Alert Facility, Hangar 741, Control Tower, Primary Electri-
cal Distribution Lines, Airfield Navigation Aids, and Airfield Light-
ing System. We are in a position to start expending construction
funds as early as September of this year assuming we can reach
agreement with all parties involved in this effort.

Question. Do you know what you will use the funds specifically
for?

Answer. To a large extent we know specifically what the funds
appropriated will be used for; but, some decisions remain to be
made. All of the $60.7 million in O&M funds should be used for
general base cleanup, demolition, weatherproofing, and repairs. Ap-
proximately $42 million of the $76 million in MILCON funds will
be used to reconstruct facilities such as the Air National Guard
Alert Facility, Hangar 741, Control Tower, Primary Electrical Dis-
tribution Lines, Airfield Navigation Aids and Airfield Lighting
System; the remainder will be used for other contingency facilities

247

based on the final outcome of the Base Realignment and Closure
process. The $16 million of MFH funds will be used to demolish
housing which is beyond economical repair; no decision has been
made on housing reconstruction.

Question. Will the Corps of Engineers be acting as contractor in
doing the work? If so, which district of the Corps would oversee the
work — the Jacksonville district? I am interested in seeing that the
work is competitive in the South Dade County area for two rea-
sons. First, unemployment is almost 50% since Hurricane Andrew
and the de facto shut down of the base, and I think it is my respon-
sibility to ensure that the local community have an opportunity to
compete. Secondly, I understand that the Corps has minority goals
that have been reached primarily by the work they do in Puerto
Rico. I would be most interested in working with you on this.

Answer. The Mobile District of the Corps of Engineers will be
acting as our design and construction agent for all work at Home-
stead Air Force Base as they have in the past. The Jacksonville
District does not do military construction, only civil work. They
plan to contract work locally to the greatest extent possible.

Question. I am very interested in the rationale used for recom-
mending that the Air Force Reserve Air Rescue Squadron that was
based at Homestead be moved to Patrick AFB, as well as moving
the 482nd Fighter Wing to McDill. How did the cost analysis of
moving the Reserve compare with the cost of keeping the Reserve
at Homestead?

Answer. The total COBRA estimated cost of closing Homestead
AFB is $75.1 million. The cost to move all units from Homestead
AFB is $13,658 million, which includes the cost to move 482nd and
301st. The COBRA model does not distribute the moving costs to
the unit level, instead, it is displayed as an aggregate.

Cost for the 482nd Fighter Wing, the 301st Rescue Squadron and
the Air National Guard alert detachment to return to Homestead
AFB is estimated at $116.9 million. This assumes that units will
consolidate all their functions in one cantonment area and AFRES
will operate the airfield. It does not reflect any reconstruction cost
for non-DoD tenants. The breakdown follows (in millions): 482nd
FW with F-16s— $85.8, 301st Rescue Squadron— $19.4, Contingency
area (munitions storage)— $6.7, ANG NORAD Alert facility— $5.0.

Question. The recommendation to the Base Closure and Realign-
ment Commission project the closing costs to be $75.1 million. Was
this amount figured into the total costs of moving the 482nd Fight-
er Wing to MacDill and the Reserve to Patrick?

Answer. The $75.1 million closing costs for Homestead AFB in-
cludes the cost to move the 482nd to MacDill AFB, but includes
only construction costs for the 301st Rescue Squadron, Air Force
Reserve, to Patrick AFB. The difference is that the 482nd FW is
TDY to Wright-Patterson AFB currently, and will be assigned per-
manently to MacDill AFB; the personnel of the 301st RS have al-
ready been permanently assigned to Patrick AFB and the cost has
already been paid from Air Force total obligational authority
(TOA) rather than from base realignment and closure (BRAC)
funds. However, the $75.1 million does include $6.7 million for con-
struction of permanent facilities at Patrick AFB to support the
301st.

248

Question. I would also like to know what your projected costs are
of operating the Reserve at MacDill until a civil sponsor can be
found?

Answer. The total estimated annual cost to operate the airfield
at MacDill AFB as a Reserve Base is $4.4 million. This total is
based on many variables. Estimated cost breakdown follows (in mil-
lions of dollars): Airfield operations— $1.0, ATCALS— $1.0, Fuels op-
erations— $1.2, Civil Engineer support — $0.5, Flightline security —
$0.7.

Question. If Homestead were to be operated under civilian au-
thority, what would be your concerns about stationing the AF Re-
serve as a tenant there?

Answer. The 482nd Fighter Wing (AFRES) is slated to transition
to KC-135 aircraft. Therefore, our primary concern would be that
Homestead AFB would not be the best location for this tanker unit.
MacDill AFB is located much closer to the Southern Deployment
Departure Corridor than Homestead AFB.

Several concerns of an AFRES tenant unit would include: the
type and amount of support provided by the civil authorities; costs
associated with operating an AF Reserve unit on a civilian airfield
(landing fees, operating costs, etc.); and, any operational restric-
tions imposed by the civilian authorities that could hamper effi-
cient operations of the unit. All of these concerns could be solved
through the negotiation of a statisfactory host-tenant agreement.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Mrs. Meek.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Dixon.]

property lease in LOS ANGELES

Question. Under a plan submitted to the Air Force last December
by the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles unified school district
would deed 23 acres of school district property to the city which
would then be leased for 50 years to the Air Force under a $l-a-
year lease agreement for the construction of homes for Air Force
officers. However, I do not see in this budget any monies allocated
to the planning, design, or construction of these homes. What is the
status of these negotiations?

Answer. On 21 Jan 93, Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Installations (SAF/MII) acknowledged the proposed land offer but
deferred further pursuit of this alternative pending Secretary of
Defense recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Re-
alignment Commission on 15 Mar 93. Since Los Angeles AFB is not
on the current closure list, further consideration of this offer can
now be made.

Question. My understanding is that the plan calls for the con-
struction of 250 two-story homes for officers. Will this adequately
meet the housing needs of the base officers?

Answer. Presently there is a requirement for 346 units (225 offi-
cer and 121 enlisted). Subsequent mission adjustments have re-
duced the total requirement and a new requirements analysis is
being prepared to determine the current need.

249

Question. Given the opportunity to review the plan and make a
needs assessment, has the Air Force made a commitment to retain
this base in El Segundo?

Answer. Air Force bases can only be closed or realigned in com-
pliance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-510, as amended). Under this law, DoD must
consider equally all military installations inside the United States
without regard to whether they have previously been considered
for closure. The law mandated that this process be completed three
times; in 1991, 1993, and again in 1995. The 1993 list of DoD clo-
sure and realignment recommendations, which did not include Los
Angeles AFB, was submitted to the Base Closure and Realignment
Commission in March, 1993. The Commission, which is an inde-
pendent body appointed by the President, is currently reviewing
the DoD's recommendations and must submit its findings and clo-
sure and realignment recommendations to the President by July 1,
1993. If the Commission intends to add a base to the list of recom-
mended closures/realignments, it must publish notice of the pro-
posed addition in the Federal Register by June 1, 1993. The Presi-
dent's authority is limited to an "all-or-none" approval of the Com-
mission's recommendations, and Presidential approval may only be
nullified, also on an "all-or-none" basis, by a joint Congressional
resolution.

In developing closure and realignment recommendations, both
the DoD and the commission are required by law to use the DoD's
six-year force structure plan and closure criteria and to consider all
bases equally. Los Angeles AFB, along with all other Air Force in-
stallations meeting the threshold for consideration, will be again
evaluated for closure and realignment in 1995. The Air Force
cannot make a commitment to retain this base because it must
apply the force structure plan and criteria that are in effect at that
time. Due to budget constraints and rapidly changing world events,
there will likely be several bases recommended for closure or re-
alignment in 1995. The law governing base closures is designed to
make the process as fair as possible while retaining a military
force that can best respond to future threats to national security.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Dixon.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Fazio.]

KIRTLAND AFB — JUSTIFICATION FOR REPUCATION

Question. I understand the Air Force's desire to consolidate its
lab activities at Kirtland. I know that excess capacity is not a big
problem in the Air Force labs, but it does exist. In addition, on Feb-
ruary 16th, the minutes state "It was noted that the BCEG's analy-
sis had revealed that bases in this subcategory (Product Centers
and Labs) had not presented any cost effective closure or realign-
ment opportunities, because it would be necessary to replicate most
facilities at any receiver location."

What is the Air Force's justification for replicating labs at Kirt-
land when they are not associated with base or lab closures else-

250

where? What is the COBRA model payback associated with this
consoUdation?

Answer. The Air Force consolidated its 13 laboratories to four
laboratories in 1990. As a result of that consolidation, space-related
technology development was placed under the Phillips Laboratory,
headquartered at Kirtland AFB, NM. The Air Force then decided
to consolidate the technical directorates of the Phillips Laboratory
that are currently operating in more than one location. The basic
outcome is to consolidate the Air Force space-related technology de-
velopment at Kirtland AFB. This decision will require the reloca-
tion of approximately 177 manpower authorizations and the con-
struction of four new facilities over a period of several years.

This consolidation will increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of the physically separated directorates and significantly strength-
en our space-related science and technology program. When this
activity was included in the outyear Air Force budget, a savings of
$3 million per year was included to account for reutilization of fa-
cilities at the losing bases.

CRITERIA RATINGS — MC CLELLAN AFB DOWNGRADE

Question. On December 21st, the BCEG minutes state "They also
agreed that the rating for potential regional encroachment at
McClellan AFB be changed from 'Y' to 'R'." The minutes do not
contain any explanation for this change.

The McClellan data I have indicate that all developments within
Approach Departure Zones (APZ) I at both ends of the runways
and APZ II north of the base are in compliance with the current
requirements. Some of the developments within the APZ II south
of the base are incompatible land uses, amounting to 20 percent of
total APZ II. These incompatible land uses were developed prior to
adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) in 1987.

However, we are the only ALC community which has a CLUP in
place. Most of the others have worse encroachment than McClel-
lan, yet we are given an "R" for both existing and future encroach-
ment in the APZ. Please explain how the BCEG reached its conclu-
sion that McClellan should be downgraded given the information
provided above.

Answer. The referenced discussion in the minutes was based on
the collective professional judgement of the BCEG that the poten-
tial for encroachment at McClellan AFB is high and may require
substantial operational adjustments.

CRITERIA RATINGS — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Question. On December 22nd, the BCEG minutes state the follow-
ing: "The members changed the ratings of McClellan AFB for its
capacity to support fighter and bomber missions from "G" to "Y"
based on limitations on the carriage of ordnance and heavy off-base
development. Mr. Kuhn questioned how this change could be docu-
mented. Mr. Vest stated that he managed Air Force environmental
and encroachment issues for 10 years and personally worked them
for 21 years, and that based on this experience, he could readily
attest that fighter and bomber missions at McClellan AFB would

251

be very unlikely to be possible because of environmental consider-
ations."

I agree that McClellan would have difficulty with bombers, but
with fighters, our mission today is fighters, and we do not have any
problem handling them. My question is what are the environmen-
tal considerations which would prevent McClellan from supporting
fighters?

Answer. Fighters and bombers were rated YELLOW for the
MACRO look in Criteria 2. This is a consensus of all criteria, of
which environmental is a factor. The environmental concerns in-
clude: the RED rating for the APZs, the YELLOW rating for the
Noise Zones, and the YELLOW rating for Environs. MOAs and
Ranges were rated YELLOW in Criteria I because the airspace was
available, but constrained. Some improvements would be required.
Environmentally, these improvements to the location and altitude
blocks of the MOAs would be difficult and unlikely. The area is en-
vironmentally sensitive and encroached by commercial and general
aviation use.

The noise zones near McClellan AFB are an environmental con-
cern. Encroachment for NOISE is rated YELLOW because some
residential and commercial developments exist within the 65-70
Ldn contour. Some areas are incompatible in the 70-75 Ldn con-
tour. Existing zoning results in continued incompatibility. The base
receives an average 15 noise complaints per month — one of the
worst in the United States. Noise abatement procedures restrict
flight operations. Noise concerns at McClellan AFB impact fighter
and bomber operations.

Finally, the Airspace and Environs is rated YELLOW because
Sacramento Metro airport impacts the local flight pattern oper-
ations.

CRITERIA RATINGS — MC CLELLAN AFB PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Question. Under Criteria VII, McClellan was rated Red for Public
Transportation, Hill was Green, Kelly was Green, Robins was Red,
and Tinker was Red. According to the Air Force detailed analysis,
a Green means yes there is public transportation, and a Red means
no there is not public transportation serving the base.

I have a real problem with these ratings. McClellan has a light
rail station just down the street from the front gate on Watt
Avenue which is linked to the base by two bus routes. The Sacra-
mento multi-modal transit system has won national awards as re-
cently as last year. This information is in the questionnaire, yet we
are still given a Red. How can you justify giving McClellan Red for
Public Transportation when its public transit system is recognized
as one of the best in the country, and it directly serves McClellan?

Answer. The ratings for public transportation for McClellan
should be Green. The error occurred because the original data
stated the light rail system was iy2 miles from the base. We did
not realize that public bus service is available from the base to the
light rail system.

While this changes the rating for public transportation from Red
to Green, it should be noted that McClellan AFB received an over-
all rating of G- for Criteria VII. If re-analysis were done using the

252

corrected data (ratings of G for public transportation) there would
be no change upon the overall Criteria VII rating of G- for McClel-
lan AFB.

CRITERIA RATINGS — MC CLELLAN AFB RATING OF "fULLY" ADEQUATE

Question. Why wasn't McClellan given credit for airspace expan-
sion? The McClellan questionnaire stated that McClellan could
expand and the Mather Air Force Base airspace was not consid-
ered?

Answer. Future airspace near and around McClellan AFB was
considered. Information came from the Base Closure Questionnaire,
site surveys, AICUZ studies for each base, Blue Air, and the
Master Airspace Plan. The new runway and terminal at Sacramen-
to Metro airport will further impact local flight operations. Civil
reuse of Mather AFB may impact operations at McClellan AFB.

Question. What is the difference between "fully" adequate and
"generally" adequate regarding Military Operations Areas and
Bomb Ranges? The questionnaire stated that McClellan was fully
adequate in both areas.

Answer. McClellan AFB, being fully adequate in both Military
Operations Areas and Bomb Ranges, was rated G in both for "Ex-
isting" and "Future" criteria. There is no difference between the
words "generally adequate" which is used in the Air Force Report
and the words "fully adequate" which is used in the Base Question-
naire.

CRITERIA RATINGS — MC CLELLAN AFB QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

Question. Why wasn't "Output per Manday" used to determine
the relative value of an hour at each other's center? Why wasn't
"Profit/Loss" considered in the evaluation? Why wasn't "Yield in
Hours Per Person Per Year" used? The questionnaire contained
data in each of these areas. How did the Air Force determine
which performance measures and questionnaire data to use and
which not to use?

Answer. Output Per Manday (OPMD) was not used because it is
heavily influenced by the types of work and the mix of workloads
accomplished at that center. For example, airframe work has his-
torically achieved a lower OPMD than software OPMD. Airframe
work requires great precision, but the output can be easily meas-
ured. Thus, clearly defined manpower/ output per hour standards
can be developed. However, the development of a software program
is not easily measured. The amount of time per final product varies
greatly due to the complexity of the project. Because both type and
workload mix, as well as other workload factors, influence the
OPMD, it is not a good indicator to evaluate ALCs with respect to
each other.

Since the many factors which influence Profit and Loss are out-
side the ALCs control. Profit and Loss is not a good indicator to
evaluate ALCs with respect to each other. For example, whether
the amount of workload projected actually generates into work to
be accomplished affects the profit or loss. Sales rates are set a year
in advance and adjusted for past years profit or loss. The sales rate
also includes adjustments from outside the Air Force purview, such

253

as material inflation adjustment. The final approval of the sales
rate is outside the Air Force.

The Air Force is not familiar with the term "Yield Per Person
Per Year." The term sounds very similar to OPMD at yearly level.

The Air Force applied all eight DoD approved Criteria to each
base, plus ten depot unique subelements under Criterion I devel-
oped to support the analysis process, and applied them to all depot
bases.

CRITERIA RATINGS — MC CLELLAN AFB UTILITY COST

Question. Why was the utility cost based on per-unit cost instead
of the total cost of utilities? Each of the ALCs reported this data in
a different form. Did the Air Force harmonize the data to compare
utility rates? For example, the fiscal year 1992 cost per square foot
at McClellan was $1.22, much less than the utility rate reported by
Tinker AFB on a cost per square foot basis.

Answer. The use of a utility cost based on per unit, dollars per
Million British Thermal Unit (MBTU), instead of total utility cost
is based upon how utilities are purchased and its independence of
several factors. First, it reflects how energy is bought by the Air
Force, similar to residential heating bills. Second, it is independent
of the size of the installation and the type of work accomplished at
the base. The size of the installation directly affects the total cost
of utilities. The bigger the installation the more likely the total
utilities cost will be higher. Secondly, it is independent of the type
of work accomplished on the base. A base with a workload that re-
quires heat-treatment furnaces will consume more energy than
software maintenance. Using total utility costs would permit one to
only compare bases with identical workloads and of the same size.
The cost per MBTU permits evaluation of any type of workload at
any t5T)e of base to any other base. Finally, in realigning missions
one must sometimes replicate a facility. Given the same square
footage and the current use of utilities, one may estimate the con-
struction cost and yearly utility bills for the new facility at a differ-
ent location. Thus, the best evaluation can be made using the cost
per MBTU.

All of the ALCs reported their data in the form of cost per
MBTU in the Base questionnaire, Question D.11.B.3.A. The Air
Forced did not harmonize the data. The numbers were used as
given by the base. We are unable to determine how the $1.22 cost
per square foot for McClellan was calculated. Thus, we cannot ad-
dress your comparison.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Fazio.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Lewis.]

Question. In May of 1992 and throughout the fall I conducted a
series of meetings with the Air Force regarding the reuse of George
AFB which was closed last December. The purpose of those meet-
ings with Secretary Rice and Mr. Boatright was to finalize a record
of decision for reuse BEFORE the base shut down. One key compo-
nent of the reuse package has been an agreement between the
Army and the Air Force to lease George for a charter airhead and

254

as a temporary relocation for NTC Ft. Irwin's rotary assets. The
environmental impact statement for George has been completed
and published. The record of decision has been completed and pub-
lished. The record of decision identifies the Air Force mitigation
strategy for all remaining environmental issues. What is the envi-
ronmental baseline study and why hasn't it been finished?

Answer. An Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) is required to
be conducted before executing all real estate transfers/leases at
closing installations. The EBS is conducted in two phases. Phase I
is a record search and visual site inspection to determine whether
environmental contamination or hazards are present in property
being considered for lesise/transfer. Phase II may be required
where further testing and /or surveys are needed to characterize
environmental contamination/hazards. The Phase I EBS was com-
pleted in February 1993 for George AFB. Phase II will be complet-
ed on a parcel by parcel basis. These should be completed by this
summer (Jun/Jul 93).

Question. Why hasn't the Air Force been able to successfully con-
clude an interim lease negotiation with Deputy Assistant Secretary
Johnson of the Army for immediate operation of the charter air-
head?

Answer. The original environmental documentation was found to
be inadequate and the permit request has repeatedly changed in
scope. A draft permit and operating agreement is under review;
several versions have been negotiated to date. The Air Force pro-
vided comments regarding the inadequacy of the original Finding
of No Significant Impact to the Army on 26 January 1993. The re-
sulting Environmental Assessment was submitted by the Army on
April 26, 1993, to the Air Force Base Disposal Agency Operating
Location at George AFB. Currently AFBDA is reviewing the envi-
ronmental documentation and the lease; revisions will be returned
to the U.S. Army and could be finalized upon Army concurrence.

GEORGE AFB

Question. Has the Army identified an operations cost in the
range of $1.5 million a year for delivering 60,000 troops annually
into George in its negotiations with the Air Force?

Answer. The Air Force is not charging the Army any operations
costs for use of George AFB as a charter airhead. We are unaware
of any Army lease costs with future operators of the airport after
we transfer the property.

Question. The record of decision for George reuse which was
issued on 1/14/93 directs a competitive negotiated sale of approxi-
mately 1400 acres. That sale triggers public benefit transfer of par-
cels which contain the bulk of the actual airport. What is the
status of issuing a request for proposal from the two parties? Is
there a timetable for finalizing the sale?

Answer. The request for offers is currently being amended to re-
flect recent changes resulting from the April 21, 1993, Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) decision to support annex-
ation of George AFB by the City of Victorville. The LAFCO deci-
sion recommended annexation unless the Air Force provided objec-
tion to the annexation. The Air Force does not intend to contest
the LAFCO decision.

Thursday, April 22, 1993.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE

WITNESSES

BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN R. D'ARAUJO, USA, DIRECTOR, ARMY NA-
TIONAL GUARD

BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS J. KILMARTIN, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF,
ARMY RESERVE

REAR ADMIRAL J.T. NATTER, USNR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NAVAL RESERVE
BRIGADIER GENERAL C.W. REINKE, USMC, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF (INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS)

BRIGADIER GENERAL DONALD W. SHEPPERD, USAF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
AIR NATIONAL GUARD

BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY, USAF, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF
OF THE AIR FORCE

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Hefner. The Committee will come to order.

We are happy to have you gentlemen with us today.

I will ask you to keep your presentations brief, and your entire
statements will be part of the record. We will start with General
D'Araujo, and you can proceed any way that you see fit, sir.

Statement of Brigadier General John R. D'Araujo

General D'Araujo. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
thank you for your accommodation of the opening of our new
center this morning. I appreciate your help with that.

As the director of the Army National Guard, sir, I welcome the
opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and present the
Army National Guard's military construction program for 1994-
1995. As you know, for the citizen-soldier, the most critical element
is time, and that means we must provide adequate and modern
training facilities closer to the units to continue to maximize the
training opportunities that are at our existing training sites.

Mr. Chairman, the Army National Guard continues to be an im-
portant part of the total Army force, and our ability to sustain that
has been through the resources made available to us by the Army
and the Congress. I would point out that the facilities constructed
during the last decade have played major roles in meeting force
structure changes, accomplishing realistic quality training, main-
taining readiness, and improving the quality of life for our citizen-
soldiers. We have some challenges here, but they are not insur-
mountable.

The Army National Guard will continue to provide facilities of
excellence within the resources made available. On behalf of the
more than 400,000 Guardsmen and women who are serving their

(255)

68-354 0—93 9

256

country in hometown communities, I want to thank you and your
committee for your past support of the Army National Guard.
Sir, this concludes my statement.

257
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John R. D'Araujo

record version

STATEMENT BY
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN R. D'ARAUJO, Jr
DIRECTOR. ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
FIRST SESSION. 103RD CONGRESS
APRIL 22, 1993

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNTIL RELEASED BY THE
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE

258

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I am
Brigadier General John R. D'Araujo Jr., Director Army National Guard
and I welcome the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee and
present the Army National Guard's Military Construction Program for
Fiscal Year 1994.

Today, the Army National Guard (ARNG) , 'the Army on Call,' has
taken ' on new responsibilities. Our Guard is now manned with higher
quality soldiers, trained and equipped to a higher degree of
readiness, and modernized to a greater extent than ever before in its
356 year history. The Army's Total Force policy and the resources
provided by Congress have made this progress possible.

The lessons learned and our experiences from participation in
OPERATION DESERT STORM have heightened our intense commitment toward
combat readiness and supporting our 'Citizen Soldiers' and their
families. Today, we can truly say the Army Guard was and is ready to
serve when called upon.

As a result of the programmed decline in defense spending, the
Active and Reserve components are exploring options in which the
'Total Force' can retain and improve its versatility, deployability
and decisive capabilities to meet the defense needs of our nation as
we move into the 21st century.

The ARNG has proven to be, dollar for dollar, cost effective in
performing its State mission of providing military support to civil
authorities and its Federal mission of deterring war or helping to
bring our armed conflicts to decisive victory.

Dramatic improvements to the ARNG over the last ten years have
impacted on the quantity and quality of our facilities and training
Installations. The ARNG continues to receive new and complex high
technology equipment. Modernization of the ARNG is continuing and
accepted with great enthusiasm. However, our facilities and training
assets were built during the previous era which did not require the
sophistication and complexity demanded today and in the future. Our
challenge is to provide the modern facilities and training assets to
meet those demands by:

--Upgrading facilities to support ARNG units with early
deploying missions.

--Modernizing facilities to support new and existing ARNG units

--Reshaping existing facilities for high priority units equipped
with the most modern equipment available to the Total Force.

-2-

259

--For our 'Citizen-Soldier", the modt critical element ia time.

Thi^ meand we mudt provide training facilities closer to the units

and maximize the training opportunities at our existing training
sites. Training opportunities have greatly expanded with the use of

local, regional, national, and joint training areas and centers. The
use of high technology training equipment and training simulators
enhance our abilities to make maximum use of limited resources.

The ABNG has an obligation to provide adequate, safe, and cost
efficient 'Facilities of Excellence* to support the using units.
Facilities which provide for the administration and training of
personnel , and the maintenance and storage of all assigned equipment
are required in order to maintain a high level of readiness to meet
our mission objectives. The ABNG's aging infrastructure and
shrinking real property support provide challenges that will continue
to be conscientiously and prudently managed to provide the best
facilities within available resources.

With Congress furnishing our necessary manpower allocation and
fiscal resources, the ABNG will continue to be a viable and cost
effective force to accomplish our assigned missions.

Accomplishing these missions required a large investment in new
and more complex facilities. The Congress has recognized these needs
and provided the resources to allow ABNG military construction to
expand, replace or construct new facilities, upgrade our training
Sites, and modernize our facilities.

FY 94 MILITABY CONSTBUCTIOM BEQUEST
The ABKG is committed to executing the authorized programs as
expeditiously and efficiently as possible.

Our FT 94 military construction request of tSB.B Million includes
•45.3 Million for Major Construction. *5 Million for Unspecified Minor
Construction, and 40.5 Million for Planning and Design.

Major Construction consists of the following types of projects:

- 10 range projects

7 training site iiiq>rovement projects
4 surface maintenance projects

- 4 Armory projects

1 logistic/supply project
1 aviation support project

-3-

260

FACILITIES SUPPORT FOR COMTIWUED I MPBOVEMEMT IM THE 199ga

For the ARNG to maintain the high State of readiness developed
during the 19808 and early 1990s, it is critical that our manpower,
equipment, and facilities be modernized, maintained, and intensively
managed. Currently, the ARNG provides 43Z of the combat force
structure. 34X combat support and 25X combat service support of the
total Army force. All of these forces will be used in their wartime
missions to support the Commanders-in-Chief (CIHCs) when called upon.

FORCE STRUCTURE:

In recognition of the fact that the future of the ARHG requires
changes to force structure and changing missions, facility requirements
need to be closely evaluated to ensure adequate facilities are
available, and can support unit reorganizations and redistribution of
assets. Changes in End Strength and realignment of the Force Structure
over the past decade severely overtaxed the existing armory inventory,
resulting in a requirement backlog of <767 million to correct
deficiencies at approximately 455 armories. This represents only the
most urgent needs of the total armory backlog because it does not
include requirements to modernize obsolete facilities caused by aging
or constraints to expansion.

READINESS AND EARLY DEPLOYING UNITS:

Adequate facilities are essential to improve training, accommodate
increasing levels and modernized equipment, and readiness.

TRAINING:

—RANGE MODERNIZATION

Our range modernization initiative, incorporating new range
concepts, state-of-the-art target systems and training doctrine
developed by the Army, continues. The ARNG range program modernizes
and standardizes the type and quality of training at our training
Sites. The systems employed at our major training Sites are more
complex and more costly to construct than the older fixed position
ranges. These new ranges permit us to train more troops in less time
and result in improved weapons proficiency. 0\ir goal is to provide
modern ranges that can accommodate the individual soldier through
combined arms training opportunities for our combat units.

The ARNG requires 140 additional live-fire ranges at an estimated
cost of «192 million. These inclxide state-of-the-art Modified Record
Fire, Automated Record Fire. Multipurpose Machine Gun, Tank gunnery,
and Known Distance ranges.

-4-

261

--REGIONAL TRAINING CENTERS

In partnership with the Active Component and the Army Reserve, th<
ARNG has established regional training sites to provide

specialized training not available at home station. These include the
Regional Training Site - Maintenance, the Regional Training Site -
Medical, and other specialized training on a regional basis in order tc
reduce precious time lost to travel and increase efficient use of
limited training time.

EQUIPMENT READINESS:

The Department of the Army continues to modernize the ARNG to
include fielding of the Hawk Air Defense System, Multiple Launch Rocked
System, M- 1 Abrams Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and Heavy Expandet
Mobility Tactical Trucks.

Requirements to maintain and manage this equipment in a go-to-war
state of readiness places greater demands on our surface maintenance
support. We are facing this challenge by systematically improving and
modernizing our maintenance facilities. The new maintenance facilities
require larger workbays to handle the larger equipment, more supply
rooms and expanded equipment parking areas. These improvements enhanct
the quality of life for the full-time work force by providing
efficient, well lighted, properly equipped, safe, and environmentally
sound facilities. New equipment wash platforms and consolidated
storage areas at our training equipment sites will reduce the time
required for turning in the equipment used during weekend and annual
training sessions and comply with environmental requirements.

AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITIES:

Army Aviation modernization is providing the ARNG with new rotary
and fixed winged aircraft to replace our older era aircraft. Adequate
modern facilities are required to support operations, maintenance, and
training of aviation units. Additionally, these facilities permit U8
adequate space to safely park, maintain, and secure our high dollar
aircraft assets and equipment inventory. There are currently 105
existing aviation type facilities and a requirement for a total of 192

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, the Army National Ouard continues to be an
important part of the Total Army Force. Our ability to maintain this
position has been made possible through the resources made available
to us by the Army and Congress. Facilities constructed during the
last decade have played major roles in meeting force structure
changes, accomplishing realistic and quality training, maintaining
readiness and improving the quality-of -lif e for our
'Citizen-Soldiers." Until finalization of ths force drawdown, our
program does not address the problem of construction backlog
reduction, unit mission, nor readiness requirements. However, todays
challenges are not insurmountable and the ARNG will continue to
provide 'Facilities of Excellence' within the resources available.

-5-

262

On behalf of all Army National Guard men and women who are
Serving their coxintry and hometown commvini ties , I wish to express our
appreciation for the efforts of this Committee and your past support
of the ASNG.

This concludes my prepared statement. I appreciate the
opportunity you and your committee have afforded me to speak on
behalf of all Army Guard men and women worldwide and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

-e-

263
Mr. Hefner. General?

Statement of Brigadier General Thomas J. Kilmartin

Genergd Kilmartin. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commit-
tee, it is certainly a pleasure for me to be here today, sir, repre-
senting more than the 600,000 men and women of the Army Re-
serve to present our military construction budget for fiscal year
1994.

This year is a year characterized by many unique factors that
magnify the challenge of meeting our requirements. Our construc-
tion requirements differ from the active Army because of the de-
centralized nature of the Reserve force. During the past decade the
Army Reserve grew very rapidly and received many additional sol-
diers and missions without a corresponding growth in facilities.
And as a result, with only 53 percent of our required facilities, we
stand last among all the Reserve components.

With an average utilization rate of over 200 percent in our exist-
ing facilities, that is a bigger problem, but it is also compounded by
the fact that 25 percent of the existing facilities we have do not
meet Army standards. So we are really behind the parapet here,
and we have a $1.9 billion backlog of known requirements.

Now our fiscal year 1994 request that we have submitted is con-
servative. We have prioritized our requirements. We have five new
Reserve centers We have one addition, an alteration to an area
maintenance shop, and also an addition to an area maintenance
support activity (Marine) in North Carolina. We have one land ac-
quisition and we have the construction of one battle projection
center, which is a simulations facility. The total amount that we
requested is $75 million for major construction.

Second is unspecified minor construction which addresses
projects not otherwise authorized by law and can't exceed $400,000.
It gives us the flexibility for doing things that we can't foresee
right now. It is a modest $2.1 million. Third is planning and design,
which gives us the opportunity to plan and design for future
projects. It is $4.9 million.

So our total request for this year is $82.2 million, which is the
average of our last five-year submission. I wish to thank this Com-
mittee for all the help it has provided the Army Reserve over the
years. That is the end of my statement.

264
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Thomas J. Kilmartin

RECORD VERSION

STATEMENT BY

BG THOMAS J. iOLMARTIN

DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE

OFnCE, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMTITEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

COMMTITEE ON APPROPRUTIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

nRST SESSION, 103RD CONGRESS

APRIL 22, 1993

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE

NOT FOR PUBUCATION UNTIL
RELEASED BY THE HOUSE
APPROPIUATIONS COMMTITEE

265

BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS J. KILMARTIN

Brigadier General Thomas J. Kilmarlin was
assigned on Ociohcr 1, 1092 as the Deputy Chief,
Army Reserve, Washingldn, D.C. He previously
commanded ihe U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center,
St. Louis, Missouri beginning January 1990.

General Kilmarlin served seven years on
active duty following his graduation from the U.S.
Army Military Academy in June 1962. He is a
graduate of the Infantry and Ordnance Officer Basic
Courses and the Ordnance Officer Advance Course.
He also attended both the Airborne and Ranger
Schools. General Kilmarlin began his commissioned
service as platoon leader in the 501st Infantry, 82nd
Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He
remained with the Division until May 1964 serving
also as the Assistant Adjutant, Headquarters, 1st
AGB, 504th Infantry. After completing the Ordnance
Basic Course in July 1964, he held the positions of
Assistant Chief, Depot Maintenance Division; 57th
Engineer Company; and Chief, D&GS Maintenance
Division all in Germany. He then served for one year
as the Team Chief, U.S. Military Mission to the
Congo in Africa from July 1967 to August 1968. In
August 1969, He ended his initial active duty in Fort
Campbell, Kentucky after serving as the Material
Officer, Headquarters, 68th Maintenance Battalion;
Executive Officer, Headquarters, 68th Maintenance
Battalion; and Supply control Officer, 561st Supply &
Service Battalion.

In June 1970, General Kilmartin joined the 79th Army Reserve Command, Colmar, Pennsylvania
and served tours as the Assistant Material Officer and Assistant G-4 Mainlenance/Assistant G-4 until June
1974. He then became the Commander, 157th Support Battalion, 157th Infantry Brigade (Separate) until
September 1979, and he served as Executive Officer of the 157th Infantry Brigade until August 1981.
General Kilmartin was assigned to Reserve Control Group, Reinforcement for a short period from May
1982 until February 1983 but was attached to the 83rd Army Reserve Command, Columbus, Ohio for
training purposes during this period. In February 1983, he was assigned as the Assistant Chief of Staff,
Comptroller, Headquarters, 416th Engineer Command, Chicago, Illinois and then as Chief of Staff from
March 1987 to December 1987. From December 1987 to October 1989 he commanded the 315th Engineer
Group, New Cumberland, PA. He completed his Selected Reserve service as the Chief of Staff. 79th Army
Reserve Command, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania before reporting for active duty in January 1990.

In civilian life. General Kilmartin was the Executive Director, Metropolitan Fiber Systems of
Philadelphia, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This company provided a laser powered, fiber optics
communications network for Fortune 1(X) companies with a digital voice and data alternative to Bell of
Pennsylvania. General Kilmartin directly supervised a staff of five managers and responsibility for an
additional 100 employees. He was employed by the company from its creation in 19SS until he entered
active dutv in January 1990.

266

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

It is a pleasure to be here today, representing the more than 600 thousand men and
women citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve, to present the Army Reserve's military
construction program for Fiscal Year 1994.

In fiscal year 1994, the Army Reserve construction program is characterized by many
imique factors that magnify the challenge of meeting today's requirements. Reserve
construction requirements differ from those of the Active component because of the
decentralized nature of the reserve forces. Army Reserve commimities serve as the initial
location from which we will successfully project and sustain our trained and ready troops to
support the National MiUtary Strategy and serve the broadest possible national security
interests. Facilities must provide a top quaUty environment in which the citizen soldier lives,
works, and trains, as well as a symbol of community pride in the Army. Our Reserve
Centers must be located in or near the civiUan communities where our citizen-soldiers live
and work. Additionally, Reserve centers are generally smaller and more specialized, and
they must be planned and constructed in areas of the country experiencing population
growth. The Army Reserve does not bring recruits to large established bases, rather, we
follow the people and the talent in order to optimize recruitment and mission
accomplishment. Because of migration trends away from the Northeast and Midwest states
to the South and Southwest, locations of our higher priority projects are reflected in the
request we present today.

A large part of the existing Army Reserve physical plant inventory is in need of
repair. There are now about 1,460 centers along with maintenance facilities owned or
leased by the Army Reserve. Included in these facilities are 852 government-owned and 608
leased centers. Many of these facilities were constructed or acquired during an era in which
very little equipment was issued to the Army Reserve, and we had only one or two full-time
personnel working at each Reserve center. Because of the increased equipment storage
requirements, significant overcrowding has resulted at many Army Reserve centers. Our
older facilities continue to serve us well.

Another characteristic of the Army Reserve's facility posture is a $1.9 billion backlog
of known construction requirements. This backlog results from some of the fartors already
mentioned, e.g., age of existing facilities, growth and changes in the imits that occupy them.
In addition, you should be aware that over the period 1982-1992, the Army Reserve
experienced a 20.7 percent growth in end-strength from 257,000 to approximately 302,000.
During the same period there were 1,182 Army Reserve unit activations and conversions.
As a result, 33 percent of the Total Army's corps and above aviation, 97 percent of its civil
affairs strength, 79 percent of its PSYOPS capability, and 24 percent of its special operations
forces are now found in the Army Reserve. The DOD budget which projects the Army
Reserve at 242,000 in 1995 would suggest that-a smaller force would provide some relief for
the construction backlog. This will be the case only at some locations. With the imique
facilities requirements of the PSYOPS, civil affairs and corps aviation units, along with new

267

missions, the construction requirements will not be reduced as much as one would perceive.
Also, as the force is reduced, a logical cost saving action would be to move units from the
older facilities that require extreme maintenance to newer facilities that would be under
utilized because of force reductions.

Since 1982, the dedicated procurement program has brought 1.2 billion dollars' worth
of new equipment (or 35 million major end items) to the Army Reserve. Consequently, we
need to construct more storage and maintenance facilities. All of these factors have
contributed to the large construction backlog. Regarding the future, force structure changes
for the Army Reserve will lead to reductions in the backlog. However, the general need for
new construction will remain great. We realize that rehabilitating or constructing new
facilities everywhere is unrealistic, and that some inefficiencies and overcrowding will
continue to occur. Because of the critical role facilities play in the retention and training
of Reserve soldiers, we will continue to give the improvement of our physical plant our
highest priority.

During the preparation of the U.S. Army Reserve's Long-Range Plan 1993-2023, we
explored new visions on Army Reserve facilities' acquisition and usage. This plan
incorporates our concerns with required Army Reserve facilities, keeping up with distinct
demographic population changes, and the accelerating costs of leasing facilities.

Five long range goals have been developed to improve the facilities posture of the
Army Reserve. Meeting these goals will significantly strengthen our ability to meet the
national military strategy.

(1) Obtain resources and utilize irmovative means to gain economies of scale. Plan
to consolidate units and facilities where feasible. Alter existing government-owned
properties to reduce acquisition costs.

(2) Use portions of Active or Reserve Component assets to establish consolidated
regional support hubs. Evaluate and determine cost savings to be achieved.

(3) Eliminate or reduce significantly the construction backlog by lowering the cost
of facility acquisition. Obtain facilities by utilizing modular design systems, enhanced
automatic building machines and emerging technologies.

(4) Ensure efficient operation, timely maintenance, and safeguards against health
and safety hazards while concurrently providing creature comforts and aesthetic qualities
that help attract and retain young men and women to serve as "citizen soldiers."

(5) Develop a comprehensive program of maintenance and repair that no only
responds to routine maintenance needs, but seeks to improve all aspects of the environment
in which the soldier serves.

268

Regardless of which scenario occurs, it is readily apparent that with approximately
58 percent of required facilities in the inventory, the Army Reserve requires new initiatives
to obtain required facilities.

Based upon the Army's commitment to help resolve Army Reserve facility shortage
problems, we have been working closely with the Total Army Basing Study team reviewing
proposed base closure and realignment alternatives. We also are working with the Air and
Navy staff to insure that our requirements are incorporated into their closure and
realignment implementation plans.

We also work each year with the Commanders of U.S. Forces Command, U.S. Army
Pacific, and U.S. Army Special Operations Command to develop and establish future year
construction programs priorities. We have also been working closely with the U.S. Army
Reserve Command, located in Atlanta, Georgia. The U.S. Army Reserve Command has
been exceptional in enabling us to manage our military construction program and to
optimize use of available financial resources. The Reserve Command helps us consider
what facilities' requirements are needed to adequately support those units in both today's
force structure and tomorrow's. As specific projects are developed, we work closely with the
imits involved to ensure the facilities meet their immediate needs and provide for future
expansion.

FY 94 REQUEST: The construction program we present today for your consideration
reflects constrained resources and represents our highest priority projects. The Military
Construction, Army Reserve program consists of Major Construction, Unspecified Minor
Construction, and Planning and Design. The FY 94 program includes:

(1) Major Construction! which provides for new construction, acquisition, expansion,
rehabilitation, or conversion of facilities for the training and administration of the Army
Reserve. This request includes construction of fiy£ new Reserve centers, one
addition/alteration to a Reserve center having an organizational maintenance shop and an
area maintenance support activity (Marine) facility, one land acquisition, and construction
of fine battle projection center. The requested amount for Major Construction is $75.2
millioiL

(2) Unspecified Minor Construction! provides for projects not otherwise authorized
by law, having a funded cost not to exceed $400,000. Unspecified Minor construction
includes construction, alteration or conversion of permanent or temporary facilities. This
program provides the means to accomplish projects that are not now identified, but that may
arise during FY 94 to satisfy critical, unforeseen mission requirements, e.g., the arrival and
redistribution of equipment. Projects must also be imdertaken on an urgent basis to comply
with state and federal environmental laws. The requested amount for Unspecified Minor
Construction is a modest $2.1 millioa

(3) Planning and Design! provides for design of necessary construction projects that
support the Reserve mission. Activities in this category include preparation of engineer

269

drawings and specifications necessary to support construction projects of the Military
Construction, Army Reserve, (MCAR), program. To adequately provide for future MCAR
and FY 94 minor construction and design, $4.9 million is requested for the Planning and
Design program.

The total fiscal year 1994 request I have just presented is for the authorization

and appropriation of $82.2 million, which includes Major Construction, Unspecified Minor
Construction, and Planning and Design. If it is not provided, facilities beyond their useful
life will continue to deteriorate. Security problems, low retention, and lost training space
are the by-products of poor facilities. Failure to provide funding at this level now will
guarantee greater costs later.

I would now like to talk about another important source of resources in support of
the Army Reserve facilities, the Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR)
authorization; specifically, the resources for Real Property maintenance Activities (RPMA)
and Environmental Compliance.

Real Property Maintenance Activities: The replacement value of all of our facilities
exceeds $3.7 billion dollars. Their average age is over 30 years. As stewards of the
taxpayers, we proudly take care of these facilities using the limited resources in our
(OMAR) Real Property Maintenance Activity account, as authorized and appropriated by
Congress. With the dollars from this appropriation, the Army Reserve accomplishes an
astronomical task of operating facilities which includes repairing and performing preventive
maintenance on them. Our facility managers at the Reserve centers are to be commended
for the outstanding job they do keeping the centers operational. Even though they are able
to keep the facilities open, we are falling behind in maintaining them. The Backlog of
Maintenance and Repair is continuing to rise. The BMAR was $93.4 million at the
beginning of Fiscal Year 1993; it will be almost $121.5 million at the end of fiscal year 1993.

Environniental Compliance: Along with the increasing demand for maintenance
funding, environmental compUance requirements under the Qean Water Act have placed
demands on the resources authorized and appropriated for the Army reserve. The
environmental compliance funding requirements have increased from $5.5 million in FY 90
to $11.6 million for FY 91; to $19.0 million for FY 92. FY 93 requirements are expected
to exceed $38 million. The environmental compliance requirements caimot be ignored. We
cannot seek exemption, since environmental issues have high visibility and the Army reserve
adheres strongly to the good neighbor policy.

SUMMARY

You have helped us build fine facilities. It seems a shame to construct multi-million
dollar facilities and allow them to fall into ruin for lack of maintenance funding. Such an
investment in maintaining facilities is prudent and must be done if we are to use federal

270

funds effectively. As a good neighbor in each of the over 1300 communities across the
country, the Army reserve cannot and will not fail in complying with environmental laws
even if sacrifices have to be made.

In summary, while the uncertainties that exist in the world today will present
challenges in the years ahead, I remain entirely confident that the men and women of the
Army Reserve, when they are properly resourced, and trained, can and will continue to do
their jobs and accomplish their missions. In these times of tight budgets, these citizen-
soldiers, by virtue of their being part time, are the best bargain in the Department of
Defense. Congress has our gratitude for the support it has given and continues to give the
Army Reserve. Thank you.

271

Chairman Hefner. Thank you, gentlemen. Your entire state-
ments will be part of the record. If you all will remain here, we
may call upon you after we finish with the Air Force and the
Navy, then if people have questions.

Our next panel is Rear Admiral J.T. Natter, U.S. Director of the
Naval Reserve, and Brigadier General C.W. Reinke, United States
Marine Corps, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff of Installations and
Logistics. Gentleman, your entire statements will be made part of
the record, and you can summarize and proceed any way you see
fit.

Admiral?

Statement of Rear Admiral John T. Natter

Admiral Natter. Good afternoon, sir. I am pleased to be before
you today to present the fiscal year 1994 Military Construction,
Naval Reserve budget request.

The Naval Reserve has taken on the current challenges created
by unprecedented changes in the world political climate as well as
declining defense budget and proposed base closures, and it is
making the necessary adjustments to insure that a flexible and ca-
pable force is ready to respond to the needs of the Navy and the
Nation.

Since funding for our program has been reduced compared to
fiscal year 1984 to 1991, we are only requesting the most critically
needed projects. Our fiscal year 1994 Military Construction Naval
Reserve budget request of $20.6 million represents 11 projects with
an average cost of less than $2 million per project. In order to
make a smaller budget go further, we have significantly reduced
the average cost per project from previous budget submissions. We
ask for your support to approve the low level of funding that has
been requested in this submission.

I would like to thank the committee for its excellent support of
our previous budget requests and ask for your approval of the
projects which comprise this budget submission.

This concludes my oral statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions or provide any additional information.

272
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral John T. Natter

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL
RELEASED BY THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

STATEMENT OF

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN T. NATTER, U.S. NAVAL RESERVE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

NAVAL RESERVE

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

OF THE

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

22 APRIL 1993

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL
RELEASED BY THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

273

Rear Admiral

John T. Natter, USNR
Deputy Director of Naval Reserve

Rear Admiral Natter became Deputy Director of Naval Reserve in September, 1992.

Bom in New York August 14, 1939, RADM Natter was reared in Trussville,
Alabama. He was graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was commissioned
an Ensign in 1962.

RADM Natter served aboard the USS HOPEWELL (DD-681), USS TULARE
(LKA-112), Special Operations Group San Diego, and as officer in charge of Fast
Torpedo Boats, Subic Bay, Phillippines and Danang, Vietnam.

RADM Natter's Reserve assignments include Commander, Naval Reserve Readiness
Command, Region TEN in New Orleans; Commander, Naval Inshore Undersea
Warfare Group TWO; Commanding Officer, MIUW 1210; SACLANT Det. 109, and
numerous Surface Reserve units; Inspector General, Naval Reserve Readiness Com-
mand, Region NINE; and Officer in Charge, Naval Reserve National Pistol Team.

During his career, RADM Natter has been awarded the Legion of Merit with a gold ,
star; Navy Commendation Medal; Navy Achievement Medal; Combat Action
Ribbon; Presidential Unit Citation; Meritorious Unit Commendation; Vietnam
Campaign; Excellence in Competition (Gold), and various other unit and campaign
medals.

RADM Natter is married to the former Nancy C. Sheetz of San Diego, California.
They have three daughters: Marianne, Jacqueline, and Katherine.

274

Mister Chairman and members of the Committee. I am pleased to
appear before you to present the Fiscal Year 1994 Military
Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR) Budget request.

The Naval Reserve has taken on the current challenges created
by unprecedented changes in the world political climate as well as
declining defense budgets and is making the necessary adjustments
to ensure that a flexible and capable force is ready to respond to
the needs of the Navy and the Nation. Operations Desert
Shield/Storm confirmed that the Department's "Total Force" Policy
is a very workable and cost effective way to support major military
operations. Additionally, the Naval Reserve has been increasing
the amount of contributory support it provides to the Active Navy
as a percentage of the total number of mandays that Selected
Reservists (SELRES) work each year. In FY 92, the Naval Reserve
provided the much sought after contributory support to the Fleets.
Some of the services the Naval Reserve provided to the Active Navy
included:

- Fleet logistic support (VR) squadrons flying the C-9 and
C-130T aircraft transporting vitally needed cargo and equipment to
Navy bases, aircraft and ships all over the world.

- Reserve Seabees performing maintenance, repair and minor
construction projects.

- Medical personnel providing their needed skills to Navy
Hospitals during weekend drills.

- Reserve personnel providing additional manpower at supply
depots to minimize delay in processing of vital requisitions.

275

The Naval Reserve is exploring new ways of providing
contributory support to the Navy in order to reduce operating costs
while still providing a trained force ready to perform its
mobilization functions.

There are four new mission projects in the FY 94 Military
Construction, Naval Reserve Budget request. Three of these
projects deal with Reserve Seabees taking on an expanded role of
assisting shore installations battle an ever increasing backlog of
facilities maintenance and repair work (BMAR) . The projects will
be located in areas that have large Navy infrastructures (i.e.
Newport, San Diego and Pearl Harbor) and will provide Reserve
Seabees with the shop and equipment space needed to perform
maintenance and repair projects that would otherwise go
unaccomplished because of budgetary constraints. All three
projects are relatively low cost ($1 million or less) but will
provide huge benefits by allowing a portion of existing Reserve
Seabee assets to focus on the huge BMAR problem at Navy shore
installations.

The remaining new mission project will provide adec[uate hangar
and maintenance space to support the relatively recent move of
reserve squadron VAQ-209 (EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft) from
Naval Air Station Norfolk to Naval Air Facility Washington, a
tenant of Andrews Air Force Base, in order to take advantage of the
excellent demographics of the Washington DC Area.

Since funding for our program has been reduced as compared to
FY's 86-91, we are only requesting the most critically needed

276

projects. Our Fiscal Year 1994 Military Construction, Naval
Reserve budget request of $20.6 million represents 11 projects with
an average cost of less than $2 million per project. In order to
make a smaller budget go farther, we have significantly reduced the
average cost per project from previous budget submissions.

The condition of our facilities and need for replacement
mirror the active Navy, but on a smaller scale. All Military
Construction, Naval Reserve projects in the FY 1994 program are
related to replacement or upgrade of existing facilities, support
the reduction of facilities maintenance and repair backlog of the
Navy or will more efficiently utilize existing facilities. Within
the Naval Reserve, we have maintained a reasonable balance between
our surface program, which include 215 Reserve centers, and our air
program with its six naval air stations and 17 other Reserve air
sites.

The Naval Reserve currently has a construction backlog of
approximately $950 million, a critical backlog of maintenance and
repair work of $90 million and a non-critical backlog of
approximately $100 million. We maintain a physical plant valued at
$3 billion. Although we expect the value of the physical plant to
decrease due to a reduction in infrastructure being driven by a
smaller Navy and shrinking budgets, it will not decrease nearly as
much as the size of the reduction in construction funding in the
past few years. We ask for your support to approve the low
level of funding that has been requested in this budget submission.

Our ability to recruit, train and retain top quality personnel

277

is the key to maintaining readiness in the Naval Reserve. Our most
important resource — people — req[uires facilities that are safe,
attractive and provide a proper learning environment. In this
regard, the projects requested today will provide them with highly
effective training, operations and maintenance spaces that will
improve morale and quality of life as well as increase the
effectiveness of contributory support.

I would again like to thank this committee for its excellent
support of our previous budget requests and ask for your approval
of the projects which comprise this budget submission.

This concludes my statement Mister Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions and to provide additional information.

278

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, Admiral. General Reinke you may pro-
ceed.

Statement of Brigadier General Claude W. Reinke

General Reinke. Mr. Chairman, pleasure to be here today. The
Marine Corps thanks you for your continued support.

Our program is very small. As you know, we only have one
project for $1 million this year. It is very important to us, sir. And
we appreciate your support in the past for all you have done. We
would ask for your support for our program this year. Thank you
very much

279
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Claude W. Reinke

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED
BY THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

STATEMENT OF

BRIGADIER GENERAL CLAUDE W. REINKE

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND SERVICES DIVISION

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF

INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS

BEFORE THE

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

CONCERNING THE

FISCAL YEAR 1994 RESERVE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

ON
22 APRIL 1993

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED
BY THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

280

UNITED STXTES MARINE CORPS

HEADQUARTERS MARINE CORPS, DIVISION OF PUBUC AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20380, (703) 614-4309

BRIGADIER GENERAL CLAUDE W. REINKE, USMC

Brigadier General Cbude W. Reinke is the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff
for Installations and Logistics, (FacilitiesX Headquarters Marine Corps,
Washington, D.C.

General Reinke was bom on Nov. 18, 1942, in Bay City, Texas. After com-
pleting the Platoon Leaders Class program and graduating ftum Sam
Houston State College with a B.S. degree, he was commissioned a second
lieutenant in the Marine Corps in May 1965.

In 1967, after completing The Basic School at Quantico,Va., he served as
a Platoon Commander and Company Executive Officer in the Sth Marine
Division, and as a Company Commander in the In&ntry Training Regi-
ment at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Ordered overseas. General Reinke served a tour as Company Commander
with the 3d Marine Division in Vietnam. He then returned to The Basic
School, for duty as a Staff Platoon Commander.

His subsequent assignments have included duties as the Marine Officer In-
structor, NROTC Unit at the University of Minnesota; Platoon Tactics In-
structor at The Basic School; Company Commander and BattaUon S-4 with

the 3d BattaUon, 4th Marines on Okinawa; Parade Commander and the Executive Officer of MCI at Marine Barracks,
Washington, D.C; the Assistant Naval Attache in Athens, Greece; G-3 Operations Officer, 1st Marine Division; G-3
of the Sth Marine Expeditionary Brigade; Commander of the 2d BattaUon, 9th Marines; Head of the Eastern Regional
Branch, Plans Division, Headquarters Marine Corps; and Commanding Officer of the Officer Candidates School,
Quantico.

In July 1989, he assumed duty as the Chief of Staff, 3d Marine Division. While serving in this capacity, he was selected
in December for promotion to brigadier general. Upon advancement to his present grade on July 2, 1990, he was assigned
duties as Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp SD. Butler/Deputy Commander, Marine Corps Bases,
Japan. General Reinke assumed his current assignment on Aug. 24, 1992.

General Reinke has attended the Amphibious War&re School and the Command and Staff CoUege, Quantico; the
Foreign Service Institute in Washington, D.C. where he completed modem Greek language training and the Defense
InteUigence School's Attache Course. In 1985, he graduated ft-om the National War CoUege, Washington, D.C, where
he was also a Senior FeUow.

His personal decorations inchide: the Legion of Merit; Bronze Sur Medal with Combat '^'■, Meritorious Service Medal;
and the Combat Action Ribbon.

Brigadier General Reinke is married to the former Abby Holley of LaCrosse, Wisconsin. They have five children:
Kathryn, Kari, KeUi, Kati and Christopher.

(Revised Dec. 3. 1992 HQMQ

281

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

I AM BRIGADIER GENERAL CLAUDE W. REINKE, DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND
SERVICES DIVISION, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS DEPARTMENT,
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY TO REVIEW THE MARINE CORPS MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994.

THE MARINE CORPS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING
PROGRAMS CONSTITUTE APPROXIMATELY 1.3 AND 1.5 PERCENT,
RESPECTIVELY, OF THE TOTAL MARINE CORPS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
1994. THESE FUNDS FINANCE BOTH NEW CONSTRUCTION AND
REVITAUZATION OF FACILITIES TO MEET OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR MARINES, COMPLY WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR
OUR PERSONNEL.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

OUR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST FOR $108 MILUON IN HSCAL YEAR
1994 PROVIDES THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE MARINE CORPS'
MOST IMMEDIATE NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, IMPROVE
SAFETY, PROVIDE SOME QUALITY OF UFE FEATURES, AND SUPPORT A

282

LIMITED AMOUNT OF IMPROVED OPERATIONAL AND TRAINING CAPABILITIES
AT OUR INSTALLATIONS. THE FISCAL YEAR 1994 PROPOSED PROGRAM IS
SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE FISCAL YEAR 1993 PROGRAM; HOWEVER,
WE MUST REMEMBER THAT FISCAL YEAR 1993'S BUDGET WAS ABNORMALLY
LOW DUE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IMPOSED MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION PAUSE. THE REDUCTION FROM THE 1990 LEVEL OF $158
MILLION SHOULD NOT, HOWEVER, BE INTERPRETED AS A DECLINING NEED
FOR FACILITIES. RATHER, IT IS A RESULT OF DIFFICULT BUDGET DECISIONS:
DECISIONS THAT IN TURN REFLECT THE KEEN COMPETITION FOR SCARCE
RESOURCES. ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES WE FACE IN THE CURRENT
RESOURCE CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT IS TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN
REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE WHILE DOWNSIZING THE MARINE CORPS.

THESE DIFFICULT BUDGET DECISIONS HAVE REQUIRED THE MARINE CORPS TO
CONCENTRATE ITS TRADITIONALLY LOW BUDGETARY RESOURCES ON THE
ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS. WE HAVE GIVEN PRIORITY TO ESSENTIALS SUCH AS
FAMILY HOUSING UPKEEP, MINIMUM FIELD TRAINING DAYS FOR INFANTRY
BATTALIONS, RECRUIT TRAINING, AND MANPOWER SALARIES. THIS HAS LEFT

283

us WITH REDUCED FLEXIBIUTY FOR OTHER IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS SUCH
AS PROCUREMENT AND NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THOUGH FACED WITH THESE CONSTRAINTS, OUR RSCAL YEAR 1994 NEW
CONSTRUCTION REQUEST OF $108 MILUON IS REFLECTIVE OF OUR
CONTINUING EFFORT TO SUPPORT MARINE CORPS MISSION REQUIREMENTS,
PROVIDE FACILITIES THAT PROMOTE PERSONNEL AND MATERIEL READINESS,
ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY, AND SUPPORT THE QUALITY OF UFE NECESSARY
TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN THE DEDICATED MEN AND WOMEN WHO MAKE UP
YOUR MARINE CORPS. TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF CONSTRAINED
RESOURCES, WE REMAIN COMMITTED TO TAKING CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE
BEFORE BUILDING NEW.

Milcon Funding

(• Million*)

«00-

260:
200:

t4t

210

200

171

«•

160

ISOt

120

■ ••ISA

■

»•

100-

■

SO"

A .

UMMMMf7MM000102 0S»4

FISCAL YEAR

Ctiarti

284

CHART 1 DEPICTS OUR PROGRAM SINCE 1982 WHEN THE MARINE CORPS
ASSUMED RESOURCE SPONSORSHIP FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. THE
SHARP DECLINE CAUSED BY THE 1993 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PAUSE HAS
BEEN REVERSED IN FISCAL YEAR 1994. ROOM WAS MADE IN FISCAL YEAR
1994 FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS, SUCH AS THE BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
AT MCAS, BEAUFORT, SC, AND A NEW LANDFILL AT MCB. CAMP LEJEUNE,
NC, THAT HAVE BEEN DELAYED BY FISCAL CONSTRAINTS STARTING IN 1991.

Milcon Backlog - FY94 - $2.7 Billion

Opa I Training

MalntMiane*

RDTU

Supply a Sterao*

Mailnlatratlva

Quallly of Llla

Ullllitaa

Envlronaiantal

RmI Eatata

I^^^BH^HHi^^l^^H^^Vj see

4U
402

'W '* :

^■■v

27S

iP^^^^HII^^H^^^^^^^Ij 634

298

3oa :

• '

(• Mllllena)

Chart2

CHART 2 SHOWS OUR $2.7 BILUON BACKLOG IN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
THIS BACKLOG HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM $3.4 BILUON BECAUSE MARINE

285

CORPS ACTIVITIES HAVE REEVALUATED THEIR PROJECT REQUESTS AND
MADE HARD DEaSIONS IN UGHT OF REDUCED FORCE STRUCTURE AND
INCREASED HSCAL CONSTRAINTS. THOUGH THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
BACKLOG WILL PROBABLY NEVER DISAPPEAR, WE HOPE TO SEE A CONTINUED
DECUNE AS MARINE CORPS REQUIREMENTS ARE REHNED.

New Construction Funding by Categories

Land

UtIHtiM

QOL

AdMta/ROTtl

•«pp.amor.

■■

0»« a IValaliig

M 100 160 too too

(•MMItoiwI

CtwrtS

CHART 3. DEPICTS BY CATEGORY, OUR HISTORICAL MILfFARY
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS AND COMPARES THEM TO OUR
RSCAL YEAR 1994 REQUEST. FORTUNATELY, THE MARINE CORPS' PROPOSED
PROGRAM IS MORE BALANCED THAN IN RSCAL YEAR 1993 AND INCLUDES
PROJECTS ADDRESSING SOME OF THE MORE CRmCAL MAINTENANCE,
SUPPLY AND STORAGE FAaUTIES DEFiaENCtES AND PROPOSES A LARGER,

286

HEALTHIER PERCENTAGE OF THE PROGRAM TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING AND QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECTS. WE CONTINUE
TO FACE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE
PROGRAM TO FUND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROJECTS.

CONGRESS HAS LONG EXPRESSED TREMENDOUS INTEREST IN IMPROVING
BACHELOR HOUSING FOR ALL SERVICES. BETWEEN 1980 AND 1993 THE
MARINE CORPS HAS SUPPORTED THOSE WISHES BY INVESTING $657 MILLION
IN NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR BACHELOR HOUSING. THIS INVESTMENT
IMPROVED THE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR OVER 38 THOUSAND MARINES.
ALTHOUGH SOME NEW BACHELOR HOUSING CONSTRUCTION IS STILL
NEEDED, THE MARINE CORPS' CURRENT PLAN IS TO INVEST PRIMARILY IN THE
UPGRADE AND MODERNIZATION OF OUR CURRENT INVENTORY.

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT IN THE PAST REFLECTS A DEEP APPRECIATION FOR
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACIUTIES AND WARFIGHTING CAPABILITY.
MODERN, HIGH QUALITY FACIUTIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY TO
IMPROVED MISSION CAPABILITY. PRODUCTIVITY. READINESS AND
SUSTAINABILITY. THE FISCAL YEAR 1994 NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUEST
FURTHERS OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR ULTIMATE GOAL: FACILITIES OF THE
HIGHEST QUAUTY THAT FULLY SUPPORT Ml OF OUR MISSION
REQUIREMENTS.

287

FAMILY HOUSING

THE MARINE CORPS HAS MADE A COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY
AND QUANTITY OF OUR FAMILY HOUSING ASSETS. IMPROVEMENTS ARE
BEING ACHIEVED BY EMPHASIZING WHOLE HOUSE REVITALIZATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS SUCH AS ROADS AND
UTILITIES. THE PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 REFLECTS THIS
EMPHASIS BY INCLUDING A WHOLE HOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT AT MCB,
CAMP LEJEUNE, NC. THIS APPROACH IS IN KEEPING WITH OUR STRATEGY TO
MAINTAIN QUAUTY FACIUTIES BEFORE DIVERTING RESOURCES TO NEW
CONSTRUCTION. OUR FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM CANNOT
KEEP PACE WITH THE COST OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.

OUR PROJECTED HOUSING DEFICIT HAS REACHED 9,854 HOMES, WITH 95
PERCENT OF THIS TOTAL IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. BASED ON THE MARINE
CORPS PRIORITY TO MAINTAIN OUR CURRENT INVENTORY, NO NEW FAMILY
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION IS IN THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1994 BUDGET.
HOWEVER, NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ANTICIPATED TO BE PROGRAMMED IN
SUBSEQUENT BUDGETS AT OUR TWO INSTALLATIONS WITH THE LARGEST
DEHCrrS, MCB, CAMP PENDLETON AND MCAGCC, TWENTYNINE PALMS.

THOUGH THIS MAY SEEM AN AUSTERE BEGINNING TO OUR COMMITMENT TO
IMPROVE THE QUAUTY OF LIFE FOR OUR MARINE FAMILIES, LET ME ASSURE

288

YOU WE ARE TAKING POSITIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO ENSURE A VIABLE,
LONG TERM PROGRAM IS SUSTAINED. FIRST. WE ARE DEVELOPING A FAMILY
HOUSING CAMPAIGN PLAN WHICH WILL IDENTIFY AND PROJECT
REQUIREMENTS AND DEFICIENCIES OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS. THE PLAN
WILL SERVE AS A TOOL TO DETERMINE PRIORITIES AND PROGRAM
EFFECTIVELY.

SECONDLY, WE HAVE INITIATED A MORE RIGOROUS PROGRAM OF FORMAL
EVALUATIONS AND ANALYSES TO ENSURE THAT ONLY THE MOST COST
EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE HOUSING PROJECTS ARE PROGRAMMED. PRIOR
TO DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS TO REVITALIZE UNITS, THE
PROJECTS IN OUR FISCAL YEAR 1994 PROGRAM UNDERWENT AN EXTENSIVE
EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO
ENSURE THAT THE MARINE CORPS MAKES A SOUND INVESTMENT. BECAUSE
MUCH OF OUR INVENTORY HAS BRICK OR BLOCK EXTERIOR FINISHES WITH
SOUD STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS COMMON TO 1950'S ERA CONSTRUCTION,
OUR UNITS MAKE EXCELLENT CANDIDATES FOR REVITAUZATION.

IN ADDITION TO AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, THE MARINE CORPS HAS REVISED
ITS APPROACH TO PROJECT DESIGN. SAMPLE HOUSES WITHIN THE OVERALL
PROJECT ARE REVITALIZED AND USED TO TEST DESIGN CONCEPTS AND
DETERMINE REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF LARGE
WHOLE HOUSE REVITAUZATION PROJECTS. THIS PROCEDURE AFFORDS
HOUSING DIRECTORS, ENGINEERS, AND CONTRACTORS THE OPPORTUNITY TO

289

CORRECT ERRORS AND MAKE CHANGES ON A SMALL SCALE, RATHER THAN
BEING FACED WITH A LARGE CHANGE ORDER ON A MAJOR CONTRACT.

Family Housing Total Program

($ Millions)

aeo

200

160

100

189.2

1612

|y^<v\^V^V^/ IkVV^VV^^' ^VVVV^V^^/ ^V^^V^V^/ ^V<.V^$$$37^

T^*- ■■■■■,■■■■■ ■■■■■!■

81 82 OS

FISCAL YEAR

^ OPS AND MAINT
^ LEASINO

^Z21 NEW CONSTRUCTION
^ IMPR AND DESIQN

Chart 4

CHART 4 DEPICTS THE FAMILY HOUSING BUDGET SINCE FISCAL YEAR 1990.
IN FISCAL YEAR 1994 WE ARE PROPOSING $23.7 MILLION FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS. ADDITIONALLY, OTHER REVITALIZATION PROJECTS WILL PROVIDE
MUCH NEEDED UPGRADES TO FAMILY HOUSING. REPAIR PROJECTS INCLUDE
EXTERIOR REPAIRS TO 60 HOMES AT MCAS, CHERRY POINT, NC, AND
REPAIRS TO AN OFFICE AND SELF HELP WAREHOUSE AT MCSA, KANSAS CITY,
MO.

290

OUR FISCAL YEAR 1994 PROPOSED PROGRAM CONTAINS $99.2 MILLION TO
FUND DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS.

IN OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE THE MARINE CORPS WITH ADEQUATE FAMILY
HOUSING WITH DECLINING RESOURCES, WE HAVE FOCUSED ATTENTION IN
TWO ADDITIONAL AREAS, THE DOMESTIC LEASING AND PUBLIC-PRIVATE
VENTURE (PPV) PROGRAMS.

