[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 112-43]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, BASE CLOSURE,
ENVIRONMENT, FACILITIES OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 13, 2011
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-392 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
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
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, Chairman
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
JOE HECK, Nevada SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
CHRIS GIBSON, New York GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois BILL OWENS, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIM RYAN, Ohio
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Vickie Plunkett, Professional Staff Member
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for Military Construction, Base
Closure, Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance..... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, April 13, 2011........................................ 25
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011
FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, BASE CLOSURE, ENVIRONMENT, FACILITIES OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 3
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
WITNESSES
Hammack, Hon. Katherine G., Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Installations, Energy, and Environment......................... 6
Pfannenstiel, Hon. Jackalyne, Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Energy, Installations and Environment.......................... 8
Robyn, Dr. Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
Installations and Environment.................................. 5
Yonkers, Hon. Terry A., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
Installations, Environment, and Logistics...................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy........................................ 29
Hammack, Hon. Katherine G.................................... 51
Pfannenstiel, Hon. Jackalyne................................. 67
Robyn, Dr. Dorothy........................................... 31
Yonkers, Hon. Terry A........................................ 99
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 117
Mr. Courtney................................................. 118
Mr. Gibson................................................... 118
Mr. LoBiondo................................................. 117
Mr. Schilling................................................ 118
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 128
Mr. Forbes................................................... 123
Ms. Sutton................................................... 131
FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, BASE CLOSURE, ENVIRONMENT, FACILITIES OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 13, 2011.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m. in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Randy Forbes
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Forbes. Well, I want to welcome all our Members and our
distinguished panel of experts to today's hearing that will
focus on how our military construction program is aligned with
our Nation's priorities.
Fundamentally, our Nation is at war with an aggressive
adversary. Our forces have been successful in engaging this war
on the doorsteps of foreign nations, and I am grateful that the
underpinnings of our security have kept our citizens safe and
ensured our free-market economy thrives.
However, we have seen changes in this dynamic recently with
the crisis in several Arab nations, with the rise of a rapidly
developing China, and even with the sustaining of combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not confident that the
Department of Defense has the necessary infrastructure and
strategic partnerships that are necessary to confront these
diverse and dynamic challenges.
I believe that our force structure needs to be better
aligned with emerging threats. A good example of this
realignment effort is located in my Ranking Member's home of
Guam. I believe that this location will serve to enhance our
forces in Eastern Asia against those who believe that we are
not committed to freedom and prosperity in this strategic
region.
In addition to Guam, I believe that it is critical that we
expand our basing structure in the Western Pacific to encompass
nontraditional partners that are aligned with our strategic
interest.
On the other hand, an example of a strategic misalignment
is at Naval Station Mayport, where the Navy has proposed to
place a redundant capability that will cost significant funds
to support a second carrier homeport on the East Coast. Our
strategic investment should be both wise and cost-effective.
Unfortunately, the Navy's support of a second homeport in
Mayport is neither and reverses a series of decisions by
previous Navy leadership to limit strategic homeport concepts.
As to other issues included in the President's budget
request, I am also concerned about financial parameters that
drive poor decisionmaking. For example, I was surprised to note
that the Navy decided to enter into an energy-efficiency
contract where the financial payback was reported as an
astounding 447 years. Even after this was pointed out by the
inspector general, the Department decided to continue with this
project.
I was also surprised that the entire Department of Defense
uses construction cost indices that are 25 percent to 40
percent more than similarly commercially built facilities.
My friends, with savings of only 25 percent in the military
construction program, which could represent an annual savings
of almost $4 billion, we could build significant capabilities
and really provide a result that would correct years of neglect
and allow us to make prudent strategic investments in diverse
areas around the world. Good enough is not good enough for the
fine men and women in uniform.
On a final note, we are in the final year of implementing
the BRAC [Base Closure and Realignment] program, and there are
many recommendations that contain significant risk in
completing by the statutory deadline of September 2011. I want
to be very clear that any risk to the mission of the United
States in this time of war needs to be properly limited to
ensure the success of our efforts.
I will not jeopardize patient care for our wounded warriors
if their care will be impacted by a BRAC move. And I look
forward to our witnesses' discussing the risk of the BRAC moves
to determine if additional time is necessary to properly
complete the remaining BRAC recommendations.
Joining us today to discuss these issues are four
distinguished individuals. Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. We also
have the Honorable Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of
the Army, Installations, Energy, and Environment; the Honorable
Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Energy, Installations and Environment; and the Honorable Terry
Yonkers, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations,
Environment and Logistics.
Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you all for your service to
our country and thank you so much for taking time to share your
experience and expertise with us this afternoon. I know our
Members are going to appreciate and learn a great deal from
your testimony.
And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Bordallo, for any comments she may have.
Ms. Bordallo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM GUAM,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And to all our witnesses, I look forward this afternoon to
your testimonies.
Today, we are going to discuss a critical component of our
military's readiness, which is the Department of Defense's
military construction program. The fiscal year 2012 President's
budget request for military construction and BRAC is $14.7
billion. However, this represents a 21-percent reduction in
military construction funding over the previous fiscal year.
This amount includes necessary investments to modernize
aging facilities, construct new facilities, accommodate the
realignment of military forces abroad to bases within the
United States, and complete the 2005 base closure
recommendations.
I do remain concerned about the 21-percent reduction in
military construction funding over the previous year. I
recognize that, as BRAC 2005 winds down, the construction
requirements will diminish, as well. But we appear to be taking
a shortsighted approach to sustaining these new facilities by
not funding sustainment to the Department's own standards.
Military construction is a proven jobs creator. In a time
of economic downturn, I hope the Department and each of the
Services will continue their efforts to modernize their current
facilities that warrant such investments.
On Guam, for instance, we are beginning a significant
military buildup. Secretary Pfannenstiel, I know that task
orders were recently awarded after the signing of the
programmatic agreement, and I am pleased to see major
construction groundbreaking finally taking place.
The military buildup on Guam is not only a job creator, but
is important to our national security interests in the Asia
Pacific region. We live on a tough block on the world stage.
And having freedom to access from Guam is hard to quantify.
Although the military buildup on Guam requires tangible
progress in Japan, I believe as Admiral Willard testified to
the full committee last week, that we are seeing signs of
tangible progress, and there will be a number of milestones
along the way.
Further, I would reiterate the Admiral's point that the
Japanese, despite the horrific disaster they have experienced,
remain committed to the Guam international agreement. As we
move forward, I know this committee will continue its strong
support for this strategically important move, and we must
continue to take steps to ensure that this buildup is done
right.
Our hearing is also going to focus on the Department's and
each Service's effort to diversify their installation energy
demand. It is important to note that our energy conservation
and alternative energy development efforts both support our
warfighter in an operational capacity, as well as reduce demand
on our installations.
But today, we will be focusing only on our installations.
It is estimated that our military installations spend nearly $4
billion per year in energy costs. Finding ways to reduce this
cost and diversify our energy portfolio while still protecting
readiness will improve our national security by reducing demand
on foreign oil, as well as reducing costs.
I am interested in what efforts as part of the Secretary of
Defense's efficiencies initiative have been focused on reducing
costs through alternative energy savings. I feel this is
something that needs to be continued to be addressed, and I
know this committee wants to work with the Department to make
these efforts successful.
Finally, I want to hear more from each of the Services
about their ability to finalize their plans for completing BRAC
moves by the end of this fiscal year, which is a mere 6 months
from now. What steps are the Services taking to complete their
BRAC moves on schedule and can all of the moves be completed on
time without unnecessary cost increases or unwarranted impacts
on local communities?
If not, what action is the Department contemplating to
ensure that local communities are not overburdened? And what
tools is the Department providing the Services to complete
their BRAC actions in a timely fashion? We want to know how
this committee can help make this effort successful.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And, again, I feel
this hearing is very important to the readiness of our forces.
Having the facilities needed to complete missions is essential,
and I look forward to the questions and the testimonies.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
And we discussed prior to the hearing, I ask unanimous
consent that we dispense with the 5-minute rule for this
hearing and depart from regular order so that Members may ask
questions during the course of the discussion. I think this
will provide a roundtable-type forum and will enhance the
dialogue on these very important issues.
Without objection, so ordered.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here. We are
looking forward to your comments.
I think I have explained to each of you privately that we
have a little different format. It is a very bipartisan
committee. We work very well together. And rather than having
the complete staccato kind of questioning you get in a lot of
committees, if one of their Members, it is their time to ask a
question and somebody has a brief follow-up, we will allow them
to do that, even if it is out of turn, just to keep that train
of thought.
Also at the end, if there is anything else you want to say
or correct that you said, don't think you are in a box and
can't do that. We are going to give you plenty of time to do
it. If someone says something and you would like to extrapolate
on what they said, feel free to let me know and we are happy to
recognize you. We hope that this just gets information out that
helps us make sure that our forces are ready.
So if you don't have any questions, Secretary Robyn, we are
going to let you start off, if you would. And we will give each
of you about 5 minutes. Don't hold you hard and fast to that
time period, but I know you have given us prepared remarks. We
read those, and we have already gotten them. If you can, just
talk to us for--take 30 seconds or 5 minutes, whatever you
need, and tell us what you think are the most important things.
You don't have to read those prepared remarks. But if it makes
you more comfortable, feel free to do it.
Ms. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Dr. Robyn. Let me thank you, Chairman Forbes, Congresswoman
Bordallo, distinguished subcommittee Members. It is a pleasure
to be here today to talk about the President's budget request
for military construction and environmental programs.
Let me throw out three numbers, and let me address two
crosscutting themes or crosscutting priorities. First number,
which Congresswoman Bordallo mentioned, $14.8 billion. That is
our request for MILCON [Military Construction], family housing
programs, and BRAC. That is down about $4 billion from last
year. And as you say, that is predominantly due to the fact
that we are nearing the end of the BRAC process.
Second number, $17.9 billion. That is our request for
sustainment and recapitalization of existing facilities. That
number is up by about $4 billion, due largely to the efforts by
the Army and the Air Force to upgrade their existing
facilities.
Third number, $4.3 billion for environmental programs. That
represents steady state, and it is a reflection of the maturity
and stability and, I would say, the success of our ongoing
efforts in that area.
The two crosscutting themes, priorities that I want to
briefly talk about is energy and then technology. In the energy
area--and, Mr. Chairman, I know this is a strong interest of
yours, and I loved your op-ed, and I think you said it very,
very well. In fact, I am going to quote one sentence. ``Energy
efficiency is often framed as an environmental issue, but it is
first and foremost a national security issue.'' And that is
very much how we think about it.
It is important to the Department, the facility energy, for
two reasons. The first is cost. We spend $4 billion a year on
facility energy, and even by DOD [Department of Defense]
standards, that is real money.
Second is mission assurance. Our installations support
combat operations more directly than ever before. We fly UAVs
[Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] from our installations. We fly long-
range bombers. We analyze battlefield intelligence data in real
time. Our installations in turn depend on a commercial
electricity grid that is vulnerable to potentially serious
disruptions. So that is the mission assurance part of our
concern about energy.
We have a multifaceted strategy: reduce demand, expand
supply of alternative energy sources, and improve our energy
security. These efforts, I just want to reiterate, are not
designed--they will green our military installations, but that
is not the reason we are doing them. We are doing them because
they will achieve significant cost savings and improve our
mission assurance.
We believe they are smart, with a couple of exceptions, and
we can address the one that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. These
are smart investments that will pay for themselves over time,
many times over.
Second, I want to--I want to highlight technology. This is
the Department's strong suit. This is why we are able to
prevail in an operational setting. And the same is true in an
installation setting.
And let me give you two examples. The Department has a $17
billion bill for cleanup of unexploded ordnance, UXO. That is
known ordnance above ground; that is not what is underwater.
The reason it is so expensive is because we don't have--we have
not had the technology to distinguish between bombs and beer
cans. We can't discriminate between unexploded ordnance and
scrap metal.
A program that I oversee has spent 10 years investing in
industry and universities to develop the technology to--that
can distinguish between bombs and beer cans. And we now have
that technology. We need to demonstrate it in a lot of
different settings in order to get regulatory buy-in, but we
think that can save the Department between $10 billion and $12
billion. That is the power of technology.
