[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-8]
ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF
MILITARY LANDS: DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE'S REAL PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
IN THE 21ST CENTURY
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-449 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii ROB BISHOP, Utah
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
GLENN NYE, Virginia FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Tom Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Megan Putnam, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, Acquisition and Disposal of Military
Lands: Department of Defense's Real Property Management
Challenges in the 21st Century................................. 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, February 24, 2009....................................... 35
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009
ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF MILITARY LANDS: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S
REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Readiness Subcommittee................................. 2
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Readiness Subcommittee......................................... 1
WITNESSES
Arny, Wayne, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and
Environment.................................................... 3
Billings, Kevin W., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
Installations, Environment and Logistics....................... 9
Eastin, Hon. Keith, Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Installations and Environment.................................. 5
Penn, Hon. BJ, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and
Environment.................................................... 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Arny, Wayne.................................................. 42
Butterfield, Hon. G.K........................................ 60
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................ 41
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P........................................ 39
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Letters of Hon. Gene Taylor and Charles S. Abell Regarding
Armed Forces Retirement Home Property Sales................ 63
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Bishop................................................... 69
Mr. Forbes................................................... 69
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Butterfield.............................................. 82
Ms. Giffords................................................. 80
Mr. Loebsack................................................. 79
Mr. Ortiz.................................................... 73
ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF MILITARY LANDS: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S
REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Readiness Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 24, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m. in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Ortiz. This hearing will come to order. I want to thank
our distinguished witnesses for being before the subcommittee
today.
Today the Readiness Subcommittee will hear about how the
Department of Defense (DOD) acquires and disposes of real
estate; however, before we start with the real estate details,
it is important to talk about the need of the services. The
need to train as we fight is fundamental to our armed forces.
To this end I am surprised that the Department is just now
realizing that our armed forces are significantly short of
adequate training space. And I found this because, as you well
know, the committee does a lot of traveling, too.
What we have thought after the latest Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC), the latest BRAC round that we had, and Grow the
Force initiative, that the armed forces would have been in a
better position to meet our training requirements; however, I
know that after the Army completes their growth of the Army
initiative, they will still have a training deficit of almost
five million acres, five million acres.
I believe that it may be time to fundamentally change the
method that we use to address training requirements. The
development of underutilized lands is clearly in the
Department's long-term interest.
On a related subject, the Department owns interest in a
broad range of real estate. It is time the Department lives up
to their implied covenant which exists in military
installations and provide the investment to restore
environmentally damaged lands. We need to allow communities the
opportunity to develop, to redevelop and restore a vibrant tax
base that truly allows economic development. Prompt disposal
and redevelopment should be at the core of any excess land
decision process.
Gentlemen, I think that we have a lot to discuss today, and
I look forward to hearing how you intend to address these
important issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the
Appendix on page 39.]
Mr. Ortiz. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman
from Virginia, my good friend Mr. Forbes, for any remarks that
he would like to make. Mr. Forbes.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I thank you
for your leadership and for holding this hearing this morning.
And we deal with a great many critical issues on this
subcommittee, as you have pointed out, from time to time, but
there is probably no issue more difficult and fraught with
emotion than with the use of land. This hearing addresses both
the disposal property under the base closure, or BRAC, process
and the acquisition of land for training. And while both
aspects of real estate management are important, I believe that
the acquisition of land is one of the toughest issues we face,
not because it is political, but because it hits a core
American value, the right to private property.
Indeed, the fifth amendment to the Constitution forbids the
Federal Government from taking private property for public use
without just compensation. It is, in fact, the protection of
those rights that many of our citizens believe is the reason
why we have military in the first place.
As weapon systems of all the military services can be
employed at greater and greater distances from the target than
in the past, the need for training spaces, including air, sea
and land ranges has grown. At the same time the population of
the United States continues to multiply, and military
installations become ever more encroached by this population
expansion. Finding available open space for military training
is very difficult, as the Army and Navy have recently
experienced.
Mr. Chairman, I am a great supporter of our military and
have worked hard to ensure that the Army's planned BRAC-related
growth at Fort Lee in my district goes as smoothly as possible.
As you know, Fort Lee has been a military installation for some
time, and the surrounding community is accustomed to military
activities. However, the other end of the spectrum, the Navy
wants to acquire a substantial track of rural land in Virginia
and North Carolina to use as an outlying landing field, or OLF,
for naval aviators to practice landing and takeoffs simulating
conditions of darkness at sea.
Our pilots need realistic training to maintain their
skills. At the same time that the Navy seeks or is required to
use the most aggressive form to acquire private property, we
must ensure that the increased value of the training matches
the government encroachment on personal property rights that
are guaranteed in the Constitution. The Navy must be sensitive
to the concerns of the surrounding community of any proposed
field as jet noise will be a new and potentially irritating
phenomenon to the heretofore peaceful rural location chosen.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and our
witnesses to manage these difficult issues to the benefit of
the military services and the civilian community, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Forbes, for your good statement,
great statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
Mr. Ortiz. Our witnesses today include Mr. Wayne Arny,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment, Department of Defense; the Honorable Keith Eastin,
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations and Environment;
the Honorable BJ Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Installations and Environment; and Mr. Kevin Billings, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations,
Environment and Logistics. Without objection, the witnesses'
prepared testimony will be accepted for the record.
And, Secretary Arny, my good friend, I know most of the
witnesses here for many years, we want to say thank you for
joining us today. And it is good to see you again, Mr. Arny,
and please proceed with your opening statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Arny. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes. It
is nice to see you, sir, distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to address management of real property assets within the
Department.
As you have said, installations and ranges are the
foundation of our security. These assets must be available when
and where needed with the capabilities to support current and
future military mission requirements. To meet these challenges
we must continue to invest in them to preserve and enhance
their military value for our training.
The linkage between test and training-range resources and
military readiness is fundamental. It is directly associated
with success and survival in combat. Military services provide
their training requirements using broadly similar frameworks.
Those frameworks include an assessment of the national
strategy, our weapons and related systems, and lessons learned
from previous military experience in training. If the services
think they need additional property, our policy requires them
to prove their requirement cannot be satisfied internally or by
use of property held by another military department or federal
agency. If they are successful in doing that, then they must
seek DOD approval before proceeding with any major land
acquisition. And before we go and procure additional land, we
must have specific congressional authorization. We must also
comply with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA, before making a final decision to proceed.
When DOD does acquire property, we follow the same
statutory and regulatory requirements that are applicable to
all federal real property acquisitions. These procedures ensure
that the owners of real property that we seek to acquire are
treated fairly and consistently. Under these regulations we
first make every reasonable effort to acquire the property by
negotiation. These negotiations with the owner often lead to
unsuccessful property conveyance. But negotiations may not be
successful for a number of reasons. There may be title defects
or unclear ownership interest that cannot be resolved through
negotiation. An otherwise willing seller may not agree with the
government's opinion of the property's fair market value, or in
some cases an owner may not wish to sell regardless of price.
Only after negotiation with a property owner is
unsuccessful would a military department ask the Department of
Justice to initiate eminent domain proceedings. There are a lot
of other details in that, but we believe these procedures
balance well the government's need to acquire property for
public military use with the rights of property owners to
obtain just compensation when the government acquires their
property.
Let me turn to property disposal under BRAC, which I know
is an issue that you have asked about. I want to emphasize that
it is our policy to utilize fully all means of property
disposal available to us in coordination with the affected
communities and in consideration of their individual
circumstances.
Federal law provides us with an extensive array of legal
authorities. These include transfers to other federal agencies,
public benefit conveyances for the purposes such as schools or
parks, economic development conveyances at cost and at no cost,
negotiated sales to state or local government, conservation
conveyances, and public sales. And we encourage the services to
use all of these tools that are in our toolbox.
As for economic development conveyances, or EDCs, in
particular, the base closure statute authorizes us to convey
real and personal property to a local redevelopment authority
for the purpose of job generation on a closed military
installation. The base closure law for BRAC 2005 asks the
military department to seek to obtain fair market value
consideration for EDC conveyance; however, the same statute
also permits us to grant the community an EDC without
consideration, also known as a no-cost EDC, subject to
statutory requirements regarding the use of the property and an
agreement for a speedy transfer.
We are aware that some people have expressed an interest in
amending current legislation to require that all the EDCs be at
no cost, and we are told this is based on the premise that
greater reliance on no-cost EDCs would generate economic
recovery by speeding redevelopment of the property. We are
examining this, but we are not aware of any data to support
this premise.
We are also concerned this might interfere with other
conveyance mechanisms that communities use, especially public
benefit conveyances. Most importantly, it is our experience
that rather than cost versus no-cost EDCs, the far more
significant challenges to rapid property disposal and
redevelopment are, one, the requirement that DOD analyze
potential future reuse alternatives under NEPA before conveying
property; and, two, certain environmental cleanup constraints.
At locations not subject to BRAC, we also dispose of excess and
surplus real property, but we use General Services
Administration (GSA), and they are essentially using the same
mechanisms we do. Indeed most of our mechanisms derive directly
from GSA.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to
testify. I appreciate your continued support and look forward
to continuing to work with you on these important matters.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arny can be found in the
Appendix on page 42.]
Mr. Ortiz. Secretary Eastin, whenever you are ready, you
can proceed with your statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Secretary Eastin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Forbes. I
couldn't have said it better. My colleague Mr. Arny has about
taken all the thunder I might have in this, other than I have a
four-and-a-half million acres deficit that I am going have to
deal with, and he has that, but somewhat more tangentially.
I will try to be brief here. I know the committee has
extensive business today.
Managing the Army's real property assets from acquisition
through our life cycle is an essential but complex task, and we
use various tools to try to handle what our requirements are.
Among the variables we must take into account are constantly
evolving requirements due to our doctrinal changes. Changes in
equipment, changes in technology, such as unmanned aerial
vehicle use, over-the-horizon communication with other units
expands what we need in our training ranges.
What we try to do, as Wayne Arny has indicated, is use land
acquisition as an absolute last resort. Before we get into
that, we try to manage the ranges we have in different ways so
that we can get more out of them. We then seek to use adjacent
federal lands for such purposes rather than trying to acquire
out in the private sector. We have made extensive use of
compatible use buffers where we, in effect, use private lands,
but we restrict what they can do in payment to the land owners
so that they will not build houses on them and encroach on what
we do in our training ranges, but at the same time they can use
them for agriculture and other purposes.
Last but not least, one of the major things we consider
when acquiring lands is the cost-effective nature of that
acquisition. We do not have restraints and unlimited money to
buy these things. We budget this every year and must compete
within the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense
for other scarce funds, so we are very careful about what we do
with that money.
And last, our technology is allowing us in some cases to
use simulators rather than trying to use actual ranges for some
of these, but we are very careful in going out and asking
members of the public to either sell us their land, and
especially we look at this very carefully when it involves some
sort of taking. So we want to do that as a last resort. We have
other management tools that are available to us, and we will
use those where possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Penn, good to see you again, sir. You can proceed
whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. BJ PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Secretary Penn. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Ortiz, Representative Forbes and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you to highlight
the land management practices of the Department of the Navy.
Land is and has always been a finite commodity, a precious
resource that even for the seagoing service is critical to
accomplishing our mission. Regardless of whether it is aboard
ship, submarine or airplane, our citizens and Marines all
deploy from ashore.
Land management is complex, but managing it effectively and
efficiently on a life cycle basis is the Department of the
Navy's objective. Our land management practices ensure that we
retain only that which we require for our mission, disposing or
outleasing underutilized and excess property to return it to
the public's benefit. This land ownership comes with a price to
the Department. The cost of owning even unimproved land
includes additional security; maintaining supporting
infrastructure, roads, fences, drainage; environmental and
safety stewardship; and other land management activities.
We also recognize that land in Federal Government ownership
removes it from local economic development potential and
impacts local tax bases. The fact is that land is a valuable
and finite resource, that it represents a continuous financial
investment to the Department, and that federal ownership
distracts from local use and improvements form the basis of the
Department's longstanding position to only remove from private
ownership and retain for its exclusive use the minimum
necessary for the conduct of its military mission. In other
words, land can be expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, and
have attributes that could be put to more productive use if it
were to remain available for public redevelopment, development
or public use.
The Department has expanded our physical presence and land
ownership as our country grew and our mission expanded. Weapons
capabilities developed, and our strategies, tactics and
training methods adapted to meet the threats for which we must
prepare. Similarly, the Department has over time shed
properties that were no longer required for changing threats
and missions. The Department currently owns 4.4 million acres
of land, 2.3 million in the Marine Corps and 2.1 million in the
Navy.
The Department takes a life cycle approach to land
management beginning with the initial planning for changing
missions and weapons systems, analyzing alternatives for the
provision of the shore infrastructure, focusing on the minimum
required. Our Navy property holdings are continually assessed
through global shore infrastructure plans and regional
integration plans, which identify gaps potentially requiring
acquisition and excesses or underutilization of property which
may trigger disposal or outleasing actions.
Examples of planning actions involving real estate analysis
include relocations of the Navy and Marine Corps forces,
growing a force, fielding of new weapons platforms, and
development of new training doctrine that require additional
land or airspace. To meet these requirements we first consider
utilizing what we already own and analyze alternatives such as
joint use with our sister services or other federal agencies
and available excess federal property. We also conduct detailed
analysis of the true infrastructure requirements resulting in
acquisition of new land resources only, only, where necessary.
This analysis is done during our planning stages as well as
part of our National Environmental Policy Act compliance, or
NEPA.
When non-federal land must be acquired, the Department's
first approach is always to negotiate a fair and agreeable
price with land owners. Other acquisition methods such as
condemnation through eminent domain are only used as a last
resort. Since 2004, the Department has made 93 land
acquisitions of which only 13 were by condemnation.
I would like to highlight a true success story for the
Department, and that is our emphasis over the last few years
toward preventing negative encroachment on our installations
through the use of encroachment partnering. We work with our
partners, usually local government entities or nonprofit
conservation associations, leveraging limited funding on both
sides. Their partner will acquire land around our
installations, and the Department obtains restrictive easements
on that land, thus limiting development. The partners and local
communities get conservation and recreation areas, while the
Navy and Marine Corps installations limit encroachment that
might otherwise negatively impact current and future training
operations.
The Department has signed eight encroachment protection
agreements with third-party partners incurring easements on
over 3,400 acres near Navy installations and over 20,000 acres
adjacent to Marine Corps installations. We expect to continue
the successful program in fiscal year 2009 and beyond.
Our ongoing Navy regional integration plans are identifying
opportunities to consolidate facilities to free up property for
potential disposal or outleasing. The Navy plans to leverage
the value of its underutilized property through outleasing and
is pursuing several enhanced use leasing projects that will
return land and facilities to public or private use as well as
bring revenue or services in kind to the Navy.