WE ARE PROPOSING EXPANSION OF DOMESTIC LEASING AT MCRD, SAN
DIEGO, CA, FROM 75 UNITS IN FISCAL YEAR 1993 TO 125 UNITS IN FISCAL
YEAR 1994. WHILE WE DO NOT INTEND THE DOMESTIC LEASING PROGRAM
TO SOLVE OUR LONG-TERM HOUSING SHORTAGE IN SAN DIEGO, IT IS AN
IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF OUR PROGRAM TO SUPPORT OUR ENLISTED
MARINES WHOSE DUTIES, SUCH AS DRILL INSTRUCTORS, REQUIRE CLOSE IN,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THEIR RIGOROUS WORKING SCHEDULES.

IN FISCAL YEAR 1993 ENUSTED FAMILIES OCCUPIED 423 OF THE 600 UNITS
PROVIDED BY THE 801 LEASE PROJECT AT MCAGCC, TWENTYNINE PALMS,
CA. THIS PROJECT PROVIDES HOUSING, THROUGH THE USE OF PUBUC-

291

PRIVATE VENTURE CAPITAL. THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED BY
FAMILY HOUSING NEW CONSTRUCTION. OUR FISCAL YEAR 1994 BUDGET
INCLUDES $6.1 MILLION FOR THE ANNUAL 801 LEASE COSTS.

GROUND WAS BROKEN ON 9 DECEMBER 1991 FOR 276 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS
FOR THE SECTION 802 PROJECT AT MCAS, KANEOHE BAY, HI. AS YOU ARE
AWARE, THIS PROGRAM PROVIDES A BUILDING SITE AND GUARANTEES AN
OCCUPANCY RATE TO A PRIVATE CONCERN IN RETURN FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF QUARTERS. I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THE HOMES CONSTRUCTED WERE
OF OUTSTANDING QUALITY AND THE PROJECT IS FULLY OCCUPIED TO DATE.

THE CRITICAL HOUSING SHORTAGES AND HIGH COSTS OUR FAMILIES FACE IN
CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII MAKE THESE LEASING PROGRAMS ATTRACTIVE
ELEMENTS OF OUR PROGRAM.

THE MARINE CORPS AND THE CONGRESS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THE VITAL
LINK BETWEEN HIGH QUAUTY, SECURE FAMILY HOUSING AND MARINE CORPS
READINESS. WE CONTINUE TO PLACE OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY ON
MAINTAINING AND STRENGTHENING THAT LINK, AND OUR FISCAL YEAR 1994
FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM REFLECTS THAT PHILOSOPHY.

292

MARINE CORPS RESERVE

MARINE CORPS RESERVE TRAINING CENTERS ARE LOCATED IN 195 SITES
SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO. THE MARINE
CORPS OWNS THE FACILITIES AT 23 SITES, HAS TENANT FACILITIES AT AN
ADDITIONAL 41 SITES, AND HAS COMMERCIAL LEASES FOR FACILITIES AT 7
OTHERS. THE REMAINING SITES ARE SHARED WITH EITHER RESERVE
COMPONENTS OF THE NAVY, THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, THE AIR GUARD;
OR THEY ARE COLLOCATED WITH OTHER MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
OUR HRST RECRUITING DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS IN GARDEN CITY, NY. FIVE
OF THE SHARED SITES ARE ON ACTIVE MARINE CORPS BASES AND THREE
OTHERS ARE ON ACTIVE MARINE CORPS AIR STATIONS.

THE MARINE CORPS RESERVE HAS DEMONSTRATED ITS CAPABILITY TO
AUGMENT AND REINFORCE OUR ACTIVE FORCES IN TIMES OF CRISIS, BUT THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS THIS CAPABILITY, UKE EVERYONE ELSE'S,
IS AGING. OUR CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG CONTINUES TO INCREASE.

CHART 5 SHOWS THE FUNDING PRORLE FOR MARINE CORPS RESERVE
EXCLUSIVE USE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SINCE 1981. THE DECUNE IN
FUNDING SINCE 1990 DOES NOT REFLECT A DECUNING REQUIREMENT IN
MARINE CORPS RESERVE PROJECTS, ONLY RSCAL REALITIES. THE
ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE SHOP IN OUR 1994 RESERVE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM WILL ADDRESS AN URGENT REQUIREMENT FOR SHOP SPACE AT

293

MCNR Funding History for

Marine Corps Reserve Exclusive MILCON

\9 MillloiMI

14-

12-

10-

1168

10.6

r. 1

•MS

. 6.6

4.7S

4.7!

•4.87 >-^

4 '
2-

ta-

0.36^1

•I-

81 82 83 S4 88 86 67 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

FISCAL YEAR

rr M iMCLUon eoManisaioNAL aoo ton MAiinrm idomiim, avm

Charts

DAM NECK, UTTLE CREEK, VA.

BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNIVIEIMT

THE 1991 BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT
THE MARINE CORPS CLOSE MCAS, TUSTIN, CA, AND RELOCATE TENANT
ACTIVITIES TO CAMP PENDLETON AND A NEW AIR STATION TO BE
CONSTRUCTED AT THE MARINE CORPS AIR GROUND COMBAT CENTER AT
TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA. TO FINANCE THE MOVE, THE COMMISSION
DIRECTED THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SEEK AUTHORIZATION FROM
THE CONGRESS IN EITHER FISCAL YEAR 1992 OR 1993 FOR A FAIR-MARKET
EXCHANGE OF THE EXISTING AIR STATION - WHEREBY A BUYER WOULD

294

PROVIDE REQUIRED REPLACEMENT FACILITIES IN EXCHANGE FOR THE TUSTIN
LAND. THIS WAS REQUESTED AS PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1993 BUDGET
REQUEST, BUT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED.

PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR THE REPLACEMENT FACILITIES AND THE ACTUAL
CLOSURE OF THE TUSTIN AIR STATION HAVE BEEN IN PROGRESS FOR ABOUT
ONE YEAR. IF ACCEPTED AS PROPOSED, HOWEVER, THE 1993
RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE PROPOSED
IMPLEMENTATION.

THE MARINE CORPS FULLY SUPPORTS THE SECRETARY'S
RECOMMENDATIONS. THOSE PERTAINING TO THE MARINE CORPS WERE
BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
WHICH WERE JOINTLY DEVELOPED BY THE MARINE CORPS AND NAVY
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S BASE STRUCTURE EVALUATION COMMITTEE.
IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS ARE INEVITABLE IN THESE COMPLICATED AND
FAR REACHING ACTIONS. THESE CONCERNS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND
ADDRESSED AS APPROPRIATE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

SUMMARY

MR. CHAIRMAN, IN SUMMARY. PERMIT ME TO EMPHASIZE OUR APPRECIATION
FOR YOUR COMMITTEE'S CONTINUED SUPPORT. THE MILITARY

295

CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1994, WHILE AUSTERE, REPRESENT THE MARINE CORPS ASSESSMENT
OF REQUIREMENTS AND RELATIVE PRIORITIES NEEDED TO BEST CARRY OUT
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO YOU AND TO OUR NATION. OUR PROGRAMS ARE
CAREFULLY STRUCTURED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY EFFICIENCY AND
ARE THE RESULT OF A REASONED AND THOROUGH DECISION PROCESS BASED
ON OUR BEST JUDGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE. THIS REQUEST IS
CONSIDERED TO BE THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR EFFICIENT
MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT AND PLACES THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ON THE
READINESS OF OUR FORCES. WE BELIEVE OUR PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE NATIONAL MIUTARY STRATEGY, FISCAL REALITIES AND THE
GUIDANCE OF THE CONGRESS. OUR FISCAL YEAR 1994 REQUEST WILL
ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SOME MODERNIZED FACILITIES
INTENDED TO PROMOTE A HIGH LEVEL OF OPERATIONAL READINESS AND
ENHANCE OUR WARRGHTING CAPABIUTY WHILE ATTRACTING QUALITY
MARINES AND SAILORS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT, I
WILL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON OUR
FISCAL YEAR 1994 BUDGET REQUEST.

296

Mr. Hefner. Anything that small has got to be suspect. Can you
make it a little bigger so we can cut it back some?

General Reinke. We can do that, yes, sir.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you very much. You gentleman stay around,
we may have some questions.

We have Brigadier General Donald W. Shepperd, U.S. Air Force,
Deputy Director, Air National Guard, and Brigadier General John
A. Bradley, U.S. Air Force, Deputy to the Chief of the Air Force
Reserve. Gentlemen, we are happy to have you with us today.

And, General Shepperd, you can begin, sir.

Statement of Brigadier General Donald W. Shepperd

General Shepperd. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 118,000 men
and women of the Air National Guard, I would like to thank you
and the committee for your support of our MILCON program. Our
request of $142.4 million for fiscal year 1994 is 55 percent smaller
than the authorized and approved level last year. It is not what we
want, not what we need, but it is the best that we think we can do
in the constrained environment.

I request that the rest of my statement be placed in the record in
the interest of time. Thank you.

297
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Donald W. Shepperd
DEPARTMEHT OF THE AIR FORCE

PRESEKTATION TO THE COMMITTEE OM APPROPRIATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE OH MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1994 Military Construction
for the Air National Guard

STATEMENT OF: Brigadier General Donald W. Shepperd
Deputy Director, Air National Guard

April 1993

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL
RELEASED BY THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

298

.•'^■. Biography

United Sidles Air Force

Secretary of the Air Force. Office of Public Affairs, Washington. D.C. 20330-1000

BRIGADIER GENERAL DONALD W. SHEPPERD

Brigadier General Donald W. Shepperd Is deputy director. Air National
Guard, National Guard Bureau, Washington, D.C. He assists the
director in formulating, developing and coordinating all programs,
policies and plans affecting the almost 117.000 Air Guard memtiers in
more than 1.300 units throughout the United States, District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico. Guam and Virgin Islands.

General Shepperd was born Sept. 14. 1940 in San Antonio. He
graduated from Wheat Ridge (Colo.) High School in 1958 and the fourth
class of the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1962. At the academy, he
received the Commandant's Award as the outstanding graduate In
leadership, and the Brigadier General Benjamin Castle Award as the
outstanding graduate in public policy studies. He earned a master's
degree from Troy State University in 1986. where he was elected to
Gamma Beta Phi academic honorary society. The general completed
Squadron Officer School in 1965. Air Command and Staff College In
1980, the National Security Management Course in 1981 and Air War
College in 1986.

After graduating from the academy, General Shepperd entered undergraduate pilot training at Williams Air
Force Base, Ariz. He received pilot wings in 1963, then attended Basic Survival School at Stead Air Force Base,
Nev. He attended F-1 00 combat crew training at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., In 1 964, and was assigned to the 81 st
Tactical Fighter Squadron, Hahn Air Base, West Gemr^ny, where he was a squadron pilot from 1964 to 1966. In
1967 he became an air liaison officer with the 24th Infantry Division, Augsburg, West Germany.

General Shepperd attended the Clark Air Base, Philippines, Jungle Survival School in 1967 before being
assigned to the 90th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Bien Hoa Air Base, South Vietnam, as a flight commander and
Instructor pilot. He was assigned to Operation Commando Sabre In December 1967 as an F-1 00 'Misty* forward
air controller at Phu Cat Air Base, South Vietnam, arxl flew missions over North Vietnam.

Upon completion of his assignment in South Vietnam in 1968, he was assigned to the 4532nd Combat Crew
Training Squadron, England Air Force Base, La., as an A-37 instructor pilot for Vietnamese students. He left
active duty in 1969 to become a Trans World Airlines pilot In New York City.

General Shepperd joined the 1 1 1th Tactical Air Support Group, Pennsylvania Air National Guard, Willow Grove
Naval Air Station, as a forward air controller in 1970. In 1974 he joined the 162nd Tactical Fighter Group, Tucson
International Airport. Ariz., as an Air National Guard technician arid F-1 00 instructor pilot. He was assigned to the
162nd until 1985, serving as commander of the 1S2nd Tactical Fighter Squadron, deputy commander of
operations for the group, and as vice commander for tf>e group. During this period the group upgraded to A-7
aircraft and added the F-1 6 Fighting Falcon.

In 1985 General Shepperd was selected as the first Air National Guard research fellow and was assigned to the

(Current as of January 1992)

299

Center for Aerospace Doctrine. Research and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. In 1986 he graduated
from the Air War College, and in 1987 tsecame air commander and deputy wing commander, I02nd Fighter
Interceptor Wing, Otis Air Natiorwl Guard Base. In February 1988 he completed F-15 Eagle upgrade training at
Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. The general assumed his present position In August 1 989.

His book, 'Rghter Aircrew Training In the Air National Guard; New Dimensions, New Challenges," received the
first mnner-up award In the Air Force-wkJe Colonel James F. Cannell Memorial Research Competition.

The general Is a command pDot with more than 4,700 flying hours, and has flown the T-33. T-37, T-38, A-37.
A-7, 0-2, F-100, F-106 and F-15. He flew 247 fighter combat misstons in Southeast Asia. His military awards and
decorations include the SHver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross with two oak leaf clusters, Air
Medal with 16 oak leaf dusters. Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Army Commendation
Medal. Combat Readiness Medal, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and numerous other medals
arxJ honors.

He was promoted to brigadier general Aug. 1 , 1 989.

General Shepperd and his wife, the former Rose Driskiil. live In Alexandria, Va. They have a son, Tyler.

300

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today in support of the
Air National Guard military construction budget request for
Fiscal Year 1994. This is the fourth year I have testified
before this committee. The last four years have been tumultuous
for the Air Force. This year is no exception. As we transition
to a potentially more peaceful, but still dangerous world,
demands on our Air Force and our Air National Guard people
continue at a high level. As you know we are fully integrated
into day-to-day Air Force missions for training. When
contingencies such as Somalia and Southern Watch occur, we serve
alongside our active counterparts - in smaller niunbers, but we
are there. The same units and people who were in the desert,
will be there again if needed. We are proud of it. This is
called readiness.

AIR MATIOMAL OOARD MILCOM POSTURE STATEMENT

The Air National Guard MILCON projects in this prograun are
vital to support the readiness of our units, to continue with
our effort to modernize our aircraft inventory and comply with
stricter environmental laws as we transition to a changing world
threat .

As the Air National Guard celebrates 46 years of service to
our communities, our states and territories and our nation, I am
proud to report that the Air National Guard continues to be

301

ready. We are maintaining the traditional high level of
readiness which we demonstrated during Desert Storm.

Good facilities have contributed, in no small measure, to
the readiness of the Air National Guard. As budgets have become
austere, it is imperative we get maximum return for invested
funds. Replacement of obsolete facilities is becoming more
difficult as scarce resources are channelled to support the
approximately 40 aircraft modernization the Air National Guard
is accomplishing between 1992 and 1995.

A well-planned and aggressive schedule and the can-do
attitude of our field commanders and engineering and procurement
staffs will once again result in one of the best execution rates
in DOD. This translates into thousands of jobs in hundreds of
communities around Air Guard installations.

The Air Force is a Total Force leader. The Air Force has
followed the direction and sense of Congress in placing more
reliance on reserve components. The Air Guard will support the
Air Force by continuing to maintain high quality Air National
Guard facility standards. We owe it to the Air Force and to our
people.

302

PRIOR YEAR BXBCDTIOM

Your support for our prior year MILCON budget requests
played an important part in our high state of readiness.
Meeting our commitment to fully execute the projects you approve
has been one of our highest priorities. Since May 1991, when
the MILCON prohibition was removed, we have faced the challenge
of executing two years of MILCON progreuns simultaneously. We
enthusiastically met the challenge and successfully executed the
programs presented below:

FY PROJECTS fSM) AWARDED fSM^ EXECUTION f%)

135.3

100

141.5

140.3

214.7

201.9

158.4

145.0

195.5

165.0

88-92 845.4 787.5 93

Because of the timing of the base closure announcement this
year, no FY 93 projects have been awarded. Our goal is to
testify before you at this time next year with all prior year
projects awarded.

303

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Our FY 1994 budget request addresses only the most urgent
construction requirements. This request is 55% less than the
authorized /approved program for last year. As the Air Force
downsizes, the Air National Guard remains approximately the same
size and modernizes. We have also identified additional
environmental requirements as new laws are enacted to provide a
cleaner environment for our future. These changes require
facility support and Military Construction funding.

This Fiscal Year 1994 Air National Guard Military
Construction budget request includes $19.6 million for 12 new
mission MILCON projects at eleven locations, $63.2 million for
62 environmental projects at 60 different locations and $45.7
million for 32 current mission projects at 31 locations. This
totals $128.5 million for 106 MILCON projects at 79 locations in
46 states/territories.

The 12 new mission projects support aircraft conversions as
indicated below:

CONVERSIONS

LOCATIONS

COST fSM)

F-16

5.9

KC-135

9.0

Communications

4.7

304

It will be necessary to implement work arounds vintil the
required facilities can be constructed. The Air National Guard
anticipates over one-third of its real property maintenance
budget will be used to fund temporary work arounds. Interim
work arounds are essential. These work arounds are temporary in
nature but necessary to efficiently and safely convert to new
aircraft.

The Air National Guard has developed an aggressive

environmental program as evidenced by 62 MILCON projects.

Forty-five of the projects remove/replace over 650 underground

storage tanks as mandated by law. Some of the tanks have leaked

and require remediation of contaminated sites. The

environmental MILCON projects support the following major
categories:

COST ($M^
34.5

13.5

15.2

This year the Air National Guard has approximately $46
million in current mission MILCON. Last year we had zero.

CATEGORY

LOCATIONS

Underground

Storage Tanks

Fuel Cell/Maintenance

Docks

Miscellaneous

305

All of the projects are at least 35% designed and will be
100% designed by Sep 1993. Execution of all these projects will
begin shortly after receiving the FY 1994 appropriations.

We are also requesting $9.9 million in project planning and
design funds. This request is based on continued design of our
$80 million backlog of Mew Mission projects, our environmental
compliance programs and our Current Mission programs for FY 95
and FY 96.

Finally, the budget request includes $4.0 million for
unspecified minor construction projects valued between $300,000
and $400,000.

All requested MILCON projects are for essential new mission
and environmental programs of the Air National Guard. This
request also includes a minimum level of effort to reduce our
outstanding MILCON backlog of over $1.5 billion to replace or
renew aging facilities and infrastructure.

306

8DMMARY

Our FY 94 MILCON program consists of 106 projects at 79
locations. Fifteen percent of the funding supports aircraft
conversions, 49% support environmental compliance and 36%
support current mission.

We ask your support for our fiscal year 1994 Military
Construction Program request.

This concludes my statement on behalf of the Air National
Guard's Fiscal Year 1994 Military Construction request. This
committee's continued interest and support is sincerely
appreciated. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

307
Chairman Hefner. Thank you, sir. Greneral Bradley?

Statement of Brigadier General John A. Bradley

General Bradley. Mr. Chairman, sir, I am John Bradley, the
Deputy to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve.

Committee members, nice to be here with you. This is my first
time before your committee. I am new in the job and just finished a
tour as a wing commander at an Air Force Reserve fighter wing in
Kansas City, Missouri. I think this gives me a fresh perspective on
the types of quality facilities that we need for our Air Force Re-
serve men and women. We appreciate the support that you have
given us in the past, and I think that our relatively small request
for this year will help us meet the mission needs and environmen-
tal concerns that we have for the coming years. We appreciate
your support.

I will enter the rest of my statement in the record if I may, sir.

308

Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John A. Bradley

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1994 Military Construction for the Air National Guard and
the Air Force Reserve

STATEMENT OF: BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY
Deputy to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve

APRIL 1993

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRL\TIONS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

309

Biography

United States Air Force

Office of Air Force Reserve, Washiogton, D.C 2033O-11S0

BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN A BRADLEY

Brigadier General John A. Bradley is deputy to the chief or Air Force Reserve,
Headquarters VS. Air Force, Washington, D.C

General Bradley was born Sept 27, 1945, in Lebanon, Tenn^ where he graduated
from Castle Heights Military Academy in 1963. He earned a bachelor of science degree in
mathematia from the University of Tennessee at KnoxviDe in 1967. The general complied
the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 1978.

He was commissioned as a distinguished graduate through the Reserve OfHcer
Training Corps program in August 1967. He began active duty as an intelligence analyst at
Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb. , in September 1967.
After completing pOot training at Shqipard Air Force Base, Texas, in March 1970, he
attended A-37 Combat Crew Training School, England Air Force Base, La.

From Angnst 1970 untfl August 1971 General Bradley served a combat tour at Biea
Hoa Air Base, South Vietnam, and flew 337 combat missions and 440 combat honri in the
A-37B. Upon return to the states, he was assigned as a T-3S instructor pOot at Colnmbos
Air Force Base, Miss.

General Bradley began his Air Force Reserve career in May 1973, when he left active
duty to become an A-37 pQot for the 917th Tactical Filter Group, Barlodale Air Force
Base, La. He also joined the Air Reserve Technician program as a fnO-time dvil service
employee with active participation as a reservist. He served in assignments as an instructor
pOot, chief of standardization and evaluation, and operations ofHcer. In 19S0 he became
the fust Reserve pOot qualified in the A-10. Selected to convert the 917th Reserve Training
Unit from the A-37 to an A-10 training school. General Bradley became commander of the
converted unit in September 1982. A year later, he became deputy commander for
operations for the 917th Tactical Fighter Group.

(Current as of January 1993) -more-

310

In July 1985 he became commander of the 924th Tactical Fighter Group, an F-4D
PAVE SPIKE unit, Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas. In 1988 the group converted to the
ARN-101, F-4E. General Bradley became deputy chief of stafT for operations of 10th Air
Force, Bergstrom Air Force Base, in December 1988. In that capacity he was charged with
ovenight responsibility for the operational readiness and training of all Air Force Reserve
fighter and air-refueling flying units in the United States. He became commander of the
442nd Fighter Wing, an A-10 unit, at Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Mo., in June 1989.
He assumed his current position in January 1993.

The genera] is a command pilot with more than 6,200 flying hours. More than 5,400
of those hours were in fighter aircraft. His military awards and decorations include the
Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf
cluster. Air Medal with 15 oak leaf dusters. Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force
Achievement Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with "V" device and six oak leaf
dusters. Combat Readiness Medal with six oak leaf dusters. National Defense Service
Medal with star, Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars. Humanitarian Service
Medal, Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon with five oak leaf dusters. Armed
Forces Reserve Medal, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with star, five awards of
the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam
Campaign MedaL

He is a life member of both the Reserve Officers Association and the Air Force
Association, and b a member of its Reserve Advisory ConndL

He was promoted to brigadier general Aug. 12, 1992, with same date of rank.

General Bradley b married to the former Jan Underwood of Decatur, Ala. Tbey have
a daughter, Leigh Ann.

311

MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. It is my
pleasure to appear before you for the first time to present the Air Force Reserve FY
1994 Military Construction program (MILCON) budget request, and solicit the
necessary authorization and appropriation for program execution. Immediately prior
to my new assignment here, I was the Wing Commander at Richards-Gebaur AFB, in
Kansas City, Missouri. My experience as a Wing Commander can provide a fresh
perspective on the importance of maintaining quality facilities for a quality force. As
you will note, we, like our active counterparts, are faced with an aging physical plant
and growing demands of new and changing missions. Despite a constrained fiscal
environment, our construction program represents a balanced budget which provides a
sound investment strategy. Adequate funding for our military construction program
is, and wiU remain, essential to maintaining a ready Air Force Reserve.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

The Air Force Reserve MILCON budget request for FY 1994 is consistent with
our long range facility investment strategy to: beddown new missions and
realignments; comply with environmental laws and regulations; provide adequate
training and woiidng facilities; and provide efficient and reliable infrastructure. Our
top facility priority was reflected in our FY 1993 request which was entirely new
mission MILCON; and in our FY 1994 program which provides a parking ramp to
support the addition of four C-141B type aircraft to the Air Force Reserve flying
mission. In support of our next facility investment priority, we have finished our
Environmental Compliance and Management Plans, which identify environmental
compliance requirements, at each of our bases . Seventy six percent of the fmdings
uncovered by these plans have been closed and the Air Force Reserve goal is to close
the remaining findings within the next 48 months. Our FY 1994 program will

312

upgrade a base Fuels Complex through replacement of underground fuel distribution
lines and removal of underground fuel storage tanks. After ensuring enviromnental
compliance, we can dedicate the remainder of our FY 1994 program to current
mission requirements. This is consistent with our next facility investment priority ~
adequate training and working conditions. Adequate training facilities are essential
for the Air Force Reserve because a significant number of the Air Force Reserve force
is part-time; training on weekends and two week periods throughout the year. Our
mission readiness relies on our training capability. Our final current mission
MILCON priority which is to maintain an efficient, reliable infrastructure, results in a
reduction to long-term operations and maintenance costs. It also increases the
reliability of our infrastructure which will ensure mission capability and readiness.

The Air Force Reserve MILCON budget request for FY 1994 totals $55.7
million. It includes $48.4 million for major construction projects in 12 states, $3.9
million for unspecified minor construction, and $3.4 million in plaiming and design.
Though the Air Force Reserve FY 1994 budget request is 35% greater then the FY
1993 appropriation, the growth is all for current mission and environmental MILCON
requirements. The Air Force Reserve had no current mission MILCON in our FY
1993 budget request due to the MILCON pause. Our new mission MILCON has
decreased 77% from the FY 1993 $34.8 million budget (which includes memo-non-
adds), to $8 million in FY 1994.

CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL FORCE

We understand the uncertainties of base closure options, force structure
changes, and fiscal constraints. Still we are concerned with the potential long term
impacts on oiu- readiness, training, and morale if the Air Force Reserve does not begin
to invest in current mission MILCON requirements. The pay back from prior year

313

investments in Air Force Reserve personnel, training and installations was clearly
demonstrated over the past year. The added capability, one third of the total
component airlift, provided by the Air Force Reserve gave our nation the capability to
support humanitarian efforts. A few of the relief efforts the Air Force Reserve units
contributed to include: assistance given to the families in southern Florida displaced
by hurricane Andrew; operation "Restore Hope" in Somalia; as well as, other world
wide efforts in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Moscow. The investment we have put in
training has allowed Air Force Reserve units to deploy directly into their operational
roles and play an integral part in the success of our nation's military endeavors.

SUMMARY

Mr Chairman, in this statement I have discussed the FY 1994 Air Force
Reserve Military Construction Budget request The investment strategy we have
followed in developing our budget request ensures that we have the facilities we need
to: maintain our mission readiness and capability; comply with environmental laws;
adequately train and support our personnel; and maintain a reliable and cost effective
infrastructure. My personal experiences as Wing Commander at Richaixis-Gebaur
have clearly demonstrated the importance of continued investment in the Air Force
Reserve real property. The Air Force Reserve is an integral part of today's Air Force
structure. We are grateful for the past support from you and the members of this
subcommittee. We share equal concerns for maintaining the readiness of our total
defense forces and we look forward to your continuing support in the future.

This concludes my statement I would be pleased to answer your questions or
arrange for answers to be inserted in the record.

314

Mr. Hefner. Your entire statement will be part of the record. At
this time, I have no questions. Do you have questions, Mr. Calla-
han?

BASE CLOSURE

Mr. Callahan. Yes, I have a question, one question at least for
each of them, if that is all right, Mr. Chairman.

I would like for each of you to respond individually as to whether
or not you had adequate input and were included in the loop of the
base closure decisions. Otherwise, were you contacted, did you have
a part in the participation to decide which bases would be closed
that impacted your operations?

General Bradley. Yes, sir. We were part of the study committees
that were formed within the Air Force, and our input was used in
the analysis of the bases that would be recommended for closure.

General Shepperd. For the first time, Mr. Callahan, the answer
is yes. In 1988 and 1991, we were not. In 1993 the Air Force decided
to include both the Air Force Reserve and us on the base closure
group. We got to make recommendations; we were part of the proc-
ess. Although we didn't always like the outcome, we were given a
clear voice throughout the process in presenting various proposals.

General D'Arajuo. Sir, we were participants in the process with
the Army base closure efforts. As a matter of fact, I even had a
liaison officer permanently assigned to the Army base study group,
and we did look at all the opportunities to preserve as enclaves
those stations that were closing and examine what the options
were and moving facilities as a result.

So yes, we did have a voice.

Mr. Callahan. Admiral Natter?

Admiral Natter. Yes, sir, the Navy Reserve was in the loop as
pertained to the Navy Reserve bases. Reserve Centers, and Naval
Air Stations.

Mr. Callahan. Well, what about training centers, for example, I
mean, were you in the loop when it came to — if you were training
at a regular Navy facility, were you in the loop with respect to
base closure in that regard?

Admiral Natter. As pertains to the Navy, no, sir, we were not.
But we were — again, the Navy Reserve was asked to respond as to
the Reserve base closures and Reserve facilities. As to the regular
Naval bases and the regular Naval Air Stations, things of this
nature, that was not within our prerogative.

Mr. Callahan. So if you were training at a regular station.
Naval station, if that was part of your training program, you were
included as far as your facilities are concerned, but not the Navy's
facilities.

Admiral Natter. That is correct, yes, sir.

General Kilmartin. Sir, the Army Reserve participated in the
Army basing study both for 1991 and 1993. We had an officer for
seven months who served on the committee, and we checked all the
facilities.

One of the final results that came out of that was that the basing
committee recommended that five active facilities for units that

315

were active be transferred to us for management and training pur-
poses. So we were actively involved in it.

General Reinke. Sir, the Marine Corps was actively involved in
all aspects,

DOWNSIZE EFFECTS ON ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Mr. Callahan. Okay. And too, General, I guess the National
Guard, will we at the end of this builddown, will we have a suffi-
cient force of Army National Guard to compliment the regular
Army in the event of another encounter such as we encountered in
the Persian Gulf?

Greneral D'Araujo. Sir, in my opinion, based on the proposed
force structure and end strength allowances that are reflected, es-
pecially in the 1994 President's budget, and what we know of pro-
jections in the future, my answer to your question will be yes.

I think you will find the Army National Guard will continue to
be capable of the response in the way of combat support, service
support, to meet the Army needs. I will hasten to add, however,
that based on the bottom-up review and revised military strategy,
there is still a lot of work to be done there. But based on the num-
bers and structure that we are working with the Army at this
point, I feel confident that the answer to your question is yes, we
will be able to respond.

Mr. Callahan. All right.

General Bradley, one comment to you, this is my first hearing,
too, because I am new here to this committee, and this committee
called base closure BK. That is secret, you can't divulge that to
anybody, but when we talk about base closure, I don't know where
they got the BK, but

Mr. Hefner. That is the code, K is how you spell closure in the
highly sophisticated cl£issified.

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Hefner. You close your enemy off,

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Just to follow up, when the gentleman asked you
about your being able to perform your mission, that is really going
to put the onus on our Guard, foll^. I was in Texas and Mississippi,
I believe, and some of the Guard folks were coming in.

So it is going to put the onus on us, sort of play on words, but
everybody is going to have to be ready to go. There is not going to
be any slack time. That is really going to put the Guard in a posi-
tion to where you are either going to have to be — ^you are excellent
now, but you are going to have to be better, just in case. Is that a
fair statement?

General D'Araujo. That is a fair statement, sir, and I assure you
we are committed to that.

Mr. Hefner. I was very impressed when I saw the situation with
the Guard. We were very supportive, and I think that is very en-
couraging to us.

Mr. Hobson?

316

BASE REALIGNMENT — WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB

Mr. HoBSON. Mr. Chairman, being an Air National Guardsman, I
can tell you the Air National Guard is always ready to go, right.
General?

General Shepperd. That's right.

Mr. HoBSON. And I went once, so I know, right out of law school.
I have a little parochial concern and it affects how I look at base
closure and construction.

And one of the things that disturbs me started with the moving
of the 4950th Test Wing from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
This decision, which I guess was made somewhere, makes no logic
to some people but it does to others dollar-wise.

But if you get beyond that, when we looked at the study — and
I've read some of the material that you very helpfully got to me
and I talked to Mr. Boatright the other day when he was here. One
of the things that concerns me is how these decisions of filling
holes are made. Is there an obsession that Wright-Patterson has to
be filled immediately? As I read that property report, it was almost
like, well, the Guard's got to find something in Ohio to fill that
right now, we can't let that stand.

I have some question with that. Suddenly we picked up a unit
that I think is going to cost a lot more than the $3 million Air
Force estimate. I think it is going to be closer to $20- to $40 million,
depending what they do to the runway and other things.

That kind of decisionmaking bothers me, that it is so rapidly
made. I have asked you some questions that I've given you about
wouldn't it be better to have looked at what is more appropriate
for those particular buildings that is there and the use of those
runways, rather than just saying, as it says in that report, well, it
is Ohio's problem to fill that?

General Shepperd. Well, Mr. Hobson, I was not looking forward
to meeting you today, because your's is the only Air National
Guard unit that is really adversely affected in having to move
somewhere in this base closure. I was part of that process in the
very beginning. We looked at the figures as carefully as we could,
recognizing that we had to look at every installation and every
Guard unit in the entire system.

We are convinced that the figures that we came up with were
our best estimate according to what we had available to us. We
could not go out to those locations and start measuring and doing
what you could with an on-site visit, which as you know we are
doing now. As we go out and visit your unit now that the an-
nouncement's made, and look at what it would really cost to move
Springfield up there, we will reexamine the figures; and if the
answer is that it does not make sense to move Springfield up there,
we will provide the new figures to the commission and you will be
able to make your own decisions.

Mr. Hobson. But, sir, why wouldn't you say — first of all, we are
moving — it was a different type of unit. We got an F-16 unit,
which is a sweeper. And we are moving it into facilities that are
for big, big aircraft. Why wouldn't somebody look around and say
is there another Reserve unit, for example, that might be at a base
that is being closed down that can move in there?

317

Why wouldn't somebody say — before we go — before we put
Springfield through all the trauma, why wouldn't somebody say is
there a better fit to the facility at Wright-Patterson. Fill that hole
at Wright-Patterson with units from the bases being shut down.
The logic here seemed to be, we can't go in there with a hole; we
got to at least fill the hole for a moment.

I am not talking about the town. We'll live through this. Our
town will survive. However, from a cost-effective standpoint, we
should not put people through a lot of trauma over that. Even the
Air Guard now is having to fight and everybody is in there looking
at this survey. The logic misses me as to why, as a statement in
some of those reports says, it is Ohio's Guard's problem to fill that
hole.

Why was it Ohio's Guard's problem to fill that hole? When I
asked the question over the phone to another gentleman, he said,
well, I don't handle the Reserve, it is the Guard. Why isn't it a fit
of the whole force structure to solve a problem, and not the Ohio
Guard?

General Shepperd. Well, there were many days and weeks of dis-
cussion over various aspects of this. Without being able to recall
exactly what went on, we did look at other opportunities to move
other force structure in there. There was no other force structure
that made sense to go out and grab.

For instance, I could go to General Bradley and say how about
taking your Youngstown unit and moving them down there. But
his reaction would be, well, why would I want to do that, why does
that make any sense.

So we did look for other opportunities, and we could find none
that were closer that had less of an impact on people:

Mr. HoBSON. You couldn't get anything closer because even
though you guys say it is 30 miles, it is 15 miles. So there isn't any-
thing closer.

General Shepperd. Right, we couldn't find anything closer that
had less impact on people, that had less impact on congressional
district or that we thought cost less money.

One of the questions that you did ask is did we look at all of the
things that are contracted out of Wright-Patterson in the way of
office space and other facilities. We did not look at that, that was
not part of the information that was available to us that we looked
at going in there and backfilling those facilities from an office
standpoint. But from an airplane standpoint, we looked everywhere
we could to

Mr. HoBSON. There is a Reserve unit in Indisma of tankers that
is at a base.

General Bradley. Yes, sir, Grissom Air Force Base.

Mr. HoBSON. That may move sometime. What that one looked at,
do you know?

General Shepperd. It was. A decision was made, though, not to
move that unit from where it is bedded down and where it is re-
cruiting from; and £igain, when we had the choice of moving people
that were 15 miles away for what looked to us at that time like $3
million, it was cheaper than anything we could come up with.

Mr. HoBSON. I can understand. If you look at your numbers, a
million one versus three million, if they are right, I can't argue

318

with that. I would tell you that the runway, if you have to change
the runway over there like you did for the other F-16 unit, that
throws the three million off. The hush house is going to cost, I
think, close to three million itself. The avionics that is going to
have to be built and all the other stuff is going to throw that
number way off.

Mr. Boatright said the other day that if this gets up to be a sub-
stantial number that doesn't make sense, then we are going to re-
visit this in the base closure commission, I assume. I don't have
much time; I couldn't get information to get ready for this meeting
because it took three weeks to get the information out on what
recent decision was made. Those kinds of things bother me, when
you can't get information and you are trying to come up with num-
bers that we have got to present.

So I do appreciate your assistance, though, in helping us to get
the information. I think when the evaluation team gets done, the
three million isn't going to be anywhere close. But the problem is
how they come up with the figures. As we look at these things, it
gives you a lot of pause about how maybe the Navy comes up with
theirs or other people come up with these numbers to arrive at
these costs.

So I am concerned about that.

General Shepperd. I hope we find a way, sir, to keep the people
at their location, find a smarter way to do it for the Air Force and
for you.

Mr. HoBSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. Did you have a question?

Mr. Callahan. No, sir.

Mr. Hefner. I have no questions. Thank you, gentlemen.

[Clerk's note.— ^Questions for the record submitted by Chairman
Hejuer.]

o'hARE international airport — ARMY RESERVE

Question. Regarding the proposed closure of the O'Hare Air Re-
serve Station in Chicago, I would like to quote from Secretary
Aspin's March 12, 1993 report to the Base Closure Commission:

"The units are adequately housed at O'Hare, and there is no
b£isis for moving them. There are no savings from moving; only
costs. To justify this realignment under the DoD base closure selec-
tion criteria, all costs of closure/realignment would have to be
funded entirely outside the federal government."

Would the Army Reserve care to comment?

Answer. From the Army Reserve perspective, we agree with Sec-
retary Aspin's comment. The Army Reserve does have a Reserve
center near the Chicago O'Hare International Airport. The proper-
ty that the center is located on is contiguous to the O'Hare Air Re-
serve Station; however, it is mutually exclusive from the Air Sta-
tion. We see no basis for moving from the Reserve center since the
facility adequately supports our training needs and we are not de-
pendent upon the operations at the air station.

o'hARE international airport — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. Would the Air Reserve care to comment?

319

Answer. Secretary Aspin's comments are correct. The proposed
move from O'Hare to Greater Rockford, IL was not proposed by
any of the military services in an attempt to reduce defense spend-
ing or to improve operational capability. In fact, the proposal was
not presented by the military at all, but by the City of Chicago.
City officials would like to develop the area now occupied by the
Reserve Component at O'Hare and have offered to move these
units to Greater Rockford. They have offered to pay all expenses
for this move, including any construction costs for replacement fa-
cilities, so they can begin their development project. If the City of
Chicago does indeed pay for these costs, the Reserve Component
agrees to this move, as does Secretary Aspin.

NAVAL AIR STATION AGANA, GUAM

Question. I would just point out that the same logic applies to the
situation at Naval Air Station Agana on Guam. A relocation from
Naval Air Station Agana to Andersen Air Force Base was not pro-
posed by Secretary Aspin, but has been raised by the Base Closure
Commission. Estimates for this relocation range from $235 million
to $338 million, and its hard to see how this could be justifed as a
federal expense. If Guam wants to take over Brewer Field, it seems
like they should pay for it — just like O'Hare.

Answer. Yes, the Navy's position is if Guam pays, the Navy will
move to Andersen Air Force Base.

ARMORY UNIT STORAGE BUILDINGS AND INDOOR RANGE

MODERNIZATIONS

Question. The budget request includes $750 thousand for armory
unit storage buildings, which will provide approximately 10 build-
ings against a backlog of 50 buildings that are required. The budget
request also includes $637 thousand for modernization of indoor
ranges, which will correct deficiencies at about 10 ranges against a
backlog of 100 ranges that have been closed due to health and
safety problems. How will you set priorities for which location to
do first in these multi-year programs?

Answer. The unit storage building program is for those units
that have a need for excess storage of equipment. The program
started in 1988 and was funded in 1989, 1991, and 1992. Funding
was distributed equally among states who identified their require-
ments and provided construction award justification until funds
were depleted. The FY 94 request will be disbursed in the same
manner.

The indoor range program is for rehabilitation of ranges closed
due to contamination /health/ safety reasons. The program was only
funded in 1989 and 1991. The priority for funding is based upon the
following criteria: (1) Safety and health requirements, (2) Environ-
mental compliance, (3) Operational readiness training.

Question. Can you provide for the record a list of the locations
that will be funded in fiscal year 1994?

Answer. Yes. They are as follows:

Armory Unit Storage Buildings: Ashland, AL, Bellemont, AZ,
Ottowa, lA, Hickman, KY, Shrevesport, LA, Salem, MO, Bozeman,
MT, Camp Perry, OH, Elizabethton, TN, Windsor, VT.

68-354 0—93 11

320

Indoor Range Modernizations: Birmingham, AL, Dobbins/Mariet-
ta, GA, London, KY, Joplin, MO, Pikesville, MD, Chislom, MN,
Yankton, SD, Salt Lake, UT, Berlin, VT, Superior, WI.

ARMY RESERVE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS FACILITY

Question. Our colleagues on the Senate Authorization Committee
have supported the idea of a Headquarters Facility for the Army
Reserve Command, to be located at Fort McPherson, Georgia. Is it
correct that the current working estimate for this project is $36.4
million, which is 44% of your entire 1994 program level?

Answer. Yes, the current working estimate is $36.4 million. It is
intentionally conservative, since the project is not yet far enough
into the design process to provide a rigid cost. If the Army Reserve
Command Headquarters Facility project were in the FY 1994 pro-
gram, it would equate to 44% of the entire program level.

Question. Can this project be justified in purely economic terms,
by savings from avoided lease costs and so forth? If so, what is the
payback period?

Answer. Yes, the project is justified by savings from avoided
lease costs. The savings-to-investment ratio will be 1.28 with a pay-
back period of 19.4 years.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. The largest military construction requirement for the
Air National Guard is about $340 million for POL facilities; that is,
for petroleum, oil and lubricants. Which budget is programming for
this requirement, the Air Guard or the Defense Logistics Agency?
How much of this requirement is for environmental work?

Answer. The funding responsibility for the POL projects belongs
to DLA beginning in FY96. The ANG has elected to show them on
our backlog since the projects, which involve the replacement of
Underground Jet Fuel Storage Tanks, impact the ANG's effect to
clean up past spills and the domino effect of the approved base
master plan. The ANG is concerned that some of the ANG tanks
have passed their economic life and they could leak at any time.
Also, they need to be removed by December 1998 to meet the Fed-
eral EPA guidelines. The requirement is 95% for environmental
work.

INCREASE IN INVENTORY OF FACILITIES DUE TO BASE REAUGNMENT
AND CLOSURE — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. Base Realignment and Closure has had a significant
impact on the inventory of facilities managed by the Reserve Com-
ponents. For example, the most recent recommendations would
turn over March AFB and McGuire AFB from the active Air Force
to the Air Force Reserve. What can you tell us about any increases
in facilities requirements that may result from such transfers?

Answer. The ANG expects that the establishment of cantonment
area at March AFB and McGuire AFB will not increase facility re-
quirements. The ANG anticipates that it may decrease facility re-
quirements at McGuire AFB. The facilities that may be available
for ANG use are in much better condition than those now occupied
by the ANG. In addition, through the joint use of facilities with

321

AFRES units, we are able to reduce facility requirements and oper-
ating cost. A similar situation is anticipated at March AFB.

CURRENT FACIUTIES — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For the Guard and Reserve, what is the value of the
current physical plant, and the types, numbers, and average age of
facilities?

Answer. The Air National Guard current physical plant value is
$11.6 billion. We have over 5,400 facilities located at over 185 loca-
tions in all 50 states, U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.
The average age of the facilities is 35.1 years. Over 2.5 million
square feet of space dates back to 1945 and prior.

BASE REAUGNMENT AND CLOSURE — ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Answer. Increases in facilities requirements from transfers for
the ARNG does/would impact the following areas and in general,
be required in addition to the current budget requirements: (1) Op-
erations and maintenance (O&M) funds, (2) Full-time support per-
sonnel, (3) Rehabilitation, additions, alterations, and possible demo-
lition of facilities, (4) Possible new construction, (5) Relocation
costs, (6) Dispersal of current facilities after relocation, (7) Possible
environmental /OSHA actions.

FACIUTIES DATA

Inventory

Question, for each of the Guard and Reserve components, what is
the value of the current physical plant and the types, numbers,
and average age of facilities?

Answer. The current value of the ARNG physical plant is ap-
proximately $13 Billion with an average age of 32 years. The types
of existing facilities in the ARNG inventory are as follows:

Facility Average age

3,044 Armories 35

275 Training Sites 53

88 Army Aviation Support Activities (AASF) 23

9 Army Aviation Operating Facilities (AAOF) 29

4 Army Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot (AVCRAD) 25

54 U.S. Property & Fiscal Officer Offices (USPFO) 30

187 U.S. Property & Fiscal Officer Warehouses (USPFOW) 34

23 Maintenance and Training Equipment Sites (MATES) 23

39 Unit Training Equipment Sites (UTES} 17

61 Combined Support maintenance Stiops (CSMS) 34

6 Combined Support Maintenance Sub Shops (KMSS) 38

702 Organizational Maintenance Shops (OMS) 28

73 Organizational Maintenance Sub Shops (OMSS) 29

322

FACILITIES data: BACKLOG AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For the record, what is the current backlog of facility
requirements for the Guard and Reserve, and how much will this
backlog grow under your 1994 program as requested?

Answer. The Air National Guard backlog is $1.5 billion. The
backlog is expected to grow by over $50 million.

Question. How much would be required, above and beyond the
budget requested, just to keep even with facilities needs?

Answer. The Air National Guard needs current mission funding
for an additional $50 million and the funding of deferred new con-
version requirements of approximately $850 million.

EXCESS PRIOR YEAR AUTHORIZATION — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization for the Air National Guard and the Air Force Re-
serve?

Answer. The Air National Guard has $45,025 million in prior
year excess authorization.

CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For the Guard and Reserve, are there any projects re-
quested in the budget for which the current working estimate dif-
fers substantially from the requested amount?

Answer. The Air National Guard has no projects in the budget
for which the current working estimates differ substantially from
the requested amounts.

PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For the Guard and Reserve, please provide for the
record a list of any projects, either in the fiscal year 1994 request
or in prior year unobligated balances, that are no longer required
due to force structure changes, base realignments or closures, mis-
sion changes, bilateral or multilateral agreements, or other rea-
sons? Please include military construction projects and projects fi-
nanced under the base realignment and closure accounts.

Answer. The following ANG MILCON projects have been impact-
ed by BRAG 93. Based on previous BRAG actions, the funds will be
withdrawn by Congress or moved to the BRAG account:

Base FY Project

Cost (Dollars
in millions)

McGuIre AFB, NJ 90 Avionics shop ' 1,200

91 Maintshop '520

Subtotal 1,720

93 Parking apron * 8,700

93 Jet fuel storage ^ 4,600

93 Fuel cell dock M,400

93 Composite tiangar " 9,700

Subtotal 27,400

O'Hare, IL 93 Parking apron 5,200

Springfield, OH 93 Engine shop 1,700

Dallas, TX 90 Oining/med trng 540

323

Base FY Project C"^' (P«"^'S

' in millions)

93 Warehouse 4,250

Subtotal 4,790

Grand total 40,810

' Funds are still required to support the new ANG cantonment area.

2 Projects tiave been specifically identified in BRAC 93 language as being transferred to the BRAC account.

UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For each component, will the budget for planning and
design and for minor construction meet the requirement?

Answer. The ANG has insufficient design to meet FY 95 and FY
96 design milestones. The design is underfunded by approximately
$9 million. The minor construction is also underfunded by at least
$1.2 million.

BACKLOG ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For the record, for each component, what is your cur-
rent backlog of facilities requirements, and by how much will this
backlog grow under your 1994 program as requested?

Answer. The ARNG current backlog of military construction is
approximately $3 Billion based upon a $13 Billion physical plant.
The ARNG backlog would grow by approximately $175 Million
under our 1994 program as requested.

Question. How much would be required, above and beyond the
budget request, just to keep even with facilities needs?

Answer. The Army replacement goal of facilities is 1.75% per
year, the ARNG would need approximately $176 Million above the
FY 94 request of $50.8 Million. As an example, the ARNG has
3,044 armories times 1.75% replacement equals 53 armories per
year and does not include other types of facilities in the inventory.
For the Army National Guard, our current backlog is approximate-
ly $3.02 billion. It will increase by $73 million for military con-
struction as originally programmed plus 3% cost escalation of the
backlog which would be $163.6 million, total.

EXCESS PRIOR YEAR AUTHORIZATION

Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization for each component?

Answer. The ARNG has approximately $10 Million prior year
authorization available.

CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES

Question. For each component, are there any projects requested
in the budget for which the current working estimate differs sub-
stantially from the requested amount?

Answer. The ARNG has two projects which fall into this catego-
ry: Bismarck, ND, Aviation, C-12 Hangar Request $1,297,000, OWE
$1,956,000, Camp Robinson, AR, Sanitary Sewer Improvements Re-
quest $4,223,000, CWE $4,424,000.

324

PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED

Question. For each component, please provide for the record a
list of any projects, either in the fiscal year 1994 request or in prior
year unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
struggle changes, base realignments or closures, mission changes,
bilateral or multilateral agreements, or other reasons? Ple£ise in-
clude military construction projects and projects financed under
the base realignment and closure accounts.

Answer. The ARNG has none.

INCREASE IN INVENTORY OF FACIUTIES DUE TO BASE REAUGNMENT
AND CLOSURE — ARMY RESERVE

Question. Base Realignment and Closure has had a significant
impact on the inventory of facilities managed by the Reserve Com-
ponents. For example, the most recent recommendations would
turn over March AFB and McGuire AFB from the active Air Force
to the Air Force Reserve. What can you tell us about any increase
in facility requirements that may result from such transfers.

Answer. There are no transfers recommended in BRAC 93 which
affect U.S. Army Reserve activities.

INVENTORY — ARMY RESERVE

Question. For each of the Guard and Reserve Components, what
is the v£due of the current physical plant, and the t5T)es, numbers,
and average age of facilities?

Answer. The Army Reserve's total physical plant value is $3.7
billion. The number of Army Reserve centers is 1,466 (859 are gov-
ernment owned, and 607 are leased). In addition, we have 137 Area
Maintenance Support Activities (AMSA)s; 32 Equipment Concen-
tration Sites (ECS)s; and 33 Aviation Support Facilities (ASF)s. The
average age of our facilities is 30 years.

FACILITIES DATA — INVENTORY — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. For each of the Guard £ind Reserve components, what
is the value of the current physical plant, and the t5T)es, numbers
and average age of facilities?

Answer. Air Force Reserve units are currently located in 57 sepa-
rate locations in the CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii. However, the
Air Force Reserve is the host at only 10 of these locations. As host,
the Air Force Reserve holds responsibility for the condition of all
facilities on base. At these 10 locations, there are 755 facilities to-
taling 7,600,000 square feet. The value of the physical plant at
these locations is $3.3 billion in FY 94 dollars and their average
£ige is 28 years. The physical plant includes permanent masonry
buildings, temporary wooden facilities, metal facilities such as
hangars and warehouses, 10.2 million square square yards of air-
field pavements, 211.5 miles of roads, 223 miles of power distribu-
tion lines, and real estate totaling 8,000 acres.

325

BACKLOG ARMY RESERVE

Question. For the record, what is the current backlog of facility
requirements for each component, and how much will this backlog
grow under your 1994 program requested?

Answer. The current backlog for Military Construction Army Re-
serve is $1.9 billion. The Army goal for facilities revitalization is
1.75% of the plant inventory per year, which considers a fifty-seven
year replacement cycle. Based on the current plant value of $3.7
billion, the MCAR needs per year to meet revitalization is $64 mil-
lion. The FY 1994 budget request is for $75 million. The backlog
will decrease only by $11 million.

FACILITIES DATA — BACKLOG AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. For the record, what is the current backlog of facility
requirements for each component, and how much will this backlog
grow under your 1994 program as requested?

Answer. The current backlog of facility requirements for the Air
Force Reserve is $316.0 million in MILCON and $123.6 million in
maintenance and repair work. This backlog will grow by $19.6 mil-
lion in military construction under the Air Force Reserve's request-
ed 1994 program.

BACKLOG ARMY RESERVE

Question. How much would be required, above and beyond the
budget request, just to keep even with facilities needs?

Answer. The FY 1994 budget request is for $75 million. To just
keep even with the FY 1994 facilities needs, an additional $125 mil-
lion above and beyond the $75 million would be required for the
Army Reserve.

FACIUTIES DATA-BACKLOG AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. How much would be required, above and beyond the
budget request, just to keep even with facilities needs?

Answer. To keep even with its facility needs, the Air Force Re-
serve requires approximately $60 million in current mission
MILCON alone. This figure is $19.6 million above and beyond the
FY 94 budget request. In addition to our current mission require-
ment, the Air Force Reserve has averaged $16 million in new mis-
sion MILCON and $4 million in unspecified minor construction
over the past 5 years. This means the Air Force Reserve should be
budgeting a total of $80 million a year to keep even with its facility
needs.

EXCESS PRIOR YEAR AUTHORIZATION — ARMY RESERVE

Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization for each component?

Answer. For the Army Reserve, there is no excess prior year au-
thorization available. Up through fiscal year 1992 the prior year re-
sidual authorization was $6,165,000. Beginning fiscal year 1993 the
excess prior year authorization diminished for following reasons:

326

a. The FY 93 MCAR appropriation was $42,150,000; the authori-
zation was $34,850,000, leaving an authorization shortage of
$7,300,000.

b. At the end of fiscal year 1992 the $6,165,000 was in the excess
prior year authorization. However, starting fiscal year 1993, $5.3
million was taken from the $6.1 million for the West Virginia con-
gressional adds, leaving $865,000 in the FY 93 unspecified account.

c. The FY 93 unspecified appropriation was $4,400,000; the au-
thorization was $2,400,000 leaving an authorization shortage of
$2,000,000.

d. The $865,000 remaining excess prior year authorization plus
the $2,400,000 unspecified authorization left $3,265,000 for obliga-
tion in the fiscal year 93 unspecified account.

EXCESS PRIOR YEAR AUTHORIZATION — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization for each component?

Answer. The Air Force Reserve has no excess prior year authori-
zation. In fact, the Air Force Reserve used its entire excess authori-
zations from canceled FY 89 to FY 92 MILCON projects to pay for
FY 93 new mission MILCON inserts. These canceled projects con-
tributed $11.48 million towards the total $28.90 million Air Force
Reserve FY 93 program.

CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES — ARMY RESERVE

Question. For each component, are there any projects requested
in the budget for which the current working estimate differs sub-
stantially from the requested amount?

Answer. Yes. An additional $1,228 million will be required to
adequately construct a new Reserve center with an Organizational
Maintenance Shop/Direct Support Maintenance Shop and Ware-
house at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina. The current working esti-
mate is $10.4 million. The project is now at 95% design complete.
The validated estimate is now $13,156,000.

CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. For each component, are there any projects requested
in the budget for which the current working estimate differs sub-
stantially from the requested amount?

Answer. The current working estimate is very close to the re-
quested amount for all Air Force Reserve projects.

PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED — ARMY RESERVE

Question. For each component, please provide for the record a
list of any projects, either in the fiscal year 1994 request or in prior
year unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignments or closures, mission changes,
bilateral or multilateral agreements, or other reasons? Please in-
clude military construction projects and projects financed under
the base realignment and closure accounts.

Answer. The Army Reserve has already canceled all known FY
93 and prior projects that are no longer required. We continue to
review all others prior to construction advertisement.

327

PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. For each component, please provide for the record a
list of any projects, either in the fiscal year 1994 request or in prior
year unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignments or closures, mission changes,
bilateral or multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please in-
clude military construction projects and projects financed under
the base realignment and closure accounts.

Answer. There are no FY 94 Air Force Reserve projects affected
by force structure changes, realignments, etc. Prior year projects
canceled due to these actions have already been identified to pay
for FY 93 new mission military construction inserts. These projects
contribute $11.48 million towards the total $28.9 million FY 93 Air
Force Reserve military construction program. These canceled
projects include:

Estimated
FY Base Project title (dollars in

millions)

89 Carswell Munitions facility 0.30

89 Mather Medical training facility 0.85

90 Bergstrom Add/alter aircraft maintenance shop 3.70

90 Barksdale Add/alter operations training facility 1.60

90 Selfridge Avionics facility 1.25

91 Selfridge Aerial port training facility 1.85

91 Selfridge Add/alter fuel system maintenance dock 0.65

91 Niagara Munitions storage facility 0.20

91 Bergstrom Add/alter maintenance facilities 1.08

Applied against FY 93 budget 11.48

UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS — ARMY RESERVE

Question. For each component, will the budget request for plan-
ning and design and for minor construction meet the requirement?

Answer. Yes. There is sufficient funding in our budget request to
support planning and design and provide for minor construction for
the anticipated program.

UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS — ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Question. For each component, will the budget request for plan-
ning and design and for minor construction meet the requirement?

Answer. Yes, we feel there are sufficient prior year planning and
design funds available to meet our budget request design needs
through Fiscal Year 1995. The prior year funds are five year au-
thorization/appropriation and we feel it is prudent to execute them
before requesting additional design funds. Minor construction re-
quest will meet the requirement.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Question. General D'Araujo, in your prepared statement you say:
"until finalization of the force drawdown, our program does not ad-
dress the problem of construction backlog reduction, unit mission,
nor readiness requirements." I would just point out that it sounds

328

like your program is in a semi-permanent "pause" or "moratori-
um," and that once again it is up to Congress to do the right thing.

Would you care to comment?

Answer. The ARNG budget request is submitted in accordance
with OSD guidelines and supports the President's budget.

UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. For each component, will the budget request for plan-
ning and design and for minor construction meet the requirement?

Answer. The budgeted minor construction amount meets the Air
Force Reserve requirement. However, the Air Force Reserve is
short by $300,000 for planning and design in FY 94. The Reserve
Component must design from 0% to 100% a late-to-need facility to
support a new mission requirement in the FY 95 construction pro-
gram.

BASE CLOSURE AND REAUGNMENT: FACIUTY SHORTAGES — ARMY

RESERVE

Question. General Kilmartin, your prepared statement mentions
that you are working closely with the active duty services to try to
resolve the Army Reserve's facility shortages through base closure
and realignment. How is this working? Have you acquired any fa-
cilities this way?

Answer. Public Law 101-510, Title XXIX, Nov. 5, 1990, "Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990" states the "Secretary
of Defense may transfer real property to a military department
within the Department of Defense or the Coast Guard." Local Re-
serve Commands have been directed to identify requirements and
submit them to the BRAC Office of respective installations in order
to vacate leases and avoid new construction costs. During the
BRAC development process, services used "Cost of Base Realign-
ment Actions" (COBRA) modeling to derive the most cost effective
plan. Under this method the specific needs of installation tenants
were shown if they exceeded 100 personnel. If less than 100 person-
nel, as is the case at most USAR facilities, they were scheduled to
"base X" (a base to be determined during the implementation
phase). The adequacy of this planning is questionable and may
result in costs being borne by the USAR to adequately provide for
misdirected closure recommendations. There have been no facilities
acquired under this method as yet.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE — MARCH AFB, MC QUIRE AFB

Question. Base Realignment and Closure has had a significant
impact on the inventory of facilities managed by the Reserve Com-
ponents. For example, the most recent recommendations would
turn over March Air Force Base and McGuire Air Force Base from
the active Air Force to the Air Force Reserve. What can you tell us
about any increases in facilities requirements that may result from
such transfers?

329

military construction backlog is at Naval Air Station Glenview.
The only case where the Naval Reserve's inventory of facilities
would increase is the recommended relocation of Naval Air Station
Dallas to Carswell Air Force Base, Texas. The increase would be
caused by the other Reserve Components that would be sharing the
use of Carswell Air Force Base.

PHYSICAL PLANT — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. For the Naval Reserve, what is the value of current
physical plant, and the types, numbers, and average age of facili-
ties?

Answer. The current Plant Replacement Value or value of the
Naval Reserve's physical plant is approximately $3 billion. Assets
managed by the Naval Air Reserve are valued at approximately
$1.75 billion and assets managed by the Naval Surface Reserve are
valued at approximately $1.25 billion (i.e. Reserve Centers, Readi-
ness Commands, etc.). The Naval Reserve owns approximately
1,830 buildings with an average age of approximately 40 years. The
Naval Reserve operates 255 significant activities with facilities.
They comprised 23 air activities, 22 of which are joint use (the 23
air activities include 6 Naval Air Stations, 2 Naval Air Facilities, 7
Naval Air Reserve units and 8 Naval Air Reserve Centers), 81
Naval Reserve Centers/ Facilities, 135 joint use Reserve Centers
and 16 Readiness Commands. The above statistics do not take into
account Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 93 rec-
ommendations (2 Naval Air Stations, 1 Naval Air Facility, 1 Naval
Air Reserve Unit, 1 Naval Air Reserve Center, 27 Reserve Centers/
Facilities and 3 Readiness Commands have been recommended for
complete closure. 1 Naval Air Station, 1 Naval Air Reserve Unit, 7
Reserve Centers and 3 Readiness Commands have been recom-
mended for realignment or consolidation).

BACKLOG REQUIREMENT — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. For the record, what is the current backlog of facility
requirements for each component, and how much will this backlog
grow under your 1994 program as requested?

Answer. The Naval Reserve currently has a construction backlog
of approximately $950 million. The backlog would normally grow
about $35 million given the amount of funding for the Naval Re-
serve in the Fiscal Year 1994 Military Construction, Naval Reserve
budget. However, if all the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission 93 recommendations are implemented, the construc-
tion backlog for the Naval Reserve would be reduced by approxi-
mately $300 million to approximately $650 million by Fiscal Year
1997.

FACILITIES data: BACKLOG — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. How much would be required, above and beyond the
budget request, just to keep even with facilities needs.

Answer. The budget request amount of $20.6 million will meet
the critical facility needs of the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.
Approximately $20 million ($15 million for the Naval Reserve and
$5 million for the Marine Corps Reserve) above and beyond the

330

budget request could be executed in Fiscal Year 1994 to meet less
critical facility needs.

EXCESS PRIOR YEAR AUTHORIZATION — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization for each component?

Answer. The Military Construction, Naval Reserve account does
not have any excess prior year authorization with the exception of
a Fiscal Year 1993 Child Care Center Project (P-998) at Naval Air
Station Glen view which was authorized for $1.8 million but for
which no money was appropriated.

CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. For each component, are there any projects requested
in the budget which the current working estimate differs substan-
tially from the requested amount?

Answer. Neither the Naval or Marine Corps Reserve have any
projects in the budget in which the current working estimate dif-
fers substantially from the requested amount.

PROJECTS NO LONGER REQUIRED — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. For each component, please provide for the record a
list of any projects, either in the Fiscal Year 1994 request or in
prior year unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to
force structure changes, base realignments or closures, mission
changes, bilateral or multilateral agreements, or other reason?
Please include military construction projects and projects financed
under the Base Realignment and Closure accounts.

Answer. According to the Cost of Base Realignment Actions
(COBRA) Model, there are four Military Construction Naval Re-
serve projects that were specifically authorized which are no longer
required as shown below:

NAS S. Weymouth, MA Control tower 2,350

NAS Dallas GSE shop 1,640

NAS South Weymouth Fire station addn 780

NAS Glenview Fuel farm mods 6,500

Total 11,270

173

208

059

158

Note: funding for the NAS South Weymouth control tower project was reprogrammed to pay for Hurricane Hugo facility repairs.

The finalization of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Com-
mission (BRAC) 93 recommendations could result in other projects
that may no longer be required or in adjustments to projects cited
by the COBRA Model as available but which are still required or
well under construction. The scope and location of some projects
that are indirectly affected by force structure reductions are also
being assessed.

UNSPECIFIED LOCATION — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. For each component, will the budget request for plan-
ning and design and for minor construction meet the requirement?

331

Answer. The Military Construction, Naval Reserve budget re-
quest for planning and design and for minor construction will meet
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve requirements for the foreseeable
future.

CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG NAVAL RESERVE

Question. What is the construction backlog of each component?
How long do you anticipate it will take to eliminate the backlog?

Answer. The Naval Reserve's current military construction back-
log is approximately $950 million. Assuming all Defense Base Clo-
sure and Realignment Commission 93 base closure recommenda-
tions are implemented, the Naval Reserve's construction backlog
should reduce to approximately $650 million by Fiscal Year 1997.
The level of funding anticipated in future budgets ($15-20 million
per year) will cause the military construction backlog to begin in-
creasing in the Fiscal Year 1997 timeframe unless additional Re-
serve activities are closed. Approximately $40 million per year in
Military Construction, Naval Reserve funding (includes both Naval
and Marine Corps Reserve military construction requirements)
would be required to keep the construction backlog from growing
after Fiscal Year 1997. Based on available resources within the De-
partment, the construction backlog is manageable and our budget
request supports our immediate concerns and higher priority
projects. Reducing the military construction backlog to zero is not
considered realistic but programming enough funding to keep the
backlog from increasing is considered an achievable goal.

IMPACT OF REDUCTION IN ACTIVE FORCES

Question. What impact has the reduction in active forces had on
the Guard and Reserve Components and consequently how will this
affect military construction needs?

Answer. The reduction in active Navy forces creates a corre-
sponding decrease in the number of Reserve units needed to aug-
ment the active force. Except where the Naval Reserve has to re-
place a facility on an active Navy base that is closing, military con-
struction needs will reduce as Reserve activities are closed.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE — NAVAL RESERVE

Question. What increases in facility requirements do you foresee
as a result of Base Realignment and Closures?

Answer. If all Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commis-
sion 93 recommendations are implemented, the Naval Reserve will
realize a significant decrease in its facility inventory and construc-
tion backlog. The only case where the Naval Reserve's inventory of
facilities will probably increase is the recommended relocation of
Naval Air Station Dallas to Carswell Air Force Base, Texas. The
increase would be caused by the other Reserve Components that
would be sharing the use of Carswell Air Force Base.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

Question. The active services are placing a high priority on envi-
ronmental compliance. What efforts are the Guard and Reserves

332

undertaking to ensure they are complying with environmental
laws?

Answer. The Naval Reserve does not operate any industrial ac-
tivities such as aviation rework facilities or shipyards so its envi-
ronmental compliance requirements are relatively simple com-
pared to the active Navy. Naval Reserve portions of reserve centers
do not generate any appreciable hazardous waste and the biggest
environmental concerns at our reserve centers is removal of under-
ground storage tanks and encapsulation or removal of asbestos.
The Naval Reserve has made the commitment to fund projects to
bring into environmental compliance all its reserve centers. Envi-
ronmental compliance at Reserve Air Stations is more complicated
as there are many contaminated sites identified for cleanup not
funded directly by the Naval Reserve (funding comes from the cen-
trally managed Defense Environmental Restoration Account). Esti-
mated Defense Environmental Restoration Account funding re-
quired to cleanup all known contaminated sites on Reserve Air Sta-
tions is approximately $40 million. This figure could change as
more detailed environmental analysis is performed on the contami-
nated sites. The amount of Defense Environmental Restoration Ac-
count funding currently programmed to bring Naval Reserve ac-
tivities into environmental compliance is considered adequate. The
Naval Reserve has given environmental issues much greater em-
phasis in the past year by redirecting personnel resources to in-
crease current staffing and programming long term personnel in-
creases to deal with ever increasing environmental compliance re-
quirements.

BACKLOG TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. General Sheppard, sixty percent of the projects and
fifty percent of the dollars in your budget request are needed to
meet environmental requirements. How big is your backlog of such
requirements, and how long will it take to buy-out this backlog?

Answer. Approximately $500 million of the Air National Guard
backlog is for Environmental MILCON requirements. It would take
approximately 18 years to buy-out the environmental backlog at
the current budgeted rate.