And let me give you another example. The same organization
that has been so successfully investing in UXO discrimination
technology 2 years ago began a program, a competitive program
to--that uses our installations as a virtual test bed for next-
generation energy technology. These are technologies that have
the potential to dramatically improve our energy performance,
but that face major impediments to commercialization because of
the unique nature of the building energy industry.
We have been doing this for 2 years. For those technologies
that prove--that succeed, that prove out in the demonstration,
we can then go on and use our significant buying power as the
Department to make a market for those technologies, much as we
did with aircraft, electronics and the Internet. We have about
40 projects underway, and we expect to have results beginning
this year.
So there is a lot of exciting work going on. And I didn't
even mention BRAC, Guam, and construction costs, but I would be
delighted to talk with you about those.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robyn can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
Mr. Forbes. I think you can rest assured that you will get
an opportunity to do that as we move forward.
Secretary Hammack.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHERINE G. HAMMACK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT
Secretary Hammack. Thank you, Chairman Forbes,
Congresswoman Bordallo, and other distinguished Members.
Delighted to be here, and I want to thank you for your support
of the Army over the years.
Certainly, the three things that I want to talk about are
BRAC. Also efficiencies and energy, as you both cited, were
critical components, especially of interest to this committee.
We are fighting two wars, and we have been working over the
last several years to diligently support our forces with the
facilities that they need in order to train and then to come
back and reset from some of the challenges that they are
facing. We are working to reduce our energy footprint and
remain good stewards of the environment. So with all of those
coming on at once--and then BRAC, at the same time.
And to the Army, BRAC was an $18 billion program of which
$13.5 billion was in construction. And doing that at the same
time you are rotating the forces, at the same time you are
fighting the wars has been an extreme challenge. We are closing
12 bases. We are closing 176 Reserve installations and 211
Guard closures. At the same time, we are creating three new
four-star headquarters and eight joint and Army Centers of
Excellence, at the same time we have sort of a new concept,
which is the Armed Forces Reserve centers, where we have both
the Guard and Reserve in the same location. We have 125 of
those we have stood up.
And so these BRAC programs that we have been undertaking
will return efficiencies and savings over the long term, but
right now, we are still in the middle of it. We are coming to
closure. And we are on target to meet the deadline.
We have six projects, which we consider high-risk. One of
those is Walter Reed Medical Center. And we want to ensure that
we don't do anything that would jeopardize a soldier or any
military personnel, so we are watching very closely to ensure
that the new facilities we need are stood up and properly
certified so that we can move our soldiers over and not
jeopardize care. So that is probably the most critical to the
Army that we are watching right now.
But again, we are on target. The schedules are in place. We
are just watching them very carefully.
The efficiencies--I mean, I talked about the efficiencies
through BRAC, but there are other efficiencies, one of which is
under discussion with Secretary Gates. We deferred $1.4 billion
in MILCON. And I know some have thought that that is a risk,
and certainly we looked at it and we feel it--the projects that
we deferred are low- and medium-risk to readiness.
And I use the word ``deferred'' purposefully, because those
projects that were deferred will recompete on a basis of need.
And we are looking very closely at our facilities strategy to
ensure that we are correcting capacity and condition. And those
are two reasons to build new, in that you are overcrowded or
you have moved a new unit in, and they are in temporary
structures, and you need to build the facility, or that the
condition is a very poor condition or you have a roof
collapsing or there is a real need.
So our--as we go forward, our military construction program
is going to be much more closely scrutinized and evaluated
with--as Dr. Robyn pointed out--more focus on the restoration
and modernization of existing facilities and using what we have
now more prudently.
We have had some bid savings in construction. And in those
bid savings, we have returned about $1 billion to the Treasury.
We have retained some of the bid savings to help out in areas
where there have been challenges or areas that were
unanticipated. Some of these reprogramming are to repair storm-
damaged facilities, such as at Fort Leonard Wood. We also had
some freeze challenges in the Southwestern United States over
this winter. Or it can be to unanticipated challenges, and we
have a couple of those we can talk about later.
But as I said, we are reviewing our facility standards
model, also, what kind of facilities we are using. Is it the
most prudent design? We are undertaking several simulations of
the buildings to look at energy use. So we are really taking a
whole new look at the way we do MILCON in the Army.
Energy is very important to us. Reducing our energy use per
square foot, more efficient structures, more efficient power
generation, looking at reducing the amount of energy we use
first, and then looking at repurposing energy and, last of all
generating energy, and doing it in a cost-effective manner is
very important.
So I don't want to take up too much time. I look forward to
working closely with you and answering any questions you might
have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Hammack can be found
in the Appendix on page 51.]
Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
Secretary Pfannenstiel.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY, ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Secretary Pfannenstiel. Thank you, Chairman Forbes,
Congresswoman Bordallo, and Members of the committee.
I am pleased to appear before you today to provide an
overview of the Department of the Navy's investment in shore
infrastructure. I did provide an extensive written statement. I
won't go over that. I would just like to highlight a couple
points from that statement.
In overview, the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget
request includes a $13.3 billion investment in our
installations. That includes military construction,
sustainment, restoration and modernization, BRAC, family
housing, environment, and base operating support.
The military construction portion of that request of $2.5
billion is significantly less than our 2011 request of $3.9
billion, primarily due to the completion of the Marine Corps'
barracks initiative and a more deliberate pace for the Guam
buildup.
The military construction budget, though, does include
further investments to relocate the Marines from Okinawa to
Guam. The Marine Corps relocation, with other Department of
Defense efforts to align forces and capabilities at Guam,
represents a unique opportunity to strategically realign the
U.S. force posture in the Pacific for the next 50 years. This
is a major effort and one that we must get right for both the
military families and the people of Guam.
I am pleased to share with you that we recently achieved an
important milestone in the realignment, the finalization of the
programmatic agreement. After 3 years of consultations, we may
now move forward with executing military construction
associated with the realignment and preparing a record of
decision for the training ranges.
Fostering a long-term positive relationship with the people
of Guam is essential to the success of the Marine Corps mission
in the Pacific. The finalization of the programmatic agreement
is evidence that the Government of Guam and the Department of
Defense can work closely together on solutions.
This is an important year for the realignment program. As
Congresswoman Bordallo pointed out, construction is imminent
and additional contracts will be awarded over the next several
weeks and months at a sustainable pace that Guam can support.
Building on the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 projects, the
projects we are proposing in fiscal year 2012 enable future
vertical construction, support the introduction of off-island
workers, and support future operations. Further, the Government
of Japan's fiscal year 2011 budget includes financing for
critical utilities projects that will support relocating
Marines in the long run and the ramp-up of construction in the
near term.
The Department is on track to implement BRAC 2005
realignments and closures by the statutory deadline of
September 15th. Going forward, our fiscal year 2012 budget
request of $26 million enables ongoing environmental
restoration, caretaking, and property disposal at BRAC 2005
installations.
The Department has made significant progress in the past
year and to date has completed 328 of the 485 realignment and
closure actions as specified in our business plans.
Additionally, the Department of the Navy has increased its
investment to support President Obama's energy challenge and
Secretary Mabus' aggressive energy goals to include energy
security, reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, and to promote
good stewardship. We have requested $1.2 billion in fiscal year
2012 and $4.4 billion across the FYDP [Future Years Defense
Program] for shore and operational energy efficiencies.
Members of the committee, your support of the Department's
fiscal year 2012 budget request will ensure that we build and
maintain the facilities that our sailors and marines need to
succeed in their military and humanitarian missions, even as
the challenges we face multiply.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Pfannenstiel can be
found in the Appendix on page 67.]
Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
Secretary Yonkers.
STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY A. YONKERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS
Secretary Yonkers. Chairman Forbes, Congresswoman Bordallo,
and Members of the House Armed Services Committee, first of
all, let me say thanks for the invitation to be here today and
have the chance to talk to you about the Air Force's military
construction and family housing, environmental, BRAC, and
sustainment, restoration, modernization programs.
And I would like to start off by saying thank you, also,
for the hard work last week to get us through this critical
juncture on the business of shutting down the Government and
looking forward to the next critical step, and that is the
continuation for the appropriations that we are going to need
to execute our fiscal year 2011 programs.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2 billion
for construction in BRAC; $1.4 billion of that is for military
construction, $500 million is for family housing, and $125
million is for legacy BRAC, and most of that is going into
environmental cleanup.
BRAC 2005, our most recent BRAC round, as with the Navy, we
are on target to hit all of the statutory goals by the
September 15th deadline. Out of the 400 or so separate actions
that we have in our business plan, we are at about 320 right
now, and we don't expect any hiccups in the eventuality of
fulfilling all of those. Our budget is $3.8 billion, and we are
staying within that budget for BRAC 2005.
Want to talk a little bit about sustainment, restoration
and modernization. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request is for
about $3 billion for SRM; $2 billion of that is for
sustainment; the remainder is for restoration and
modernization.
I know there has been some concern about the investment in
sustainment, and that is $300 million less than it was in
fiscal year 2011. But I want to tell you, over the course of
the last few years, we have taken a look to try to get more
efficient and identified requirements more vigilantly with
regards to sustainment.
And so we are looking at this from a business point of
view. We are looking at it from a return-on-investment point of
view. We are looking at it from a better contracting point of
view. And we are also infusing dollars into demolition and
consolidation that by virtue of reducing our footprint in our
facilities, that will also reduce the investment that we need
to put into sustainment. At the same time, we are increasing
our dollar investment in restoration and modernization.
I want to talk a little bit--as have my cohorts--about
efficiencies. We all recognize how critical it is to deal with
deficits and debts, and we are all in it with you together
here. Congresswoman Bordallo asked about some of the
efficiencies, so let me tell you about a few of the ones that
the Air Force has implemented. Over the FYDP, for example,
through this SRM [Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization]
reduction in the facility sustainment in particular, we are
looking at a $1.6 billion reduction in cost.
As we looked at our weapons system sustainment, we would
look at efficiencies on the order of $3 billion over the FYDP
and doing business better in our weapons systems.
In our environmental cleanup program, we have refocused our
efforts on closing sites and using innovative contracting
mechanisms like performance-based restoration. We are
expecting, as has the Army already experienced, somewhere on
the order of a 30 percent to 40 percent reduction in our
overall cleanup program through the FYDP based on a $500
million investment that we are using right today.
Likewise, we have also taken a look at our environmental
impact analysis process. And we are going to be looking at that
from a get-back-to-basics point of view, looking at the Council
on Environmental Quality guidelines, and streamlining the
process. We are expecting to find somewhere between $10 million
and $15 million a year from that.
The point I am trying to make is that every day we wake up,
we look at, what is it that we need to do to get a bit more
efficient than we have in the past? And there is nothing in the
portfolio that we are not looking at.
I want to talk a little bit about energy, if you will allow
me, as well. We are using the smart tools. And as we have seen
across the Department, with regards to finding better
efficiencies in our facilities, and have actually achieved a 33
percent reduction in the last 7 or 8 years, even though costs
of business have increased. We are utilizing LEED [Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design] silver standards to
increase efficiency for all our new buildings.
And in operational energy, ma'am, we are looking at $700
million savings over the FYDP and looking at better ways of
reducing loads in the way we fly, the routes that we fly, and
our utilization of jet fuel. Our goal for the Air Force is 10
percent. That will equate to about $700 million per year, once
we are able to achieve that goal.
So I want to stop it at that point in time, and I want to
say thank you very much, again, for your strong support of the
United States Air Force over the past and what you do for our
airmen. And I also look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Yonkers can be found
in the Appendix on page 99.]
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Secretary Yonkers.
And I want to thank all of you for your testimonies. And I
always defer my questions until the end so the Members can ask
theirs, and hopefully they have covered everything.
But I am going to start with just one question for you, any
of you that want to take it. And I want to begin where
Secretary Yonkers left off. He said there is not a day that you
don't ask the question, what is it we need to do to be more
efficient than we were in the past?
And as all of you know, we are wrestling with budget cuts
every place we look and so-called efficiencies and things that
are taking place. I saw a story the other day that somebody was
telling me about, when somebody opened a fuel tank and they
couldn't tell how much fuel that was in there, so they took the
top off and lit a match to see. I don't have to tell you, it
wasn't a happy ending.
And I remember when they told me, I said, ``Tell me that is
not true.'' And they said, ``I hate to tell you, it was true.''