Additionally, the Navy is evaluating several areas for
potential outleasing for the third-party construction of
renewable energy projects, helping us to meet energy goals by
leveraging underutilized land. The Marine Corps is also
pursuing outleasing in energy projects where land is available,
balancing their needs for property to grow the Marine Corps
forces.
The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 were a major
tool in reducing our domestic base structure and generating
savings. The Department of the Navy has achieved a steady-state
savings of approximately $2.7 billion per year since fiscal
year 2002. All that remains is to complete the environmental
clean-up and property disposal of portions of 16 of the
original 91 bases, and to complete environmental clean-up on 15
installations that have been disposed.
At the end of fiscal year 2008, we disposed of 93 percent
of the real property slated for closure in the first 4 rounds
of BRAC. Throughout that time we used a variety of the
conveyance mechanisms available for federal property disposal,
including the economic development conveyance. Ninety-one
percent of the BRAC real property was conveyed at no cost.
Ninety-one percent of our BRAC real property was conveyed at no
cost. From the remaining nine percent, the Department of the
Navy received over $1.1 billion in revenues. Nearly all of this
revenue has been generated since fiscal year 2003. And fiscal
year 2006, we completed the sale of 3,719 acres at the former
Marine Corps Air Station in El Toro, California, for $649.5
million. We also sold 167 acres at the former naval hospital in
Oakland, California, for $100.5 million. Beginning in 2003, we
have used these funds to accelerate environmental clean-up and
to finance the entire Department of the Navy prior BRAC effort,
including caretaker costs from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal
year 2008.
We have put this money to good use. We have issued findings
of suitability to transfer for over 10,400 acres, which enable
us to continue our disposal efforts. A few of the significant
disposals include the last parcels at Naval Station Charleston,
South Carolina; Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida; San Pedro
Housing Area for Naval Shipyard Long Beach and Naval Hospital
Oakland; as well as the first parcel at Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard. In addition, significant clean-up activities continue
at both Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Alameda Naval Air
Station, greatly improving the protection to human health and
the environment.
For our BRAC 2005 program, the Department of the Navy has
projected to realize approximately $900 million per year in
savings from the DOD-wide realignment of closure actions. These
savings are attributed to the consolidation of missions and
reduction of care and maintenance costs by closing facilities
and installations. By the end of fiscal year 2008, we disposed
of 7,428 acres, which equates to 43 percent of the property
available for disposal. The disposals were accomplished through
lease terminations, reversions, and federal and DOD agency
transfers.
As communities are finalizing their reuse plans for the
surplus federal property, and the Department of the Navy is
completing its national environmental policy studies under the
disposal actions, conveyance mechanisms have not been
determined for all the installations. When the redevelopment
plans are completed, the Department of the Navy will continue
to work with the local communities to determine the appropriate
conveyance mechanism to support the land use and the
redevelopment plan.
Many factors play into developing a conveyance strategy,
including environmental mitigation consideration, indemnity and
liability considerations. Over the past several years we have
found that EDCs do not spur economic redevelopment faster than
the traditional conveyance mechanisms available to the
government. The time frame for completing and of application
and negotiating conveyance terms can vary from several months
to several years and are required regardless of whether or not
the conveyance will be for cost even after the conveyance is
completed.
As we complete our efforts to dispose of the BRAC property,
the Department of the Navy will continue to work with the
communities to develop conveyances, strategies that result in
good stewardship of federal taxpayers' assets, and provide for
economic recovery to the closured communities.
In conclusion, the Department takes its land management
responsibilities very seriously, as you have heard. And we work
closely with our sister services and other federal agencies to
ensure that our stewardship meets the Department's requirements
and benefits the nation and our local communities to the
maximum extent possible. We look forward to working with the
new administration and Congress to expedite those actions that
are of the greatest benefit to streamline economically
beneficial land actions and to ensure the Department is able to
fulfill its mission with the appropriate supporting
infrastructure. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your statement.
Mr. Billings, whenever you are ready, you can proceed with
your statement as well.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN W. BILLINGS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS
Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to be here. Since this is the first time
before the committee, I would like to publicly thank Mr. Arny
and my colleagues from the Army and the Navy, Mr. Eastin and
Mr. Penn, for their counsel and guidances.
I have come up to speed in the last six months since Mr.
Donley asked me to take over Secretary of the Air Force/
Installations and Environment (SAF/IE). When I took over, I
laid out four basic principles to that organization. The first
was to comply with the law. The second is to be good stewards
of the environment. And equally importantly is to be good
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. And fourth is to do this
while remembering that taking care of airmen and their families
is what allows us to accomplish our mission.
Additionally, there are three enablers that allow us to
effectively do our job: transparency, accessibility and
consistency. And when we use this as a template for decisions
in basing, these will serve the public well.
Because our installations are the platform from which we
project power, the Air Force fights from its bases, real
property asset management is critical to the mission's success.
Much of what my colleagues have talked about are things that
drive what we do in the Air Force in terms of how we dispose of
land and the use of eminent domain, but I want to touch on a
couple of things real quickly.
In 2005, the base realignment and closure round did not
reduce the Air Force real property footprint. And our
transformation inside the Air Force seeks to shrink from within
and deleverage the value of our real property assets in order
to meet our 20/20 by 2020 goal. This is a goal that we
developed with the air staff in coordination with the Air Force
Civil Engineer to achieve by the year 2020 efficiencies to
offset a 20 percent reduction in funds for installation support
and reduce by 20 percent the Air Force physical plan at our
bases.
And at this point I would like to take a moment here to
recognize the work of General Del Eulberg and his team. General
Eulberg has been tremendously supportive of me and
Installations and Environment (IE) team as we have transitioned
here. But, more importantly, the civil engineers are one of the
most stressed career fields in the Air Force, and they continue
to move forward and help us on a day-to-day basis. Whether it
is here in the United States, in Balad or Gitmo, the Air Force
civil engineers do a spectacular job. And I just wanted to take
the opportunity to talk about that.
Finally, to be very brief, I would like to real quickly
talk about the fact that the Air Force is the largest user of
energy in the Federal Government, and we also have a huge
amount of land. And one of the things we have done is
undertaken a greenhouse gas inventory to look at the complete
use of our Air Force facilities and our weapon systems, but
also look at our land management, how do we use our land to
best sequester and use that land to sequester carbon and use it
in a fashion. So just to be very brief, I would like to again
thank my colleagues and move on to questions.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I know that I have a few questions, and my colleagues also
have some questions to ask from you.
Secretary Eastin, as I mentioned earlier, maybe you could
explain the options that the Department is pursuing to reduce
the almost five million acres required to support training.
Furthermore, the Texas Army National Guard has proposed to
acquire additional land at the McMullen training range site,
and I thought maybe you could explain the steps that the Army
is pursuing to acquire this real estate interest. And this is
very important because sometimes it is there, and it is not
going to be there for long. So maybe you can give us an idea
how you are pursuing to deal with this land that we are talking
about.
Secretary Eastin. As I indicated before, we have a
shortfall of about 4.5 million acres of training land which
doctrinally we would require to adequately train our soldiers.
Obviously we are going to have to work around that. I think it
is unrealistic to think that we are ever going to close that
gap on 4.5 million acres. Most of this is left over because
most of our installations are a legacy of the Second World War,
if not earlier. Their land around those are somewhat limited,
in many cases severely limited, while at the same time we have
that legacy, but we have rapid advance in technology in the way
we fight and the equipment we use and the electronics and
airborne equipment we can use.
So in terms of doctrine, we would require larger numbers of
acreage around our installations. So if that is not going to be
possible, and certainly probably not possible in the area of
cost, certainly even if it was available, we have got to figure
other ways to do that. And the other ways to do that, as I
think I indicated in my earlier statement, what we try to do is
manage the land we have so that we can more intensively train
on it. We try to get compatible use buffers, a so-called Army
Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) Program in the Army, around our
land so that it does not get further encroached by legitimate
public uses. And we pay for those ACUBs to the general public
when they agree to restrict their land.
Third, we have gone to increased use of simulators so that
all of the training does not have to be done with wheels or
tracks on the ground. A lot of that can be done in the
simulator itself, and it can get fairly realistic. That does
not change the need for getting out in the dirt and
communicating with each other in more lengthy distances so that
we can adequately represent the situation we may find ourselves
in on the ground in either, for example, Iraq or Afghanistan or
some other place. We try to realistically train so our
soldiers, when they get there, are not facing their environment
there wholly unprepared.
Can we prepare better on some of these? Yes. We can do it
more intensely on the land we have. We can do it less
frequently than we would like to do so that we can get other
units trained at the same time. But we look at all of the
alternatives to try to close this, as I said earlier, including
acquiring other federal lands that might be around our
installations. And basically we try to buy from willing sellers
at prices that we hope are affordable by the Army.
But as I indicated, acquiring land to close this 4.5
million--oh, that I wish--4.5-million-acre deficit in our
training, acquiring land is probably the last of the
alternatives. So are we ever going to get our 4.5 million
acres? I personally think it is unlikely, but we are going to
have to work around it.
Mr. Ortiz. The site that we are talking about, McMullen
range, do you think that 25,000 acres sounds adequate? Do you
think maybe it is more acreage than that? Because you probably
know what we have now. We have a facility, humidity control
facility, for the Reserves close by. The reasons that we built
that is to keep the equipment from rusting and having it
prepared to go to train when they need it. McMullen is close
by. So I know that the National Guard and the Reserves are
interested in maybe using some of the equipment, but is 25,000
acres adequate?
Secretary Eastin. I will be honest with you, Mr. Chairman,
I can talk on the acquisition there. I understand that the
Adjutant General in Texas has indicated that the 25,000 is
adequate. Once again, if we have other acreage that is
available there, and it is available from a willing seller and
at a reasonable cost and can be adequately integrated into that
unit, training would probably benefit from it. But right now we
will be programming funds for that 25,000-acre addition. Mr.
Arny's office has only recently approved this, so we are ready
to go with it and in short order.
As to adequacy, I would refer you to the TAG there, and it
is my understanding that that was enough.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
Let me just ask one more question, and I would like for my
friends to also be given the opportunity to ask questions.
Secretary Arny, the United States Congress is responding to
an economic crisis at this precise moment the likes of which we
have not seen in a very, very long time. Do you expect that the
current process that conveys land to the public sales to be an
effective tool when private financing is generally no longer
available? You probably know there are a lot of people going to
different financial institutions who have been in business for
a long time, and they cannot get any financing. What do you
think about that?
Mr. Arny. Well, sir, we believe that the economic crisis
will affect all of the methods of disposal that we use, because
when you look at the overall numbers, we have only disposed of
about three percent of the BRAC property by public sale, and
that was during good times when there was development
potential. But an economic crisis like we are in now will also
affect public benefit conveyances, it will affect negotiated
sales with communities, it will affect--if a community wants to
develop the property themselves, it will affect them because
they won't be able to get the financing they need.
So we encourage the services to use all the tools in the
toolbox, and as the economic situation changes, we work with
the community to decide how it is best to develop that. I think
there will still be a need for housing, there will still be a
need for economic development, there will still be a need for
economic development conveyances at a cost and no-cost basis.
So I think we will see a downturn in some of those conveyances,
but as the economy turns back, it will go the other way, and we
will work with the communities on going in either direction.
Mr. Ortiz. Well, I am glad to see that you are better on
the border patrol. When they are trying to build a fence, they
decide that they are going to take that land, and regardless
whether they want to sell it, give it or whatever, they are
going to take it over, and that is it, period. I am glad we
have this attitude that you will do your best to pay them an
adequate price for what the land is worth. Thank you so much.
To my good friend Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I want to
thank you for your leadership and for holding this hearing. I
think it is an incredibly important hearing for us to have, as
so many of the ones that we have before this committee are.
I also want to thank each and every one of you for your
service and your willingness to make what I know are very, very
tough decisions. And we certainly appreciate that.
We also recognize that any time anybody comes into our
office, the issue that they are talking about is the absolute
most important issue to them at that particular time, and
sometimes we have to keep that balance. And then we have to
move back on a larger basis and say, how do we balance all of
the individuals who have those issues coming before us? So I am
very appreciative of the fact that you have that within each of
your respective offices as well, and we have that today.
One of the tough things that we are wrestling with as a
committee, and I have talked privately to many of the members
both sides of the aisle, is trying to come to grips with how
the Department strikes its balance and sets its priorities,
because oftentimes we don't get that overview. What we get is
what we get today. We get individual concerns and requests that
are coming before us that we have to deal with. And it is very
difficult for us to get our hands around how we are really
setting our priorities and we are establishing those. And as
the chairman mentioned, in the economic situation that we are
in now, that is going to be vital for us to do.
Let me just give you just a couple of overlays, and I want
to make some comments, and I want you to feel free to respond
to them and also just to ask you a couple of questions.
We look at the Navy, for example, Secretary Penn, and we
know that we have got an enormous problem with the number of
ships that we have got in trying to maintain or get to a 313-
ship Navy. Many people think it is very difficult for us to get
there. We know the overwhelming amount of ship maintenance that
we have. We know the personnel needs, the aircraft shortages
that we are going to have. Then we look at situations that the
Navy just came up with a few weeks ago trying to send a carrier
to Mayport when we have had testimony here that they never even
inquired what the percentage of risk was that would send that
carrier down there. And when they asked the admiral that did
the dispersal and strategic study, he said it would be very,
very small, less than 10 percent, but yet we are willing to
spend $1 billion there.
And then we have an overlay of the fact that, as the
chairman mentioned, we have got a lot of economic concerns. And
regardless of where you are on these bailout packages or
stimulus packages, the ones that we have now passed, the
interest alone on those programs would cover the entire budgets
for the Department of Transportation, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), Homeland Security, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice, the
National Science Foundation, the White House, all of
congressional operations, and every Army Corps of Engineers
project in the country. That is just the interest.
And so we know we are wrestling with some very, very
difficult issues that are out there. When we bring it back to
the land acquisition part of this, one of the things I would
like to look at is the OLF situation and our need for an OLF.
When Admiral Mullen was here or testified before the BRAC
Commission in 2005, this is what he said: He said, the
recapitalization in the Future Navy is really at the top of my
list. And when I compare that versus the risk that we are
taking in the training and readiness side of this, the balance
is I come out in the recapitalization piece. And there is risk,
but--and I think you have heard this term before--we really
think it is manageable. And it isn't perfect, it isn't ideal.
It is why the OLF is important to us. But at the same time we
have been doing this at Oceania for 30 years. The landing
pattern that you described is one that has been out there a
long time. And combined with the fact that we have been through
a number of wars, we have been very successful in that regard,
all of us would like to be perfect; it isn't, I don't think, it
clearly isn't now. But within the constraints, the overall
constraints, on the readiness and training side that faces us
all and the risk associated with that, I accept that risk at
this point, and the training challenge is manageable.