INVESTMENTS IN TRAINING AND WORKING CONDITIONS — AIR FORCE

RESERVE

Question. General Bradley, your top priority is new mission re-
quirements, and your next priority is environmental compliance —
which comes ahead of investments in adequate training and work-
ing conditions and in current mission requirements. Why does en-
vironmental compliance enjoy such a high priority?

Answer. Environmental compliance has a high priority because
the work, by definition, is required in order to comply with existing
law. The Air Force Reserve always complies with the law, especial-
ly when those laws are in place to protect our nation's environ-
ment.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Hefner.]

333

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Vucanovich.]

CONSTRUCTION BACKLOGS — ARMY GUARD

Question. What is the construction backlog of each component?

Answer. The ARNG current backlog of military construction is
approximately $3 billion based upon a $13 billion physical plant.
The ARNG backlog would grow by approximately $175 million
under our 1994 program as requested.

Question. How long do you anticipate it will take to eliminate the
backlog?

Answer. The Army replacement goal of facilities is 1.75% per
year. The ARNG would need approximately $176 million above the
FY 94 request of $50.8 million. As an example, the ARNG has 3,044
armories times 1.75% replacement equals 53 armories per year and
does not include other types of facilities in the inventory. For the
Army National Guard, with our current budget request of $51 mil-
lion it would take approximately 59 years to eliminate the current
backlog of $3 billion construction backlog.

REDUCTION IN FORCES/MILCON NEEDS

Question. What impact has the reduction in active forces had on
the Guard and Reserve Components and consequently how will this
affect military construction needs?

Answer. Reductions in active forces has increased the equipment
modernization for the ARNG. Larger and more sophisticated equip-
ment taxes our current facilities. The ARNG must provide addi-
tions, alterations, or new construction to adequately support these
requirements. Additionally, as the active forces are being reduced,
valuable training resources are also being reduced or cut back in
operation. Therefore, the ARNG relies even more heavily on in-
creasing our existing training sites and resources.

BASE REAUGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Question. What increases in facility requirements do you foresee
as a result of base realignment and closures?

Answer. Transfers to the ARNG does/would impact the following
areas and would be required in addition to the current budget re-
quirements: (1) Operations and maintenance (O&M) funds, (2) Full-
time support personnel, (3) Rehabilitation, additions, alterations,
and possible demolition of facilities, (4) Possible new construction,
(5) Relocation costs, (6) Dispersal of current facilities after reloca-
tion, (7) Possible environmental /OSH A actions.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

Question. The active services are placing a high priority on envi-
ronmental compliance. What effort are the Guard and Reserves un-
dertaking to ensure they are complying with environmental laws?

Answer. The Guard also places a high priority on environmental
compliance for both existing activities and the future. All MILCON
requirements are screened under the Environmental Assessment
procedures. If negative impacts are evident, additional detailed
evaluation/study is required or depending on the seriousness of the

334

impact, the proposed project may be resited or declared not feasi-
ble.

BACKLOG ARMY RESERVE

Question. What is the construction backlog of each component?

How long do you anticipate it will take to eliminate the backlog?

Answer. At the average funding level of $82 million per year, the
current backlog of $1.9 billion can be eliminated in approximately
104 years.

REDUCTION IN FORCE/MILCON NEEDS — ARMY RESERVE

Question. What impact has the reduction in active forces had on
the Guard and Reserve Components and consequently how will this
affect military construction needs?

Answer. The downsizing of the Army Reserves has reduced con-
struction requirements. The military construction backlog was re-
duced approximately $400 million or 17%.

BASE REAUGNMENT AND CLOSURE — ARMY RESERVE

Question. What increases in facility requirements do you foresee
as a result of base realignment and closure?

Answer. Closure or realignment of Army installations will result
in a need for an enclave or replacement facilities at Fort McClellan
and validation of requirements for a new reserve center planned at
Tooele Army Depot. The Navy has recommended closure of four
major activities and four reserve facilities where the U.S. Army Re-
serve occupies or shares use of facilities. The Air Force has recom-
mended change to BR AC 91 at two locations which will impact on
the USAR. There are opportunities to vacate leased facilities and
avoid new construction at numerous locations. U.S. Army Reserve
Command is now developing the required documentation for this
interest.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUANCE — ARMY RESERVE

Question. The active services are placing a high priority on envi-
ronmental compliance. What efforts are the Guard and Reserves
undertaking to ensure they are complying with environmental
laws?

Answer. The Army reserve also places a high priority on envi-
ronmental compliance, and has initiated a number of efforts to
ensure compliance with environmental laws. These efforts include
providing environmental awareness and mandatory training (such
as hazardous waste handling), and resource materials to reservists
and full-time support personnel; involving USAR members in the
identification of environmental compliance requirements; and
moving operations and maintenance funds into the environmental
account when the budgeted amount does not match the require-
ment. To ensure success and continuity, we are involved in a part-
nership with the active army's environmental programs from the
highest level to the individual unit member, but have stepped out
to tailor those programs to the Reserve's organization, structure,
and relationships with the communities in which we live and train.
With regard to environmental training and awareness Army Re-

335

serves conferences and workshops such as General Officer confer-
ences, commanders' conferences, and engineer training conference
include presentations and breakout sessions for environmental
awareness and updates. Reserve representatives participate in the
Senior Environmental Leadership Conference, and other Depart-
ment of the Army command and management level committees
and conferences. We include environmental considerations when
evaluating Reserve commands for awards in the Communities of
Excellence program. A Memorandum detailing Reserve command-
ers' legal responsibilities for environmental compliance, as deter-
mined by the Judge Advocate General, was distributed to Reserve
commanders, published in the Army Reserve Magazine, and pro-
duced as a video. A forty-hour course on Reserve facility manage-
ment includes seven hours of classroom and computer instruction
on environmental policies and procedures as they relate to oper-
ations in facilities and training areas occupied by the Reserve. The
Directory of Environmental Training was distributed to all Major
U.S. Army Reserve Commands. Mandatory environmental training,
or training that is required by federal or state law is provided to
Reserve personnel by the same process used by the active compo-
nent. Involvement of Army Reserve personnel is critical to success-
ful environmental compliance. Assessments of the Army Reserve's
environmental compliance status are made using the Environmen-
tal Compliance Assessment System (ECAS) protocol as required by
Army regulation. These assessments are performed primarily by
members of the 416 Engineer Command, an Army Reserve organi-
zation. Some assessments are performed by Corps of Engineer con-
tractors, as agreed to by the Reserve, and the environmental com-
pliance assessments are carefully coordinated with the active com-
ponent. The program involves interaction between management
and technical specialists from Army Reserve Commands, active
component support installations and Major Army Commands, the
Corps of Engineers, and the Army Environmental Center. Reserve
environmental compliance and project requirements are coordinat-
ed with the support installation prior to submission for funding for
quality assurance purposes.

CONSTRUCTION BACKLOGS — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. What is the construction backlog of each component?
How long do you anticipate it will take to eliminate the backlog?

Answer. The current Air National Guard total MILCON backlog
is $1.5 billion. The backlog will not be eliminated as it is increasing
at the current budgeted rate.

REDUCTION IN FORCES/ MILCON NEEDS — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. What impact has the reduction in active forces had on
the Guard and Reserve Components and consequently how will this
affect military construction needs?

Answer. The Guard will consolidate to the maximum extent pos-
sible into existing facilities on the active forces installations before
programming a MILCON project.

336

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. What increases in facility requirements do you foresee
as a result of base realignment and closures?

Answer. Experience has taught us that MILCON projects are re-
quired to support an Air National Guard unit relocation to an
active forces base or to consolidate an Air National Guard unit on
a base that is closing.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUANCE — AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Question. The active services are placing a high priority on envi-
ronmental compliance. What efforts are the Guard and Reserves
undertaking to ensure they are compl3ring with environmental
laws?

Answer, The number one priority in investment strategy for re-
sources in the Air National Guard is Environmental Compliance.
Approximately 50 percent of our MILCON budget request is for En-
vironmental Compliance.

CONSTRUCTION BACKLOGS — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. What is the construction backlog of each component?
How long do you anticipate it will take to eliminate the backlog?

Answer. The construction backlog for the Air Force Reserve is
$316 million. The Average funding level over the past 10 years for
current mission MILCON is $14.8 million. Based on this funding
level, one could incorrectly reason that it would take less than 22
years to eliminate this backlog. However, if you consider that our
aged facilities are currently valued at a total of $3.3 billion, an
annual investment of only $14.8 million would result in a 223 year
plant replacement cycle. A more acceptable plant replacement
cycle of 50 years would require an annual investment of $66 mil-
lion in current mission MILCON. If this amount were added to our
average annual funding of $14.8 million, then we could say it
would take 22 years to eliminate our backlog. However, under cur-
rent funding it is not possible for the Air Force Reserve to elimi-
nate our backlog.

REDUCTION IN FORCES/ MILCON NEEDS — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. What impact has the reduction in active forces had on
the Guard and Reserve Components and consequently how will this
affect military construction needs?

Answer. The reduction in active forces has resulted in an in-
crease in the Air Force Reserve's role and mission. With this in-
creased role, the Air Force Reserve has acquired additional bases
for which it must budget facility maintenance, repair, and con-
struction requirements. Each new Air Force Reserve base equates
to approximately a $5 million per year current mission MILCON
investment, above and beyond the initial, one-time, BRAC-funded
cost to realign the new base.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. What increases in facility requirements do you foresee
as a result of base realignment and closures?

337

Answer. With the additional facilities coming to the Air Force
Reserve through base realignments and closures come additional
costs that must be reflected in the Air Force Reserve budget. These
costs are currently covered in the Active Air Force's budget and
must be transferred to the Air Force Reserve along with the addi-
tional facilities. These costs include annual, must-pay costs such as
facility maintenance and repair, utility payments (e.g., electrical
power, water, and sewage), fuel for heating, and service costs for
trash removal and office cleaning. These annual costs amount to
approximately $10 million a year for each Air Force Reserve base.

In addition to these yearly, must-pay costs, the Air Force Reserve
will have to budget for infrequent, one-time costs. These costs in-
clude minor construction work to alter facilities as missions change
or major construction projects to replace old, unusable facilities.
Because facilities are designed to last approximately 50 years, the
Air Force Reserve can expect to program at least $5 million a year
per base to replace aged facilities and preexisting infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUANCE — AIR FORCE RESERVE

Question. The active services are placing a high priority on envi-
ronmental compliance. What efforts are the Guard and Reserves
undertaking to ensure they are complying with environmental
laws?

Answer. All Air Force Reserve bases are inspected annually to
ensure compliance with environmental laws. Any work identified
during these inspections are programmed immediately for correc-
tion. Most non-compliance items are small projects and are typical-
ly funded through the Air Force Reserve O&M account. The Air
Force Reserve has received excellent support in getting these envi-
ronmental projects funded.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD RENO lAP

Question. The Air National Guard's request includes $1.83 mil-
lion for an aircraft arresting system at the Reno International Air-
port. What is the need for this project?

Answer. A BAK-14 arresting system is required to increase the
margin of safety for flight emergencies of RF-4 aircraft operating
at Reno Cannon International Airport.

Question. What is the potential of a major aircraft accident with-
out this project?

Answer. In May 1992, a Nevada ANG RF-4 came within 30 feet
of the airport boundary fence and a heavily traveled road after
aborting a takeoff due to a mechanical problem. The aircraft en-
gaged the departure end BAK-12 arresting system, however it was
unable to stop the aircraft before it departed the runway; an unac-
ceptable margin of safety. Because the Nevada ANG uses the civil-
ian runway at Reno Cannon International Airport, the BAK-12 ar-
resting system must be located in a position where it will not inter-
fere with civil aircraft operation. If the current arresting system is
not replaced there is a constant potential for a similar or more se-
rious accident to occur.

338

Question. Is there a need for this project prior to the beginning of
fiscal year 1994 and has the Air National Guard given any consid-
eration to a reprogramming request?

Answer. Yes, the project is needed prior to fiscal year 1994. Yes,
the project is being reprogrammed.

LAS VEGAS ARMORY COMPLEX — ARMY GUARD

Question. Last year we obtained funds to build the Las Vegas
Armory Complex. It has come to my attention that, during Confer-
ence, the National Guard Bureau provided out of date information
concerning the cost to construct the Armory. The actual construc-
tion cost is $5.53 million rather than the $4.1 million provided to
the Conference Committee. Thus, to complete construction of the
Las Vegas Armory an additional appropriations of $1.43 million
will be required.

Is that your understanding of the situation?

Answer. The original project cost estimate of $4.1 million was
based upon available justification documents received from the
State dated December 1990. The project was not under design and
the estimated cost was based upon average costs at the time. Since
then, the project has undergone scope changes and updated cost es-
timates. The project is currently under review for adherence to
standard criteria and costing related to anticipated contract award
timeframe. The approved scope and final cost estimate will be com-
pleted mid to end of June 1993.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions submitted for the record by
Mrs. Vucanovich.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mr. Dicks.]

YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER

Question. What is being done to provide a practical and safe
maintenance environment for the new equipment and missions
that are being assigned to the guard, particularly the Ml tank at
Yakima?

Answer. As newer, larger, heavier, more sophisticated equipment
enters the Army National Guard inventory, this new equipment
taxes the ability of our facilities to support the equipment. We are
often required to program and construct new facilities to support
the new equipment.

At Yakima, an $8.7 million MATES addition is identified in the
ARNG long range plan. Design of the project will soon begin. How-
ever, this relatively expensive addition will have to compete with
several other worthy requirements and may well be deferred.

Question. If the Active Army at Fort Lewis is being considered
for the Ml (which will train primarily at Yakima), and the Marine
Corps Reserve already has Mis there, would it make good sense to
invest money to upgrade the Guard's present facility which could
then provide joint service support on a contract basis?

Answer. The Guard welcomes the opportunity to construct and
utilize joint use facilities. Before constructing facilities, although
primarily armories, we require the States to conduct Joint Service
Review Boards, primarily to investigate the opportunity to con-
struct and use joint facilities. In the future, we look forward to the

339

opportunity to employ joint facilities more frequently. We will cer-
tainly look at the possibility of accommodating joint use or contract
work at Yakima.

AVIATION BRIGADE ARMORY

Question. Washington National Guard's 66th Aviation Brigade
was formed a primary aviation support asset for the Active Army
at Fort Lewis, currently occupying WW II wooden barracks sched-
uled for demolition in FY 94. While authorized a 78,000 square feet
armory, the Brigade has no such facility and none scheduled for
construction in the near future.

It is my understanding that the Guard has recently received a
relatively new hangar from Fort Lewis to house the maintenance
facilities. This site is suitable for construction of a brigade armory
adjacent to the hangar, which would be extremely efficient in
terms of training. Without the armory, the brigade will have no ad-
ministration facilities. What is being done to provide suitable space
for this unit?

Answer. The armory project is the state's number 3 priority at
an estimated cost of $4 million. The project is in the ARNG long
range plan for FY 99 and must compete against other critical
projects within the constrained budget. The Washington Army Na-
tional Guard and the Corps Commander are working to provide
temporary facilities until the armory can be constructed. Buildings
have been identified to relocate the unit temporarily, however
those buildings are scheduled for demolition in 2-3 years.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Dicks.]

Thursday, April 22, 1993.

DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES OFFICE

WITNESS

REAR ADMIRAL HAROLD M. KOENIG, MC, USN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC-
retary (health service operations), office of the assistant
secretary of defense (health affairs)

Chairman's Opening Remarks

Mr. Hefner. We will now hear about the Department's medical
construction program. We would like to welcome Rear Admiral
Harold M. Koenig, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Serv-
ices Operations.

Dr. Koenig, your entire statement will be a part of the record,
and you can proceed any way you see fit.

Statement of Rear Admiral Harold M. Koenig

Admiral Koenig. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will give you
a very 30-second abbreviated version of my statement.

Our budget request appropriation is approximately $709,700,000
for major medical construction projects, £is well as another $3.8
million for unspecified minor construction. This latter amount per-
mits us to accomplish urgent unforeseen medical construction
projects that cost less than $1,500,000.

We are seeking in addition $25.7 million to fund design funds to
complete designs on projects identified for fiscal years 1994, 1995
and 1996. Our 1994 medical program is unlike any that we present-
ed to you before. This program requests the full funding of four on-
going, previously phase-funded construction projects. In addition,
we are requesting support for eight life-safety projects, two medical
training projects, and two projects in support of our medical re-
search program.

We are requesting all the remaining funds for ongoing, previous-
ly phase-funded hospital construction projects, so we can fully iden-
tify the costs of each project from the very beginning. We antici-
pate that through this process we will be able to expedite these
projects and achieve sissociated cost efficiencies with more rapid
completion by fully committing to them from the very start.

These four projects include completion of the Brooks Army Medi-
cal Center at Fort Sam Houston; Portsmouth Naval Hospital in
Virginia; Womack Army Hospital at Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
and the Air Force Medical Center in Anchorage at Elmendorf Air
Force Base.

Our life-safety program is extremely important to us. We are re-
questing support for eight facilities, all within the United States.
The locations include Millington Naval Air Station in Tennessee;

(341)

342

Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico; Edwards Air Force Base in
California; Fort Eustis in Virginia; Ellsworth Air Force Base in
South Dakota; Fairchild Air Force Base in W£ishington; Grand
Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota; and Offutt Air Force Base
in Nebraska.

All these facilities contain life-safety code violations which place
their accreditation by Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations in jeopardy and pose a potential threat
to both health care providers and our patients.

We identified deficiencies as being a number of items such as in-
sufficient numbers of fire exists, non-rated fire doors, lack of smoke
and fire zones, unsealed vertical openings between floors, dead-end
corridors, lack of sprinkling within the building, and structural de-
ficiencies associated with the removal of asbestos.

We have now taken on the responsibility for construction of the
medical training research and development facilities for the De-
partment from the services. By doing this, we will be able to
manage all the health care-related costs for construction from cen-
tral points within the Department.

At Fort Sam Houston, Texas, we are seeking appropriations for
two projects in support of medical training. The first project is a
combat medical training complex which will provide training for
medical non-commissioned officers and combat medical specialists
out of Fort BuUis, Texas, just outside of San Antonio.

The second project is construction of a non-commissioned officer
academy which trains approximately 3000 students a year in 32 dif-
ferent medical military occupational specialists.

There are two projects in support of medical research in our
budget. The first is the ongoing work on the replacement for
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Forest Glen, Maryland.
This facility supports the national defense mission to limit the ad-
verse effects of disease, injury and stress on our ability to work,
train and fight worldwide.

The second facility in support of medical research is an addition
to the biological incinerator at Fort Detrick, Maryland. This project
will bring the medical waste incineration facility at Fort Detrick in
compliance with state standards.

We would like to thank you and the members of the committee
for your continuing support of our medical military construction
program. Your understanding and assistance have been instrumen-
tal in helping us complete high-priority projects. I look forward to
working with you in the future and thank you for the opportunity
to present the Defense Department Medical Military Construction
Program to you today. Thank you.

343
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Harold M. Koenig

FY 1994 DEFENSE MEDICAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

STATEMENT OF

REAR ADMIRAL HAROLD M. KOENIG

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

HEALTH SERVICES OPERATIONS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

103RD CONGRESS

APRIL 22, 1993

NOT FOR Publication
UNTIL Released by the

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

344

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for this opportunity to present the Department of
Defense FY 94 medical military construction program to you today.

This budget requests appropriation of $709,700,000 for major

MEDICAL construction PROJECTS AS WELL AS $3,757,000 FOR
unspecified minor CONSTRUCTION WHICH PERMITS US TO ACCOMPLISH
URGENT. UNFORESEEN MEDICAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS COSTING LESS
THAN $1,500,000. AS OUR FACILITIES CONTINUE TO AGE, THIS
PORTION OF OUR BUDGET BECOMES INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT AND WE HAVE
PROGRAMMED A THIRTY-THREE PERCENT INCREASE TO THIS ACCOUNT OVER
OUR FY 93 REQUEST.

WE ARE SEEKING $25,700,000 IN PLANNING AND DESIGN FUNDS TO
COMPLETE DESIGNS ON PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR FY 94, TO CONTINUE
DESIGN ON PROJECTS PROGRAMMED FOR FY 95 AND TO COMMENCE DESIGN
ON PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR FY 96.

Our FY 9M MEDICAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM IS UNLIKE ANY
OTHER THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU. THE PROGRAM IS MADE UP
THE FULL FUNDING OF FOUR ONGOING, PREVIOUSLY PHASE-FUNDED
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. THIS REQUEST INCLUDES OF THOSE HOSPITAL
PROJECTS WHICH ARE TOTALLY AUTHORIZED AND COST OVER $100,000,000
BUT FOR WHICH WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SOUGHT INCREMENTAL FUNDING. WE
ARE ALSO ASKING FOR SUPPORT FOR EIGHT LIFE-SAFETY PROJECTS, TWO
MEDICAL TRAINING PROJECTS, AND TWO PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE
MEDICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.

345

FUNDING OF LARGE HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

This year we are requesting all remaining funds for ongoing
large, previously phase-funded hospital construction projects.
The Department has instituted this policy in an effort to fully
identify the costs of each project from the beginning. the
phase-funded, approach to fund these large projects has the
potential to disrupt or even stop any of these large
construction projects. we anticipate expediting these projects
and achieving these associated cost efficiencies with more rapid
completion by fully committing to them from the start. an
e.xample of our early experience with this approach is at brooke
army medical center. where the contractor now expects to
complete this project ten months ahead of schedule. the brooke
army medical center projeci was first authorized in fy 87. we
will be requesting the final appropriation this year. we need
$75,000,000 to complete this project.

the replacement facility for portsmouth naval hospital, norfolk,
virginia, was fully authorized in fy 90 at a total cost of
$330,000,000. to date, we have received appropriations

TOTALLING $104,500,000.

- 2

346

These funds have been utilized for dredging, demolition,
construction of interim facilities, relocation of a set of
historical quarters, utilities installation and construction of
several support facilities including a parking structure and a
clinical investigation facility. we are seeking the remaining
$211,900,000 required to complete this project which, when
completed, will serve the nation's largest military beneficiary
population.

We RECEIVED TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $250,000,000 FOR WOMACK
HOSPITAL AT FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA IN FY 92, WHICH INCLUDED

A $H5,000,000 Base Realignment and Closure appropriation. The

CONGRESS appropriated $10,000,000 OF MEDICAL MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION FUNDS IN FY 93 AND WE ARE SEEKING THE REMAINING
$195,000,000 OF APPROPRIATION THIS YEAR. THIS FACILITY SUPPORTS
THE LARGEST ACTIVE DUTY ARMY POPULATION. THIS PROJECT HAS
REACHED 65 PERCENT DESIGN.

The FINAL PHASE FUNDED PROJECT WE ARE SEEKING FUNDING FOR THIS
YEAR IS ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE IN ALASKA. WE RECEIVED
$15,000,000 IN FY 93 TO INITIATE THE SITE PREPARATION WORK FOR
THIS PROJECT. WE ARE REQUESTING THE REMAINING $135,000,000, FOR
THIS PROJECT THIS YEAR. THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS IS
REQUESTING $11,150,000 IN THEIR BUDGET FOR THEIR SHARE OF THE
PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS JOINT VENTURE
FACILITY. THIS PROJECT REACHED THE 35% DESIGN STAGE IN JANUARY
OF THIS YEAR AND WE EXPECT DESIGN COMPLETION IN JANUARY 1994.

347

CONSTRUCTION IN SUPPORT OF LIFE-SAFETY CONCERNS

WE MUST PROVIDE SAFE. EFFICIENT, EXPEDIENT AND COST-EFFECTIVE
HEALTH CARE TO ALL ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES. FULFILLING THIS
MISSION REQUIRES FIRST AND FOREMOST, THAT OUR FACILITIES BE A
SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK AND TO RECEIVE HEALTH CARE. WE
STRIVE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY IDENTIFY UNSAFE OPERATING CONDITIONS AND
CORRECT THEM IN THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER.

In SUPPORT OF THIS PROGRAM, WE ARE REQUESTING LIFE-SAFETY

projects at eight facilities in the united states. these
locations include millington naval alr station, tennessee (this
is the final phase of this project which was authorized and
received $10,000,000 in funding in fy 93); cannon alr force
Base, New Mexico; Edwards air Force Base, California; Fort '
EusTis, Virginia; Ellsworth air Force Base, South Dakota;
Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington; Grand Forks air Force
Base, north Dakota; and Offutt air Force Base, Nebraska.

All of these facilities contain life-safety code violations
which place their accreditation by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in jeopardy and pose a
potential threat to both health care providers and recipients.
Identified deficiencies include such items as:

- ^ -

348

INSUFFICIENT NUMBERS OF FIRE EXITS

NON-RATED FIRE DOORS

LACK OF SMOKE AND FIRE ZONES

UNSEALED VERTICAL OPENINGS BETWEEN FLOORS

DEAD-END CORRIDORS

LACK OF SPRINKLING WITHIN THE BUILDING

STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES AND

REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS

- 5 -

349

CONSTRUCTION IN SUPPORT OF MEDICAL TRAINING AND RESEARCH

WE HAVE NOW TAKEN ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
MEDICAL TRAINING., RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. THIS
REALIGNMENT FROM THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS' WAS ACCOMPL I'SHED LAST
YEAR AND WILL ENABLE US TO MANAGE ALL HEALTH CARE RELATED COSTS
FROM A CENTRAL POINT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. THIS ACTION WAS
INITIATED TO BRING THE BUDGET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE DECISION TO ALIGN ALL MEDICAL TRAINING, RESEARCH AND
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ASSISTANT ..
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS.

AT FORT Sam Houston, Texas, we are seeking appropriation for two

PROJECTS IN support OF MEDICAL TRAINING. ThE FIRST PROJECT IS A

Combat Medical Training Complex at a cost of $moo,OOG which

WILL provide training FOR MEDICAL NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND

Combat medical specialists at Fort Bullis. Texas. The program
conducts hands-on training in administering field medical care
and emergency medical treatment to battlefield casualties. this

FACILITY WILL REPLACE A FACILITY LOCATED IN SaLADO CREEK WHICH
IS LOCATED IN A FLOOD PLAIN AND IS IN EXTREME DISREPAIR. THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE. REPAIR AND UPKEEP OF
FACILITIES LOCATED IN A DEFINED FLOOD PLAIN IS PROHIBITED.

- 6 -

350

The second project is the construction of a Non-commissioned
Officer academy - army medical Department (AMEDD) Center and
School. This $3,400,000 facility is required to train
approximately 2,650 students per year in all 32 medical military
occupational specialties. These specialties include such
programs as physical therapy, practical nursing, medical
equipment repair and preventive medicine. the programs are
currently housed in world war ii wooden structures which are
scheduled for demolition.

there are two projects in support of medical research included
in our budget. we received total authorization of $147,300,000
in fy 93 with an appropriation of $13,300,000 for the walter
Reed army Institute of Research, in Forest Glen, Maryland, we

ARE requesting $48,140,000 FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS PROJECT
WHICH INITIATES CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATIONS, FLOOR SLABS,
STRUCTURAL FRAME, ROOFING SYSTEM, EMERGENCY GENERATORS UTILITIES
AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS. THIS FACILITY IS TO SUPPORT THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE MISSION TO LIMIT THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF
DISEASE, INJURY AND STRESS ON OUR ABILITY TO WORK, TRAIN, AND
FIGHT WORLDWIDE. NAVY INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ASSETS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS
FACILITY AND WILL COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 10 PERCENT OF THE NEW
BUILDING OCCUPANCY.

351

The second facility in support of medical research is an

ADDITION TO THE BIOLOGICAL INCINERATOR AT FORT DETRICK, MARYLAND
AT A COST OF $4,300,000. THIS PROJECT WILL BRING THE MEDICAL
WASTE INCINERATION FACILITY AT FORT DETRICK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE STANDARDS. THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS FACILITY WILL
SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE MEDICAL RESEARCH AT THIS LOCATION. PROPER
DISPOSAL AND VOLUME REDUCTION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY WASTE IS
REQUIRED TO REALIZE THE FULL POTENTIAL OF FORT DETRICK'S LIMITED
LANDFILL. FAILURE TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT WILL DRAMATICALLY
DECREASE THE USABLE LIFE OF THE LANDFILL FROM 35 YEARS TO SEVEN.

- 8 -

68-354 0—93-

-12

352

CLOSING

i would like to thank this committee for its support of the
Department's medical military construction Program, your
understanding and assistance have been instrumental in helping
us complete high priority projects. i look forward to working
with you in the future and thank you for the opportunity to
present the fy 94 department of defense medical military
construction program to you today.

This concludes my opening statement. I stand ready to

ANSWER any questions THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

- 9 -

353

PHASE FUNDING OF HOSPITALS

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, Dr. Koenig.

In your prepared statement, you say that the phase-funded ap-
proach in major hospital construction projects, and I quote, "h£is
the potential to disrupt or even stop any of these large construction
projects." I am not aware of any case where Congress disrupted or
stopped any of your phase-funded projects.

Now, I am not asking you for a response, but I would comment,
this sounds a bit like where OMB or OSD made decisions and you
are stuck with presenting a reason for it. I mean, you can respond
if you like.

Admiral Koenig. No, you said I didn't have to, and I won't.

Mr. Hefner. Okay. Anybody else have any questions?

I have several questions, but I will just present them for the
record.

Mr. HoBSON?

Mr. HoBSON. None.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you, sir. Thank you for being with us. And
we stand adjourned until next Tuesday.

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Chairman
Hefner.]

PHASE funding

Question. Why does the budget request include full funding of
major projects, beyond the amounts that can be executed during
fiscal year 1994?

Answer. The Department has recognized that we have not been
in total compliance with OMB Circular A-11, which directs that re-
quests for major procurement and construction programs will pro-
vide for full funding of the entire cost. Section 12.3(h) Full Fund-
ing, reads, "Except for reclamation, rivers and harbors, and flood
control projects, requests for major construction programs will pro-
vide for full financing of the complete cost of construction. The
fiscal year 1994 request for a single year buy-out of large, previous-
ly phased projects is an effort to correct this deficiency and to pre-
vent mortgaging of future Congresses for a commitment made on a
large project in previous years.

Question. Was any consideration given to funding these projects
with advance appropriations, the same way we financed construc-
tion at Fort Drum, New York?

Answer. The process of advanced appropriations could result in
the dilemma of obligating future budgets. There appears to be no
advantage to utilizing this process.

Question. Would you expect it to make a difference to contractors
whether such large projects are fully funded, advance funded, or
phase funded?

Answer. Potentially. The contractor would continue to be paid as
the work is accomplished under any of the full funding methods.
There would be a potential savings associated with full funding be-
cause of availability of funds and more rapid completion of
projects. There would be a potential savings associated with full
funding because the entire contract could be let at one time, possi-
bly leading to lower costs and a more rapid completion of projects.

354

Question. Would you expect the method of funding to result in
any difference in the execution of such a project, in total cost, in
quality, or in schedule of completion.

Answer. Pull funding would provide the Department the opportu-
nity to explore "turn-key" contracting for medical facilities. "Turn-
key contracting is a technique used by private contractors to lower
cost, guarantee quality, and speed facility construction.

Question. Please submit for the record a table showing the
amount requested and the amount that can be executed during
fiscal year 1994 for each phase funded project.

Answer. The following table presents the figures requested:

FY 94 (Dollars
millions)

Request Execute

135.0

37.0

195.0

35.0

75.0

211.9

20.0

48.1

Elmendorf Air Force Base:

Replacement Hospital

Fort Bragg, North Carolina:

Womac Army Medical Center

Fort Sam Houston, Texas:

Brook Army Medical Center

Portsmouth, Virginia:

Replacement Hospital

Forest Glen, Maryland:

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

Question. Please also include a table showing your best estimate
of when funds would be required for the execution of each of these
projects, year-by-year.

Answer. The information follows:

(Dollars in millions)

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Elmendorf AFB, AK 66.0 32.0

Ft. Bragg, NC 80.0 80.0

Ft. Sam Houston, TX

Portsmouth, VA 75.0 80.0 36.9

WRAIR, MD 85.9

WALTER REED ARMY INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH

Question. If phase-funding is being eliminated for major construc-
tion projects, why is the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
(WRAIR) still proposed for phase-funding, with $87 million pro-
grammed in two out-year phases?

Answer. The WRAIR project was an anomaly and will be fully
funded. The remaining funds $85.9 million, are programmed for FY
95.

GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION

Question. Please bring us up to date with the current status of
the ongoing review of the Department's graduate medical educa-
tion programs.

355

Answer. The Department is actively pursuing a critical review of
GME programs in order to improve and consolidate GME programs
within the Military Health Services System. The first portion of
this critical review was completed in December 1992. This report
made the following recommendations for further evaluation:

Policies and procedures need to be developed to integrate appro-
priate Specialized Treatment Service (STS) related GME programs
at those Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) locations in overlapping
catchment areas.

Policies and procedures need to be developed for Tri-Service staff-
ing of integrated GME programs. These policies should take into
account standardization of billet sequence coding, manpower end
strength planning, and contingency planning.

Procedures similar to those used by civilian GME programs and
academic institutions should be developed for selecting program di-
rectors for those GME programs which are integrated.

A program should be established to collect data documenting the
quality and scope of scientific and scholarly activities that are
being conducted by individuals assigned as faculty at DoD teaching
hospitals.

The services and the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences (USUHS) are currently developing the procedures,
plans and programs presented in these recommendations for ap-
proval by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs.

FITZSIMONS ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

Question. What is the current status of the funds we appropri-
ated last year for planning and design, and for site preparation at
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center?

Answer. To date, the Department has spent $9 million of Plan-
ning and Design, Defense Agency, funds appropriated in FY 92 in
order to meet the 35% design directive issued by the Congress in
FY 92. The $30 million in planning and design and the $2 million
to initiate the site preparation work appropriated in FY 93 remain
with the Comptroller of the Department.

Question. To what extent is Fitzsimons involved in the review of
the graduate medical education review?

Answer. As a major medical teaching hospital, Fitzsimons is di-
rectly involved in the graduate medical education review. The ini-
tial GME report established guidelines for implementing GME pro-
grams at various locations and the outcome of that review is not
yet known.

FORT BRAGG MEDICAL CENTER

Question. What is the current status of the replacement medical
center at Fort Bragg?

Answer. This project is being built in three construction phases.
Phase I, Site prep is 35% complete and scheduled to be completed
by August of 1993. Phase II, Structural Package, is presently being
advertised for bids. Bid opening is scheduled for mid-May, 1993.
Phase III, Balance of the hospital's construction, is under design
and at 65% completion. Phase Ill's construction is scheduled to
commence during the fourth quarter of FY 94.

356

UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS

Question. The budget request includes $3,757,000 for unspecified
minor construction and $25,865,000 for planning and design. Will
these amounts meet the requirements?

Answer. Our unspecified minor construction funds permit us to
accomplish urgent, unforeseen medical construction projects cost-
ing less than $1,500,000. As our facilities continue to age, this por-
tion of our budget becomes increasingly important. Our planning
and design request is less than that of previous years but is suffi-
cient because of the advanced state of design on our FY 94 and FY
95 projects.

HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE

Question. In FY 92 we appropriated $10 million for the first
phase of a hospital replacement at Homestead AFB. Now that
Homestead has been proposed for closure in the wake of Hurricane
Andrew last August, what are your plans for utilizing this $10 mil-
lion?

Answer. Due to the Congressional language restriction imposed
in FY 93, these funds remain with the Department of Defense
Comptroller. We have not requested funds for construction of
health care facilities in the Homestead area because the active
duty troops have been moved to several other bases. It has been
considered to request that the authorization and funding received
to date for the Homestead replacement project be transferred to
one or more of these bases in an effort to ease the over crowding
now occurring as a result of the movement of the personnel from
Homestead. However, until final troop movement and the final dis-
position of Homestead AFB is known, we felt it as in the best inter-
est of the eligible beneficiaries to hold these funds in abeyance.

Question. If an Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve mission
returns to Homestead, would you consider building some t5T)e of
medical facility at Homestead?

Answer. Typically, the Air National Guard and the Air Force Re-
serve are responsible for planning, funding and constructing their
own medical facilities as well as staffing, operating and maintain-
ing them after construction. The Guard and Reserve Forces are en-
titled to medical care only when they are on active duty.

[Clerk's note. — The following questions for the record were sub-
mitted by Chairman Hefner to the Office of the Secretary of De-
fense:]

BASE realignment AND CLOSURE, PART 3

Question. Please explain in some detail your plans for budgeting
for the current round of base realignments and closures (BRC III).

Answer. $1,200.0 million is estimated to be required in FY 1994
to implement anticipated base realignment and closure recommen-
dations for the current round. Also, savings of $1,000.0 million are
projected to accrue in FY 1994 if the Department's closure recom-
mendations are implemented. The costs and savings are currently
carried in the Defense Legislative Contingency account reflecting
net implementation costs of $200 million.

357

Additionally, since the Department's base closure/realignment
decision process was accomplished independent of the budget
review process, there are resources requested in the FY 1994
budget and some resources which were authorized and appropri-
ated in prior years that are available to help fund the third round
of base closures.

Question. Why is the fiscal 1994 request for BRC III contained in
a Legislative Contingency account in the Defense Appropriation
Bill, rather than making a straightforward budget request in the
bill?

Answer. The base realignment and closure process is on-going
and will not culminate until enactment of legislation later this
year approving bases for closure or realignment. Because the base
closure process is out of sync with the budget review process and
there was no way to determine what actions the 1993 Commission,
President or Congress would take in regard to base realignment
and closure recommendations, the Department felt that it was
more appropriate to carry anticipated costs and savings in the leg-
islative contingency account to implement the 1993 base realign-
ment and closure recommendations if enacted.

Question. When v^dll we see a budget amendment requesting
these funds? After our committee makes its allocation to subcom-
mittees, it will probably be too late.

Answer. On April 28, 1993, the Department informed the appro-
priate members of Congress including the Chairmen of the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees of the allocation adjust-
ment required to properly reflect the allocation between the two
bUls.

Question. Are you planning to submit a rescissions package, of
projects that are no longer required due to BRC III, or for any
other reason?

Answer. Since the Department's base realignment/closure deci-
sion process was accomplished independent of the budget review
process, there are resources requested in the FY 1994 budget and
some resources which were authorized and appropriated in prior
years that might be available to help fund the third round of base
closures. As indicated earlier, these resources could be reallocated
to help fund the third round of base closure recommendations.

Question. Please submit for the record whatever justification is
available from the COBRA model in support of the $1.2 billion esti-
mated to be required in fiscal year 1994 for BRC III.

Answer. The COBRA estimates for BRAC 93 were prepared by
each of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies and are in-
cluded in their respective detailed analysis available in the House
Armed Services Committee reading room. The COBRA estimates
for fiscal year 1994 total $1.9 billion. The DoD Comptroller per-
formed an analysis of the COBRA runs to refine the estimates,
based on historical obligation rates for the previous base closure
rounds. The Comptroller determined that $1.2 billion is the appro-
priate figure for fiscal year 94 for the 1993 round of closures and
realignments.

358

DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION

Question. Please submit for the record a list of any fiscal year
1994 and prior year projects that are no longer required due to the
DoD Data Center Consolidation.

Answer. Neither the Army nor the Navy have military construc-
tion projects that are no longer required due to the DoD Data
Center Consolidation. The Air Force has four military construction
programmed for data processing facilities which have been desig-
nated as megacenters. These projects are as follows:

a. Gunter Annex — FY 1994: Converts temporary generator con-
figuration to a permanent one. This project is critical to maintain-
ing adequate back-up power for the Gunter Megacenter and should
be continued.

b. Gunter Annex — FY 1995: Consolidates four facility modifica-
tions into one project. Adds additional raised floor. Adds additional
chiller (300 ton). Replaces passenger elevator. Change out air han-
dlers.

The additional raised floor and chiller capacity is no longer
needed to satisfy DoD-wide requirements. The elevator air handler
work is routine maintenance and should be continued.

c. Tinker AFB — FY 1991: New facility which consolidates three
data processing installations located within the Tinker industrial
complex. Facility at 10 percent completion. This project is no
longer needed in support of DoD-wide requirements.

d. Warner-Robins AFB — FY 1994: Provides additional computer
and associated administrative space. Facility at 35 percent design
phase. This project is no longer needed in support of DoD-wide re-
quirements.

In sum, generally, we believed that construction projects for
raised floor space are not needed given the existing inventory of
raised floor space excess to the DoD-wide requirements.

TROOP HOUSING

Question. Testimony before the Committee shows that there was
a deficit of 338,000 troop housing spaces ten years ago. What is the
current deficit, and how many spaces are included in the fiscal
year 1994 budget?

Answer. The current troop housing deficit is 89,093 spaces, 7,094
spaces are included in the fiscal year 1994 request. A service break-
out is included below:

Component . Current deficit plPgfbudge,

Army

Navy

Air Force

Marine Corps

Total 89,093 7,094

14,500

900

34,000

4,349

25,689

1,530

14,904

315

359

GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED FOR DELETION

Question. For the record, why is the Department recommending
that the following general provisions not be included in the 1994
bill?

Sec. Ill NATO/ Japan Architect and Engineer Contracts.

Sec. 113 Construction for Proposed Military Exercises.

Sec, 117 Plans for NATO/ Japan Burdensharing.

Sec. 122 Relocation of Yongsan Garrison, Korea.

Sec. 123 Pay Raise Absorption.

Sec. 127 Pentagon Reservation Expansion and Rehabilitation.

Answer. Each of these provisions have been recommended for de-
letion because they constitute unnecessary and undesirable restric-
tions on the management of the Department of Defense. Their rec-
ommended deletion is consistent with similar recommendations
contained in each President's budget request since the time each of
them was enacted.

Following is a more detailed discussion of each of these provi-
sions.

Section 111 — Japan and NATO Architect and Engineer Contracts

Section 111 constitutes a limitation on the Department's use of
appropriated funds. It was first enacted in the fiscal year 1985 Ap-
propriations Act and prohibits the Department from obligating
funds for architect and engineer services of more than $500,000 for
projects to be accomplished in Japan or NATO countries unless
United States firms are in joint ventures with host nation firms. It
is not cost effective.

Section US — Military Exercise Construction

Section 113 constitutes a limitation on the Department's use of
appropriated funds. It was first enacted in the fiscal year 1985 Ap-
propriations Act and requires the Department to notify the Armed
Services and Appropriations Committees 30 days in advance of the
plans and scope of any military exercise involving United States
personnel if construction related to the exercise is anticipated to be
more than $100,000. The Department is opposed to limitations on
the way it does business and has requested deletion of this provi-
sion on that basis each year since 1985.

Section 117 — NATO, Japan, and Korea Host Nation Support Negoti-
ations

Section 117 is a requirement imposed on the Department of De-
fense that unnecessarily interferes with the way that negotiations
for host nation support are conducted. It was first enacted in the
fiscal year 1988 Appropriations Act and requires the Secretary of
Defense provide an annual report to the Committees on Appropria-
tions of the specific actions proposed to be taken to encourage
NATO countries, Japan and Korea to undertake a greater share of
the defense burden of the United States and those nations. While
the Department is committed to increasing host nation support in
all cases, it does not consider that it is necessary or approriate to
include all of the specific details of the Department's negotiations
in this area in annual reports to the Congress. Not only could such

360

reports compromise negotiating positions but also they could inter-
fere with the way the Executive branch conducts those negotia-
tions. The Department is, therefore, strongly opposed to this provi-
sion.

Section 122—Yongsan Garrison, Korea Relocation

This provision was first enacted in 1990 and prohibits the De-
partment from exercising construction management under section
2807 of title 10, United States Code, for study, planning, design, or
architect and engineer services related to the relocation of Yongsan
Garrison, Korea. This provision is an unnecessary restriction on
the way the Department conducts its business and, accordingly, has
been requested for deletion each year since 1990.

Section 123 — Pay Raise Absorbsion

This provision was first enacted in 1989 and provides that pay
raise costs for programs funded in the Act shall be absorbed within
the levels appropriated in the Appropriations Act. Its purpose is to
preclude supplemental appropriations for pay raises. This provision
has been requested for deletion from the President's budget. In the
past, the basis for the deletion has been that it should be unneces-
sary if the Congress appropriates sufficient funds for pay raises
and if sufficient funds for pay raises are not appropriated, a supple-
mental appropriation should not be precluded as a means of obtain-
ing funds for such pay raises. Of course, this year it should be un-
necessary in view of the President's budget plan which does not in-
clude a federal pay raise for fiscal year 1994.

Section 127 — Pentagon Reservation Expansion and Rehabilitation

This provision, which was first enacted in its present form in
fiscal year 1992, prevents the Department from using any funds
contained in the military construction appropriations Act for any
project to expard or rehabilitate the Pentagon reservation. It is
similar to provisions enacted in prior acts preventing the use of
funds for the design of a Pentagon Annex. The Pentagon is in great
need of renovation and continuation of this provision could prevent
much needed renovations.

NEW GENERAL PROVISION NUMBER 120

Question. Why is the Department Recommending the following
new general provision?

Sec. 120. Proceeds received by the Secretary of the Navy pursu-
ant to section 2840 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190) are appropriated
and shall be available for the purposes authorized in that Section.

Answer. The provisions of section 2840 of the 1992 and 1993 au-
thorization act provide for the conveyance of certain land at Pearl
Harbor by the Secretary of the Navy to the City and County of
Honolulu. As part of the consideration for the conveyance, the City
is required to pay the Navy for the cost of demolition and disposal
of sew£ige treatment facilities located on the site and to pay for the
cost to construct road access improvements to the site. 'The Section
provides that the Navy may use such pajnnents to cover the demo-

361

lition and construction costs "to the extent provided in appropria-
tions Act." This provision is proposed to comply with the require-
ment for an appropriations Act provision.

INFLATION

Question. What inflation rate was used in formulating the budget
request?
Answer. 2.4 percent.

NON-APPROPRIATED FUNDS

Question. (A) Provide for the record the estimated costs (State,
service and project) all non-appropriated funded construction over
$500,000 in fiscal year 1992. (B) Also, include the lump sum total of
all projects between $200,000 and $500,000.

Answer. (A) The non-appropriated funded construction over
$500,000 in fiscal year 1992 were as follows ($ thousands):

Alaska:

Air Force (Dollars in thousands)

King Salmon AFS, Bowling Racquetball Addition $1,650

Arizona:

Air Force

Luke Air Force Base, Automotive Skill Development Center 1,050

California:

Army

Sierra Army Depot, Outdoor Issue Facility 510

Navy

Imperial Beach Aux Field, Service Facility 1,900

Naval Station San Diego, Exchange Expansion 2,350

Air Force

Edwards AFB, Replace Irrigation System 600

March AFB, Addition To Shopping Center 9,700

Colorado:

Air Force

Air Force Academy, Burger King 830

Florida:

Navy

NAS Pensacola, Navy Lodge 2,200

Air Force

Eglin AFB, Branch Exchange 1,250

Eglin AFB, Burger King 650

Tyndall AFB, Officers Open Mess 2,300

Kentucky:

Army

Fort Knox, Swimming Pool 2,800

Maryland:

Army

Fort Meade, Fast Food (Burger King) 720

Navy

NATC Patuxent River, Exchange Renovation 1,500

NNMS Bethesda, Navy Lodge Addition 2,600

Air Force

Andrews AFB, Addition/Alter Youth Center 2,200

North Carolina:

Army

Fort Bragg, Branch Exchange 1,500

Fort Bragg, Main Exchange 2,500

Navy

MCAS Cherry Point, Exchange Warehouse 1,160

MCAS Cherry Point, MWR Service Center 1,560

Camp Lejuene, Main Exchange 12,400

New Mexico:

Air Force

Cannon AFB, Addition to Branch Exchange 990

362

Cannon AFB, Addition to Golf C!ourse 860

Holloman AFB, Youth Center 2,000

New York:

Army

Seneca Army Depot, Swimming Pool 1,600

USMA West Point, Artificial Turf 820

USMA West Point, Golf Facility 2,700

Air Force

Plattsburg AFB, Youth Center 1,450

Oklahoma:

Army

Fort Sill, Branch Exchange 1,250

Air Force

Altus AFB, Addition to Golf Course 780

Tinker AFB, Fast Food (Burger King) 630

South Carolina:

Navy

MCAS Beaufort, Branch Exchange 2,000

Tennessee:

Army

Fort Campbell, Branch Exchange 1,400

Texas:

Army

Fort Bliss, Branch Exchange 2,150

Fort Bliss, Golf Club House 3,000

Fort Hood, Recreation Facility 1,600

Fort Sam Houston, Recreation Issue Center 2,350

Air Force

Randolph AFB, Fast Food (Burger King) 603

Virginia:

Army

Fort Belvoir, Fast Food (Burger King) 957

Fort Belvoir, Golf Facility 5,400

Fort Meyer, NCO/Enlisted Club 520

Fort Meyer, Officer Club 560

Fort Story, Recreational Lodging Facility 3,000

Navy

MC Base Quantico, Tri-Modular Club 7,500

Air Force

Langley AFB, Addition/ Alter Youth Center 1,200

Langley AFB, Fast Food (Burger King) 525

Washington:

Army

Fort Lewis, Fast Food (Burger King) 1,738

Fort Lewis, Guest House 4,800

Navy

NAS Whidby Island, Navy Lodge 1,900

Air Force

Fairchild AFB, Youth Center 1,550

Wisconsin:

Army

Fort McCoy, Bowling Center 2,300

(B) Projects between $200,000 and 500,000 totaled: $11,192,000.

PLANNING AND DESIGN

Question. Provide for the record a detailed project listing by
Service of all projects included in the fiscal year 1994 planning and
design request. This listing should include project scope or square
footage, estimated cost, and estimated design cost.

Answer. The Fiscal Year 1994 planning and design funds will be
used to complete design of the Fiscal Year 1995 Military Construc-
tion Program and initiate design on the Fiscal Year 1996 Program.
Design costs vary based on complexity and size of each project. We
do not determine gmnual design fund requirement based on Individ-

363

ual project design costs. Rather, they are based on projected total
program costs. Therefore, we can only provide a list of projects
used for planning and budget forecast purposes.

The following pages list the projects used to forecast the plan-
ning and design final requirements.

364

DEPARTMENT OF ARMY
FY 1994 MCA Planning & Design Ftnds
Projects For Uhich Final Design is Planned to be Obligated

STATE

STATION

Project Description

Fort Rucicer

Fort Rucker

Redstone Arsenal
Arizona

Fort Huachuca

Yvaaa Proving Ground
Arkansas

Pine Bluff Arsenal

Pine Bluff Arsenal
California

California Various

Caop Roberts

Fort Irwin
Colorado

Fitzsiinns AMC

Fort Carson

Fort Carson
District of ColiBbia

Fort McNair

Walter Reed AMC
Georgia

Fort Benning

Fort Gordon

Fort StetMrt
Hawai i

Schofield Barracks

Schofield Barracks
Illinois

C. M. Price Spt Ctr

Rock Island Arsenal
Kansas

Fort Leavenworth

Fort Riley

Fort Riley
Kentucky

Fort Caapbell

Fort CMfibell

Fort Canpbell

Fort Cartel I

Fort Knox

Fort Knox
Kuajalein

Kuajalein Atoll

Kuajalein Atoll
Louisiana

Fort Polk
Maryland

Aberdeen PG

Adelphi Lab Center

Fort Detrick

Fort Ritchie

Personnel Services Facility

Conbat Pistol Range

Physical Fitness Training Center

General Instruction Building
Whole Barracks Reneual
Target Recognition Range

Aanuiition Deailitarization Facility
Quality Evaluation Laboratory

Mil Entrance Processing Center/Canf) Parks
Standiy Generator Plant
Consolidated Maintenance Facility

Physical Fitness Training Center
Whole Barracks Renewal
Aviation Maintenance Hangar
Utilities Upgrade
Whole Barracks Reneual

Physical Fitness Training Center
Physical Fitness Training Center

Railroad Track Loading Facility
Whole Barracks Renewal
Upgrade Camnuche Tank Range
Mobilization Deployment Storehouse
Central Vehicle Wash Facility
Headquarters Facilities
Whole Barracks Renewal
Controlled Hunidity Warehouse
Brigade Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Secure Coopartaented Inforaation Facility
Consolidated Maintenance Facility
General Purpose Warehouse

Upgrade Electrical Systen/Siiistation
Whole Barracks Renewal

Chapel/Child Oevelopnent Center
Electrical Distribution System

US Disciplinary Barracks
Whole Barracks Renewal
Battle Siaulation Facility
General Purpose Warehouse
Troop Issue Supply Facility

Railroad Connector
Tactical Equipment Shop
Whole Barracks Renewal
Railroad Track Addition
Multipurpose Training Range
Barracks

Shore Protection
Hazardous Material Warehouse
Fuel Contaiment Facility Upgrade
Cover Raw Water Tanks
Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

Forward Landing Strip and Dropzone

Secure Conputational Analysis Laboratory
Coufxiter Center Addition
Adelphi Microwave Research Facility
Vaccine Production Facility (Phase I)
Physical Fitness Training Center

Estimated

Unit

Cost

Design Cost

Scope

Meas

(t 000>

(S 000)

128,907

14,700

662

500

21.000

2.550

115

55,991

8.500

383

98.280

11.400

513

15,000

675

120,000

95.000

2.383

35,500

14.800

666

33,680

4.300

194

7,200

4.850

218

77,294

15,000

675

26,500

3.600

162

552

21.600

972

105,325

15.500

698

71,000

4,200

189

324,191

51,000

2.294

26.971

4,450

200

25.000

4.300

194

8.000

5.500

248

185.934

19,200

864

1,900

71,500

4,350

196

1.500

38,000

2,600

117

177,915

13,400

603

50,000

2,400

108

75,966

8,600

387

39,741

2,450

110

184.000

11,000

495

225.000

13,400

603

16,500

743

49,500

10,000

450

17,188

3,400

153

4,650

209

373,630

54,000

2.430

352

9,900

446

20,570

4,400

198

124.698

16,000

720

59,627

8,300

374

10.000

450

56,049

15.500

698

176,490

21,000

945

7,900

356

4,300

194

3.507

19,000

855

4.025

7,700

347

70,000

8,600

100

25,000

1,200

2,500

5,500

248

100

13,000

585

147,802

8,800

396

100,510

22,000

990

46,878

9,900

446

28,400

8.300

374

277,000

10.000

10,000

25.900

3.350

151

365

DEPARTMENT OF ARMY
FY 1994 NCA Planning t Design Funds
Project* For Which Final Design is Planned to be Obligated

STATE

STATION

Project Description

Michigan

Detroit Arsenal
Missouri

Fort Leonard Uood

Fort Leonard Wood

Fort Leonard Wood
New Haapshire

Cold Regions Lab
New Jersey

Picatimy Arsenal

Picatimy Arsenal
NcM Mexico

White Sands MR
New York

US Military Academy
North Carolina

Fort Bragg

Sunny Point MOT

SKMTff Point MOT
OklahoM

Fort Sill
Oregon

UMtilla Depot
South Carolina

Fort Jackson
Texas

Fort Bliss

Fort Hood

Fort San Houston

Fort San Houston
Virginia

Fort A P Hill

Fort Eustis

Fort Myer
Washington

Fort Lewis

Fort Lewis
Worldwide Various

Various Locations

Air Conditioning Plant

Air Condition Barracks
Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain
Anuiition Operations Facility
Engineer Qualification Range

Frost Effects Research Facility Annex

Explosives Developnent Facility
Advanced Warhead Developnent Facility

Clinte Test and Evaluation Facility

Renovate Food Processing Facility

Whole Barracks Renewal
Electric Sii»tation Upgrade
Road Improvenents and Truck Pad
Dredge Terminal Entrance

Whole Barracks Renewal

Amunition Denilitarization Facility

Whole Barracks Renewal

Railroad Track Loading Facility

Whole Barracks Renewal

Aviation Maintenance Facility

Deployment Equipment Storage Facility

Dining Facility Modernization

Fire Station

Automated Data Processing Facility

Utilities ■ Camp Bullis

Central Vehicle Wash Facility
Child Development Center Alt/Addn
Operations Facility
Whole Barracks Renewal
Whole Barracks Renewal

Utility Systems
Whole Barracks Renewal

Minor Construction

Unit
Scope Meas

432

900

10,888

22,925

13,660

14,550

22,839

195,000

237,501

50,000

127,900

1,499,000

158,372

162,433

1,016

302

333

432

65,000

18,600

1,650

8,400

50,430

34,500

1,040

23,660

6,000

109,355

164

1 LS

236,488

Estimated Estimated
Cost Design Cost
($ 000) ($ 000)

4,000

9,100
9,800
1,600
3,050

2,100

6,200
4,850

10,800

28,000

24,000
5,500
4,650

16,500

16,000

181,000

14,800

18,500

22,000

2,400

26,000

17,000

1,550

2,950

1,300

8,250

2,700

6,200

3,050

950

10,800

6,100

8,500
22,000

12,000

180

410

441

137

279
218

486

1,260

1,080
248
209
743

720

1,415

666

833
990
108
1,170
765

70
133

59
371
122

279
137
43
486
275

383

990

1,800

STATE
STATION

FY 1994 MCA Planning I Design Funds
Projects For Which Concept Design is Planned to be Obligated

Project Description

Scope

Estimated Estimated
Unit Cost Design Cost
Heas C$ 000) (S 000)

Worldwide Various
Various Locations

FY 96 MCA Program

(Not yet identified by line item)

848,986

38,204

366

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS WHICH REQUIRE FY94 HCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/INSTALLATION

PN DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM

SCOPE COST DESIGN $

2200

110

1400

570

21000 SF

3850

193

31600 SF

12270

614

390000 GA

5000

250

4900 SF

1000

72690 SF

3770

189

8800 SF

2600

130

1500

980

2950

148

16410 SF

3500

175

3000

150

19535 SF

6170

309

233310 SF

6100

305

24750 SF

4000

200

16300

815

16500 SF

4100

205

15590 SF

9700

485

8000 SF

1300

26000 SF

4200

210

6280 SF

1090

15800 SF

4100

205

11650 SF

2780

139

22690 Sf

5840

292

8600 SF

900

2730

137

2900

145

5290

265

11880

594

21000 SF

3170

159

6800 SF

1150

16880 SF

2200

110

18900 SF

2200

110

1300

18740 SF

2430

122

68400 SF

6920

346

470

1630

15500

775

1730

19580 SF

2200

110

3117 SF

2880

144

20000

1000

20000 SF

9800

490

22000 SF

4520

226

2700 SF

2000

100

1995 AK ADAK AK NAS

1995 CA CAMP PENDLETON CA MCB

1995 CA CHINA LAKE CA NAUCWPNSDIV

1995 CA CONCORD CA NWS

1995 CA CORONADO CA NAVPHIBASE

1995 CA CORONADO CA NAVPHIBSCOL

1995 CA EL CENTRO CA NAF

1995 CA EL TORO CA HCAS

1995 CA EL TORO CA MCAS

1995 CA LEMOORE CA NAS

1995 CA LONG BEACH CA NSY

1995 CA MIRAMAR CA NAS

1995 CA NORTH ISLAND CA NAS

1995 CA POINT MUGU CA NAWCWPN DIV

1995 CA PORT HUENEME CA NCBC

1995 CA SAN DIEGO CA MCRD

1995 CA SAN DIEGO CA NS

1995 CA SAN DIEGO CA NSB

1995 CA SEAL BEACH CA NWS

1995 CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA MAGCC

1995 CA VALLEJO CA MARE IS NSY

1995 CT NEW LONDON CT NSB

1995 CT NEW LONDON CT SUBSUPPFAC

1995 DC WASHINGTON DC NAVSECSTA

1995 FL CECIL FIELD FL NAS

1995 FL JACKSONVILLE FL FISC

1995 FL MAYPORT FL NS

1995 FL PENSACOLA FL NTTC

1995 GA KINGS BAY GA NSB

1995 GA KINGS BAY GA TRIREFITFAC

1995 GU GUAM FLT & INDUS SUP CTR

1995 GU GUAM NAVSTA

1995 GU GUAM NCTAMS UESTPAC

1995 GU GUAM NCTAMS WESTPAC

1995 GU GUAM PWC

1995 HI BARBERS POINT HI NAS

1995 HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCAS

1995 HI MAKALAPA HI NTCC

001

945

552

605

428

469

306

160

186

213

214

576

599

618

050

224

351

503

549

552

644

014

395

288

111

115

137

195

507

298

429

427

430

039

774

469

827

116

431

443

524

239
416
227
209
623
421

FIRE FIGHTING TRNG FAC
HAZ WASTE STGE & TRANS FAC
AMMUNITION HANDLING FAC
PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER
SECURE COMMS PRJS FAC
A/C READY FUEL STORAGE FAC
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
BACHELOR OFFICER QUARTERS
APPLIED INSTRUCTION BLDG
POTABLE WATER DIST SYS UPG
WSTWTR TREATMNT PLNT UPGRD
FIXED AIRCRAFT START SYS
HAZ S FLAMM STOREHOUSE
CONTROL TOWER FACS
BACHELOR ENLISTED QTRS MOD
HAZ & FLAMM STOREHSE
BEQ/MESS HALL MODERN
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
DREDGING

MISSILE MAGAZINES
HAZARDOUS & FLAMM STRHSE
CHILD OEVEL CENTER ADDN
ABRASIVE BLST/PNT SPRY FAC
PERSONAL HYGIENE FACS
CHAPEL/RELIGIOUS ED FAC
MISSILE MAGAZINE
STANDARD MISSILE MAG
BACH ENLIST QUARTERS
SHALL ARMS RANGE MOON
INDUS WASTE TREAT FAC
DRYDOCK SUPPORT FACILITY
CONTROL INDUSTRIAL FAC
HIGH EXPLOSIVE MAGAZINES
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
HAZ/FLAM STOREHOUSE ADDN
DEMINERALIZATION FACILITY
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
FAIRING ALIGNMENT FAC
REFIT INDUSTRIAL FAC UPGRD
157P COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSE
998 BACH ENL QTRS MODERN
BACH ENL QTRS MODERN
SATELLITE TERMINAL
POWER PLANT UPGRADE
ANT I -SUB WAR OPERS CEN
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
SATELLITE TERMINAL

367

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS WHICH REQUIRE FY94 HCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/ INSTALLATION

PN DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM

SCOPE

COST 1

DESIGN S

3136 SF

820

7000

350

15374

22560

1128

28240

3950

198

2900

145

9550

5700

285

9680

484

2200

500

13250

1390

263160

12900

645

13000

800

6000

2850

143

66600

10700

535

3200

160

106500

15000

750

45500

9100

455

1000

850

77320

8220

411

2200

2770

139

525

290

37600

4590

230

1000

4440

222

14650

3600

180

4140

207

6620

1950

20280

3200

160

27900

4100

205

28050

1403

5000

1800

8600

430

2950

148

650

2100

105

13545

2250

113

15100

755

3000

2920

146

103750

7500

375

2500

125

2800

140

6510

1250

16950

2550

128

21440

4450

223

8700

1800

720

16220

1630

45000

2280

114

5620

1200

36480

5360

268

1995 HI

1995 IC

1995 IL

1995 IN

1995 IT

1995 JA

1995 HD

1995 MD

1995 NC

1995 NJ

1995 NM

1995 NV

1995 RI

1995 Rl

1995 RQ

1995 RO

1995 SC

1995 TN

1995 TX

1995 VA

PEARL HARBOR HI NS 361

PEARL HARBOR HI NS 430

PEARL HARBOR HI NSB 133

PEARL HARBOR HI NSB 148

PEARL HARBOR HI NST 257

KEFLAVIK IC NBROAOSERDET 468

KEFLAVIK ICELAND NAS 950

ICEFLAVIK ICELAND NCTS 413

GREAT LAKES IL NTC 164

GREAT LAKES IL PUC 437

GREAT LAKES IL PUC 570
CRANE IN NAVSURFUARCENDIV 263
INDIANAPOLIS IN NAUCACDIV 028
INDIANAPOLIS IN NAUCACDIV 035

NAPLES ITALY NSA 179

NAPLES ITALY NSA 189

SIGONELLA ITALY NAF 844

SIGONELLA ITALY NAS 729

YOKOSUKA JA NAVCOMTELSTA 408

ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAO 249

ANNAPOLIS MD NAVSTA 133
PATUXENT RIVER MD AUCACDV 505

CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 845

CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 894

CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 933

CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 871

NEU RIVER NC MCAS 500

EARLE NJ NUS 926

EARLE NJ NUS 952

EARLE NJ NUS 956

EARLE NJ NUS 974
LAKEHURSI NJ NAWC ACFTDIV 211

UNITE SANDS NM NOHTSTA 008

FALLON NV NAS 247

NEUPORT RI NETC 387

NEWPORT RI NETC 408

ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 714

ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 825

CHARLESTON SC NAVHOSP 834

CHARLESTON SC NSY 756

PARRIS ISLAND SC MCRD 141

PARR IS ISLAND SC MCRD 310

MEMPHIS TN NAS 070

MEMPHIS TN NAS 188

CORPUS CHRIST I TX NAS 264

KINGSVILLE TX NAS 127

DAHLGREN VA NSUCTR DIV 256

DAM HECK VA FCTCLANT 936

DAM NECK VA FCTCLANT 961

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
DRYDOCK BERTHING PIER
BACH ENL OTRS MOONS
WSTWIR TRMNT PLANT IMPRVS
ARMED FORCES RADIO/TV ST A
BACH ENL OTRS MODERN
SATELLITE TERMINAL
FIRE STATION
SANITARY SEWER SYS UPGO
UAST TRATMNT FACS EXP
HYDROACOUS TEST COMPL
CHEMICAL PROC FAC
AIR CONO PLANT RENOV
BEQ

QUALITY OF LIFE FACS-INCII
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
SATELLITE TERMINAL
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHAB
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
SEUAGE TREATMENT PLT UPGRO
OIL SPILL PREVENTION
ENGINEER EQUIP MA I NT FAC
MULTI-PURP TRNG RANGE COMP
CYROGENICS FACILITY
WAREHOUSE
MISSILE MAGAZINES
PIER EXTENSION
MESS HALL
FUELING WHARF
POT UAIER OlS SYS ADD
WEAPONS TEST RANGE
BOQ MODERNIZATION
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
SANITARY SEWER SYS UPGRADE
APPROACH LIGHTING
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
BEQ IMPROVEMENTS
PA/ABRAS BLAS FAC ADD
SECURITY HEADQUARTERS FAC
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
AIR OPERATIONS FACS
MESS HALL ADDN & ALTS
BOILER PLANT REPLACE
COMBND FIRE/CRSH RESCU STA
RDT&E SUPT FAC RENOV
INERT STOR AND MAGAZINE
WEAPONS TRAINING FACILITY

368

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS WHICH REQUIRE FY94 HCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/INSTALLATION

PROGRAM

DESCRIPTION

SCOPE

COST

3ESIGN »

977

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

9820

2350

118

339

LCAC COMPLEX (INCR IV)

66360

8200

410

426

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CTR ADON

16330 SF

2030

102

312

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS

76160

7180

359

071

DRYDOCK BERTHING SPT FAC

33700

1685

301

DEPERMING PIERS

14100

705

786

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

19650

2250

113

865

DREDGING

225000

1500

247

BARGE REPAIR FAC

5844

1950

722

CHILD DEV CENTER ADDITION

10100

1590

026

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS

66260

6800

340

200

PARKING GARAGE ADDITION

100800

3200

160

427

SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS

1100

439

SEWAGE TREATHNT PLNT

26450

1323

436

AMRAAM MAGAZINE

9300

1470

461

EOO OPS FAC

8070

1600

509

STANDARD MISSILE MAGS

18590

3800

190

537

HARM MISSILE HAG

9300 SF

2500

125

083

HVAC SYSTEM

540

295

UTILS & SITE IMPRVS

7840

392

083

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS

51990

7110

356

084

HAZ WASTE STGE & TRANS FAC

7300

1350

118

PHYSICAL FITNESS FACS

37500

6840

342

305

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

12310

2850

143

074

OPERATIONAL TRNR FAC ADON

28060

5600

280

125

WSTWTR TRMNT PLNT UPGRDE

2000

100

415

SATELLITE TERMINAL

2200

2060

103

601

EQP STRG/MAINT BLDG

7700

1400

602

ARCFT FIRE/RES&VEHHAINFAC

15250

2050

103

095

OPS BLDG UPGRADE

1650

095

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTR

5000

250

1995 VA DAM NECK VA FCTCLANT

1995 VA LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE

1995 VA NORFOLK VA MARCORPSSECFRC

1995 VA NORFOLK VA NS

1995 VA NORFOLK VA PWC

1995 VA OCEANA VA NAS

1995 VA PORTSMOUTH VA NH

1995 VA QUANTICO VA MCCOMBDEV CMD

1995 VA QUANTICO VA MCCOMBDEV CHO

1995 VA YORKTOWN VA NWS

1995 WA BANGOR WA TRIDENT TRAFAC

1995 WA BREMERTON PUGETSNO WA NSY

1995 WA EVERETT WA NS

1995 WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS

1995 XV Z/VARIOUS LOCATIONS

1995 XV Z/VARLOCS MILCON

1995 XV Z/VARLOCS OTHCMDGDIPACTY

1995 ZU X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONST

369

DEPARTMEMT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS UHICH REQUIRE FY94 HCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/INSTALLATION