We are looking--we are going to have some questions later
that talks about the fact that when DOD budgets for a facility,
it is normally as much as 40 percent more than the private
sector would do. That is something we would just say, ``Tell us
that is not true.''
We have a Navy project we are going to talk about in a
little while that the I.G. [Inspector General] says has a 447-
year return on investment. And we know that may not be totally
true, but anyone of those parameters, we are going to say,
``Tell me that is not true.''
But here is the question. Right before I came over here, I
got handed some information on the Mark Center down here. You
know the albatross we are looking at. We don't have the
infrastructure. We might not get in there and be able to use
it. And we have got information breaking that we are thinking
about spending $600,000 for a statue, one of the finalists
being a fairy riding a toad.
To the American people, that is just as foolish as if we
opened that tank and hold a match over it. I have just got to
say: ``Tell me that is not true.'' With all these cuts, we are
not spending $600,000 for a statue in front of that center,
especially when one of the--I don't care if it is Ronald Reagan
shaking hands with Bill Clinton. I mean, it is still $600,000
of money that people are going to go livid over.
Can you shed some light on that story? Is it accurate, or--
--
Secretary Hammack. I can certainly shed some light on it.
And it is, I think, entertaining to all of us that sometimes
the media picks that which will gain the most attention.
Mr. Forbes. That one has.
Secretary Hammack. And the fact that it broke on April
Fool's Day----
Mr. Forbes. So it is not true?
Secretary Hammack [continuing]. Made it much more
interesting. That was a submitted entry in a competition run by
the city of Alexandria. In the development of the
transportation center, which is the public face of the Mark
Center, the city of Alexandria said, you need to do something.
It is concrete walls. It looks like a bomb shelter. You need to
do something. Can you dress it up? And they referenced the GSA
[General Services Administration] art initiative, which is half
of 1 percent of construction costs goes toward some sort of
public art.
So we took a look at it and came up with a much lower
figure of not to exceed $600,000 for some sort of mural and
potentially a statue in the transportation center. And a
competition was set up.
That was one of the submittals. We are taking a look at all
of the submittals. We are also taking a look at some of the
offers we have had of more military-themed statuary that could
go there, but we are looking at some sort of mural on the wall.
Mr. Forbes. But wasn't that more than just a submittal?
Wasn't it one of the four finalists?
Secretary Hammack. The artists were demonstrating their
capability for artwork, and that was a demonstration of the
kind of artwork that that artist----
Mr. Forbes. And I don't want to play this. We have got a
lot of other issues. The only thing I just want to let you
know, it is--we don't even have the roads to go to that
building. We may not be able to occupy it. And when we tell the
public--I am just telling you what we are wrestling with. When
we tell the public we are going to spend $600,000, I don't care
what we are beautifying--I mean, you know, we could put that to
infrastructure to get there--it is a hard sell for us.
And we are over here fighting for you guys. And I am not
blaming any of you. I know this is out of your hands. But I am
just saying, that is a tough thing for us to have to go back
and argue we can't make cuts when we are spending that kind of
money for statues.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we
can get some private donations for such artwork. I know I just
saw it.
First of all, I want to ask a couple of questions here, and
I would like to start, Mr. Chairman, by asking a few questions
for my good friend, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She is a
member of the Readiness Committee, and she has consistently
been a champion on Capitol Hill for DOD energy efforts. She was
also the author of the DOD Energy Security Act.
So this is for any of the witnesses. I think maybe, Dr.
Robyn, you might be able to answer this. I know Gabby applauds
the Services' proactive development of strategic thought toward
energy and how it is used. She would like to ensure the DOD has
all the resources and permissions required to continue your
efforts.
However, some issues remain. So who and where is the single
agency responsible for DOD's operational energy research and
development? How does DOD disseminate lessons learned and best
practices for operational energy projects? And do you think
that if DOD had a formal process that all service members with
boots on the ground would be equipped with a solar portable
alternative communication energy system or spaces or rucksack
enhanced portable power system or REPPS [Rucksack Enhanced
Portable Power System]-like capability?
So if you could, just enlighten me on those three. Yes?
Dr. Robyn. Yes, I met with Congresswoman Giffords last
year, a year ago January, and I know that Senator Udall is
working with her to reintroduce the Energy Security Act, which
I think is terrific. And we worked fairly extensively with her
staff over the course of a couple of months last year, one
member of whom is here today.
Most of her questions pertain to operational energy, and
within--that is actually a separate person in the Department of
Defense, Sharon Burke. You all created the position of
Assistant Secretary for Operational Energy, and we nominated
and the Senate confirmed Sharon Burke. She has been on board
about a year now and doing a terrific job of being the OSD
[Office of the Secretary of Defense] person who heads up that.
Each of the Services is being very, very active. And so,
for example, Jackie can talk about the amazing things that the
Marines are doing in their expeditionary--their EXFOB
[Experimental Forward Operating Base] at Quantico and the
technology they are taking to theater.
But the single point of contact cutting across the
Department is Sharon Burke in this newly created office. And it
has gotten a lot of visibility. We put on an Energy Awareness
Day this year, and Chairman Mullen, among others, came and
spoke very, very passionately about it, so it has really--I
think it is a very, very high priority for the Department. And
I think the Services are working very closely to share lessons
learned on it.
I am not sure--I don't think I can speak to the issue of
whether there are authorities or resources that we need that we
don't have. I will let my colleagues----
Ms. Bordallo. I think a follow-up question would be, could
you explain what fiscal efficiencies would be gained from a
department-level research and development effort similar to the
Marine Corps EXFOB, which was what you were talking about,
experimental forward operating base?
Dr. Robyn. I think--let me take--do you want to----
Secretary Hammack. And that came out of a joint effort. Out
at Fort Irwin, the Services got together, and so it was work on
tents, it was work on operational energy, it was work on
generators, it was work on power distribution, and the Services
got together.
You talk about the rucksack enhanced power system, REPPS,
which is called SPACES [Solar Portable Alternative
Communication Energy System] in the Marines, it is the same
system. We just have two different names. The Army has deployed
several hundred of them. The Marines have deployed several of
them, as well. It is the same system. It is a shared system
that we are both using. So there are some great work, joint
work that is going on between the Services on operational
energy.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
Ms. Pfannenstiel.
Secretary Pfannenstiel. Yes, let me just add that the--part
of this is homegrown within the Services. They find needs. And
with the Marines, they have offered a couple rounds now where
they have asked for technology providers who might be able to
meet their needs in theater to come to Quantico or to
Twentynine Palms and demonstrate what they have.
And in a couple of these cases, I think it is really
telling that from the first demonstration at Quantico or
Twentynine Palms, the Marines then take the technologies that
seem the best fit for their needs and try them out in some test
form, and then they are in theater in some cases in 6 months or
8 months. I mean, and then they share this across the Services
so that they are all understanding the technologies.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Dr. Yonkers, did you want to add----
Secretary Yonkers. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the chance.
You probably are well aware of the efforts that we all have
underway with regard to alternative fuels, and particularly
synthetics and bios and cellulosics. And I think it is fair to
say that we spend a fair amount of time talking to each other
and sharing information about how we can look at alternative
fuels and the certification process that we are utilizing right
now for our jet aircraft.
I mentioned the $700 million efficiencies that we have
already identified and the $700 million that we will try to get
to. Part of it is hinged on the utility or using biofuels and
synthetic fuels as a replacement for fossil fuels in our
aircraft.
And Jackie and I have been speaking closely about this,
because the Navy and the Marine Corps fly aircraft like we fly
aircraft, and also with Katherine, because we have tactical
vehicles that could use the same fuel.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And I have another question for another one of my
colleagues. This is on behalf of my good friend, Congressman
Sam Farr.
Dr. Robyn, can your office assist with joint civilian-
military projects which also need coordination between Active
and Reserve units who wish to perform an innovative readiness
training program that will have positive benefits on the
environment? Is that a yes or a no?
Dr. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, you can. Well, okay, for example, there
is a situation in Congressman Farr's district concerning the
removal of the San Clemente Dam and redirecting the Carmel
River that would provide a training opportunity for National
Guardsmen or reservists. The dam removal project is an effort
that seems bogged down in bureaucracy, despite its benefits,
such as training for the service members, removal of a
hazardous dam, and restoration of key fish habitat.
The land in question is slated to be conveyed to the BLM
(Bureau of Land Management) once the dam is gone. It is rare
that our service members have this kind of real-life training
opportunity, so I know that this type of innovative readiness
training has been done in California before, especially along
the border with construction of a new fence.
So can you work with me and Congressman Farr to see if
there is a way to give our National Guardsmen or reservists the
practice and training they need in real life, real time, while
at the same time using your expertise on DOD environmental
issues to establish civilian-military collaborations like at
the San Clemente Dam? And what can be done in this situation or
others like it?
Dr. Robyn. Yes, I would be happy to work with you and
Congressman Farr on that.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you very much.
Dr. Robyn. I will take that as a question for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 117.]
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I do have my own questions, but I will wait
for the second round.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Madeleine. That is kind of you.
I would like to now recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
And to our panel, thank you for being here today and for
the work you do on behalf of our Nation.
For Dr. Robyn, as you have stated previously, the U.S.
Department of Defense has set aggressive goals to procure 7.5
percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2013 and 25
percent by 2025. As the price of oil continues to skyrocket due
to the conflicts in the Middle East and for other reasons,
replacing costly fossil fuels with proven and effective
renewable energy technologies is a necessary move for the
taxpayers for their pocketbook and for our Nation's security. I
think it is a big homeland security issue.
As the world's largest consumer of energy, spending over
$20 billion a year as I understand it, DOD has a special
responsibility to lead by example when greening the Government.
Its enormous purchasing power helped create a new market for
renewable energy technology projects, making them more
affordable for everything.
However, when the Department makes it renewable energy
procurement decisions, are the implications of those purchases
on our Nation's energy security considered when those are made?
And there will be one more question here. New Jersey is the
sixth-largest solar market in the world and, within the United
States, the second-largest, only behind California. A lot of
people don't realize that. The solar sector is one of the
segments in New Jersey's economy that is growing, bringing with
it jobs.
As such, I am interested to know if the DOD is purchasing
foreign-manufactured solar panels. And if the answer is yes,
were American-manufactured options considered in such
instances? If yes, why were they rejected? And also, what
efforts, if any, is the Department taking to provide the proper
guidance to the energy managers on the ground to at least
consider American renewable technology in their procurement
portfolios?
Dr. Robyn. Thank you. Thanks for the question.
We certainly are taking security into account when we think
about renewable projects. I am not saying we have not in the
past been compliance-oriented. We are. We have got goals. We
are trying to meet those goals.
But particularly in the renewable area, we look at them
with an eye to, will this enhance the security of an
installation when combined with other investments, in
particular microgrid technology, where we are doing a lot of
fairly cutting-edge work?
The combination of microgrid technology, renewables, and
storage capacity, again, that is cutting-edge technology, but
will allow us to island, to separate off critical--not
necessarily the entire installation, but critical missions on
an installation, and we increasingly see that as an important
thing to be able to do in order to assure our mission.
You would be surprised how many stories we hear about an
installation--yes, I am sorry.
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me for interrupting, and I want to be
responsible to the time, and we are winding down.
Dr. Robyn. I am sorry.
Mr. LoBiondo. The question--I am interested to know, is DOD
purchasing foreign-manufactured solar panels?
Dr. Robyn. My understanding--there is new legislation, Buy
America. I think the reason that legislation was passed was
because, without it, most purchases would not be of----
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, so the answer is----
Dr. Robyn. It is a cost issue.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay. So there were--so we rejected buying
American-made solar panels because they were more expensive? Is
that what you are telling us?
Dr. Robyn. Yes, that is my understanding. Can anybody
else----
Secretary Pfannenstiel. Congressman, I can say that we in
the Department of the Navy have looked very carefully, and we
will be buying American solar panels. I can't tell you whether
there are any that currently have been bought in the past from
non-American companies, but going forward, they will all be
American-produced.
Secretary Hammack. And from the Army's standpoint, I was
just out at an installation that is doing a groundbreaking on a
one-megawatt power plant. And they are panels that are made in
the United States. They are actually made in New Jersey.
Mr. LoBiondo. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you again to our
panel.