That was Admiral Mullen's statement when he was Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO).
We also had testimony from Phil Granfield, who is a retired
Navy captain, that when you looked at all the statistics about
where everybody was trained, he said this: He said, my
conclusion after studying those conditions and restrictions of
the widely varied Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP)
facilities at each base and each OLF was that the FCLP facility
was not a factor. He goes on to say, there is no statistical
difference between the capabilities of the pilots when they get
to the ship based on where they were trained.
So the first question, sir, is a question I have for anyone
who wants to answer that, is based on Admiral Mullen's
statement then, has the Navy recapitalization picture gotten
better since 2005, or is it now more difficult since 2005? I
would suggest it is probably more challenging now than it was
in 2005.
Has the federal budget scenario gotten better or worse
since 2005? I would suggest it is tougher now.
Has the pace of China's naval expansion accelerated or
slowed down since 2005, before the Navy even admitted that
China was building an aircraft carrier?
And this is what Secretary Eastin mentioned: Has simulation
technology not improved since 2005?
All of that addresses perhaps that balance we have between
OLF acquisitions and maybe some of the other needs that we
have.
And then let me just throw these questions out for you
because I want other people to get their questions in. One of
the toughest things that we have had is, when you are trying to
make acquisitions in communities, having the acquisition
process include the localities at the outset of the process.
Oftentimes they feel like they are blind-sided when this takes
place, and once they do the political part of it, it is
incredibly difficult for them, because they hear an
announcement come out that we are going to acquire this land.
You have got mayors, you have got members of city councils or
board of supervisors that are all of a sudden on a spot just
getting bombarded, and once that train has left the station,
there is no putting it back in again.
And so one of the questions I would have for you is are
there any legal changes that we need to make so that you can
allow localities to be a part of the process for the land
acquisition sooner rather than later? How do we change that
process around so that they aren't left out in the cold, and
they can be actual partners, instead of having something forced
down on them at a later date? And I throw that open to anybody
who can help me with that.
Secretary Penn. I think I got most of your question, sir,
but I would like to start with the last one first, and that is
allowing localities to get in on the process early on. We have
found through the OLF process and a couple other projects that
we are working that that is absolutely essential, and if we
don't do that, we have the same problem. It is the same
problem.
One of the problems we have had, and we have discussed it
just this morning, is that unfortunately in the military,
people will make decisions, and in a year or two later, they
are gone, they rotate out. So we need some way to carry this
over from day one where one person has the control, and they
run the process through its completion if that is possible.
Mr. Forbes. Let me just ask to you elaborate on that if I
can. How does that impact whether our communities are involved
at the outset or not involved? I understand how we could have
changing decisions.
Secretary Penn. I think Admiral Anderson in Norfolk is
doing a phenomenal job with that.
Mr. Forbes. I agree with that.
Secretary Penn. And he wasn't there at the beginning of the
process. So, as you mentioned, he is trying to put the horse
back into the barn. But I think if we had someone like Admiral
Anderson there at the very beginning going out and talking to
the communities, we wouldn't be experiencing what we are today.
And it has been my experience that if you are fair and open
with people, they will be the same with you. And if you tell
them this is what we want to do, why we want to do it, how it
is going to occur, and the way we are going to try to make it
happen, it usually works.
I know I have talked personally with some of the folks from
North Carolina, and we had a very good conversation. It was
very open, very clear, and we both walked away understanding
what the process was.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Secretary, again, I don't want to interrupt
you. I just want to take a limited amount of time because I
want to defer to other members, but I want to be specific on
this. Is it your suggestion that the problem with an OLF in
Washington County, for example, was that you had the wrong
personnel dealing with that process at the outset as opposed to
not having the right process to be able to engage the people in
Washington County?
Secretary Penn. I don't know the personnel that were
involved, sir, but I think the process could have been opened.
It should have been an open process, and we quite often do not
do that because we are in negotiation, and it is business
sensitive.
Mr. Forbes. Well, one last thing I will just say on this,
and then I will yield back my time. But when the Navy was
looking at an OLF in Washington County, North Carolina, I am
not suggesting it should have been there or shouldn't have been
there, different opinions on here, but it is my understanding
that the Navy set forth to have the OLF there, and then the
reason it ultimately pulled off is because of the political
pressure that came on them to do that. Is that a fair
statement?
Secretary Penn. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Forbes. How, then, do you go to other communities, be
they in North Carolina or in Virginia, and look the leadership
of those communities square in the eye and say, our number one
priority, the OLF that we felt was in the best interest of the
national security of the United States was in Washington
County, or wherever it was, but we threw in the towel, and we
are coming back to your community now because they threw up
political pressure, and we weren't prepared to fight that
political pressure? The unfairness of that to those communities
is almost impossible to overcome because they will stand up
then and say, look, if the Navy had sat back and said we are
the number one site, this is where it should be, that is one
thing; but to then say that because people had political
pressure there, you are going to come and impose this on our
community, then what you are sending out a message to all those
communities to do is, first of all, one, we are not going
include you in the process up front, but second, the
communities that get rewarded are the ones that fight against
it the most and stand up politically against it. And I don't
know how you look them in the eye and say it is a fair process,
but maybe you can tell me what you are telling them, because
they are not coming back to me with a great deal of comfort
level in that.
Mr. Arny. Congressman, we have discussed this before, I
know, and I have been away from it for a little while, but
during that process we learned a lot. Part of the problem that
Mr. Penn referred to is the fact that most naval officers--and
having been one myself, and both my kids have used Fentress, we
all understood that the need, absolute need, for an OLF, well,
what most naval officers don't deal with is land acquisition.
So when the fleet decided they need it, it was really kind of
in the hands of most of the people who weren't doing a lot of
real estate acquisition.
So we learned the lessons as we go along. Washington--at
the time the criteria was a base halfway between Cherry Point
and Oceana, and Washington County looked like it was the best.
We actually did procure land there, and we were going through
the NEPA process. If you recall, we got sued a couple of times,
and it was clear in the end that we would have won that
lawsuit, okay. We would have won the lawsuit, we would have
satisfied the NEPA requirements, but Congress would not fund
for the rest of the procurement. So we fell back, went to the
Secretary. Things had changed, and we decided, okay, the
primary area we want to protect is the OLF is really necessary
for Oceana.
The thing that we did differently, we learned, is we went
to the governors of both states, the folks in Norfolk did, and
said, where is the best place that you would put an OLF? So we
worked with the representatives at the state level for those
communities. What we didn't know at the time is that the
governors had not talked to the local folks, so that we were
again blind-sided when we made the announcement, with the state
governors basically standing at our sides. The local
communities had not been consulted, and we had not asked the
question if they had been consulted ahead of time.
Mr. Forbes. My time is up. I just want to say that the not
funding part of it is the political part of it that I am
saying. And once you have crossed that area, you send a message
to every locality across the country, this isn't about
patriotism, it isn't about the national interest of the
country, it is about the political pressure you can bring to
bear to stop it in your community, which I think is difficult.
The final thing is allowing, whether it is the governor's
office or whoever it is, to totally exclude the congressional
delegation, state legislators and the locality is a fatal
mistake that I don't know how you remedy after that. So I would
just suggest that we come up with some process that guarantees
that doesn't happen down the road, because I don't know how you
put those horses back in the barn once they have gotten out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.
I think my question is somewhat open-ended. The 4.5 million
acres of land that we need for the Army, I sense that you are
saying we are not going to get it. At what point in time is
that unrealistic and you say we're not going to get it and you
reduce that number? And how seriously does that affect our
ability to train and be ready if you don't get that land?
The last part of that is I just have a curiosity about this
4.5 million acres. Is that spread out across all of our bases
throughout the land? In the perfect world would you have 1
million or 2 million acres of that in one place? Is it parcels
here and there, or are you looking for one bigger area?
So I guess I have two questions. Number one is what happens
when we realize we are not going to get it and how does that
affect our readiness? And number two, how is this land composed
that we are looking for? Is it small areas, big areas?
Secretary Eastin. Congressman, let me answer your last
question first. The 4.5 million acres is a compendium of each
installation and what its current mission requires. If you have
four brigade combat teams at, say, Fort Benning, you are going
to need more acreage there to operate them in accordance with
our doctrine. If you have two, you are going to have less. If
you are going to some other operation, perhaps their mission is
such that you won't require any acreage. But the 4.5 is
systemwide domestically for the Army. It doesn't include
continental United States (CONUS) operations.
Once again, I have responded to this question before, it is
a little like playing golf and practicing on--I notice you are
smiling, I am a real bad guy to ask about effectively training
on a golf course--but you go out and practice on three holes
and then you go over to Afghanistan and you have 18 holes in
front of you and you are trying to extrapolate the training you
had back in the States to the entire field of battle. So can
you do it? Are you going to get some value? Did the training on
the smaller range help? Yes, you are. Are there ways to work
around it? Yes. Can you do this full boat forever? Difficult,
but it can be done. It gets down to the quality of the training
and whether it is as much as we would like.
So are we sending untrained soldiers? No. When they land
boots on the ground over there, they are ready to go. Would we
like them to have had a wider range of training opportunities?
Yes. But there are some things that we would like that can't be
done. And 4.5 million acres is a heck of a lot of acres.
Parenthetically, answering Congressman Forbes' earlier
question about involvement of the public, if you do not get the
public involved early on in your land acquisition, the public
is going to involve itself in that acquisition, and they are
going to come up with all sorts of ideas on what you plan to do
out there. The rumor mill is alive and well, and we faced it
out in Colorado with an attempted acquisition we have at Pinon
Canyon. It was rumored we were coming out there, and before
long the opposition people and the locals had us acquiring 7
million acres, which would have effectively taken southeast
Colorado clear over to the Oklahoma border and been twice as
much as we needed in our range deficit.
They will create in their minds scenarios for you that you
are going to have a heck of a time getting around from a
community perspective if you don't get in and get involvement
with them very, very early on.
Mr. Kissell. Just one more follow-up question. If 4.5--and
I am still sensing that you don't think that is realistic,
although that is what we need--how much do you think is
realistic on a reasonable time frame? And yes, it does affect
our readiness, and I guess that is where I am trying to get
balance to my mind. How much does practicing on 3 holes versus
18--and practicing never helped my game much at all, that is
why I was smiling. Where does it effect our readiness and how
much of that 4.5 million is realistic, where we start using a
different number other than 4.5 million if that is not in fact
realistic?
Secretary Eastin. The 4.5 million acres arose by taking our
current doctrine and how many acres per brigade combat team, be
it a heavy brigade or an infantry brigade, or in some cases a
Stryker brigade. They all require different areas to train on.
When you collect them all together, you are going to get an
area that is probably larger than the one that you currently
have.
You feed this data into our strategic system and it comes
back with 4.5 million. Is that a reasonable number? We take
that number, and the local commanders and, in fact, our G3 sits
down to see if this is realistic or not. I am not going to tell
you 4.5 is absolutely what we need, or 3 million is what we
need, or even more, but it needs to be tempered by some human
aspect of this. And that human aspect encompasses what is
available, what is likely, what is cost effective and which
land, if you will, land deficits can be worked around in some
other way such as the ones I have enumerated.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I appreciate the low-key approach of eminent
domain. There have been abuses of that power by local
governments, and using that as a last resort is the right way
to do that.
With regards to turning bases back over, we had an
ammunition plant in my district, the fourth district of
Louisiana, an Army ammunition plant, that was turned back over
and has become really a tremendous site of enterprise. We have
17 companies involved, we have the Youth Challenge Program, the
National Guard, and so it is turning out to be a great success.
Let me turn to Fort Polk which is in my district, a very
important Army base during these times. I want to commend
Secretary Eastin in bringing forward the barracks modernization
and also upgrade initiative at Fort Polk. I feel with the
sacrifices our active duty are having to make, particularly
those going overseas and on the front lines, that there is
nothing that is too much to do for our active duty and their
families. So I thank you, sir, for that.
Also I want to mention that I have had briefings from
General Yarborough and also Colonel Sage with regard to some
land acquisition issues that are going on at Fort Polk today.
And they are taking a very low-key approach and trying to work
with the community. I think that is very important.
But there are some tremendous needs. Specifically,
Secretary Eastin, I understand that last year Fort Polk was the
Army's number one land acquisition priority. Is that still the
case, and where are we with that land acquisition?
Secretary Eastin. It is one of our priorities, and it is
very high up. Another one is Pinon Canyon, as I have discussed.
We have recently approved through Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD), last summer I believe it was, the right to go
ahead and look at the feasibility of acquiring 100,000 acres to
add to the estate at Fort Polk. I think this is going to
significantly increase the training capabilities at the Joint
Readiness Training Center there. It is a very important
training center for the Army, and we believe that there is
adequate land within that 100,000 acres around Fort Polk that
is available from willing sellers, and we plan to proceed on
that and we are investigating it accordingly.
Also, I believe we are working with the communities there
so that we have some outreach as to what it is we are doing and
who we are planning to buy from, and to assuage their fears
that we are going to come in and swoop down and take the town.
We are not going to do that. We think that we have located
willing sellers, and we are proceeding with that.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Abercrombie from Hawaii.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you.
Secretary Penn, Secretary Arny, in your previous service
you were in the equivalent position, although our report says
that you were with installations and facilities, and the title
I have for Secretary Penn is Facilities and Environment. I
presume they were one and the same or similar?
Mr. Arny. I worked for Mr. Penn.
Mr. Abercrombie. The Japanese government and the United
States government has recently signed the latest in a series of
agreements with respect to the removal of Marines from Okinawa
to Guam and probably Hawaii and possibly the west coast,
especially as this proceeds into the future. Your biography
says that you are responsible for formulating policies, plans
and procedures with respect to that agreement. My understanding
is that at least the proposal as embodied in this agreement has
to do with the Japanese Diet providing funds between 3 and $4
billion for family housing and other housing and facilities in
Guam; that is to say, a loan.
Now I want to put you on notice that I will not be the only
member of this committee, subcommittee or the full committee,
which will be in opposition to that. There is no way on earth,
given the recession that we have right now, let alone any of
the other instances of difficulty that have already been cited
in other instances here today, that you are going to do that.
You are not going to take--you are not going to take the
basic allowance for housing and pay Japanese construction
companies with that basic allowance for housing to allow
Japanese construction companies to bring in foreign nationals
to Guam or any other place, pay them whatever wage slavery sums
that they put together, and then have them set the standards,
have the Japanese Diet approve or disapprove what the terms and
conditions of that loan are going to be, cut out the Congress
of the United States, and then have them turn it over for
maintenance and for management to the United States Government,
which means this committee and the appropriations committee
will have to make up all of the funds for the management and
the maintenance of facilities that have been built by foreign
nationals and Japanese companies that will be paid by the
United States.