PN DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM

SCOPE

COST DESIGN t

146250

15090

755

4000

200

9200

460

5800

290

590

13700

685

20250

3200

160

800

17500

2200

110

2800

140

8600

430

40000

3200

160

3800

190

4600

1500

195000

6500

325

20000

4130

207

48000

2400

112100

15000

750

50228

10300

515

6000

16600

830

24800

1240

15700

2550

128

15780 SF

2450

123

62088

9770

489

28700

5000

250

19000

8040

402

1010

380

2200

3100

155

2420

5100

255

30425

4100

205

77520

7000

350

3130

157

71929

3640

182

135800

7400

370

13650

2100

105

8600

430

102000

13000

650

7500

1010

1000

1650

15000

1950

5200

260

2200

2000

100

uooooo

9210

461

750

2400

120

38728

9300

465

5800

290

1996 AZ YUMA AZ HCAS 410

1996 BF ANDROS IS BF NUUC DET 305

1996 CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 167

1996 CA CAMP PENDLETON CA HCAS 004

1996 CA CAMP PENDLETON CA HCB 577

1996 CA CAMP PENDLETON CA PHIBTSF 957

1996 CA CHINA LAKE CA NAUCUPNSDIV 356

1996 CA CONCORD CA NWS 075

1996 CA EL TORO CA MCAS 329

1996 CA EL TORO CA MCAS 622

1996 CA FALLBROOK CA NUS ANNEX 175

1996 CA MIRAMAR CA NAS 354

1996 CA MONTEREY CA NPGS 129

1996 CA MONTEREY CA NPGS 134

1996 CA MONTEREY CA NPGS 152

1996 CA NORTH ISLAND CA NAS 649

1996 CA NORTH ISLAND CA NAS 700

1996 CA PORT HUEHEME CA CIVENGLAB 012

1996 CA PORT HUENEME CA NSUCDIV 016

1996 CA SAN CLEMENTE IS CA NF 5SS

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NS 186

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NS 333

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NSB 054

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NTC 301

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NTC 321

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NTC 369

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA NTC 371

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA PUC 151

1996 CA SAN DIEGO CA SUBGRU 5 424

1996 CA TREASURE ISLAND CA NAVSTA 504

1996 CA TUENTYNINE PALMS CA NH 295

1996 CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 021

1996 CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 352

1996 CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 439

1996 DC WASHINGTON DC COMNAVDIST 239

1996 DC UASHINGTON DC HAVSECSTA 038

1996 DG DIEGO GARCIA NAVSUPPFAC 124

1996 FL EGLIN AFB FL NAVSCLEODDET 901

1996 FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 192

1996 FL KEY WEST FL NAS 632

1996 FL ORLANDO FL NTC 106

1996 FL PANAMA CITY FL NSWCCSTSYS 902

1996 GA ALBANY GA MCLB 805

1996 GA KINGS BAY GA COMSUBRGP 10 423

1996 GA KINGS BAY GA NSB 525

1996 GU GUAM NCTAMS WESTPAC 229

1996 GU GUAM NCTAMS WESTPAC 236

1996 GU GUAM NSRF 063P

1996 GU GUAM PWC 222

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
POWER PLANT MODERNIZATION
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
AIRFLD COHM ELEC INFRASTR
WATER DISTR IMPRVS
LCAC FACS (INCR V)
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
FILLING STATION-DBOF
INERT STORAGE
MAINTENANCE HANGAR AODN
MAJOR CALIBER LABORATORY
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
BOO CONVER & SEISMIC UPGR
FIRE STATION

ACADEMIC BLDG ALTERATIONS
AVIONICS SHOP AODN/MOO
NUCLEAR CARRIER PIER-PH I
ENVIRON/RESCH SERVCS CTR
MSL SYS INTEGR LAB
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
OILY WASTE COLLECTION
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
SHIP SPARES STRG FAC
WELDER TRAINING FACILITY
RECRUIT TRAINING POOL
STORM ORN REPAIRS/ALTERS
HVAC UPGRADE

INDUST WASTE TREATMENT FAC
SATELLITE TERMINAL
FUEL PIER

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL WAREHSE
CHILD DEV CTR ADDITION
OIL TANKS REPLACEMENT
SUPPLY WAREHOUSE
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGR
EOO TRAINING COMPLEX
CHILD DEV CENTER ADDITION
FIRE FIGHTING TRNG FAC
FIRE PROTECTION SYS IMPRS
EOO TRAINING COMPLEX
AUTO TEST SPT CTR-DBOF
SATELLITE TERMINAL
DREDGING

A/C SYSTEM ALTERATIONS
ADMIN BLDGS MODIFICATIONS
SHIP REPAIR STRG REPL
INDUST WASTE TRTMT PLT UPG

370

DEPARTHENT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS WHICH REQUIRE FY9A MCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/INSTALLATION

PN DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM

SCOPE

:0ST DESIGN $

1700

9850

1900

18900

2050

103

3390

1460

2200

1570

5414

3100

155

16640

8900

445

1000

1950

5000

250

97840

7600

380

20000

4470

224

1060

23650

1183

4000

1500

6000

300

1400

1150

15900

795

440

6600

3650

183

35000

8000

400

129000

12000

600

38820

4200

210

38334

7600

380

58550

9400

470

8200

1900

104400

1500

3000

3400

170

6800

4800

240

12860 SF

3400

170

29470 SF

5600

280

47863

18000

900

13632

2000

100

20540

2400

120

52000

7000

350

8060 SF

4400

220

7800

390

37600

1880

4800

240

1050

3710

1200

21400

4730

237

16770

6800

340

27900

8200

410

9000

1920

15750

62500

3125

19045

3000

150

3750

188

200344

800

39950

600

29215

800

1996 HI BARKING SANDS HI PMRF 211

1996 HI HONOLULU HI NCTAHS EPAC 076

1996 HI HONOLULU HI NCTAMS EPAC 140

1996 HI HONOLULU HI NCTAMS EPAC 155

1996 HI HONOLULU HI NCTAMS EPAC 162

1996 HI LUALUALEI HI NM 143

1996 HI LUALUALEI HI NM 155

1996 HI MAKALAPA HI NTCC 423

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI INTCTRPAC 003

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 219

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSB 017

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSB 097

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSB 118

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 260

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI PUC 491

1996 HI PEARL HARBOR HI PUC 497

1996 HI UAHIAUA HI NCAMSEPAC 156

1996 IC KEFLAVIK ICEUND NCTS 523

1996 IN CRANE IN NAVSURFUARCENDIV 265

1996 IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 111

1996 IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 112

1996 IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 176

1996 IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 187

1996 MD ANNAPOLIS HD NAVACAD 258

1996 MD INDIAN HD HO NAVEOOTECHCT 118

1996 MD INDIAN HEAD MD NSUCTROIV 113

1996 MD PATUXENT RIVER MD AUCACDV 383

1996 HD PATUXENT RIVER HD AUCACDV 426

1996 MD ST INIGOES MO NAVELEXSYS 726

1996 HE KITTERY HE PORTSHOUTH NSY 217

1996 HS GULFPORT HS NCBC 732

1996 MS GULFPORT MS NCBC 733

1996 MS STENNIS SPC CTR MS NRLDET 006

1996 NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 542

1996 NC CAHP LEJEUNE NC HCB 934

1996 NC CAHP LEJEUNE NC HCB 974

1996 NC CHERRY POINT NC HCAS 070

1996 NC CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 075

1996 NC CHERRY POINT NC HCAS 843

1996 NC NEU RIVER NC MCAS 506

1996 NJ EARLE NJ NWS 894

1996 NJ EARLE NJ NUS 927

1996 NJ EARLE NJ NUS 930

1996 NJ EARLE NJ NUS 953

1996 NJ EARLE NJ NUS 957

1996 NY NEU YORK NY NAVSTA 104

1996 PA HECHANICSBURG PA SPCC 100

1996 PA HECHANICSBURG PA SPCC 141

1996 PA HECHANICSBURG PA SPCC 142

SEUAGE TREAT PLANT EXPANS
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION BLDG
FIRE PROTECTION - COMM CTR
FIRE STATION
SATELLITE TERHINAL
MK50 MAGAZINE
MISSILE MAGAZINES
ELECTRICAL UPGRADE
OPS BUILDING UPGRADE
BEQ MODERNIZATION
PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER
BERTHING PIER
CHILD DEV CTR ADDITION
REFUELING COMPLEX
SEUER HAINCFORD ISLAND)
SEUER OUTFALL
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEH
COMMUNICATIONS BLDG ADDN
ELECTRO-OPTICS CENTER
MAINTENANCE HANGAR
AIR CARGO TERHINAL
QUALITY OF LIFE PHASE III
ADHINISTRATIVE BLDG-PH II
FIRE STATION

ELECTRICAL DISTR SYS UPGRD
HAZARDOUS UASTE TRMT FAC
ENGINE TEST CELL
HAZ & FLAHM STOREHOUSE
SYSTEMS ENGR & INTEG LAB
PAINT AND BLASTING SHOP
FAMILY SERVICES CENTER
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CTR
OCEAN ACOUS RES LAB-DBOF
ELEC&COMH HAINT SHOP
RANGE DEVELOPHENT (PH II)
USTUTR TRHNT PLNT-PH II
ENGR SOUND SUPRESS FAC
MISSILE MAGAZINE
COMBAT TRNG POOL ENCL
AVIATION ARHAMENT SHOPS
TOMAHAWK MSL HAGS
HAGAZINES

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
GEN PURP BERTH PIER (PH I)
CHAPEL/REL ED CTR ADDN
UTILITIES & SITE IHPROVS
ADHIN OFFICE/FIRE PROT
PERIHETER SEC LIGHTING
SECURITY FENCE

371

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS WHICH REQUIRE FY94 HCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/INSTALLATION

PN DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM

SCOPE

COST 1

DESIGN $

80 MB

3800

190

27250 SF

1350

29 AC

11500

575

93A80 SF

11000

550

6400

320

16000 SF

2300

115

16800 SF

Aoon

300

7600 SF

1800

38554 SF

4600

230

159195 GA

560

6820 SF

3750

188

2000

100

500

4800

240

18200 SF

3320

166

30^000 SF

10600

530

3350

168

3500 SF

780

3 EA

710

4720 SF

490

9750 SF

1150

7000

350

19550 SF

3700

185

25400 SF

5000

250

147800 SF

16000

800

10900 SF

1370

15400 SF

1400

62438 SF

2500

125

14000 SF

2020

101

18970 SF

4200

210

45225 SF

1400

38834 SF

9200

460

110900 SF

30000

1500

1090

7000 SF

1230

147640 SF

15300

765

90200 SF

12600

630

5100

255

4400 SF

2000

100

3328 SF

1500

6714 SF

5300

265

135000 SF

13500

675

31200 SF

3650

183

15450 SF

3500

175

8800

440

20150 SF

2200

110

1650

9296 SF

2900

18000 LF

4200

210

1996 RI

1996 RQ

1996 SC

1996 SL

1996 SP

1996 TN

1996 TX

1996 UK

1996 VA

NEWPORT RI NETC 406

ROOSEVELT ROS CP MOSCRIP 411

ROOSEVELT ROS PR NS 504

BEAUFORT SC MCAS 369

BEAUFORT SC MCAS 394

CHARLESTON SC NWS 925

PARR IS ISLAND SC NCRD 270

EDZELL SCOTLAND NSGA 068

ROTA SP NCB CB CPHITCHELL 613

MEMPHIS TN NAS 308

CORPUS CHRIST I TX NAS 256

INGLESIDE TX NS 043

INGLES IDE TX NS 044

INGLESIDE TX NS 045

ST MAUGAN UK OCNSYSLNTDET 102

ST MAUGAN UK OCNSYSLNTDET 105

ST HAUGAN UK OCNSYSLNTDET 106

ST MAUGAN UK OCNSYSLNTDET 108

ST MAUGAN UK OCNSYSLNTDET 110

ST MAUGAN UK OCNSYSLNTDET 112

CHESAPEAKE VA NSGA NU- 806

DAHLGREN VA NSUCTR DIV 215

OAHLGREN VA NSUCTR DIV 255

DAHLGREN VA NSUCTR DIV 263

DAM NECK VA FCTCLANT 942

LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE 205

LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE 388

LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE 421

LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE 445

NORFOLK VA NAS 245

NORFOLK VA NAS 296

NORFOLK VA NAS 522

NORFOLK VA NAVADMCOM AFSC 724

NORFOLK VA NCTAMS LANT 402

NORFOLK VA NS 008

NORFOLK VA NS 708

NORFOLK VA NS 711

NORFOLK VA NS 792

NORFOLK VA NS 994

NORFOLK VA PUC 290

OCEANA VA NAS 453

OCEANA VA NAS 712

PORTSMOUTH VA NSEACEHLANT 497

QUANT I CO VA MCCOHBDEV CMO 337

QUANT I CO VA MCCOHBDEV CMD 428

UAL LOPS ISLAND VA AEGIS 320

UILLIAMSBURG VA FISC CA 005

YORKTOUN VA HUS 416

YORKTOUN VA NUS 498

BOILER PLANT MODIFICATIONS
CONTAINER WAREHOUSE
SANITARY LANDFILL
BEQ (PHASE III)
F/A-180 SUPPORT FACS
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
RECRUIT TRNG FAC
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
EQUIP HAINT FAC
FUEL STORAGE TANKS REPLACE
CORROSION CONTROL FAC
AMCM SLED RAMP
DRILL MINEFIELD
FLTLINE URFRE RELOC TRGCTR
NAVY RETAIL COMPLEX
PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
FAMILY SERVICES CENTER
PLAYING FIELDS
EXCH & COMMISSARY RENOV
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
ELECT UARFARE INTEGR FAC
TOMAHAUK MSN PLNG DEV UB
AEGIS COMPUTER CENTER
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FAC
BOAT SHOP

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT FAC
FAMILY SERVICES CENTER
DRONE REPAIR FACILITY
AIR PASSENGER TERMINAL
AIRCRFT MNT HANGAR
BACHELOR OFFICER QUARTERS
SATELLITE TERMINAL
COMBAT SYS LOG FAC
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS
FAMILY SERVICES CENTER
TRUCK SEC PROCESSING FAC
PEST CONTROL FACILITY
ENGINE TEST CELL REPLACE
BACH ENL QTRS REPLACEMENT
FLEET SUPP FAC
AMMO STORAGE REPLACEMENT
SANITARY LANDFILL
BACHELOR OFFICER QUARTERS
ELEC SYS UPGRADE
TOMAHAUK MISSILE MAGAZINE
SANITARY SEUAGE LINES

372

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PROJECT DESIGNS UHICH REQUIRE FY9A HCON FUNDING BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

ST/CTY LOCATION/ INSTALLATION

PROGRAM

DESCRIPTION

SCOPE

COST

DESIGN $

501

HIC-48 ADCAP MAGAZINE

9296

3600

180

507

AIUS MAGAZINES

11480

2300

115

536

HARM MISSILE MAGAZINE

9300

2100

105

708

RECREATIONAL FACS-DBOF

17230

2800

140

035

BOQ ADDITION

41641

2930

147

051

BOTTLED GAS STORAGE FAC

10000

540

958

NUCLEAR REPAIR FAC

10465

990

240

OILY USTEUTR TREATMNT FAC

3200

160

261

FLEET PARKING AREA

40500

2200

110

262

METAL PREP FAC IMPROVES

2600

130

277

SPORTS COMPLEX

44340

8640

432

279

FLEET SUPPORT BLDGS-DBOF

25500

3600

180

296

PIER UPGRADE

3400

170

081

SECURITY BUILDING

6700

600

045

SHORE INTER MAINT FAC

118000

15700

785

086

BACH ENL QTRS (I NCR II)

51988

8000

400

319

NPPSBO PRINTING PLANT

4000

600

334

PROPULSION SYSTEM LAB-DBOF

25250 SF

5570

279

373

INDUST USTE TRMNT PLNT UPG

3000

150

092

FIRE STATION REPLACEMENT

4160

650

085

FLIGHT SIMULATOR BLDG ADDN

10070

2500

125

124

FIRE FIGHTING TRNG FAC

1400

126

INDUS WSTEUTR PRETRMNT FAC

1400

117

SATELLITE TERMINAL

2900

145

603

SUPPLY UAREHSE/OFF REPLACE

8750

1300

096

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTR

12000

600

1996 VA YORKTOUN VA HUS

1996 VA YORICTOUN VA NUS

1996 VA YORKTOUN VA NUS

1996 UA BANGOR UA NAVSUBASE

1996 UA BANGOR UA TRIDENT REFITFA

1996 UA BREMERTON PUGETSND UA NSY

1996 UA BREMERTON PUGTSNO UA FISC

1996 UA EVERETT UA NS

1996 UA KEYPORT UA NUUC 01 V

1996 UA KEYPORT UA NUUC DIV

1996 UA MANCHESTER UA FUELDPTPSND

1996 UA UHIDBEY IS UA NAS

1996 XV Z/VARIOUS LOCATIONS

1996 XV Z/VARLOCS MILCON

1996 ZU X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONST

373

Department of the Air Force

Fy 95 Project Designs Which Hay Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

BASK

EIELSON

ELMENDOR

GONTER

GUNTER

MAXWELL

LITTLE R

DAVIS -HO

BEALE

EDWARDS

LOS ANGE

MARCH

MCCLELLA

ONIZUKA

TRAVIS

VANDENBE

FALCON

PETERSON

USAF ACA

DOVER

TITLE

WEAPONS & RELEASE SYSTEMS FAC

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP FAC

FLIGHTLINE SUPPLY CENTER

ADD LAGOON & WWATER TREAT PLNT

FIRE STATION

MILSTAR COMM GROUND TERMINAL

AU?KA TOTAI.;

COMPUTER SYS & TRAINING FAC
RENOVATE COMPUTER OPS FAC
UPGRADE UTILITY SYS, PH 1
ALTER DORMITORY
STUDENT DORMITORIES, PH I

ALABAMA TOTAL:

ADAL SECURITY POLICE OPS

ARKANSAS TOTAL:

CORROSION CONTROL FAC

ARIZONA TOTAL:

POL OPERATIONS FAC
MAINT DOCK FIRE SUPPRESSION
FLIGHTLINE FIRE STATION
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
RENOVATE AIRCRAFT MAINT FAC
F-22 ALTR ENG TEST FAC, PH 1
UPGRADE HYDRANT FUELING SYS
ADAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
PASSENGER/FREIGHT TERMINAL
UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE FAC
UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
UPGRADE AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
REPLACE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION
UPGRADE ELECTRIC DIST SYS
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
SLFI -CHEMICAL TEST & ANAL LAB
SLFI -UPGRADE NATURAL GAS SYS

CALIFORNIA TOTAL:

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT FAC
COMMAND & CTRL SPT FAC, PH I
ADAL DORM, PH IV
REPLACE UNDERGROUND STOR TANKS
ADD TO CONSOL WING OPS SUPPORT
REPLACE HEATING FACILITIES
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
UV-18 HANGAR

COLORADO TOTAL:

ADAL PASSENGER TERMINAL

nur

.5C0P?

6,200

29,000

403

6,700

19.500

436

6,800

38.900

442

1,600

104

2,500

8,500

163

770

600

2A.57Q

1.597

7,000

66,500

455

3.700

115,985

241

3,000

195

3,500

228

9,600

200

624

26.800

1.74?

2,250

18,122

146

2.?50

2,800

15,400

182

2.800

182

1,550

3,970

101

4,000

91,449

260

4,200

15.300

273

1,000

8,000

234,500

520

4,700

43,900

306

2,600

5,200

169

1,950

127

6,700

43,400

436

1,000

3,900

3,600

254

6,500

423

950

4,400

/-S

286

8,500

30,000

553

950

1,550

101

4,200

14,600

273

5.960

387

72.610

4.7?0

8.800

102.500

572

8.000

72,000

520

4.000

134

260

1.750

114

5.300

32,000

345

4.650

22.350

302

4.000

25.100

260

2.250

11.200

146

38.750

2.519

1.750

114

374

Department of the Air Force

Fy 95 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

PL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL

GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA

GU
GU
GU
GU
GU
GU

HI
HI

XL
IL

KS
KS
KS

LA
LA

BASE

CAFE CAN
CAPE CAN
CAPE CAN
CAPE CAN
CAPE CAN
EGLIN 9
PATRICK
TYNDALL

MOODY

ROBINS

ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN

HICKAM
HICKAM

MT HOME

SCOTT
SCOTT
SCOTT

MCCONNEL
MCCONNEL
MCCONNEL

BARKSDAL
BARKSDAL

DELAWARE TOTAL:

WEATHER STATION
CORROSION CONTROL FACILITY
DELTA LAUNCH OPS FACILITY
SLFI -UPGRADE EMCS
SLFI-UPGR ELECT DISTRIB SYS
INSTALL FIRE SUPPRESSION SYS
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
CONTROL TOWER

FLORIDA TOTAL:

UPGRADE/CONST AFLD PAVEMENTS

CONTROL TOWER

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

ALTR WPN SYS SUPPORT FAC PH II

BASE ENGINEERING CMPLX, PH II

UPGRADE ELECTRICAL DIST SYS

UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

J -STARS DORMITORY

J-STARS ADD TO ISF FACILITY

J -STARS EXPAND FLIGHT KITCHEN

J-STARS UTILITIES/MISC SUPT

GEORGIA TOTAL:

ADAL SECURITY POLICE OPS FAC
ADAL PETROLEUM OPS FACILITY
ENTOMOLOGY FACILITY
MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE FACILITY
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS
ALTER VISITING OFF/ENL QTRS

GUAM TOTAL:

ALTER DORMITORY

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

HAWAII TOTAL:

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

IDAHO TOTAL:

UPGRADE ELECT DISTRIBUTION SYS
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
UPGRADE UNDERGROUND STOR TANKS

ILLINOIS TOTAL:

BASE ENGINEERING COMPLEX
TRANSPORTATION COMPLEX
UPGRADE POL DIKES AND BASINS

KANSAS TOTAL:

ADAL APRON/HYD FUEL SYS, PH II
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

SZ7 COST

DESIGN

(5000)

SCOPE

(SOOO)

1.750

11&

5,600

JLS

364

1.850

6,000

120

4.500

25,000

293

3,350

218

1.850

120

2.300

53,200

150

2.200

5,300

143

2.500

163

24.150

1.570

9,000

169,900

585

2,490

162

340

4,200

370,000

273

3,650

29,500

237

3,800

247

2,000

130

5,525

288

359

3,100

14,000

202

1,850

8,300

120

3,825

249

59.780

2.586

3,650

18,430

237

1,700

4,450

111

1,100

2,500

4.296

279

4,150

270

8,800

572

23.696

1.540

2,750

179

6,800

442

9.550

621

370

322

5,044

328

3,500

22,500

228

2,550

166

11.094

221

4.650

46,250

302

2.550

15,600

166

1,050

8.250

12,000

780

1,500

375

Department of the Air Force

Fy 95 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE,

BASE

TITLE

fj^o^oT^

SCOPE

(°««

LODISIAMA TOTAL:

13.500

828

ANDREWS

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
MARYLAND TOTAL:

3.810
3.810

000

248
248

K I SAWY

ADAL AIRFIELD LIGHTING

MICHIGAN TOTAL:

3,000
3.000

500

195
195

WHITEMAN

BASE OPERATIONS FAC

3,050

200

198

WHITEMAN

AIRFIELD FENCING

1,200

400

WHITEMAN

B-2 ACFT MAINT DOCKS/HYD FUEL

15 . 700

1,021

WHITEMAN

B-2 ADAL FIRE PROTECTION SYS

2,000

144

000

130

WHITEMAN

STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

1,000

WHITEMAN

B-2 UTILITIES

2,600

169

WHITEMAN

B-2 ADAL APRON/TAXIWAY UPGRADE
MISSOURI TOTAL:

4.800
30.350

900

312
1.973

COLUMBUS

FUEL SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE DOCK

1,550

900

101

COLUMBUS

T-1 SPEC UPT MAINTENANCE SPT

3,100

202

KEESLER

UPGRADE ELECTRICAL DISTRIB SYS

2,950

192

KEESLER

7 -LEVEL TRAINING DORMITORY

8,800

000

572

KEESLER

7 -LEVEL TRAINING CLASSROOMS
MISSISSIPPI TOTAL:

1.800
18.200

400

117
;.183

MALMSTRO

BASE OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

2,250

715

146

MALMSTRO

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

3,200

208

MALMSTRO

ADAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

1,050

500

MALMSTRO

UGND STORAGE TANKS- -MSL FACIL

4,000

260

MALMSTRO

UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE FAC
MONTANA TOTAL:

1,000
11.500

65
748

POPE

AIRCRAFT CORROSION CONTROL FAC

5,500

000

358

POPE

ACFT PARKING APRON LIGHTING

1,500

SEYMOUR

DINING HALL/TROOP ISSUE

4,430

200

288

SEYMOUR

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS
NORTH CAROLINA TOTAL:

360
11.790

23
766

GRAND FO

SECURITY POLICE OPERATIONS

5,300

500

345

GRAND FO

UPGRADE AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

10,200

000

663

GRAND FO

UGND STORAGE TANKS- -MSL FACIL

4,100

267

GRAND FO

STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

1,000

MINOT

FIRE STATION

4,000

500

260

MINOT

UPGRADE POL DIKES AND BASINS

1,425

MINOT

UGND STORAGE TANKS- -MSL FACIL

1,950

t.5

127

MINOT

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

1,100

MINOT

STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
NORTH DAKOTA TOTAL:,

1,500
30.575

98
1.987

OFFUTT

BCE VEHICLE READINESS FAC

4,400

600

286

OFFUTT

STORM DRAINAGE FAC

1,000

376

Departmant of tba Air Force

ry 95 Project Designs Hbicb Hay Require

rY 94 Design Funding (Tentative I^st)

STATB

PA?e

TITLE

EST COST

(5000)

SCOPE

DESIGN
fSOGO)

tff^^>AsyA tqta;,:

5.400

121

NEW BOST

UPGR FIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
NEW HAMPSHIRE TOTAL:

1,500
1.500

98
98

NJ
NJ
NJ

MCGUIRE
MCGUIRE
MCGUIRE

ALTER DORMITORIES, PHASE VI
UPGRADE STORM SEWERS
UPGR SANITARY SEWER MAINS

HEW JERSEY TOTAL:

6,000
1,900
4.750

12.650

280

PN
LS
LS

390
124
309

122

NM
NM
NM

HOLLOMAN
KIRTIAND
KIRTLAND

ALTER DORMITORY

SOLAR/ELECTRIC LAB

UPGRADE UNDERGROUND STOR TANKS

jlEW MEXICO TOTAL:

3,900
2.200
4.400

10.500

142
200

PN
SF
LS

254
143
286

£11

NY
NY

GRIFFISS
PLATTSBU
PLATTSBU

STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

ADD TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTR

UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE FAG

NEW YORK TOTAL:

1.000
2.150
1.000

4.150

400

LS
SF
LS

140

270

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

WRIGHT P
WRIGHT P
WRIGHT P
WRIGHT P
WRIGHT P

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PH I
FIRE STATION

ADAL ENGINEER & RESEARCH LAB
ACQUISITIONS MGT CPLX PH IIB

OHIO TOTAL:

1.000

3.100

1.300

17.800

15,000

38.200

205

108

000
650
600
000
000

SF
LF
SF
SF
SF

65
202

1,157

975

2.483

OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK

ALTUS

TINKER

VANCE

ADD TO AND ALTER DORMITORY
ADAL DORMITORIES
POWER PRO-REFRIG MAINT FAC
SQUAD OPS/MOBILITY CENTER
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
ENGINEERING AND INSTALL FAC
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
UPGRADE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

OKLAHOMA TOTAL:

3,750
4,500
4,000
5,700
2,000
8,800
750
1,100
1,800

32.400

36
40

100
280
500
600

275

PN
PN
SF
SF
LS
SF
LS
LS
LS

244
293
260
371
130
572
49
72
117

2.106

SC
SC
SC

CHARLEST
CHARLEST
CHARLEST

AIRFIELD LIGHTING VAULT

C-17 ADAL APRON/HYDRANT SYSTEM

C-17 ADAL ACFT MAINT/NDI SHOP

SOUTH CAROLINA TOTAL:

1,100
7,500
3,500

12.100

3
4

000
900

SF
LS
SF

72
488
228

212

SD
SD

EI.I.SWORT
ELLSWORT

UPGRADE POL DIKES AND BASINS
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

SOUTH DAKOTA TOTAL:

1,230
1.500

2,730

80
98

121

TN
TN

ARNOLD
ARNOLD

ALTER COOLING WATER SYS
UPGRADE FIRE PROTECTION

3.300
3.500

800

LS
SF

215
228

377

Department o£ the Air Force

Fy 95 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

BASE

BROOKS

DYESS

KELLY

LACKLAND

LAUGHLIN

RANDOLPH

REESE

SHEPPARD

HILL

TITLE

TENNESSEE TOTAL:

CLASSIFI

FAIRCHIL

MCCHORD

HCCHORD

MCCHORD

F E UARR

CLASSIFI

DIRECTED ENERGY LABORATORY

ADAL DORMITORIES

STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

ADAL CHAPEL CENTER

C-17 COMPOSITE REPAIR FAC

ALTER HYDRANT FUELING SYSTEMS

C-17 ENGINE OVERHAUL FACILITY

ADAL DORMS

UPGRADE SANITARY SEWER LINES

COMBAT ARMS TRAINING FACILITY

ALT TECH TNG GROUP SPT CMPLX

ALTER RECRUIT DORMITORY

7 -LEVEL TRAINING CLASSROOMS

UPGRADE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

UPGRADE ELECT DIST SYSTEM

UPGRADE AIRFIELD LIGHTING

J PATS BEDDOWN FAC

UPGRADE AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

UPGRADE AIRFIELD LIGHTING

7-LEVEL TRAINING CLASSROOMS

TEXAS TOTAL:

CORRECT FIRE PROTECTION DFCY

ADAL FIRE STATION

UPGRADE STEAM DISTRIB SYSTEM

UTAH TOTAL:

SPECIAL TACTICAL UNIT DET FAC

VARIOUS TOTAL:

SURVIVAL TRNG SPT CMPLX

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STOR FAC

ADAL MUNI SPT EQUIP SHOP/STOR

STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

ADAL DORMITORIES

CONTROL TOWER

ADAL CONSOLIDATED SPT CENTER

WASHINGTON TOTAL:

UGND STORAGE TANKS --MSL FACIL

WYOMING TOTAL:

AIRCRAFT TRAINING FACILITIES
AIRCRAFT TRAINING FACILITIES
C-17 ADD TO TEST CELL FACILITY
C-17 ADAL FIELD TRAINING FAC
C-17 REGIONAL MAINTENANCE FAC
AIRCRAFT TRAINING FACILITIES
AIRCRAFT TRAINING FACILITIES

iSX UDST

DESIGN

(S0001

SCOPE

(SuoO)

6.800

442

6.500

67,000

423

5.200

25,300

338

1,000

600

3,600

5.400

55,000

351

3.850

250

6.700

65,000

436

2.100

136

137

3,100

40 , 000

202

4.200

37,300

273

5,000

62,500

325

3,400

1,000

221

2,000

130

5,300

77.000

345

3,000

91,000

195

1,900

55,700

124

3,300

215

4,850

110,000

315

2,350

41,800

153

1,300

33.400

3,500

21.000

228

74.550

4.?4$

3,400

930.000

221

1,100

8,050

2,400

156

6.900

iid

2,140

139

2.140

122

5,000

42,000

325

1,400

7,000

1,400

16,850

1,500

100

6,800

280

442

2,650

172

5,900

67,940

384

24.650

;.w

1,700

111

1.700

5,200

338

9,600

624

2,500

4,000

163

4,100

45,100

267

20,000

100,000

1,300

2,100

137

2,000

130

378

Department o£ the Air Force

Fy 95 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

BASE

RAMSTEIN

SPANGDAH

VOGELWEH

THULE

CLASSIFI

CLASS I FI

CLASSIFI

LAJES

LAKENHEA

MILDENHA

TITLE

CLASSIFIED LOCATIONS TOTAL:

TOTAL:

UPGRADE SEWAGE COLLECTION SYS
UPGR SEWAGE TREAT & SEWER SYS
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

GERHANY TOTAL:

FIRE TRAINING FACILITY

GREENLAND TOTAL:

WAR READINESS MAT'L OPEN STOR
WAR READINESS MAT'L MED STOR
WAR READINESS MAINT/MGMT FAC
EUROPEAN GROUND STATION

CLASSIFIED LOCATIONS TOTAL:

REFUSE INCINERATOR

AZORES. PORTUGAL TOTAL:

UPGRADE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

ADD TO AND ALTER DORMITORY

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FAC

DUAL SQUAD OPS FAC

ADAL DORMITORY

AVIONICS MAINTENANCE SHOP

UNITED KINGDOM TOTAL:

TOTAL:

FT 95 TOTAL:

EST COST

(5000)

SCOPE

■'W)

45.500

2.958

691.015

11,600
7,200
1,300
1,900

9
9

300
600

LS
LS
SF
SF

754

468

124

22.000

1.430

2,150

140

2.150

140

1,200

1,800

1,300

12,900

62
18
10

000
000
000

SF
SF
SF
LS

78
117

85
839

17.200

1.118

2,850

185

2.850

185

2,550
4,800
1,900
5,500
2,600
3,000
1,100

11
24
21
25
6

162
000
000
784
308
000

LS
PN
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF

166

312
124
358
169
195
72

21.450

1.394

65.650

756.665

49.183

379

Department of the Air Force

Fy 96 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

SASi

EIELSON

ELMENDOR

SHEMYA

GUNTER

MAXWELL

LITTLE R

DAVIS-MO

LUKE

BEALE

CASTLE

EDWARDS

LOS ANGE

MARCH

MCCLELLA

TRAVIS

VANDENBE

FALCON

PETERSON

USAF ACA

BOLLING

UJJ£

REPAIR HYDR FUELING SYS,
MUNITIONS STORAGE IGLOOS
AIRCRAFT PARTS WAREHOUSE
ADD TO SUPPORT FACILITY

PR 2

PH I

ALASKA TOTAL:

STUDENT DORMITORY, GAFB
UPGRADE UTILITIES, PHASE II
CENTER FOR PROF DEV, PH II
REPAIR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS
ADAL DORM
ADAL VOQ BLDG 119, MAFB

ALABAMA TOTAL:

ADD/ALTER PHYSICAL FITNESS CTR
ADD TO WATER DISTRIBUTION SYST
CONTROL TOWER

ARKANSAS TOTAL:

PHYSICAL FITNESS
ADD/ALTER GYM

FAC

ARIZONA TOTAL:

CONSOLIDATED DINING FACILITY

REFUELING VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

FINANCIAL SUPPORT CENTER

COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT REPAIR FAC

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

UPGR STORMWATER CTRL MEASURES

CLFAN AIR CONTROLS

BASE CIVIL ENGINEER SHOPS

INTEGRATION SUPPORT FACILITY

DEPOT MAINT & SUPPLY FAC

UPGR STORMWATER CTRL MEASURES

AIR COND AIR PASSENGER TERMINL

VAQ

REPLACE FUEL TANKS

COMM MANAGEMENT FACILITY

VISITING OFFICERS QTRS, PH 1

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMNT

CALIFORNIA TOTAL:

OPERATIONS SUPPORT FACILITY II
COMBAT CREW TRAINING
SPACE SUPPORT CENTER
POTABLE WATER RESERVOIR
RENOV ACADEMY HQ'S FACILITY
PREP SCHOOL CLASSROOM/ADMIN
REPLACE SAILPLANE HANGAR
ACADEMIC FAC MODERNIZATION PH3

COLORADO TOTAL:

ADAL FITNESS CENTER
BACHELOR NCO QUARTERS
REPLACE VISITORS QUARTERS

;ST COST

«000>
13,623

OESir-N

(?000)

341

4,427

7,373

184

2,000

?7.42?

686

2,470

3,800

8,550

214

3,230

4,625

116

4,470

112

27.145

679

4,100

103

7,900

198

2.550

14.550

364

4,079

102

3,000

7.079

122

5,764

144

670

2,200

5,600

140

4,700

118

1,500

218

5,400

135

10,600

265

12,350

309

2,700

1,500

7,000

175

4,300

108

1,300

5,300

133

4,700

118

75.802

1.895

9,959

249

7,400

185

9,900

248

1,800

3,200

4,050

101

1,950

32,500

813

70.759

1,769

1,700

5,500

138

3,430

380

Department of the Air Force

Fy 96 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

BASE

DOVER

EGLIN

EGLIN 9

HOMESTEA

MACDILL

PATRICK

TYNDALL

MOODY

ROBINS

MT HOME

SCOTT

BARKSDAL

BARKS DAL

BARKSDAL

HANS COM

HANSCOM

ANDREWS

WHITEMAN

TITLE

DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA TOTAL:

VEHICLE OPERATIONS ADMIN FAC

DELAWARE TOTAL:

ADAL AIRBORNE TEST FACILITY

AIR FREIGHT/PASSENGER TERMINAL

REROUTE EGLIN BLVD

UPGR STORMWATER CONTROL MEAS

COMBAT ARMS TRNG & MAINT FAC

ALTER COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTR

RENOVATE DORMS

CONTROL TOWER

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

UPGRADE FOUR DORMS

ALTER MOBILITY FACILITY

FLORIDA TOTAL:

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
COMPOSITE WING FAC
PLANT MANAGEMENT COMPLEX
ADD/ALTER ACFT MAINT DOCK
J -STARS FUELS SYS MAINT DOCK
UPGR STORMWATER DISCHARGE SYS

GEORGIA TOTAL:

AFFF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

IDAHO TOTAL:

FIRE STATION

FLEET SERVICES TERMINAL

ILLINOIS TOTAL:

UPGRADE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM
ADAL TARGET INTEL TRAINING FAC
AIRCRAFT PARTS STORE
MILSTAR COMM GROUND TERMINAL

LOUISIANA TOTAL:

BURY ELECT DISTRIBUTION LINES
UPG CENTR HEAT PLT TO INC BACT

MASSACHUSETTS TOTAL:

BASE CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPLEX
UPGR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

MARYLAND TOTAL:

MILITARY VEHICLE SERVICE STN
SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION
B-2 AIRCRAFT MAINT DOCS

^"iUW

%«

10.630

266

800

8,700

218

1,600

3,000

1,200

1,900

560

9,000

225

2,383

1,600

3,000

1,500

34.443

861

3,200

16,400

410

7,000

175

2,281

6,870

172

2.000

37.751

944

970

8,000

200

8.970

224

1,750

1,950

3,700

12,000

300

900

6,000

150

1,810

20.710

518

3,000

1,000

4.000

100

7.600

190

5.900

148

13.500

338

500

520

25,000

625

381

Department of the Air Force

Fy 96 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

BASE

TITLE

MISSOURI TOTAL:

MS
MS
MS
MS

COLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
KEESLER

MX
MT

MALMSTRO
MALMSTRO

NC
NC

SEYMOUR
SEYMOUR

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

GRAND FO
GRAND FO
GRAND FO
MINOT
MINOT

OFFUTT

MCGUIRE

CANNON

HOLLOMAN

KIRTLAND

INDIAN S

NELLIS

GRIFFISS

WRIGHT P

NDI FACILITY

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

PMEL ADDITION

DORMITORY

MISSISSIPPI TOTAL:

AIR FREIGHT TERMINAL

MISSILE COMBAT OPERATIONS CNTR

MONTANA TOTAL:

TRANSIENT LODGING FACILITY
EDUCATION CENTER/LIBRARY

NORTH CAROLINA TOTAL:

UPGRADE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM
UPGRADE RUNWAY
SUPPORT OPERATIONS CENTER
NOSE DOCK FIRE SUPPRESSION SYS
UPGRADE TAXIWAY (PH 1)

NORTH DAKOTA TOTAL:

UPGRADE APRON/TAXIWAY (WEST)

NEBRASKA TOTAL:

UPGR STORMWATER CTRL MEASURES
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY

NEW JERSEY TOTAL:

ADAL DORMITORY 1159

UPGRADE UTILITIES PH II

UPGR STORMWATER CTRL MEASURES

FIRE TRAINING FACILITY

ADD/ALTER PHYSICAL FITNESS CTR

CHILD DEVEIjOPMENT CENTER

RENOVATE DORMS

NEW MEXICO TOTAL:

WATER STORAGE TANK
SOUND SUPPRESSOR SUPPORT FAC
AIRFIELD LIGHTING VAULT
OPERATIONS FACILITY

NEVADA TOTAL:

HAZARDOUS STORAGE FACILITY

NEW YORK TOTAL:

ADAL ENG & RESEARCH LAB, PH II

EST COST

DESIGN

($000)

(?000)

26.020

611

1.400

5,000

125

450

4,700

118

11.550

289

2.300

8.700

218

11.000

275

1,500

4,300

108

5.800

4,200

105

5,000

125

7.900

198

3.400

12.600

315

33.100

828

5.800

145

5.800

145

2,000

950

2.950

4.900

123

6.049

151

1,000

1.040

1.500

2.800

8.255

206

25.544

639

1.250

911

1,900

3.244

7.305

183

800

8,500

213

382

Department of the Air Force

Fy 96 Project Designs Which May Require

FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

STATE

BASE

WRIGHT P

ALTUS

TINKER

VANCE

CHARLEST

SHAW

ARNOLD

BROOKS

GOODFELL

KELLY

LAUGHLIN

REESE

HILL

LANGLEY

CLASSIFI

VARIOUS

TITLE

UPGR STORMWATER CTRL MEASURES

OHIO TOTAL:

REPLACE UNDERGROUND STOR TANKS
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
C-141 ADAL APRON/HYDRANTS
COMBAT COM MOBILE EQUIP FAC
ALTER AIR CONDITIONING PLANT
SOFTWARE SUPPORT FACILITY
ADD TO INTEGRATION SPT FAC
UPGRADE STORMWATER DISCH SYS
BASE ENGINEERING COMPLEX
AIRFIELD PAVEMENT (RAMP)

OKLAHOMA TOTAL:

ADAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM
ALTER VAQ'S

C-17 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE FAC
FUEL SYSTEM MAINT DOCK

SOUTH CAROLINA TOTAL:

UPGRADE UTILITIES SYSTEM
BASE FAC COOLING TOWER

TENNESSEE TOTAL:

SECURITY POLICE OPERATIONS

UPGRADE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

BASE CONTRACTING OFFICE

ALTER FUEL ACCESS OVERHAUL FAC

UPGRADE ELECTRIC DISTR SYS

CONSTR/UPGR CHEM STAGING AREA

UPGRADE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

J PATS BEDDOWN

UPGR AFLD PAVE PARKING APRON

TEXAS TOTAL:

RANGE INSTRUMENTATION SITES
UPGRADE COMBAT SUPPORT CENTER
UPGR INDUST WASTEWATER LINES
BOILER EMISSION UPGRADES

UTAH TOTAL:

ALTER TRANSIENT DORMITORY

VIRGINIA TOTAL:

SPECIAL TACT UNIT DET

INSTALL STORMWATER CTRL MEAS

TSSAM

VARIOUS TRAINING FACILITIES

NATIONAL AIRSPACt SYS

VAR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

PRODUCTIVITY INVESTMENTS

CONTROL TOWER FAC

^l.o<bSS^

""m^

1,700

10.?00

251

920

800

11,400

285

1,200

2,650

7,950

199

6,700

168

2,000

5,000

125

5,000

125

43.620

;.o?i

1.750

8.000

200

3,000

2,800

15.550

389

4,800

120

8,804

220

13,604

340

1,600

3.000

2.600

3,400

2,900

500

3,000

3,524

5.200

130

25.724

643

6.000

150

7,000

175

2,000

1,000

16.000

400

2,000

2.000

1,750

10,000

250

7,600

190

812

300

1,540

2,500

7,191

180

383

Department of the Air Force
y 96 Project Designs Which May Re
FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative 1

STATE

BASE

VARIOUS

FAIRCHIL

MCCHORD

CLASS I FI

CLASSIFI

CLASS I FI

CLASSIFI

RIVET MI

VAR LOC

RAMSTEIN

GU
CU
GU
GU
GU
GU

ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN
ANDERSEN

YOKOTA

KO
KO

KUNSAN
OSAN

CLASSIFI

LAJES

TITLE

VARIOUS F-22 FACILITIES

INFLATION ADJUSTMENT

VARIOUS LOCATIONS TOTAL:

UPGRADE POL DIKES AND BASINS
UPGRADE STEAM DISTRIBUTION SYS
LOGISTICS COMPLEX
ENTOMOLOGY SHOP

WASHINGTON TOTAL:

C-17 ALTER HANGARS

C-17 ADD/ALTER FUEL CELL

C-17 ADAL CORROSION CONTROL

C-17 ALTER COMPOSITE SHOP

C-17 RAMP/HYDRANTS

C-17 ADD/ALTER AVIONICS SHOP

C-17 ADD TO ASSAULT STRIP

C-17 FLIGHT SIMULATOR

AIRCRAFT TRAINING FAC

RIVET MILE UNDERGR STOR TANKS

UPGRADE UNDERGROUND STOR TANKS

INSIDE U.S. TOTAL:

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TOTAL:

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

GERMANY TOTAL:

CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPLEX
MISSION SUPPORT FACILITY
UPGRADE STORM SEWER SYSTEM
INDUST WASTE WATER TREATMENT
SEAL INJECTION WELLS
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

GUAM TOTAL:

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS

JAPAN TOTAL:

FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY

KOREA TOTAL:

SPECIAL PROJECT

OUTSIDE U.S. TOTAL:

UPGR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

PORTUGAL TOTAL:

EST COST
($000)
7,100
(34,000)

DESIGN

($000)

178

(850)

A. 793

120

2,330

3,500

2,459

470

58
88
61
12

8.759

219

11,873
2,400
4,600
1,400

14 , 600

2,100

900

3,200

7,500

11,000
1,150

297
60

115
35

365
53
23
80

188

275
29

60.723

1.518

688.104

2,900

9,000
5,459
3,500
1,500
2,500
4,150

225

136

104

26.109

653

2,300

2.300

1,200
1,200

30
30

2.400

5,000

125

5.000

125

2,000

2.000

68-354 O— 93-

-13

384

Department of the Air Force
Fy 96 Project Designs Which May Require
FY 94 Design Funding (Tentative List)

SI&ZE BASE TITLE 2ST -OST

OPTSIPE THE nWITED STATFg jnjf.^^. 4o^709

" ^^ TQTAIn 728.813 i^^Zfi

385

DEFENSE BUSINESS OPERATIONS FUND

Question. Please describe for us how a construction project works
its way internally through the Defense Business Operations Fund
(DBOF) system, before it gets presented to us. What is the competi-
tion like within the Services, and what hurdles remain after the
Services endorse a project?

Answer. The Services include construction projects in budget
submissions to OSD/OMB and the Congress on the basis of their
program priority. DBOF projects enjoy no special priority or prefer-
ence. OSD and 0MB review both the MilCon projects on DBOF ac-
tivities and all others the same way, ensuring they are properly
priced and of sufficient priority to warrant funding, before they are
submitted in the budget to Congress for approval and funding.

Question. This year, DBOF projects are presented for direct ap-
propriation, and this is clearly this subcommittee's preferred
method for financing these projects. Are funds accruing, as a result
of user fees, that will finance future construction?

Answer. No funds are accruing to DBOF activities that will fi-
nance future MilCon projects. In the FY 1994 budget. Military Con-
struction appropriated fund support is requested for MilCon
projects on DBOF activities. DBOF activities collect cash each year
from charging customers for depreciation expense of completed
MilCon projects, so total costs of operation of that activity are re-
corded on DBOF accounting records. However, DBOF activities
return all MilCon-related depreciation collections to host O&M ac-
counts in the same year they are provided.

SECTION 6 SCHOOLS

Question. What is the current backlog of facilities requirements
for Section 6 Schools?

Answer. $79,175,000.

Question. With a backlog this large, how did you set priorities for
which projects to fund first?

Answer. The following factors were considered in establishing
the priorities for our military construction projects: (1) the addition
of family housing units to the installation; (2) the percentage of un-
housed school children on that installation; (3) the type of facility
requested; (4) if the project had been previously programmed; (5)
the priority of the school system within which the project was re-
quested; and (6) whether the project was at or could reach the 35%
design level by January 1933, for those projects in the FY 1994 pro-
gram.

PROJECTS FUNDED IN THE DEFENSE BILL

Question. The DoD Appropriations Act of 1993 provided $33.55
million for six projects. What is the current status of each of these
projects, including the estimated contract award date?

Answer. The funds were appropriated by section 9157; however,
with the exception of the project for the construction of the visitors
center at the United States Naval Academy, none of the projects
for which the funds were appropriated have been authorized.
Under the provisions of section 2802 of title 10, United States Code,
which provides that the "Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries

386

of the military departments may carry out such military construc-
tion projects as are authorized by law," project authorization is re-
quired in order for the funds to be obligated or expended. Accord-
ingly, of the total amount appropriated by section 9157, only the
$4.5 million appropriated for the Naval Academy visitors center
may be obligated and there is no legal authority to obligate the re-
maining $29.05 million.

Insofar as the Naval Academy visitors center is concerned, the
funds have been released; the design is completed; a request for
proposals is anticipated to be issued in May; and a contract award
is projected for August of this year.

ESTIMATES FOR BRAC III

Question. The Cheney-Bush budget for fiscal year 1994 included
$403 million for the new round of base closures, which is known as
"BRAC III." What was the basis for this estimate, and what caused
the increase from $403 million to the current estimate of $1.2 bil-
lion?

Answer. The BRAC 93 COBRA estimates were prepared by each
of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies and are includ-
ed in their respective detailed analyses available in the House
Armed Services Committee reading room. The fiscal year 1994 esti-
mates for the Secretary's BRAC 93 recommendations total $1.9 bil-
lion. The Department performed an analysis of the COBRA runs to
refine the estimates, based on historical obligation rates for the
previous base closure rounds. Based on this analysis, the Depart-
ment determined that $1.2 billion is the appropriate figure for
fiscal year 94 for the 1993 round of closures and realignments.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Hefner.]

[Clerk's NOTE.^Question submitted by Ms. Meek:]

Question. Admiral Koenig, $10 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 1993 for the first phase of construction of a new hospital at
Homestead Air Force Base before hurricane Andrew. Can you tell
me what your plans are for utilizing those funds?

Answer. Due to the Congressional language restriction imposed
in FY 93, these funds remain with the Department of Defense
Comptroller. We have not requested funds for construction of
health care facilities in the Homestead area because the active
duty troops have been moved to several other bases. It has been
considered to request that the authorization and funding received
to date for the Homestead replacement project be transferred to
one or more of these bases in an effort to ease the over crowding
now occurring as a result of the movement of the personnel from
Homestead. However, until final troop movement and the final dis-
position of Homestead AFB is known, we feel it is in the best inter-
est of the eligible beneficiaries to hold these funds in abeyance.

Question. As you know, the loss of that hospital has caused some
hardship for military retirees in the Homestead area. They have
lost entitled access to efficient health care. Does your agency con-
struct medical clinics or other facilities for military retirees?

Answer. No. We build health care facilities for active duty per-
sonnel and eligible beneficiaries. Under the direction of 10 United

387

States Code, Section 1074, we may provide medical and dental care
for former members of uniformed service eligible beneficiaries who
are entitled to retired or retainer pay, subject to the availability of
space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental
staff. This prohibits the building and staffing of a healthcare facili-
ty strictly to meet the medical needs of retired military personnel
and their eligible dependents.

Question. Would the Air National Guard be willing to look into
having a medical training or research facility located at Homestead
Air Base once it is operating under a civilian control?

Answer. The Air National Guard is not directly involved in medi-
cal research or medical research facility missions.

The Air National Guard continues to explore medical training
opportunities. Placement of medical training facilities is dependent
on medical force structure requirements and geographies location
of Air National Guard medical personnel. A formal assessment of
developing a facility at Homestead Air Base is not currently under-
way.

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Vucanovich:]

Question. What construction backlog does the Department have
for medical facilities?

Answer. The Department's construction backlog for medical fa-
cilities is roughly $3 billion.

PRIORITIES

Question. How does the Defense Medical Facilities Office priori-
tize the medical needs of the services?

Answer. The Defense Medical Facilities Office (DMFO) works in
consonance with the Military Departments, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the Guidance directed by the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the medical needs of the Department of Defense are
met in the most expedient and cost-effective manner. There is no
attempt to prioritize a facility belonging to any certain Military
Department or to rank projects from "a to z." Each project is eval-
uated on its own merit and competes with all projects from each of
the Military Departments. Through our strident efforts to evaluate
these projects as they are brought to the attention of the DMFO,
we attempt to eradicate duplication of effort, and validate and re-
validate to assure that we are building the proper facility in the
correct location.

BASE REAUGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Question. What role does the Defense Medical Facilities Office
play in the base closure process?

Answer. The Defense Medical Facilities Office (DMFO) monitors
and assesses the impact of realigned forces on Medical Facilities at
the gaining installations. When the facilities at the gaining instal-
lation are overwhelmed by the population, facility solutions are de-
veloped and presented to the Service Base Realignment and Clo-
sure office for design and Construction. DMFO validates the project
scope and continues to monitor both design and construction.

388

Question. What impact has base closures had on medical facility
needs?

Answer. The greatest impact has been the need to accommodate
migrating provider groups by medical specialty within the gaining
hospital or clinic. In the interest of departmental efficiency it usu-
ally requires multiple moves plus an addition. In some cases total
replacement is the best solution and this requires conjunctive fund-
ing between Base Realignment and Closure funding and normal
medical military construction funding.

Question. As you know, construction is proceeding on the new
Las Vegas Federal Medical Center at Nellis Air Force Base in Las
Vegas, Nevada. This Medical Center will operate under a concept
in which the Air Force and the Veterans Administration will share
resources to provide quality patient care.

I understand that construction is proceeding ahead of schedule. I
would like to commend you on this. I am quite familiar with the
facility and have only one question.

Under the contract completion was scheduled for July of 1994.
Under the current construction schedule completion is scheduled
for March of 1994. I simply would like an update on the status of
the facility and your thoughts about whether or not you expect any
circumstances to prevent the completion in March of 1994.

Answer. The official contract completion date for this facility is
July 1994. As you mention, the contractor feels that he is ahead of
schedule and can complete this facility by March of 1994. The
March date is a self-imposed goal that the contractor has set for
himself and will have no impact on the official contract completion
date. However, we see no impediment to achieving the July 1994
date and applaud the contractor's efforts to attempt to complete
this project by March.

Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record submitted by
Mrs. Vucanovich.]

[Clerk's note.-— Question for the record submitted by Mrs. Bent-
ley:]

Question. It is my understanding that the Army has one of the
world's finest research facilities on artificial limbs, which is associ-
ated with the Raymond Curtis Hand Center at Union Memorial
Hospital in Baltimore. It is also my understeinding that efforts are
underway to expand this facility. Could you tell me more about
this?

Answer. The Department of the Army has a limited affiliation
with the Raymond Curtis Hand Center. This facility is a private
hospital. The Department of the Army, through Walter Reed Army
Medical Center and Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore have a
reciprocal agreement for the exchange of surgery residents for
training. The Army has no monetary investment in this facility
and no input or control in its operations.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions for the record.]

Thursday, April 1, 1993.

EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

WITNESS

GENERAL JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI, USA, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF U.S. EU-
ROPEAN COMMAND

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Hefner. The committee will come to order.

Today, we will discuss the NATO Infrastructure program, the
European Construction program and related policies dealing with
that part of the world.

We have with us today General John Shalikashvili — ^you are
going to have to help me a little bit until we get

General Shaukashvili. Shalikashvili, but everyone says "Shall."
It stops there,

Mr. Hefner. We have General Shall with us today, and I want to
thank you for being with us and I understand you had a nice hear-
ing this morning with the Defense Subcommittee, which I am also
a member of but I could not make it today. We are happy to have
you with us and I would like to introduce some new Members to
our committee.

The gentlelady from Nevada, Mrs. Vucanovich, we are happy to
have her with us, and a new Member from Pennsylvania, who has
been a colleague for a lot of years. We are happy to have these
people with us on the committee. This is their first appearance
with us, and Mr. Coleman, who has been on the committee for
quite some while. In my view, this is one of the better committees
in the entire House. We certainly work together because it is our
duty and our desire to do what we can to help our folks in the mili-
tary, their quality of life and to support our troops wherever they
might be.

It is a real pleasure to have you with us, sir, and your entire
statement will be a part of the record and you can go ahead and
paraphrase and proceed any way you see fit, sir.

Statement of General John M. Shaukashviu

General Shaukashvili. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you and the distinguished members of your committee
for the opportunity to appear before you and to discuss the United
States-European Command.

I thought it might be useful, Mr. Chairman, if just for a second, I
would tell you my views of where I think we are in the European
Command and where it is I think we are going.

I promise you to avoid any cliches about how far we have come
in the last three years, because we have been watching that period

(389)

390

and, in fact, you have been shaping that period, so I certainly will
not refer to it.

But suffice it to say that I think while we are not, might not
fully understand just the nature and the magnitude of change that
we have lived through, I think all of us will agree that we are sort
of at a watershed period. And how we deal in 1993 with some very
key issues might very well decide how it is that we are going to
end the century.

And I think here it is key that we understand the central role
that Russia plays and how it impacts on the European Command.

I think that how President Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet, their
Parliament, resolve that issue and, more importantly, how the
Soviet, the Russian military and particularly their Defense Minis-
ter General Grachev interface in all of that will be key whether we
will enter this next century as a century of opportunity or as a cen-
tury of tension.

I think from where we sit also, it is very important how well the
U.S. this year will resolve the issue of the debt, the economic issue,
and the issue of aiding infrastructure on the one hand; on the
other hand its role as a world leader. And how well it does that, I
think this year, will determine whether we will, in fact, have a
transatlantic relationship in the same healthy condition we have
had in these last 40 years and whether the United States will
remain a European power.

Certainly, I don't have to tell you how important it is that the
United States and Europe stay closely together, because if there is
a lesson of the century, it is that whenever the United States and
Europe begin to part ways, we on both sides of the Atlantic pay a
terrible price.

I would also tell you that, and perhaps it is less realized here in
the United States, but this year also how Denmark and the U.K.
resolve the issue on the Maastricht Treaty will decide whether
Europe will continue in the direction of unity or whether we are
going to have a turn towards nationalism and I think that is really
important.

Probably nothing hangs over all of Europe as much like a dark
cloud as the condition in the former Yugoslavia and how the Alli-
ance deals with that and how it comes to grips not only with the
tragedy in Bosnia-Hercegovina but also keeps the conflict from wid-
ening into places like Kosovo or Macedonia will very much decide
whether the Alliance will remain as a vibrant organization.

Clearly, NATO plays a very critical role in all of this. No collec-
tion of bilateral treaties can ever take the place of the Alliance, be-
cause it is through NATO that the Alliance really get tied to the
United States. NATO forms really the framework for our influence
and our leadership in Europe.

It is really useful to, I guess, reflect that the U.S. is, in fact, a
European power, although we do not in any way have nor ever
desire a single inch of European territory. And that is why I think
Europeans are so willing and so grateful often for the U.S. leader-
ship. But, in turn, U.S. leadership is what makes NATO possible.
And I don't know whether it is because the way we established
NATO or whether it is 40 years' of experience, but we have all
seen that whenever the United States does not lead, NATO really

391

does not work. But I can tell you that we can lead only when we
maintain a sufficient, credible forward presence in Europe, and I
happen to be of the opinion that the glidepath that we are on now
with our forward presence is about right.

Mr. Chairman, we have right now about 173,000 servicemen and
women in Europe. We are scheduled to go to 132,200 by the year
1994 and Congress has mandated that we go to approximately
100,000 by the year 1996. I think that is about right, providing we
do two things: One, that we maintain that glidepath and don't try
to do it quicker; and, secondly, that we take the opportunity each
year to review that. And as conditions change in Europe, as the se-
curity environment changes, that we then are willing to adapt to it
and make necessary adjustments.

But if things continue the way they are now and all things turn
out as now expected, then I think we are, in fact, on the right
glidepath. But I will tell you that the numbers are really only part
of the story and the other side is quality.

I think you would agree with me that we need to make sure that
those American servicemen and women, whether they are the
number now, 173,000 or 100,000, that they can enjoy the right
training, the right leadership, the right quality of life that they de-
serve. And in that respect, of course you know that we cannot have
quality of life if we don't provide them with adequate quarters,
whether they are single or married quarters; with decent working
places and of course the support facilities for our people and their
families.

This year, as you are aware, we are asking for nine projects for
the European theater at a cost of $69.9 million and these projects
will provide a decent quality of life that I think is essential and the
critical mission support we need to be able to do our work.

I am confident that with your help and your assistance we can,
in fact, provide those servicemen and women and their families
that quality of life that is so essential. Because I think we owe it to
them and as you look at the European theater, the uncertainties,
the instabilities that abound, lead you to conclude that we really
don't know what we will have to ask our young men and women to
do tomorrow, and so we ought to make sure that they are trained
and they are led and they are competent and they know that their
families are well taken care of as we ask them to do those many
difficult things.

And 1 thank you very much for allowing me to make that state-
ment, and I am prepared for your questions.

Mr. Hefner. Thank you. General.

392
Prepared Statement of General John M. Shalikashviu

Statement of

GENERAL JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI

Commander in Chief
United States European Command

before the

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on MiUtary Construction

APRH. 1, 1993

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNTIL RELEASED BY

THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS

393

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, it
is an honor to appear before this panel to discuss how the United
States European Command can best serve U.S. interests in a world
undergoing profound change. It is also a great responsibility.
We are in a watershed period, one in which our actions and
decisions will have consequences for our national security well
into the next century.

My combatant command has an area of responsibility (AOR)
that includes some 82 nations and encompasses Europe, parts of
the Near East, the North African littoral, and sub-Saharan
Africa. This AOR contains over 13 million square miles, is home
to more than 1 billion people, and includes a wide diversity of
geography, cultures, religions, economies, governments, and
security needs. All across the AOR, USEUCOM forces are busy.
During the past year we have planned over 30 operations and
executed 12 of those plans. These operations included emergency
evacuations of U.S. citizens, humanitarian relief, monitoring and
enforcing U.N. resolutions, and tracking suspected drug
traffickers.

On the European continent, the U.S. is actively
participating in forging a new European security order. The
Versailles Treaty signed following the First World War failed
miserably and quickly. The competing Alliances formed following
the Second World War proved more stable, and the perseverance and
solidarity of the NATO nations brought about the successful end
of the Cold War. Because of our willingness to stay the course

394

during the often difficult years of the Cold War, we now have the
opportunity to foster democracy and mold a security environment
more durable and equitable than our world has known for
centuries. Today, the nations of the former Warsaw Pact
including the Republics of the Former Soviet Union, are
desperately seeking the security and stability we in the West
often take for granted. No matter where I travel in the former
Soviet Bloc, the desire for closer ties to the West is at the top
of each nations' priorities.

Succeeding in this endeavor is a U.S. interest of the very
highest order. How Europe fares in the coming years will have
major consequences for the U.S. The United States and its
traditional European Allies, play a cirucial role in the
development of the democratic institutions and free market
economies of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. How
successfully they develop will determine to a large extent the
future stability of Exirope and the world. Our success with these
countries will validate the democratic and economic principles we
hold as the basis for our way of life, and bring us friendly
relationships and perhaps reliable future allies. Their failure
will leave hostile regimes and embittered enemies in their place.

It is in this context that NATO plays an absolutely critical
role. No imaginable collection of bilateral agreements could
replace the Alliance. NATO forms the framework for our influence
and leadership, which because of our geographic position, is of a
soirt that no European nation could provide. Through NATO, the

395

U.S. is a European power even though we don't have or desire a
single square inch of European territory. It is our leadership,
in turn, which makes NATO possible. We must be clear about the
source of our leadership — we can lead NATO because USEUCOM is a
credible forward presence on the European continent. Our
military contribution is significant compared to those of other
member nations; so is our influence. Nothing can be more
favorable for U.S. interests in Europe than to retain that degree
of influence.
THE EVOLVING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

within that context, let's take a broad look at the security

environment in my AOR. The "threat" in the old sense of a global
power openly hostile to the U.S., our allies, and our way of life
is gone. On the other hand, threats in the sense of situations
that are dangerous for our long term vital national interests
have multiplied. Rather than a global conflict with an
ideological foe, we must now be able to deal effectively with
numerous, highly unpredictable crises. The collapse of
totalitarian governments has unleashed artificially suppressed,
centuries-old grievances and disputes all across Europe. Armed
conflict has ignited in numerous locations throughout the former
Warsaw Pact and in other parts of our AOR. In the Balkans, a
violent civil war is devastating the former Republic of
Yugoslavia and threatening the peace and stability of neighboring
states and the region. In the republics of the former Soviet

396

Union, armed clashes have broken out in Nagorno-Karabakh,
Georgia, Tajikistan, and Moldova. In northern Iraq and Turkey,
the Kurdish insurrection grows more violent even as we remain
actively engaged in the coalition monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the U.N. resolutions. In the Middle East,
despite the ongoing efforts of the U.S. to encourage meaningful
peace talks between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the basic
issues of that region remain unresolved. We are hopeful
that peaceful solutions can be found, but the outcome remains
difficult to predict.

Other problems that have not yet resulted in protracted
armed conflict continue to challenge stability and security
throughout the AOR. Over the past decade, the trend toward
radical religious fundamentalism has increased dramatically. The
possible proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons grade
materials continues to pose a threat for world security. Drug
trafficking has also increased through distribution hubs in
Africa to Europe and America. Political and economic instability
are fostering subversion, insurgency, and terrorism as additional
challenges to regional stability. Recent events in Russia
highlight the great potential for the democratic reform movement
there to succumb to the immense difficulties of reorienting that
society toward democracy and a market economy.

Although there are encouraging signs of progress toward
democracy and free market economies in Africa, the overall
picture remains bleak. Drought, famine, the AIDS pandemic.

397

resurgent tribalism and gangster-style warfare threaten to
overwhelm all progress. As a result, we are likely to see more
Somalia-like situations well into the foreseeable future.

This snapshot view of the security environment clearly
demonstrates why, from my perspective as a theater combatant
commander, the forward-based presence of significant American
military forces is absolutely essential not only to support our
leadership role in NATO but also to support our National Military
Strategy. USEUCOM forward-based forces provide strategic depth
that is critical as we continue to reduce the size of our force
structure. We are strategically positioned among friends,
preserving the priceless legacy of over forty years of close
cooperation. We are strategically positioned in close proximity
to deter potential adversaries, reminding them that we are not
without formidable military power nor the political will to use
it if necessary. The best analogy for strategic positioning
comes from our experience in the Gulf War — I believe that had it
been possible to station a U.S. division in the Arabian Gulf
region in early 1990, we may not have had to fight DESERT STORM.
Forward-based forces protect U.S. interests daily on a smaller
scale and at lower cost than those forces required if we have to
respond to an emerging crisis. They also provide the leading
edge of America's ability to respond to fast-breaking events.
While that continuous presence can be augmented by a variety of
neems (e.g., deployments, prepositioning of equipment, combined
exercises, military-to-military contacts, security assistance).