Mr. Forbes. And if we could just ask all of our panelists,
if they don't mind, if you could just check and, for the
record, submit to the gentleman from New Jersey if we have been
purchasing any in the past. Would that make you----
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 117.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That would be
very helpful.
Mr. Forbes. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our panelists for coming, and especially,
Dr. Robyn, good to see you again. It would be fair in saying
that you have been very forthcoming in working with us and the
BRAC operation down at Fort Bragg, where we have two of the
four-star commands coming in, and we still face a lot of
challenges as we look towards finishing this up and in terms on
the base and also within the community. And we probably still
have some conversations in that area forthcoming.
A gentleman named Richard Kidd came to my office not long
ago, is Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and
Sustainability. Where does he fit in the--Secretary Hammack,
where does he fit in, in terms of the reporting structure?
Secretary Hammack. He works for me.
Mr. Kissell. Okay. Well, I thought maybe that was the case.
And we had good conversations. One of the concerns that I
brought to him and had talked to, Mr. Chairman--actually,
somebody else--Jamie Lynch, on our committee--is that the fact
that there are ideas out there that we think or we may see as
congresspeople that we think are pretty good, and we may not
know how they compare to others, but we like to be able to show
that to our committee staff or to have you guys look at it,
because, you know--as good as you are, I doubt that you can see
everything.
And just wondering, you know, what might you all's process
be for when there are ideas being brought to you, that--maybe
that little guy, that they may not have the name or the
background that might normally catch your attention real
quickly, but they have some pretty good ideas? What is your
response? And how does that fit in? And this is something that
Mr. Kidd and I spent quite a bit of time talking about.
Secretary Hammack. In the Army, we have RDECOM [Research,
Development and Engineering Command]. That is up in Aberdeen.
And what they do is they do a lot of filtering, that they take
in a lot of different technologies and do a look at them and
test them in comparison with other things. And if it looks like
it is worthwhile, then it might go from their bench testing to
a larger scale testing on an installation.
Mr. Kissell. Well, and I am not going to ask each of the
Members, but, you know, as different things might come your
way, I do ask that we be open to this process, because we never
know where that next best mousetrap may be, because it may not
come from the normal way. And sometimes I think we get set in
our patterns of purchasing and procurements and where we expect
things to come from, and we may not--you know, gee, maybe I
have seen everything I want to see for a while.
You know, and sometimes I guess you reach that point, but
please be open to that process, you know, because it is not
about selling somebody's--we are not salespeople for
businesses. But, you know, when we see ideas, that is what made
this Nation great.
And I would like to emphasize the idea of American ideas.
So many times, we tend maybe not to recognize and reward those
folks in America as much as we should.
Secretary Hammack, you mentioned something about there were
five or six things you were watching to make sure that they did
happen, and you mentioned one being Walter Reed. I am curious,
what are the others?
Secretary Hammack. Three of them are National Guard or
Reserve facilities. One of those facilities has had unfortunate
ground conditions, in that the ground was prepared, and the
next morning we went out there and there was a big sinkhole.
And so we did additional soil testing and filled that sinkhole
and got ready to start again. And I was just informed over the
weekend that several more appeared.
So we are not sure what is going on at that site, but it
might be a non-buildable site, and we might have to find a new
one. We are trying to figure out what is the best thing to do,
because we certainly don't want to put up a building that is
going to sink.
We have some renovations that are going on over at Fort
Belvoir, and those buildings are sort of waiting to be
renovated until the group that is there moves to their next
location. And so it is sort of the domino effect.
When their facilities are ready, they move in. We renovate
their facilities so the next group can move in. And it is a
very tight schedule. We are watching it very closely. We think
we will make it, but we don't want to do anything that would
not make sense, and we want to be prudently watching the
dollars and watching the deadlines.
We are watching Mark Center, which is ready for occupancy
August 9th, and looking at the move schedule to see how many
people can move in there in that time, and that is something
that is being handled by the DOD and OSD on the move schedule.
So those are--I think I named all three, then.
Mr. Kissell. Okay. Well, thanks so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Larry.
The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I wanted to thank you, Secretary Hammack, for your
work helping with Fort Leonard Wood after the tornado. That was
very, very obviously destructive, and we are very thankful
there wasn't any loss of life there. But I have been in close
contact with General Quantock, and he has assured me that you
all have been working on that and able to supply the funds to
help rebuild.
And I know they are going to come back even stronger. I
know General Casey has been very supportive of that, and
hopefully--are we still on track, I mean, by the end of this
year, having that up and back and running, fully functioning?
Secretary Hammack. We are still on track. I won't say
everything will be done by the end of the year, but we are
working to ensure that we don't sacrifice mission.
Mrs. Hartzler. I had talked, I know, with General Quantock
about building storm shelters. I have a little bit of
experience growing up in the Midwest with tornadoes, as my--
when I was in high school, my grandparents' entire farm and
their house, anyway, was lost in a tornado. Thankfully, they
barely made it to the basement.
But I have seen firsthand that devastation. And I was
shocked after the tornado to learn that they--all of the
housing was on slabs. There was no storm shelters in the
community. All the training sites had no storm shelters, and
that is the case in other installations I have come to find
out.
But I understand that you all are re-looking at that and
trying to be proactive, and we can learn from this. What steps
are taken now with storm shelter building after the tornado?
Secretary Hammack. That is something we are taking a look
at. We are taking a look overall at climate change impacts,
whether there might be increased risk of storm or increased
risk of earthquake or other mitigation strategies we need to
implement, but certainly tornado shelters are one of those, and
I think it is certainly made us all aware of the need for it.
We do have great training programs on the base, and that is
one of the things that helped out in that situation, no loss of
life, but we are evaluating if we need to take some other steps
there to ensure that we are more protected for the future.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, I would just like to advocate that, and
I don't think tornadoes are because of climate change in the
Midwest. We have had them forever. But, anyway, I think that is
just common sense there.
But I did want to just ask all of the panel about BRAC. I
know you are just wrapping up the 2005 BRACs. And do you
anticipate--have you heard any move afoot to have any more
BRACs in the future?
Dr. Robyn. We have not asked for authorization for another
BRAC. I think we are focused very single-mindedly on trying to
get through the current one and meet our current deadlines.
Mrs. Hartzler. Very good. Okay. Everybody okay with that?
Just in the final question, regarding the 2005 BRAC, the
situation there, I know there are 30 BRAC recommendations yet
to be completed within 3 months of the completion date, and you
all are considering six projects at high risk of being able to
complete that. So I just wondered, what steps is the Department
taking and what cost to complete all these recommendations by
September of this year?
Dr. Robyn. Katherine just reviewed some of the key ones. We
are focusing on trying to meet the deadline in every case. We
are determined to satisfy our legal obligation, but we are
certainly not going to put patient safety at risk.
So, for example, one of the ones we are watching closely is
the move from Walter Reed to Bethesda, and we absolutely will
not--we think that we are on schedule on that one, but should
something go wrong--we do have only a small margin--we will
absolutely not do anything to jeopardize patient safety.
And as a matter of fact, under the law, we can't do that.
We have to certify that Bethesda has the capability to receive
the soldiers from Walter Reed before we can move them.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, that is good to know. I mean, wounded
warriors obviously are a high priority for all of us, and make
sure they have the utmost care.
And being new--I wasn't here in 2005--is there a penalty? I
know there is a goal, September 2011, but what happens if you
aren't able to----
Dr. Robyn. It is a legal obligation. We are not concerned
about a fine, but it is a legal obligation, and the Department
has never missed a BRAC deadline through five rounds.
I will say that this is the biggest one we have had, 222
actions, but I think, more important, there was a conscious
decision by the Department around 2006 to move the
implementation to the right for budget reasons. So we are
implementing this BRAC round systematically later in the 6-year
implementation phase or implementation period than we have the
earlier BRAC rounds, and so that is why we are coming so close
to the deadline on a number of these.
Mrs. Hartzler. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for your service and
testimony today. It is nice to see two graduates of the
University of Hartford graduate programs doing so well and
serving our country.
I actually want to follow up with Congresswoman Hartzler's
question, because this is not just sort of an academic question
that she asked. There was a speech given in Boston by Senator
Kerry, who was telling the audience that New England has to
start getting ready for a BRAC round in 2015 or a BRAC process
in 2015.
You know, Under Secretary Robyn, you said again that there
was nothing that is in the works right now, there is no
request. I actually would appreciate it if the other witnesses
could just confirm, as well as--again, Secretary Mabus was very
strong before the committee a couple of weeks ago, but, again,
I just would for the record ask that all of you just indicate
whether there is anything happening.
Secretary Hammack. There is no Army request. As Dr. Robyn
said, we are focused on completing the round that we have right
now and would sort of like to take a deep breath after we
complete it.
Secretary Pfannenstiel. And, Congressman, we have no
intention--the Navy has no intention of seeking another BRAC.
Secretary Yonkers. Congressman, the same thing is true for
the Air Force. We are focusing on what it is that we need to
complete right now, but I will also say that we still have
excess infrastructure. So it would be a preferable--I mean, not
preferable. It would be of use to us, I think, if we looked
down that road farther, a reduction through another Base
Realignment and Closure.
Mr. Forbes. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Courtney. Yes.
Mr. Forbes. Let me suggest you not look too far to this
committee, because I don't think we would be very receptive to
another round of BRAC, and I think that is what Mrs. Hartzler
and Mr. Courtney are trying to convey.
And I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, again, we--again, I have only gotten some sort of
updates in terms of the net savings through this process. And,
frankly, I think, you know, a lot of us are going to be looking
at that very closely.
I mean, in theory, there is probably always excess
capacity, but the question is really whether this process is
generating much in terms of real savings down the road.
And why don't we just set that subject aside, because I
actually have another question for you, Mr. Yonkers, which is
that your budget that was submitted for 2012 for Air National
Guard has a 40-percent reduction for facilities for Air
National Guard. We, again, have a new mission in Connecticut
for the C-17s [Boeing Globemaster III military transport
aircraft], which is going to require some new facilities. The
FYDP at this point is looking at 2015 for those facilities. And
they are expecting to get those planes in 2013.
So I can tell from the look on your face I may be hitting
you with something a little too unexpected, and if you want to
answer for the record. But, frankly, there is some concern
about just where your budget is, in terms of the requirements
for the C-17 missions, not just in Connecticut, but I believe
it is five other states that are slated to get that project
from the Air National Guard.
Secretary Yonkers. Well, sir, I am confused, because our
budget for the Air Guard this year is actually pretty robust.
They are actually getting about 14 percent of the total
military construction budget, which is about $1.4 billion. I am
not aware of any detriment or any issues with regards to the C-
17 in particular----
Mr. Courtney. C-27 [Alenia Spartan military transport
aircraft].
Secretary Yonkers. C-27?
Mr. Courtney. The cargo--yes, the air cargo.
Secretary Yonkers. Ah, okay. Yes, I would like to take it
for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 118.]
Mr. Courtney. Okay, that is fine. But there is, obviously,
some concern about the way the numbers--and, again, if I am
wrong, that is even better. But if you could help us with that,
that would be much appreciated.
Secretary Yonkers. You bet.
Mr. Courtney. And, again, I just would--in terms of some of
the prior questions about energy efficiencies, we just cut the
ribbon on a new Submarine Learning Center in Groton recently,
which had geothermal as part of the installation, which
actually everybody was just so excited about it.
But, again, Secretary Mabus testified before committee,
again, a couple weeks ago about every $10 per barrel is a $300
million price tab for the Navy. I mean, obviously, no one wants
to spend money on that if we don't have to, so those efforts I
think are for the taxpayer, you know, setting aside any
environmental reasons. So, you know, I just wanted to at least
go on the record saying that we are seeing real tangible
results with your efforts, so congratulations.
And I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you. We are going to have a series of
votes. I don't know how our panelists are on time, but Mrs.
Bordallo has asked to come back because she has a number of
questions. Some of our Members may. Would that be too great--we
apologize for that inconvenience. And, unfortunately, it could
be as much as 50 minutes. So I just want to--Mr. Schilling, we
are going to yield to you for 5 minutes, and then we are going
to recess--and we will come back for any Members that want to
ask questions after that.
Mr. Schilling.
Mr. Schilling. Thank you, Chairman. And I won't need my
full 5 minutes, because my colleagues here have already asked
the questions on BRAC'ing. I just wanted to delve in a little
bit more onto basically the ``Made in America'' and how we buy
product and how we do the pricing.