That is not going to happen. Believe me. Hear me, Jesus, it
is not going to happen. So we need to get that straight right
away, okay?
Secretary Penn. Yes, sir; got it.
Mr. Abercrombie. Have I misstated or incorrectly summarized
the agreement at least in its rough outlines?
Secretary Penn. I think it is very clear.
Mr. Abercrombie. I know I am clear, but that is what the
agreement essentially says; is that right, Mr. Arny?
Mr. Arny. I have to go back through it, but I don't believe
it is a loan completely.
Mr. Abercrombie. No, that is only one part of it. There is
another $2.8 billion that the Japanese government proposes to
put up as part of its payoff to its own people to get the
Marines out.
Mr. Arny. I do know that all U.S. hiring rules will apply
on Guam.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes, that means all of the visas that we
can't even get to come into the mainland of the United States,
and you think that you are going to get permission to have
those visas when we have double-digit unemployment. I have 15
percent unemployment on the island of Molokai right now, and I
understand that there is a $42 billion deficit in the state of
California, and you don't think you can find operating
engineers, ironworkers in the United States right now, and in
Guam, to take up the workload?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir, I believe we can. That is my point.
Mr. Abercrombie. So this agreement, I don't know how the
State Department thinks that it is going to affect it, but they
can sign agreements until they are blue in the face, the
Congress of the United States is still going to decide this.
Mr. Arny. Absolutely.
Mr. Abercrombie. Now, I am grateful to the Japanese
government, believe me, in terms of what they have provided,
but this is a Japanese and American defense treaty. They are
solving a political problem with this. They are not doing this
out of a charitable impulse.
Mr. Arny. Also, as to the standards, the construction
standards, we intend those standards to be our standards, not
Japanese standards for housing.
Mr. Abercrombie. You may intend that, but the agreement as
I read it says that the Japanese Diet gets to decide the terms
and conditions. You can shake your head, but as I read the
agreement, there is nothing for the Congress of the United
States to decide. When the State Department decided it could
compel the Congress of the United States to do things is beyond
me. I don't know quite how that works.
The agreement, as I read it, says that the Japanese Diet
has to approve terms and conditions under which the money would
be loaned, let alone the money that they intend to give. I
don't blame them for that. That seems to me to be a prudent
action. But the Congress of the United States ought to have at
least the same privilege. It is going to cause you a lot of
problems you have to get settled right now, because the
intention is to move the Marines fairly soon, and the
infrastructure in Guam is nowhere, by any stretch of the
imagination, even remotely prepared to deal with that right
now. I am talking about the sewers, the roads, the harbor which
was BRACed into oblivion--another big mistake that we made.
That is one of the reasons why you are asking the Japanese
Government to provide $2.8 billion for construction and
facilities.
Mr. Arny. I worked for Guam when that BRAC decision took
place, and the only part that was BRACed was the shipyard, not
the port.
Mr. Abercrombie. I know, and the shipyard is in terrible
shape. It is going to have to be refurbished, at a minimum.
Mr. Arny. Not for the commercial side.
Mr. Abercrombie. We can discuss that further. In any event,
the facilities and the infrastructure in Guam is unprepared at
the moment.
Let me ask you, Secretary Penn, what provisions are going
to be made for the 10- to 12- to 15,000 workers that are going
to come into Guam to build these facilities? What is prepared
right now?
Secretary Penn. Our plan is to have the contractor provide
the quarters and facilities for them. And once the construction
is complete, we would like those facilities to become either
housing for the university or affordable housing for the people
on Guam.
Mr. Abercrombie. Where is it going to be?
Secretary Penn. NEPA has not been completed. The
environmental studies have not been completed. We don't know
exactly where it is going to be.
Mr. Abercrombie. And you are going to be able to compel the
Japanese contractor to do that?
Secretary Penn. That is our hope.
Mr. Arny. I believe we are, sir. If we don't, it doesn't
work.
Secretary Penn. We have what we call a SPE, special purpose
entity, which is going through all of the infrastructure. We
would like to give you and anyone else on the committee a
briefing on that, just so you know where we stand.
Mr. Abercrombie. I have been on it right straight through.
Mr. Ortiz. Let me tell my good friend, within the next
couple of weeks, this committee is going to focus on Guam and
we might be able to get more direct testimony, because that is
going to be our focus. Sometimes we feel that the Department of
Defense and the State Department have not been singing from the
same page in many instances. And, in fact, we had somebody say
the other day that the Army had more marching band members in
their band than the State Department had employees in their
staff. So I think that we are going to focus on that soon so
that we can really get the core. My good friend has very
legitimate questions to ask.
Mr. Abercrombie. As you know, Secretary Penn, and Secretary
Arny, I exist only to make your life easier.
Mr. Arny. We have many instances where you have helped us a
lot, sir.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Eastin is my witness on that.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Eastin, I would like to ask you about a proposed
Army expansion in southern Colorado that was briefly mentioned
earlier, Pinon Canyon.
Every private property rights advocate would agree that a
landowner must be protected from unreasonable takings of their
land against their will, as well as takings that do not provide
just compensation.
But the other side of the coin is that private property
rights must also mean that landowners should be free to sell or
lease their land to whomever they wish, including the United
States military.
From what I understand, some of the opponents of the Army's
land expansion at Pinon Canyon are not only opposed to
condemnation of unwilling sellers, but they are also opposed to
willing sellers who voluntarily wish to sell or lease their
land to the Army. Is that your understanding as well?
Secretary Eastin. I have seen reports of that, and I think
a press release from what we call the opposition group down
there indicates that. They don't mind selling your land to
whomever you like, as long as the Army isn't to whomever you
like. I am at a little bit of a loss to understand that. We
have worked very hard in the Pinon Canyon acquisition where we
are seeking to acquire a little less than 100,000 acres down
there. We have bent over backwards to address every issue that
the community has raised and the opposition has raised, and
still we run into that.
It is as if--and I don't want to point fingers down there--
but they somehow have a deep mistrust for the Army and they are
afraid if we acquire the 100,000 acres we will be back next
year for 100 more, or, as I indicated before, 7 million. They
have a campaign that I am not sure where it is heading, but I
believe that we, the Army, have addressed all of their concerns
and we would like to proceed with this.
Mr. Lamborn. Just for the record, will the Army agree to
buy or lease land at Pinon Canyon only from willing sellers,
and not use property condemnation upon unwilling landowners?
Secretary Eastin. I have said that the Army will purchase
land from willing sellers. Let me be clear about this: The Army
will not take land for Pinon Canyon and will not condemn land
at Pinon Canyon. It will buy only from willing sellers. I don't
know if we can get any clearer than that.
I have had the pleasure of having a meeting in Trinidad,
Colorado with local concerned citizens. I stated that at that
time. That is the Army position that I stated. We do not need
to buy from unwilling sellers. The only time condemnation will
be used is if someone requests it for clearing title or, as I
understand it, tax purposes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
If the Army gets permission and funding from Congress to
expand Pinon Canyon, what benefits would the immediately
surrounding communities receive?
Secretary Eastin. The proposal we have made--we have been
talking to several landowners there--the proposal we have made
to the community, once again in public statements and in
writing to the local community there, with the additional land
we will construct a combined arms training center which will
require, and we have program for it, between 125 and $140
million in military construction on that Pinon Canyon.
Additionally, we will need people to operate that range. We
have committed that we will hire upwards of 100 additional
people that will live in the area, in the community, not on our
installation but in the community. They will buy or lease
houses there. They will have their cars repaired there. And
they will up the volume at the local McDonald's and food
stores, and live and contribute to the community. Our estimates
are for Los Alamos County, and for others that don't know, it
is a relatively agrarian community with less going on
economically than larger cities, but we anticipate that our
contribution there would be about $9 million a year in salaries
alone, which would be between 5 and 6 percent increase to the,
if you will, gross national product of the county. So it is
going to be a significant addition to the county.
I think it will help the Army meld into the community
rather than, as some of the community members now think, we
drive down from Carson City, tear up the land with our tanks,
buy a few Cokes at the 7-Eleven, and go back up north. We don't
want to do that anymore, and we intend to correct that.
Mr. Lamborn. I appreciate your answer.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Reyes.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for
your service.
My question is to Secretary Eastin. We have obviously had
an opportunity to visit many times on the growth that is taking
place in my district, in particular with Fort Bliss, and I
appreciate your support for all of that effort. But given the
subject of today's hearing, I wanted to ask you about a portion
of Fort Bliss that is actually not included in the future
growth of the post, but it is an area that garners a tremendous
amount of interest, and I am talking about Castner range which
is, as you know, Secretary Eastin, is an old artillery range
and it is located right up against the Franklin Mountains and
has not been used by the Army for anything since the 1970s.
Since that time, Castner range has gone from a very active
artillery training site to what people in my district highly
value; it is an open space that every spring there is now a
tradition where we can go out there and see a spectacular
display of desert poppies.
The concern in my district is that the Army is going to at
some point reactivate Castner range and will be reutilizing it
again, and they would like to keep it as open space. So my
question to you is: Can you tell us whether or not the Army has
any plans to reopen Castner range or maybe to develop the range
for any other purpose?
Secretary Eastin. We ceased operations on that range in
1971. Meanwhile, some 35-38 years later, El Paso has grown up
around us. It would be wholly impractical to use that parcel
for any range activity. We don't have any other intended uses
for it. It is now bisected by a highway and just plain
impractical for that sort of use. So I think you can assure
your constituents that we are not going to be back there in an
active way anytime soon.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Penn and Mr. Arny, the chairman and I and some others
just got back from Guam. While I don't lay claim to the veto
authority and power that my good friend from Hawaii does, I am
pretty concerned about that process. The folks we visited with
weren't there when the original decision was made. As best we
can tell, the idea of moving 8,000 Marines off Okinawa to Guam
occurred as a result of a contentious meeting between Secretary
Rumsfeld and, I guess, the then-Governor of Okinawa. And so
part of our concern is we are going to be asked to fund a good
slug of this stuff, and just understanding the backdrop of how
that decision came about and how we picked the number 8,000 and
what the thinking was among the administration that came up
with this idea to move the Marines. Were either of you involved
in any of those early decisions as to how this happened? You
were just handed a statement that said move 8,000 Marines from
here to there.
Secretary Penn. We were just told to do it.
Mr. Conaway. We will continue to try to figure that out. I
don't know how our understanding will change the ultimate
outcome, but it will make it easier. Who would be the person to
ask who has the institutional memory or wisdom on this idea?
Mr. Arny. I believe the chairman has a hearing scheduled in
two weeks which will go into Guam. I am supposed to be there.
Also, my colleagues from the policy section at DOD will be
there, and we will get into that history.
Mr. Conaway. So during that hearing, we will have someone
there who has the institutional memory of how we got from
Tinker to Evers to Chance and where we are today, so that those
of us who will be asked to vote on whether the U.S. pays for
any of this, we can do so on a more informed basis?
Mr. Arny. That is correct.
Mr. Conaway. I appreciate that. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Arny, at the beginning of the month I wrote
Secretary Gates a letter. I hope you are familiar with it. It
involves the transaction that took place in my congressional
district, the Armed Forces Retirement Home. We are fortunate
enough to have one of the two, purchased about 10 acres of
property for about $5.7 million. They turned around and sold
the two houses on the property, two very nice houses, and about
3.8 acres of land, apparently, for $1 million. This doesn't
appear to be a very good business transaction for our nation.
Apparently the houses were not put out for public sale. It was
done I think in a questionable manner. I have a letter for you
that has a number of questions that I would very much
appreciate you getting me some answers to.
But more importantly, I would like to know what steps, if
any, have been taken to keep something like this from happening
again. Again, it appears shady at best and certainly a very,
very bad business judgment on the part of the nation. And there
is a limited pool of money to run that Armed Forces Retirement
Home, and I don't think it was money well spent.
I would appreciate you getting back to me on these things,
I would hope in two weeks. And above all, if some regulations
have not been passed since this transaction to keep something
like this from happening again, I need to know that, because I
would certainly like to address it in this year's authorization
bill so that kind of mistake isn't made again.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir. I heard about this yesterday. The Armed
Forces Retirement Home, what little management DOD has over it,
comes under the personnel section. We know there is an answer
coming back to you. In researching it, the land acquisition was
done by the home. It is not overseen by my office, and the lot
had changed that.
I am as troubled as you when I read the articles. There is
a lot that I don't know. I worked with the Armed Forces
Retirement Home back in the 1980s, but I am told the entire
structure has changed since then, and very little of the
management comes under the DOD. I will research that. I will
make sure that my Personnel and Readiness colleagues get back
to you. I know we do have an answer to your letter coming
through the system to you.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will
submit this letter and the questions for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 63.]
Mr. Taylor. Again, I don't mean to catch you cold on this.
It was not on your watch. The most important thing is that
those bad management practices be changed so that it doesn't
happen again.
Mr. Arny. I agree, if that is the case, they need to be
changed, but I believe we do not have any oversight over those
management practices.
Mr. Taylor. Someone needs some oversight.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, I had three committees holding hearings at the
same time. We need some good time management practices in
Congress. It is almost as bad as the military right now. I do
have one thing that I would like to ask, and I will end my
sentence with a question mark. So, Mr. Eastin, if you would
like to respond you can, but it is half statement and half
sentence.
I recognize that in your written testimony you talked about
the need of having 4.5 million acres for training purposes, and
I recognize some of the problems that you are facing. I also
have to admit you have a large responsibility of covering
dozens of bases and installations that the Army desperately
needs. But I do find it unusual, that is the best word that I
can say, that you have facilities that I think are still
underutilized by the Army.
One of the things I am the proudest of in my district is
the Utah Test and Training Range and the Dugway facility. That
is a huge area out there, which we have taken great strides in
both the state and the congressional delegation, to make sure
that there are no encroachment issues. You would not be sued by
private property owners in the Dugway training area, and you
have a whole lot of land there that simply is underutilized.
And I recognize, Mr. Billings, a lot of the work we have done
is to make sure that the Air Force can still utilize that
space.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the Army simply has
blinders on and you fail to look outside the box. We would love
to work with you to fill some of your needs, but I don't think
that you are looking at the right area to find those needs.
This is a wonderful space to solve some of your problems, and I
would specifically like the Army to look at that vast area of
land with no encroachment issues in an area where the state
totally supports those types of endeavors.
It is frustrating to me that we still have bio level 3 labs
out there in trailers on the desert. I am frustrated also that
there has not been a Military Construction (MILCON) for the
Tooele Army Depot in 16 years, even though more ammunition is
shipped out of that spot than any other facility that you have,
and it is all going from World War II loading docks. In fact,
we have buildings out there that we don't have a MILCON to tear
down. I don't know necessarily what happens.