398

nothing conveys our commitment to the stability and security of
our friends and allies like forward-based forces. As we saw
during the Gulf War, this kind of tangible commitment pays
dividends in the form of material and political support for
coalition endeavors. Currently, U.S. access to vital aerial and
sea ports across our AOR permits our global power projection to
support on-going operations in Yugoslavia for PROVIDE PROMISE, in
Turkey for PROVIDE COMFORT, and in Somalia for U.S. Central
Command and RESTORE HOPE. Basing and overflight rights for such
operations, and a willingness to participate directly are basic
and irreplaceable returns on our forward-based commitment.

Moreover, the presence of our highly capable conventional
and special operations forces with a full range of combat power,
logistical, and support capability serves as a stabilizing factor
in the security of the region. Their presence also demonstrates
the will and capability to protect U.S. interests, and provides
our national leaders with the broadest array of possible response
options. Through forward-based presence, we are able to provide
meaningful military response options measured in terms of
minutes, hours, and days rather than weeks and months.
VSEUCOM FORCE STRUCTURE

We have developed our force structure to demonstrate our

commitment to our Allies and that we intend to remain involved as
a leader in European security decision making, match U.S.
security requirements for forward presence and crisis response.

399

and to provide logistical capability to support operations in
Europe and throughout our AOR. Our force structure accounts for
the new, and still evolving security environment, and recognizes
constrained fiscal resources. We believe it is prudent not to
cut too far too fast in order to deal with an uncertain future.
Our original planning called for this force to be manned at
around 150,000. However, as we go lower we must dual base
subordinate elements of the air and land forces, particularly
land forces, in the U.S. If we reduce too far we will lose our
capability and our commitment to Alliance collective defense will
be questioned. We are carefully and continuously assessing the
force changes and the impact they will have on our forward
presence mission. Our forces must maintain a balanced mix of
land, air, and naval power in order to demonstrate that the U.S.
is willing to make a credible commitment to Alliance security.
Our currently planned forward-based joint force to provide this
credible commitment and maintain combat effectiveness will total
approximately 100,000 personnel assigned in Europe at end state.
As we reduce and reshape our forces, we must be careful not
to damage their inherent capabilities. Our experience thus far
with crisis response has consistently shown that our general
purpose forces contain the broad range of specialties such as
medics, engineers, logisticians and air defense personnel that
crises demand. Additionally, as we reduce our forces, we must
retain high confidence that they are well designed to
successfully meet major regional operations and provide for

400

crisis response. If we design our forces solely for crisis
response, we probably miss the mark, because the nature of crisis
is unpredictable. We would give up the capability for a broad
range of response options to a broad range of crises. The
USEUCON force must include a foundation of intelligence,
communications, logistics, and associated infrastructure to
support the reception of reinforcing units from the U.S. or the
deployment of forces for contingency operations. As USEUCOM
forces continue restructuring, our Special Operations Forces
provide a dynamic, cost-effective, capability throughout the AOR.
They retain their ability to conduct forward presence and
contingency operations unilaterally, jointly with other U.S.
forces, or as part of an Allied or coalition effort.
DRAW DOWN PROGRESS

Over the past year, we have continued realigning our force

structure in accordance with our force drawdown gameplan. As of
March 1993, our forces number about 173,000 (105,000 Army, 55,000
Air Force, 13,000 Navy). During this year we will further reduce
to approximately 163,000. We also continue making significant
progress in reducing our basing infrastructure in Europe. Thus
far we have initiated realignment action on 649 sites which is 47
percent of the total we occupied at the start of the drawdown in
January 1990. Of that number, we currently plan to fully return
585 to the host nations, partially return 60, and place 4 in
standby status. To date we have closed and returned 417 sites, a

401

30 percent reduction from the January 1990 baseline. Current
estimates indicate that total residual value from installations
returned to host nations will be over $1 billion. The eventual
eunount of residual value payments we receive and the timing of
payments will depend on a variety of factors including the
negotiated value of U.S. investment, offsets for damages, and the
ability of the host nations to pay. He believe that residual
value negotiations will return compensation to the U.S., but they
will be lengthy and host nations may ask to spread their payments
over several years.

As we reduce the size of our forward-based forces, other
forms of forward presence may receive increased emphasis. Today
some of our forces are rotational, such as Navy and Marine Corps
units in the Mediterranean, plus some specialized units whose
mission lends itself to a rotational concept. Deployment by
Guard and Reserve units and individuals on a rotational basis is
increasing. Although we have found this concept workable for
certain units and missions, it may not be appropriate for many
larger-sized units. Previous DoD studies have shown that the
rotational concept is more expensive than accompanied tours in
many cases. The costs include maintaining two bases, one in the
U.S. and one overseas, as well as additional temporary duty and
transportation costs. Over the long term, expanding the units we
routinely rotate into theater will adversely affect unit
readiness levels and personnel retention. While rotating
appropriate units enhances our forward presence and allows the US

402

to exert influence in areas where we have no permanent bases, it
is not a substitute for forward-based forces.
RESOURCE PRIORITIES

The resources required to maintain the smaller European

Command forces and logistics infrastructure are markedly less
than our previous commitment during the Cold War. We have
identified key areas on which to focus our limited resources. The
following priorities reflect my best judgement on the essential
requirements to implement our drawdown plan effectively and on
time while retaining a credible combat force in Europe that
provides the necessary capabilities.

The most important resource requirement of U.S. European
Command is our people. We must continue to give high priority
to providing our troops and their families a good environment in
which to live and work, facilities that meet their basic needs,
and reasonable health care. These bright and dedicated American
citizen-soldiers deserve the best we can provide them. While we
will continue to support efforts to encourage our Allies to pay
more of the costs of stationing U.S. forces in Europe, we must
maintain a minimum quality of life for our people.

Recent funding reductions directed specifically at overseas
operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts will adversely impact
our ability to continue protecting the quality of life for
American military members and their families stationed overseas.
O&M funds provide for a broad range of requirements that include

403

base operations, training, intelligence, environnental safety,
and mission accomplishment. Therefore, significant reductions in
those funds drive broad ranging cuts at all our installations
adversely impacting our ability to safeguard America's
investment, and degrading our ability to accomplish our mission.

A $6 million O&N reduction in FY93 seriously degraded our
progress in standing up the new Joint Analysis Center at RAF
Nolesworth — the theater's focal point for all-source intelligence
production. This cut also inhibited our Automatic Data
Processing (ADP) integration and interoperability, the hallmark
of a joint command. A reduction of this magnitude threatens to
undercut the intelligence flow to our operating forces because of
the tenuous reliability of our existing ADP systems. Even as we
reduce our forces, we must ensure that we keep carefully
conceived, high-payoff modernization programs on track.
Ultimately, large reductions across critical funding areas such
as O&M, seriously undermine the morale, efficiency, and mission
effectiveness of our troops.

Another priority must be to maintain the readiness and
training of our forward based forces. The diverse missions that
USEUCOM forces may have to execute in response to fast-rising
crises requires us to maintain the highest possible combat and
combat support readiness within our units. As we have witnessed
over the past few years, whether in the battles of DESERT STORM,
the evacuation of U.S. citizens from areas of imminent danger, or

404

in humanitarian relief missions in the Balkans, Northern Iraq,
the former Soviet Union, and Somalia, our forces must be fully
trained and ready to meet a wide range of contingency operations.
Deep O&M cuts make it difficult to provide training required to
keep our troops at the necessary high readiness levels.
Continued funding for joint and combined exercises is crucial as
we work to develop procedures to recognize and integrate fully
our capabilities in multinational formations. We will continue
to increase use of computer simulations, command post and field
exercises, combined arms training, and joint service/ combined
operations as the basis of our training programs. Effective use
of simulation allows us to continue to accomplish essential
training while lowering overall costs. The leading edge of our
nations' presence and crisis response capability will grow dull
unless O&M accounts are adequately funded to support training and
readiness.

Taking care of America's investment in irreplaceable
infrastructure in Europe requires us to make periodic maintenance
and routine upkeep a resource priority. As we return forces to
the U.S., consolidate units, and close installations, we must
maintain existing facilities on those installations we plan to •
retain. Beyond that, reduced forward presence requires increased
power projection capability, with clear implications for our
system of bases and facilities. Although reduced in size, our
remaining forces still require adequate quarters, decent work
places, functioning heat and electrical plants, and usable

405

storage areas in order to support daily operation and training
while caring for our troops and their families. Real Property
Maintenance Activities (RPMA) were underfunded by 18 percent in
FY92 and FY93 causing the backlog of maintenance and repair to
grow to over $100 million . This situation seriously undercuts
the Command's ability to maintain infrastructure properly and
results in failing, unsafe, and inefficient facilities. In turn,
that damages the Command's training capability while sapping the
morale and warfighting effectiveness of our people. O&H accounts
that provide adequate funding for overseas RPHA are necessary to
preserve the infrastructure that is absolutely essential to
USEUCON's combat capability.

He need to complete some military construction projects on
installations we plan to retain. Our request this year is 9
projects at a cost of $69.9 million. These projects will help
maintain a decent quality of life and provide critical mission
support at our installations. All are crucial to our continuing
ability to perform assigned missions and maintain combat ready
forces. Ovir individual HILCON projects are listed below.

I££ATIQN

DESCRIPTION

f$M)CQ5T

Reunstein, GM

Child Development Center

3.1

Sigonella, IT

Child Development Center

3.5

Naples, IT

Quality of Life Phase I

11.7

Comiso, IT

Family Housing

20.2

Rota, SP

Child Development Center

2.7

Incirlik, TO

Add/Alter Dormitories

2.4

London, UK

Family Housing

15.5

Edzell, UK

Family Housing

6.0

Mildenhall, UK

Naval Air Facility

4.8

406

The strategic agility to deliver combat forces worldwide
becomes even more crucial as we continue to draw down forward
based forces. Operations in the recent past have repeatedly
demonstrated that the basing, logistical assistance, and
overflight rights provided by our European friends and allies are
essential to our ability to answer the call. Access to
irreplaceable air and sea ports is critical to our ability to
project power throughout our AOR and around the globe. America's
investment in allied or host nation infrastructure throughout
Europe pays off in basing, reinforcement, and deployment assets
that are crucial to our ability to respond on a daily basis.
Adequate airlift and sealift capability combined with
prepositioned equipment on land and at sea will provide us with
the ability to respond whenever and wherever our national
interests dictate.

Selective modernization will continue to provide the best
available mix of mobility, lethality, firepower, command and
control, and communications. Leveraging our investment in
existing systems through cost effective upgrades and acc[uiring
the most promising new systems will provide essential
capabilities at least cost. Enhanced defense against ballistic
missiles will be essential in the face of their growing
proliferation. Development and deployment of an effective
theater missile defense should be one of our highest acquisition
priorities.

A relatively new initiative, the Military-to-Military

407

Contact Program, provides unprecedented opportunities to lay the
groundwork for firm and enduring relations with new friends in
Central /Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union as these
nations struggle to rebuild and reorient their militaries within
democratic frameworks. Military-to-military contacts reach where
Security Assistance programs are not yet able to go. For a small
investment, we are able to influence directly the shape and
character of these new militaries and in the long run, have a
positive impact on the stability of the entire region. U.S.
influence in the development of these nations is key, but the
window of opportunity to exercise our influence is limited.

Throughout the AOR, security assistance programs allow us to
capitalize on opportunities to encourage democracy. Last year,
the security assistance programs to several key allies were
reduced significantly. The potential impacts of these reductions
include lost contracts for U.S. companies, loss of access to
critical enroute and staging bases, and lessening of support for
U.S. interests throughout the region. A small investment now in
security programs for valuable allies, will pay significant
dividends well into the future. Our request for security
assistance and USEUCOM discretionary funds for Sub-Saharan Africa
would provide the flexibility necessary to take advantage of
time-sensitive opportunities to support friendly nations and to
promote democratic ideals and regional stability. Our efforts in
Africa are structured to support national policy and the goals
and objectives of the various U.S. Embassy teams. We are

408

developing, integrating, and implementing modest initiatives
which complement the traditional security assistance programs.
Our support of national policy focuses on non-lethal,
humanitarian and nation-assistance activities. We are convinced
that professional interaction between host nation and U.S.
military personnel contributes directly to the promotion of
democratic ideals and lessens the likelihood of future
requirements for large scale military involvement. These
activities also enhance our access to key people and thus our
capability to carry out contingency operations if they become
necessary.
NATO: A CHAm^m AJIJANCF.

As I said earlier, NATO remains the key to strategic

stability in Europe and U.S. leadership remains the key to NATO.
It is the premier collective security organization in the world
and is actively enlarging the scope of both its activities and
participants. NATO helped resolve one of the most threatening
and most extended crises ever in the Cold War, establishing a
remarkable record of effectiveness over 40 years of confrontation
with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. As a result, Eastern
European nations are now looking to NATO in an effort to deal
with their own security concerns. Because NATO alone has the
requisite experience, infrastructure, forces and mechanisms to
adapt successfully to the changing security environment, it
remains our best and most cost effective hope for contributing to

409

a stable European security environment. The military dimension
that underwrites collective defense must continue to include an
appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear forces designed to
serve a purely defensive purpose. These forces are, however,
being substantially reduced. Conventional forces are being given
more flexibility and mobility to respond to a wider range of
contingencies. They are organized to provide operational combat
flexibility, as well as logistical support to enhance Allied
crisis management and defense capabilities.

Over the past year. Alliance forces have been employed at
various times under the auspices of several different
organizations. NATO Airborne Early Warning Aircraft are
monitoring the airspace over the former Yugoslavia. In the
Adriatic, NATO and Allied naval forces are employed to assist in
monitoring and enforcing the U.N. sanctions. In Yugoslavia,
Alliance members have contributed ground forces to United Nations
peacekeeping operations, including our own deployment of the
212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital to Zagreb. Also, elements of
the NORTHAG headquarters are providing important command and
control functions for the U.N. Protection Force there. NATO
logistical assets and infrastructure continue to be instrumental
in supporting such operations as Provide Hope, Provide
Transition, and other on-going humanitarian operations. All
these operations show an Alliance commitment to the continued
development of the stability and success of emerging democracies.
To encourage dialogue and cooperation, the Alliance

410

established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) to
provide forums in which new Central/Eastern European democracies
could discuss their security concerns with the West. Through the
NACC, NATO is supporting the continued progress in democratic and
market-oriented reforms which is essential to the success of
these nations. Moreover, NATO is striving to further expand
cooperation with its new associates in political, military,
economic, scientific, environmental and information fields,
including defense conversion and civil/military cooperation in
air traffic management. The NACC members have also agreed to
support and contribute on a case by case basis to peacekeeping
operations under the UN or CSCE. These initiatives by NACC
members should further lead to the development of a series of
programs of cooperation which could cover such areas as
peacekeeping training and operations, arms control issues,
military exercises, and crisis management.

Clearly, NATO can no longer be viewed solely as an Alliance
against an adversary, but rather as an Alliance for peace,
security, and stability. Continued U.S. leadership is essential
to NATO's continued success. The highly visible commitment of
forward based U.S. forces enables the U.S. to continue to
influence and shape events in Europe, That influence will help
open new markets for U.S. goods and provide new opportunities for
economic, political, and security cooperation.

411

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

The NATO Infrastructure program is one of the most visible

and successful examples of collective burdensharing in the
Alliance. Commonly- funded by 14 participating nations, the
infrastructure program provides operations facilities, bases,
command, control, and communication systems and equipment for all
NATO-assigned forces. Facilities funded through the program are
located both in Europe and in the U.S. Historically, U.S. forces
have benefitted significantly from the total program
expenditures, and U.S. industries consistently win half of the
progreun's high tech projects.

We have thoroughly examined the NATO infrastructure program
to ensure that only valid requirements are funded. The DoD
budget request of $240 million in NATO infrastructure funds for
FY94 is the minimum level we believe necessary for restoration of
existing NATO facilities, nuclear surety projects, and recoupment
of pre-financed projects. The U.S. Ambassador-at-large for
Burdensharing has been successful in obtaining NATO support for a
new initiative. Our Allies agreed in principle to fund the O&M
requirements for site operations and maintenance of facilities
supporting reinforcing forces from the CONUS. However, the large
reduction to our FY93 infrastructure request prevented pursuing
NATO funding this year. Additionally, unfunded new projects
include embarkation and storage facilities planned for
construction in the U.S. that are key to our capability to

412

respond to crises worldwide. NATO infrastructure funding
reductions in Fy94 would have a very severe near term impact on
this highly effective cost-sharing program, and erode our Allies
confidence in continued U.S. commitment to common funding for new
initiatives and projects. In the longer term, the cumulative
effects of additional funding reductions will impact NATO's
ability to meet basic mission requirements.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Given the volatile security environment within my Command's

AOR, there is enormous potential for a wide variety of unexpected
crises arising to jeopardize our vital national interests. If
recent experience is any indication, we are likely to be engaged
in contingency operations across the spectrum involving joint,
coalition, or Alliance endeavors.

The likelihood of continued engagement and future flash
points in the USEUCOM area combined with America's regionally
focused defense strategy have compelled us to undertake numerous
initiatives that enhance our ability to respond appropriately and
decisively to unexpected crises. These include improvements to
contingency planning, crisis assessment, joint task force
training, commander preparation, joint and combined exercises,
command and control, and logistics support improvements. These
command-wide efforts are reinforced by my Component Commander's
initiatives to improve their ability to conduct joint and
combined operations. Our ability to respond effectively to

413

future crises hinges on retaining a full spectrum of capabilities
within U.S. forces forward based in Europe.

A solid commitment by the United States to European security
is required if U.S. European Command is to be able to meet the
challenges of uncertainty, instability, and strife that
characterize our AOR. Our planned forward-based forces are
structured to ensure credible deterrence, underwrite our
leadership in NATO, contribute to collective defense, promote
regional stability, assist in humanitarian efforts, and provide a
flexible crisis response capability. We must continue to place
emphasis on taking care of our people. He best do this by
providing them a decent living and working environment, engaging
then in the most realistic training we can devise, and acquiring
for them the best mix of weapon systems, modernized equipment,
and logistical capabilities we can afford. With the support of
the American public and Congress, U.S. European Command will
continue to be able to safeguard and promote U.S. national
interests with competent, credible, and operationally significant
forces that are ready to undertake varied and multi-faceted
missions.

414

Mr. Hefner. We will conduct this hearing in closed session be-
cause of the classified nature of the subject matter.

At this point, I will entertain a motion to close from Mr. Fogli-
etta.

Mr. FoGUETTA. Sir, I am very happy to be, number one, a
member of this committee as I am extremely interested, and I wel-
come you and the remarks you made.

Mr. Chairman, I move that our hearing today as well as five sub-
sequent Military Construction Subcommittee hearings will be
closed as necessary because of the classified nature of part of the
discussions.

Mr. Hefner. The clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk. Mr. Hefner.

Mr. Hefner. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Foglietta.

Mr. Foglietta. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Coleman. Aye.

The Clerk. Mrs. Vucanovich.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Aye.

The Clerk. Mrs. Bentley.

Mrs. Bentley. Aye.

Mr. Hefner. We have two new Members come in, Ms. Meek, the
gentlelady from Florida, who is a new Member and we are happy
to have her on the Committee, and also Mrs. Bentley, who is a
long-time associate and colleague of the Congress from Maryland.
Anyone without a security clearance will have to leave the room.

We want to thank you for being with us today. General, and I
know you have had a busy day testifying before our Defense Sub-
committee. We are glad that you would come here and be with us
today. Your entire statement will be a part of the record. I was just
looking at some of the questions and I feel sure other Members
have some questions.

MOBIUZATION

I have a couple. We had reductions and projected further reduc-
tions in forces in Europe. I would like to know of the concerns you
may have with regard to being able to mobilize forces with our air-
lift capability, sealift and prepositioning. Would you comment on
that?

General Shalikashvili. I certainly would, sir.

As we drawdown in Europe, clearly we depend more and more
on the ability to return forces rapidly. And so for that reason I
have been a great proponent for the efforts we have ongoing to im-
prove our sealift capability and certainly the C-17 as a vehicle that
not only will help in our ability to bring forces forward quickly, but
also because of the C-17's ability to open up a whole number of air
fields that are not available to the C-5 or the C-141 because they
need longer runways and the C-17, of course, is capable of landing
and operating from C-130-type air fields.

So it not only gives us the capability we need, but it also broad-
ens our capability.

415

Now, on the issue of prepositioning, if I may, Mr. Chairman, as
you know in the past we have had extensive prepositioning in
Europe, and much of the equipment that was prepositioned there
was geared to the former Soviet and Warsaw Pact threat. I think
we can make adjustments in that and we are doing that.

But, on the other hand, as we drawdown, we must ensure we
retain in Europe forward deployed sufficient equipment for those
units that we beheve we need to bring forward rapidly and we are
going to be doing that.

So on the one hand we will provide savings by not having to
maintain so much equipment in as many humidity-controlled wa-
terhouses. On the other hand, we will be sure to retain that which
we think is prudent to maintain.

c-17

Mr. Hefner. You mentioned the C-17, and as you might suspect,
we have been having hearings in the Defense Subcommittee over
this. It could be in for some tough shredding. I have been a strong
supporter of the C-17 since its inception back in the early 1980's,
but we have had a program that has been grossly mismanaged. It
has about $1.3 billion cost overruns out of a total cost of some $8
billion, and we are just really concerned if we are going to be able
to hold the program to do enough that will meet the needs that you
have and that the mission for the C-17 that was originally, in its
inception, was supposed to be enabling us to go into a lot more
places with the C-17. It was not supposed to be such a tremendous
project. You knew what you were doing. You were taking the C-5
and squeezing it down and making it smaller and better, but it has
developed into a real tar pit. So we may have some problems there.

General Shalikashvili. I will give you sort of an anecodotal
reason why I am so in favor of the C-17. Not so long ago when we
were working the operation in northern Iraq to provide assistance
to the Kurds who fled into the mountains and we had some half a
million Kurds that we were bringing back into northern Iraq, the
only airfield we had was an Iraqi airfield we took over and refur-
bished but all we could get in there were C-130s.

You know, that frustration from those days, if we had had an
airplane like the C-17, we could have flown into there how much
more and how much quicker we could have dropped the needed
supplies for those Kurds into that kind of a runaway. And you can
multiply that many times throughout the European theater where
you just cannot get into with a C-5. And that is in addition to what
is happening to our existing fleet as it is aging and aging quicker.
And while I should let General Fogelman talk to that issue. I as a
regional commander am very much in favor of that plane.

DRAWDOWN IN EUROPE

Mr. Hefner. You mentioned also that you felt like we are on a
glidepath that is acceptable if we don't make drastic changes and
drawdown in Europe with our forces.

General Shalikashvili. Sir, if I may explain a little. I think we
are on the right glidepath. I have just finished really making sure
that our European friends understand that this is a sizable contri-

416

bution to the Alliance and I think they do. I think our servicemen
and women will understand that. All I ask is that we don't try to
bring that force down too quickly because we will then get back
into what we were a year or two years ago when we were taking
soldiers and their families out so quickly that at times it was, I
think, quicker than we should have done that.

For the good of our soldiers and their families, it is right that we
set the figure for 1996 as what it is and that we get away from
having a new figure each year. So the soldiers can understand that,
yes, I am going to go home but I am going to stay and they can get
on with their lives and their families can get on with their lives
and themselves. So if we could keep that glidepath, keep the
number and get away from announcing a new number each year,
and then watch carefully whether the security situation changes
and we should make some adjustments.

ALLIES COMMITMENT TO NATO

Mr. Hefner. Has this caused any consonant problems with our
allies, the fact that we are on this downward path; that they would
be less supportive and have more of a tendency to do less than they
are doing? Because at times we have been concerned about their
burden-sharing and the host nations' support from one thing and
another. Is this affecting their commitment to NATO?

General Shalikashviu. First of all, just like in the United
States, it is hard to say, to generalize. It is really very difficult to
generalize about the Europeans. There are some Europeans who
are convinced that we are leaving no matter what we are saying
and so they need to adjust to that. The vast majority, however, are
of the opinion that the number that the United States has set and
Congress has mandated as approximately 100,000 is probably the
right number for these times.

They, too, would like to know that this is really what the United
States means and is not going to come up with another number.
And if those conditions are so, then I think responsible, thoughtful
Europeans, accept that as a solid commitment of the United States
to the Alliance.

RUSSIAN family HOUSING

Mr. Hefner. This morning I believe you testified that one of the
top priorities for whatever aid we produce to the Soviet Union or
how to help them best which was a little surprising, but I can un-
derstand— family housing for the Russian military. Does that mean
the people don't want to leave the Warsaw Pact and go home be-
cause they have no place to go.

General Shalikashviu. Let me explain, if I may.

Mr. Hefner. Demilitarization. I guess that was a little bit sur-
prising, but I can understand the rational for it. And its practical
application.

General Shalikashvili. I answered the question in the context of
what people tell me when I go over there and visit and I had the
opportunity to be there not so long ago in Moscow and St. Peters-
burg and the subject invariably comes up. And I mentioned that
while there is always a long laundry list of things that they feel.

417

the Russians feel that needs to be done, invariably, number one
almost on everyone's list is the issue of housing for those, for that
part of the military that is being withdrawn from Germany and is
being withdrawn from the Baltics.

And the reason that the Russians I think are so keen on assist-
ance with that kind of housing is that they feel that that is kind of
a ticking time bomb for them; that they are bringing back that
many, particularly officers because the soldiers usually get sent
home because they are their draftees but the officers have no place
to live. If this festers too long, they are not sure what kind of a
ticking bomb that it is for them socially and politically. That is
why they want to get housing for them to diffuse that situation.

You know the Germans are doing an awful lot in that area, but,
clearly, that is what the Russians consider their number one priori-

ty.

And the number two priority that they have pointed out to me is
the issue of retraining those that they must let go from the mili-
tary into some kind of a civilian occupation. The reason they talk
to me about it is because they admire greatly the kind of education
and retraining, training systems that we have in the United States,
and they were wondering why it is we can have these programs for
our own soldiers and whether there is not some way we can send
some folks to Russia to help them set up this kind of retraining.

On the demilitarization, while I think there is a great need, I am
not sure how much we can help them, because I am not sure how
much of that help they want. There are great numbers of nuclear
weapons but I am not sure they will let our experts close enough to
demilitarize their weapons because of the state secrets involved in
nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hefner. This places a dilemma for the Congress. First of all,
I would hope that if we do anything to assist the Russians in hous-
ing, which would not come out of military construction because I
can see where that would be a tremendous problem given the situa-
tion a lot of our troops are living in now; and, secondly, if you put
it in a foreign aid package, it presents the same problem for those
that would say we have some homeless people and such a shortage
of housing in this country, that will be a real sticky wicket there.

DEMILITARIZATION

I have a couple more questions and it is going to relate to the
demilitarization. The situation in Russia, or the former Soviet re-
publics and the former Warsaw Pact countries, there is still de-
fense spending going on. In fact, it has been raised in some debates
that the Russians are still spending X number of dollars or what
have you for defense.

To me, it seems that what they are doing in a lot of these areas,
in the absence of retraining programs and things to go to, they are
basically using this not as to continue to arm as a threat but as a
public works program. Would that be a fair evaluation?

General Shalikashvili. My sensing is, and I am afraid I prob-
ably don't talk to as many folks from over there as you do.

Mr. Hefner. Few talk to as many as you do.

418

General Shaukashviu. My sense is in those places where I have
gone, whether in the Ukraine or in Russia, their feeling was they
are having trouble coming to grips with defense conversion, be-
cause, it is a nice term, but awfully hard to make happen. And the
alternative of letting people go and be thrown out of work or let
them continue making some military hardware is, in fact, better to
m£ike them do that because it keeps the people employed and it
keeps the system going.

But how much longer they will be able to do that, I don't know.
But I think they are doing it in many cases as a public works pro-
gram.

Mr. Hefner. I would imagine that their research and develop-
ment would probably be just about nil. Wouldn't they be manufac-
turing things they have already got on the table? They would prob-
ably be doing, spending an awful lot of money on R&D for new
weapon systems and what have you?

General Shaukashviu. I don't know that. My feeling is that,
like most countries that have to cut down, I think try, probably, to
preserve their research and development because that is kind of
keeping the future alive.

Mr. Hefner. Whatever would be applicable to the private sector.

General Shaukashviu. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hefner. What we would consider the private sector.

Mr. Callahan, would you like to be recorded to close this hear-
ing?

Mr. Cauahan. Yes.

The Clerk. Mr. Callahan.

Mr. Hefner. How would you like to be recorded, yes or not?

Mr. Callahan. Yes.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Hobson?

Mr. Hobson. Yes.

Mr. Hefner. Okay.

I have no further questions at this time. I have some for the
record and at this time I will yield to the gentlelady from Nevada,
Mrs. Vucanovich,

Mrs. Vucanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General, it is
very nice to see you. I am an Army brat so I always feel comforta-
ble when I see a uniform like that.

There are some questions that I suppose we will have to submit
for the record, but I am curious to know what your assessment of
the current threat is in the Serb region and what we have done
bilaterally and as a partner in NATO, if there is a reason to re-
spond.

General Shalikashvili. I think that, clearly, as you look at the
European theater where before we were almost fixated on the cen-
tral region and the Warsaw Pact through the Fulda Gap, that that
has really largely disappeared, but that what we have seen is that
the focus of our attention and the focus of our worries have shifted
to the Southern region south of the Alps. [ ]

But, again, probably the one area where we are all focused right
now in the Southern region is the tragedy ongoing in Bosnia-Herce-
govina and what it is that we can do, not only to bring that to an
end but also at the same time ensure that it does not spread to
places like Kosovo and Macedonia where the real danger is that

419

not only that you would have the human tragedy transferred to
those places as well but that you would inadvertently begin to
draw in nations.

I don't think it is overstating it that you could find yourself re-
creating the conditions that brought about the Balkan wars at the
beginning of the century.

And so that is, I think, the dilemma. And so the Southern region
clearly is the area. I think what we have in the old days, we had a
very massive threat but the policy was clear and we knew who was
going to come and in what direction.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. Very well defined.

General Shalikashvili. Now, the threat is not quite as awesome
but it is very diffused and it is different and we understand it less
and our policy is less clear and we ought to not misread it, because
the consequences can be very bad if we let, for instance, something
like former Yugoslavia get out of hand and find other people
drawn into this. Consequences for the alliance and for us can be
very severe.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. Where are the F-16s now? Where are they
based?

General Shalikashvili. As you know, and my predecessor Gener-
al Galvin used to say that if you had one airplane left, you would
ensure it is stationed in the Southern region because he felt that is
where the need was and to a degree, I agree with him.

We are working very hard to find a way to develop some interim
basing for the F-16s in the Southern region. [ ]

But we have not developed a permanent basing solution at all
yet until we at least get the permanent one done with the Italian
Government.

My hope is that within the next couple of months we can solve
that with the Italian Government and then proceed in developing
hand in hand with them some kind of a solution that is acceptable
to you in Congress and to the Alliance that would provide us some
permanent basing down there.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. Changing the subject a little bit, you know, I
know that you are concerned about the quality of life with the
troops and their families and I can't help but wonder what the
impact of downsizing, what it has had on moral.

General Shalikashvili. I think that when you view it in a con-
text that we started all this and on the one hand we were sending
people to Desert Storm, and great numbers went; in addition great
numbers of equipment practically — every one of our tanks that was
in POMCUS, Bradley, and large amounts of ammunition, all of
that going. At the same time we began to drawdown forces and
then when folks started coming back to Europe from Desert Storm
they kind of came and picked up their families and did their
normal thing and were assigned back to the United States, mean-
while the equipment came back to Europe and we had to deal with
all of that.

All of that was I think extraordinarily taxing on the servicemen
and women and their families and their children.

Earlier this morning at a different hearing we talked, for in-
stance, what impact that had on children. In the middle of the year

420

they are yanked out and sent to the United States to a place where
there is no housing immediately available and no schooling.

I think that we probably in the process should have tried to do it
a little slower, but be that as it is, I think today we have slowed
the process sufficiently and the numbers I mentioned to you are
sufficiently gentler in the glidepath that I think we can avoid
many of those problems.

Nevertheless, when you take downsizing in Europe with downsiz-
ing of the Army or the Air Force or the Navy; that is not knowing
for sure whether you are just being reassigned back home to an-
other military base or whether you are going to have to leave the
military; and not quite knowing what point the drawdown in
Europe set, all that adds to, I think, tensions and morale problems,
and that is why we set a glidepath, that we set a number and pro-
ceed with it so we can explain it to our servicemen and women and
then continue to develop an orderly program to get them back to
the United States.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. I have a lot of other questions but there are
other Members who would like to ask so I will yield back the bal-
ance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. General.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Foglietta.

Mr. Foglietta. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I too have about 150 questions.

Mr. Hefner. Will the gentleman jdeld?

Mr. Foglietta. Yes.

Mr. Hefner. We do not run a strict Committee here. We try to
limit questions to five minutes, if we can, but we do not have a
hard and fast rule. To accommodate the other Members, maybe we
can have a second round.

Mr. Foguetta. Naturally, I will present them to you in writing
and ask you to give us answers in writing. But a few of them I will
ask.

First of all, let me say I think the perception is in the United
States and throughout the world that basically NATO is, central
NATO, is Germany, is Fulda Gap, et cetera. And let me just say
this, I did visit our facilities at Fulda Gap one year, I think it was
in 1988, and I was there with the troops for awhile and went up
into one of the lookout towers that we had and there was a space
between our lookout towers and the Soviet lookout towers of about
200 yards, and there was barbed wire and they were facing us with
automatic weapons and we were doing the same, staring at each
other's eyes, and it was a frightening sight.

Then I went back the following year and nobody was there and
people were walking their dogs in these areas. So it was a great,
beautiful, beautiful thing to be able to see and I attribute that very
much to you and your comrades who worked so hard to achieve
that end and to NATO for being successful in what they accom-
plished.

Secondly, is there anything left in North NATO at all?

General Shalikashvili. Yes.

Mr. Foguetta. What is it? Last time it was up in Norway.

General Shaukashvili. Yes. I just came back from an exercise
NATO ran in north Norway because we try every so often to run a
winter exercise, not so much because we consider the threat any

421

less, but it does provide for American and European forces an ex-
cellent training ground for winter training, which is really the
most rigorous training.

The big difference of that accompanying me wherever I went
were two Russian high-ranking officers. One was the commander of
Russia's Northern Fleet and the other one was the commander of the
Lenin Brigade military district, who was spending a week with the
general, British General Gary Johnson was hosting the exercise.

North Norway is part of Northern NATO, as is Denmark, and I
think that probably because of the Kola Peninsula, is the part off
the Alliance that has changed the least.

I mentioned in response to your question, Maddam, but we have
indeed our fixation on the central region and shifted south. When
you go talk to the people up north, they say that is all good and
well, but the Kola Peninsula is still a mighty concentration of Rus-
sia's capability.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. How many bases and how many troops do we
have in that area?

General Shalikashvili. The U.S. does not maintain troops in
Norway and never has. But we do have the commitment of rein-
forcing units and also the units. Marine units mostly, although
there is also a National Guard unit and artillery unit, used for ex-
ercising up there.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. In closing of bases, one of the big problems we
have in this domestically when we close bases is the environmental
cleanup. You have closed some 700 bases overseas in the last 10
years, and I am sorry, since 1990, I thought it was 1980. Since 1990
we have closed 700 bases. Who is responsible for the cleanup? Who
pays for it? Who is liable for any potential environmental hazards
after we close the bases?

General Shalikashvili. The process is such that when we close a
base and prepare to turn it back to our host, to the host nation,
there is a very detailed inspection conducted at the end of which
we determine the residual value of that installation. That is, you
take into consideration all the money that we put into it and they
take into consideration all the things like environmental issues
that might exist that might need to be cleaned up. Environmental
damages are corrected prior to release to the host nation only if
they are an imminent risk to health. The host nation may then
seek to include restoration cost in residual value negotiations.

Our policy is to make sure that we do not put in money into en-
vironmental cleanups unless they are major issues. But having said
that, I must tell you that environmental issues, while they certain-
ly exist, such things as a gas station where in underground tank
might have been there for years and it was in stalled when we
didn't put in double tanks in there and there might have been
some leakage, but by the large those environmental issues we have
to resolve have been really not of the significance nor of the kind
that catch headlines.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. All right. One more question. I had the opportu-
nity to visit Southern NATO and the headquarters in Milano, and
this is about 10 years ago, and the situation I found there was abso-
lutely appalling. We had a hospital that troops didn't want to use.
When the wife of one of the troops had to have a child, they would
go to a private hospital. The hospital and the surrounding base

422

were in a seismic area. They were actually in a crater of a volcano.
They were susceptible to terrorism because of the closeness of the
hotel right across the street from the headquarters command.

The hospital had closed the fourth and fifth floors and there
were big cracks in the wall that were three inches wide because of
the earthquake situation below this hospital. You could actually
look out from the hospital and see the sulpher bubbling on the
ground.

I was a Member of the Armed Services Committee for 12 years
before transferring to this committee, and I tried to get them to do
something about it, and they have been talking about it for an
awful long time, especially about rebuilding the hospital, and then
they were talking I think of closing down that whole area and
moving part to Cappaccino.

Can you tell us what the status of that is at the present time?

NAPLES IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE

General Shalikashvili. The Naples Improvement Initiative is a
construction and leasing program that will relocate all facilities
from the Agnano crater area by FY98. In addition to the $11.7 mil-
lion Quality of Life project included in our MILCON request this
year, we also have a two-phase "lease-conduct" initiative that will
provide extensive personnel support facilities, to include a new
Naval hospital, with a one hour commute from Naples. This
"Naples Support Site" will be owned and build by an Italian land-
lord and leased by the U.S. Government. Bids will be solicited for
the hospital during the second quarter of FY94.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. We are still there 10 years later?

General Shalikashviu. We are still there.

Mr. FoGUETTA. There was some talk

General Shalikashvili. The Naval support activity. That is in
that crater.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. There was some talk about having bids come in
to have people or the builders lease it back to the United States
Government. Was anything done with that?

General Shaukashvili. I will have to answer that for the record.
I don't know. But that project is here.

[The information follows:]

In addition to the $11.7 million Quality of Life Phase I project included in our
FY94 MILCON request, we also have a two-phase "lease-construct" initiative that
will provide extensive personnel support facilities, to include a new Naval hospital,
within a one-hour commute from Naples. This "Naples Support Site" will be owned
and built by an Italian landlord and will be leased by the U.S. Government. Bids
will be solicited for the hospital during the second quarter of FY94.

Mr. Hefner. We have $11.7 million in this budget?

General Shalikashvili. That is right, $11.7 million.

Mr. Hefner. And that has been just like Comiso and other places
that has been sticking around for a lot of years and there was some
argument you move it from one quake site to another quake site
and anytime you deal with the Italian government, you have got
some problems on your hands to say the least.

Mr. FoGLiETTA. That is before I became a Member of this com-
mittee.

423

Mr. Hefner. The locals I am talking about. But that we do have
$11.7 million and that was an abominable situation.

ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT

Mrs. Bentley.

Mrs. Bentley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, pursuant to Mr. Foglietta's question, when the residual
value of a base is determined, how much do we set off for environ-
mental abatement?

General Shaukashvili. Pardon me?

Mrs. Bentley. How much do we set off that — do we deduct or
allow for environmental abatement?

General Shaukashviu. If I understand you question, it is really
on a case-by-case basis as we negotiate each particular one, and I
am not aware, and I will have to check and answer for the record, I
am not aware that there is some specific amount set aside for that.

It was my understanding that we negotiate each closure on a
case-by-case basis.

Mrs. Bentley. You mentioned in your discussion about religious
fundamentalism is going through Eastern Europe. The front page
of The New York Times today and they have had it on the front
page the last two or three or four days, or weeks, two or three
times, about what is happening in Egypt in particular, and that
they have closed down all religious institutions except those that
go with the Islamic fundamentalist religion.

Is there any concern about what is happening there?

General Shaukashviu. Very much so, though I must tell you
that Egypt is not in my area of responsibility, so I don't watch it
quite as closely.

But in that whole area, that whole issue, I think is impossible to
go visit any part of that world without that being one of the high
topics.

I had, the day before yesterday, the opportunity to spend about
four and a half hours with General Grachev, who is the Russian
Defense Minister. [ ]

You know, you can go to Turkey and that is clearly the topic. So
I don't know. Perhaps it is more on the plate in Southern Europe
than anywhere else, but if you really want to get concerned, for in-
stance, go to Greece and find out how they view this.

turkey

Mrs. Bentley. You mentioned Turkey's problems, concerns. Why
doesn't Turkey give up in Cyprus and then we can get that one off
their back, at least?

General Shaukashviu. [ ]

E-2C observation PLANE

Mrs. Bentley. Do we have any idea on what caused the E-2C ob-
servation plane to go down 10 days or so ago?

General Shaukashviu. No, we don't know. We know the Navy
was attempting a landing, that it was waved off to make another
turn and as it passed the carrier, it appeared like it lost power and
disappeared. There is no indication of any foul play or an5rthing,

424

nor the fact that the Roosevelt had just arrived in the area. But we
have not been able to — until recovery the recorder or black box, it
is to early to tell.

YUGOSLAVIA

Mrs. Bentley. If the U.S. should get involved in the civil war in
the Yugoslavia area, what would be our commitments in troops?
We have heard figures anywhere from 50- to 500,000 troops, and do
we have any observers there at the present time.

General Shaukashviu. The size of the force required really de-
pends a little bit on exactly the nature of the peace plan that the
three parties will sign up to, but the sensing is that it can be any-
where from 5,000 to 70,000 people depending specifically on what
the task this force will have to perform in helping to implement
that plan.

What the U.S. contribution to it will be, I don't know. I sent out
a message on Monday of this week to the NATO nations asking
them for their indication what contributions they would be pre-
pared to make. I don't expect an answer for another week or so, so
I cannot tell you what it will be.

Now, as far as Americans are concerned, right now we have
some 330 Americans in former Yugoslavia, the majority of them
are in Croatia where we run a hospital for UNPROFOR for person-
nel, military personnel, but we also have Americans in Bosnia-Her-
zegovina, in Sarajevo, a town Kiseljak, just west of Sarajevo where
the main headquarters is located, and we also have people located
in Belgrade.

So we do get some reporting from them. All of these that I men-
tioned to you are working for the United Nations, the UNPROFOR
organization.

Mrs. Bentley. Is that all you touched on are all under the figure
of 330?

General Shaukashviu. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. Bentley. And I guess in view of the fact that you have not
heard how many U.S. troops would be needed, you have not also
heard how many troops that European countries would be, are will-
ing to contribute?

General Shaukashviu. No. I know that, for instance, and I
might not have my numbers exactly right so don't hold me to
them, but there are some 23 nations that have approximately
20,000 people in former Yugoslavia. My sensing is that, clearly,
that the major countries, the U.K. and France, will continue to
contribute as well as a number of lesser countries. [ ]

Mrs. Bentley. That is understandable after 500 years of being
pounded dead by them.

General Shaukashviu. That is right. The others are [ ]

Mrs. Bentley. That is right. People have to understand the histo-
ry there.

General Shaukashviu. Sure. I am just saying that, therefore,
you have Europeans who want to participate, but who will prob-
ably be impossible for them to do so.

Mrs. Bentley. But nobody trusts them.

General Shaukashviu. [ ]

425

RAPID REDUCTION

Mrs. Bentley. That is all I have on that.

I do want to say this, that I have been one of those that have
been the most severe critics of cutting down our military forces too
rapidly and of throwing our people out on the street at this time
particularly when the job market out here is very poor, et cetera.
And I think we have been going to it too fast and I like your rec-
ommendation of a very orderly reduction.

SEALIFT SHIPPING

You did touch on shipping, I think right in the beginning. Let me
just touch on that.

For 3 years we have had sitting in the Pentagon in the appro-
priation budget process, $3 billion or almost that much for sealift
ships and nobody has touched it.

How urgently are these ships needed?

General Shalikashvili. I cannot refer from personal knowledge
on monies that you are referring to. But it is my opinion that the
shipping, the modern shipping, the faster shipping is urgently
needed. You obviously have to look at what kind of a concern we
were in on shipping in Desert Storm or when I was in Northern
Irag and tried to get things up there quickly, to recognize that we
need that shipping badly.

So what I can tell you as a commander responsible for that part
of the world, I would like to see it yesterday rather than tomorrow.

Mrs. Bentley. And on American flag ships, I hope.

Thank you.

Mr. Hefner. If the gentlelady will remember, several years ago
we got some heat from a lot of areas when we insisted on buying
some ships from Sealand. Remember the roll-overs we had?

Mrs. Bentley. I remember well.

Mr. Hefner. And we don't have adequate shipping. About 85
percent of everything that went to the Persian gulf went by ships
and we were having to lease and to buy, and had we not even made
that small effort, we would have been in real dire circumstances.

So you would think, you would probably say that our sealift is
more critical to us even than the C-17 is. Would that be a fair
statement?

General Shalikashviu. I am not evading that. I can't answer
that.

Mr. Hefner. I am not asking you because they are both
really

General Shalikashvili. Yes, they are both needed and they com-
plement each other and we need to have them. So I would not want
to prioritize between one or the other, other than to tell you that I
was deputy commander of the U.S. Army in Europe during Desert
Storm, and so I was the stuckee unloading the Seventh Corps out
of the North European ports and sending them to the desert. And
we found ourselves having no consistency in shipping and having
units spread over three or four ships with different speeds, and so
the first unit you send is the last increment of the unit to arrive,
and the problems it causes on the other end are tremendous.

426

So I became a convert overnight to the need for improvements in
our shipping to get us to places.
Mrs. Bentley. Pound on them over there.
Mr. Hefner. The gentlelady from Florida.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

General, I have listened intently as you spoke. I notice that you
have requested $240 million for infrastructure programs for NATO.
Would you describe some of those projects which you have? Per-
haps you have explained them when I was not here, but I would
like to hear that.

General Shalikashviu. I did not. The infr£istructure program in
the Alliance which I know you know is probably next to our inte-
grated command structure in the forces we make available as suc-
cessful a program in burdensharing that there is in the Alliance,
and the Europeans look upon that as one of the most visible sym-
bols of support of the Alliance.

The monies of $240 million this year goes primarily to the main-
tenance of the physical plant that we already have there, the air-
fields, the ports, pipelines, the communication systems and so on.
And those are the airfields and the ports and the communication
systems that we now only would use to defend NATO territory or
to operate in former Yugoslavia, if that is where we eventually go,
but are also the same airfields and other infrastructure that we
need to get us from here to a place like Desert Storm, because you
need to transit through Europe in these cases. And the infrastruc-
ture is considerable.

So the maintenance of that is what mostly that money will go to.

There are some critical projects that we hope to be able to get
done this year. Without going into any specific project, the things
that worry me and that infrastructure buys is, for instance, they
are the kind of communications systems that you need to operate
in an environment other than like we had for these last 40 years,
where we had very stable communications systems to sit in a cen-
tral region and support our forces operating there.

If we are now talking of communication systems, mostly satellite
communications systems and terminals to operate, for instance, in
former Yugoslavia, the Alliance needs to get that.

If it is intelligence systems, that allows us to get at the intelli-
gence that we need now in a place like former Yugoslavia or in
other similar places; those are the kinds of things that the infra-
structure money would go for.

Most specifically, a lot of it is to repair the runways and the air-
fields that we have, the ports that we have, the communication sys-
tems that we have, the pipelines that we have.

EFFECTS OF CUTBACK ON SERVICE MEMBERS

Mrs. Meek. The second part of my question has to do with your
human infrastructure. I have the concern that the gentlewoman on
the end had. I have been around for several wars and I have seen —
normally, after World War II, there was a G.I. bill and the young
men who came back had to wait a sequential or systematic way to

427

come back and get the training they needed to become adjusted in
society.

I am concerned whether or not you have thought of what are
some of the measures that you can take to be sure these young
men who come out of the miUtary cutbacks are phased into pro-
grams where — particularly educational programs — where they can
go into jobs.

We are going to create 500 new jobs, perhaps, but will any of
those be dedicated for those? What are your plans, if any?

General Shalikashvili. For us in Europe, the big thing is to
ensure we make available for our servicemen and women the edu-
cational opportunities while they are over there and that is why I
am so keen not only that we have a robust system where young
men and women can go to the education center, wherever they are,
and take high school level courses, take college level courses to
make them more capable, not only dealing with the job they have
right now, but also if they are the ones that are selected to leave
the service, that, in fact, they can cope with that better.

So I leave to the folks here in the United States to work the edu-
cation piece you are referring to once they come back here, but I
think we in Europe have the same responsibility to ensure that we
have a robust education system and we have a number of educa-
tional programs over there that try to address that need.

You have to balance that, for instance, with the amount of
money that you can provide to young men and women as tuition
assistance. And a lot of that comes, in fact, out of operation and
maintenance funds, and so to the degree that you can help me in
making sure that we stay healthy in the operation and mainte-
nance fund, the more we can support these kind of programs.

Mrs. Meek. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. I remember a few years we did a survey and about
70 percent of young men that were going into the service of course,
they were all patriotic, but the main reason they were going into
the service was to get an education. So we have done a pretty good
job on this, but what we have to do now when we bring them home
is try to help the investment to where our industries can convert to
peacetime endeavors and they will have a leg up because of their
training that they had in the military.

A lot of these fellows now have an education that is at least the
equivalent of high school. I believe the past few years most of our
volunteers have had a least a minimum of a high school education.

General Shalikashvili. We have been very fortunate that up to I
guess a year ago we have been running very, very high, and again
please don't hold me to the number, but I think this last year we
slipped down but the number is still very respectable but we need
to watch it and make sure we continue to attract the highest qual-
ity.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Callahan.

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, is nice to be on your
subcommittee here.

Mr. Hefner. Happy to have you.

428

OVERSEAS BASE CLOSURE

Mr. Callahan. I am not fully familiar with all of the jurisdiction
this subcommittee has, but I assume, General, for you to come and
ask for those funds, the $240 million that you have asked for, for
new construction, but as you downsize your operation, where do
you get the money or the cost of closing these bases down? And,
secondly, how much money are you going to spend closing bases in
1994?

General Shalikashvili. Our biggest problem in leaving Europe is
the issue of sending equipment back, closing the facilities and let-
ting the civilian work force go and paying the expenses that are
associated with their termination and so on.

We have had this year a considerable shortfall in O&M funds to
do that. We expect we are going to have a shortfall again next
year, and the end result is that we are building up considerable in-
ventory of equipment that sooner or later we are going to send
back.

I refer back to a comment I made earlier that much of the equip-
ment went to the desert and then was shipped back. Initially, we
planned to repair and fix up the equipment over there and then
ship it home. And then it occurred to us all that is much better to
ship the equipment back to the United States and let the local
depots here with the American work force here and American con-
tractors over here get that work as opposed to doing it over in
Europe and pass much of that over to Europeans.

Mr. Callahan. But just in round — an estimate or a guestimate,
how much money are you going to have to spend to close bases in
your arena?

General Shaukashvili. This year we have, in 1993, we had
shortfall of money for closing installations and returning back
home in the vicinity of $300 million.

Mr. Callahan. So it is going to cost $300 million next year.

General Shaukashviu. Plus the additional equipment and bases
that we are going to try to close.

Mr. Callahan. Do you have any contracts with any countries
that you have bases in that you are closing down that requires you
to pay the civilian employees for any extended period of time?

General Shalikashviu. In different countries we have different
labor laws, but in almost all cases there are, in fact, termination
costs that have to be paid.

Mr. Callahan. I am saying we have a base closing, for example,
in my district. Now, are we going to tell the people in my district
that we are going to, the civilians working there, to go find another
job and at the same time how do we justify telling them that we
are going to pay — continue to pay foreigners who work for the mili-
tary in

General Shaukashvili. I see what you mean.

Mr. Callahan. Do you have any contracts?

General Shalikashvili. Not that I am aware of, but I will give
you the specific answer for the record. I am not aware of anywhere
we keep them on.

[The information follows:]

429

No, we do not have any contracts at bases we are closing where we are paying
civilian employees for an extended period of time.

In all countries in which we are located, we follow the local labor laws when sepa-
rating local national citizens as a result of a base closure. These laws spell out the
notification procedures and severance pay requirements just as the U.S. civil service
rules and procedures cover civilian DOD employees affected by base closures in the
United States. The time required for advance notification can be longer in most
countries than in the U.S., however, we find the severance costs are less expensive.

As highlighted in an April 1992 GAO report, we have had situations in the past
whereby the public announcement of a base closure resulted in delays in terminat-
ing local national employees. Those situations have been resolved. Our procedures
have been refined to insure that public announcements are made and the local na-
tional employees are released in a timely manner.

RUSSIA

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, rap me when I get to five minutes
so I can give deference to the other Members, but following up on
the Chairman's statements about the problems in Russia and the
fact that we in another arena are going to give them maybe a bil-
lion or $1.2 billion in aid and yet we are not insisting that they
downsize their military and everyone seems to be saying that we
have to be concerned about their downsizing.

Is it not a concern to you when we are telling you to downsize
the Department of Defense in general that Armed Services of the
United States and we are telling Russia we are going to give you a
billion dollars, but not encouraging you to downsize the numbers of
your — is that not a concern to you as a military man?

General Shalikashvili. Sure is. But I think that I would make
two observations.

First of all, the Russians are downsizing particularly because of
the conventional forces agreement, the treaty, that puts a ceiling
on key equipment and whatnot. So it is ongoing in Russia, but, sec-
ondly, and more important, Russia is downsizing very rapidly be-
cause they simply don't have the money to maintain a larger force,
and so I am under no illusion that they are remaining the same
size.

They are going down drastically. As a matter of fact, they no
longer have the money nor can they get the number of draftees.
They even have trouble getting the number just to fill out the
ranks. So they are downsizing.

The problem they have is that unlike our system, once they
downsize their forces, they have this large element of officers who
are left without anywhere to go and so they are like a cancer that
sits there that they are worried about. But I am not advocating
that we somehow give them money that we don't give our soldiers.

The one thing they always tell us is that they need housing as-
sistance, and there we need to recognize Germans are doing an
awful lot and that we would not want to match that, probably.

Mr. Callahan. Just to close out, we talk about our concern for
the Russian military and that we ought to permit them to continue
manufacturing conventional arms and permit them today about
transporting some of these arms to Serbia. I don't understand the
logic of all of that, but I know that gets more into State Depart-
ment than it does the military.

But I would be concerned and am concerned about the permissi-
bility and where we are negotiating to give them a billion plus dol-

430

lars to allow them to continue to manufacture arms to be given to
places like Serbia to cause worldwide unrest.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. I think the gentleman raises a good point. I think
we talked about that briefly before you came in. In my view, not
being a military man or a State Department bureaucrat, it seems
to me that they are caught in a Catch 22 situation.

First of all, if you close down the factories that make military
hardware they have no place to go. So they are going in and
making it as a place to earn a buck to feed their families and after
they build it, they have to find some market like we do in some of
our foreign military sales where sometimes we do more than we
like in those areas.

So they are caught in a Catch 22 situation and it is very difficult
in North Carolina and, I imagine, Alabama and Nevada to go and
explain, look, it makes more sense to give the Russians, give them
a billion or two billion, that makes it acceptable to us to be able
not to spend $50 billion on defense budget.

That is hard to sell because people don't understand that, when
they are seeing they cannot get a loan to start a small business or
what have you. That is the reason I made the point that is going to
be a tough sale if it comes in the defense, in military construction,
is going to be a hard sell in this committee. And if you go to for-
eign aid is going to be an even harder sell in a foreign aid bill,
which very few people like to support anyway. So it really bothers
me how we will address this problem, and something we have to
address because there is just no way it is going to go away.

Mrs. VucANOViCH. That is true.

Mr. Hefner. Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Good Afternoon, gen-
tlemen.

NATO infrastructure

I listened to one of your statements that you make to us and you
said if we didn't lead, if the United States didn't lead in NATO a
lot of things wouldn't happen. I will tell you it is my view, in talk-
ing with our counterparts in other countries, parliaments, the
North Atlantic Assembly, there are huge questions being asked
about the future and the role of NATO and the discussion about
Canada and the United States.

We are so far away anyhow, I guess, should we continue to par-
ticipate, particularly in light of the Maastricht Treaty issues and
the European Community, all of those issues, I think, are impor-
tant.

I think you will find, at least I found with Great Britain, the
view is, by most, that of course this Trans-Atlantic cooperation is to
continue. But in light of the fact of Canada's new troop decisions I
understand it to be complete troop removal from Europe, the re-
ductions in Belgium, the Netherlands, of their troops, as well as re-
ductions at least in the size of their troops being located outside
their own country. The question that I am most concerned about is
what our new role is or should be.

431

I am more interested in your thoughts on that, from your experi-
ence, not even just as commander in Europe, but in your overall
military experience. If you can give us your view on that, I would
appreciate it.

General Shaukashviu. I feel very strongly that our security and
stability is very much tied and dependent on the security and sta-
bility on the Continent of Europe. I don't mean just Western
Europe because really now you are reaching further east. And that
the best way we can assure that stability and security of Europe is
if we remain a voice in what happens over there. And the best way
to retain that voice is by retaining the Alliance and retaining our
leadership in the Alliance.

So I think we are there to serve our own national purposes, not
so much the European, although I hope along the way they also
benefit from that and I know they do. And I think they see it the
same way, sir, but they recognize that the United States being a
world power, being involved day-to-day in Europe also provides
them the best insurance policy for the stability and the security
they need to further move along the path that we all want them to
move on and they want to move on.

And now, particularly the countries in Eastern and Central
Europe, look to the Alliance more than at any other time as that
kind of anchor of stability behind which they can build democratic
institutions and market economies that the countries in the West
have done for the last 40 years. So I think we are there for our
interests and it is our interests that ought to keep us there, and
the Alliance is the best way to keep us in Europe.

Mr. Coleman. I think that is the statement that we generally
hear from our allies, as well. They agree with that position, yet at
this time, given the point of the problems in the Balkans, the fact
indeed that many believe, speaking of the Turkish position, I am
not so sure this thing has been contained to the extent we all hope
it would be.

We don't know where it ends. I am very interested in that from
current events, but certainly even from a historical analysis of
what is going on, that is fairly interesting. If it does spread to the
east, I mean I can imagine even Greece and Turkey at some point
become very concerned and engaged, perhaps.

I just question whether or not the, then, is not the right thing to
be asking the question what is NATO's role with respect to the
former Yugoslavia with the problems today.

I mean that question comes up. I will tell you, in fact, there is a
meeting scheduled next month in Europe, I think this committee
will be in Berlin and I will tell you that I suspect it will be even
more intense at least in the questioning.

Again, this is not a policy-making body, per se. It sits there liter-
ally and listens to you, to those in NATO, our representatives in
NATO, and yet is fairly representative, I think, mainly in the par-
liamentary form of the government at least that are represented
there of the views of the people in those countries.

I sense that there is a lot of desire for NATO to at least take
some position with respect to this problem.

432

General Shalikashviu. I think that you are right. The point
that I make is that in the next weeks, months ahead, it would be a
very important test for the Alliance, [ ]

And so when it comes to such things as the United Nations pass-
ing a resolution to enforce the no-fly zone, it is important the Alli-
ance understand that they are the relevant body to take on that
task. Or when eventually something comes out of a Vance-Owen
negotiation, some kind of peace plan, that Alliance be prepared to
do its share in helping to implement that.

I think that is important if we are interested in the long-term
health and relevance of the organization.

Mr. Coleman. I was thinking of your current duties. You may
not have time to look even at the long view. I suspect you are natu-
rally having to plan right now for possible spread of the problems,
particularly as it may affect not just the United States forces, but
NATO itself.

General Shaukashviu. Yes.

Mr. Coleman. Well, I guess that leads me to the final question
and I will yield back so everybody can have their second round.

I was very interested also in this resource priorities list that you
gave us and you highlighted the fact that for a good bit of the cuts
that had been taken there were the O&M accounts.

Does that really result from this committee's failure to fund
NATO infrastructure or does that come from the overall defense
budget?

General Shalikashvili. I think that is not, as I see it, from this
committee's actions at all. Part of the issue is that we have not
been funded properly for the retrograde of equipment of Europe
and that, I think, needs to be corrected.

There is also the issue of just proper distribution of O&M to
ensure that we can retain the training that we need to retain, to
retain the base organizations accounts in a healthy state and that
we can retain the quality of life.

Mr. Coleman. And as you reduce the size of the forces, it seems
to me, indeed, the O&M accounts become even more important.

General Shalikashvili. Yes.

Mr. Coleman. I think that while they are not the neat things to
talk about in terms of an overall defense budget, there are a lot of
us that believe strongly this is critical.

General Shalikashvili. Absolutely.

Mr. Coleman. You know, an5dhing that we can do, some of us on
this subcommittee that can convince our colleagues of that fact we
will try to do.

I noticed and I wanted to mention one other thing, the degrading
of our progress and standing as you set up the new joint analysis
center at Molesworth, I will tell you that for those kinds of issues,
once again, while we reduce and do what we are doing, they
become, to my way of thinking, even more important.

If we cannot integrate our capabilities through ADP or whatever
it may be, we decide we need to do it with, then I think we do
harm to ourselves and lessen our ability to respond.

I heard one of the members of this subcommittee just a minute
ago express great doubts and concern about rapidity with which we
are making the reductions. That is true of a lot of us. Even though

433

we say we are willing to do it, and we tell the voters we are doing
it, and we feel confident, I think, at some point all of us say we are
not so confident if in fact these statistics here become more preva-
lent; if we don't tend to these kinds of issues.

This is a $6 million item; not a two hundred some odd out of a
$270 billion budget. It seems crazy to me we would not be looking
after these kinds of items.

I would just say I want to provide you with every assistance pos-
sible to let you know that there will be people that will back you
up, if you will, go fight, as we used to say to everybody in this com-
mittee many years ago about fighting for the housing, for the men
and women in service, please. We don't get treated right when it
comes to dividing up the money over at the Pentagon.

The same thing will have to be said about this O&M account
business as well as not permitting those kinds of reductions that
hurt us.

I will be happy to yield back and let the second round go.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hefner. We have often just mentioned that we should have
jurisdiction over the O&M accounts anyway, but it has never been
very successful.

We have seven or eight votes, but that is about it.

Mr. Hobson?

Mr. Hobson. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank
you. This is my first appropriations hearing and I want to tell you
that it is a privilege to be here. Of the choices I looked at when I
came to the Appropriations Committee, this was my first choice of
those that were available to me, so I deem it a privilege to be here
with you.

General, I am probably going to tell you a little about my age
now, but I was stationed in France some years ago, which shows
you how long ago that was, because I don't think we have a lot of
troops left there.

Mr. Coleman. Some guys have all the luck.

Mr. Hobson. I didn't think so. I was a senior in law school when
Mr. Kennedy called us up to active duty and I didn't deem it a
pleasure at that point, but I did serve.

As we said, in those days we were so naive that our T-shirts were
white when we went over.

Having served there and knowing the relationship historically
between Germany and France and NATO and non-NATO, and as
we look down the future, what is from your perspective, if you can
say, that arrangement? How does it look now? MHiere do you see it
going? How does that impact the decisions that we are making
here now?

General Shalikashvili. I think that Europe as a whole is grop-
ing to come to grips with union, but that is no way, at least not
that I can sense, talks at all about doing it in union but without
the United States. [ ]

So I think when we see sometimes and we hear sometimes things
that aggravate us, it is usually because they have done something
in conjunction with France that gets our hair up. But if we look at
it from the perspective that they recognize if there is ever going to
be trouble on that continent again, it will probably be over the

434

French-German issue, and they are working so hard never to let
that happen.

I personally think in the long range, I think the Europeans will
have their starts and fits and so on, but they will continue to move
in the direction of greater union. But none of that will work if
France and Germany are not as close together as they possibly can
be. Otherwise this trend towards nationalism will develop again,
and smaller countries will begin to take sides and you will again
have a division on the European continent.

So while I am often frustrated by what is happening with the
French-German relationship, if you look on it long range, it is the
only way to really go, and I think the Germans have it about right.

Mr. HoBSON. I thought one of the reasons for us to stay here,
even if we are down-sizing, is that we can play a role. That is, if we
have resources. It could be a very dangerous situation.

General Shalikashvili. Oh, certainly.

Mr. HoBSON. I want to change the subject a little bit. One of the
things that concerns me about where we are going size-wise and ca-
pability-wise, in your theater, is this southern tier problem that
right now shows our problem. I am very concerned that the Euro-
peans once more are going to push our troops out front and they
are going to use this argument: Well, we cannot get together, we
cannot send the Germans, the French won't do it, and the Belgians
maybe don't have enough capability, but everybody together does.
But they will look back and say, for 150 years or so they have been
fighting so we will send the Americans. When that happens it is
our kids again out front in a theater where, if everybody comes to-
gether, there is a capability without us as a troop force, but maybe
as a back-up force.

I don't know totally this committee well yet, but a lot of us have
concerns about our kids winding up front again in a theater where
it doesn't have to happen.

Do you have any comment on that or do you feel that when you
talk to people?

General Shalikashvili. First of all, I certainly feel that when I
talk to my friends and colleagues, particularly here on this side of
the Atlantic. In Europe you hear a different frustration. You hear
a frustration by the Germans, particularly those in uniform, who
say we ought to not be shackled to the past in such a way that we
cannot go as humanitarians to former Yugoslavia and help. And it
was very frustrating to them when the other day, when they
agreed to fly with us over Bosnia-Herzegovina to drop food rations
when the Serbians announced they are going to shoot down the
Germans who will attempt to deliver humanitarian aid, but they
will also shoot down Americans who accompany them in airplanes.

Well, fortunately, people did not take that kind of a blackmail.
The Germans have for the last few days been flying with us togeth-
er with the French and dropping humanitarian aid. But I will tell
you that is a totally different story than in the implementation of
the Vance-Owen plan, the Germans would be able to go in on the
ground. Even if politically they could do it because of their own
constitution, there would be a great outcry in former Yugoslavia.
The same holds true for the Turks, and I think the same holds true
for the Italians.

435

So when you are realistic and you look at either the United Na-
tions or the Serbs having some kind of a veto over that, if you
leave out the Turks and you leave out the Greeks and the Italians
and you leave out the Germans, that in effect, leaves, among the
larger countries, France and the U.K. and the United States.

Mr. HoBSON. Luxembourg?

General Shalikashviu. Yes, but, in essence, you are left with
those three. So I don't know how to get around it.

I have been the one pushing, sa5dng we have to find some way
that we say. No, these people are coming in to help, they are not
coming in to subjugate the people in Yugoslavia, and we ought to
put our foot down and say if the Alliance is going to go in, then
everyone who is a member of the Alliance should be able to come
along with us to do that.

I must tell you frankly I am not getting much of a rousing sup-
port for this notion, and I don't know how we will come out on
that. But the end result could very well be that you have those con-
tributors who cannot participate and then it is left really up to
those that I mentioned.

Mr. Hobson. Let me ask one last question, if I may, Mr. Chair-
man.

We look at this downsizing and we look at this construction that
is going to go on. Are we making plans that if there is activity in
these areas, at what kind of force levels, what kind of support
levels will be have in the theater that we can respond to various
types of capabilities? Is there a plan or is it just happening? Do we
know where we are going to— do you have any thoughts as to
where you are going to wind up in your ability to respond with not
only just troops, but the support that we were talking about and
the other types of things and where those are going to be and what
kind of construction is going to be in a five-year plan?

General Shalikashvili. I think that if you allow us to say that,
yes, 100,000 is the number, presently 100,000 I want you to settle
down at in Europe, then I can tell you right now down to the last
presence all over Europe what they are going to be. That is not the
issue.

In other words, it is not that we don't know where in 1996 they
are all going to be; also, what capability they represent. We know
that, on the Army's side they will represent a slimmed-down corps
of two divisions, each division having two brigades forward de-
ployed in Europe and one brigade stationed here in the United
States with its equipment in Pomca, so when you need to call them
forward, you can go over there quickly.

The same with the crops. We know it will have all the elements
that are part of the corps package, the artillery and the engineers
and the aviation, but part of that will also be here in the United
States that we can then fly forward when we need it.