One of the things that was brought to my attention--and,
actually, I am from the district that--we represent the Rock
Island Arsenal, so when we hear that we have no plans for
BRAC'ing right now, that is music to our ears.
But I had a gentleman that came to me, and he makes tools
for a living. He has a firm in Milan, Illinois. And he
indicated to me that we had the ``Made in USA,'' and basically
the toolbox was made in America, but everything inside of it
was not.
And, you know, I am one of those people where I buy
everything I can made in America. And, you know, I guess, you
know, can you kind of give me an idea of how that works? I am
pretty new to this, also, and any help you can give me would be
appreciated.
Dr. Robyn. Well, I don't know that I can give you a
definitive answer, but let me say, we have gained an enormous
amount as a country from the international trading system. We
had done very well in selling our goods overseas, and that
requires us in turn to buy goods from other countries. And
consumers benefit from that, as well. We have trade laws by
which we are bound, which protect us, but require us to buy--to
not discriminate in favor of U.S. products.
My understanding is that, in the case of the solar panels,
that at least with respect to China, which is where many of
them are coming from--and maybe wind turbines, as well--that
they have not signed the international agreement under which we
said we would buy products from that country. So even trade
sticklers would say that there is a--that legally under
international trade law we are justified in buying at least
non-Chinese products.
Mr. Schilling. Okay. That is a good enough answer.
And then lastly I just wanted to thank you, because I know
you are all sincerely dedicated to the cause, and I just want
to thank you for your service, also.
So with that, I yield back.
Mr. Forbes. Could I just follow up real quickly on what Mr.
Schilling said? Would it be possible for you to submit for the
record--we don't expect you to have it--an explanation or
perhaps send somebody back to his office to brief him on that
policy? And the reason is because we understand with a lot of
our agencies, but with DOD, one of the things we are concerned
about, if we get in a conflict, we want to make sure that some
other country doesn't cut off the supply.
And I think this is what Mr. Schilling is concerned about.
So if you need to submit it for the record or contact his
office and just have him briefed on that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 118.]
Mr. Forbes. Chris, did you have a quick question?
Mr. Gibson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am just going to submit
for the record, because I am not going to be able to come
back----
Mr. Forbes. Take 60 seconds, and then we are going to get
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Apologize for not
being here earlier, so I will look forward to reading the
transcripts on energy efficiencies, and particularly interested
in for modular nuclear reactors, where the Department is going
forward, hearing your views on that.
And then the question for the record: I am concerned about
the deaths at Fort Bragg. I know that this is partially in your
lane, and it cuts across others, but with regard to military
construction and environment, 12 deaths there, 3 in one home.
And we certainly have great personal experience with Picerne,
very responsible I found them in my time that our family lived
at Fort Bragg, but I am especially concerned about these deaths
and would like to be kept apprised of what the investigations
are going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 118.]
Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yonkers, I will not be able to come back after the
series of votes, but I represent Robins Air Force Base. And I
would appreciate it if we could schedule some time for you to
come by. I would like to discuss the 30 percent reduction that
is, as I understand it, across the board for the Air Force in
energy consumption with the September 30th of 2015, I believe
it is, deadline. And I would like to--I would just like more
details on that and how that number was derived and how we
intend to get there.
Certainly, manufacturing installations are very different
than other installations, maybe. I would just appreciate your
time, if we could schedule that, and Jim Dolbow of my staff is
in the back.
Secretary Yonkers. Congressman Scott, we would be delighted
to come by and talk to you some more about that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Forbes. Steve, do you have any questions? Do you want
to come back or are you okay? Okay.
Then we are going to have some of our Members submit
questions for the record. I am told Ms. Bordallo is still in a
markup and will be a while getting back. I have got a number of
questions I am just going to submit to you for the record.
Please answer them, you know, because they are things we need
for our markup when we get them.
So we will submit those to you. And if you would just be
kind enough to submit those for the record, then we don't have
to hold you and bring you back. And I know that will be good
news to you. Thank you guys so much for taking your time and
being with us.
And with that, if no one has any follow-up questions, we
are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 13, 2011
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 13, 2011
=======================================================================
Statement of Hon. J. Randy Forbes
Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness
Hearing on
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for Military Construction, Base Closure,
Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance
April 13, 2011
I want to welcome all our Members and our distinguished
panel of experts to today's hearing that will focus on how our
military construction program is aligned with our Nation's
priorities. Fundamentally, our Nation is at war with an
aggressive adversary. Our forces have been successful in
engaging this war on the doorsteps of foreign nations and I am
grateful that the underpinnings of our security have kept our
citizens safe and ensured our free-market economy thrives.
However, we have seen changes in this dynamic recently.
With the crisis in several Arab nations, with the rise of a
rapidly developing China, and even with the sustaining of
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not confident
that the Department of Defense has the necessary infrastructure
and strategic partnerships that are necessary to confront these
diverse and dynamic challenges.
I believe that our force structure needs to be better
aligned with emerging threats. A good example of this
realignment effort is located in my Ranking Member's home of
Guam. I believe that this location will serve to enhance our
forces in Eastern Asia against those who believe that we are
not committed to freedom and prosperity in this strategic
region. In addition to Guam, I believe that it is critical that
we expand our basing structure in the Western Pacific to
encompass nontraditional partners that are aligned with our
strategic interests. On the other hand, an example of a
strategic ``misalignment'' is at Naval Station Mayport where
the Navy has proposed to place a redundant capability that will
cost significant funds to support a second carrier homeport on
the East Coast. Our strategic investments should be both wise
and cost-effective. Unfortunately, the Navy's support of a
second homeport in Mayport is neither and reverses a series of
decisions by previous Navy leadership to limit strategic
homeport concepts.
As to other issues included in the president's budget
request, I am also concerned about financial parameters that
drive poor decisionmaking. For example, I was surprised to note
that the Navy decided to enter into an energy-efficiency
contract where the financial payback was an astounding 447
years. Even after this was pointed out by the Inspector
General, the Department decided to continue with this project.
I was also surprised that the entire Department of Defense uses
construction costs indices that are 25 to 40 percent more than
similar commercially built facilities. My friends, with savings
of only 25 percent in the military construction program, which
could represent an annual savings of almost $4 billion, we
could build significant capabilities and really provide a
result that would correct years of neglect and allow us to make
prudent strategic investments in diverse areas around the
world. Good enough is not good enough for the fine men and
women in uniform.
On a final note, we are in the final year of implementing
the BRAC program and there are many recommendations that
contain significant risk in completing by the statutory
deadline of September 2011. I want to be very clear that any
risk to the mission of the United States in this time of war
needs to be properly limited to ensure the success of our
efforts. I will not jeopardize patient care for our wounded
warriors if their care will be impacted by a BRAC move. I look
forward to our witnesses' discussing the risk of the BRAC moves
to determine if additional time is necessary to properly
complete the remaining BRAC recommendations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 13, 2011
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO ON BEHALF OF CONGRESSMAN
FARR
Dr. Robyn. The Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program is
grounded in 10 USC 2012. Our military personnel and units volunteer to
participate in training events in the civilian communities throughout
the US and territories. While an underserved community will benefit
from the military's presence in the community, the focus of the program
is on pre-deployment and post-deployment readiness training.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs (ASD(RA)) has been in contact with Congressman Farr's office to
discuss the San Clemente Dam, and ASD(RA) remains available to answer
further questions. [See page 15.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO
Dr. Robyn. The specific products on the military construction
project being discussed were manufactured in New Jersey. However,
existing law specifically authorizes the procurement of photovoltaic
devices that are manufactured in other countries. Therefore, the
Department of Defense does procure these devices from other countries
when doing so is determined to be the best value to the Government,
which may include consideration of the lowest price, technically
acceptable offer. [See page 17.]
Secretary Hammack. The Department of the Army includes the Buy
American Act provision in its contracts which requires U.S. made Photo
Voltaic (PV) devices and solar cells.
In addition, the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act further
requires that contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD)
include a provision requiring PV devices provided under the contract to
comply with the Buy American Act to the extent that such contracts
result in ownership of PV devices by the Department of Defense.
The Army, including Active, Reserve and National Guard components,
has many projects that use U.S. made PV and solar cells. The table
below presents a sample of current and proposed projects during the
period FY 2009-FY 2012. [See page 17.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION PROJECT TITLE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Girt, NJ Photovoltaic Electric System, 400 kilowats (kW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pohakuloa Training Area, HI Solar Water Heaters & Solar Daylighting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Dix, NJ Photovoltaic Roof System, 500kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Beach, DE Solar PV System, 378kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidio of Monterey, CA Solar PV System, 378kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vicenza, Italy Photovoltaic Installation, 750kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Hunter Liggett, CA Solar Micro Grid, 1 megawatt (MW) (2 systems)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrenceville RC, NJ Solar PV System, 295kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands Solar PV System, 468kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento, CA Solar Electric System, 126kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wailuku, HI Solar Electric System, 100kW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Pfannenstiel. It is likely that the Navy has purchased
foreign manufactured solar panels in the past. Any foreign manufactured
solar panels purchased have been compliant with the Buy American Act
(BAA), which permits the purchase of construction materials from
certain countries that are signatories of the trade agreements
specified in BAA. Designated foreign countries we are allowed to
purchase from and remain compliant with the BAA include: a World Trade
Organization country, a Free Trade Agreement country, a least developed
country, or a Caribbean Basin country, as defined in the BAA language.
BAA requirements also allow the Navy to purchase foreign construction
material if the cost of the domestic construction material exceeds the
cost of the foreign material by more than 6 percent. [See page 17.]
Secretary Yonkers. Section 846 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11 NDAA) requires DoD to
comply with the Buy American Act in specified solar energy contracts
requiring photovoltaic devices. Since the FY11 NDAA was passed, the Air
Force has not purchased any solar panels subject to this requirement.
Third party financing, such as Power Purchase Agreements, enable
the Air Force to promote the development of renewable energy projects
on its installations. These projects, in turn, increase the available
amounts of renewable energy and improve the Air Force's energy security
posture. Third party financing that does not result in full ownership
by the Air Force is not covered under Section 846. The Air Force does
not track where panels for such projects are manufactured. [See page
17.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY
Secretary Yonkers. The Air Force projects a manufacturing/delivery
plan for C-27 aircraft that has begun to provide aircraft at some
locations, and will continue through fiscal year (FY) 2015. In the time
between aircraft delivery and bed down project construction, each Air
National Guard unit will prepare
C-27 aircraft for combat deployments and aircrew training using
workarounds involving existing capabilities and facilities.
In determining which MILCON projects get funded in a given FY, the
Air Force uses an Integrated Priority List (IPL) in which a scoring
model is applied to all Active, Guard and Reserve projects. Projects
compete based on mission requirements, and those projects that have
temporary workarounds tend to score lower (and are sequenced for
construction later) than those where no workarounds are available. [See
page 21.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCHILLING
Dr. Robyn. While my organization does not make actual buys, the
Department policies comply with Sec 846(a) of the 2011 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), H.R. 6523, (P.L. 111-383), which requires the
Department to ensure that photovoltaic devices provided under contract
comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.), subject to
the exceptions provided in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C.
2501 et seq.). The restrictions of the Buy American Act (BAA) currently
cover the procurement of Photovoltaic Devices, federal supply
classification 6117, as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) Part 25 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) Part 225. With limited exceptions, the procurement of
Photovoltaic Devices is required to be a domestic end product when used
in the United States. [See page 23.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GIBSON
Dr. Robyn. The infant deaths at Fort Bragg have been fully
investigated. The Office of Compliance and Field Operations of the U.S.
Consumer Products Safety Commission, on February 7, 2011 reported that
the indoor environmental and building systems investigation did not
identify any issues or contaminants that would potentially pose a
health concern to residents. The Army's Criminal Investigation
Command's broader investigation into the possible causes of these
deaths has been concluded with a press statement that ``after extensive
testing and investigating, the review did not discover any evidence of
information that points to criminality associated with the deaths, or
any identifiable common environmental link.'' The Medical Command
investigation is ongoing, to date they have not discovered any evidence
of any potential exposures that could cause or contribute to these
deaths. Further findings indicate a lower infant mortality rate in Fort
Bragg housing residents compared to the rates of the United States, the
state of North Carolina, and the counties surrounding Fort Bragg. [See
page 23.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 13, 2011
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Forbes. How is the DOD organized to review renewable energy
applications in a timely manner and protect DOD equities from
encroachment?