What I am trying to say is, Mr. Eastin, I recognize the
serious issue that you have. I would like to help you solve
that problem, but I feel frustrated because time after time we
seem to run up into a stone wall when we say we have solutions
that can help you address some of the issues which you have. I
would like you to look more seriously at some of those issues.
This is a place that can be one of the solutions you have, once
again in an area without encroachment and an area with popular
support for this use out there. I would seriously like you to
reexamine that opportunity and reexamine the potential that is
out there. That is a question.
Secretary Eastin. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Forbes said, ``Will you do that?''
Secretary Eastin. Question mark. Let me look at this stone
wall and get back to you for the record on why it is that
apparently you have surplus land and this cannot contribute to
our training ability. I am not prepared now to speculate on why
that is. We will get back and you shouldn't be left unsatisfied
as to our reasons for not looking at that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 69.]
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. I realize that I am asking a
parochial issue, and you have nationwide issues to deal with.
Secretary Eastin. I have never seen a parochial issue
before, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. We are all parochial issues, but at the same
time I really think we have the opportunity for providing some
solutions, and I would appreciate that kind of interest. I
thank you. That is what I think is the best response I can ask
for at this stage.
Mr. Ortiz. After consultation with the minority, I now ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Butterfield, a member of the House
of Representatives, be authorized to question the panel members
at today's hearing. If there are no objections, I recognize Mr.
Butterfield.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to have our
distinguished colleague from North Carolina to ask any
questions he may have.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me
come to this committee to say hello to our guests, and to thank
the minority for your unanimous consent in letting me do this.
I served on this committee some years ago and it is good to be
back in this room one more time.
Before I forget, let me ask unanimous consent to include a
three-page opening statement for the record.
Mr. Ortiz. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 60.]
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for nearly eight years there
has been a very contentious debate in my state over where best
to site an outlying landing field to support the operations of
a carrier-based fixed wing aircraft squadron from Oceana, which
is in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Since my first day in this
body, even when I was campaigning to get a seat in this body, I
have been confronted with this issue and I have said all along
that I have supported the Navy's desire to build the OLF
provided it was in a place that provided a proper fit for both
the Navy and our local community.
Understandably, this has proven to be an emotional issue
for the people of my district regarding potential sites. The
concerns of these communities--most of these are rural
communities--these concerns center on the prospect of a
diminished quality of life, greatly increased noise, and the
potential for accidents and environmental impacts and concerns
over the vast amounts of private acreage becoming public lands
and going off the local tax rolls.
Secretary Penn and I have talked about this repeatedly over
the years, and so I want to address this to Secretary Arny, if
I can. My question to you, sir, is regardless of the final site
selection of the OLF, regardless of where it is--and you and I
have talked about this as well--how does the Navy intend to
offset some of the concerns of the local community relating to
their quality of life?
Mr. Arny. I have been away from that issue for over a year.
But I do know that the fleet--Admiral Anderson has referred to
him as Hollywood--has worked very closely with the communities
down there. I know that the Navy has also worked very closely
with the governor and his staff to find the proper place to go.
And I know at the time that the governor's staff was also
working with local communities.
As far as offsetting the impact of the facility, I know
that the Navy was looking at there will be jobs created at the
field; not a lot, but there will be jobs. The Navy is also
looking at some sort of tax benefits. We are looking at land
that willing sellers would like to dispose of or would like to
sell. There are a number of things.
Mr. Butterfield. What about direct investments? That is
what citizens ask me about.
Mr. Arny. There will be direct investment. We will build
runways and firehouses and roads. Again, my date is a little
old. I haven't had a chance to refresh on that issue, so I
defer to Mr. Penn.
Secretary Penn. Current numbers, we will be employing about
60 people. The initial construction will be upwards of $200
million.
Mr. Butterfield. This is a county that doesn't have a
hospital or a health center. This is a poor, rural county that
is being picked on by the Navy. I don't necessarily agree with
all of that, but they feel they are a victim, and they need
direct investment in their county. I guess my question is: Will
the Navy be willing to consider direct investment in addition
to tax benefits to the county?
Mr. Arny. Sir, we will definitely look at that.
Mr. Butterfield. You have been very supportive of my
questions as I have worked with you over the years. The Navy
has been extremely accessible to me and my staff, and I want to
thank all of you for what you have done.
The Navy has stated recently it will not build an OLF in a
community where it is not welcomed. I don't know to whom that
statement is attributable, but my staff tells me the Navy has
made that statement: that it will not build an OLF in a
community where it is not welcome. Is that an accurate
statement; and, if so, to whom should it be attributable?
Mr. Arny. I don't know.
Secretary Penn. I don't know who made the statement either,
but we are taking aircraft to Florida now to do FCLPs, which
impacts our crews, the life of the aircraft, and things like
that. So we are doing everything that we can to support the
community in that respect.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, thank you. I am going to conclude my
questions, Mr. Chairman, but I hope you would not build such a
facility in a community where it is not welcomed, where it is
unanimously opposed by the community.
I yield back.
Mr. Ortiz. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Arny, it is very nice to see you back here before
our committee. And Secretary Penn, thank you for testifying
this morning. Mr. Eastin and Mr. Billings, thank you also for
being here with us.
This question that I have is either for Secretary Arny or
Secretary Penn. Gentlemen, as you are well aware, the NEPA
process is ongoing on Guam and we hope to see a robust,
thorough environmental impact statement some time later this
spring. Now it has been reported in the Guam media that the
Department is looking at private land acquisition on Guam to
accommodate certain basic Marine training requirements. In
light of these recent reports, some concern has been raised by
members in our community on Guam about this acquisition of
private lands and some question as to why not all federal lands
cannot be used to accommodate these basic training
requirements. So can you elaborate on why there is a need for
the potential acquisition of this land?
Secretary Penn. Yes, ma'am.
Our goal when we started the initiative was to only use
federal lands for this move. You are absolutely correct, we
have a lot of land, and we would like to do everything we can
on our own land. Through the NEPA process, we have found a
couple of problems that will be sticky for us. There are four
endangered species and we have to mitigate that. That
mitigation will eat into a lot of the land that we thought we
could use for main containment and for ranges. If that is the
case, if we cannot mitigate against that, then we may go to the
Governor of Guam or private sellers--and they have approached
us about selling their land--to get the additional land. That
is where we are on that.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Arny.
Mr. Arny. Again, I have not looked at it directly, but that
is what I understand. As you know, up in northwest field, there
is an environmental overlay that perhaps shouldn't be on there.
That may restrict us in using our own land, which we would
prefer to do.
Ms. Bordallo. A follow-up on that question. Can you
elaborate on the process that would be used to acquire these
private lands if they are deemed necessary to acquire by the
record of decision? Would the Department of Defense resort to
using eminent domain at all to acquire these lands? Or is the
Department even contemplating or open to this particular
option?
Secretary Penn. I don't think we are considering eminent
domain, no, ma'am. We find in other areas, if we can lease the
land, that does just as well for everyone concerned. The tax
base is there, you have the land for whatever you want, and we
get to use it for what we need. The Governor of Guam has talked
about exchanging some land with us if we get to that point.
Ms. Bordallo. If you get to that point. So in other words,
you are looking at leasing rather than eminent domain. All
right.
My third question, Mr. Chairman, I have just one quick
question; finally, the Guam legislature is considering
legislation at this time, I think it is bill number 43, that
would, if enacted, require the Guam legislature's approval for
the sale or lease of any Guam land. Obviously this would
complicate any private land acquisition options for the
Department. How are you working to address this particular
matter, and could you inform the committee how you are
specifically working with the elected leaders on Guam to
address their concerns?
Secretary Penn. I just heard about this, ma'am. I know that
the legislature is trying to get involved with some other
things with the Governor, and we started out working with the
Governor. We will continue to work with him. We will obey the
law and do the right thing.
Ms. Bordallo. I do know, Secretary Penn, and I will say for
the record, that you have made every effort to work closely
with our elected leaders in the legislature, and I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. We just came back from Guam not too long ago,
and their hospitality was outstanding and the people are very
warm. Ms. Bordallo, thank you so much for receiving us in the
manner that you all did.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. I have one more question.
Secretary Penn and Mr. Billings, the Navy and the Air Force
have placed a needed emphasis on safety of flights for the
military pilots and flight crews. However, I am concerned that
this same level of emphasis is not provided to the local
community that surrounds the military installations. Could you
explain your position on the need to acquire land in the
accident-potential zones that in some cases exceed the confines
of the military installations?
Mr. Billings. Yes, sir. Since the early 1950's, the Air
Force has been working with our communities to find ways to
utilize the land on our bases and around our bases to make sure
that we protect both the pilots and the communities in areas
that could provide potential danger. In the 1970's, we created
a greenbelt initiative where we looked to both acquire land and
to use processes in terms of easements to find more land to
create more landing zone areas. And lately the Air Installation
Compatible Use Program has worked with our communities to again
find the lands that are available at the end of runways and
moving forward to provide more land.
We look first to work cooperatively for easements, and
where necessary to buy land as a last resort, and, if at all
necessary, to use eminent domain but to pay a fair market value
for that. But there has been a history going back to the
beginning of the Air Force and working with our communities to
find the appropriate land to make sure that we can fly our
missions.
Mr. Ortiz. Because this has become a very serious problem.
You know, some of the communities are very dependent on
military bases because they provide good-paying jobs and
retirement and so on and so forth. But what happens in some of
the cities is they allow encroachment to get so close to the
bases that we have had incidents where helicopters and planes
have crashed. We want to be sure that we provide not only the
flight crew and the pilots, for them to be safe, but also the
community who resides right next to the bases. I hope you are
looking at it and establishing guidelines.
At the Corpus Christi Air Base, they spoke to the city and
said you cannot build in this area because of the low-flying
aircraft coming in. I hope we can look at this.
Secretary Penn. We have established a community planner and
liaison officer, and their sole purpose is to work with
communities on issues like this, everything from the Accident
Potential Zones (APZs) to the noise to prevent the
encroachment, if we can. That is what happened to us in the
past. No one was there to watch the encroachment as the city
grew in around the bases. But now we have someone that will be
there on watch.
Mr. Arny. The Navy had folks in, I would say, the early
1990's, the bases had some staffs, but budgets were cut, the
market was down. So the base commander said we don't need those
folks. And we forgot to hire them back when the market went up,
and so now we are going back to enforce our easements and buy
up land to protect not only the pilots but also the surrounding
community.
Mr. Billings. Mr. Chairman, while the Air Force has worked
closely with our communities, and we have outlined the zones
around the airfields, it is incumbent upon the communities also
to work with the Air Force so that they create zoning
requirements that don't allow certain activities in those
areas. They know where the areas are, and it is important that
we work together to make sure that the communities also do
their part in zoning those properly, because we have run into
instances where the communities have zoned certain areas so
that houses could be built there when they knew that there were
runways there and knew they were in APZ zones. It is a
balancing act, sir.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I have just one follow-up to
Congressman Butterfield's question.
Coming back to the OLF situation again, one of the things
in countless meetings I have had--and again I just thank you
all for what you do and so this is not a criticism but a
question of how we do it better. In every meeting I have had
regarding the OLFs, at some time the question that Congressman
Butterfield laid on the table comes back, which is: What
incentives can we give to the localities to help them support
this decision? And every one of them is the same response that
Secretary Arny just gave--and I am not being critical--``We
don't know; we will get back to you.''
We know we ought to have something put on the table. I have
never been in one where someone pulls out a sheet of paper and
says here are the possible things we can do and how can we get
them laid on the table. Maybe you can respond back in writing
to us at some point in time what are the incentives we can use,
because it looks like to me if we don't have enough incentives,
that is something we may need to be creating; because it may be
economically better to give incentives to Mr. Butterfield's
communities that he is talking about than trying to go
somewhere else where land prices might be exorbitant.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 69.]
But the second thing, those incentives do us no good when
they come at the end of the process, because by then the
community is locked into their feelings. To have any benefit at
all, you have to go in at the beginning of the process, take
the mayors, the board of supervisor members, and the council
members and sit down and say, Here are some of the things that
may help your community so they have things to want to try to
help you. Right now what frustrates them and me and everybody
else is we don't know what they are. Maybe they don't exist and
we need to create them.
Second, how can we create the legal mechanisms to allow you
to put some of those things on the table for negotiation
earlier on in the process?
The final thing is, no matter how wonderful Admiral
Anderson might be, when he is going to a community and saying,
``but I don't have anything to give you, to offer you,'' it is
very difficult for that community to come back and say, ``Come
on in and bring us all of that noise and everything else.'' I
just throw that out. You can respond now or in writing.
Mr. Arny. I would like to comment. I think you have hit the
nail on the head. Sometimes we operate within our own rules and
don't look beyond. We don't have grant authority. There are a
lot of things we in the Department don't have.
If we were building another Oceana down in North Carolina,
I don't think this would be an issue because we would be
talking about putting in commissaries and exchanges, squadrons.
We are talking about a field that we come down to at sunset and
leave at midnight. So we have 60-80 jobs there. That is a plus.
That is higher than when we were looking down in North Carolina
originally in Washington County. But I would be very open to
working with the committee and with Congress to see if we could
have the authorities to work on some sort of grant where we can
make a direct investment in a community, especially at a place
like this, like an outlying field which doesn't have a big
infrastructure that would bring the money with it.
Mr. Forbes. As Congressman Butterfield mentioned, you may
be able to help them with the health care situation, a business
park or education, and be much cheaper than going to another
site.
Mr. Arny. Absolutely. As I said before, unfortunately, that
is out of the control of most military officers dealing with
it. They have a job to do and they go do it. You say, what
about the local community, and even my experienced real estate
people will sit down and tell me you don't have the authority
to do that. So they are kind of in a box. But I would love to
work with you all to get those kinds of incentives put in there
so that we could go to the community, now it is after the fact,
but say you guys are right, we worked with your
representatives, here is what we can do to offset the impact of
this field. It is necessary for national security, most people
agree with that. We understand there is a price to pay other
than the price of the land, and we want to help compensate you
for that loss.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Secretary Arny, as you probably know, Hurricane
Katrina hit the Mississippi gulf coast about three years ago.
One of the things that really helped our military installations
to help the local communities was the fact that they were self-
sufficient with things like water wells and sewer treatment.
The first hot meals served on the gulf coast were at the
military construction battalions the day after the storm, and
it wasn't happening elsewhere.
Secretary Rumsfeld had worked toward getting the bases to
use community water, community sewer. Given that there is a
pretty good chance there will be a Katrina-type event in the
future, either an act of God or an act of man, and the
importance of the bases in restoring confidence or in getting
things done, I would really encourage you to give a good hard
look at that. I think the fact that the bases were self-reliant
was a very key factor in their ability to do a great job in
south Mississippi; that the troops could go out and put in a
hard day and still go home and take a hot shower and were
getting hot meals and that they didn't have to go find a portal
head.