So we have, on the one hand, a right that is capable of going into
action while you rapidly bring forward the troops to pull on their
equipment and join them. And the Air Force side we will have two
and one-third tactical fighter wing equivalent, and we know exact-
ly how much we need on the Naval side ashore in order to support
those Naval forces, the carrier battle group and the Marines afloat
to provide us the presence in the theater. That is a capability that

436

I think for the time frame 1996 is the correct capability to have,
unless this thing goes sour in the security environment.

And that is why I asked that we evaluate it each year as we are
on the glide path towards 1996. So, yes, I feel very confident we
know what we will have and what the capability will represent and
where we will station it. So when I ask that we have a child devel-
opment center constructed at Ramstein, I am very confident.
Unless you tell us you cannot keep 100,000 there, and then of
course all bets are off because we all have to relocate. But if you
allow us to keep 100,000 for the foreseeable future, now I am confi-
dent we are building the child development center in the right
place, because I think I can forecast well enough what the need is
there today and what the need will be in 1996.

Mr. HoBSON. Thank you. General.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BALKANS

Mr. Hefner. If you talk about intervention, it is one thing to
talk about it and the other thing is to talk about we go in and what
we will do when we go in. Do you go in to punish or occupy? You
have to have some kind of plan and I would assume that would
have to have overwhelming support from all of our allies what the
participation would be. It could be a real sticky wicket; couldn't it.
General?

General Shalikashvili. Yes, sir. Our assumption now is that our
involvement in former Yugoslavia would be in support of a peace
plan that all three factions have to sign up to, and for which there
is an indication that there is general acceptance on the ground for
that. Now, that does not mean that we don't expect frequent local
flare-ups to occur, but it means that generally in the country there
is support for that and people are trying to implement that peace
plan and we are there to help them implement it. We are not there
to force it upon them. That is one side.

On the other hand, we must go in strong enough that if some-
thing flares up, our men and women cannot only protect them-
selves, but they also, when they run into some local warlord who is
threatening to use or is using force to keep our soldiers from get-
ting the job done, that they have enough, they have the appropri-
ate rules of engagement and enough horsepower over them that
they can get on with doing the job and don't have to be intimidated
by every little warlord who is trying to keep them from doing their
job.

So it is that environment. And the political objective is the im-
plementation of the Vance-Owen peace plan and then, hopefully, as
rapidly as possible get back out of there again and turn it over to
some more traditional United Nations peacekeeping organization.

Mr. Hefner. Where is the money coming from for the Serbs to
sustain this ongoing aggression? Where is the money coming from?

General Shalikashvili. I can't tell you for sure. I don't know.
Because the majority of the fighting, I believe, while probably sup-
ported by Serbia is really being conducted by the local fighting ele-
ments within Bosnia-Hercegovinia. I do know that

Mr. Hefner. It is a very expensive operation; isn't it?

437

General Shalikashvili. Well, it is, but we know that Yugoslav-
ian policy was to prestock throughout the country great numbers
of ammunition and weapons. So what you have there is just that;
people who are living off those stocks that had been left behind.
That is probably not all. They are probably getting funds and sup-
port from Serbia and there are probably leaks across the Danube
or some other places.

Mr. Hefner. I am assuming their economies are not that great
in these times, how long can they sustain?

General Shaukashviu. I think their economy is in shambles.
The economy, in Bosnia-Hercegovina, if it exists at all is in sham-
bles. The help, financial help that they must have, I cannot prove
it to you, but my sense is it is coming from the outside, that it is
probably coming from Serbia and Serbia, in turn, gets it from
someone else.

Mr. Hefner. Well, we will use that for another hearing at an-
other point in time.

Are there any questions?

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation? As a
newcomer to this committee, I was just looking at his track record
and I know you have not been the head coach here during the past
12 years, but your requests have not received full consideration by
the Congress, it does not appear. But I just wonder about the $240
million request; the fact that you have generally gotten maybe 40
percent of what you asked. Are you anticipating that reduction this
year?

General Shalikashvili. I would hope not, and I take it you are
referring to the NATO infrastructure program. I would ask very
sincerely not to do that. I think last year, when only $60 million
was made available, it sent quite a shock wave through the Alli-
ance and there was the general belief that it signalled a stepping
back from the Alliance by the United States and it took an awful
lot of talking by everyone to say, no, that is not so. But the result
was that with that kind of a contribution, the infrastructure pro-
gram came to pretty much of a screeching halt.

Yet there are things to be maintained, there are things that de-
spite the fact that the Cold War is over, new things that must be
gotten, and unless we want to send the signal to the Alliance that
we are walking back, I would urge you to see this $240 million as
the minimum that we need in light of the fact that we only got $60
million last year, our request for $240 million will help to get us
back on some kind of a recovery slope.

Mr. Callahan. I wonder if you ran into the problem on this com-
mittee or this subcommittee or in the conference committee? Have
we been pretty generous in the past, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Hefner. Well, when you finish I will make my comment.

RUSSIA

Mr. Callahan. Let me close then. If it gets to this point and I
know it is not going to get to this point, but if we have our option
to vote to reduce that billion dollars to Russia to build homes for

438

their retiring military people or to give you your $400 million, do
you think we should reduce the aid to Russia? Which cares most —
is that an unfair question?

Mr. Hefner. This is a closed hearing, General.

General Shaukashvili. I think the infrastructure money is terri-
bly important to the Alliance, is terribly important to the United
States, but you cannot minimize how important it is that in Russia
things go well. Not for the Russians, but for our own interests. The
fact that market economies and democratic institutions flourish in
Russia, we should think about it only in terms of benefits to us, not
to them. So I would ask you to consider both.

Mr. Callahan. I know that.

Mr. Hefner. There are several problems here, and some of them
are authorization. This committee has been, at best, in the last 10
years, stagnant. We have had go growth at all. And then, if you
remember, there has been an argument that is ongoing, in fact, I
think Armed Services has a subcommittee now called Burden-Shar-
ing Subcommittee, and if you remember, in some of the past Presi-
dential campaigns, we came out with some of the issues that dealt
with burden-sharing with our allies picking up their fair share of
the expenses. Plus, we had, sometimes we have an argument of
what is — should NATO be funded? Should we be funding from here
or should it be a NATO responsibility? And you get into those
problems.

So what we have tried to do with the very limited funds, and we
go to Fort Sill or Fort Bragg or wherever we look at these facilities
that we have our people living in this country, and we see that we
have a 100-year cycle on construction in this country in family
housing. When you come down to the nitty-gritty, it has just been
the fact that you are going to spend the money here on the home
front, supposedly.

We have a shortfall not only here in NATO, we have a shortfall
every place.

Now, I would say this: I think the Army has been negligent in
coming and being adamant enough about their funding. The Army
is notorious in my view, and I have told the Secretary of the Army,
I have told the Joint Chiefs when they come here, that the Army
has been, in my view, hesitant to be real pushy about their fund-
ing.

They have said, hey, the Air Force, there is not anything glamor-
ous about a tank or a living quarters or Bradley fighting vehicle,
but it is glamorous to talk about F-16s and aircraft carriers and all
these things, fancy helicopters and what have you. But the Army,
these are the guys out there doing the work, and that has been
some of our problem. They have not been aggressive enough in
coming before this Committee, because we say you give us the au-
thorization and the argument for it and we will do it.

That is one of the problems we have had in this Committee. Cer-
tainly, that has been our focus ever since I have been Chairman on
here, the quality of life and doing the things we need to do to make
our armed forces work wherever we are.

General Shalikashvili. I agree with you and I am certainly not
naive enough not to understand the arguments about putting the
money here in the United States or over there. But I ask, really,

439

those are your sons and daughters over there just as much as the
ones in Oklahoma and they need it just as much, and we have not
done well on military construction or maintenance and repair of fa-
cilities in Europe due largely to the changes that were occurring —
most wanted to wait until the situation settled down and we knew
where, we were going to be so you don't build in the wrong places.

If you agree with me and you decide this is what we are going to
have, the 100,000, then we know where we are going to be and then
please reverse that cycle this year. It is time to begin fixing the
housing and working for our young men and women.

Mr. Hefner. We just need to fix what we have and we have
some requests, and this is a very democratic Committee. We look at
it and we make our best judgments and we have to live with it.

Any other questions?

BALKANS

Mr. Coleman. I just, it I might, Mr. Chairman, for a minute. I
am interested in this issue about the Balkans again, only because I
think there is some legitimate reason to be concerned about where
you are, where our troops are, where NATO is with respect to that
issue.

I don't want to belabor it, but at what point are we going to say,
well, what is your best estimate of how much longer — I know a
time limit would be a difficult question to ask, but I am essentially
asking you that — how much further is Serbia able to go before they
say, now we will stop and sit down and negotiate; negotiate over
the Vance-Owen plan? All I am asking is in your analyses and the
threat that you envision to our soldiers, what is your best esti-
mate?

General Shalikashvili. I cannot give you anything better than
what you read in the open press, but one of the reasons that the
United Nations passed the resolution to enforce the no-fly regime
is clearly because it is designed to strengthen the word of the
United Nations, but it is also designed to signal to the Serbs in
Bosnia-Hercegovina loud and clear that things are going to get
tougher if they don't do it.

They have built in a two-week formula into this resolution with
the understanding that if the Serbs come to the table before this
clock runs out then the resolution, this no-fly thing will just be
subsumed in the plan itself.

So I guess there is an expectation that these guys do something
within the next two weeks.

I am not as sanguine that this will happen. The reason for it is
on a practical side, and, again, don't hold me exactly to the num-
bers, but the Serbs control some 70 percent of Bosnia-Hercegovina
now. Under the plan, they are going to have to give up, I guess, all
but about 40 percent or 50 percent of that. And, again, I am not
quite clear on the numbers, I am not sure anyone is, but it gives
you the proportion of what you are asking them to give up. It is
one thing for the political leader who comes to New York to agree
to that and sign the paper, it is another for all those independent
warlords who are doing most of the fighting to sign up to it that

440

has just fought for the last few months and captured this village
over here but tomorrow is going to give it up.

I don't know how much they can pull that together. So hopefully
they can and hopefully within this next two weeks that will give
them the time to think of the consequences of not doing it may be
worse than anything else, but I cannot be that optimistic. So I am
a doubting Thomas that they can pull it off.

Mr. Coleman. I am glad to hear you at least advising our NATO
allies that there is a great deal of concern out there and I want to
just tell you I sense it from talking to other parliamentarians,
other members of congresses of other countries, that you used the
term "relevance" and that is exactly the term being used, is NATO
relevant and I think that question will have to be answered at
some point and I recognize the great difficulty with which we
would make an effort other than a no-fly zone. I view the economic
sanctions working more against the Bosnians than the Serbs and so
I am not so sure, and we are permitting the arms to one faction
and not the other, and I don't know short of some serious action
and, hopefully, the no-fly zone would do it, I doubt if it will, but
some action about utilizing NATO forces to hit, everyone missing,
is all right with me, artillery pieces, but let them know there is
risk to be run. I don't know any other way to phrase it. But I
would be willing for you to say you have heard in a classified hear-
ing people are talking like that, or one person is talking like that.

I was just going to say I appreciate very much your discussing
the issue. I think it is one that is important to most of us.

Mr. Hefner. Who will enforce the no-fly zone, the United States?
Will we do it with F-16s or what? And what if we lose?

General Shaukashvili. An F

Mr. Hefner. A couple of planes?

General Shalikashvili. Right now the Alliance has submitted a
plan for enforcing the no-fly regime to New York, and has submit-
ted rules of engagement. There is a meeting of the North Atlantic
Council tomorrow to deal with the issue, I think very quickly.

The Alliance, unless I am very wrong, the Alliance will say you
will do it. If we do, you will find that Europeans will be very well
represented among those that would be flying to enforce the no-fly
regime.

The danger, certainly, is that we might lose some airplanes.
There is also another danger you all need to be aware of and that
is the danger it will not be 100 percent effective and you will read
about it in the papers and say how could it happen.

When you have little helicopters hugging the ground going from
point A to point B or little one-engine small airplanes going, it is
very difficult in that mountainous terrain where they operate an
F-16 or any other high-performance aircraft to give you 100 per-
cent assurance you are going to keep everybody from flying, but we
will sure get their attention.

But you must understand, that there are air defense systems on
the ground there, when you go after a helicopter you come very
low, and there are people with Kalishnikovs that will be very
happy to take pot shot at you. So the risks are not small.

Mr. HoBSON. Mr. Chairman, if I might. But, General that comes
back to my point before. There is no reason with aircraft that the

441

lead aircraft has to be ours in this situation. There are plenty of
aircraft in the alliance that can be the lead aircraft and for once
we can be the support aircraft. We can be the tankers. We can be
the guys providing the upper security, and let somebody else for a
change be that first flight for awhile.

I suspect that when we don't do that and we get three or four
planes shot down, the next wave in the heat of this thing will we
have to send 5000,000 troops over there. Suddenly we are engaged
again and we get engaged in something we are not going to get out
of as easy as we got in. I have Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in
my district, and I have a lot of military people that are on my mili-
tary advisory group. A number of them have a number of stars and
there is not one of them that said to me we ought to get engage in
this in a heavy way unless you are willing to risk a lot of loss of
life.

General Shalikashvili. I think it is important that we under-
stand that we ought to not get engaged in a military way to en-
force a peace plan or something on Bosnia-Hercegovina, that it, in
fact, must be an effort to help them implement it. But on the issue
of the no-fly zone enforcement, I think the decision has been made
by the United Nations that in order to, as I just said, to strengthen
the authority of the United Nations and in order to signal to the
Serbs the United Nations wants to no-fly zone enforced.

Mr. HoBSON. I don't gigree with that, sir. All I am saying, and I
know our guys want to do it, but it ought to be somebody else ini-
tially doing it. That is one person's opinion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HoBSON. Anybody else?

If there are no futher questions, we would like to thank you for
being with us and the committee stands adjourned, subject to the
call of the Chair.

[The subcommittee was adjourned subject to the call of the
Chair.]

[Clerk's note. — Questions for the record submitted by Chairman
Hefner.]

Question. With reductions and projected further reductions in
forces in Europe, I would like to know of concerns you may have
with regard to being able to mobilize forces.

Answer. With the reduction in forces in Europe we will have to
put a much greater reliance on Reserve/National Guard assets and
Host Nation Support (HNS) in order to be able to mobilize/deploy
forces. As you may recall during the VII Corps deployment from
Europe to Operation Desert Shield/Storm we saw the V Corps and
non-deploying Echelon-Above-Corps (EAC) units providing a signifi-
cant amount of support to deploying VII Corps units and person-
nel. This support ran the gamut from transportation, to mainte-
nance, to administrative support for deploying troops to security at
numerous locations. With the continued drawdown in Europe we
won't have a sufficient number of European based personnel to
provide similar services if we were to rapidly deploy. We will be
relying on Reserve/National Guard assets, personnel, and units in
even a greater degree to provide the backfill (eg., security, BASOPS
and logistics mission and functions) to fill the gap left by deploying
units. Additionally, Reserves and National Guard assets, personnel

442

and units will be required to provide the bulk of the Combat Serv-
ice Support (CSS) functions to allow the mobilizing and deploying
forces to meet their mission timelines. The use of existing and/or
additional HNS agreements will also play a prominent role in
future mobilization/deployments. The move of U.S. forces out of
Europe requires us to place greater emphasis on our host nations
(at both the origin and destination) to provide support, in a wide
variety of areas, particularly in the areas of: manpower, material
and equipment, transportation and facilities. It should be noted
Host Nation capabilities in some areas are also being reduced and/
or the cost of support is increasing.

Question. How do you view the current structure in the United
States in terms of meeting your needs and demands? In other
words, do we have the necessary infrastructure such as railheads
and available ports to deliver units to European theaters?

Answer. The facilities in the United States have been able to
support the outloads of units participating in exercises in Europe.
However, a number of improvements have been identified at our
ports of embarkation which will allow them to better serve our
needs in the event of contingency operations. We are attempting to
get NATO infrastructure funding for these improvements.

Question. Are we going to have greater dependency on the C-17
and fast sealift?

Answer. Yes, if we are to provide the U.S. National Command
Authorities the capability to commit U.S. forces (within alliance/
coalitions) to regional crisis, to unilaterally respond and to rein-
force the European theater if necessary. In light of our drawdown
from Europe, the need to maintain the capability to re-introduce
credible forces is linked directly to our ability to rapidly lift large
formations of combat forces and reserves from their posts and sta-
tions in CONUS. The C-17 and fast sealift ships provide the United
States that capability.

NATO CUTS

Question. As you know, last year the Congress dramatically re-
duced the request for NATO Infrastructure funds. One can at-
tribute reduction to a number of factors, such as: (1) Concern about
NATO's role in view of the reduced threat and (2) Need to provide
for facility construction in the United States. Facility construction
in the U.S. was reduced by 40 percent last year. What problems do
you foresee if the Congress were to cut NATO Infrastructure by 50
percent?

Answer. Because of the reduced level of funding in FY93, a large
number of new start projects were not authorized by the NATO
Payments and Progress Committee and are on hold. In addition,
the Major NATO Commanders have a number of high priority new
start projects they consider to be in the "must fund" category. If
Congress were to cut the infrastructure contribution, we would, for
a second year in a row, likely not be able to fund any significant
new start projects due to the backlog of funding increments for
projects under contract and under construction that must still be
funded. This would leave NATO in a position of not being able to
fund projects that are needed for the new missions pertaining to

443

crisis management, contingency, and peacekeeping, to say nothing
about recoupments or new U.S. initiatives. Further, U.S. reluctance
to fund our share of the NATO Infrastructure Fund is viewed by
some AUies as a softening of U.S. commitment to NATO. The fund
is a prime example of burdensharing by the nations and should be
funded.

NATO — U.S. BASED FACIUTIES

Question. As I understand, because of reductions in NATO Infra-
structure funds, the NATO ministers have decided not to fund rein-
forcement embarkation facilities in the continental United States.
Is this true?

Answer. There were no embarkation facilities funded. This was
not a decision by NATO ministers but a programming decision by
SHAPE based on funding levels and requirements. These facilities
depend on completion of reinforcement plans and adequate funding
of the infrastructure program.

Question. With the $240 million requested, are any of these funds
targeted for construction of embarkation facilities in the United
States? If so, where?

Answer. Projects are now being identified and will be submitted
for inclusion in SHAPE Infrastructure Capability Packages to sup-
port external reinforcement plans. These plans, however, will not
be completed in time to allow funds expenditure to occur in 1993.
And, as you know, SACLANT will submit what he believes is re-
quired for CONUS projects later this year, which will be considered
by NATO for inclusion in the '94 program.

Question. Please provide for the record a list of any new or on-
going projects inside the United States that are proposed for NATO
funding during 1994 (Slice 45).

Answer. None for embarkation facilities. The only on-going
project in the U.S. to be funded with FY94 funds is in Earle, NJ
(replace trestle).

Question. Please also provide a list of all shared cost projects,
showing the amount funded by the United States and the amount
funded by NATO.

Answer. The project at Earle, NJ for the trestle is cost shared
(approximately half and half).

NATO — NEW INITIATIVES

Question. Would any of the requested $240 million for NATO In-
frastructure be used to fund new initiatives or new projects? If so,
how much?

Answer. Yes, approximately $2 million for nuclear surety
projects; up to $200 million for command and control (air and land)
depending on funds availability.

Question. If so, could you explain why new initiatives are being
sought or planned?

Answer. New initiatives, although few, support nuclear surety
and command and control which will be required to support future
NATO plans.

444

BASE closure/residual VALUE

Question. I see in the Department's news release that the Depart-
ment is reporting that 650 installations in Europe will be ended,
reduced, or placed on standby since January 1990. I understand
that this represents about a 40 percent reduction. I realize that the
State Department is in charge of the residual value negotiations
between the United States and the host nation, but what can you
tell us about the type of problems we are encountering in recover-
ing our investment in facilities in Europe?

Answer. Actually, Department of Defense has the authority and
lead in residual value negotiations although we do work very close-
ly with the State Department and have asked for some assistance
with Germany to encourage progress in the negotiations. In Ger-
many one of the biggest challenges has been the work overload re-
sulting from the pace of the U.S. drawdown. German officials have
been hard pressed to keep pace with both installation closures and
residual value negotiations. The other significant challenge we face
in Germany is the economic problems Germany is experiencing.
The cost of reunification has been significantly greater than antici-
pated and has left Germany with a substantial cash flow problem.
In Greece and Turkey we are faced with the challenge of trying to
recoup U.S. investments from countries which are relatively poor
and already receive substantial financial assistance from the
United States. Politically and economically it is difficult for these
countries to pay the U.S. large sums of residual value. In other
countries the total number of installations returned has been rela-
tively small and we are just now beginning to open residual value
negotiations for these facilities.

RESIDUAL VALUE

Question. Section 9047A of the FY 1993 Defense Appropriations
Act allows residual value amounts to be deposited in the currency
of the host nation for construction of facilities in that host nation,
or for real property maintenance and base operating costs. How
successful are we in negotiating residual value amounts with
NATO member nations in Europe? Have we received any credits?

Answer. Negotiations are not proceeding as fast as we had hoped,
partially because we have turned back more installations more
quickly than we had originally anticipated and partially because
European nations are faced with economic problems similar to
those we are experiencing in the U.S. In Germany we have re-
ceived DM 5M for installations returned prior to October 1990 and
are continuing to negotiate for installations returned in FY91. In
Italy we received $2.4M from GE/UK for facilities at Decimo-
mannu, Italy and the Italian Government has agreed to pay an ad-
ditional $3.8M which we expect to receive in June/ July 1993. We
have not received any credits to date. We are, however, currently
negotiating with Germany to fund a sewer system upgrade at Ho-
henfels with residual value payment-in-kind. It is too early to de-
termine what the final outcome of this initiative will be, but, if suc-
cessful, it may be possible to expand this form of settling residual
value claims.

445

Question. Do you have a priority for the use of such funds? In
other words, would the majority of funds be used for operating and
maintenance rather than construction?

Answer. As stated earUer, we are currently negotiating for pay-
ment-in-kind to fund a construction project at Hohenfels. In many
ways we view this as a test case and if successful we would hope to
expand this form of settling residual value claims. If we could
expand settlement through payment-in-kind, our initial priority
would be to fund critical construction projects at those installations
we plan to retain in Europe.

Question. What can you tell us about ongoing residual value ne-
gotiations?

Answer. In Germany we have received DM 5M for installations
returned prior to October 1990. Negotiations are ongoing for instal-
lations returned in FY91. These negotiations are not proceeding as
fast as we had hoped, partially because we have turned back more
properties more quickly than anticipated. Increased returns of U.S.
facilities coupled with significant demand for restoration in former
East Germany has severely strained the capability of German offi-
cials to keep pace with the installation turnover schedule and re-
sidual value negotiations. German economic problems have also
slowed negotiations. We have gone to the political level and urged
the Germans to expedite negotiations but it is too early to deter-
mine what effect it will have. We are also pursuing residual value
payment-in-kind to fund a sewer system upgrade at Hohenfels. We
have formally proposed this initiative to Germany and are await-
ing a response. In Italy we settled for $2.4M with Germany and the
United Kingdom for the Air Weapons Training facilities at Decimo-
mannu. The government of Italy has agreed to pay an additional
$3.8M which we expect to receive in June/ July 1993. In Belgium
we expect to open negotiations for Florennes Air Base later this
spring.

Question. What impact have environmental restoration costs had
on residual value negotiations?

Answer. Environmental damages have not been a significant
issue in negotiations to date. Host nations have not made environ-
mental damage claims that exceed what we had stated the dam-
ages to be before beginning negotiations. Our policy is to routinely
disclose known environmental contaminations to host nations. En-
vironmental damages at installations being returned are corrected
prior to turn back if they are of imminent risk to health. Other-
wise the facilities are returned as is. Host nations may then seek to
include restoration damages in the residual value negotiations. To
this point, damage claims have not exceeded our estimate thereof.

Question. Has NATO agreed to tally any residual value pay-
ments as infrastructure contributions?

Answer. No, NATO has not agreed to tally any residual value
payments as infrastructure contributions.

BASE CLOSURES

Question. What can we expect to see in the coming year regard-
ing closures and realignments of installations in Europe?

446

Answer. During the first and second quarter of FY93 we have re-
turned 32 installations and completed the partial return of an addi-
tional 6 installations. We are scheduled to completely return or
partially return as additional 82 installations in the 3rd and 4th
quarters of FY93. As we continue to revise our basing plan to meet
adjusted force structure we will continue to return installations to
host nations. While some of these installations will begin drawing
down in FY93 we expect the bulk of the additional returns to occur
in FY94 with some extending into FY95.

RE-USE OF VACATED FACIUTIES

Question. For facilities that we have vacated in Europe, is there
any general pattern for how they are being re-used by the host
nation?

Answer. In Germany, where the majority of the returns have oc-
curred, approximately two-thirds of the returned installations
remain vacant. The other one-third of these installations are now
partially reused as follows:

Percent

Military 20

Municipal Agencies 20

State Agencies 30

Private Individuals/ Firms 30

While we do not have specific data for other countries, we would
expect the usage trends to be relatively consistent with those in
Germany.

ALLIANCE CUT BACKS

Question. Belgium and the Netherlands have decided to cut their
forces in half while Canada has pulled all of its soldiers out of
Europe. Germany is considering a cut back. What problems do you
see in troop cut backs by the United States and our allies?

Answer. NATO, with the U.S. as the leader, has provided over 40
years of stability in the region. Currently, there is no other organi-
zation that has NATO's track record or power. However, as forces
are cut, NATO may have less influence in European politics and
security. Generally, the Allies follow the U.S. lead, so as we draw
down, they do also. Without forces to back up the charter, NATO's
leverage is weakened. In addition, U.S. leadership has been the cor-
nerstone of NATO's steadiness. Force contributions are a main ele-
ment of the calculus that determines the amount of influence in
NATO. Because of cuts, Belgium has relinquished leadership of one
of the NATO corps. The Belgians, Dutch and Canadians all have
force contributions that are too small to lead a major formation.

[ ]

While the U.S. makes major contributions to the Alliance in the
quality of our systems and depth of our reinforcement potential, it
is our forward presence that maintains confidence of our Allies and
discourages radicalism in the unstable new democracies. At ap-
proximately lOOK, we are on the edge of a credible commitment
sufficient to retain leadership. In force application terms, we will
have the minimum presence force capability to participate in the

447

Alliance crisis response and to do the training necessary for full de-
velopment of the multinational formations.

FLEXIBLE FULL TRAINED MILITARY

Question. You have indicated that what you need are flexible,
fully trained soldiers who are ready for an5rthing. Is there anything
holding you back from adequately preparing our soldiers for unex-
pected missions?

Answer. I am concerned that we maintain a force structure able
to sustain a high operational tempo without keeping the forces con-
tinuously deployed. We must also continue to fund our exercise
program to maintain combat readiness. Obviously we must also
continue to modernize our forces. The combat readiness currently
demonstrated by the U.S. European Command can only be main-
tained if we commit ourselves to the execution of high quality
training, field testing our modernization efforts, and providing an
operational tempo that allows quality of life for our military fami-
lies in Europe.

USE OF NATO UNDER UN CONTROL

Question. To what extent do you see NATO evolving into a mili-
tary arm of the United Nations?

Answer. At the Oslo Ministerial in June 1992, NATO made it's
resources and expertise available to support international peace-
keeping under the auspices of the CSCE. This was expanded in De-
cember 1992 to apply to support of the UN. Given the limited mili-
tary capabilities of the UN, especially in the command and control
area, I see NATO evolving into a significant organization to carry
out peacekeeping operations and other military operations in sup-
port of UN resolutions. This would principally be in the European
Theater but may in the future be applied to areas outside of
Europe at the request of the UN. This also does not necessarily
mean that NATO would be the only regional organization that
may be involved in carrying out UN resolutions. Other regional or-
ganizations may also be used in the future.

Question. Do you have any reservation on such an arrangement?

Answer. I have no reservations on having NATO support UN
resolutions militarily. However, two points need to be emphasized:
1. The member nations must first be willing to approve any type of
military operation in support of UN resolutions, and then the
member nations must be willing to provide the necessary military
forces to carry out the operation. 2. If consensus is achieved, NATO
will act to support UN resolutions under the guidance of the UN.
That means that NATO will have the leeway to decide on the best
manner to employ its command and control capabilities and mili-
tary forces to achieve the goals of the UN resolutions.

Question. What are the options for how to establish political con-
trol over such a "de-nationalized" military force?

Answer. I am not sure if "de-nationalized" is the best term to use
here. National forces utilized in a NATO operation do not lose
their national identity. Rather, they are integrated into the NATO
structure with its set procedures and methods to obtain maximum
efficiency of allied forces. As far as political control is concerned.

68-354 O— 93 15

448

the U.S. has always understood that its forces committed to NATO
would be subject to decisions made by the North Atlantic Council
(NAC). Furthermore, if the NATO forces are to be used in support
of UN resolutions, the U.S. also has its say in the UN. The enforce-
ment of the No-fly Zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina is a prime example
of how political control can be exercised. The UN enacted its reso-
lution to enforce the No-Fly Zone. NATO offered its military capa-
bilities to carry out the resolution after approval by its member na-
tions in the NAC, and the UN accepted the offer. The NATO com-
mander will carry out the military mission under the guidance of
the NAC and in accordance with the UN resolution. The NAC can
decide at any time to withdraw the NATO forces, or the UN can
decide that it no longer wants NATO participation.

DUAL BASING

Question. General, in your prepared statement you said that, as
we go lower than 150,000 troops in Europe, "we must dual base
subordinate elements of the air and land forces, particularly land
forces, in the U.S." Please describe in some detail how this dual
basing concept would operate.

Answer. Below 150,000 troops, we will no longer be able to sup-
port complete formations. In land forces, for example, we will
maintain the structure of a Corps with the preponderance forward
but essential building blocks will be missing. These missing ele-
ments must be matched with designated CONUS based elements.
The dual-based CONUS units may have other missions but are
readily available to this command for training, planning and mis-
sion employment. Normally, they would fall under the command
and control of a stateside commander, but their training would in-
clude frequent exercises simulating deployment to the EUCOM
AOR and employment in the theater. In addition, instruction
would emphasize theater unique considerations and operating con-
ditions/constraints. Readiness inspections would concentrate on
theater plans and operations. Finally, the units would periodically
deploy to exercise in theater which would allow them to train in a
multinational formation.

FORMER EASTERN BLOC SECURITY CONCERNS

Question. Are the new Central Eastern European democracies
content for now with their participation in the North Atlantic Cor-
poration Council, or would some of these countries prefer to be full
members of NATO?

Answer. Our Central and East European partners have ex-
pressed satisfaction with the North Atlantic Cooperation Council
(NACC) as a useful forum for encouraging dialogue and cooperation
on defense issues. They see the NACC as a step in the right direc-
tion toward creating a common security anchor in Europe. Some
states, however, have indicated their desire to go beyond the coop-
erative framework provided by the NACC and to become full Alli-
ance members.

Question. Do you see a time when NATO membership might
expand to include countries such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria or
Russia?

449

Answer. It is conceivable that some states of Central and Eastern
Europe may eventually become members of NATO, although I do
not think that such a development is likely in the near term,

[ ]

Question. What are the arguments for and Eigainst such member-
ship, if they were to seek it?

Answer. It is not likely that the states of Eastern Europe will
join the Alliance in the near term. Most are still in the process of
developing new political-economic systems and some Alliance mem-
bers have expressed a desire to give the East Europeans more time
to continue their democratic and market reforms. In the future, ex-
tending full membership to some Central and East European states
could possibly support the broader strategic objective of promoting
stability on the European continent. Full membership would also
allow these states to integrate more fully in the cooperative proc-
esses of mutual security which has proven so successful in cement-
ing relations between the Alliance members for over forty years. I
am thoroughly convinced that our Central and East European part-
ners can make an important contribution to the security and sta-
bility of Europe, though the course of their respective internal de-
velopment programs will play a large role in determining the
nature of their relationship with NATO.

Question. Is it not in the best interest of our western Alliance to
do all that we can to help them meet their legitimate security con-
cerns?

Answer. It is clearly in the best interests of not only the U.S. but
also our European Allies to assist the new democracies of Central
and Eastern Europe. NATO defense cooperation with the East is an
essential element of our aim to build a stable European security
community based on these same principles, concepts and habits of
cooperation which have evolved among NATO members over the
last forty years. The Alliance has already done much to establish
cooperative security relationships with its former adversaries.
Since September 1990, all former members of the Warsaw Pact
have maintained permanent diplomatic liaisons with NATO in
Brussels. The Alliance has opened an expanding military-to-mili-
tary contacts program to supplement national efforts in this area.
In the fall of 1991, the Alliance institutionalized its relationships
with the Central and East European nations by establishing the
North Atlantic Corporation Council.

MIGRATION

Question. Has migration of citizens following the breakup of the
Soviet Union been a serious destabilizing factor in the former re-
publics or elsewhere?

Answer. Migration in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) has the po-
tential to become a serious destabilizing factor if economic decline
and political gridlock continue. There are approximately two mil-
lion civilian internal refugees in Russia, another 250,000 to 500,000
military personnel are without permanent quarters. If ethnic fight-
ing continues to spread throughout the peripheral states of the
FSU certainly more ethnic Russians will return to Russia, creating
additional problems. Many ethnic minorities which were dislocated

450

under Stalin's reign are trying to return to ancestral homelands
which is also adding to difficulties.

Question. Has such migration reached dangerous levels any-
where?

Answer. Migration has not yet reached dangerous levels in the
FSU.

Question. How about the migration of scientific personnel, re-
cruited to participate in weapons programs?

Answer. There is no "hard" evidence that scientific personnel
have been successfully recruited from the FSU to participate in
weapons programs.

RESIDUAL CAPABILITIES IN THE FORMER EASTERN BLOC

Question. Given the economic situation in Russia, in the Former
Soviet Republics and in the former Warsaw Pact Countries, can
you say whether their defense spending is buying an effective mili-
tary capability, or whether it is largely a public works program?

Answer. Defense spending by former Warsaw Pact countries and
the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union is suffi-
cient for their current defense requirements. The majority of de-
fense spending is allocated to improving living standards for troops.

SECURITY OF SOVIET WEAPONRY

Question. General, are you comfortable about the security of Rus-
sian conventional and nuclear weaponry, as well as that of the
other former Soviet republics?

Answer. I am comfortable with current Russian efforts to main-
tain the safety and security of their nuclear weapons. However, the
Russian defense establishment, including that which controls nu-
clear weaponry, is subject to the same turmoil as the rest of Rus-
sian society. Nuclear security is an area the Defense Department
and the entire U.S. intelligence community will continue to moni-
tor very closely. Conventional weapons are already subjects of
black marketing and will continue to proliferate.

Question. Have there been any incidents which raised your levels
of concern about their ability to manage their stockpiles of arms?

Answer. These have been no specific incidents; however, there is
a growing black market in small arms in areas of civil unrest and
organized crime.

Question. What is the current situation in the dispute between
Russia and the Ukraine over Crimean ports and control of the
Black Sea Fleet?

Answer. Crimea remains under Ukrainian jurisdiction and Rus-
sian policy supports that position. Radical elements in both states
are agitators, but the issue does not pose a significant challenge to
Russo/Ukrainian relations at this time. Negotiations continue at
the Ministry of Defense level over the Fleet issue. The debate is un-
likely to be resolved in the near future.

RUSSIAN REDEPLOYMENT

Question. What difficulties has Russia faced in re-absorbing its
forces from the former republics and from Warsaw pact countries?

451

Answer. Russia faces severe funding problems in reabsorbing its
forces. There are not enough funds to redeploy troops from the
former republics and Warsaw Pact countries. There are not suffi-
cient housing or social support programs to maintain quality of life
for the troops and their families that do return. Finally, there is
not enough funding to pay for retraining as officers and soldiers
are released from active duty as a part of Russia's force reduction
program.

Question. Are their difficulties in re-deployment a matter of real
limits on Russia's ability to re-absorb these forces, or is this com-
pounded by a desire to continue to occupy military installations
and territory?

Answer. While there are probably some in the Russian military
and political arena who regret losing the empire, their difficulties
in redeploying are a function of the very real problems they face in
building a new infrastructure to support the returning forces.

REDEPLOYMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

Question. Is the base structure inside the United States going to
have any difficulty being able to absorb the equipment and person-
nel that we are bringing back from Europe?

Answer. The largest challenge is the land force drawdown, and it
has been a significant issue for the Army staff in Washington to
resolve the stationing problems associated with the return of cohe-
sive USAREUR units and their equipment.

Question. We are drawing down from Europe, drawing down
across the board, changing the force structure, and closing and re-
aligning many bases — all at the same time. Have we hit any choke
points in this process yet? For example it has been said that for a
while the U.S. military exhausted the supply of moving vans in
Europe, and we must have paid dearly for that.

Answer. Main '"'choke points" are:

1. Funding shortfall. The main "choke point" is lack of funds to
support retrograde and repair/ distribution of equipment excess to
smaller USAREUR force structure and war reserve requirements.
Our plans had called for 9,800 excess vehicles to be retrograded to
the U.S. in FY93. As a result of funding shortfalls — to repair or
store equipment in CONUS — only 3400 will be returned. This com-
pounds funding and manpower shortages. For FY93, we have $21M
available against our $164M retrograde requirement. The lack of
funding for this, and reception of equipment in the U.S., will com-
pound our funding and manpower shortfalls for FY94 and beyond.

2. Personnel shortages. USAREUR's civilian employment level is
being forced down faster than the workload. As the theater level is
being forced down, the requirement to process equipment through
receiving, repair to maintenance standards, store and ship equip-
ment has increased. Yet the USAREUR civilian workforce has
been cut drastically. In FY90 USAREUR was authorized a civilian
end strength (ES) of 67,942. FY92 ES was 43,188. The FY93 Presi-
dential Budget level is 35,711. These civilian reductions have been
compounded by Congressional funding reductions for burdenshar-
ing that has not materialized.

452

3. Moving van capacity storage. During the major drawdown
(FY91-92) USAREUR was required to find additional capacity for
household goods (HHG) movements. The German (as well as other
countries) HHG mover associations were very cooperative. Al-
though we did exceed our normal capacity, it took 90-120 days to
ramp up sufficient capacity to handle the iDacklog. USAREUR did
end up pa3rLng more for the service because a lot of locally contract-
ed service was used rather than MTMC's normal international
shipping mode. Our method, called the Direct Procurement
Method, was the critical innovation that allowed us to move many
families in a short period of time. The service cost more because it
usually costs more in day-to-day operations.

ALLIANCE COMMITMENT

Question. As Germany is going through its re-unification process,
have you seen any change in its commitment to NATO?

Answer. No, the NATO Alliance remains the keystone of
German security arrangements. I believe that in the future Germa-
ny will continue to be a strong supporter of the Alliance and U.S.
presence in Europe.

Question. What recent changes have you seen, if any, in the com-
mitment of other NATO member nations to the Alliance?

Answer. All of the NATO nations are committed and will remain
committed to NATO even though almost all the nations have an-
nounced force structure reductions in light of the new security en-
vironment. Overall we anticipate significant reductions in air, Isind
and maritime forces with the largest reductions projected by the
Central Region nations. The U.S. drawdowns in Europe exceed
those of any nation, even the recently announced cuts by Belgium
and the Netherlands. I am confident the nations of the Alliance
will still retain a very viable military capability unless we make
significant additional cuts.

SOUTHERN REGION AIR BASE

Question. Now that we are out of Torrejon, and Crotone will not
be built, what are the plans for basing F-16s in the southern
region? Is dual beising being considered?

Answer. [ ]

Question. How soon do you expect these plans to be finalized?

Answer. [ ]

Question. With force structure changes, do we have enough F-16s
and personnel to maintain a permanent presence in the Southern
Region?

Answer. [ ]

CROTONE, ITALY

Question. Does the budget request include any funds for Crotone,
such as contract termination costs?

Answer. No. NATO does not project any future funding require-
ments for Crotone. There should eventually be a return of some
funds to NATO when GOI has sold the land which had been expro-
priated for the planned air base.

453

COMISO, ITALY — FAMILY HOUSING

Question. The budget request includes $20.2 million to buy-out
leased family housing at Comiso, Italy. Please submit for the record
the economic justification for this buy-out.

Answer. We have a $7.2 million annual lease payment due for
each of the four years left on the lease. That amounts to a total
remaining cost of $28.8 million. The option to buy is $20.2 million
at this time. By buying out the lease at this time, we can save $8.6
million.

Question. Could NATO make use of these 460 housing units?

Answer. Not direct use since family housing is a national consid-
eration / responsibility.

Question. Why is this buy-out a U.S. cost, rather than a NATO
cost?

Answer. Family housing is not eligible for NATO funding. The
U.S. agreed to the build-lease arrangement as a national commit-
ment in support of the GLCM process.

Question. After the lease is bought out, who owns the units?

Answer. Government of Italy (GOI) is the legal owner of the
housing units along with the Ministry of Defense (MOD) property
on which they are situated. We will have residual value rights in
accordance with current agreements, as with any U.S. funded prop-
erty in Italy.

COMISO, ITALY — RESIDUAL VALUE

Question. How are the GLCM facilities at Comiso being used?

Answer. None of the GLCM facilities are currently being used by
either Italy, the U.S., or NATO.

Question. What is the status of residual value negotiations?

Answer. We have not entirely solidified our basing plan for the
Southern Region and may need to conduct sensitive negotiations
with Italy for force beddown. Therefore, we have not yet begun ne-
gotiations for the facilities returned to Italy at Comiso. We are
gathering necessary data upon which to base negotiations so we
can proceed with negotiations without delay once our overall
basing plan for this region is in place.

"euro corps"

Question. Please bring us up-to-date with the current status of
the joint French-German "Euro corps" introduced by President
Mitterand and Chancellor Kohl in October 1991.

Answer. [ ]

Question. How has NATO responded to the creation of the Euro
Corps?

Answer. [ ]

Question. What is the Corps' military mission and how does it
relate to NATO's mission?

Answer. [ ]

Question. I would just point out that this looks like an effort to
elbow out the United States. Would you care to comment?

Answer. The U.S. has long urged the Europeans to play a more
active role in their own defense, and we have also encouraged the
French to rethink their position of staying out of NATO's integrat-

454

ed military structure. I think that the Eurocorps is a step in the
right direction toward achieving both of these goals. I do not feel
the Eurocorps is an attempt to elbow out the United States, but I
believe that part of the motivation to form the Corps came from a
questioning of U.S. resolve to stay in Europe precipitated by our
large drawdown. By maintaining a significant forward presence, we
can mollify these concerns.

NATO — OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Question. How are the negotiations proceeding in getting the
NATO allies to actually fund the operation and maintenance costs
for POMCUS, war reserve stocks and co-located operating bases in
Europe? As I understand it, the United States is still paying 100
percent of the operation and maintenance costs.

Answer. The U.S. proposed criteria and standards (C&S) defining
funding parameters of the initiative have been submitted to
SHAPE. With the lack of U.S. FY93 funds, no pressure could be
put on SHAPE to finalize their own version of the C&S. If suffi-
cient funds become available in FY94, SHAPE can be pressed to
complete its version of the C&S, using the U.S. input, and submit it
to the NATO Military Committee for approval. The funding re-
quirement can then be submitted for NATO common funding in
competition with other requirements for infrastructure funds.

Question. In your prepared statement, you said that the Allies
agreed in principal to fund these costs, but that "the large reduc-
tion to the FY93 infrastructure request prevented pursuing NATO
funding this year". Why did this reduction prevent NATO funding?

Answer. The reduced funding level in FY93 for the U.S. contribu-
tion to the NATO Infrastructure Program has forced the U.S. to
limit NATO authorizations of common funds to "must pay" re-
quests such as ongoing projects that were approved in prior years,
urgent or emergency requirements, and fixed agency operating ex-
penses. No funds are available to cover new initiatives such as this
one.

MILITARY-TO-MILITARY CONTACT PROGRAM

Question. Please describe in some detail the operation and scope
of the "Military-to-Military Contact Program".

Answer. As the "Revolutions of 1989" rocked the Warsaw Pact,
the U.S. needed "a new strategy of defense and military relations
with Eastern Europe." An Interagency Working Group on U.S.-
East European Defense and Military Relations (IWG) composed of
representatives from OSD, State, NSC, DIA, JCS, and CIA pub-
lished a list of objectives in Sep. 90 and approved the first Joint
Staff 2- Year Plan. The long-term goal is to establish substantive
contacts across a spectrum of participants in grade and number
with emphasis on a few focus areas. To immediate goal is to pro-
vide a workplan tailored to specific country requirements with the
approval of the U.S. Ambassador. The IWG selected Hungary for
the first expanded military contacts. USEUCOM implemented a
concept of operations involving a small in-country Military Liaison
Team (MLT) to coordinate visits of Traveling Contact Teams
(TCTs), experts in subject areas determined by the host. The

455

EUCOM program focuses on providing assistance in subjects such
as personnel, finance, logistics, civil affairs, legal, medical, environ-
mental protection, transportation, communications, public affairs
and civil engineering. Due to restrictions involving the Foreign Se-
curity Assistance Act, the Joint contact Team program does not
delve into existing security assistance programs.

The Joint Contact Team Program currently has MLT's in Hun-
gary, Poland, Albania, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. A
program has been proposed to the governments of the Czech Re-
public and Bulgaria. These governments are still considering the
proposal.

In late November 1992 the SECDEF tasked USEUCOM to estab-
lish the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch, GE, as a forum
for defense contacts with Central/Eastern Europe (to include the
states of the former Soviet Union) which will provide defense edu-
cation for military and civilian personnel, conduct research on se-
curity issues, conduct conferences and seminars, support NATO ac-
tivities, as well as continue quality training for U.S. Foreign Area
Officers. The opening for the Center is scheduled for 5 June 1993
(the anniversary of George Marshall's 1947 Harvard commence-
ment speech announcing the Marshall Plan). The OSD Comptroller
is providing $15 million and personnel for start-up and operation.
Upgrade of existing facilities will limit Marshall Center activities
until mid-94. Plans for the Marshall Center envision a Research &
Conference Center, an Education Leadership Institute, (to host 1-3
week classes on various defense management and leadership
topics), a Strategic Studies Institute (to host 1-3 month courses on
strategic-level issues), and a Foreign Area Officer & Language
Training Directorate (to train U.S. Foreign Area Officers). The
German government has been invited to participate by providing
the Research & Conference Center director and staff.

CINC Initiative Funds (CIF) are being used to fund mil-to-mil ef-
forts in FY93. CIF funds cannot be used for FY94 thus the program
is unfunded ($13.4 million) for FY94. Hopefully, Nunn-Lugar funds
could be an additional source of funds for mil-to-mil activities with
the FSU.

Question. Is this a U.S. or NATO effort?

Answer. This is a U.S. effort. However, the Joint Contact Team
Program supports NATO's military contacts program by coordinat-
ing all U.S. contacts with the NATO military committee, by sup-
porting country requests for assistance to the Group on Defense
matters (GDM), and by filling U.S. allocated positions on NATO
fact finding teams when requested. USEUCOM participation in
NATO activities is coordinated through the Joint Staff.

COST-SHARE RATES

Question. How did we arrive at the current cost-share percent-
ages for each NATO member nation, and what is the mechanism
for adjusting these percentages?

Answer. Cost shares are reviewed every second year, but the
issue could be raised at ministerial level at any time. Cost shares
are based primarily on contributive capacity of the member coun-
tries.

456

NATO RECOUPMENT

Question. The President is requesting $240 million for the NATO
Infrastructure fund. How much in recoupments is the United
States entitled to and how much is estimated to occur in FY 1994?

Answer. The U.S. is currently entitled to $99.7 million within ap-
proved programs. Of this amount, it is estimated that an additional
$5.3 million will be recouped in FY93. No recoupments are project-
ed in FY94 due to the current funding shortfall which prevents au-
thorization of new start projects including recoupments.

INFRASTRUCTURE ACCOUNTING UNIT

Question. What lAU rate was used in formulating the 1994
budget and what is the date for the next revaluation of the lAU?

Answer. lAU rate used was $4,138. The next revaluation will be
1 July 93.

SUNNY POINT ARMY AMMUNITION TERMINAL, NORTH CAROUNA

Question. What projects for the Sunny Point Army Ammunition
Terminal have been submitted for NATO Infrastructure funding in
1994?

Answer. One project at the Sunny Point Ammunition Terminal
may be funded by NATO in 1994. It is NATO Project, Serial
5RS0004-0, Chassis Staging Area, Marine Ocean Terminal Sunny
Point N.C. (cost $1,666,794).

Question. If projects have been submitted, what is the current
status?

Answer. It is a Slice 42 (CY 91) project, but the design has just
been finished and funding requested from NATO. The Tjrpe B cost
estimate is at NATO.

Question. Can we expect any Sunny Point projects to be funded
by NATO in 1994?

Answer. The funding of the project will be subject to availability
of funding. It is an approved NATO project.

[Clerk's note. — End of questions submitted for the record by
Chairman Hefner.]

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.
TENNESSEE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD PROJECTS

WITNESS

HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE

Statement of the Chairman

Mrs. Meek. The Committee will come to order. It is 9:30. My
name is Carrie Meek, and I will be chairing the Committee today.
Today we will be hearing from Members of Congress and also from
individuals and organizations. Our Chairman Hefner could not be
here this morning, and he asked us to proceed without him.

We have received prepared statements from today's witnesses
and they will appear in full in the record of today's hearing. We
ask you to limit your presentation, if possible, to five minutes.

We are very happy to have with us Mr. Steny Hoyer, who is here
listening to you today.

We are glad to have our colleague, Mr. Bart Gordon, from the
State of Tennessee. Mr. Gordon, you may proceed and your entire
statement will be a part of the record.

Mr. Hoyer. The distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, a most
able and effective Member.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART GORDON

Mr. Gordon. I am glad to see that one of the freshmen reforms is
starting on time. And I hope that your example will carry over to
other committees. I will make my testimony a part of the record,
and I will summarize and be less than five minutes, and I appreci-
ate the opportunity to be before you and Congressman Hoyer this
morning.

I come here today to request three projects for the Tennessee Na-
tional Guard that will be located on what we call the old Sewart
Air Force base, which was the last of the military bases to be
closed in the 1970s. It was closed in 1972, located in my home
county of Rutherford County and right outside of Nashville, Ten-
nessee.

The first project is a request for a medical armory for the 300th
Combat Support Hospital. This is a $3.9 million project, and it has
already reached its 35 percent design stage.

Let me give you a quick update. It is one of only four medical
units in the Nation in our National Guard system. It was deployed
to the Desert Storm operation where it served very well. Currently

(457)

458

it is housed in some surplus, leftover World War II barracks that
were on the Sewart Air Force base. And I have some — this is a
photograph of the barracks; and these are, as you can see, some
photographs of the conditions there now. These were left over from
World War II.

I think the telling point is that the current facilities only con-
tain— there are a number of them — I mean, it is in bad shape. The
significant point is that it only contains 12 percent of the author-
ized floor space that is needed to house this type of medical unit.

Additionally, and also very importantly, there are over $20 mil-
lion in supplies that are in storage in these kinds of facilities and
in trailers outside that lead to the potential of unsanitary condi-
tions, early spoilage; and there is a real problem. This is really a
significant matter and something that needs to be corrected.

The second project is a Class IX maintenance facility. This is a
$710,000 project. It has reached its 35 percent design stage. This
would be used to be the warehouse for a combat support mainte-
nance shop that this committee voted for last year and is under the
present construction stage.

Once again, you have a situation where the current warehouse
contains only 53 percent of the floor space needed. It is also a 40-
mile round trip from the combined support and maintenance shop,
so that is not very efficient.

So we would hope this could be relocated.

Again, I think the primary concern is that the current facility is
obsolete, 53 percent of authorized space, and is 40 miles from the
facility.

The final project is a project that is very dear to the heart of my
Tennessee adjutant general, and that is a joint-use educational fa-
cility. What we are proposing is that there be an expansion of the
Tennessee Military Academy at Smyrna which would be used for a
joint-use educational facility. The facility will implement the "dual
use" concept advocated by President Clinton in "A Vision of
Change for America," and by Senator Nunn. The facility is de-
signed to handle 250 students, 25 cadre and 25 instructors. The cost
is $8.7 million.

It will be used to augment and expand the existing Tennessee
Military Academy facilities. It will be used for training all the
Guard, Reserve, and active military in the area. We have a 19,000-
person National Guard unit there in Tennessee alone. And really
what is the interest of my adjutant general is that you are going to
have, I think, a change in the concept of training within the Guard
from functional schools to a more regional educational facility. He
is interested in getting out in front of this.

We have a good situation where we have Middle Tennessee State
University, which is close by, with an excellent aerospace program,
ROTC presently, and others. And you have a number of education-
al facilities in Nashville, all of which are 25 miles or less of this
facility and can be used for augmenting construction there. He
feels, and I agree with him, that this is going to be the direction
that the Guard is going to take for more efficient training over the
next few years. And he wants to get started on that project.

Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Representative Gordon.

[The information follows:]

BART GORDON

«TH DISTRICT TENNESSEE

RULES COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING

DEPUTY MAJORITY WHIP AT LARGE

459

tonQvtii of tfje ^niteb ^tatti
^ouit of Eepredentatibeii

103 CANNON BUILDING

WASHINGTON. DC 30516-4200

11021226-433)

10« SOUTH MAPLE STREET

PO BOX 1986

MURfREESBORO TN 37 133

(6151 B96- l9Se

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BART GORDON
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APRIL 27, 1993

460

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify this morning. I am interested in securing
funding in this year's Military Construction appropriations bill for
three projects for the Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG)
Aviation Support Facility in Smyrna, Tennessee. The Tennessee Guard
fully supports each project.

The United States Air Force operated Sewart Air base in Smyrna,
Tennessee as a bomber training facility from 1942 until 1970 at
which time the base was decommissioned. Ownership of the airport
facility was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps
leases part of the facililty to the Tennessee Army National Guard
and the remainder to the Smyrna/Rutherford County Airport Authority.
The Tennessee Army National Guard maintains 24 different units, 1270
assigned National Guard personnel, 162 of which are full time, and
52 aircraft at the Gnabbs/Kyle Training Center at Smyrna airfield.

The first proposal is for a medical armory which will house the
equipment and supplies necessary to deploy the 300th Combat Support
Hospital (CSH) . This project will relocate the 300th CSH from its
current substandard facilities at Smyrna to new, modern facilities
located adjacent to the airfield. The land on which the proposed
armory will be constructed is owned by the local government and a
resolution has been passed by the County Commission authorizing the
transfer of the land to the Army Corps of Engineers. In order for
the 300th CSH to enhance mobilization, the construction of this
project is imperative.

The 300th CSH is one of four CSH units in the entire Army
National Guard force structure. The 300th traces its roots back to
the 300th General Hospital organized for area physicians in 1940.
The 300th General Hospital was called to active duty in July of
1942, and was deactivated after the war. The 300th CSH began as the
300th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH) in September of 1986, and
in October 1992, the unit was designated a Combat Support Hospital.
The unit was called to active duty in support of Operation Desert
Shield/Storm.

The current status of the facilities which house the 300th
CSH's equipment and supplies are totally inadequate. The World War
II structures which were left to the TNARNG by the Air Force cannot
handle the type of activity for which they are presently being used.
They only contain 12% of the authorized floor space to house a
medical unit. The 300th CSH has an authorized strength of 369
personnel. The October 1992 reorganization increased the authorized
strength by 129 personnel. The reorganization also resulted in a
4451 cubic feet increase in equipment and an increase of 46 major
pieces of military taible of organization and equipment (MTOE)
requiring military vehicle storage (MVSA) . The need for more and
better space is dire.

461

The lack of space for administration, logistical support,
pharmaceutical supplies, and the exposure of medical equipment to an
unregulated atmosphere and unsecure conditions all lead to the
conclusion that a new armory must be constructed. There is in
excess of $20.9 million in medical supplies and equipment being
presently stored in unsanitary military storage trailors which can
result in premature failure and contamination of equipment and
supplies. Additionally, lack of adequate heating and cooling
systems leave various parts of the administrative structure subject
to tempurature extremes.

The proposed armory will house equipment and supplies which
when deployed will produce a 296 bed facility with 8 operating rooms
and full pharmacy, laboratory, radiology and blood bank
capabilities. The close proximity of the proposed new site to the
airfield will allow the CSH facility to be used during emergencies
at the airport or around the state, and will allow for the continued
training of the TNARNG CECAT Medical unit located in Chattanooga.
The location will also expedite the deployment of this unit. The
cost of this project is $3.9 million.

The second proposal is for a Class IX maintenance warehouse.
The maintenance warehouse will be constructed on federal land
licensed to the TNARNG. The warehouse will be adjacent to the
Combined Support Maintenance Shop which was authorized and funded
last year.

The current facilities which could be utilized to house the
Class IX warehouse are technically and functionally obsolete and
contain only 53% of the authorized floor space. Use of current
warehouse facilities would require a 40 mile round trip between the
supply warehouse and the CSMS which is being constructed at Smyrna.
The proposed maintenance warehouse will directly enhance the
functional readiness of the supported units by co- locating the CSMS
and maintenance warehouse providing for timely distribution of Class
IX repair parts and reducing down time of equipment. The cost of
this project is $710,000.

The third proposal is for the expansion of the existing
Tennessee Military Academy at Smyrna which will then create a joint
use education facility. The facility will implement the "dual-use"
concept advocated by President Clinton in "A Vision of Change For
America, " and by Senator Sam Nunn. The new construction is designed
to build a facility which will house 250 students, 25 cadre and 25
instructors.

The educational facility would augment, upgrade and expand the
Tennessee Military Academy facility. The facility would be used to
teach technical, leadership and professional development and career
enhancement courses to all military components- -Active and
Reserve- -including 19,000 Tennessee National Guard forces and
potentially other National Guard forces in the Southeast region of
the United States.

462

Additionally, the Army is presently moving from a system of set
functional schools (i.e., armor, infantry, artillery, engineering
schools) to a regional education system which will resemble the
university and college concept. The Adjutant General of Tennessee
is pursuing through the National Guard Bureau and the Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) U.S. Army, the utilization of the Smyrna
facility as the "cutting edge" of the concept. Additionally, the
Smyrna facility can be a component of the "distributive educational
system" that is being developed at Fort Knox, Kentucky. This system
works in conjunction with civilian educational institutions, using
current visual and voice communications technology for personnel
training.

The Adjutant General of the Tennessee National Guard, Major
General Jerry Wyatt, and I are very interested in implementing the
dual -use concept throughout the Tennessee National Guard. General
Wyatt envisions developing a strong working relationship with the
community in Smyrna, Tennessee and other local communities
throughout the state and the region.

While the educational facility will benefit Tennessee and other
Southeast region National Guard units, I believe area university
ROTC programs and Middle Tennessee State University's (MTSU)
areospace program can greatly benefit from the dual -use concept.
Likewise, General Wyatt is interested in utilizing area university
professors to conduct classroom instruction for the National Guard.
The potential also exists for area elementary, junior high and
senior high math and science classes to visit the National Guard
facility for instruction and practical application of the scientific
principles aibout which they are learning. The projected cost of
this facility is $8.7 million.

Thank you again for allowing me the time to speak with you
today. I will be glad to answer any question the subcommittee may
have.

463

Mrs. Meek. First of all, I would like to know if any of you have
questions.

I have just one or two to ask you. It sounds very convincing, the
concept of educational training. Certainly, being an educator, I am
interested in the Guard continuing that. We saw the deplorable
conditions that exist at the facility which you want upgraded. I
have a strong feeling that this is something that is viable. Certain-
ly without committing the committee, I can say that it sounds like
something that is very much needed. And we know that Tennessee
deserves the best, as you always have said since you have been
here.

There may be some questions that other Members of the commit-
tee would like to ask.

I call on Representative Vucanovich.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Thank you very much. I wasn't here for most
of your testimony, but I will look at it. I have a copy of it.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Hoyer. I don't have any questions.

If Mr. Gordon says it, it must be right.

Mrs. Meek. We thank you, Mr. Gordon, for coming before us this
morning, and we will certainly take it under consideration.

Mr. Gordon. Thank you for your attention, and I compliment
you on getting the meeting started on time. I hope that your enthu-
siasm and lesson will carry over to the rest of the Congress. We
will run a lot better if that will occur.

Mrs. Meek. Thank you.

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.

FISCAL YEAR 1994 APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESERVE

COMPONENTS

WITNESS

MAJOR GENERAL EVAN HULTMAN, AUS (RET.), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mrs. Meek. I understand that Major General Evan Hultman,
AUS, is here. Welcome, Major. We are happy to have you here.

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL EVAN HULTMAN, RET.

General Hultman. Good to be with you Chairwoman Meek,
ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

On behalf of the many members of the Reserve Officers Associa-
tion for each of the uniformed services, I appreciate this opportuni-
ty to address this significant committee and to point out just brief-
ly the Association's concerns relating to military construction ap-
propriations for the Reserve components for fiscal year 1994.

The Reserve Officers Association is most grateful to this subcom-
mittee for its continuing support of the Guard and the Reserve.
Clearly, without your support. Reserve component readiness would
not be at today's high level — without the facilities that you have
provided to the Guard and the Reserve, they could not have con-
tributed so effectively to Operation Desert Storm. So I want to
thank you at the outset.

■ 464

The add-ons provided by you and the Congress have been directly
responsible for providing the urgently needed facility improve-
ments that we have had, which of course, the bottom line, direct to
readiness to make the Guard and Reserve capable.

I want to deal with just one item very briefly. It has to do with
closing and with facilities as a whole. The impact of demographics
in the case of the Reserve is altogether different than it is with the
active forces. In fact, it is the most critical single item to the loca-
tion of Reserve units and, thus, on Reserve components affecting
this. Unlike their active counterparts, who can be readily moved to
new locations or to different facilities, we only are tied directly to
our civilian employment and to the places where we live; and thus,
we are unable to move with the flexibility of the actives. That is
clearly one of the downsides always of the Guard and the Reserve.

So in a time that we are dealing with facilities and the come
down, this becomes a primary consideration with the Reserve. And
very frankly, in our judgment and in the analysis of the studies
and so forth, and by specific testimony that has been given, this
has not been addressed to the degree or the necessity that we see
with reference to the Guard and the Reserve. There is a limit to
how far Reservists — Guardsmen and Reservists can afford to
commit to meet training and other Reserve requirements; and
thus, the closing of a facility can immediately deprive the Reserve
components of proportions of quality, experienced personnel, highly
trained troops and units, and thus — almost in the twinkling of an
eye — eliminate their capability to the total force or to increase the
training cost that will result in order to meet those changes that
take place.

Our written testimony. Madam Chairman, which you have indi-
cated will be made a part of the record, indicates the specifics that
I don't have the time to deal with. And I know that you will be
concerned with those details.

But let me, in summary, in one paragraph, indicate to you that
even during the 1980s, as we know, when defense spending was
continually on the rise. Reserve component military construction
backlogs continued to grow. And you are aware of those greater
than anyone. Thus, in this period when we know more serious
budget constraints and coming down, it is even more critical that
that limitation on the Guard and the Reserve be considered, be-
cause if we are to remain viable — and we must remain viable as a
critical part of this total force — we have got to be provided with
these facilities, adequate to meet the unique Guard and Reserve re-
quirements, including the location of facilities where there are per-
sons and skills needed and available to meet these requirements.

Failure to do so will lead to the demise of the effectiveness of the
Reserve components, and of course, we cannot deal with that in the
case of a decreasing budget and a greater need. I might say it will
seal the fate of the Reserve forces even before force mix and force
structure analysis are completed and upon which very sound and
careful decisions can be made.

So I will be pleased to answer any questions that you might
have.

[The information follows:]

465

statement of Major General Evan L. Hultman, AUS (Ret.)» Executive
Director of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States,
for the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction,
concerning Military Construction appropriations for Reserve forces
for Fiscal Year 1994—27 April 1993.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

On behalf of the many members of the Reserve Officers
Association from each of the uniformed services, I appreciate the
opportunity to address this subcommittee to present the
association's concerns relating to military construction
appropriations for the Reserve components for FY94 .

The Reserve Officers Association is grateful to this
subcommittee for its continuing support of the Guard and Reserve.
Without your support. Reserve component readiness would not be at
today's high level — without the facilities you provided the Guard
and Reserve, they could not have contributed so effectively to
Operation Desert Storm.

The Congress has repeatedly instructed the Department of
Defense to designate a greater percentage of the total military
construction request for Reserve component facilities. Under
pressure to make overall budget reductions, however, the DoD has
reduced its military construction requests for the Guard and
Reserve to levels well below the established goal. The add-ons
provided by the Congress have been directly responsible for
providing urgently needed facility improvements.

During Operation Desert Storm and other contingencies, the
Reserve components clearly demonstrated their mobilization

466

capability and their combat effectiveness. Also demonstrated
during Operation Desert Storm was the exceptional public support
the Guard and Reserve generate when they are activated. The
Congress has long understood the cost-effectiveness of the Reserve
coniponents — their ability to provide combat capability for a cost
far below that of the active components. The Congress has
repeatedly rejected large Guard and Reserve reductions and called
for a greater use of the Reserve components. Historically, the
Department of Defense has resisted increasing the roles of the
Guard and Reserve and has proposed budget-driven, across-the-board
reductions.

The Congress, in its FY92-93 Defense Authorization Act,
rejected the DoD Total Force Study submitted in December 1990 as
being inadequate, instructed DoD to contract for an independent
Force Mix Analysis and directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
evaluate the analysis. RAND was selected to complete the analysis
and their December 1992 report recognizes Reserve component
strengths and includes appropriate factors in force mix decisions
for the Army and the Air Force Reserve components. The portion
covering the Navy and Marine Corps was assigned to the Center for
Naval Analyses (CNA) and includes the bias toward a relatively
large active-duty force which has invalidated previous Total Force
analyses.

Secretary of Defense Les Aspin has testified that the FY94
Budget Request "treads water" until work is completed, perhaps in
late August, on a "bottom-up review" of potential threats and of

467

the forces and strategies needed to meet them. We look forward to
the completion of an analysis which hopefully will factor in the
capabilities and cost-effectiveness of Reserve forces, but unless
Reserve component military construction is adequately and timely
funded, some Reserve capabilities may be lost forever.

Base closures and force realignments have generated
requirements for new construction to support new missions. Much of
the funding for military construction for the Guard and Reserve,
requested and appropriated, has been for new construction, while
the needs for repair and renovation have grown. Military
construction backlogs have increased in all of the Reserve
components and impair readiness, retention and morale.

In addition to the more obvious effect on training and morale,
military construction has an insidious effect on Reserve component
capabilities. The failure to meet military construction
requirements indirectly impacts on unit closures. In the name of
cost-effectiveness facilities with the highest maintenance and
renovation costs become targets for closure. The closure of
facilities which require expensive improvements may be economically
prudent in the case of active forces, but closure of Reserve
facilities can have a devastating effect on combat capability.

The impact of demographics is critical to the location of
Reserve units and thus on Reserve component effectiveness. Unlike
their active counterparts who can be readily moved to new
locations. Reservists are tied to their civilian employment and are
thus often unable to make a move. There is a limit to how far they

468

can afford to commute to meet training and other service
requirements. The closing of a facility can thus deprive the
Reserve components of populations of quality, experienced personnel
and thus eliminate capabilities or greatly increase training costs.

Training is crucial to the readiness of the Guard and Reserve,
and the amount and quality of training is directly related to the
adequacy of facilities. In addition to adding and maintaining
skills, training has a direct influence on morale and retention.
Without meaningful training, morale suffers, and Reservists may
quickly lose interest in Guard and Reserve participation. The
adequacy of facilities has a direct bearing on esprit de corps and
thus readiness.

Many in and out of the military have called for a greater
reliance on training simulators as a cost-effective way of
improving Reserve component training and readiness. New facilities
are required to house additional training simulators.

There may be a conception that the drawdown of active forces
will free facilities for use by the Reserve components. While
Reservists may make use of a limited number of active facilities,
the impact on funding will be minimal. The incidents of Reserve
components being able to take over facilities previously used by
active forces without alteration or renovation will be very few.
Because of the demographic factor, facilities previously used by
active forces will simply not meet the needs of the Reserve
components in most instances. To the extent that active component
facilities can be transferred to the Reserve components, these

469

actions have already gone into current planning and are reflected
in the Budget Request.