Dr. Robyn. The Department created the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to
comply with Section 358 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011, and is publishing a rule for inclusion in the Code of
Federal Regulations to provide a process to review applications
received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under its 49
U.S.C. 44718 process.
When renewable energy applications are received from the FAA, the
Clearinghouse tasks subject matter experts from the DoD Components to
review the applications and ensure that DoD equities in training and
readiness, test and evaluation, operations, and homeland defense are
protected. If DoD equities are protected, the Clearinghouse recommends
that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations &
Environment) provide a ``no objection'' to the FAA. However, if the
project has a potential to adversely impact the Department, the
Clearinghouse tasks a team, comprised of the DoD Components that are
potentially affected, to conduct negotiations with the project
proponent to mitigate the adverse impacts. If the negotiations are
successful, the DoD can then provide a ``no objection'' comment to the
FAA. If the mitigation negotiations are not successful, or the project
proponent refuses to discuss mitigation, the Clearinghouse can
recommend that the Deputy Secretary of Defense request a determination
of hazard from the FAA. If the Deputy Secretary determines the project
will present ``an unacceptable risk to the national security of the
United States,'' the Clearinghouse will transmit the objection to the
FAA.
Mr. Forbes. The President's vision for a secure energy future
highlights the Interior Department's commitment to issue permits for a
total of 10,000 megawatts of renewable power generated from new
projects on public lands and in offshore waters by the end of 2012.
How is the DOD organized to review renewable energy
applications in a timely manner and protect DOD equities from
encroachment?
How is the DOD prepared to mitigate the impact to
military ranges, testing, and training activities?
Dr. Robyn. The Department created the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to
ensure that all renewable energy applications are reviewed in a timely
matter, while protecting DoD equities in training and readiness, test
and evaluation, operations, and homeland defense. When renewable energy
applications are received from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
Clearinghouse tasks subject matter experts from the DoD Components,
such as the Services and the Joint Staff, to review the applications
and ensure that DoD equities are protected from encroachment. The
Clearinghouse then presents the collective recommendations to its Board
of Directors, which is comprised of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment (co-chair); the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Readiness (co-chair); the Principal Deputy
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (co-chair); the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense; the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment; the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment; the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment,
and Logistics; and the Joint Staff's Vice Director of Strategy, Plans,
and Policy (J-5). After their review of a renewable energy project
application, the Directors either approve a statement of ``no
objection'' to the BLM, task a team comprised of the DoD Components
most affected by the project to conduct negotiations for mitigation
with the project proponent, or recommend to BLM that the project be
disapproved.
In cases where mitigation is possible (the vast majority), the
negotiation team works in close coordination with the cognizant BLM
office and the project proponent to examine a variety of mitigation
options. For example, the Clearinghouse, Service representatives, and
BLM representatives worked for more than a year to determine suitable
routes for a transmission line close to White Sands Missile Range.
Additionally, the Department is a cooperating agency in BLM's Solar
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and will use forthcoming
Air Force and Navy studies to determine acceptable amounts of
electromagnetic interference from solar and wind installations near the
Nevada Test and Training Range, Edwards Air Force Base, and Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake. Only in cases where all mitigation options
are exhausted, or agreement on mitigation cannot be reached, will DoD
recommend that BLM disapprove the project.
Regarding offshore renewable energy projects, the Clearinghouse co-
chairs and the Services have supported the Department of the Interior's
Atlantic Offshore Wind Policy Group and the various state task forces
led by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (BOEMRE).
Mr. Forbes. The Department of Defense is expected to meet several
installation energy-related goals and mandates. This includes reducing
facility intensity by 30% by 2015 and 37.5% by 2020. Another goal
requires the DOD to consume 7.5% of electric energy from renewable
resources by 2013. An additional goal requires DOD to produce or
procure 25% of facilities energy from renewable sources by 2025.
Do you believe DOD will meet all of these installation
energy goals and mandates?
What do you see as your biggest challenge or impediment
to meeting the goals and mandates, particularly while ensuring
necessary oversight and appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars
through a demonstrated return on investment?
Dr. Robyn. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Forbes. The President recently provided his vision for a secure
energy future, one tenet of which is the expansion of ``clean energy''
in the United States.
How is the Department of Defense expected to contribute
to the President's goal?
What is the plan to expand the use of clean energy on its
installations?
Dr. Robyn. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Forbes. DOD construction costs include many requirements that
drive the overall costs to include federal contracting requirements
(Davis-Bacon wages, federal subcontracting and small business goals,
bonding requirements (Miller Act)), federal design requirements, energy
efficiency objectives, and a robust quality assurance capacity to
manage construction contracts. These costs generally add 25-40% in
construction costs over private-sector construction requirements.
What steps is the Department taking to mitigate the
overall costs of construction and reduce overall barriers to entry in
DOD construction market?
What can Congress do to assist in reducing statutory
burdens and reduce overall construction costs?
Dr. Robyn. The Department has taken several measures to lower
construction costs and mitigate the additional costs imposed by federal
contracting requirements and unique DoD requirements and constraints,
to include: 1) adopting industry design and construction standards and
criteria in lieu of military standards; 2) allowing use of all
commercial construction types (Types I through V), including wood-frame
construction; 3) standardizing facility designs to reduce total design
costs; and 4) packaging similar facilities into a single construction
project, where possible, to achieve economies of scale.
The Department continually strives to reduce barriers to entry in
the DoD construction market. In addition to mitigating costs, items 1)
and 2) above have enabled a larger number of construction firms to
compete for military construction projects because familiarity with
unique defense design and construction standards is not required.
Likewise, the Department's move to electronic distribution of bid
documents has greatly increased the accessibility of the military
construction program to the construction market and has significantly
lowered the administrative and cost barriers to compete for a project
during the last decade.
Mr. Forbes. The Army has decided to reduce the number of Brigade
Combat Teams in Europe from four to three.
What capabilities would be lost if BCT forces were
reduced in Europe?
How does the Department balance this capability
degradation in Europe with the cost savings associated with stationing
forces in the United States?
Secretary Hammack. The mix of capabilities offered by the three
distinct types of BCTs remaining in Europe (Heavy, Stryker, and
Airborne) enables EUCOM to meet a wide array of engagement, building
partner capacity, and interoperability objectives while supporting the
full range of military operations needed for plausible European
contingencies. This BCT mix ensures we maintain a flexible and easily
deployable forward-based defense posture that optimizes our ability to
meet NATO commitments and training/engagement objectives and to satisfy
security objectives.
We believe that retaining three BCTs in Europe strikes the best
balance between a stringent fiscal environment and the need to maintain
a flexible and easily deployable ground force to meet commitments with
Allies and partners.
Mr. Forbes. The Army is responsible for the implementation of
several complex BRAC recommendations that will likely not be completed
by the statutory BRAC deadline of September 2011.
Considering the magnitude of movements occurring this
summer to implement the BRAC decisions, how will the Department be able
to retain mission capabilities and complete the BRAC decisions by the
statutory deadline?
What is the risk in completing the BRAC decisions by the
statutory deadline?
Will Wounded Warrior care in the National Capital Region
at the conclusion of BRAC be on a par with the standard of care that is
provided today?
Secretary Hammack. Throughout the BRAC process, the Army has been
managing the transition to new facilities closely and specifically
asking commanders in the field for their assessment of impact on
mission capability. Based on the assessments received, the department
believes that it will meet the BRAC deadline and sustain mission
capabilities. In terms of risk in meeting the deadline, we are
constantly in contact with the field to monitor and if necessary
mitigate risk. For example, I receive weekly reports from the commander
of Walter Reed that provides their assessment of the move to Bethesda
and their ability to meet the mission requirement.
Wounded Warrior care in the National Capital Region at the
conclusion of BRAC will be consistent with today's standard of care.
The new facilities will provide an optimal healing environment and
support structure for transitioning Wounded Ill and Injured (WII) and
their Family members while better aligning healthcare delivery with the
population centers of the National Capital Region (NCR) beneficiaries.
Mr. Forbes. The Army is taking very aggressive steps to establish
net-zero pilot programs across installations. This is a very innovative
approach for net-zero water, net-zero energy, and net-zero waste.
Has the Army conducted a cost benefit analysis to
determine the return on investment for achieving these goals?
If so, what is the result, or is the Army prepared to
adjust the goals to ensure it makes appropriate investments with a
demonstrated payback?
How will this help the Army become less reliant on the
commercial grid?
Secretary Hammack. The Army's Net Zero Installation Initiative is a
strategy that strives to bring the overall consumption of resources on
installations down to an effective rate of zero. The program
establishes a framework of reduction, re-purposing, recycling and
composting, energy recovery, and disposal to guide them towards
achieving net zero in an environmentally responsible, cost-effective
and efficient manner. While the Army has not conducted a cost benefit
analysis to determine return on investment on the Net Zero Installation
approach, we know that reducing energy and water use reduces cost.
The Army does align with the U.S. Department of Energy concerning
life-cycle cost methodology and criteria established by the Federal
Energy Management Program (FEMP) (NIST Handbook 135, 1995 Edition), as
it relates to specific projects. Net zero projects will be evaluated on
a life cycle cost basis to identify the best investments and return on
investment.
As with our weapon system investments to ensure national security,
we are moving ahead with our aggressive steps to ensure the Army's
future access to resources. Net zero initiatives will allow:
Increased reliability of installation energy and water in
support of mission requirements.
Reduction in greenhouse gases and vulnerability to
external supply disruption.
Lower installation and facilities utilities costs (in
light of rising fuel prices in commercial and foreign markets).
Cost-benefit analyses will include more than the monetary aspects
to allow for best decisions and these aspects noted above are heavily
weighted in favor of net zero investments.
The Net Zero Installation program provides the framework to
decrease the Army's reliance on the commercial grid. As part of the
Army's overall effort to conserve precious resources, Net Zero
installations will consume only as much energy or water they produce
and eliminate solid waste to landfills.
Mr. Forbes. The Government of Japan has not yet established the
final laydown of the Marine Corps aviation realignment on Okinawa. In
its FY12 budget request, the Department of Defense request of $155
million is imbalanced compared to the Government of Japan funds request
of $472 million that is pending consideration of the Japanese Diet.
Why did the President's budget request not match the
funding amount requested by the Government of Japan?
How does the lack of tangible progress regarding the
configuration of the Futenma Replacement Facility on Okinawa impact the
Department in its decision to request funds to support the Marine Corps
realignment in Guam?
How has the Government of Japan responded to the budget
request with regard to the FY12 level of funding for the Marine Corps
realignment in Guam?
How will the most recent natural disasters in Japan
impact Japan's ability to fiscally support this major realignment?
Secretary Pfannenstiel. The funding request for FY-12 is the result
of careful consideration of many planning and execution factors,
including the Futenma Replacement Facility. The Department considered
the concerns noted by Congress in the FY-11 National Defense
Authorization Act Joint Explanatory Statement and is committed to
executing the realignment in a deliberate manner. Funding decisions
were made to take the time to work towards resolution of these issues.
Additionally, as discussed in the Record of Decision for the Guam and
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Buildup, the
Department will use Adaptive Program Management to adjust the pace and
sequencing of construction projects so that the buildup does not exceed
Guam's infrastructure capacities. Efforts are underway to increase the
capacity of Guam's commercial port, using $50 million in DOD funding
and $54 million in USDA financing; improve roadways using Defense
Access Road funding ($49M appropriated in FY10 and $67M authorized for
appropriation in FY11); and address critical improvements to Guam's
utilities systems by applying financing from the Government of Japan.
As these upgrades come online, the pace of construction can be adjusted
accordingly. Projects requested in FY-12 are those that are necessary
at this time to support future vertical construction and also to
support the introduction of off-island workers necessary to ramp-up
construction over the next few years.