So again, as you work on your strategy, I would certainly
hope you would keep that in mind. I think that was a mistake on
the part of the Rumsfeld group, and I hope we can get that off
track.
Mr. Arny. We will look at it, sir. There is definitely a
balance needed. We need our bases to be able to operate,
especially in critical areas. On the other hand, we want to
privatize if it saves us money. We don't want to spend more
taxpayer money on utilities, but we definitely want to
understand the balance between privatization and self-
sufficiency where it is critical.
As Mr. Sienicki knows, because he was down there shortly
thereafter, the base does have more facilities and was able to
help the community around it.
Mr. Taylor. Again, keep in mind that had they had to rely
on community water, they probably would not have had water for
weeks. So instead of being the great asset they were, they
would have been a drain on the system like so many other
things.
And again, when people say what is the difference between
what happened in Mississippi and what happened in New Orleans,
quite frankly, we had wall-to-wall military installations to
assist us and New Orleans did not. But the fact that they were
self-sufficient was a very key factor in that.
Mr. Ortiz. I think Mr. Taylor brought a valid concern to
the hearing today.
Thank you for your testimony and for appearing before our
committee.
Hearing no further questions, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 24, 2009
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 24, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.022
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 24, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49449.026
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 24, 2009
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Arny. When DoD seeks to acquire property for an authorized DoD
project, there are certain benefits and mitigations that we can provide
as part of the project, but our authority is limited. The Department
provides just compensation to every property owner from whom property
interests, either fee simple or lesser interests such as lease or
easement, are acquired. The Department provides relocation assistance
benefits to any residents and businesses, including farmers, which are
displaced by the project. These benefits include relocation planning
and advisory services, and payments for moving expenses, replacement
housing, business reestablishment, and utility service relocation. The
Department mitigates environmental impacts attributable to the project
to the maximum practicable extent. Under the Defense Access Road
program, the Department can pay its fair share for public highway
improvements resulting from sudden or unusual defense-generated
impacts, if certain criteria are met. The Department can work with the
local community to seek compatible private sector uses that can co-
exist with the project. In the case of the OLF, this includes allowing
current compatible agricultural uses of the property to continue except
on the limited footprint of the actual runway and related facilities.
But the Department does not have standing authority to make grants or
similar payments to a local community to compensate for reduced
property tax revenues, or as an incentive to promote general community
support for the project. Such authority would need to be provided by
the Congress as part of the project authorization. [See page 31.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP
Secretary Eastin. The Army does not have excess or surplus maneuver
training land capacity at any of its training installations inside the
Continental United States (CONUS) where operational units are assigned.
However, you are correct in pointing out that some of the Army's other
installations in Utah like Dugway Proving Ground, have a lot of land.
The existence of large quantities of Army or federal land does not
automatically mean it is available for use in maneuver training
exercises. In many cases this land may not be suitable for maneuver
training because of incompatibility with their important research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) missions, terrain, or
environmental factors.
Assuming an RDT&E site's mission is or can be made compatible with,
and available for, Army maneuver training, the next question would be
where the closest Brigade Combat Team (BCT), Combat Support (CS), or
Combat Service Support (CSS) units are located in relation to the RDT&E
land assets. Dugway Proving Ground's main mission is testing for
Chemical and Biological weapons defense. This mission quite naturally
requires a very large and remote site in order to maximize safety, and
minimize risks to nearby civilian populations.
Due to Dugway's very remote nature, maneuver training would entail
transporting a unit's personnel and equipment from existing operational
installations to Dugway to conduct collective training at the battalion
and brigade level. This is not only an expensive proposition, but more
importantly it takes additional time away from Soldier Families.
Normally, when an installation is looking to utilize other nearby
land assets to support maneuver training, it uses a 200 mile radius as
a standard factor because such a distance requires four to five hours
of travel time by military convoy. Experience has shown that it becomes
extremely difficult for units to organically execute distances greater
than 200 miles on a regular basis. Driving distance also significantly
reduces training time and increases the possibility of safety issues
and unnecessary hazard to the force.
If a large portion of a unit's training were to take place more
than 200 miles from the installation, the Army would look at re-
alignment of the units closer to training assets to reduce these
impacts. In the case of Dugway, there are insufficient infrastructure
and quality of life facilities in place to accommodate stationing an
Infantry or Heavy BCT unit at the site full time.
The Army did consider the possibility of stationing an Infantry BCT
(IBCT) at a remote and undeveloped site during the Grow the Army
stationing process. For example, the cost of stationing an IBCT at the
Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) was compared with the cost of
stationing it at Fort Carson. PCMS is an austere, dedicated maneuver
site with no significant cantonment area. More than $331 million in
additional infrastructure and quality of life investments to support
stationing an IBCT at PCMS would be required. As a result, stationing
an IBCT was rejected as an infeasible option. Stationing a major
operational unit at Dugway would require a similar cost-prohibitive
investment. [See page 26.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 24, 2009
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ
Mr. Ortiz. The Army has indicated that they intend to avoid the use
of eminent domain to acquire land at Pinon Canyon. How does the
Department intend to use eminent domain and what restrictions has the
Department placed on the Services in carrying out a condemnation using
eminent domain?
Mr. Arny. DoD follows the same statutory and regulatory
requirements that apply to all federal agencies in acquiring real
property, including use of condemnation authority. Under those
procedures, DoD only acquires property for authorized projects to meet
national defense requirements that cannot be met any other way. The
Department makes every reasonable effort to acquire property by
negotiation with willing sellers. Sometimes it becomes necessary to ask
the Department of Justice to initiate eminent domain proceedings
because: there may be title issues that DoD and the property owner
cannot resolve without court proceedings; an otherwise willing seller
may not agree with the DoD estimate of just compensation and wants a
court to decide fair market value; in some cases, an owner of property
that DoD needs to acquire as part of an authorized acquisition project
may simply be unwilling to sell at any price.
Mr. Ortiz. OSD individually approves Service requested, land
acquisitions in excess of 1,000 acres. In some cases, this land
acquisition process has impeded the Services from promptly responding
to opportunities in acquiring land or limiting encroachment.
Considering the Services are required to use MILCON process to acquire
the land and the NEPA process to evaluate community concerns, is the
OSD process of individually approving service requests redundant and
too time consuming?
Mr. Arny. OSD exercises oversight of major DoD land acquisition
proposals to ensure they are based upon thoroughly vetted requirements
that cannot be met by any other means, and are properly planned.
Project planning lead times provide ample opportunity for the Services
to obtain timely advance OSD review and approval without affecting
acquisition schedules. OSD review also ensures that major land
acquisition proposals have visibility with senior Military Department
and OSD leadership before they go forward. The OSD prior approval
requirement does not apply to encroachment buffer acquisitions from
willing sellers under the authority of section 2684a of title 10,
United States Code, provided DoD does not acquire a possessory property
interest or the right to operate, test, or train on the property.
Mr. Ortiz. The Department still retains significant tracts of land
that have been declared surplus. What are the principal impediments to
conveying prior BRAC lands that have been declared surplus?
Mr. Arny. DoD has made significant progress conveying prior BRAC
lands. Over 90% of prior BRAC property has been conveyed, including
Leases In Furtherance Of Conveyance (LIFOC). Principal impediments to
completing the remaining prior BRAC conveyances include:
Environmental issues, including addressing unexploded
ordnance, that prevent transfer until cleanup can be completed.
Communities change reuse plans that causes the need to
revise and re-negotiate previously planned property conveyances and
creates additional environmental impact analysis requirements.
Local reluctance to proceed with conveyance before all
environmental cleanup is complete, even though conveyance could proceed
under statutory authority for early transfer.
Mr. Ortiz. The Department retains significant amounts of land from
previous rounds of BRAC. Many of these parcels lack the environmental
remediation funding to place this real estate back into productive use.
In total, the Department is projecting $3.8B to complete the
environmental remediation of previous rounds of BRAC. What steps is the
Department taking to secure sufficient funds to complete the
environmental remediation and return surplus Department real estate
back to productive use for the local community?
Mr. Arny. The Department is requesting the funds needed to support
cleanup plans and schedules to complete the remaining environmental
remediation. The Department programs for BRAC environmental remediation
is based on cleanup plans and schedules developed with regulators that
are designed to protect human health and the environment. Along with
protection of human health and the environment, these schedules must
also account for the technology available and time necessary to perform
the specific cleanup. A cleanup may take years to properly complete and
the cost of that performance may stretch over many budget cycles. As
the environmental remediation is completed, the Department continues to
work with the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to put the property
back into productive use. Each year, the Department budgets for the
BRAC environmental remediation funds to satisfy the cleanup
requirements scheduled for that fiscal year.
When possible, the Department is also using the authority to
transfer property before all environmental cleanup is complete, known
as Early Transfer Authority. Where we can transfer property before
cleanup is complete, we can save time and usually save money by
integrating the cleanup with redevelopment of the property. For
example, at McClellan AFB the Air Force is incrementally privatizing
the cleanup of the installation in conjunction with Early Transfer
Authority. Under this approach, LRAs, communities, environmental
regulatory agencies, and DoD work together to strike an acceptable
balance between environmental cleanup schedules and the need for
economic revitalization. At other installations, DoD is using
Performance-Based Remediation Contracts to more quickly implement and
operate remedies to achieve ``remedy operating properly and
successfully'' or ``no-further-remediation-necessary'' status, thus
allowing expedited property transfers. These contracts allow the
remediation contractor to craft more innovative approaches to implement
and complete environmental remediation based on clear performance
objectives and satisfaction of requirements established by
environmental regulatory agencies.
Mr. Ortiz. The Army has reported that it has a 5,000,000 acre
training deficit across multiple installations. How does the Army
intend to address the existing deficit in training space? If the Army
is unable to acquire the documented deficit in real estate, will this
adversely impact military readiness? How?
Secretary Eastin. The purpose of the Department of the Army's Range
and Training Land Strategy (RTLS) is to address the existing land
deficit in training space facing the Army. The RTLS prioritizes Army
training land investments and optimizes the use of all Army range and
training land assets. The RTLS also provides a long-range plan for the
Army to provide the best range infrastructure and training land to
units.
The RTLS was developed in five phases. The first phase was to
inventory current Army training assets. The second phase examined land
values, parcel ownership, environmental constraints, environmental
requirements, and population trends from public records to identify the
best opportunities for training land acquisition and buffering. The
third phase analyzed available land data to recommend short-term and
long-term opportunities based on Army priorities. The RTLS process is
designed to ensure that Army planners continually reevaluate land
requirements against the Army Campaign Plan (ACP) and current Army
priorities. The fourth phase was the establishment of planning
objectives and the identification of installations where land
acquisition supports the ACP. The fifth and final phase was to evaluate
public attitudes and provide outreach support for specific land
acquisitions.
The deliberate phases of the RTLS provide the framework for the
Army to select the most appropriate course of action to address
training land shortfalls at specific Army installations. The options
that the Army can pursue to overcome the 4.5 million acre training land
deficit include: focused management to maximize existing land holdings,
buffering through partnerships, utilization of other federal lands
where possible, and land acquisition.
Focused management. The Army Sustainable Range Program (SRP)
continually strives to maximize the capability, availability, and
accessibility of all Army training lands. The RTLS may indicate that a
land shortfall can be addressed using internal Army or federal
government mechanisms. An example of this is approach can be seen at
Fort Bliss, where the Army reassessed the traditional relationship
between the Fort Bliss mission and the White Sands Test Range mission
to enable more training activities on the White Sands Range, and
thereby mitigate training burdens on Fort Bliss lands. Unfortunately,
the use of focused management does not always provide a complete
solution to an installation's training land deficit. Therefore the Army
must look at other alternatives to supplement more focused management.
Buffering through Partnerships. Army Compatible Use Buffers (ACUBs)
allow the Army to preserve or enhance an installation's current
training land capabilities by minimizing encroachment. ACUBs serve to
insulate Army training from encroachment and can be used to reduce
environmental restrictions to training. However, ACUBs are not always
available as a viable option to mitigate critical training land
deficits.
Utilization of other federal Lands. The Army examines the land
status of other federal entities to mitigate land deficits at Army
installations. Land that borders Army installations, and is held by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or Fish and Wildlife Service, may be
transferred or made available to the Army after a comprehensive
approval process that includes NEPA and other public reviews. Both Fort
Carson and Fort Polk utilize U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands under a
special use permit. While not all training activities are permitted on
USFS land, the special use permit at Fort Polk allows Army training on
an additional 98,000 acres. However, the existence of large quantities
of federal land does not translate automatically into useable maneuver
training land capacity. Due to terrain incompatibility and
environmental issues most of the millions of federal acres cannot be
used for large-scale maneuver training with any meaningful degree of
realism, or at all.
Land Acquisition. In some circumstances, the Army will pursue the
purchase of land to mitigate training land deficiencies. The current
Army position is to purchase land only where it is feasible,
operationally sound, affordable, and compatible with environmental
conditions and requirements. The land acquisition approach is only
pursued at an installation when it is clearly established as the best
solution for supporting Army training requirements to meet ACP goals.
If the Army is unable to address the documented deficit in real
estate through the combined use of the alternatives identified above,
there will be impacts to training capability. Commanders may have to
employ `work-arounds' to accomplish required training events. While
`work-arounds' can be successfully employed by commanders to address
some training capability shortfalls, long-term use of major work-
arounds can have a negative impact on the training and unit capability.
Significant training land shortfalls require units, particularly at the
brigade level, to develop `work-arounds' that train units without
stressing their full operational capability. This creates the risk of
developing bad habits in training and imbeds false expectations as to
true battlefield conditions.
Army training standards are based on lessons learned in combat and
tactical wisdom purchased at great human cost. Every `work-around' is
essentially a trade-off that makes training less realistic than the
conditions they will face in a combat situation. This is a particularly
significant challenge with respect to operating over large operational
areas, employing manned and unmanned aviation, conducting logistics
operations, and using state-of-the-art communication and intelligence
collection and dissemination systems that require unfettered access to
the electro-magnetic spectrum.
Training capability will be impacted if the Army is unable to
address training land shortfalls. Any particular unit training
readiness levels are determined by commanders. Each commander must
assess the degree to which work-arounds affect the unit's operational
capability.
Mr. Ortiz. The Army initially indicated that it intended to acquire
over 400,000 acres of land to support the existing Pinon Canyon range.
The Army has since reduced their requirements to 100,000 acres. A
request for land acquisition is expected in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request. Why has the Department vacillated on the acreage required to
support training in Southeastern Colorado? If the Department is unable
to acquire additional land in the Pinon Canyon region, will this
adversely impact the stationing plan at Fort Carson? Please explain how
the Department is planning to acquire land and specifically, how
eminent domain is planning to be used.