The following addresses military construction needs by Reserve
component, but before considering specific service requirements, I
would emphasize the importance meeting Guard and Reserve military
construction requirements. Even during the eighties when defense
spending was on the rise, Reserve component military construction
backlogs continued to grow. If the Reserve components are to
remain viable, they must be provided adequate facilities to meet
unique Guard and Reserve requirements — including the location of
facilities where there are persons and skills needed to meet
Reserve component needs. Failure to do so will lead to the demise
of Reserve component readiness. It will seal the fate of the
Reserve forces even before force mix and force structure analyses
are completed.

ARMY RESERVE

Since the advent of the Total Army concept the Army Reserve
has grown considerably and received additional soldiers and
missions without a corresponding growth in the facilities needed to
support them. Today, the Army Reserve stands last among the
Reserve Components with only 53% of its required facilities. This
has lead to an average utilization rate of over 200 percent in
existing facilities, a problem that is compounded by the fact that
25 percent of the existing Army Reserve facilities inventory fails

470

to meet Army standards. There is a $ 1.9 billion backlog of knovm
construction requirements.

Much of the existing Army Reserve physical plant inventory is
in need of repair. There are currently about 1,460 centers along
with maintenance facilities owned or leased by the Army Reserve.
Included in these facilities are 852 government owned and 608
leased centers. Many of these facilities were constructed or
acquired during an era in which very little equipment was issued to
the Army Reserve, and there were only one or two full time
personnel working at each Reserve center. Because of the increased
equipment storage requirements, significant overcrowding has
resulted at many Army Reserve centers.

This situation has created a training environment that is
increasingly unsafe, environmentally unacceptable, and damaging to
readiness. Because most Army Reserve facilities are in localities
distant from active installations, aggressively capitalizing on
Armed Forces base closure alone will not solve these problems.
Accordingly, full funding of the Army Reserve's military
construction program and real property maintenance programs becomes
more essential than ever.

Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 94: The military construction
requirement for the Army Reserve represents its highest priority
projects and consists of Major Construction, Unspecified Minor
Construction, and Planning and Design. The Fy94 program includes:

A, Major Construction which provides for new construction,
acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, or conversion of facilities

471

for the training and administration of the Army Reserve. The Army
Reserve request includes construction of five new Reserve centers,
one addition/alteration to a Reserve center having an
organizational maintenance shop, one land acquisition, and
construction of one battle projection center. It does not include
funding for the Phase II Construction of the Army Reserve Readiness
Training Center (ARRTC) , Fort McCoy, WI, which will provide
billeting for ARRTC students. The total amount for Major
Construction is $ 88.7 million.

B. Unspecified Minor Construction provides for projects not
otherwise authorized by law, having a funded cost not to exceed $
400,000. Unspecified minor construction includes construction,
alteration or conversion of permanent or temporary facilities and
provides the means to accomplish projects that are now identified,
but that may arise during FY94 to satisfy critical, unforeseen
mission requirements, e.g., the arrival and redistribution of
equipment. The requested amount for unspecified minor construction
is only $ 2.1 million.

C. Planning and Design provides for design of necessary
construction projects that support the Reserve mission. To
adequately provide for future Major Construction Army Reserve
(MCAR) and FY94 minor construction and design, $ 4.9 million is
needed.

The total FY94 military construction program request presented
by the Army Reserve is for the authorization and appropriation of
$ 95.7 million, which includes Major Construction, Unspecified

472

Minor Construction, and Planning and Design. Without it facilities
beyond their useful life will continue to deteriorate. ROA
supports this request in support of the men and women of the Army
Reserve. The Reserves have proven time and time again that, given
the resources, equipment and appropriate facilities in and at which
to train and maintain their readiness, they will perform in an
outstanding manner when and where they are needed — whenever our
nation calls.

Another important source of resources in support of the Army
Reserve facilities is the Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve
(OMAR) authorization; specifically, the resources for Real Property
Maintenance Activities (RPMA) and Environmental Compliance.

Real Property Maintenance Activities: The replacement value
for all Army Reserve facilities exceeds $ 3.7 billion dollars.
Their average age is over 30 years. With the dollars from this
OMAR appropriation, the Army Reserve accomplishes an astronomical
task of operating facilities which includes repairing and
performing preventive maintenance on them. The facility managers
at the Reserve centers are to be commended for the outstanding job
they do keeping the centers operational. Even though they are able
to keep the facilities open, they are falling behind in maintaining
them. The backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR) continues to
rise. The BMAR was $ 93.4 million at the beginning of FY93; and
will increase to almost $ 121.5 million by the end of FY93.

Environmental Compliance; Along with the increasing demand
for maintenance funding, environmental compliance requirements

473

under the Clean Water Act have placed demands on resources
authorized and appropriated for the Army Reserve. The
environmental compliance funding requirements have increased from
$ 11.6 million in FY91 to $ 19.0 million for FY92; and are expected
to exceed $ 38 million in FY93. The environmental compliance
requirements cannot be ignored.

AIR FORCE RESERVE

The Air Force Reserve (AFR) Military Construction (MILCON)
request is designed to beddovm new missions and realignments,
provide adequate training and working facilities, and comply with
environmental laws. Both the FY 1993 and FY 1994 requests give top
priority to new mission requirements.

To preserve the AFR's outstanding combat readiness, it must
have well-trained, motivated personnel. Adequate training and
working facilities are essential to achieving this goal. Mission
readiness of the AFR force depends upon training capability that is
to be supported by the requested military construction.

The AFR MILCON budget request for FY 1994 totals $55.7 million
for major and minor construction projects. Growth from the 1993
appropriation is all for current mission and environmental
requirements. We cannot overemphasize the importance of investment
in current mission MILCON requirements. The AFR's capability to
support the nation's humanitarian efforts from Hurricane Andrew, to
Somalia, to Bosnia, to Moscow was the direct result of prior years'

474

investments in personnel, training, and installations. ROA urges
you to support the full $55.7 million requested by the AFR.

A further requirement we would like to bring to your attention
is the necessity that the Air Force Reserve participate in any
Congressional additions to the MILCON requests of the Reserve
components. In past years, the Congress has added many millions of
dollars to the MILCON budgets of the Reserve components in
recognition of the severe shortfalls in the Pentagon's Reserve
MILCON requests. Unfortunately, the Air Force Reserve has shared
in almost none of these MILCON add-ons. The need is great, and the
payback is substantial; consequently, we urge the Committee to
include the AFR in a significant way this year.

The following add-on projects (in millions of dollars) could

be executed in the Air Force Reserve FY 1994 MILCON program. The

projects all address serious needs and are listed in priority

order.

RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS TO AIR FORCE RESERVE FY 1994 MILCON

COST
ITEM (SMILLIOMS)

Kelly AFB, TX - Aerial Port Training Facility 2.00

Greater Pitt ARS, PA - BCE Complex 3.10

Robins AFB, GA - Renovate Bldg 220, for AFRES HQ 5.50

Dobbins ARB, GA - Add/Alter Security Police Ops 1.15

Dobbins ARB, GA - Fire Fighter Development Center 1.30

Dobbins ARB, GA - Simulation Facility 6.00

Dover AFB, DE - Medical Training Facility .50

Maxwell AFB, AL - Composite Maintenance Shops 4.30

475

Niagara Falls, NY - Corrosion Control Facility .80

Westover ARB, MA - Replace Taxiway "G" 5.10

Westover ARB, MA - Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 1.00

Basewide Upgrade

Minn-St Paul, MN - Corrosion Control Facility 1.80

Peterson AFB, CO - General Purpose Shop 2.80

Hill AFB, UT - Munitions Maintenance Facility 1.50

Luke AFB, NV - Avionics Facility 1.80

Youngstovm MAP, OH - Shortfield Landing Zone 6.40

Youngstown MAP, OH - Temporary Facilities .20

Youngstown MAP, OH - Electric Substation/Distr Upgrade 4.50

Youngstown MAP, OH - ADAL Vehicle Maintenance Shop .75

Youngstown MAP, OH - Add to Squadron Operations 3.20

Youngstown MAP, OH - Alter Survival Equipment and Supply 1.00

Youngstown MAP, OH - Munitions Storage .70

Youngstown MAP, OH - Flight line Facility .60

Youngstown MAP, OH - Apron Addition 3.50

TOTAL 59.50

As the past year has once again proved, the Air Force Reserve

is shouldering an increasing share of the Air Force operational

mission. The dollars recommended will be well-spent. With your

continued understanding and support, the AFR will continue to

provide a superb, cost effective, combat ready fighting force.

476

MAVAL AMD MARINE CORPS RESERVE

The President's Budget Request for Military Construction, Naval
Reserve (MCNR) for Fiscal Year 1994 is only $20.6 million. This
figure approximates the low of $20 million that was requested for
Fiscal Year 1992 and is significantly lower than the $37.7 million
requested last year. Congress recognized the inadequacy of these
requests and added $36 million in Fiscal Year 1992 and $5.5
million in Fiscal Year 1993.

This year's request not only reflects a shrinking Navy budget,
it is also an indication of the N3vy's overall lack of support for
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve facilities.
MCMR REQUEST FOR FY94

The lack of fiscal support is readily apparent. The Naval
Reserve Construction backlog is approximately $950 million and a
backlog of maintenance and repair of almost $200 million. Yet, the
request is for a meager $20.6 million, including minor construction
and planning and design. The following projects are included ($M) :

Seabee facility

Seabee addition

Reserve Center addition

Reserve Center modiflcalion

Seabee addition

Reserve Center replacement

Electronic Maint. Shop

Reserve Center Replacement
Joint Training Center,

Reserve Center Addition

Naval Station San ENego

$1.0

Naval Station Pearl Harbor

Detroit, Michigan

$3.1

Kearney, New Jereey

$.8

Naval Training Center Newport

OiatUnooga. Tennessee

$3.7

MC Reserve Center, Damneck,VA

$1.0

Eveiett, WA

$2.6

NMCRC Green Bay, Wisconsin

$.6

477

It is ironic that, even at this low level of MCNR funding,
three projects are aboard Navy facilities and to provide shop and
equipment space for Naval Reserve Seabees so they can perform
maintenance and repair projects at Navy sites that would otherwise
go unaccomplished because of fiscal constraints.
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS RECOMMENDED

The almost $ 1 billion Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
construction backlog includes several projects that are
sufficiently designed to permit their execution in Fiscal Year
1994, or do not require design because they are acquisitions of
existing facilities. ROA recommends that Congress provide the
requisite authorization and funding for as many projects as is
feasible from the following list:

Location Slate Project CostfSOOO

BIdg. ConvenkM 2.800 (1)

Readiness Ctr. Mods 2,400

Physical Fitness Facilities S,600 (1)

Child Development Center 1,800

RESCEN Consolidation 2,130

Training BIdg. Addition 67D

Res. Center Acquisition 1,QS0

RESCEN Addition 740

Hangar Addition 1,660

Runway and Apron S,S00

Lease Buyout 1,500

Replace RESCEN 4,300

RESCEN Addition 2^350

Total or Projects Unfunded but Execuuble in FY94 32,520

(I) Appropriations Conference Committee report language for FY93 directed that these projects be
accomplished using existing funds.

BASE CLOSURE, RESERVE FORECLOSTIRE

The Navy is also using the Base Realignment and Closure
process in an attempt to close, consolidate, or realign 56 Naval
and Marine Corps Reserve installations. ROA has alerted the

NSA New Orleans

Fort Dix

NASGIenview

NAS Clenview

NRC Pomona

NAS New Orleans

NRC Plover

NMNCRC Roanoke

NASWhidbey

NAS Glenview

NRC Pasco

MCRC Damneck

NRC Columbus

478

Chairman of the Base Closure Commission, and the 86 members of
Congress with affected Reserve facilities in their jurisdictions,
of the scope and impact of the recommended actions.

We assert that one of two situations must be the reason for
proposing such dramatic reductions in the Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve infrastructure. Either the decision makers did not
adequately weight the value of the demographic distribution of
Reservists (or potential Reservists) , or their recommendations are
part of conscious action to deny these Reserve Components the
ability to participate, at even today's relatively low level, in
the Total Force of the future of their parent service.

For example, there are no other logical explanations for a
package of proposals that would eliminate all the Naval Air Reserve
flying sites in the entire North East and Mid-West sections of the
country. As we told Chairman Courter, the question is, "Should
Reserve activities be closed or consolidated with other
installations that are beyond their current demographic area?" It
appears feasible to relocate NAS Dallas to Carswell AFB only 60
miles away. But, it is not so obvious that the closure of NAS
Glenview or NAS South Weymouth and the relocation of the Reserve
squadrons to sites more than 1,000 miles away is warranted. In a
similar manner, is the closure of NAF Detroit, a tenant activity of
Self ridge AFB, an efficiency or simply the denial of a demographic
population to the Reserve?

It is increasingly apparent that the Department of Defense
proposals to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission that

479

affect the Navy and Marine Corps pure active duty military
recominendations. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Frank
Kelso, was the acting Secretary of the Navy and many key civilian
positions were unfilled when this list was being processed at those
levels. In additon, the General Accounting Office has found that
Secretary Aspin's office "did not exercise strong leadership in
providing oversight of the military services" during this process.
There were nearly 480 Naval Reserve facilities in 1970 when
the Naval Reserve included approximately the same number of
Selected Reservists as today. If the Navy's proposals are accepted,
there will considerably less than 200 Naval Reserve installations.
Certainly, there should be appropriate consolidation and
collocation of these facilities. However, over-zealous application
of the "economy of scale" principle will ensure that many Naval
Reservists will not be able to continue in the program and many
additional potential Reservists will not affiliate simply because
the opportunity to do so will not exist. In light of these
facts, ROA recommended that the Commission remove from
consideration all Naval and Marine Corps Reserve locations that do
not have sufficient and convincing demographic data to warrant
approval of the requested action. We solicit the support of this
Committee for this position.

SUMMARY

In summary, ROA recommends that the Military Construction
Naval Reserve progreun be approved as requested, that as many

68-354 O— 93 16

480

projects as is feasible be added from the list of unfvinded but
executable projects list we have provided, and that the Committee
request the Base Closure and Realignment Commission to give careful
consideration to the impact of demographics on Naval and Marine
Corps Reserve installations that have been recommended for closure,
consolidation or realignment.

481

Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Major General Hultman.

Would any Member of the committee care to ask a question?

Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We got started on
time this morning and everything is clicking along. No, I don't
have any questions.

Thank you. General.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Hoyer. No questions.

Mrs. Meek. General, you know this committee has always been
very receptive to listening to the Guard, and we have been a good
friend of Reserve and its components and we thank you for appear-
ing here this morning.

General Hultman. Thank you.

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.
TRAINING FACILITIES, CAMP ATTERBURY

WITNESS

HON. PHILIP R. SHARP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF INDIANA

Mrs. Meek. The Honorable Phil Sharp, Democrat of Indiana.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHILIP R. SHARP

Mr. Sharp. Thank you. I believe you have our testimony, and I
believe it has been passed out. I can provide extra copies to you if
they are not here.

Madam Chairman, I have a request for funds to build a training
facility at Camp Atterbury. Camp Atterbury is no longer an active
camp in Indiana and has a National Guard training center that is
antiquated there. And the National Guard nationally, I believe,
supports this request.

But the key here is that the training is going to go forward, Cold
War or no Cold War, and there is no regional facility at this point.
All active bases in Indiana have now been or are about to be termi-
nated.

This will be for National Guard and for Reserve. I think it will
prove to be a cost-effective move for the military, because the func-
tion will go on no matter what we are doing internationally; and
the key is that this is located on an Interstate system, the property
is available. And, obviously, we in Indiana could welcome the ex-
penditure; but I think there is a strong justification for it in terms
of national budget.

So I would appreciate it if you would consider that. It would up-
grade the current facilities that are there.

[The information follows:]

482

Philip

Testimony of the Hon. Philip R. Sharp, M.C.

before the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the

Committee on Appropriations

April 27, 1993

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you about the Indiana National Guard's proposal to add
critical training facilities to Camp Atterbury. I believe that an investment
in the Army National Guard and Reserve Training facilities at Camp Atterbury
will accomplish two important goals: provide the region with much needed
training facilities, and establish a commitment to the future of a strong and
efficient National Guard force.

Indiana has lost all of its active duty bases, which has reduced the
Guard's ability to train on active duty posts, and increased the demand for
National Guard and Reserve training facilities in the region. Surrounding
states do not have such facilities, and are looking to Camp Atterbury for
added training space.

We all know that a strong National Guard force is an essential part of
our national defense strategy. This has been proven time and time again, most
recently during the conflict in the Persian Gulf war, when 64,414 Army
National Guard soldiers reported for duty, and 43,348 served overseas. A
large and well -trained Guard and Reserve force serves as an experienced
defense force, and can be trained for 25 percent of the cost of active duty
units. Given the drastic defense spending cutbacks we now face, it is

483

imperative that we invest in a long-term plan to maintain and strengthen our
Guard and Reserve forces.

Two projects planned for Camp Atterbury would enhance the training
facilities currently located there. The first is construction of the Indiana
Military Educational Facility (IMEF), that is presently in World War II
buildings scattered around Camp Atterbury. It is an ideal site for a regional
training center capable of accomodating troops from Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,
Kentucky and Michigan. At this time, there are space shortages in the
classrooms and 40-year old electrical and plumbing fixtures. A new IMEF could
result in an increase of enrollment by 75 percent.

Second, the Guard has proposed Phase VI B that would add heated, year-
round facilities for 736 troops to Camp Atterbury's billeting capabilities.
Existing facilities are World War II era structures, and are currently
unusable, containing hazardous asbestos material. The proposed buildings in
Phase VI B would be heated, insulated, and available for use on a year round
basis.

The Indiana National Guard has estimated the total cost of the new
training facilities at $5,914,000, and the cost of Phase VI B at
$7,545,000.00. Both projects are ready for bidding.

It is my hope that in your deliberations on this issue you will consider
the impact that expanding this training facility will have on the region, and
on the future of our National Guard and Reserve forces. Thank you for your
consideration and for your help in keeping the Indiana Army National Guard an
outstanding organization and Camp Atterbury an exceptional training facility.

484

Testimony of the Hon. Philip R. fitiarp, M.C.

before the Subcommittee on Military Construction ^f the

Committee on Appropriations

April 27, 1993

efficient National Guard force .

ASS

Testimony - Rep. Phil Sharp
April 27, 1993
Page 2

units. Given the drastic defense spending cutbacks we now face, it is

imperative that we invest in a long-term plan to maintain and strengthen our

Guard and Reserve forces.

Two projects planned for Camp Atterbury would enhance thp trainjjT(]_

facilities currently located there. The first is construction of the Indiana

Military Educational Facility (IMEF). that is presently in World War II
buildings scattered around Camp Atterbury. It is an ideal site for a regional
training center capable of accomodating troops from Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,
Kentucky and Michigan. At this time, there are space shortages in the
classrooms and 40-year old electrical and plumbing fixtures. A new IMEF could
result in an increase of enrollment by 75 percent.

The Indiana National Guard has estimated the total cost of the new
training facilities at $5,914,000, and the cost of Phase VI B at
$7,545,000.00. Both projects are ready for bidding.

486

Mrs. Meek. All right. Your remarks will be a part of the testimo-
ny, and I would like to know if any of my colleagues have ques-
tions.

Welcome, Mrs. Vucanovich.

Mrs. Vucanovich. Thank you.

Mr. Callahan. Yes, I have one.

Is it already in the budget?

Mr. Sharp. It is not in the President's budget.

Mr. Callahan. So you want us to add to the President's budget.
It is $7.5 million, as I recall.

Mrs. Meek. $7.5 million.

Mr. Sharp. Two projects totalling $15 million.

Mrs. Meek. One for 7.5 and the other for 5.9.

Mr. Sharp. They built some year-round facilities. The current fa-
cilities are so deteriorated that they cannot be used.

Mrs. Meek. Another Member of the committee is here. Mrs.
Bentley, how are you this morning? Any questions for the great
Representative from Indiana?

Mrs. Bentley. No, I am sure that what our colleague has pre-
sented is a worthwhile project, and I will look at it carefully.

Mr. Sharp. I want to thank you for that remarkable insight.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Coleman has joined us.

Mr. Coleman. Madam Chairman, how are you today?

Mrs. Meek. Any questions, Mr. Coleman?

Mr. Coleman. No, thank you very much.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Sharp, we thank you for your testimony. And
this committee has received the letter that you sent, together with
two other Members from your State.

Mr. Sharp. That is correct.

Mrs. Meek. You are also working with the Armed Services Com-
mittee.

Mr. Sharp. Yes, we are, and I must say that Mr. McCluskey was
going to be here, but I understand that his plane was late from In-
diana, so he is not going to be able to testify.

Mrs. Meek. If there are no more questions we thank you.

Mr. Sharp. Thank you very much.

[The information follows:]

487

April 27, 1993

Testimony of Congressman Frank McCloskey

Appropriations Subcommittee on Militaiy Constructions

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY IN SUPPORT
OF A MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR NAVAL SURFACE
WARFARE CENTER (NSWC) CRANE DIVISION IN HSCAL YEAR 1994.

THE PROJECT IS AN ORDNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL TEST FACILITY
WHICH, THROUGH ENGINEERING, TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE OF
VARIOUS ORDNANCE ITEMS, WILL GREATLY IMPROVE SAFETY AND
EFFICIENCY. THE $9.6 MILLION COST OF THIS BUILDING WILL BE
RECOUPED IN APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS.

CURRENTLY THIS TESTING IS DONE AT CRANE IN STRUCTURES NOT
ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE PROJECT WILL
PROVIDE THREE STRUCTURES CONSISTING OF AN EXPLOSIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL TEST BUILDING WITH FULLY REINFORCED TEST CELLS;
AN ENGINEERING SUPPORT BUILDING; AND A REMOTE TEST CELL.
EXPLOSIVE OPERATIONS ARE CURRENTLY HOUSED IN FOUR SEPARATE
BUILDINGS NOT ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR ORDNANCE TESTING, WHILE
THE ENGINEERING SUPPORT FUNCTIONS ARE LOCATED A FEW MILES
AWAY.

THE NEW STRUCTURES WILL BE DESIGNED TO MEET CURRENT

488

EXPLOSIVE SAFETY CRITERIA AND WILL BE CO-LOCATED WITH THE
ENGINEERING SUPPORT FUNCTION FOR GREATER EFHCIENCY IN
OPERATIONS.

ORDNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT NSWC CRANE
ENCOMPASSES A WIDE VARIETY OF UNITS SUCH AS PROJECTILES, FUSE
DEVICES, SQUIBS, DETONATORS, UNEAR-SHAPED CHARGES,
PYROTECHNIC DEVICES, COUNTERMEASURES AND DEMOLITION DEVICES.

THE ITEMS AND COMPONENTS SUPPORT MAJOR DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE (DOD) SYSTEMS SUCH AS TOMAHAWK, HARPOON, SPARROW,
STANDARD, HARM, AND PHOENIX MISSILE SYSTEMS AND TRIDENT AND
POSEIDON FLEET BALUSTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS.

ORDNANCE ENGINEERING, EVALUATION AND TESTING AT NSWC
CRANE HELPS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF HUNDREDS OF SYSTEMS
DEPLOYED BY DOD. THROUGH CONSOLIDATION OF ENGINEERING AND
TEST FUNCTIONS, ALONG WITH INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR ORDNANCE
TESTING, THE PROJECT WILL PAY FOR FTSELF IN JUST OVER TWO YEARS.

I HAVE ALSO CONTACTED THE ARMED SERVICES COMMTTTEE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AND TT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
NAVY HAS NO OBJECTION TO MOVING FORWARD THIS PROJECT, WHICH
IS SLATED FOR CONSTRUCnON IN FUTURE YEARS.

THANK YOU.

489

Addendum to Statement of Congressman Frank McCloskey
April 27, 1993

IN ADDITION, I WOULD UKE TO MAKE THE SUBCOMMITTEE AWARE
THAT LATER THIS WEEK, I WILL BE CONTACTING THE MEMBERS ABOUT
A SECOND REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. THIS YEAR
THE STATE GOVERNMENT BUDGETED ITS 25% SHARE TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW ARMORY IN EVANSVILLE, INDIANA IN MY DISTRICT.

I AM REQUESTING S6.05 MILLION AS THE 75% FEDERAL SHARE FOR
THIS ARMORY.

THE CURRENT ARMORY WAS BUILT 1940 AND IS SEVERELY
OVERCROWDED WITH INADEQUATE FACILITIES.

THE NEW ARMORY, THE DESIGN OF WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED
BY THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, WILL PROVIDE FOR 81,062 SQUARE
FEET, WHICH WILL ADDRESS THE 27,000 SQUARE FEET SHORTCOMING IN
THE EXISTING FACILITY. THE ARMORY WILL BE ADJOINING A NEW
ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP, WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOUR
WORKBAYS IN A 6,827 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY.

THE COST OF BOTH OF THESE FACILITIES IS $6.05 MILLION. AS I
HAVE INDICATED, I WILL BE CONTACTING THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE
VERY NEAR FUTURE TO PROVIDE A FULL DISCUSSION OF THIS PROJECT,
AND I URGE THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE FAVORABLY CONSIDER THIS
REQUEST.

490

•

lA
CNJ

Q.
X

■>
c

«rf

—

■ ■

z
O

c
o

o
o

o
a

■o
o

Q.
CO

■o
c

.$*

■o
o

■o

_co

E
S

D
O

_cg

,J^

o
.52

'd-

»—

491

in\

^1^,

"EL

>«

Q r- JK ft

« E

C »

« O

.^ CO

2 2©
« o 8

^ o if

*^ "O CO

2 2

o
o

c
o

3
CO

o
c

1 ?

o jE

CD O

c
o

■o
o

o 5

CO m

O (0
CO

o
o

CO 0

.E ©

±Z LU

492

c
o

SH r

t
(/)

I-

Z
LU
CL
C

D
O

JS8

«rf

o
c

•^

■o

■ ^^

o
o

"SS

■o
B

■o
c

0
CO

.CO

c
E

B
0

o
o

c
o

0
09

3
O"
0
T3
0
C

493

liJ

\o\

Ll_

o
to

■ ■

c
o

■O

o
o

Q.
X

■o

o
at

O
CO

o
o

1-
z

LL.

E
o

o
o

CM
CO

■o

CO
CO

2^
o

Q.
3

c
o

CO
CO

c
o

■>
c

•0

•■■■

c
o
o

•

I—
•

494

H
CO

I-
z

(£

D
O

E
o

■o

■■IB

o
o
o

m
O
o

CO S
C CO

o o
CO :&

^ cs
05

S e- Q

5^
®

a»

CO -D

^^^

U-D

I"!

» 0 Q.

00 0 E
0 ® 0
13 -C o

-I D CM

495

Q
LU
CO
O

496

O
CO

■ ■

D
01

CO c — '

o ^

s a>

S. 2

CO o

-= CO

jO m

=■ S

fe S -D

CO . -r

CO O O

-° ^ -^

i> CD O

^ o -^

5 .5 CO

^ <>^ (D

(D CL ^

2 CO --

O m
(D >« O

^ s «

— o

CNJ CV CC ^ -?

-^ w- _ c:) i:»

2qoo

OQ CO CO

CD "S o

8l
§^

* * A^

CO «

0) tS

O LU

c
o

w
®

c
o

o
o

• •

c
o

497

Q.
O

tr
<

~ c

O CO

^ c

s £

CO X

CO '^

o =

CO 3

JO t^
X 3

■0^2

C = CO

® ^ $

m CO >k

5 > c
> III —

■o •« ■=

m CO -5

w O <8

% CO

O Q)

z: o

M I-

^ 2 =
o CO o

Q> o

CM "5

■g §

CO *

JS 0

CO CO

» Q.

o o

o A

- .2

(D o IE

M O ^

5 -g I

r § a

o _ =

CO •— :^

g s s

= .s >.

3 0) CO

m! CO 0)

^ m S

o ^^ c:

O -^ =3

U CO 0)

Z 3 CO

O CO 3

E ■«= 2

O CO »

^ C (0

2 o -

CO f -^

® o

S "E CO

o ^ S

CO "C CO

O CO p

.^ cr ^

.2 ^ c

X E o

LU (0 O

498

■o
©

o
o

c
c

M CO

. c

3 .2

2 o
o o

• ■

9 o
LO in

lO CM

CO d
o ^

CO N

oco

o w

O C8 CO

2 5 I

c o c

O CO —

o -•-
a> M ^
£ S >

a i 5

Q. 3 ^
Q. Z UJ

CO o
O .SL

■^ o
(^
m

499

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECTS OF BASE

CLOSURE

WITNESS
MICHAEL OUELLETTE, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Ouellette, Michael Ouellette, from the Non-Com-
missioned Officers Association. Is Mr. Ouellette here this morning?

Mr. Ouellette. Yes.

Mrs. Meek. How are you this morning?

Mr. Ouellette. Just fine.

Mrs. Meek. We are pleased to have you, and we are ready to
hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL OUELLETTE

Mr. Ouellette. Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Non-Commis-
sioned Officers Association of United States of America, I wish to
thank the Chairman and the Members of the subcommittee for al-
lowing the Association an opportunity to express the views of the
membership on the fiscal year 1994 military construction budget.

NCOA has submitted a formal statement that addresses the con-
cerns of the Association with regard to those programs and quality-
of-life issues that are impacted by projected military construction
initiatives. In the interests of time, I will briefly address a number
of key points and concerns, but would ask that my prepared state-
ment be made a part of today's hearing record.

Madam Chairman, in recent years the main concern was the ef-
fective downsizing of the military services and base closure actions
and how the military construction budget could help reduce many
of the associated problems. This year, the members of the armed
forces are faced with additional challenges that come in the form of
tax increases, pay allowance freezes, COLA reductions, inversion of
retired pay, reduced survivor benefits, base closure impacts, possi-
ble loss of commissary benefits and increased rent-lease costs.

NCOA does not expect the MILCON budget to address these
issues, but there are quite a number of issues that could alleviate a
number of associated problems.

The shortage of family housing is a continuing problem, com-
pounded by overseas strength reductions and base closings in the
United States, as is the significant number of enlisted service mem-
bers in grades E4 through E6 that still reside in inadequate quar-
ters.

Madam Chair, this country will continue to have formidable
fighting forces, although reduced substantially in size. The chal-
lenge facing the subcommittee is to meet the mandate to provide
adequate housing, schools, dining facilities, and family service sup-
port facilities under ever-changing conditions. In the past, the
Members of this subcommittee have always acted responsibly
through concern and assistance on military construction initiatives
aimed at improving the quality-of-life necessities of the uniformed
men and women of the United States and their families. NCOA
firmly believes that fiscal year 1994 will be no different.

500

Base closures are radically affecting the lives of military retirees
and their families who make conscious decisions to retire in areas
served by military installations in order to take advantage of per-
ceived benefits availability, such as medical care, commissary and
exchange. With the administration's plan to do away with "b stu-
dent" impact aid funds over the next three years, the Section 6
school system may be the only answer for military dependents.

In summary. Madam Chair, the effectiveness of the fiscal year
1994 MILCON budget is only as good as the future vision put into
it. NCOA is of the opinion that, although a number of positive ef-
forts are reflected in the DOD proposal, responsible officials within
the Defense Department are telling this subcommittee that all is
well, when, in fact, the budget reflects one-year thinking, when it
should be two to three years in the future.

Madam Chair, thank you again for the opportunity to appear
before your subcommittee again this year. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

501

NCOA

Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America

225 N. Washington Street • Alexandria. Virginia 22314 • Telephone (703) 549-031 1

STATEMENT OF
SERGEANT MAJOR MICHAEL F. OUELLETTE USA, RET.

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FIRST SESSION, 103D CONGRESS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 1993

Chartered by the United States Congress

502

Mr. Chairman. The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA)
appreciates this opportunity to present its views on the FY 1994 NClitary Construction
Budget. NCOA is a federally-chartered organization representing all enlisted members of the
Armed Forces of the United States; active, guard, reserve, retired, and veteran. Although its
name implies restricted membership only to noncommissioned and petty officers of the Army,
Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, the Association's membership rolls are
open to all enlisted men and women who serve or have served in the uniform services. It is
through input from this wide-range member base that NCOA determines its position on the
defense budget and, in particular, military personnel and quality-of-life issues.

PRELUDE

NCOA has historically appeared before this Subcommittee to speak for the enlisted
men and women of the U. S. Armed Forces. This year the association will use the
opportunity to define the effects the President's Budget and the Budget Resolution passed by
Senate and House Budget Committees may have on the quality-of-life of the members of the
armed forces and emphasize the relationship to the FY 1994 Military Construction Budget.
NCOA has advocated improvements in people programs for years. Improvements in housing,
medical care, family services, etc., have always been identified as having a significant impact
on recruiting and retention. In recent years, the main concern was the downsizing of the
military services and the effects on military members. This year the members of the armed
forces are faced with additional challenges that come in the forms of tax increases, pay and
allowance freezes, COLA reductions, inversion of retired pay, reduced survivor benefits, base

503

closure impacts, possible loss of commissary benefits, and increased rent/lease costs. These
challenges are being sold as "sacrifices" in support of budget deficit reduction. In truth their
sacrifices will fund other presidential priorities. Nevertheless, this Country will continue to
have formidable fighting forces, although reduced substantially in size. The challenge facing
the subcommittee is to meet the mandate to provide adequate housing, schools, dining
facilities, and family service support facilities. The Association testimony is designed to
discuss the ramifications of proposed cost-cutting measures with the members of the
Subcommittee and offer a number of recommendations for consideration during the
deliberation process. In the past this Subcommittee has always acted responsibly through
concern and insistence on military construction initiatives aimed at improving the quality-of-
life necessities of the uniformed men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and their
families. NCOA firmly believes that FY 1994 will be no different.

FAMILY HOUSING

NCOA wishes to thank this distinguished Subcommittee for successful efforts over the
years to ensure that adequate housing is provided to military members and their families. In
particular, this association applauds the effort made last year to address the serious housing
situation in Hawaii. However, regardless of the extent of vigilance exercised by the
Subcommittee, NCOA remains suspect when reviewing requests for family housing funds.
Because of the rapidly changing situation involving military strength reductions and base
closure actions both in the United States and overseas, there is always speculation that the
planners are not looking far enough into the future for military construction determinations to

504

meet actual needs in a timely fashion.

The downsizing of military manpower strengths in Etirope and relocation of personnel
fix}m overseas bases scheduled for closure or realignment are causing a considerable crush on
domestic family housing. Today, housing is a major problem. As the Army removes
families from overseas areas, they are reassigned to those major installations in the United
States that have not been targeted for closure. Consequently, on-base housing is not readily
available and since costs of off-base housing are being driven up by demand, miliary families
are being forced to travel long distances daily just to reside in affordable, not necessarily
adequate, housing. The distances can easily be 100 to 130 and more round-trip miles a day.

Due to the reduction of personnel authorizations in the overseas areas and the resulting
drastic reduction in permanent-change-of-station (PCS) funds, military families remain in-
place for a longer period of time. Consequently, those families assigned to government
quarters prevent other off-post families from having an opportunity to live in on-post or
government leased housing for substantial periods of time. A few of the Army installations
that fall into this category are: Fort Hood, TX; Fort Carson, CO; Fort Campbell, KY; and
Fort Bragg, NC, and Ft Lewis, WA.

Army policy, apparently the same in all military services, directs that in lieu of new
construction, the first source of providing family housing will be in the civilian community.
The Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) added to the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ)
has normally supported such a policy. In 1994, however, active military members are being

505

forced to "sacrifice" via a pay and allowance freeze. It is evident the landlords serving the
military population wall increase monthly rents to off-set the imposition of higher income
taxes also being paid by military personnel who fall within the targeted threshold. Since it is
only at those locations where of-post housing is not available, too costly, or substandard that
the military services must take positive steps to provide adequate housing, the budget process
will not allow for timely relief of the conditions. This is precisely where long-range plaiming
should enter the equation.

In the best of times, VHA and BAQ were five percent or more below the level
prescribed in law as adequate to assist military families in paying for civilian rentals. This
shortfall, coupled with the 1994 allowance freeze, makes off-post housing too costly and not
readily available to many military families in the enlisted pay grades.

Review of the FY 1994 family housing construction portion of the budget reflects a
solid effort (approximately $3.7 billion) to improve the housing situation through the
construction of new units, improvements to existing structures, and a number of leasing
arrangements. NCOA acknowledges this effort as a step in the right direction. It remains
imperative; however, that family housing construction money be targeted at those areas that
will survive future base closure actions. There is no good reason to aim construction funds at
any base or installation where there is even a shadow of a doubt of its longevity. Therefore,
NCOA recommends that the military services should be prepared to revise plans, subject to
the approval of the oversight committees, if any one installation is not going to receive the
expected input of personnel.

506
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS

The armed services continue to have a significant number of servicemembers in
enlisted grades E4 through E6 living in inadequate quarters. The majority of those are naval
personnel berthed aboard ships in cramped living spaces. NCOA considers this to be a
deplorable situation. Bachelor persormel are the most economical category of personnel the
nation has on its military rolls. It's time to recognize their value by providing them with
adequate quarters. Granted, NCOA would readily admit there is little that can be done to
improve living conditions aboard ship. Cramped quarters and lack of privacy come with the
turf; however, something should be done to subsidize them for the time they live under such
conditions. Current law provides that married servicemembers who reside in substandard
family housing can retain 25 percent of their BAQ in cash. Yet enlisted bachelors residing
under similar conditions receive nothing.

NCOA notes that the FY 1994 Defense Department Budget contains a substantial line
of funding for child improvement centers. NCOA fully agrees that these are important
projects to those military members with families. NCOA does not agree, however, that these
are priority items until such time as the Department of Defense (DoD) can assure Congress
that young bachelor servicemembers are properly housed or adequately reimbursed in those
cases where it is simply not feasible to reasonably improve living conditions.

NCOA recommends: First, that the subcommittee direct DoD to identify those
installations where inadequate housing continues to be used as enlisted living quarters.

507

Second, that a standard be developed to readily identify bachelor quarters as being inadequate.
Once identification is possible, action could then be taken to determine the level of subsidy
required to compensate those bachelor serviceraembers who are forced to reside in inadequate
or substandard quarters. If this process were a reality, there is little doubt that action to
improve the BEQ situation would be forthcoming. Third, further direct DoD to request the
construction of adequate BEQs in an FY 1994 supplemental proposal, if such action cannot
take place in the FY 1994 MilCon package. Fourth, appropriate the funds required to
complete the construction or support legislation that will increase or provide a portion of
BAQ (without dependents rate) for those seivicemembers who are not offered adequate living
quarters.

This Association is completely aware that the uncertainty of the final level of overseas
manpower authorizations will make accurate future strength and placement calculations
extremely difficult. It simply must be accomplished since the only alternative will be to place
those servicemembers assigned above acceptable housing capabilities in unreasonable living
simations. The Subcommittee will agree the young servicemembers are the future of the
military services. The ability to recruit and retain sufficient personnel, while maintaining
quality levels, will be directly proportionate to the manner in which the Congress and DoD
meet their responsibilities to provide adequate housing and other quality-of-life construction
projects.

508

BASE CLOSURES: A LOSS OF EARNED BENEFITS

Many servicemembers who made a career of the military did so based on certain
promises made to them by their superiors and the Congress of the United States. Among the
promises was access to military treatment facilities (MTF), commissaries and exchanges.
These privileges were considered compensation for the shortages in pay and allowances
provided servicemembers over the years.

As a result of the military retirees' desire to take advantage of perceived benefits,
hundreds of thousands made conscience decisions to retire in areas adjacent to or served by
military installations. This was particularly important to a majority of retirees whose retired
pay was below or near poverty levels. Even today, the average enlisted retiree is in the pay
grade of E6/E7 and receives less than $12,000 annually. This fact alone make access to
MTFs, commissaries and exchanges critical to their survival. To further support the value of
commissaries to the eligible patrons, it is important for this Subcommittee to know that the
Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) confirms that over $24.5 million dollars in food stamps
were redeemed by the commissary system in 1992.

Despite the known retiree need. Congress continues to close many military
installations where there are large concentrations of military retirees, reservists, and their
dependents. Of course, this action causes the discontinuance of MTFs and store operations.
NCOA in its own right and as part of the 24-member Military Coalition, has objected to such
a hard-nose attitude. This Association believes that each installation should be individually
judged on the feasibility of operating MTFs and stores, based on community analysis. Guard

509

and Reserve populations, and possible cost saving to the taxpayets.

At the present time, there is considerable speculation concerning the Federal
Government's concern with the current $1.2 billion level of subsidy allocated to support
commissary operations. In 1992, Congressional hearings were held to discuss the possible
expansion of the commissary patronage base to compensate for both the loss of subsidy and
the downsizing of the active and reserve forces. Considering this and the moral obligation
the nation has to its military retirees. National Guard members, and reservists, NCOA
continues to recommend a moratorium be placed on closing MTFs, conunissaries, and
exchanges on installations scheduled fo^ closure. Such action would permit DoD and the
Base Closure Commission time to conduct a study and submit the results to this
Subcommittee on the feasibility of continued operation of these facilities subsequent to
closure action.

SECTION 6 SCHOOLS

Although all areas of the MilCon budget are extremely important, the portion
pertaining to Section 6 Schools is considered by this Association as being of vital importance
to the future of military dependent education. Members of the Subcommittee must pay
particular attention to the concerns on this issue.

Section 6 schools are defined as those educational facilities physically located on
military installations and tasked with the responsibility of educating children of military

510

personnel stationed on or near that installation. Authorization of appropriations to fund the
operation of these schools rests with Congress based on requests made by the military
services through the Defense Department. For years. Congress and DoD have done their best
to entice local school districts to assume fiscal, administrative and operational authority for
these schools, but it has not happened. NCOA caimot blame the local school districts for
their refusal since the Federal Government effort to provide Impact Aid and construction
funds to operate and upgrade the schools is traditionally far short of actual needs.

Based on the current Administration's plan contained in the President's "vision",
Impact Aid "b student" funds will be reduced and eventually disappear within the next three
years. The "b student" are dependents of a military sponsor who resides in the local
community, but works on the installation. Tlie Administration is convinced that those
military sponsors living off the installation are paying state tax money that relieves the
government from responsibility. This is incorrect rationale, since military personnel, unless
bona-fide residents of a particular state in which the installation is located, do not pay state
tax on their income. In this regard, the amount of Impact Aid funds received by a school
district during any year is directly proportionate to the level of education received by military
dependents during that year. Should "b student" Impact Aid funds disappear. Section 6
Schools must be able to assimie the responsibility for the total education of military children
or funds will have to be provided to military sponsors to pay for the educational requirements
of those dependents. Should neither take place, DoD must be prepared to do "battle" with the
local citizens of any civilian school district who will, and rightly so, object to local tax
referendums aimed at off-setting educational costs. This is a position that will ultimately be

511

attributed to the lack of foresight on the part of this Subcommittee.

Mr. Oiairman, the DoD military construction budget reflects $37.9 million dollar
attempt to address either the construction or improvement of military dependent schools. In
the same light it budgets $322 plus million for water pollution abatement. NCOA fully
understands that the Federal Government must now comply with environmental standards, but
should it not be responsible to comply with the educational requirements of children of the
military servicemembers. NCOA believes there is much more to add to this important
subject. However, it suffices to say that the Association can advise your distinguished
Subcommittee that there exists a major problem in the Defense Department's Secdon 6
School System with the hope that something positive and constructive will be extracted fktm
the Pentagon. Something must be done to provide high quality education programs for the
children of our servicemembers. Hopefully, your Subcommittee will determine from DoD
what funds are needed for Section 6 Schools and these funds would begin to be available in
FY 1994. If not, the military community can fully expect to take on another "sacrifice", only
this time it will be at the expense of their children's future.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) provides financial assistance to
servicemember-homeowners whose homes may not be saleable or cannot be sold at fair
market value due to base closure or downsizing operations.

68-354 O— 93 17

512

NCOA finds a number or major problems with the HAP. These problems affect
military personnel whose homes border on military installations scheduled for closure or
realigiunent. First is a matter of disseminating information to servicemembers. The military
seems to be reluctant or administratively unable to locate serviceraember-homeowners to
make them aware of their entitlement to apply for assistance. Why is it that many learn of it
only from Association publications.

Next, HAP payments are considered income and subject to Federal, and perhaps State,
taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims it cannot rule otherwise because of
predetermined revenue receipts from the program. This may be true, but it is terribly unfair
to the military family that will purchase another house elsewhere. It is a rare occasion when
a military family reaps sufficient profits through the HAP that is above what is needed to
purchase a new home. So, it seems only right and reasonable to amend the law to the receipt
of money from HAP to be treated the same as that received by other homeowners from the
sale of their homes, and give the military family an opportunity to reinvest any monies in a
new dwelling.

A large nimiber of military personnel have specialties that are only compatible with a
select number of military installations located within the United States. Many take overseas
assigiunents with the full expectation of returning to that installation. Should that installation
be targeted for closure while overseas, HAP becomes non-accessible since one must be
residing in the dwelling to take advantage of the program. Additionally, if a servicemember
owns a mobile home, he or she must own the land upon which the mobile home is parked.

513

Or one has to have a lease that lasts 27 1/2 years as that period dovetails with the fine print
of the tax code. NCOA considers this absolutely ridiculous. Military personnel are no longer
responsible for possessing the skills and requirements needed to protect their Country, they
now must become tax code experts to survive. No wonder HAP is not widely publicized, not
even the leaders of the military understand it's provisions or failures. NCOA urges the
committee to simplify this program and expand its provisions to more adequately compensate
losses.

CONCLUSION

NCOA suggests to the Subcommittee that the FY 1994 Department of Defense Budget
is a classic example of a business-as-usual or the traditional approach of DoD to march to the
time of the U.S. Congress. This Subcommittee must strive to direct that department to think
outside the "square" to protect members of the military. After all, if things go wrong or are
not timely, DoD's response will be to shift the blame on the Congressional process. The
truth be known, DoD is responsible to remove itself from the vacuum and properly advise the
members of this Subcommittee of the current state-of-health of the military services. The
effectiveness of an FY 1994 Budget is only as good as the future vision put into it. NCOA is
of the opinion that the responsible officials within the Defense Department are telling this
Subcommittee that all is well, when in fact, their budget reflects one year thinking when it
should be two to three years in the future.

Thank you.

514

Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Sergeant Major.

Are there questions for Sergeant Major Oeullette?

Mr. Callahan. Just one question.

Part of the proposals that have been floating around with respect
to aid to Russia includes monies to provide housing for the Russian
soldiers and military people who are going to be retired from the
Russian Army. Do you think it is something we should do before
we provide adequately for our housing of even our Active military
people or Reservists prior to that? Or would you rather not com-
ment on that?

Mr. OuELLETTE. Mr. Callahan, I would not recommend that on
my best day.

Mr. Callahan. Good.

Mrs. Meek. Any questions, Mr. Hoyer?

Mr. Hoyer. Well, I am not going — I won't get into questions on
that. Obviously, there is a very volatile situation in the Baltics and
other places in the former Soviet republics, in which there are
members of the Russian Army still living and creating a pretty dy-
namic situation in those areas.

The problem that confronts President Yeltsin and the Russian
Army is that they have no place to put these people. They built
housing in the former republics. They are now dead, flat broke es-
sentially; and there is some discussion about the possibility of as-
sisting building that housing so you can reduce the volatility of the
situation that exists in the former republics.

So I would suggest that it is perhaps not quite as clear-cut as my
friend from Alabama would posit: Do you want to spend the money
on Russians or Americans? There is nobody who is going to say
that they don't want to spend it on Americans, including me. But if
it defuses situations that keeps American men and women, here in
the United States as opposed to trying to inject itself in some place
in central Europe because we have a blowup in Estonia or Latvia —
I am not going to go into a further speech than I have already gone
into, but I would not want the record to reflect that it is as easy to
say.

Mr. Callahan. I understand, but it plays well in Alabama.

Mr. Hoyer. I am sure it does. That thought occurred to me; it
might play well in the 5th Congressional District of Maryland, as
well, but it would be — I think we need to understand that there is
a very volatile and significant problem that we are going to have
to — in my opinion — help on. And whether we do it through housing
or some other aid, we are going to have to help them, in my opin-
ion.

Mr. Callahan. If the gentleman would yield.

Mrs. Meek. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Hoyer. Yes.

Mr. Callahan. I don't doubt that you, very likely, may be right.
And I don't doubt that I will support it, provided that there are
other contingencies attached to it, such as the Russians furnishing
oil to North Korea or conventional arms to Serbia, or such as the
Cuba connection. I think we ought to capitalize on their need at
this point to make this a better world.

So with contingencies, you probably are right, sir.

515

Mr. HoYER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. One of the
problems and one of the reasons that I think we are probably going
to have to go in, and the exact problem that you mentioned, is that
we have a nation that has an incredible problem with inflation,
and with a lack of hard currency, leading them to want to sell any-
thing that they have to anyone with hard currency.

You are absolutely right. We need to make some relationships
there. There is no point in relieving one volatile situation and cre-
ating another. You are absolutely right, and I agree.

Mr. OuELLETTE. I enjoyed your talk, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Hoyer. But the gentleman's answer is certainly going to
play well in Alabama, too.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Coleman, do you have a question?

Mr. Coleman. Just one.

I noticed that you pointed out. the fact that we would have not
been building up in terms of family housing and modernization in
the last decade to the extent that it recognizes base closures and
the removal of troops from Europe. And I think your statement
said that you were leery or suspicious of what is being continued to
be proposed in that regard, that you don't feel that it is going to be
adequate.

Would you like to elaborate on that point?

Mr. Ouellette. Mr. Coleman, it is very difficult for the Associa-
tion to present some points.

I think what we are trying to say is that it is very difficult for
anybody to look into the future with the speed at which things are
happening, but I think what we have to do is focus on improving
those installations that we know are not going to go away. They
are going to be around to sustain the force.

Mr. Coleman. You have been around long enough to know that
there is no such thing as concern. I represent a community that
has an installation that has felt secure. But every time there is a
Base Closure Commission meeting, the criteria that they use may
suggest that even those that we believe are the safest turn out not
to be.

I have been fairly well surprised by several recommendations
over the four or five years, so I think your point is well taken; but
we don't have those guarantees, unfortunately. As the commander
in chief changes, commission members change, I just don't neces-
sarily agree that we can project with certainty that certain instal-
lations will not close. That is part of the problem.

Mr. Ouellette. What I am really trying to say is, if we are going
to put freezes on pay and allowances and those kinds of things that
help soldiers, that at least we have the obligation to provide some
kind of subsistence or housing for them.

As I tried to point out in the statement, when you raise taxes,
the renters of this world are going to offset those taxes in higher
rents. And the military people that are using those opportunities
are not in any kind of position then to counter that. So they just
keep going further in the hole. But they understand there is noth-
ing for certain.

Mr. Coleman. Let me say that I would like very much to see
your association make a recommendation to the Secretary of De-
fense with respect to that issue. I share it. In fact, alone, for the

516

last decade I have been doing a barracks modernization program,
with no administration help. And we are at the stage, after spend-
ing $10 or $20 million of taxpayers' money annually, that we feel
that most of our facilities are up to standard, that when base clo-
sures occur and there is a need to move troops from overseas or
anywhere in CONUS, we happen to believe that our facility can
handle it and handle it well in terms of quality of life for the men
and women in the service.

Let me say to you, though, that having to go that alone has not
been easy, because you have to get the authorization, as well as the
appropriation from the House and the Senate, and then the admin-
istration's acquiescence and signature. It is not easy. But we could
use your help, because I think there are a lot of Members that
share your concern that what we are doing is not placing enough
emphasis on our future construction and not placing enough em-
phasis with the Department of Defense on the quality-of-life issues;
and that includes, first and foremost, housing.

I would like very much to have your — see if you can't get your
association to take a very strong stand with respect to statements
of the Secretary of Defense. I think that is where we need to start.
I appreciate your help on that.

Mr. OuELLETTE. We will be happy to do that, and I thank you for
your help over the years.

Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Bentley?

Mrs. Bentley. I just want to say that I support what Mr. Cole-
man said totally, that we do have to be concerned about the quality
of life on the bases.

But prolonging the discussion that Mr. Callahan and Mr. Hoyer
had, I would like to add one caveat about this housing construction.
I think the caveat should be that any and all monies that we pro-
vide for that purpose should be spent in this country, and the hous-
ing transported from here over there; and I hope you would go
along with that.

Mr. Callahan. I will go along with it.

Mrs. Meek. All right. Sergeant major, you have heard the con-
cerns here and also the sensitivity to your concerns, and we thank
you very much for appearing this morning.

Mr. Ouellette. Madam Chair, thank you very much for the op-
portunity.

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.

REPAIRS TO ENLISTED AND OFFICER HOUSING AT GREAT
LAKES NAVAL TRAINING CENTER

WITNESS

HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mrs. Meek. Now we are going to hear from the Honorable John
Edward Porter from Illinois.

517

THE HONORABLE JOHN E. PORTER

Mr. Porter. Madam Chair and Members of the committee, I
think that you have probably over 100 Members of Congress come
before you. I will be very, very brief.

I have three military installations in my district. One is Fort
Sheridan on the 1988 base closure list and will be padlocked in
about a month. We understand that there may be some need for
MILCON funds relating to the Army Reserve units that will
remain there, and although we don't have the information yet, it
may be necessary to come back to you later on, when we do, to re-
quest that.

I also have Glen View Naval Air Station on the 1993 closure list
that will probably be approved by the Base Closure Commission,
and finally, Great Lakes Naval Training Station, which is the larg-
est naval training center in the world and does require some help
this year.

In the Department of Defense budget, the President's budget, the
request is for $11.4 million for improvements and repairs to 173 en-
listed and officer housing units at Great Lakes NTC. And these are
for the usual things to improve and repair housing. And I support
the request and commend it to the committee and ask your support
for it.

Mrs. Meek. All right.

Mr. Porter. That is all I have to say.

[The information follows:]

518

Testimony of the Honorable John Edward Porter

Before the Subcommittee on Military Construction

April 27, 1993

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Vucanovich, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you
today regarding military construction projects in the 10th
District of Illinois, which I am privileged to represent.

I will be very brief because I know that you have a very heavy
schedule of witnesses today and because I have only one thing to
request of the Subcommittee this year.

The Department of Defense has requested $11.4 million for
improvements and repairs to 178 enlisted and officer housing
units at Great Lakes Naval Training Center (NTC) in Great Lakes,
Illinois. These improvements and repairs include
renovation/modernization of kitchens, baths and basements,
provision of interior light fixtures, updated wiring, central air
conditioning, garages, patios, storage sheds, fencing,
landscaping, and energy saving improvements such as replacement
of exterior doors, weatherstripping, roofs, roof vents, attic
installation, ductwork and installation of suspended ceilings.

As you know. Great Lakes NTC is the largest, most sophisticated
naval training facility in the world and has been a national
defense asset since the early part of this century. Great Lakes
graduated 2 0,000 sailors from basic training last year and nearly
20,000 more from its advanced training facilities including its
thirty-four "A" schools and sixty-seven "C" schools. The total
military permanent party at Great Lakes is over 5,300 and the
total military personnel is 16,000.

These dedicated Navy personnel, both officers and enlisted
personnel, deserve modern, well kept housing. This DoD request
for $11.4 million will help to keep this government owned housing
up to the high standards that Great Lakes has come to be known
for and will play a part in maintaining high morale at the base.

I fully support this request and ask the Subcommittee to include
it in your Fiscal Year 1994 bill.

I may also be contacting the Subcommittee to make additional
requests for military construction projects at Ft. Sheridan. As
you know, in 1988 Ft. Sheridan was slated to be closed. In the
process of preparing to close the base, I have learned what
members of this Subcommittee already know. It costs money to
close a base. There may be various milcon projects requested by
DoD this year associated with the closure of Ft. Sheridan and the
creation of a separate Army reserve unit on a part of the Fort ' s
land. Since we do not yet have access to the DoD's request for
military construction related to previous base closures, I cannot
tell you what needs may exist. I will contact the Subcommittee
as soon as these needs become known.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Vucanovich and members of the
Subcommittee .

519

Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Your testimony will be in the record.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Callahan. John, is it in the President's budget?

Mr. Porter. Yes, it is in the President's budget.

Mrs. Meek. We certainly thank you, Mr. Porter, for coming
before us today. We know it is a budgeted project, and our subcom-
mittee is aware of the situation, and we thank you very much.

Mr. Porter. Thank you.

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.
ISSUES AFFECTING MILITARY FAMILIES

WITNESS
SYDNEY HICKEY, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION

Mrs. Meek. Ms. Sidney Hickey from the National Military
Family Association.

STATEMENT OF SYDNEY HICKEY

Ms. HiCKEY. Thank you, very much. Madam Chairman. I apolo-
gize for being late. After two-and-a-half hours on the Beltway, I am
going to our combined State of Florida.

Mr. Coleman. Are people leaving there?

Ms. HiCKEY. Madam Chair, military personnel and their families
are most grateful to this committee and all the Members of sub-
committee for your continuing support of their quality of life.

NMFA supports funding of all family housing, child development
centers, and Section 6 schools in the fiscal year 1994 Department of
Defense budget. We are pleased that many of the housing units re-
quested are in high-cost duty stations like Hawaii and California.

After years of not requesting any funds to improve or to alter
Section 6 schools, although this subcommittee has seen fit to
supply funds for that purpose, this DOD budget requires funds-re-
quests funds for 12 such schools. And it does appear that many of
the requested additions are at installations that are expected to
gain in population. But NMFA is reminded that one of the primary
reasons cited in the Rand Report for why local education authori-
ties did not want to assume responsibility for these schools was
their deplorable physical condition. If that consideration is part of
the new-found enthusiasm for funding these improvements it
should be remembered that there were additional barriers to turn-
over that were cited in the Rand Report.

Madam Chairman, as the force downsizes it is anticipated that
the force will become older. An older force translates into a more
married force and a force that has more children. Therefore, the
need for family housing and for child care will increase percent-
agewise.

As installations close, families move to remaining bases that now
have "no vacancy" signs hanging at the gate.

We do not object to DOD's objective of reliance on local commu-
nities to provide housing for military families. The Air Force testi-
mony presented to this subcommittee on April 20, 1993, stated,
"Fortunately, most of the housing requirements at receiving bases

520

resulting from prior base closures are being satisfied through com-
munity resources."

That statement raises two questions. First, what happens to
those that are not in the "most," and second, will communities con-
tinue to be able to absorb even "most" of the families as further
closures are implemented?

A brief moment about HAP, the Homeowner's Assistance Pro-
gram. Those few military families that can afford to purchase
houses are thinking twice about such actions with the new base
closure list coming in 1995. They are not sure either. The Home-
owner's Assistance Program may prevent total financial devasta-
tion for military families, but in many cases, it falls far short of
returning their investment. We would ask this subcommittee to en-
courage DOD to resume covering 85 percent of their loss, as they
did until two years ago when they reduced that to 75 percent. In
addition, NMFA hopes the services will closely monitor the need
for short-term leases at gaining installations. The extreme turmoil
experienced by Army families returning from Europe last year
should not be repeated. Many installations programmed to receive
substantial numbers of additional personnel report they have abso-
lutely no housing available right now, or rentals in the community.
We are seeing several of our young families forced into buying
homes when they have no business financially entering into that
investment.

When neither affordable housing nor government housing is
available, families must often separate. The service member be-
comes a geographic bachelor. Family separations caused by mission
requirements are part of the military life. Family separations
caused by housing shortages should not be a part of military life.

In conclusion, NMFA again thanks you for your expressed con-
cern and interest in the quality of life for military families.

[The information follows:]

521

NME\-

INational Military Family Association!

6000 Stevenson Avenue, Suite 304

Alexandria, Virginia 22304

(703) 823-NMFA

FAX (703) 751-4857

Statement of

Sydney T. Hickey

Associate Director, Government Relations
The National Military Family Association, Inc.

Before the

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE

of the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

of the
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 1993

Not for Publication
Until Releasecd by
the committee

522

The National Military Family Association (NMFA) is a nonprofit, predominantly
volunteer organization with membership from the seven uniformed services,
active duty, retired, reserve component and their family members and survivors.
NMFA is the only national organization whose sole focus is the military family
and whose goal is to Influence the development and implementation of policies
which will improve the lives of those family members.

Mr. Chairman, military personnel and their families are most grateful to you and
the members of this Subcommittee for your continuing support of their quality of
life. Last year, this Committee appropriated funding to build more than twice the
number of Child Development Centers requested by the Department of Defense
(DoD). You also appropriated funds to build more units of family housing than
had been requested.

FAMILY HOUSING

NMFA supports funding for all family housing included in the FY 94 DoD
request. We are particularly pleased that many of the requested units are at
duty stations where the cost of housing is extremely high, notably, Hawaii and
California. Families in Hawaii whose Food Stamp redemption topped $1.7
million in 1992 obviously cannot afford high cost housing. We also strongly
support the requests for replacement housing. Many military quarters are over
40 years old and in deplorable condition.

NMFA also supports the "whole house" and "whole neighborhood"
revitalization/improvement programs of the Army and Air Force and the Navy's
new attention to "Neighborhoods of Excellence". We also applaud the Army's

523

whole barracks renewal initiative. Single military personnel should be able to
live in barracks which provide as much privacy as possible and a more "home
like" atmosphere.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

NMFA was AMAZED, but of course gratified, to note DoD's request for funding
of 21 Child Care Centers, a seven-fold increase over FY 93 . Two wage earner
families are becoming the norm in the military just as they are in the civilian
sector. Denial of a pay raise in FY 94 and reductions in pay increases for the
ensuing three years, will make two income families almost universal. We
certainly anticipate an increase in the need for safe and adequate child care at
those installations which remain open.

SECTION SIX SCHOOLS

After years of not requesting any funds to improve/add to/alter Section Six
Schools, the FY 94 budget includes 12 such requests, including one at an
installation on DoD's 1993 Base Closure list. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman,
NMFA has requested funds for these schools for several years. This
Subcommittee has responded with funds to improve many of these schools.
NMFA appreciates the attention given to the needs of military students served
by these Section Six Schools. It appears that many of the requested additions
are at installations expected to retain or gain in population. However, NMFA is
reminded that one of the primary reasons cited in the Rand Report for why Local
Education Authorities (LEAs) did not want to assume responsibility for these
schools was their physical condition. If that consideration is part of the new

524

found enthusiasm for funding these improvements, it should also be
remembered that several additional barriers to turnover were cited in the Rand
Report. The most important of these for military families was the concern about
losing their neighborhood schools and losing their input on the education of
their children. The LEAs, on the other hand, were as concerned with insufficient
Impact Aid funding on a recurring basis, as with the physical condition of the
school structures.

DOWNSIZING AND BRAG

An Older Force

As the force is downsized, it is anticipated it will become an older force. An
older force usually means more servicemembers will be married and have
children. Therefore, while the force is decreasing in total numbers, the
percentage of servicemembers requiring family housing and Ghild
Development Genters will increase.

No Vacancv

As installations close, families will move to remaining bases which have "no
vacancy" signs hanging at the gate. NMFA does not object to DoD's stated
objective of relying on local communities first to provide housing for military
families. The Air Force testimony presented to this Subcommittee on April 20,
1993, stated: "Fortunately, most of the housing requirements at receiving bases
resulting from prior base closures are being satisfied through community
resources." That statement raises two questions. First, what happens to

525

families that are not included in the "most," and second, will communities
continue to be able to absorb even "most" of the families as further closures are
implemented?

JdAE

Those military families who can afford to purchase houses/apartments are
thinking twice about such action with another Base Closure list to come in 1995.
The Homeowner's Assistance Program (HAP) may prevent total financial
devastation for military families, but in many cases it falls far short of returning
their investment. Since military families move every few years, few have built
up substantial equity in their homes. The reduced value produced in a BRAC
site, combined with taxing whatever is realized from the HAP, often means a
significant monetary loss.

More families than in the past are seeking rental housing when they transfer.
This situation contributes to the decrease in availability of affordable housing.
NMFA has already heard from families stationed at installations on DoD's 1993
Closure list who are upset and angry. They were transferred to their current
duty station within the last two years. They were forced to purchase homes
because no rental housing was available. Many of these families have 100%
VA home loans. While these mortgages can be assumed by the government
under HAP, the amount imputed to the member in the transaction will be taxed
as ordinary income. Families will essentially be taxed on money never
received.

526

National Relocation Contract

NMFA is pleased that a national relocation contract to manage the resale of
homes under the HAP Is to be awarded in May. Presentations by relocation
companies in the past have indicated that military families could benefit from
their programs. We will monitor the implementation and results after the
contract is awarded.

Short Term Leasing

NMFA hopes the Services will closely monitor the need for short term leasing at
gaining installations. The extreme turmoil experienced by Army families
returning from Europe last year should not be repeated. Many installations
programmed to receive substantial numbers of additional personnel report very
little available housing.

Familv Separations

Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) is not providing the 65% of national median
housing costs by grade of sponsor, as was mandated by Congress in 1985.
Since the proposal to freeze military pay in FY 94 and to reduce raises in FYs
95, 96 and 97 also applies to allowances, the amount of unreimbursed housing
costs will rise significantly. If housing costs around a gaining installation rise
higher (as is usually the case) than regional/national levels, some military
families may be unable to obtain affordable housing. When neither affordable
nor government housing is available, families must often separate. The
servicemember becomes a "geographic bachelor." Family separations caused

527

by mission requirements are part of military life. Family separations caused by
housing shortages should not be part of military life.

In conclusion, NMFA again thanks you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this
Subcommittee for listening to the concerns of military families. We firmly
support all the construction requests for installations not on a closure list, and
ask that you consider the ramifications of an older force with more family
requirements.

528

Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Ms. Hickey.

In your prepared statement, you mention your concern that one
reason for the budget request for Section 6 schools might be, the
Department is going to accept these schools in order to turn them
over to the local LEA. I would note that this committee has looked
into this, and the Department of Defense tells the committee that
the force drawdown in Europe is resulting in the closure, naturally,
as you indicated, of many schools for military dependents. Since
they no longer need the budget for those overseas schools, that
frees up the resources to take care of the Section 6 schools.

Ms. Hickey. I sincerely hope that is the reason. Our concern was
just, all of a sudden, that all of those schools appear when nothing
has appeared from the Department for over 12 years; and I appre-
ciate your concern in looking into it.

Mrs. Meek. Are there other Members of the committee with
questions?

Mr. Callahan.

Mr. Callahan. You mentioned that it is imminent that a reloca-
tion contract is going to be signed with some national concern?

Ms. Hickey. Unfortunately, the interpretation that was put on
the language in the authorization act last year and our interpreta-
tion of that were not the same. We had assumed that that reloca-
tion contract was one that would have tested a national relocation
company taking over the program in certain areas. We have had
presentations from some of those companies in which they state
that they could provide more funding for military families. Howev-
er, in talking to the Army Corps of Engineers, I find that the cur-
rent contract is simply to manage the homes after the families
have been reimbursed, the maintenance of them and the resale.

I note that that contract is not supposed to be let until May;
however, in testimony last week they assumed that it was going to
be April.

Mr. Callahan. They will issue one contract nationwide?

Ms. Hickey. No, it was for four installations in the mid-East-Fort
Smith Naval Shipyard, and I have forgotten the others.

Mr. Callahan. What will the relocation company do?

Ms. Hickey. It is not going to do anything but maintain the
house after the Corps of Engineers has bought it, and take care of
the resale.

It is simply — HUD was apparently backed out of that process,
which they used to take care of for the Corps of Engineers in the
past, maintaining and reselling the homes. This is to look to see if
this type of company could do it less expensively that the Corps
itself.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Madam Chair.

I am extremely interested in replacement housing. I just, as a
matter of fact, had the Secretary of HUD in my district dealing
with poverty as an issue. The lack of economic development and
the problems that wind up associated with that go on and on, ev-
erything from housing to health. It is a never-ending problem. And
I happen to think that we create more problems for ourselves when
we don't deal with the issue, as I think you correctly pointed out in

529

your testimony, of seeing to it that we have facilities here at home
when we do bring units back.