In the wake of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters, the
Government of Japan has reiterated and demonstrated that it remains
committed to the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. We have
communicated with the Government of Japan regarding the amount of our
FY12 MILCON budget request and they understand our decision-making
rationale based on the factors noted above. The Diet has approved the
JFY-11 budget, which includes $167 million in direct cash contributions
for facilities construction and design, and $415 million in utilities
financing. At $167 million, the Government of Japan's direct cash
contribution is comparable to DOD's $156 million military construction
funding request. Of the $415 million in utilities financing, $273
million of this utilities financing will be applied to critical
upgrades to wastewater systems off-base, which will support the
relocating Marines and Guam's population growth in the long-term and in
time to support the requirements of the off-island construction
workforce. The balance of the JFY-11 utilities financing will be used
for improvements to the Navy's water system on base and will eventually
be married up with the P-2048 Finegayan Water Utilities FY12 MILCON
project request. Coupled with the efforts noted above, these
improvements will allow for the construction program to ramp-up.
Mr. Forbes. The United States and the Government of Japan concluded
an agreement in 2006 that stipulated the movement of Marine Corps
forces to Guam and provided a framework to share the $10.2 billion in
costs associated with the Marine Corps movement. Since the 2006
agreement, the Marine Corps has indicated that the overall cost
estimate does not provide for the full spectrum of training to support
their requirements.
What is the overall cost to move Marine Corps forces to
Guam?
Does this cost estimate include the required training
elements to support the Marine Corps?
Secretary Pfannenstiel. The overall cost estimates are currently
under review at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While I cannot
answer when the information will be validated by OSD, I can state that
the cost estimate includes all required training elements to support
the relocating Marines.
Mr. Forbes. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a $15
million military construction project for road improvements at Naval
Station Mayport (FL) and $15 million in planning and design costs for
future projects. While GAO believes that the Navy's costs are
overstated, this request is the first of several military construction
projects that the Navy anticipates will cost $564 million to provide
the supporting infrastructure for a nuclear aircraft carrier. The Navy
cites the strategic risk of locating all nuclear aircraft carriers on
the East Coast at a single location as the principal reason to relocate
an aircraft carrier to Mayport.
1) Has the Navy adopted a consistent strategic risk
assessment regarding the basing of ballistic missile
submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and other critical
assets in the United States? If not, why not?
2) If strategic dispersal is central to the Navy's decision,
why did the Navy abandon strategic dispersal in the Gulf of
Mexico in BRAC 2005 through the closure of Naval Station
Ingleside and Naval Station Pascagoula?
3) In the decision process, why did the Navy not evaluate
Norfolk, VA, against those qualities expected in Mayport, FL,
in the range of alternatives?
Secretary Pfannenstiel. The one-time infrastructure cost associated
with the creation of a second CVN homeport at Mayport, FL is $489M in
Military Construction (MILCON) projects including Planning and Design.
Specifically, in FY 2012 the Navy requested $15M for the Massey Avenue
Corridor Improvement Project (P503) and $2M for Mayport Planning and
Design efforts.
1) Thorough, formal strategic risk assessments include
vulnerability, threat and trend analyses and are routinely conducted
and updated by Navy, Joint Staff, FBI, and Department of Homeland
Security officials and others. These risk assessments inform Navy
basing decisions. The Navy applies strategic risk assessments as a
factor when evaluating basing options and alternatives across the
force. Other factors include overall dispersal, strategic/operational
impacts, balanced port loading, maintenance and logistics, existing
infrastructure, sailor/family quality of life, environmental impacts
and costs.
2) Strategic dispersal of Navy ships is not a new concept, and is
not unique to nuclear aircraft carriers. The Navy emphasized strategic
dispersal in BRAC 2005; it was a key requirement in analysis conducted
to support recommendations for closure and realignment as forwarded to
the Secretary of Defense. As contained in the BRAC 2005 report, Navy
established rules to guide the Department of the Navy (DON) analysis
and infrastructure groups' scenario development. Among the DON rules
used to bound recommendations were: ``(1) to ensure that the model did
not result in unbalanced force levels on each coast, at least 40
percent of the requirements had to be located on each coast; (2) one
strategic nuclear submarine homeport per coast was required to ensure
that this key infrastructure capability was maintained; and, (3) two
ports on each coast capable of cold iron berthing a nuclear-powered
carrier must be retained in order to allow for dispersal.'' Strategic
dispersal was evaluated with respect to the closure of Naval Station
Pascagoula, as contained in the Department of Defense Base Realignment
and Closure Report of May 2005, within Volume IV (Department of the
Navy Analyses and Recommendations). For example, report justification
for closure of NS Pascagoula states, ``Sufficient capacity and Fleet
dispersal is maintained with East Coast surface Fleet homeports of
Naval Station Norfolk and Naval Station Mayport, FL.''
3) The strategic dispersal of a nuclear aircraft carrier on the
East Coast is not a competition between Norfolk and Mayport, the
positive qualities of both ports combine to ensure prudent positioning
and sustainment of critical national assets.
Mr. Forbes. The Secretary of the Navy established energy goals that
far exceed the requirements for the other military services.
What is the impetus for these targets, and why do you
believe this is critical to national security?
Secretary Pfannenstiel. The Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) has set
forth five energy goals to reduce the Department of the Navy's (DON's)
overall consumption of energy, decrease its reliance on petroleum, and
significantly increase its use of alternative energy. Meeting these
goals requires that the Navy and Marine Corps value energy as a
critical resource across maritime, aviation, expeditionary, and shore
missions.
The impetus for these energy goals is to ensure DON's Energy
Security and Energy Independence. Energy Security is sustained by
utilizing sustainable sources that meet tactical, expeditionary, and
shore operational requirements and force sustainment functions, and
having the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet
operational needs. Energy Independence is achieved when Naval forces
rely on energy resources that are not subject to intentional or
accidental supply disruptions. As a priority, energy independence
increases operational effectiveness by making Naval forces more energy
self-sufficient and less dependent on vulnerable energy production and
supply lines.
DON's Energy Program for Security and Independence will lead the
Navy and Marine Corps efforts to improve operational effectiveness
while increasing energy security and advancing energy independence. DON
will achieve the SECNAV goals by adopting energy efficient acquisition
practices, technologies, and operations.
Mr. Forbes. The Navy has proposed to defer investments in
facilities restoration and modernization.
1) Why did the Navy elect to take risk in the facility
accounts and delay critical sustainment, restoration and
modernization activities?
2) What is the long-term effect of a delay in funding this
facility maintenance account?
Secretary Pfannenstiel. 1) To maximize our support for warfighting
readiness and capability, the Navy reduced its facilities sustainment
posture to 80 percent of the Department of Defense Facilities
Sustainment Model.
2) The Navy will attempt to mitigate the inherent risk to this
strategy, the attendant operational impacts, and to ensure the safety
of our Sailors and civilians by prioritizing projects that address
facilities with the lowest quality rating as well as the facilties and
building systems that have the most significant impact to our
personnel. Less critical maintenance and repair actions will continue
to be deferred.
Mr. Forbes. The Air Force has proposed to defer investments again
in facilities restoration and modernization.
Why did the Air Force elect to take risk in the facility
accounts and delay critical sustainment, restoration and modernization
activities?
What is the long-term effect of a delay in funding this
facility maintenance account?
Secretary Yonkers. Overall, in FY12, the Air Force increased
investment in facilities O&M accounts (restoration & modernization, and
demolition) and decreased investment in its facilities sustainment
account. The net was $160M in growth from FY11. In response to the OSD-
directed initiative to reduce overhead, the AF instituted a number of
O&M account efficiencies and reinvested resources into critical weapon
systems programs. As a result the Air Force will achieve $1.6B in
facility sustainment and operations efficiencies across the FYDP
without mission impact. We shall ensure capabilities are not degraded
by leveraging sustainable facility design, demolishing excess
infrastructure, sourcing strategically, enforcing common standards, and
employing sound asset management support practices. It is our view that
the Air Force did not take risk in facilities or delay critical SRM
activities.
Mr. Forbes. The term ``energy security'' is defined by the QDR as
having ``assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability
to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.''
How is the Air Force developing renewable energy projects
on its installations that are compatible with this goal, and providing
redundant power in the event of a failure of the public grid?
Secretary Yonkers. The Air Force has a strategic rationale and
operational imperative to decrease demand and diversify sources of
supply to enhance energy security, including by implementing a
portfolio of renewable and alternative energy projects, as energy
availability and security impacts all Air Force missions, operations,
and organizations.
By taking a balanced approach between Air Force focused investments
to reduce energy intensity and leveraging the renewable energy market
through 3rd part investment to increase energy resiliency and
redundancies, the Air Force is focused on diversifying its sources of
energy to meet its operational needs and in turn enhance its energy
security posture. The Air Force currently has 85 operational renewable
energy projects on 43 bases, totaling 34 MW of renewable energy
capacity. Additionally, there are projects lined up for FY11-13 that
total more than 1,000 MW of operational energy, including large-scale
solar projects at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, and Edwards Air Force
Base in California.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. You mention in your testimony that contemporary urban
planning techniques and modern energy technologies will be used as part
of the development on Guam. Can you elaborate on what these
contemporary urban planning techniques are and how they will be
incorporated on Guam? Further, I am concerned that base planning really
does not take into account local planning laws and master plans. As we
move forward, does the Department have the authorities necessary to do
a better job of planning new installations or in the expansion of
current installations?
Dr. Robyn. The Department currently has all the necessary
authorities for planning to support the Marine relocation to Guam or
any other expansion of a current installation. The plan for development
on Guam includes sustainable planning techniques such as Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rated buildings, the nationally
accepted benchmark for design and construction of high performance
green buildings. We also plan to incorporate energy efficiency
strategies, taking advantage of exterior shading, natural lighting, and
passive solar orientation with sustainable landscapes with native
vegetation. In fact, the Federal Planning Division of the American
Planning Association recognized the ``Guam Joint Military Master Plan
Sustainability Program and Implementation Tools'' submission as its
2010 annual award winner in the Outstanding Sustainable Planning,
Design, or Development Initiative category.
Ms. Bordallo. What Operational Energy Initiatives is the Army
engaging in? Further, what policies are the Army considering or
implemented to improve energy efficiency on its installations and how
are the Guard and Reserves being integrated into any such policies?
Finally, what can this committee do to assist with the development or
implementation of these policies?
Secretary Hammack. In regards to Operational Energy, the Army is
undertaking a range of initiatives to enhance operational energy
performance and is deploying solutions throughout Afghanistan and Iraq.
Improving the Army's Operational Energy Posture will increase mission
effectiveness by enhancing or preserving adaptability, versatility,
flexibility and sustainability, as well as reducing costs.
At existing forward operating bases, we continue implement new and
efficient ways to expand the use of solar power, turning waste to
energy, reuse of grey water such as reusing shower water for toilets,
using waste heat for steam to electricity generation, solar hot water,
micro power grids and other technologies to reduce the demand for
resources.
The Army has replaced ``point generation'' power production with 22
minigrid/power plants supporting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This
approach is achieving efficiency improvements of over 50%. Roughly \1/
3\ of these power plants incorporate ``smart'' technology to optimize
power production based on demand.
The Army is on track to field a new family of tactical generators,
the Advanced Medium Mobile Power Sources family, or AMMPS, starting in
2012. The generators, ranging in size from 5 kW to 60 kW, use an
average of 20 percent less fuel than the current sets in the field.
The Army is deploying the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense (TFMD), an
automated fuel inventory management system that is configured to
enhance tactical fuel accountability procedures. TFMD provides
enterprise-level asset visibility of fuel operations, automated
inventory management, theft deterrence, and business process
improvements. This will lead to more effective fuel management
practices.
The Army is fielding systems to reduce weight and increase the
capabilities of energy-related Soldier systems, such as the Rucksack
Enhance Portable Power System (REPPS), a lightweight, portable power
system capable of recharging batteries or/and act as a continuous power
source that reduces the weight in batteries that a soldier needs to
carry. One hundred systems have been delivered to units supporting
Operation Enduring Freedom.
Soldiers of the 1-16 Infantry Battalion received training on
advanced power and energy systems at Fort Riley, Kansas to use during
their recent deployment to Afghanistan. Technologies include a suite of
advanced soldier power capabilities such as rechargeable batteries,
power networking devices, and solar and fuel cell chargers that will
bring power to the most disadvantaged operating environments. These
innovations in expeditionary Soldier power will help to reduce the
overall volume and weight of the Soldier's combat load, and will allow
the small tactical unit to sustain themselves throughout extended
mission durations.