Secretary Eastin. The Army's doctrinally based requirement for at
least 418,577 additional acres of training land has never been reduced,
and was not challenged or questioned in the recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-09-171). In May 2006, Fort
Carson's HQDA-approved Land Use Requirements Study (LURS) validated the
need for an additional 418,577 acres of training land at Pinon Canyon
Maneuver Site (PCMS) to support training for Soldiers stationed at Fort
Carson. In February 2007, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
approved the Army's request for a waiver to pursue land acquisition for
up to 418,577 acres at PCMS. The LURS and OSD approval were completed
before the Grow the Army (GTA) decision was complete.
At the request of Congress, the Army conducted additional review
and analysis of the feasibility of acquiring 418,577 acres and
determined that an acquisition of 100,000 acres was feasible and would
provide the greatest training benefit, at the lowest cost, the lowest
acreage footprint, and with the fewest number of affected landowners
and communities. While the acquisition of 100,000 acres, alone,
addresses less than one quarter of the doctrinal requirement to fulfill
the training land shortfall at Fort Carson/PCMS, it would provide
operational benefits and enhanced training for Soldiers and units
stationed at Fort Carson. If combined with the existing PCMS acreage,
this expanded training area would significantly enhance the Army's
overall capability for maneuver training. Specifically, this area would
provide sufficient space to allow a Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT)
and an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) to conduct simultaneous
combat training at PCMS.
The acquisition of the additional 300,000 acres of land would
involve significant difficulties for both the Army and for the
surrounding communities. The Army's primary challenge is that land
acquisition resources are not unlimited. There are budgetary
constraints and competing requirements for limited resources that will
prevent purchase of the additional land. Additionally, engagement with
community stakeholders continues to highlight a number of other issues
and concerns. The Purgatoire River and existing PCMS split Las Animas
County into two distinct and noncontiguous areas, and additional
expansion to the west of PCMS exacerbates this issue. There are also
concerns about the historic and culturally sensitive Santa Fe Trail. In
addition, a larger expansion area would impact a greater number of land
owners. Based on the combined impact of these factors, the Army
concluded that acquisition of 418,577 acres was not suitable and
reduced the scope of the potential expansion project, not the training
requirement, to 100,000 acres.
The current stationing plan at Fort Carson is being analyzed along
with stationing plans, Army-wide. On 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense
Gates announced the revised FY 10 Defense Budget Estimate and indicated
that the Army would be reducing the total number of Brigade Combat
Teams from 48 to 45. The Army is still working to determine the impacts
of this announcement and consider our way ahead relative to the
guidance we received in order to develop a definitive Army way forward.
With regard to the use of eminent domain, I have testified to
Congress that condemnation/eminent domain will not be used to acquire
or lease land at PCMS. The Army will deal only with willing property
owners. Condemnation will only be used if requested by a property owner
for clearing title or tax purposes. Additionally, the Army would not
acquire or lease any land for military training until the conclusion of
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS
process provides multiple opportunities for public participation and
input.
I share the Committee's concern that the legitimate and legal
private property rights of land owners be protected. But protecting
private property rights must also include the right to sell or lease
property. In America, a private landowner who wants to sell or lease
property to whomever they wish--including the U.S. Army--should be free
to do so without being intimidated or having their property rights
vetoed by outside persons.
Mr. Ortiz. As compared to the other Services, the Army has the
largest amount of real estate from prior rounds of BRAC that remains
surplus and has yet to be conveyed. What steps is the Department taking
to rapidly dispose of excess land?
Secretary Eastin. The Army remains committed to supporting
communities by identifying ways to transfer the remaining acreage from
prior BRAC rounds as quickly and safely as possible. The future owners
of this acreage have been identified, and transfer agreements are in
place. However, environmental issues prevent the transfers from
occurring as expeditiously as we would like. Nearly all of the
remaining acreage is contaminated with residual munitions and
explosives of concern (MEC). MEC cleanup is a complex and lengthy
process. We are addressing the future owners' highest priorities with
the resources available, but completion of the cleanup will take a
number of years.
Mr. Ortiz. The Navy has indicated their intent to acquire 30,000
acres of real estate interests to support Navy aviation requirements.
Significant local opposition has developed against the proposed OLF
sites in Virginia and North Carolina. If the local community opposes
the expansion of Navy real estate interests, will the Navy seek to
acquire land using eminent domain? What alternatives does the Navy have
if local opposition to the OLF prevails?
Secretary Penn. Department of the Navy policy is to acquire only
such property or property interests that are required to meet the
military mission. An Outlying Landing Field will typically include
property for construction of the airfield as well as buffer and
security areas sufficient to meet the mission. Property interests
acquired will be the minimum necessary to meet mission requirements and
would allow for continued compatible use by private property owners
where possible.
The Navy will make every effort to acquire property by negotiated
purchase from willing sellers and property owners will be compensated
at full fair market value for all property interests to be acquired by
the Navy. Eminent domain procedures will only be employed as a measure
of last resort or at the request of the seller. Before commencing any
legal proceeding to acquire property interests through eminent domain,
the Secretary of the Navy shall pursue, to the maximum extent
practicable, all other available options for the acquisition or use of
the land. In the event that acquisition through eminent domain is the
sole option upon which the Navy mission can move forward, then the
Secretary of the Navy will submit to the appropriate committees a
report as required by 10 U.S.C. 2663(f).
The proposed OLF addresses an existing critical training shortfall
that the Navy safely mitigates, when necessary, by extending training
throughout the night and early morning hours at NALF Fentress; by
conducting training at area homebases; and by conducting detachments to
OLFs located outside of the local training area. These mitigation
actions result in increased training costs, increased PERSTEMPO, and
increased impacts on local communities, all while impacting the quality
of training.
As such, to provide the necessary facilities to train in the most
realistic manner possible, the Navy has taken the necessary due
diligence to address public comments and community concerns raised over
this project during the last several years and fully expects to arrive
at a solution that both supports our training requirements and
mitigates impacts on the local community.
Mr. Ortiz. The Navy has taken steps to secure real estate interests
in areas where aviation accidents are most likely to occur. However,
there remains significant real estate that could pose a threat to the
local community because of aviation operations. What steps is the Navy
and Marine Corps taking to limit aviation accidents to the local
community? Does the Navy and Marine Corps have a program for each
installation that limits aviation incidents to the local community?
Secretary Penn. The Department of Navy has a very aggressive Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) program focused on air
operations and land use compatibility in high noise and safety zones.
The DON is continually evaluating our training requirements and seeking
alternatives to mitigate noise and safety concerns while preserving our
mission capabilities. Through the AICUZ Program, installations work
with local officials to foster compatible land use development though
land use controls such as zoning. Additionally, most Navy and Marine
Corps installations have a Community Plans and Liaison Officer (CPLO)
on staff to work with neighboring communities to address their
concerns.
Mr. Ortiz. As compared to the other Services, the Navy has the
largest amount required environmental remediation that impedes
conveyance from prior rounds of BRAC. What steps is the Department
taking to secure sufficient environmental remediation funds to ensure
rapid disposal of excess real estate?
Secretary Penn. The Department of the Navy continues to diligently
make progress on environmental remediation at prior BRAC bases. After
investing over $1.1B in land sale revenue in the prior BRAC program
over the last several years, the DON has resumed requesting
appropriations for continued advancement of the prior BRAC
environmental program. Additionally, we will apply any future land
sales revenues to the cleanup budget.
Despite a dramatic increase in the program cost to complete due to
discovery of pervasive low-level radioactive waste at the former
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, DON has made great progress in advancing
cleanup to support conveyance and redevelopment. At the former Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard, we recently signed 2 Records of Decision and have
been tailoring cleanup to support the City of San Francisco's stadium
redevelopment efforts. Employing an unprecedented number of
treatability studies has allowed use of various technologies which are
resulting in dramatically accelerated cleanup.
We are very appreciative of the continued additional Congressional
support of our program and have been applying those funds to accelerate
cleanup of parcels to support redevelopment priorities identified by
the communities. We also intend to continue to convey property that is
clean and provide a complementary Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance
(LIFOC) for any areas that still required cleanup. In most cases, this
facilitates redevelopment while the Navy completes cleanup actions. We
are also pursuing other creative conveyance transactions whereby the
recipient can receive the property and accept the clean up requirements
in exchange for fair market value. This allows the property to be
conveyed and cleaned up under the control of the developer with
potential for saving money by combining the efforts.
Mr. Ortiz. The Air Force has taken steps to secure real estate
interests in areas where aviation accidents are most likely to occur.
However, there remains significant real estate that could pose a threat
to the local community because of aviation operations. What steps is
the Air Force taking to limit aviation accidents to the local
community? Does the Air Force have a program for each installation that
limits aviation incidents to the local community?
Mr. Billings. Answer 1a. The areas with the greatest accident
potential is the runway, followed by the clear zone, Accident Potential
Zones (APZs) I and APZ II at the end of Air Force installation runways.
Air Force installations continually work with local communities to
limit development to low densities in APZs I and II. The Air
Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) program discourages land
uses that concentrate large numbers of people in a single area, e.g.
churches, schools, auditoriums, residential, and manufacturing that
involves flammable materials from being located in these two zones. Low
intensity land uses such as some light industrial, wholesale trade,
some business services, recreation, agriculture, and open space,
mineral extraction can be compatible in APZ I if they don't create
emissions that create visibility problems or attract birds. Compatible
land uses for APZ II include all the ones compatible in APZ I plus a
few more types of manufacturing, low intensity retail trade and low
density single family residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre).
The installations and local communities can also pursue
encroachment partnering projects within APZ and seek funding through
OSD's Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) program.
Answer 1b. Yes. The Air Force conducts its aviation mishap
prevention program under policy, guidance and oversight issued by the
Air Force Chief of Safety. At the direction of the Air Force Chief of
Safety every installation responsible for a flying mission maintains a
flight safety program with the over-arching goal of preventing aviation
mishaps. An important part of that goal includes preventing mishaps on
and around installations where Air Force aircraft operate.
To accomplish that goal, Air Force installations incorporate mishap
prevention programs in concert with community involvement, partnering,
and information sharing. Some examples include:
MACA--Mid-Air Collision Avoidance programs
- Base level safety office programs required by Air Force
regulation
- Community involvement is usually high
- Includes comprehensive web sites for most bases who share
airspace with local flying communities/airports/FBOs
- Can involve road-shows to local airports/flying orgs
- Bases are required to keep and update a MACA Pamphlet for
the local community on a regular basis
Usually contains basic information about the
military base traffic pattern, procedures for passage,
ATC radar codes, radio frequencies, etc.
- Very helpful for local aviators who may or may not have in-depth
knowledge on the local military operations
BASH--Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard programs
- Each base develops its own procedures depending on local hazards
in accordance with Air Force safety policy
- Includes risks from all wildlife, not just birds
- Many utilize local outreach programs to keep problem species
from public/private land surrounding bases. Example: A border collie to
harass geese on private land around McConnell AFB with landowner
permission
- Local threat information is also available publicly via world
wide web (Avian Hazard Assessment System [AHAS] and Bird Avoidance
Model [BAM] web sites, which use historical data and Next Generation
Radar [NEXRAD] data to assess strike hazards for any particular time
period)
Flight Safety Participation in Airfield Certification Processes
- Airfields are designed for safe operations and to be compliant
with federal laws regarding aspects of flight safety. Examples are
runway clear zones, airspace considerations, etc.
- Locally, flight operations are designed to be limited over
populated areas--aircraft are normally directed to turn, if
practicable, prior to overflying densely populated areas
- Traffic patterns are designed to be on the less-populated side
of the runway, and usually include altitude restrictions associated
with each local area.
- Designated ``No Fly'' areas based on population density or
mishap potential.
Each local area has different requirements
Surroundings areas reevaluated for population growth
- Air field certifications are reviewed on a recurring basis with
Safety's participation and input
ORM--Operational Risk Management
- Risk management decisions are made at the appropriate levels
- Aircraft commanders are ultimately responsible for the safe
conduct of flights
- Leadership implements control measures for increased risk due to
weather, natural disaster, or anything else
- Aircrew undergo formal annual and quarterly training on risk
management techniques
- Active safety mitigation strategy via Supervisor Of Flying (SOF)
duties. During active flying periods, SOF personnel are on duty to aid
aircrews in solving in-flight emergencies. Such services may include,
but are not limited to, reading emergency checklists, arranging for
phone patches with Air Force System Program Offices (SPOs) or onsite
engine/aircraft tech representatives to solve the emergency and safely
recover the aircraft. Options also include diverting aircraft from the
primary airbase to other outlying recovery bases or airfields that have
been preselected prior to the actual mission.
CRM--Crew/Cockpit Resource Management
- Formal recurring training for all aircrew members which stresses
risk management, crew coordination, communication skills (for example,
using standard terminology with ATC), and many other factors.
- Annual simulator requirement with profiles that stress emergency
procedures and safe recovery options (better to practice in the
simulator first before having it happen in the aircraft).
In addition to the above listed programs, the Air Force also
sponsors an aggressive foreign object damage (FOD) prevention program,
and investigates local hazardous air traffic reports (HATRs) to
identify and mitigate hazards to all aircraft operating in and around
airfield environments.
Mr. Ortiz. The Air Force has over 10,000 acres of real estate that
remain to be conveyed and almost $1B of environmental remediation
remaining to complete. What steps is the Department taking to rapidly
dispose of excess land? What steps is the Department taking to secure
sufficient environmental remediation funds to ensure rapid disposal of
excess real estate?
Mr. Billings. In 2006, the Air Force implemented a BRAC Master Plan
Strategy which integrated BRAC property transfer authorities, private-
sector real estate opportunities, and aggressive procurement of
remaining environmental remediation into one executable road map. As
part of the master plan dedicated transaction teams were developed to
focus on the priorities in support of property transfer with a goal to
transfer all property by 2010 with the exception of the former
McClellan and George Air Force Bases, which are on projected for
transfer by 2012. Other strategies incorporated in the master plan
include the use of early transfer methods, open communication with
stakeholders, and on-going communication with regulators.
The program requirements development process is used to plan,
program and budget to adequately acquire funds for current and future
environmental projects. The developed process provides consistency
throughout the agency to develop accurate and reliable cost to complete
estimates to program for out year funding requirements based on
historical and current expenditures. In addition, the BRAC master plan
includes increased use of performance base contracts which allows
flexibility for environmental cleanup at a lower cost, i.e.,
competitive bid.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK
Mr. Loebsack. The Iowa National Guard had four facilities included
in the 2005 BRAC round. Of these, three, all of which are in my
District, have yet to be funded. The Cedar Rapids and Middletown sites
include Armed Forces Readiness Centers and Field Maintenance Shops. The
Muscatine site is a Readiness Center. The facilities were built in
1916, 1950, and 1973 respectively. They are too small to support
current operations, they contain asbestos, and are prone to flooding.
