|
| For
Immediate Release: March 4, 2004 |
Contact: |
Harald Stavenas |
Statement of
Chairman Joel Hefley
Hearing on Fiscal Year 2005 Military
Construction/Family Housing Budget of the Army
and the Navy
Today, the Readiness Subcommittee meets to hear testimony from the Departments of the Army and the Navy on their fiscal year 2005 budget requests for military construction and family housing. I welcome our witnesses, and look forward to their testimony.
Last week, the subcommittee held a hearing on the overall state of DOD's infrastructure and facilities in which several members of this subcommittee expressed concern that the FY 2005 budget projection for military construction and family housing for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 was $6 billion less than projected in the FY 2004 budget. The fact that significant increases remain in the outyears is no surprise - but the fact that the amounts of the increases have been slashed is very disappointing, particularly considering DOD's facilities problems and the upcoming round of base closures.
For our witnesses today, the FY 2005 military construction and family housing budget request must also be disappointing. More than 80 percent of the Army's facilities classes have readiness ratings of C-3 or below - indicating serious deficiencies affecting their ability to complete their missions. Navy facilities are in a similar state of unreadiness - nearly two-thirds of its facilities are rated C-3 or below.
Nevertheless, both Army and Navy military construction and family housing budget requests are far below acceptable levels.
The Army's military construction budget request may be slightly larger than last year's appropriated level, but it is more than $200 million less than the amount projected for FY 2005 in the FY 2004 budget.
While the failure to meet projected levels is a concern, I am particularly worried about recent developments that may have a devastating impact on Army facilities requirements. How will plans to increase end strength affect Army requirements for family housing, schools, barracks, and support facilities? What will Army plans to purchase hundreds of new helicopters and UAVs instead of Comanches do to Army maintenance and depot facilities requirements? How will DOD's ongoing global posture review - which press reports indicate may return as many as two divisions to U.S. soil - affect facilities requirements at domestic bases?
While it may be too early to make refined estimates about the effects of these changes, I would ask our Army witnesses to address the effect of these changes on Army facilities requirements, as well as whether or not budgets and plans for these changes are provided for in the FY 2005 or future budgets.
In addition, I understand that the Army may submit a budget amendment to reflect the Comanche cancellation that will include some funding for facilities construction to support additional helicopters and UAVs. While I applaud the Army for recognizing that additional facilities funds will be necessary, the amount being discussed - $30 million - is only a tiny fraction of anticipated Comanche program costs that will do little to mitigate the increased military construction requirements resulting from the program change.
In this case, it appears that the Army is shortchanging its facilities requirements from the start. I would ask our Army panel to explain why a larger portion of the "Comanche dividend" has not been dedicated to providing facilities for the helicopter and UAV fleet that will result from the program's cancellation. Given long lead times for construction, does the Army intend to purchase additional helicopters without providing the facilities necessary to house and support them?
Of further concern, the Army's base operations budgets have been funded at only 70 percent of the required level. Considering that 80 to 85 percent of the required level is necessary to fund "must pay" bills, it appears that the Army will be forced to cut other important facilities budgets in order to pay the daily bills.
The Navy faces similar challenges. Although the Navy's military construction and family housing budget request for FY 2005 is slightly greater than the amount projected for FY 2005 in the FY 2004 budget, it is still $240 million less than amount ultimately provided by Congress in FY 2004. In addition, the Navy's military construction budget over the FYDP has been cut by approximately $2.2 billion from the levels projected just last year.
So, once again, why does DOD continue to underfund the services' facilities budgets? Is the Department counting on Congress to dig them out of their annual facilities funding hole? While Congress may have done exactly that over the past decade, I fear that our ability to significantly increase the military construction budget is coming to an end, and I would urge our witnesses to more appropriately budget for facilities needs in the future.
On a final note, I hope that our witnesses will address the family housing privatization programs. It is my understanding that DOD will run into a statutory cap on the family housing privatization program in early FY 2005, seriously impeding, or even ending, the program. I hope that our witnesses will describe the effect that not raising the cap would have on their efforts to eliminate unsuitable family housing units.
###
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