Separations caused by unit mission, to me, is certainly an impor-
tant issue. And I was interested in knowing whether or not your
association obtains or has or gets information from the Department
of Defense any Assistant Secretary or any segment of it, concern-
ing their planning as it relates to housing when they do a move,
for example, of a unit — say, in Germany to come home, are you
able to get any information, as an association, from the Depart-
ment of Defense?

I am just interested if that is ever — certainly it has got to be a
part of what they consider, the Department of Defense, when they
move an entire facility. Certainly first comes mission, but a part of
that mix must be whether or not the facility to which they are
going to be newly located has the necessary housing or facilities for
that many troops.

Ms. HiCKEY. Mr. Coleman, basically we hear about the problem
from our representatives. We have 90 volunteer representatives at
military installations.

For instance, when the troops came home from Germany there
was the two families to a motel room at Fort Stewart. Schools that
get a thousand kids in two months. One of our concerns is that ap-
parently, at least in the Army — and I am not sure of the other
services, but in the Army we could tell, for instance, a school dis-
trict exactly what they were gaining in children when we know the
soldier. Sergeant Jones has two children; one is age 10 and one is
age 6. Unfortunately, that information was not shared with our
public schools. And it is still not being shared with our public
schools.

Mr. Coleman. You are not just talking Section 6 schools?

Ms. HiCKEY. No, I am talking in a downtown community. They
are told, you are getting a thousand new soldiers. What does that
mean? Are 600 of them single? Are 900 of them married with chil-
dren? How can the communities plan? It is the schools and the
housing and the whole area, because these people are not, for the
most part, the families going on the installation because the quar-
ters are full. So they are being an impact on the community.

And I am not so sure that part of our concern wasn't, at least
coming from Germany, more the logistics of getting them out of
Germany so that we could save that money, rather than the con-
cern of what we were doing to the stateside communities.

Mr. Coleman. Well, representing a district on the U.S.-Mexico
border, we understand many of the problems, because we locally
have to attend to a lot of issues that are really internationally
caused oftentimes by proper utilization of Federal statutes, immi-
gration law and other areas. So we understand that that is an
impact that communities have to oftentimes feel and feel alone,
and that is a real problem.

I appreciate your testimony here today. Thank you.

Mrs. Meek. We certainly do thank you, Ms. Hickey. Are there
any other questions from the committee?

Mr. Callahan?

Mr. Callahan. No.

530
Mrs. Meek. Thank you for coming before us this morning.

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.

MILITARY PERSONNEL RETIREES, THEIR FAMILIES AND

SURVIVORS

WITNESS

CHARLES PARTRIDGE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERV-
ICES AND MILITARY WIDOWS

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Partridge from the National Association for Uni-
formed Services and Society for Military Widows.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES PARTRIDGE

Mr. Partridge. Good morning. Madam Chairwoman. We appreci-
ate the opportunity to present the views of our membership, the
National Association for Uniformed Services and the Society for
Military Widows. They are particularly concerned with the events
surrounding the base closures.

They have seen three rounds of base closure actions taking place
1988, 1991, and 1993; and we understand that there will probably
be another round in 1995. And they are concerned that the needs
of active duty. Guard, Reserve, retirees and so forth are met in the
area where these bases are being closed, and also at the bases to
which troops are being deployed. The current Department of De-
fense recommendations include closing 31 major bases and realign-
ing 12 others. When all three rounds are completed in 1999, DOD is
projecting annual savings of $5.6 billion. Some of these savings will
result from planned construction projects that will not be under-
taken and some from other causes. These base closures coupled
with the reduction in troop strength will also severely restrict the
income to exchange and commissary systems; and since both sys-
tems use nonappropriated funds for construction of their facilities,
this loss of revenue coupled with the need to modernize, replace
and expand facilities that do remain is going to result in severe
cost pressure on the nonappropriated fund systems. And, of course,
this will impact on the morale of our troops and the facilities of
our troops since revenues from exchange sales are used to fund a
variety of these activities.

We can expect to see a significant adverse impact on the quality
of life of our service members and their families as the funds dry
up. Reducing the number of bases will place great stress on the ex-
isting systems.

And we believe that during the transition period to a smaller
military and fewer bases with increased populations that the Con-
gress should consider making greater use of appropriated funds for
the construction of MWR facilities; and we are recommending
using some of the appropriated funds for construction and modern-
ization of commissaries and exchanges. We believe this will provide
income from these exchanges then, and the surtax from the ex-
changes can be used to fund morale, recreation and other activities
to keep our troops on base and to take care of the families and the
families' needs on these bases.

531

I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to
present our views.
[The information follows:]

532

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
H- »»»Of,^ AND

^■* /iai;., '<. SOCIETY OF MILITARY WIDOWS

5535 HEMPSTEAD WAY

SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINA 22151-4094

(703)750-1342

Fax No. (703) 354-4380

'0»»ico " "^^ Servicemembtr's Voice in Government"

Eslablisked 1968

SOCIETY OF UILITARY WIOOWS

Statement of

Colonel Cttarles C. Partridge, USA (Ret)

Legislative Counsel

Ttie National Association for Uniformed Services

and the

Society of Military Widows

Before ttie

Subcommittee on Military Construction

Committee on Appropriations

U.S. House of Representatives

April 27. 1993

Exchonges, Commissaries and Morale, Welfare and Recrecrtion Activities

Mr. Ctiairman, and members of ttie subcommittee, I welcome ttie
opportunity to present ttie views of ttie National Association for
Uniformed Services and ttie Society of Military Widows. The National
Association for Uniformed Services represents all grades and branches
of uniformed services personnel, their spouses and survivors. Our

533

nationwide association includes active, retired, reserve and National
Guard, disabled and ottier veterans of the seven uniformed services:
Arnny, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Public Heaitt) Service,
and ttie National Oceanic and Atnnosptieric Administration. Our
affiliate, the Society of Military Widows is an active group of women
who were married to uniformed services personnel of all grades and
branches and represents a broad spectrum of military society. With
such membership, we are able to draw information from a broad base
for our legislative activities.

Our members have seen three rounds of base closure actions
taking place: 1988, 1991, and 1993. They continue to be concerned
that the needs of active duty, National Guard, reserve, retirees, their
families and survivors who remain in the area and those who are
transferred to other bases are met. The current Department of Defense
(DoD) recommendations include closing 31 major txises and realigning
12 others. In addition, many smaller bases and activities are slated for
closure or realignment.

Approximately 24,000 military personnel spaces and 57,000
civilian spaces are affected and 140,000 will be moved to other
locations. The Secretary of Defense projects that $4 billion will be
saved during the six year implementation period and that $3.1 billion
will be saved annually after that. When all three rounds of closures are
completed in 1999 DoD is projecting annual savings of $5.6 billion.
Some of these savings will result from planned construction projects
that will not be undertaken. These base closures coupled with the
reduction in troop strength will also severely curtail the income to the
exchange and commissary systems. Since both the exchange and
commissary systems use nonappropriated funds for construction of their

534

facilities this loss of revenue coupled witli the need to modernize,
replace and expand facilities that do remain will result in severe cost
pressure on the nonappropriated funds system. Revenues of our
exchange sales are also used to fund a variety of morale, welfare and
recreation activities of the active force. We can expect to see a
significant adverse impact on the quality of life of the individual
servicemembers and their families as these funds dry up. Reducing the
number of bases and increasing the population of bases that do
remain will place a great stress on existing exchanges, commissaries
and MWR facilities.

We believe that during the transition period to a smaller military
and fewer bases with increased populations the Congress should
consider malcing greater use of appropriated funds for the construction
of MWR facilities. In particular, we recommend using some of the
appropriated fund savings for the construction, modernization and
expansion of commissaries and exchanges. These actions will greatly
assist the services in maintaining a viable morale, welfare and
recreation (MWR) program for our servicemembers and their families.

We want to thank the distinguished members of this
subcommittee for providing this opportunity to present our views.

535

Mrs. Meek. Thank you so much.

Any questions?

Mr. Coleman. Let me ask one quick one.

Has this recommendation been made before by NAUS or any
others?

Mr. Partridge. The recommendation to fund exchanges and
commissaries has not. The recommendation to fund other morale
activities, I understand, has. Our concern has been, as you know,
what you have to start was a peace-dividend concept to set aside
funds in the different departments to take care of needs like this,
rather than dipping into other funds. And we think that some of
these savings we would see in reducing some of these savings in
order do some of these fundings.

But no, to answer your question, I don't believe they have. We
have recommended it, but not within the Department.

Mr. Coleman. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Meek. First of all. Colonel, thank you for appearing here
today. In terms of this particular subcommittee, as you know, in
the past we have never had enough resources to take care of all
the deficiencies and the backlogs in the military construction and
the family housing programs, and this perhaps is one of the basic
reasons they have really not considered appropriating funds for
these quality-of-life kinds of programs in morale, welfare and recre-
ation facilities.

I personally believe that these are extremely important, all kinds
of things that should go on. I am a freshman on this committee,
and I have heard testimony this morning of some of these many
other concerns which I feel should be considered to a great extent.
Yet many of them don't seem to be in the direct purview of the
committee. And as part of the base closure accounts, I understand
from staff that they do allow the Department to share the cost of
replacement of the MWR facilities, the two year appropriated
funds and nonappropriated funds in certain circumstances. So that
does leave you some certain circumstances where things may have
a chance to be considered.

We really appreciate your concerns.

Mr. Partridge. Thank you very much for the opportunity to tes-
tify.

Tuesday, April 27, 1993.
TEAM MIAMI— HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE

WITNESS

CHARLES COBB, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LIAISON COMMITTEE, WE WILL
REBUILD COMMITTEE

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Charles Cobb is here, and he is from Team
Miami, the Homestead Air Force Base; and I want the committee
to know that this is my air base.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES COBB

Mr. Cobb. Madam Chairman, we are delighted to be here this
morning. My colleague, as you know, David Weaver, who is Chair-

536

man of our Homestead Air Force Base, couldn't be here. His father
is having surgery this morning.

I am the Chairman of the committee the Miami community
formed, called We Will Rebuild. I am the Chairman of the Federal
Liaison Committee to deal with the Federal Government. My previ-
ous background was that I was an Under Secretary of Commerce
and Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Ambassador to Iceland
in the two previous administrations. So the view was that I had
some knowledge of this place. And so I am delighted to be here.

Madam Chairman, my colleague, David Weaver, has written a
comprehensive testimony, which I don't think I should read. I
think the committee all have copies of that.

Mrs. Meek. We have, and it will be entered into the record.

Mr. Cobb. Just to summarize what that says for the benefit of
your colleagues, the south Florida community recognizes Home-
stead Air Force Base will probably be closed. We are disappointed
with that, but we accept that. What we feel is imperative for our
community — and we are convinced that it is in the best interest of
the United States Government — is that the Reserve units that have
been there return to a joint facility, a joint civil facility, that would
still be a home for these important Federal uses.

The Reserves that we have just talked about. Customs and some
other Federal facilities that have traditionally used that base, we
think it is in the best interest of the United States Government
that they continue to use that base. So we would hope that this
committee would use everything in its power to help us bring the
Reserves back to Homestead Air Force Base.

We think that that can be done basically within the budget of
the 1992 supplemental appropriation. There is still about $148 mil-
lion that has not been spent from the 1992 supplemental appropria-
tion, and that will-if that is all spent, that will bring this facility
up to a level that will allow the Reserves to use the base.

Now, we also feel there is a critical need for about 30,000 retired
people that live in south Florida that have traditionally used
Homestead Air Force Base for their medical and other needs. That
has been demolished, along with the rest of the $20 or $30 billion of
damage; and we feel that it is important, in the national interest,
that those 30,000 people have some sort of capacity for medical
care and others.

That can be done through a facility, or do some sort of a voucher
system. And if, in fact, they don't there, they are going to go some-
where else in the United States to get that care.

So we feel very strongly that it is in the best interest of the De-
fense Department to have some sort of facilities for retired people.

That is the essence of what Mr. Weaver's testimony developed.
He would have done it much more artfully and with greater articu-
lation, but I hope that you, as committee Members, understand
how critical this base is to our community.

[The information follows:]

537

Testimony to the Military Construction Subcommittee

of the
Committee on Appropriations

David R. Weaver

Co-Chairman

TEAM MIAMI/HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE COORDINATING GROUP

April 26. 1993

On the morning of August 24, 1 992 the third most powerl'ul hurricane ever
to reach the shores of the United States roared into South Florida and
slammed into Homestead Air Force Base and the surrounding communities.
In the period of a few short hours, Hurricane Andrew ravaged an
installation that had been the proud home to the 31st Fighter Wing and
turned it from one of the nation's military showpieces into a battered
shell of its former self, Within weel(s, Base personnel were scattered to
the ends of the world as the Air Force relocated their units to new
operating sites.

But there was still hope. In the aftermath of the storm. President George
Bush vish»d the devastation and told the nation and the battered residents
of South Dade County that their base would be rebuilt As part of a $10.6
billion Hurricane Relief Special Appropriation, the Congress appropriated
$187 million to begin the clean up and start rebuilding an operating
capability for Reserve units and Federal Tenants at the Base.

Then, in a television interview aired February 22, 1 993 on MiamPs Channel
1 0, President Qinton stated:

"I do beReve there is a mission for Homestead Air Force Base.
Perhaps not " ... exactly the same mission that was there before ^
I think that base is a valuable asset for South Florida that we will
find some use for."

Now, in spite of the President's endorsement of Homestead's ongoing, but
as yet undefined military mission, the Secretary of Defense has
recommended that the base be closed and the host 31st Fighter Wing be
inactivated; the Air Force Reserve 482nd Fighter Wing would transfer to
MacDiil Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida and convert from F-16s to KC-

538

135 tankers; the 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) would move to Patrick
Air Force Base at Cocoa Beach, Florida; the Air Force's Water Survival
School - operated by the 3613th Combat Crew Training Squadron (ATC) -
would relocate to Tyndall Air Force Base at Panama City, Florida for
possible consolidation with a similar U.S. Navy facility. And the Florida
National Guard's Detachnnent 1, 125th Fighter Interceptor Group would
operate temporarily at Boca Chica Naval Air Station at Key West. Fbrida
with provisions for a possible return to Homestead if the field resumes
operations as a civilian airport.

The DoD proposal will ratify Hurricane Andrew's elimination of
approximately 8,700 direct jobs on the Base and 2,700 secondary jobs in
the local community. A total of 11,400 jobs disappear. (DoD's figures
reflect a 23% smaller total of 8,800 jobs, making the impact appear
significantly less severe.)

The DoD proposal:

Eliminates in total the $400 - $450 million annual economic impact
the base contributed, pre-hurrfcane, to the tocal community.

It eliminates medical, commissary and exchange services for the
21,000 military retirees and their families who settled in the
Greater Miami area after a career of service to their country.

Their military retirement pay alone is estimated to
generate an annual economic impact of nearly
$1 billion in the community-second incomes and
social security benefits not included.

Without base services, many are expected to leave the
area, further exacerbating South Dade's post hurricane
economic problems.

The proposal fails to take into consideration the economic health of
the Dade County region. For example, it does not address the failure
of Eastern and Pan American Airlines and the subsequent effect
those actions had on the Miami area job market for aviation related
skills.

It fails to speak to the economic Impact Hurricane Andrew had on
the South Dade area or to conskJer how the proposal will aggravate
the economic plight of a regton already sufiPering from the financial

539

effects of the most costly natural disaster In the history of our
country. The OoD approach is woefully simplistic and inadequate to
deal with the extremely complex economic status of a community
recovering from a disaster.

As Secretary Clsneros says, "The economic status of Homestead and
South Dade simply cannot be fairly compared to any other community at
this time. The South Dade community has not recovered from the storm
and will not for several years. South Dade still has destroyed houses
standing untouched, shopping malls closed Indefinitely and some families
st9l living in tent cities.

The DoD proposal minimizes the economic impact of the closure on
the immediate Homestead/South Dade region by comparing Job losses to
employment statistics in the entire Miami/Hialeah Statistical
Metropolitan Area (MSA) area (i.e. Dade County). ..a region supporting over
870,000 jobsi. The DoD's projected job loss of 1.0 % of the working
population in the Miami/Hialeah MSA becomes 6.5 % if only South Dade is
considered. Moreover, if the impact is imposed on just the communities
immediately surrounding the base - Homestead, Naranja, Princeton,
Cutler Ridge, etc. ~ the per cent of jobs lost relative to the local
employment base jumps to 23.9%.

This, Mr. Chairman and members of this most important Subcommittee, is
the environment in which we are attempting to operate. Unless you were
to come down to Homestead and see the pitiful conditions in which people
are living; unless you could see the homes looking just as they did the hour
after Andrew; unless you could see the despair in the faces of people who
just don't know what they're going to do next; unless you could sense the
alienation and cynicism setting in-you simply cannot understand the
ongoing magnitude of this huge natural disaster. The fact that it is no
longer in the news represents only the fickle nature of the news. It does
not, in any way imply that the problem has been soh^ed.

But in spite of this almost-overwhelming challenge, our Community plans
a base re-utiiization program centered around immediately-restoring a
limited Air Force Reserve military presence and then rapidly developing
major civil aviation and economic devebpment activities. We believe that
the restoration of limited military and Federal Tenant operations are the
cornerstone to initiating the recovery of Homestead Air Force Base as a
viable economk: unit. We recognize that force adjustment will be the wave

^See attached Tnb Loss Impart analysis of Dade County demographics

540

of the future and believe that such future adjustments could eventually be
absorbed if, in the interim, we can develop a healthy and growing
economic entity at Homestead which, ultimately, will be minimally-
dependent on the military presence.

We are utilizing maximum resources to prepare our Base Closure
presentation, and are prosecuting our position aggressively through the
BRAC process. We are attempting to give a strong strategic and cost-
based presentation showing why the return of the 482nd FW (AFRES) and
the 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) makes sense for the National Defense,
and why the Reserves and Federal Tenants are an integral, essential part
of the eventual economic development solution. We intend to make the
case for health and commissary services for retirees. And we intend to
show why immediate and complete environmental cleanup is imperative.

The immediate return of a significant military presence at Homestead Air
Force Base is the single most important economic "cornerstone"
component of the community's plan In South Dade to recover from
Hurricane Andrew. It is expected that the spending of previously-
allocated Federal Hurricane Relief Funds will inject an Immediate $148
million in new capital plus annual direct Base Operating Support Costs of
approximately $11.5 million. The direct and indirect economk: impacts of
keeping Air Force Reserve families in the South Dade area are significant

The community believes that there are significant strategic and
operational justifications for returning to Homestead the 482nd FW
(AFRES), the 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES), and the 3613th Sea Survival
School. We propose that these units operate as tenants in a set-aside area
on a facility which will be owned and operated by Dade County, and which
will function as a key component of Dade County's aviation strategy.

Together with Federal, State, and Local authorities, we are considering
and evaluating viable civil aviation alternatives, including Federal tenant
uses. General Aviation, and Commercial Service. We are determining
access-transportation needs, assessing costs, and determining funding
sources. This will quickly result in the development and carefully-phased
implementation of a detailed Civil Aviation Plan.

We plan the immediate creation of a Model Enterprise Zone including
Federal, State and Local components adjacent to both Civil Aviation
activities and Cantonment Areas for the 482nd Air Force Reserve Fighter
Wing, the 301st Rescue Squadron, and the 3613th Sea Survival School with
contiguous space set askje for U.S. Customs and other Federal Tenants. We

541

will arrive at this objective by combining our presentation to the Base
Closure Commission; our planned development of Civil Aviation activities
at the base; and our proposed Disaster Recovery Economic Development
Zone at and around the base. We have begun and will shortly complete
evaluation of Disaster Recovery Economic Development Zone alternatives;
will agree upon and establish with Federal Government a "Paradigm-Shift"
approach based upon the premise that the worst disaster In history
requires unusual and creative solutions. We will determine available
sources of Federal and State support dollars; understand how they work;
who administers them; how many dollars are available; and how to
allocate/release the funds. We are brainstorming and evaluating creative
incentive programs to quickly and massively motivate private investment
including tax abatement, custonns duty abatement, etcetera. We are in
process of preparing, completing and —working together-jo I ntly
executing, on a fast-track basis, a detailed, comprehensive, agreed-upon
Plan of Action for all parties. Federal, State, Local, Public, and Private.

For us to arrive at this proposed "end game" ••with its three-pronged
approach of securing a Military presence; developing Civil Aviation; and
creating a Disaster Recovery Economk: Development Zone requires that we
be placed on a temporarily-equal footing with other communities that are
on the closure list. None of those communities are faced with both the
prospect of base closure and the actuality of the facility having been
totally and instantaneously destroyed. Those communities can adapt by
Vacheting-down' or 'converting' over a period of years.

Homestead's situation is unique. It must deal with the challenge now; if it
is forced to wait, it may not survive. We believe that this unprecedented
situation requires unprecedented and creative solutions with all players-
Federal, Military, State, Local, Public and Private-taking part

To ensure a level playing field, we are making every effort to quickly
agree with the Administration on an integrated gameplan which Includes
the immediate release of all $148 million of unspent Specially-Allocated
Hurricane Relief Funds; a significant Military and Federal Presence,
rapidly reinstated; active Civil Aviation Operations and the creatk^n of the
Disaster Recovery Economic Devetopment Zone.

The community has now agreed upon a vehicle for operation of Homestead
Air Force Base which provides appropriate sponsorship and allows South
Dade communities significant input into Homestead Air Force Base
development plans. As I speak this morning, a Resolution is being
approved by the Dade County Board of County Commisstoners confirming

542

its willingness and intent to own and operate Homestead Air Force Base as
an airport, and to make a specified portion of the facility available to the
Air Force fbr the Reserve units and for the 361 3th Sea Survival School.

We believe that there are significant strategic, operational, and financial
benefits to the Air Force to return the Reserve units to Homestead. Of
particular note, on a Net Present Value basis, we believe it is
significantly less expensive to restore the Reserve operations to
Homestead than it is to transfer them to MacDill Air Force Base. Of equal
significance, approximately $148 million of Federal Funds specially-
appropriated by Congress in September, 1 992 specifically for the purpose
of restoring Air Force Reserve operations at Homestead, have not yet been
spent and are available to pay the requisite costs.

We remain convinced that the world situation has not evolved to the point
where the nation can afford to abandon a military facility which lies at
the focus of our military, political and economic interests in the
Caribbean Basin and Latin America. Particularly, until the situation in
Cuba is resolved and our region no longer is under the specter of Cuban
bombs, we can not entirely abandon the military options that Homestead
Air Force Base provides.

And, we believe that abandoning Homestead Air Force Base Is not the most
economic alternative available to the country. The nation stands to save
up to $46 million by keeping the reserve units at Homestead.

While we wish that the base could be restored to its pre-storm status and
we could welcome bacic the 31st Fighter Wing and the 30'plus other
tenant organizations, we recognize that is not a rational decision in these
times of declining military forces.

Consequently, we propose that:

a. Homestead Air Force Base be closed with subsequent transfer
of the facility to Dade County for operation as a joint civil/military
airfiekJ.

bi The 31st Fighter Wing be inactivated as proposed by the Air
Force.

c The 482nd Fighter Wing (AFRES) and the 301st Rescue
Squadron (AFRES) be reinstated.

543

d The 3613th Air Force Water Survival School remain at its
Turkey Point location with administrative and logistics support from the
Air Force Reserve activities at Homestead, and that the Department of
Defense investigate consolidating all such activities at that location

e. The Department of Defense provide ongoing medical,
commissary and exchange services to the retired population in the storm-
devastated Homestead Air Force Base area. Altematlvely, provide limited
health and commissary services for a period of three years as a support
mechanism for these retirees while they plan for their future Is
consistent with the transition period made available to their counterparts
at other affected Bases.

If Implemented, these recommendations would provide the following
positive outcomes:

a. The nation would preserve a military contingency capacity at a
strategically located facility from which to respond to a crisis in the
Caribbean Basin or Latin America.

b. The American taxpayer would save money:

The cost of permanently relocating 482nd Fighter Wing
(AFRES) personnel and equipment to MacDIII Air Force Base and
converting the facilities for their use (estimated to be at
least $50 million) would be avoided.

The cost of permanently relocating 301st Rescue Squadron
personnel and equipment to Patrick Air Force Base and building
new facilities for their use is estimated at $25 million.

d The President can make an immediate down paynrtent on his
commitment to regenerate equal numbers of jobs at the base.

6. The Department Of Defense and the Air Force can close
Homestead Air Force Base and inactivate the 31st Fighter
Wing.

f. The Base Closure And Realignment Commission can preserve
its 1991 decision to close flying operations at MacOIII Air
Force Base.

fi8-a.id n_Q5.

544

g. The Air Force Reserve can:

Retain its existing cadre of trained personnel in the effected
units.

Maintain its Miami area recruitment pool.

Locate at a civilian-operated airport with associated cost
savings vis-a>vis operating the Base (At least temporarily,
they would be required to assume financial operating
responsbility at MacDill Air Force Base).

h. The Federal Aviation Agency could add a supplemental airport
to the nation's transportation system which can begin to
reduce the capacity load limits projected for Miami
international Airport.

i. Dade County would receive a much-needed "anchor tenant" on
the airport to provide financial stability while the civil
aviation use and other economic and business uses are
developed.

J. The local Air Force Reservists would remain in their homes
and their full time jobs — contributing to the South Dade
economy - while continuing to be able participate in the
reserves.

k. The local Military Retirees would have essential services for a
period commensurate with their counterparts in other affected
convnunities in which to plan for their future.

I. The South Dade Community would take a major step forward
towards re-establishing its hurricane ravaged economy, and
could view the Air Force as a major contributor to the solution
rather than a villain exacerbating the problem.

So, Mr. Chairman, we hope that the Base Closure Commission will:

1 . Agree with and recommend our proposed spending plan for the entire
$1 67 mfltion.

2. Return the 482nd, 301 st and 3613th Combat Crew Training Squadron to
Homestead Air Force Base as soon as feasible in appropriate enclosed

545

area(s) set aside from the Civil Aviation and Economic Development
components of the Recovery Plan.

3. Support the Air Force paying an Initially-large and then annually-
smaller portion of Base O+M over five year period (to be negotiated).

4. Support a program to provide health and commissary services to active
duty 3613th ATC, reservists, and retirees.

But, all this is in the context of closing the Base. And that, I believe, Is
where this Sub-Committee will be playing a vital part as this situation
plays itself out. As I understand it, this Sub-Committee will be the
primary decision-maker about how and where Base Conversion dollars will
be spent.

We believe that Homestead is a unique situation and a wonderful
opportunity to show how Base Conversion can and should work. We see it
as essential that we get the Reserves back as an "Anchor Tenant', but
we're not asking the DoD or the Federal Government to solve our problems
for us. We're trying to solve it ourselves with our own County efforts
both in CIvii Aviation and in Economic Development

But, nowhere in the annals of Base Cbsure has a community been asked to
deal with instantaneous closing of a Base. The situation today remains
nearly as drastic as it was immediately after Andrew. We need creative
solutions— not just for Homestead Air Force Base, but for the entire
surrounding community. Most importantly, we need all the funds that
were specially-appropriated last Fall-and we need the as soon as
possible. We have detailed capital spending plans for those monies-and
they are generally in accordance with the purposes for which Congress
designated them-although some minor reprogramming might possibly be
necessary.

Our community recognizes that it will not get everything it needs--and
perhaps not everything it's asking for. But ..we do need your help to get
those monies released. And, even more importantly, as you redefine your
role in this new Base Conversion paradigm, we need your help and
creativity and knowledge to solve a problem of enormous and unique
consequence. How do you close a Base; how do you deal with the unique
economic consequences of not having three, four or five years to wind
down after a closure decision?

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk with you this morning.

546

Mrs. Meek. We certainly do, Mr. Cobb; and of course I am sort of
a biased person here this morning, sitting in the chair. But I would
like to know whether or not you feel that the progress that has
been made so far — the first release of the $76 million there, do you
think that the progress has been according to the progress that
Team Miami would be pleased with?

Mr. Cobb. No, the progress has been very, very disappointing to
the community. We felt that we had a previous commitment by the
previous administration that wasn't fulfilled, and we think that we
have a commitment from this administration that hasn't been ful-
filled.

We thought that the supplemental appropriation that the Con-
gress passed was crystal clear. The administration originally had a
much larger number; and Congress, in its wisdom, came in with
this lower number, and the President signed it, and we thought
that it was a real commitment.

President Clinton then reaffirmed that commitment and the
monies have not been spent. And so in the midst of all the tragedy
in this community — I mean, incredible tragedy — as I mentioned
before, 20 — there are 30 billion people homeless and businesses
closed. Here, the Federal Government has not met its obligation,
and so it is a great disappointment to the whole community.

Mrs. Meek. I will wait for my other questions; and I want the
other committee members who may have some questions for you
this morning — I think Mr. Hobson has come in as a Member of our
committee.

Would you like to ask a question or make a comment?

Mr. Hobson. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if I may.

Mrs. Meek. Yes.

Mr. Hobson. I heard the other day when we were discussing this
in committee that there is a problem that is holding up getting this
money out. Is it an administrative problem? Is it a program prob-
lem? I mean, the money has been appropriated, everybody wants it
spent. It there some place along the line that it isn't happening?

Mr. Cobb. Well, it has been a disappointment to all of us and a
disappointment to our delegation, particularly a disappointment to
our congresswoman, Congresswoman Meek, a disappointment to
Secretary Cisneros, who came down and challenged this and wrote
a letter to the President, articulating this disappointment. And so
why it hasn't been spent, we cannot put our finger on the reason.

We are told that one of the reasons is that the Air Force feels so
strongly that this base should be closed that they feel, to spend the
money, might not enable them to consider this base closed. We are
comfortable with this base being considered closed, and with the
fighter wing being transferred. We are disappointed with that, but
we are prepared for that.

But to not spend the money now and to not allow us to deal with
the civil aviation component in partnership with the Reserves and
all the other elements that I have just talked about is very disap-
pointing to the community.

That is not a very good answer, but I don't have an answer.

Mr. Hobson. You can't seem to penetrate the bureaucracy?

547

Mr. Cobb. We were told that the Air Force has plans, but those
plans haven't been let, and there is some more work that has to be
done; and we have gotten all kinds of bureaucratic runaround.

Mr. HoBSON. If I could ask one other question. The frustration
has got to be extreme when you know that the money is there and
you can't get it moved. I haven't seen the area except on television.
However, when you see the destruction that is there and we can't
help our own people, it makes it difficult.

We are trying to do all these other things around the world, and
we can't get money spent in this area. I think somebody ought to
kick somebody real hard somewhere fast.

The other thing that frustrates us at least as a new Member of
this committee, is the base closure situation. We don't want to be
irresponsible and say, keep my base open because it is in my dis-
trict. However, we want to be careful with the dollars that are
being spent. I was just briefly looking through here, do you have a
fighter unit and tanker units or all fighter units?

Mr. Cobb. Primarily, they are fighter units, our appeal is on the
Reserve, and the sea rescue relating to that unit is an integral part
of that but a different unit.

Mr. HoBSON. It may be difficult in your situation because of the
difference in devastation that was done to that facility, but how
much money will they have to spend? Is it a lot of money to put
this up at MacDill?

Mr. Cobb. In our judgment, they will have to spend more, and we
have documentation that to move the Reserves to MacDill will cost
more. The fighter wing will be retired under the Air Force recom-
mendation. Again, we are disappointed with that, but we are pre-
pared to accept that.

Mr. Hobson. I guess there is one thing that troubles me. I have
only had brief experience with the Base Closure process. We all
want to downsize; but as we do this we have to be reasonable.
Hopefully, in this next round we will get to look at the cost of what
it covers. I hope they do in your situation as well as in mine. If it is
less costly to leave a unit in place than it is to move them to fill
these holes, we are not acting responsibly with taxpayers' dollars.
What we are doing is moving so that we can say we closed so many
bases.

It seems that our goals are wrong. It ought to be, how much
money do we save for the taxpayer as we do these situations. It
should not be because there is a pot of money over here that we
can spend to move things.

I am having trouble penetrating the bureaucracy, just like
you. Yours is more tragic than mine. It seems to be a pattern, and
I would like to help you in any way that we can as we go to the
Base Closure Commission.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Hobson, it is really frustrating for us because we
can't get any straight answers. I think you were here at the last
hearing when I asked the Air Force whether or not it would be
more or less costly to transfer the Reserves or to keep them at
Homestead. And the answer was, it is less costly to transfer them
than to keep them at Homestead.

At the time, I did not have any data to refute or rebut what was
said, and certainly we do not know just what the figures are; but

548

Team Miami has those figures, and they seem to be very convinc-
ing that it is much less costly to keep them at Homestead than
elsewhere.

Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Cobb. No, I just agree totally with what you just said, and I
think we document that with this letter and other documents that
we have provided this committee and the Base Closure Committee.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Coleman. I would just say to my colleague, Mr. Hobson,
since 1988, and the whole bsise closure concept when it was started,
while we have changed the procedure statutorily, the results
haven't changed and certainly some of the long-term effects on
communities, many of us know, have not been taken into account
or given the weight that we think they should be given.

And in addition to that, one of the big problems is that while we
had the base closure issue, it may have been the first or second
one, it may have begun in the first one, they froze all our military
construction appropriation. It is no different than what has hap-
pened to you in the supplemental. They say, whoops, we are going
to go through a base closure; hold it.

So we couldn't expend the funds at installations that had crying
needs.

In fact, I would love to have seen a study done about what we
have lost by not spending the money. Some of the maintenance
that was going to be done didn't get done, became more costly; or
in fact, we abandoned projects and did more expensive ones at a
later time. I think we could show you from our committee staff sta-
tistics how adversely we were affected by that.

This is not new. It is tragic and ridiculous with taxpayer money
to not spend out the funds and use them effectively when we can.

I will tell you and Mrs. Meeks that I am very much impressed
with what south Florida has done with respect to its planning, with
respect to this closure. I think you are to be complimented. I think
your ability to organize and plan for your civilian aviation needs
and rescue missions and other entities that you have made plans
for, in dealing with — accepting the fact that the removal of the
wing happens.

But in the meantime not to spend out the funds, particularly
when you had a hurricane come through, literally to me is a trav-
esty; and I think this committee ought to take a very strong posi-
tion with respect to that. And as we move through the process — as
you may know, we are dealing with the 1994 budget numbers — but
I think we ought to inquire of the Department of Defense as to its
recommendations for expenditure of the 1992 supplemental funds.

I don't disagree with your statements. I think south Florida is to
be complimented on its efforts.

Mr. Cobb. Thank you. The one thing that we think is unique is
that Congress dealt with the issue of base closure when it gave us
the appropriation in the 1992 supplemental appropriation. As you
remember, the President came in with a much higher number to
rebuild the base and Congress said, no, we shouldn't agree with
that number yet until we deal with base closure, but we all
agree

Mr. Coleman. That that much is needed.

549

Mr. Cobb [continuing]. That the 153, approximately, is needed
and should be spent now.

So Congress dealt with base closure at that time when they made
that appropriation and still hasn't spent that money.

Mr. HoBSON. But they haven't spent it?

Mrs. Meek. No, they have not. It seems to me that the sense of
this committee is that we most assuredly would like to see this sit-
uation changed. Our Florida delegation is working hard on this and
Team Miami is working extremely hard.

I can only say to you, Mr. Cobb, that we will continue our efforts
and work even harder to try and be sure. I understand how impor-
tant keeping the Reserve unit is. Your entire planning strategy is
based on that.

And I want to commend you for having done such a fine job of
research, as well as planning and showing how this can be done.
And we appreciate your appearance here today.

If there are no more questions — Mr. Callahan?

Mr. Callahan. I would like to comment that, obviously, you are
aware of the fact that your delegation and especially our chairper-
son here today have been very vocal. I don't think I have been to a
committee hearing this year when Homestead hasn't come up.

But I am somewhat confused about who is supposed — is it the
Air Force that is supposed to spend the money or is it the Corps or
FEMA? Who is holding up the disposition of the funds?

Mr. Cobb. We are told it is the Air Force and the Corps of Engi-
neers. The Corps of Engineers has a contract to do some of the
work and the Air Force has a contract to do some of the work.

Mr. Callahan. I should think, and I live in Mobile, Alabama,
which is hurricane-prone also. I visited your area since the hurri-
cane, visited Homestead; I have seen the devastation, and I know
that part of your proposal would be that you transfer the Reserve
units, which is a decision that is going to have to be made by the
Department of Defense, by Les Aspin or someone, and thus come
through the Base Closure Commission to decide if, indeed, there is
going to be some realignment there.

But it would appear to me that you would be better off if we
could give your committee half the money and let you do what you
want to with Homestead Air Force Base. It would appear to me
that you have got to take some alternate course. It is not going to
be used as a military installation, and therefore it should be put to
its best utilization. And if we could convince the Air Force or the
government or the President or anybody else to just give you the
necessary cash dollars to make it an industrial park, it would
appear to me that you would be much better off.

I don't want to run your business.

Mr. Cobb. We think it is in the national interest to have both a
civilian component there, in conjunction with an enterprise zone,
to develop the business elements in conjunction with the airport;
but in addition to that, have these Reserve units. There are these
people in these Reserve units already in the local economy; they
already have jobs in the local economy. If in fact the Reserve unit
moves there is a strong argument that they are going to have to
make a professional change in their life because the Reserves is an
integral part of their life.

550

Mr. Callahan. How far is the Dade facility? Is it on the Home-
stead— in the presentation that I guess Mr. Weaver — he says that
Homestead Air Force Base should be closed with subsequent trans-
fer of the facility to Dade County. Where is Dade County oper-
ations; is that part of Homestead?

Mr. Cobb. Dade County Aviation Authority primarily runs the
Miami Airport. And so it would be, the common aviation authority
for all of Dade County would have the ownership of this facility.
But like you are familiar, Reserve units are on many civilian air-
ports throughout the United States. And those military Reserve
units are an integral part of those civilian airports; and we think
that is a good model to follow here.

But the Reserves being there is an integral part of our economy.

Mr. Callahan. But I am looking at it from a congressional point
of view. We don't have the authority to tell the Base Closure Com-
mission to change the decision that was sent to them by DOD, so
we can't really impact the Reserve force there.

Mr. Cobb. But it seems to me that it is within your authority to
challenge how monies are spent and what is the most cost-effective
way for the United States to handle the Reserves, and also the
most effective way to meet other national interests.

For example, there is still a possibility that SOUTHCOM is going
to be somewhere in the southern United States. And SOUTHCOM
is moving, as you know — is moving from Panama. It is possible
Homestead Air Force Base could be one of those

Mr. Callahan. That is not until 1999.

Mr. Cobb. But for good strategic planning

Mr. Callahan. But they tell us that they don't have any plan for
SOUTHCOM.

Mr. Cobb. But we would argue that it is in the best interest of
the United States military to be thinking of these other strategic
military defense issues. We are uncertain what is going to happen
in Cuba and what kinds of actions Fidel Castro will take in his last
days to get back at those Yankees up north. We don't know what is
going to happen in that kind of dynamic.

There are lots of reasons, in my judgment, that the United States
is best served by an active military capability, even though the Air
Force has closed Homestead Air Force Base. In our judgment, that
is the deliberation of this committee, along with the Defense De-
partment.

Mr. Coleman. But I am saying though, that the Pentagon has, in
a sense, gone to the Base Closure Commission saying, we don't
need this facility anymore. You know, they did that even before
the hurricane. They said, we don't need this facility.

Right or wrong, under the law, the only thing we can do is vote
against the base closure. We can't amend that. We have to vote yes
or no.

Mr. Hobson. Could you yield for a second. May I make a sugges-
tion that, because we do have that problem, but there is a way to
appeal that. This isn't totally signed off yet. Columbus, Ohio, has a
base that was closed in 1991 — Rickenbacker. The port authority at
Rickenbacker took over the base and made a proposal to the Base
Closure Commission that they leave the National Guard unit that

551

was there as a tenant and move the Reserve units to Wright-Pat-
terson. This brings you to how my little base got involved in it.

But the Base Closure Commission, to its credit, did agree to look
at the numbers. There is a recommendation by Mr. James Boa-
tright. The Air Force recommended a change to the Base Closure
Commission based upon, if these numbers work out, that it was
cheaper to leave the National Guard as a tenant on the former
base. This would be somewhat analogous to the thing that you are
doing.

The result of that is, I now have the fight that it is cheaper to
leave my National Guard base where it is than to move it to
Wright-Patterson. They were willing to do that. That may be the
only instance that they did that.

Mr. Callahan. That was my point. The Base Closure Commis-
sion can adjust that any way they want; not the Congress. We don't
have the authority after the Base Closure Commission submits its
ratification or amended version of the Defense Department's list to
the President and he submits it to the Congress, our only alterna-
tive is to vote yes or no for the entire country, the entire world, so
that ought to go to the Base Closure Commission.

With respect to the money, which is where we come in at this
point, I am under the impression that we have already appropri-
ated and authorized the money. So, what do we do?

Mr. Cobb. I shouldn't tell you what your authority is, because I
am not sure I know, but I think — as I understand the process, vou
can vote for the Base Closure Commission decision to "close,' in
quotation marks. Homestead Air Force Base, which I understand
means moving the active wing — actually, terminating the active
wing. Can you vote for that?

And, in addition, this committee can appropriate funds and en-
courage the Defense Department to appropriate funds for other
military persons on Homestead Air Force Base, which is closed, but
as I understand it, with 150 million having been spent there. Are
there a tower and a runway there? Is there capacity for the De-
fense Department to do a lot of important things there as part of a
civilian aviation authority? And that is within the jurisdiction of
this committee, as I understand it.

Mrs. Meek. Time constraints catch us there, because the markup
and all of this committee will have gone to the Congress, because
BRAC has made its final decisions. That is going to have an
impact.

Mr. Callahan. I think it would, but I have a base being closed in
my district, and what you are saying is that we could take Home-
stead and we could put something in this year's budget saying that
we know that the Base Closure Commission is going to shut you
down, but through this bill we are going to pass this year, we are
going to open up Mobile Naval Station and Homestead.

Mr. Cobb. Not open it up. Continue an important Defense De-
partment need in a civilian airport.

Mrs. Meek. The language is a little different.

Mr. Callahan. I mean, to continue the operation of a naval facil-
ity for the same reasons that you are saying, because of Cuba. We
need a naval presence in the Gulf of Mexico. And I am saying that
I think it is going to be difficult for us to start passing legislation —

552

I am not saying I wouldn't be supportive of it, but for us to begin
micromanaging the Defense Department by saying, I know you rec-
ommended to the Base Closure Commission that this facility be
closed, and that is what you do with the Air Force. And I know
that the Base Closure Commission agreed with that. And I know
the President agreed with it, because he signed it and sent it to the
Congress. So we will just assume all of that was correct.

But now we are going to turn a part of it around because of the
strategic value to our national defense. I think that all of us who
have areas that have been closed would have the same argument.

Mrs. Meek. Will the gentleman yield? You know what I think,
something that we have left out here, I don't think the Congress
mandated that Reserves be moved. That is a decision that the Air
Force made.

Am I right about that? I need to ask staff about that.

Thus far nothing has been recommended. The Air Force decided
that they would move the Reserves at tremendous expense, and I
think that is what I hear Mr. Cobb saying. That is a decision that
was made. It was not one that the Congress made; the Congress
just said, no active military, which would move the active military
out of Homestead. And they are saying that that is something that
they agree with.

But the Reserve units were not mandated at all by the Congress.
As a matter of fact, the Congress appropriated enough money to
take care of the Reserves. It is just that the Air Force dragged its
feet, in my opinion, in allocating this money. They were waiting to
see what BRAC was going to do. It is sort of like a Catch 22. Noth-
ing can move because of the Air Force's decision to base one con-
tingency on the other one. And I think it is something that we
really need to look at in this committee.

Mr. Callahan. Well, you see, we are in a similar situation. We
didn't have, fortunately, the devastation of Hurricane Andrew, but
we have a Reserve facility in Mobile, and even though it is a Naval
Reserve training station, we feel that the Navy should have made a
different decision, and that the best place to train these sailors
would be in Mobile.

So we are in a similar situation with respect to any realignment
that might be mandated by the appropriation process of Congress
or the authorization process of Congress.

But we hear your message and sympathize with your plight and
want to help, especially after seeing the devastation; and I am just
amazed at the slowness of recovery. When I was there in January,
and your hurricane was in August, and I

Mrs. Meek. August 24th.

Mr. Callahan [continuing]. And I thought that things would be
a little bit more progressed than they are. As I drove down High-
way 1 or whatever it was, shopping centers are gone, homes are
gone, the trees gone, and nothing, or very little, is being rebuilt.

Mr. Cobb. Madam Chairman, several of the questions have been
directed to me which I am not really in a position to answer, which
is — the essence of the question is, what is the motivation of the Air
Force. Why hasn't this congressionally appropriated money been
spent, even though base closure was discussed last December when
the appropriation was made, and I really don't know.

553

But I would like to throw out for the committee some speculation
that we have, as we talk to some Air Force officers, and the view
that we are getting is that the Air Force feels so strongly about
meeting the closure definition, that they don't want to talk about
the Reserves at this point. But that they really recognize the Re-
serves are the most cost-efficient way to do this. It is better from
an employee-morale point of view, because the people all live in
south Florida, and that there is a high probability that if the Air
Force gets its main objective of having Homestead closed, that it
will then come around

Mr. Callahan. So you think the Air Force is dragging their feet
on the improvements that President Bush and President Clinton
promised you, and Congress appropriated for you; you think they
are purposefully dragging their feet so they won't have to move the
Reserves back in there?

Mr. Cobb. I don't want to accuse anyone of dragging their feet,
but I am speculating that their motivation is to get Homestead
closed, but that they really do know having the Reserve there is in
the best interest of their budget and the best interest of their de-
ployment.

Mr. Callahan. Having come from the administrative branch of
government and part of that giant bureaucracy, do you now see
what frustration the Congress has with parts of the administrative
branch of government in dragging their feet?

Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir.

Mrs. Meek. Mr. Hobson.

Mr. Hobson. I have one last comment and this goes to a com-
ment that you made last week. And this is not a question, but more
of a statement for the record, really. I think a number of Members,
including myself, have a problem with the way that we are going
about the base closures, and the way these things are done, and
where there is not a lot of economic sense given to the situation.
One thing I think we can expect — I think you said it last week, and
this is not just parochial to my issue but it is to yours and others —
if these are not done on a cost-effective basis, then I think a lot of
us are going to have a hard time looking at military construction
expenditures in the future when they come in and try to spend
money in these bases for these facilities.

I think that is one way to send some messages early. DOD should
not just be doing this to shut bases down, come back to us a year or
two years from now and say, golly, we have to build all these
things at these new places for these units when we had them at
other places. There are going to be some people here that have
long memories that are going to say, huh-uh, I am not voting for
that.

I think you sent that message last week, and I want to send it.
Not particularly for my base, but across the board. If they just
don't want them and they vote to shut them down, then I am not
going to vote for them in the future.

I think you said that also. Madam Chairman.

Mrs. Meek. Yes, I did.

Mr. Cobb, we thank you for further describing what we call a
very distressing situation at Homestead Air Force Base. And we

554

want assure you that this committee has heard you and that we
will take it under every consideration.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Cobb. Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I am
sorry that Mr. Weaver could not be here.

Mrs. Meek. And give Mr. Weaver our regrets. We understand
that his father is very ill, and we are hoping that he will get
better.

Are there any other witnesses who would like to testify?

If not, we would like to thank all of you who did testify today;
and if there is no objection, we will keep the record of this hearing
open for two weeks to allow us to recruit any additional testimony
that may be submitted.

The committee stands adjourned until 10:00 on Thursday. We
will review the Navy's program.

Thank you.

[The following statement was submitted for the record by Captain
J. Robert Lunney, JAGC, USNR (Ret.):]

555

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY

CAPT J. ROBERT LUNNEY, JAGC, USNR (RET)

NATIONAL PRESroENT

NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION

TO THE

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

556

MAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATIOIV

1619 KING STREET. ALEXANOBIA. VA 22314 ?793

PHONE &4«-S«00— AREA CODE 703

FAX 703-«83 3647

CRPTMN J. POBERT LUWEY, JAGC, USNR (RET)

Captain J. Robert Lunney, JAGC, USNR (Ret) is the 22nd President of the
Naval Reserve Association. The Association is the nationwide professional
organization of over 25,000 Naval Reserve officers.

Lunney served during WWII in the Pacific at Saipan and Iwo Jiroa with the
Naval Amphibious Torces. He also saw service in the Merchant Marine during the
Koreain War at the Inchon Landing and was decorated for his courage and
resourcefulness in completing "one of the greatest rescues in the history of the
world" during the Chosin Reservoir Campaign in North Korea in December 1950.
Lunney's ship entered the encircled port of Hungnam, aflame from enemy gunfire
and held its position in the shell torn harbor until 14,000 men, women and
children had crowded aboard. One of the last ships to leave it set its course
through enemy mine fields and after a three-day voyage arrived safely in Pusan
with her human cargo, including several babies born enroute, without loss of a
single life.

Lunney, who received his Doctor of Law degree from the Cornell Law School,
is a partner in Lunney & Crocco, a Manhattan firm specializing in litigation.
He is a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and is the past
pcesident of the Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York. He lives in
Bronxville, NY with his wife Joan, the Principal of P.S. 119 in Brooklyn, and
their son, Alexander, a student at the Bronxville School.

07/07/92

557

Chairman Hefner, distinguished members of this Committee, it
is a privilege to be afforded the opportunity to submit the views
of the Naval Reserve Association on the military construction
portion of the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization bill and to
emphasize the serious impact of proposed BRAC Naval Reserve base
closing.

Because of critical nature of the BRAC Naval Reserve base
^ closings this year. Base Closures will be discussed before
Military Construction.

BASE CLOSURES

Base closures are of critical concern to all the reserve
components and to the Naval Reserve in particular. Demographics
are the lifeblood of the Naval Reserve, i.e. a wide geographic
dispersal of training bases throughout our nation is a
prerequisite to access the trained veteran manpower necessary to
man the sophisticated ship systems and aircraft of today's Navy
and Naval Reserve. Reservists are anchored by domicile and
livelihood to a particular area and upon base closures do not
transfer with the transfer of their squadron or units to a
distant alternate site. Upon closure of their reserve training
sites most cannot, or choose not to, move or commute long
distances to continue participating as Naval Reservists.

558

The proposed closure of thirty eight (38) Naval Reserve
facilities and an additional eighteen (18) Naval Bases hosting
Naval Reserve activities, if concluded, could result in a 30% -
40% cut in the Naval Reserve. The closure of all the Naval Air
Reserve bases in the Midwest and New England will deprive most of
the Naval Air Reservists in 1/3 of our nation the opportunity to
participate in the Naval Reserve and will seriously restrict the
manning, forc_ structure, and readiness of the Naval Air Reserve
Force .

Recommendation :

That the Base Closure and Realignment Commission hold
hearings on the reserve demographic aspects of Base Closings, or
exclude Naval Reserve Bases and Installations from consideration
in the 1993 BRAC proceedings.

That consideration of reservist's demographics be a mandated
Base closure criteria in the 1995 base closure proceedings.

That prior to closing Naval Reserve bases and Naval bases
hosting Naval Reserve activities, a careful analysis of the
demographic impact of the proposed closing upon Naval Reserve
manning and readiness be conducted.

559

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

The President's Budget Request for Military Coiifctruction,
Naval Reserve (MCNR) for Fiscal Year 1994 is a modest $20.6
million. This figure approximates the low of $20 million that
was requested for Fiscal Year 1992 and is significantly lower
than the $37.7 million requested last year. Congress recognized
the inadequacy of the prior requests and added $36 million in
FY '93.

This year's request reflects not only a shrinking Navy
budget, it is also indicative of the Navy's lack of emphasis upon
their reserve component in the Total Force to augment their
shrinking active force.

The lack of fiscal support is readily apparent. The Naval
Reserve Construction backlog is approximately $950 million and a
backlog of maintenance and repair of almost $200 million. Yet,
the request is for a meager $20.6 million, including minor
construction and planning and design. The following projects are
included ($M) :

Scabce facility

Seabee addition

Rescr\'C Center addition

Reserve Center modification

Seabee addition

Reserve Center replaccmrnt

Hlectror.K Maint. Shop

Reserve Center Replacement
Joint Training Center,

Reserve Center Addition

Naval Station San Diego

$10

Naval Station Pearl Harbor

Detroit. Michigan

S31

Kearney, New Jersey

S.B

Naval Training Center Newport

$.5

Chattanooga. Tennessee

S3,7

NIC lUscnx Center. Pamneck.\*A

si.n

Vacvcu. \VA

S2.f.

NMCRC Green Ilay. Wisconsin

$ 6

560

Even at this low level of MCNR funding, three substantial
projects are aboard active Navy facilities and to provide shop
and equipment space for Naval Reserve Seabees for the primary
purpose of providing maintenance and repair projects at Navy
sites that would otherwise go unacomplished because of fiscal
constraints.

ADDITIONAL PROJECTS RECOMMENDED

The almost $1 billion Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction backlog includes several projects that are
sufficiently designed to permit their execution in Fiscal Year
1994, or do not require design because they are acquisitions of
existing facilities. NRA recommends that Congress provide the
requisite authorization and funding for as many projects as is
feasible from the following list:

lAft\m

Stale

Proien

NSA New Orleans

DIdg. Conversion

2300(1)

Fort Dix

Readiness Cir. Mods

2,400

NAS Glcnvicw

Ph)-sical Fitness Facilities

5,600 (1)

NAS Glcnvicw

Child Development Center

1,800

NRC Pomona

RESCEN Consolidation

2,150

NAS New Orleans

Training Bidg. Addition

670

NRC Plover

Res. Center Acquisition

1,050

N'MNCRC Roanoke

RESCEN Addition

740

NAS Whidbey

Hangar Addition

1,660

NAS Glcnvicw

Runway and Apron

5,500

NRC Pasco

Lease Buyout

1,500

MCRC Damneck

Replace RESCEN

4,300

NRC Columbus

RESCEN Addition

2,350

Toldl of Projccis Unfunded but Executable in FV'94

32^20

(1) Appropnations G>nfcrcnce Commiiiec report language for Pl'93 directed thai these projects be
accomplished using existing funds.

561

SUMMARY

In summary, the Naval Reserve Association recommends that
the FY '94 Military Construction Naval Reserve progreun be approved
as requested, that as many projects as is feasible be added from
the list of unfunded but executable projects list NRA has
provided, and that the Committee, and it's members, request the
Base Closure and Realignment Commission to g^ 'e careful
consideration to the impact of demographics on Naval and Marine
Corps Reserve installations that have been recommended for
closure, consolidation or realignment.

WITNESS LIST

Pace

Boatwright, James F 184

Buffington, Rear Admiral Jack E 101

Cobb, Charles, Statement of 535

D'Arai^o, Brigadier General John R 255

Gordon, the Honorable Bart, Statement of 457

Harvey, Colonel William T 34

Hickey, Sydney, Statement of 519

Hultman, Msgor General Evan, Statement of 463

Johnson, Paul W 1

Kilmartin, Brigadier General Thomas J 263

Koenig, Rear Admiral Harold M 341

Lunney, Captain J. Robert, Statement for the Record 555

McCloskey, the Honorable Frank, Prepared Statement of 487

Natter, Rear Admiral John T 271

Ouellette, Michael, Statement of 499

Partridge, Charles, Statement of 530

Porter, the Honorable John E., Statement of 516

Reinke, Brigadier General Claude W 103

Shalikashvili, General John M 392

Sharp, the Honorable Philip R., Statement of 481

Statement of the Chairman 457

Vest, Gary D 184

(i)

INDEX

Fiscal Year 1994 Army Military Construction, Family Housing and Base

Closure

Page

801 Housing 70

Barracks Program 70

Chemical Demilitarization 77, 81

Child Care Facilities 76

Closed Base for Homeless 77

Construction Improvements 86

Contract Cleaning 87

Cooperative Housing 88

Currency Fluctuation 87

Deferred Maintenance 86

Downsizing 75

Endangered Species 81

Environmental Restoration 72

Environmental Restoration Costs 90

Facilities Reduction Program 79

Family Housing 69

Family Housing in Hawaii 82

Fiscal Year 1994 Budget Request 90

Fort Lewis, Washington 92

George Air Force Base-Fort Irwin 99

Hamilton Air Force Base, California 97

Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, Nevada 70, 91

Homeowners Assistance Program 83, 88

Housing Deficits 85

Installation Infrastructure 68

Inventory 85

Korea/Burdensharing 84

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant 75

New Barracks Standards 68, 79

Officer Quarters 87

Panama/SOUTHCOM 80

Panama Canal 73

Prepared Statement of Paul W. Johnson 35

Projects No Longer Required 89

Quality of Life Overseas 69

Reorganization 84

Russian Chemical DemiUtarization Program 93

Screening BRAC Properties 71

Statement of the Chairman 1

Statement of Colonel WilUam T. Harvey 34

Statement of Paul W. Johnson 1

Yakima Expansion 92

(iii)

Fiscal Year 1994 Navy and Marine Corps Military Construction, Family

Housing and Base Closure

Page

Agana, Guam 151

American Preference Policy 156

Anechoic Chamber 131

Anechoic Chamber at Kirtland Air Force Base 176

Asbestos Abatement 136

Bachelors Quarters 172

Base Closure III 150, 151, 164

Base Closure — ^Accelerated Cleanup 166

Base Closure — Marine Corps Air Station El Toro 151

Base Closure Process 150

Base Realignment and Closure 149, 164

Camp Pendleton, California 153

Construction Improvements 143

Contingency Account 150

Contract Cleaning 143

Currency Fluctuation 143

Deferred Maintenance 142

Demolition Program 154

Environmental Projects 154

Environmental Restoration Costs 150

Everett, Washington 138, 165, 169

Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada 126

Family Housing 126

Fiscal Year 1994 Projects Impacted by Base Closure 167

Ford Island, Hawaii 157

Guam Non-Immigrant Aliens 156

Hawaii Family Housing 152

Hazardous Flammable Material Storage Facility 178

Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility, NSWC Indian Head 179

Homeowners Assistance Program 145

Housing Deficits 141

Indian Head 134

Inventory 141

Japan 135

Japanese Facilities Improvement Program (JFIP) 157

Jet Engine Test Facility at Patuxent River, Maryland 174

Key West, Florida 140

Kitsap County 172

Large Anechoic Chamber 175

London, U.K. Family Housing 162

Marines — ^Environmental Compliance 155

Marines — ^Family Housing 155

Marines Program Level •• 152

Marines QuaUty of Life 152

Military Cooperative Housing 145

Naples 156

NESEA in St. Inigoes 130

Officers Quarters 144

Parametric Design 166

Pace

Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Jack E. Buffington 104

Prior Year Projects Impacted by Base Closure 146, 168

Quality of Life 127

Quality of Life Projects 165

Radford Army Arsenal 133, 180

Relocation of MCAS El Toro to Miramar 137

Reprogramming Request 180

Scope Revision 182

Statement of the Chairman 102

Statement of Brigadier General Claude W. Reinke 103

Statement of Rear Admiral Jack E. Buffington 101

Staten Island Section 801 Project 164

Subic Relocation to Guam 155

U.S. Naval Academy 135

Waiting Lists for Family Housing 142

Whidbey Island Naval Air Station 173

Whole House Improvements 143

Fiscal Year 1994 Air Force Military Construction, Family Housing and

Base Closure

Alternate Financing 212

Asbestos Abatement Plan 208

B-2 Depot Maintenance 235

Base Closure III 230, 241, 242

Base Closure — Accelerated Cleanup 225

Base Closure — Contaminated Parcels 226

Base Closure — Environmental Issues 225

Base Closure — Executive Group 198, 202

Base Closure — Land Sales 224

Base Closure — Merging the Accounts 226

Base Closure — Process and Air Force Reserve 214

Base Closure— Re-Use Plans 223

Base Realignment and Closure FY 1994 Budget Request 242

Construction Improvements 237

Contract Cleaning 238

Criteria Ratings — Environmental Considerations 250

Criteria Ratings — McClellan AFB Downgrade 250

Criteria Ratings — McClellan AFB Public Transportation 251

Criteria Ratings — McClellan AFB Questionnaire Data 252

Criteria Ratings— McClellan AFB Rating of "Fully" Adequate 252

Criteria Ratings— McClellan AFB Utility Cost 253

Currency Fluctuation 238

Deferred Maintenance 237

Demolition Program 232

Economic Sense 214

Energy Conservation 232

Environmental Restoration Costs 242

Family Housing 220

FOLS/DOBS 234

George AFB 254

Homeowners Assistance Program 239

Homestead Air Force Base 204, 246

Homestead Air Force Base — Status of Funding 228

Homestead Air Force Base — Housing Area Cleanup 230

Page

Housing 227

Housing O&M 243

Inventory 236

Investment Bill 222

Jobs Bill 222

Kirtland Air Force Base 196

Kirtland Air Force Base — Justification for Replication 249

Lead Paint Abatement 210

Maxwell Air Force Base 211

McClellan Air Force Base, California 200

Military Cooperative Housing 239

Nellis Air Force Base 202

Officers Quarters 238

Parametric Design 234

Payback 218

Prepared Statement of James F. Boatright 187

Projects No Longer Needed 239

Property Leases in Los Angeles 248

Real Property Maintenance Account 235

Reduced Requirement 233

Replacement Schedule 220

Statement of the Chairman 183

Statement of James F. Boatright 184

Statement of Gary D. Vest 184

Turkey 212

Vandenberg Air Force Base 234

Waiting Lists 237

Whiteman Air Force Base 234

Whole House Improvements 244

Whole House Replacement 230

Fiscal Year 1994 Guard and Reserve Components

Air National Guard Reno LAP 337

Army Unit Storage Buildings and Indoor Range Modernizations 319

Army National Guard 327

Army Reserve Command Headquarters Facility 320

Aviation Brigade Armory 339

Backlog to Environmental Requirements — ^Air National Guard 332

Backlog — ^Army National Guard 323

Backlog — Army Reserve 325, 334

Backlog Requirement — Naval Reserve 329

Base Realignment and Closure 314, 333

Base Realignment and Closure — ^Air Force Reserve 336

Base Realignment and Closure — Air National Guard 336

Base Realignment and Closure — ^Army National Guard 321

Base Realignment and Closure — ^Army Reserve 334

Base Realignment and Closure: Facility Shortages 328

Base Realignment and Closure — Naval Reserve 331

Construction Backlogs — ^Army Guard 333

Construction Backlogs — ^Air National Guard 335

Construction Backlogs — ^Air Force Reserve 336

Construction Backlog — ^Naval Reserve 331

Current Facilities — Air National Guard 321

Current Working Estimates 323

Page

Current Working Estimates — Air Force Reserve 326

Current Working Estimates — Army Reserve 326

Current Working Estimates — ^Air National Guard 322

Current Working Estimates — Naval Reserve 330

Defense Logistics Agency — ^Air National Guard 320

Downsize Effects on Army National Guard 315

Environmental Compliance 331, 333

Environmental Compliance — ^Air Force Reserve 337

Environmental Compliance — ^Air National Guard 336

Environmental Compliance — ^Army Reserve 334

Excess Prior Year Authorization — ^Air Force Reserve 326

Excess Prior Year Authorization — ^Air National Guard 322, 323

Excess Prior Year Authorization — ^Army Reserve 325

Excess Prior Year Authorization — Naval Reserve 330

Facilities Data: Backlog — ^Air National Guard 322

Facilities Data: Backlog — Naval Reserve 329

Facilities Data— Air Force Reserve 324, 325

Impact of Reduction in Active Forces 331

Increase in Inventory of FaciUties Due to BRAC-ANG 320

Inventory — ^Army Reserve 324

Investments in Training and Working Conditions 332

Las Vegas Armory Complex — ^Army Gufuxi 338

March AFB 328

McGuireAFB 328

Naval Air Station Agana, Guam 319

OUare International Airport — ^Air Force Reserve 318

CHare International Airport — ^Army Reserve 318

Physical Plant— Naval Reserve 329

Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John R. D'Aravyo 257

Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Thomas J. Kilmartin 264

Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral John T. Natter 272

Projects No Longer Required Air National Guard 322, 324

Projects No Longer Required — ^Air Force Reserve 327

Projects No Longer Required — ^Army Reserve 326

Projects No Longer Required — Naval Reserve 330

Reduction in Forces/MilCon Needs — ^Air National Guard 335

Reduction in Forces/MilCon Needs — ^Air Force Reserve 336

Reduction in Forces/MilCon Needs 333

Reduction in Forces/MilCon Needs — ^Army Reserve 334

Statement of the Chairman 255

Statement of Brigadier General John R. D'Araujo 255

Statement of Brigadier General Thomas J. Kilmartin 263

Statement of Rear Admiral John T. Natter 271

Statement of Brigadier General Claude W. Reinke 278

Unspecified Locations — Army National Guard 327

Unspecified Locations — ^Army Reserve 327

Unspecified Locations — ^Air Force Reserve 328

Unspecified Locations — ^Air National Guard 323

Unspecified Locations — Naval Reserve 330

Wright Patterson AFB— Base Realignment 316

Yakima Training Center 338

Defense Medical Facilities Office

Base Realignment and Closure 387

Vlll

Page

Base Realignment and Closure, Part III 356

Chairman's Opening Remarks 341

Data Center Consolidation 358

Defense Busitness Operations Fund 385

Estimates for BRAC III 386

Fitzsimons Army Medical Center 355

Fort Bragg Medical Center 355

General Provisions Proposed for Deletion 359

Graduate Medical Education 354

Homestead AFB 356

Inflation 361

New General Provision Number 120 360

Non-Appropriated Funds 361

Phase Funding 353

Phase Funding of Hospitals 353

Planning and Design 362

Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Koenig 343

Priorities 387

Projects Funded in the Defense Bill 385

Section 6 Schools 385

Statement of Rear Admiral Harold M. Koenig 341

Troop Housing 358

Unspecified Locations 356

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 354

European Construction Program

Alliance Commitment 452

Alliance Cut Backs 446

Allies Commitment to NATO 416

Balkans 436,439

Base Closures 445

Base Closure/Residual Value 444

C-17 415

Comiso, Italy — Family Housing 453

Comiso, Italy — Residual Value 453

Cost Share Rates 455

Crotone, Italy 452

Demilitarization 417

Drawdown in Europe 415

Dual Basing 448

E-C2 Observation Plane 423

Effects of Cutback on Service Members 426

Environmental Abatement 423

EuroCorps 453

Flexible Full Trained Military 447

Former Eastern Bloc Security Concerns 448

Infi*astructure Accounting Unit 456

Migration 449

Military to Military Contact Program 454

Mobilization 414

Naples Improvement Initiative 422

NATO Cuts 442

NATO Infrastructure 426, 430, 437

NATO— New Initiatives 443

Page

NATO — Operations and Maintenance Costs 454

NATO Recoupment 456

NATO— U.S. Based FaciUties 443

Overseas Base Closure 428

Prepared Statement of General John M. Shalikashvili 392

Rapid Reduction 425

Re-Use of Vacated Facilities 446

Redeplojrment to the United States 451

Residual Value 444

Residual CapabiUties in the Former Eastern Bloc 450

Russia 429,437

Riissia Family Housing 416

Russian Redeplojrment 450

Sealift Shipping 425

Security of Soviet Weaponry 450

Southern Region Air Base 452

Statement of the Chairman 389

Statement of GeneralJohn M. Shalikashvili 389

Turkey 423

Use of NATO Under UN Control 447

Yugosvlavia 424

Outside Witnesses

Cobb, Ch£U"le8, Statement of 535

Gordon, the Honorable Bart, Statement of 457

Hickey, Sydney, Statement of 519

Hultman, Mfgor General Evan, Statement of 463

Lunney, Captain J. Robert, Statement for the Record 555

McCloskey, the Honorable Frank, Prepared Statement of 487

Ouellette, Michael, Statement of 499

Partridge, Charles, Statement of 530

Porter, the Honorable John E., Statement of 516

Sharp, the Honorable Philip R., Statement of 481

Statement of the Chairman 457

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05018 540 2

ISBN 0-16-040945-4

9 780160"409455

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Military construction appropriations for 1994 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session"

See other formats