Yet the Iowa National Guard has not received funding to improve the
sites in over fifteen years. My understanding from correspondence with
the Department of Defense in 2008 is that these three sites are slated
for funding under BRAC 2005 in FY 2010. However, I am deeply concerned
about the cost overruns and delays in the BRAC process, and I fear that
the National Guard is being left behind with the possible result that
the plans for the Cedar Rapids, Muscatine, and Middletown sites will
have to be scaled back. Mr. Arny and Mr. Eastin, please provide me with
a status update for the Cedar Rapids, Middletown, and Muscatine BRAC
sites. Specifically, I would like you to provide me with information
about the planned funding timeline for the sites; whether they are
being considered for funding provided by the American Economic Recovery
and Reinvestment Act; and whether the original plans for those sites
will still be carried out to their full intent.
Mr. Arny. As submitted in the FY 2009 BRAC request, these projects
are currently programmed for construction in FY 2010. As of this date,
the Army's FY 2010 budget is not yet final, so I cannot provide you
with specific details. As soon as the fiscal year 2010 President's
Budget Request is released, we will be able to provide you with
specific details. The Department is committed to all BRAC requirements
being completed by September 15, 2011. These projects are not being
considered for funding in the American Economic Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Mr. Loebsack. The Iowa National Guard had four facilities included
in the 2005 BRAC round. Of these, three, all of which are in my
District, have yet to be funded.The Cedar Rapids and Middletown sites
include Armed Forces Readiness Centers and Field Maintenance Shops. The
Muscatine site is a Readiness Center. The facilities were built in
1916, 1950, and 1973 respectively. They are too small to support
current operations, they contain asbestos, and are prone to flooding.
Yet the Iowa National Guard has not received funding to improve the
sites in over fifteen years. My understanding from correspondence with
the Department of Defense in 2008 is that these three sites are slated
for funding under BRAC 2005 in FY 2010. However, I am deeply concerned
about the cost overruns and delays in the BRAC process, and I fear that
the National Guard is being left behind with the possible result that
the plans for the Cedar Rapids, Muscatine, and Middletown sites will
have to be scaled back.Mr. Arny and Mr. Eastin, please provide me with
a status update for the Cedar Rapids, Middletown, and Muscatine BRAC
sites. Specifically, I would like you to provide me with information
about the planned funding timeline for the sites; whether they are
being considered for funding provided by the American Economic Recovery
and Reinvestment Act; and whether the original plans for those sites
will still be carried out to their full intent.
Secretary Eastin. As of this date the DoD FY10 budget is not yet
final, but the Army would prefer to fund all three of these projects.
As soon as the fiscal year 2010 President's Budget Request is released,
we will be able to provide you with specific details. Please be assured
that the Army is working hard to complete all BRAC 2005 actions by the
September 2011 statutory deadline.
The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act spending plan
can be downloaded at: http://www.defenselink.mil/recovery/
plans_reports/2009/march/Final_ARRA_Report_to_Congress-
24_Mar_09ver2.pdf
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS
Ms. Giffords. At Fort Huachuca we have a very unique situation. The
need for easements extends well beyond the fence line in order to
protect the very unique electromagnetic atmosphere surrounding the
Fort. While the relationship between the Fort and the community is very
good, the State of Arizona grants extraordinary land rights to the
private individual. Increased development around the Fort presents a
potential risk to the pristine testing grounds there. What is the
Army's short-term and long-term plan to protect the electromagnetic
testing grounds and the Fort Huachuca area from further development?
Secretary Eastin. The Army plans to protect land around Fort
Huachuca from incompatible land use with Army Compatible Use Buffers
(ACUB) and improved communication on development of new facilities
outside the installation that may impact electromagnetic spectrum
usage. These are both current and long-term solutions.
ACUBs are authorized by 10 USC 2684a, which allows military
departments to partner with government or private conservation
organizations to limit development that is incompatible with
installation missions. ACUB partners enter into real estate
negotiations only with willing sellers. The Fort Huachuca ACUBs
concentrate on sustaining the mission and maintaining ecosystem
function to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The mission focus
of ACUB includes preventing incompatible land use to protect the
electromagnetic spectrum, protect training space for unmanned aircraft,
and retain military airspace. The current objective is for the partner,
The Nature Conservancy, to pursue conservation easements on the
approximately 18,000 acre Babocomari Ranch located north and northeast
of the installation.
Communication was enhanced by passage of state law in 2008 that
requires municipalities and counties to notify military electronics
range commanders of proposed rezoning or potential erection of systems
on land that may impact spectrum use. This communication gives Fort
Huachuca the opportunity to educate a potential land buyer of the
potential for interference due to emissions from the installation.
Ms. Giffords. Given the current recession and the general decrease
in demand for land and development, are you considering spending more
funds now on additional real estate purchases to take advantage of the
decreased prices? Could you execute additional funds if this Committee
decided to provide them?
Secretary Eastin. Current real estate market conditions do not
drive land acquisitions. Land acquisitions are conducted through a
comprehensive process that typically takes five or more years from
requirement identification to final execution. The Office of The
Secretary of Defense must approve all land acquisitions above 1,000
acres or $1 million. Also, once a requirement is identified, the Army
must conduct a detailed analysis and prepare documentation in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. These factors
make the acceleration or expansion of land purchases too risky, and
therefore, the Army would not recommend additional funding for land
purchases above the projects that are submitted through the Army
Military Construction Budget Request.
It is important to stress that land acquisition is generally sought
only when the other tools available to support mission requirements
have been exhausted (such as better use of existing land assets, use of
other federal lands, and compatible use buffers). Because of the long
lead times and uncertainties associated with land acquisition, and the
fact that they represent in a sense our `last resort' option, we deeply
appreciate Congressional support for programmed land acquisitions when
they are requested through the Army Military Construction Budget
process.
Ms. Giffords. What acquisition method is preferable for each of
your services from a land management standpoint?
Secretary Eastin. The Army's preferred methods are donation,
exchange, and purchase of lands for fee title. The extent of the
interest to be acquired in real property is dependent on the use of the
property. Where the use is to be exclusive, then the acquisition in fee
is the more prominent method; however, where a joint use, or a use
right is identified, then an interest less than fee is appropriate,
such as an easement, lease, license, permit, or right of way.
While fee title is our preferred method, land acquisition methods
are selected on a case-by-case basis. Our preferred approach is adapted
to the facts of the case, based on feedback from willing landowners,
and the process of good-faith negotiations.
Ms. Giffords. The current footprint of Davis-Monthan Air Force base
has remained constant but potential encroachment threatens the future
of the base. On the southeastern approach, residential development is
stopped by a major thoroughfare. On the northwestern approach, however,
there is room for land development. As we seek to balance the needs of
Tucson with the essential mission of D-M, what is the Air Force's plan
to protect the D-M departure corridor from further encroachment and
remediate current issues to ensure the base can continue to house the
missions of the future?
Mr. Billings. Davis-Monthan AFB (DMAFB) is actively engaged with
the local community in addressing encroachment issues in the following
ways:
1. The Arizona Department of Commerce sponsored a Joint Land Use
Study (JLUS) through OSD's Office of Economic Adjustment to proactively
work with stakeholders near AZ military installations. The JLUS,
published by the Arizona Department of Commerce in November 2004,
established recommended compatible land use criteria for areas within
(a) the high hazard zones, the approach/departure corridor and (b) the
65Ldn hypothetical noise contour and higher. The JLUS recommendations
are a long-range planning tool that considers safety and environmental
noise generated by aircraft operations when making zoning decisions
that remain compatible with the DMAFB mission. The JLUS recommendations
were incorporated into (1) City of Tucson Land Use Codes and adopted by
Mayor and Council in October 2004 and (2) Pima County Zoning Land Use
Codes and (3) adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in December
2008. The land use codes provide future compatible development within
the approach/departure corridors.
2. Davis-Monthan AFB, the City of Tucson and Pima County, are
members of the Military-Community Relations Committee (MCRC). The MCRC
was established as an advisory committee to provide a forum for raising
and discussing concerns, joint problem solving and education focusing
on military and community issues.
3. Davis-Monthan AFB has pro-actively worked to identify the area
in the future that might be impacted by a mission change. The current
aircraft flown are among the least noisy in the AF inventory.
Recognizing a change in aircraft or mission could result in larger
noise contours, DMAFB initiated a study at the request of local
government in 2002 to define noise contours based upon operations with
and existing aircraft that would be closer to a new single engine
fighter in noise impact. Hypothetical noise contours were developed
using AICUZ noise methodology and based upon the operation of five
squadrons of F-16 aircraft at DMAFB using the current flight paths. The
hypothetical contours provide a better representation of noise impacts
from possible future operations at DMAFB and were incorporated into the
JLUS recommendations.
Ms. Giffords. Given the current recession and the general decrease
in demand for land and development, are you considering spending more
funds now on additional real estate purchases to take advantage of the
decreased prices? Could you execute additional funds if this Committee
decided to provide them?
Mr. Billings. The timing of Air Force real estate purchases is
based on mission driven requirements and timelines independent of real
estate market conditions. In exercising good stewardship of taxpayer
funds, the Air Force only purchases property when the mission requires
that level of real estate control so that we do not have idle,
unutilized, or otherwise unproductive real estate in the Air Force
inventory. However, when purchasing real estate for a validated mission
requirement we seek to obtain maximum value for the taxpayer.
We have had considerable success with implementation of the
community land use planning approach and have successfully collaborated
with local communities using the anti-encroachment land acquisition
authority in 10 USC 2684a with Readiness and Environmental Protection
Initiative funds provided by Congress. We would encourage Congress to
continue supporting and funding this program.
Ms. Giffords. What acquisition method is preferable for each of
your services from a land management standpoint?
Mr. Billings. The Air Force policy is to acquire the minimum
interest in land required to support mission requirements. In
determining the acquisition method, we consider the purpose, when, and
for how long the real estate is needed. We first consider using Air
Force real estate already in the inventory or property excess to the
requirements of other military departments or other federal agencies.
Fee simple purchase is considered when constructing permanent
improvements, the intended use is of an extended or indefinite
duration, or when the Air Force feels current local community land use
controls are not adequate to provide compatible land use jurisdiction
needed to support the mission. Acquisition by lease is considered for
short duration mission requirements where acquisition by purchase is
not economical. A restrictive easement may be acquired if the purpose
is to control development adjacent to or near an installation that is
incompatible with the mission.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BUTTERFIELD
Mr. Butterfield. The Navy has been extremely accessible throughout
this process, and I thank them for their efforts. The Navy has stated
that it would not build an OLF in a community where it was not welcome.
Would there be any objection to the inclusion of legislative language
prohibiting the military from building on a site without first
demonstrating strong support from the hosting community?
Mr. Arny. The Department would have significant concerns about any
proposed legislative language prohibiting the military from carrying
out a project to meet a national defense requirement without first
demonstrating strong support from the hosting community.
During the site selection process and into the present, Navy
representatives have stated the Navy's desire to provide some mutual
benefit for the community in the vicinity of the selected site for the
OLF. Those representatives have consistently asserted that the Navy,
working with federal and state officials, would like to create
conditions where a community would actually prefer that their site
would be selected, due to economic advantages provided. No Navy
representative, however, has ever intentionally stated that the Navy
would not build an OLF in a community where it was not welcome.
The Navy recognizes the potential impacts of the proposed OLF on
the local communities at each of the five proposed sites in North
Carolina and Virginia and is analyzing those potential impacts very
carefully in the ongoing Environmental Impact Statement. The Navy also
recognizes that there may be no feasible site to meet this naval
aviation training requirement that does not have a certain degree of
opposition. But the Navy will continue to work with public and private
agencies and organizations, and with elected and appointed officials at
the local, state, and federal level, to identify economic opportunities
for the proposed OLF site that would be compatible with aviation
training operations and align with community plans for growth and
development.
Mr. Butterfield. You mentioned as you have in previous meetings
with me that this process would engage the Office of Economic
Adjustment, but to date I'm still not clear on how that process would
work should the OLF be sited in my district. Therefore, my constituents
still lack a clear sense of any upside. Can you offer some specifics on
how the Office of Economic Adjustment would work with local and state
governments?
Mr. Arny. The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) manages and
directs the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, and assists states and
local governments impacted by Department of Defense program changes in
planning community adjustments. Following an OLF basing decision by the
cognizant Military Department, OEA will work with affected
jurisdictions to tailor an appropriate community adjustment program to
address the impacts of that basing decision. The assistance provided
may include technical and financial assistance, including compatible
use studies and fiscal impact analyses, and will require the
participation, cooperation, and commitment of the affected state,
community and Military Department.
Mr. Butterfield. The Navy has been extremely accessible throughout
this process, and I thank them for their efforts. The Navy has stated
that it would not build an OLF in a community where it was not welcome.
Would there be any objection to the inclusion of legislative language
prohibiting the military from building on a site without first
demonstrating strong support from the hosting community?
Secretary Penn. The Department would strongly oppose any proposed
legislative language prohibiting the military from carrying out a
project to meet a national defense requirement without first
demonstrating strong support from the hosting community.
During the site selection process and into the present, Navy
representatives have stated the Navy's desire to provide some mutual
benefit for the community in the vicinity of the selected site for the
OLF. Those representatives have consistently asserted that the Navy,
working with federal and state officials, would like to create
conditions where a community would actually prefer that their site
would be selected, due to economic advantages provided. Navy
representatives have never intentionally created the perception that
that the Navy would not build an OLF in a community where it was
unwelcome.
The Navy recognizes the potential impacts of the proposed OLF on
the local communities at each of the five proposed sites in North
Carolina and Virginia and is analyzing those potential impacts very
carefully in the ongoing Environmental Impact Statement. The Navy
recognizes that there may be no feasible site to meet this training
requirement that does not have a certain degree of opposition. But the
Navy will continue to work with public and private agencies and
organizations, and with elected and appointed officials at the local,
state, and federal level, to identify economic opportunities for the
proposed OLF site that would be compatible with aviation training
operations and align with community plans for growth and development.
Mr. Butterfield. You mentioned as you have in previous meetings
with me that this process would engage the Office of Economic
Adjustment, but to date I'm still not clear on how that process would
work should the OLF be sited in my district. Therefore, my constituents
still lack a clear sense of any upside. Can you offer some specifics on
how the Office of Economic Adjustment would work with local and state
governments?
Secretary Penn. The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) manages and
directs the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, and assists states and
local governments impacted by Department of Defense program changes in
planning community adjustments. Following an OLF basing decision by the
cognizant Military Department, OEA will work with affected
jurisdictions to tailor an appropriate community adjustment program to
address the impacts of that basing decision. The assistance provided
may include technical and financial assistance, including compatible
use studies and fiscal impact analyses, and will require the
participation, cooperation, and commitment of the affected state,
community and Military Department. Further questions about OEA programs
should be referred to their staff.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