The Army also plans to significantly reduce operational contingency
base camp energy demand by 30-60% through integrated solutions such as
smart micro-grids, renewable energy sources, insulated shelters, more
efficient generators and engines, better energy storage, power
conditioning devices, and onsite water production.
Regarding your question on installation energy, the Army is working
to significantly improve energy efficiency across our installations and
has recently published policies to standardize energy efficiency in
Army operations, to include energy efficient lighting requirements,
implementation of the highest building efficiency standards in the
Federal Government and an Acquisition Policy requiring energy
productivity to be a consideration in all Army Acquisition Programs.
The Army, in concert with the Department of Energy is researching a
range of technologies to improve vehicle efficiency. The Army is
replacing 4,000 non-tactical fossil-fueled GSA-leased vehicles with
low-speed electric vehicles and is also leasing more than 3,000 hybrid
vehicles, the largest such fleet in the Department of Defense to
undergo this transition. These efforts will reduce risks associated
with the volatility of oil prices and result in affordable, efficient
vehicles for the Army and the public.
With respect to integrating the Guard and Reserve Components, as
part of the Army's overall effort to conserve precious resources, the
Army is focusing on Net Zero installations which will consume only as
much energy or water as they produce and eliminate solid waste to
landfills. The Army recently identified six Net Zero Pilot
Installations in each of the energy, water, and waste categories and
two integrated installations striving towards net zero by 2020. Two of
the Net Zero energy pilots include Army Reserve installations (Camp
Parks and Fort Hunter Liggett, CA). Additionally, the Oregon Army
National Guard volunteered to pilot a unique Net Zero Energy Initiative
to include all of their installations across the state. The Army will
prepare a programmatic NEPA document to examine the impact of selected
net zero technologies and actions in implementing net zero Army-wide.
This initiative will establish Army communities as models for energy
security, sustainability, value and quality of life.
Lastly, regarding where the committee can be helpful, the Army
believes the key to meeting our energy goals will be to expand the use
of the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) and improve
utilization of the authorities that Congress has already provided.
Existing authorities include the Energy Service Performance Contracts
(ESPC), Utilities Energy Service Contracts (UESC), Power Purchase
Agreements (PPA) and Enhanced Use Leases (EUL). These authorities will
allow the Army to leverage significant private sector investment for
large scale renewable energy projects. Continued Congressional support
of these authorities and of other Army energy initiatives will help us
to achieve our energy goals.
Ms. Bordallo. The age of earmarks, regrettably, is over here in
Congress. The Department and Congress have played games for years about
funding requirements in different portions of the budget. Of relevance
to this subcommittee is funding of military construction projects for
the National Guard and Reserves. Since 1996 both the Army and Air
National Guard budgets have been over 200% higher than the President's
budget with the authorization and appropriations process are complete.
How will the Army and Air Force alter their requirements process for
military construction to make sure that our Guardsmen and Reservists
are getting equitable treatment in the President's Budget for
facilities now that we cannot move up projects in the Future Years
Defense Program? The Guard and Reserves are an operational force and
their requirements are changing. What is being done to address this
matter?
Secretary Hammack. The Army funds military construction (MILCON)
projects across all components based on programming guidance and
priorities. The initiatives receiving the highest priority for MILCON
in Fiscal Year 12 include completion of support to Grow the Army and
Global Defense Posture Realignment; the Army's transformation to a
modular force and permanent party and training barracks buy outs.
Reserve Component requirements are integrated into the prioritization
process and compete well when they support high priority initiatives.
Army senior leaders strive to ensure balance and equity of resource
distribution across all components and review the program through that
lens. This will be especially important as MILCON investments become
limited in future years.
Ms. Bordallo. We took an important step forward with the Guam
build-up with the signing of the programmatic agreement. I see that
several task orders were recently awarded to firms that had MACC
contracts. My question is a follow-up to something I asked at our
hearing back in March. What steps have been taken to develop milestones
or triggers as part of the adaptive management program? I believe
working groups met recently and will present at the next CM-CC meeting.
What are those triggers? How clearly understood will they be by the
local community, local leaders and the contractors? Further, how will
the CM-CC ensure compliance with these milestones and triggers? I'd
like to learn more about these matters.
Secretary Pfannenstiel. The Initial Civil-Military Coordination
Council (CMCC) Charter, included as Attachment 1 to the Record of
Decision, established a process that will be used to identify,
coordinate and synchronize actions to avoid or reduce significant
environmental impacts associated with the military buildup. Possible
responses to identified impacts could include: 1) change to the pace of
construction (i.e. contract awards or construction start dates), and/or
2) modification to the sequence of construction projects. Decisions
regarding the pace and sequencing of construction are to remain with
the appropriate organizations.
The CMCC will provide overarching guidance to topic-specific
Council Working Groups (CWGs), and milestones and triggers will be
unique to each CWG. Five CWGs (Construction, Utilities, Transportation,
Housing, and Natural Resources) have been established thus far, and the
CMCC is flexible to adding additional CWGs in the future as necessary.
The CWGs have taken concrete steps to assess potential resource
impacts, data requirements, and triggers, with the intent to have them
reviewed and approved by the CMCC before major construction efforts.
Some baseline metrics have been identified, and there is an ongoing
effort to scrutinize metrics as to applicability. Some metrics are easy
to determine (water turbidity) while others are more subjective/
qualitative (unacceptable traffic congestion). As Adaptive Program
Management is a new approach, it is still very dynamic in nature.
Triggers will be continuously reviewed for effectiveness or
applicability throughout the buildup process, allowing for changes or
modifications if appropriate.
CWGs have formed sub-groups that that will concentrate on specific
areas (such as terrestrial, marine and cultural under the Natural
Resources CWG) and have identified resource impacts that should be
monitored, such as storm water pollution/direct impact to coral reefs,
water supply and quality, labor supply, port throughput, power
capacity, and demand and stresses on essential public services. The
CWGs will determine if additional sub-groups are necessary as the
process matures. Thus far, most CWG efforts have been inclusive of all
sub-areas during discussions. As the level of effort or application of
resources increase in a specific area, a sub-group may be initiated.
The federal government, which includes representatives from DOD and
various resource agencies, continues to collaborate with the Government
of Guam to identify and mature, relevant metrics and triggers that can
be appropriately managed with APM and that can be communicated
effectively.
The CWGs are to utilize available sources of data including
reports, surveys, ongoing projects and similar sources generated by
local, federal and other organizations that are derived from existing
programs. CMCC leadership is considering the development of a dashboard
that can easily display data for both decision-makers and the general
public. The CMCC meetings are open to the public and have had
substantial media coverage to this point.
As more detail and fidelity emerge, concepts and procedures will be
matured and incorporated into a Final CMCC Operating Charter. The CMCC
itself has no authority to ensure compliance with its recommendations,
apart from efforts by individual member agencies consistent with their
respective existing authorities.
Ms. Bordallo. What types of alternative energy projects or programs
are you looking at implementing at Andersen Air Force Base or in the
overall Joint Region Marianas? How can I help make Guam an example of
successful alternative energy programs?
Secretary Yonkers. Joint Region Marianas (JRM), which includes
former Andersen AFB, represents 21% of the Guam Power Authority's
consumer base and is expected to increase to 25% after the military
buildup. To help alleviate this increase, the DoD and Guam Power
Authority have Memorandum of Understanding regarding the buildup and
long-term power requirements. In the JRM, Navy is the lead for
alternative energy projects, and the Air Force is currently cooperating
with them to evaluate the technical, economical, political, legal and
environmental challenges and feasibility of projects on Guam, such as
waste-to-energy.
Ms. Bordallo. The age of earmarks, regrettably, is over here in
Congress. The Department and Congress have played games for years about
funding requirements in different portions of the budget. Of relevance
to this subcommittee is funding of military construction projects for
the National Guard and Reserves. Since 1996 both the Army and Air
National Guard budgets have been over 200% higher than the President's
budget with the authorization and appropriations process are complete.
How will the Army and Air Force alter their requirements process for
military construction to make sure that our Guardsmen and Reservists
are getting equitable treatment in the President's Budget for
facilities now that we cannot move up projects in the Future Years
Defense Program? The Guard and Reserves are an operational force and
their requirements are changing. What is being done to address this
matter?
Secretary Yonkers. We thank the committee for its past support of
increases to Military Construction (MILCON) in the President's Budget,
and for its support of the Military Construction program in general.
With regard to equitable treatment, the Air National Guard and Air
Force Reserves currently receive a fair share of the total Air Force
Military Construction budget. We clearly recognize the critical role
played by the Air Reserve Components, so the Air Force will continue to
ensure that they receive at least their fair share of MILCON funding
during our annual budget processes during these times of fiscal
restraint.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SUTTON
Ms. Sutton. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and
Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are
critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must
be addressed, including the toll corrosion, stress, and fatigue are
taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure.
Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a
minimum of $1.9 billion in annual direct costs.
What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you
partnering with the DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on
this issue?
For the record, I would like to know what each of the
other members testifying today are doing in regards in combating
corrosion and would appreciate your input.
Dr. Robyn. As the OSD proponent for facilities policy, our plan to
address corrosion of facilities is addressed in the Department's
overall corrosion control and prevention strategy, which includes
identification of cost effective corrosion control technology,
transitioning technology into criteria and specifications, and funding
our facilities sustainment program. Installations and Environment
actively partners with the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office,
which is also located under the oversight of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, regarding
facilities corrosion issues.
Ms. Sutton. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and
Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are
critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must
be addressed, including the toll corrosion, stress, and fatigue are
taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure.
Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a
minimum of $1.9 billion in annual direct costs.
What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you
partnering with the DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on
this issue?
For the record, I would like to know what each of the
other members testifying today are doing in regards in combating
corrosion and would appreciate your input.
Secretary Hammack. As the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations, Energy & Environment), I am an active member of the
Army's Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) program. I cooperate and
collaborate with the Army's Corrosion Control and Prevention Control
Executive (CCPE) in planning and executing the Army's CPC Strategic
Plan, which includes support the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight office. My staff is
active members of both the Army's and OSD corrosion working-level
integrated product teams. A component of the Army's and OSD corrosion
program is to explore, demonstrate, and implement new technologies
directed toward the Department of Defense (DoD) infrastructure.
As new technologies have been successfully demonstrated we then
update the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Unified Facilities Guide
Specifications (UFGS), and Design Guides. As construction projects are
designed and executed, these UFC, UFGS, and design guides are used by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, our engineers
and scientists share their experience and knowledge with various
industry associations and communities to advance the application of
these technologies in the US infrastructure.
We are exploring the use of a number of different sensor
technologies to identify and inform us of deterioration, stress and
fatigue. Over time, the knowledge we gain from this information will
aid us in determine the materials that will provide the optimum
corrosion resistance of our infrastructure. We believe that this
knowledge will also enable us to predict the health and well-being of
the various infrastructure elements. This, we believe, will enable us
to better determine and project the infrastructure maintenance
workload.
Ms. Sutton. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and
Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are
critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must
be addressed, including the toll corrosion, stress, and fatigue are
taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure.
Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a
minimum of $1.9 billion in annual direct costs.
What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you
partnering with the DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on
this issue?
For the record, I would like to know what each of the
other members testifying today are doing in regards in combating
corrosion and would appreciate your input.
Secretary Pfannenstiel. The Navy's shore infrastructure Corrosion
Prevention and Control program is addressed by Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) through an organizational structure that
incorporates Research, Development, Technology, and Evaluation criteria
research and development; design policy; execution and sustainment,
restoration and modernization policy; and program administration.
NAVFAC corrosion subject matter experts interface regularly with the
Navy Corrosion Executive as well as the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy
and Oversight. NAVFAC representatives actively participate in the DOD
Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team and
specialized working groups.
Ms. Sutton. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and
Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are
critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must
be addressed, including the toll corrosion, stress, and fatigue are
taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure.
Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a
minimum of $1.9 billion in annual direct costs.
What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you
partnering with the DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on
this issue?
For the record, I would like to know what each of the
other members testifying today are doing in regards in combating
corrosion and would appreciate your input.
Secretary Yonkers. We recognize that our aging infrastructure is an
important issue and that corrosion degradation is a factor affecting
the sustainment of Air Force real property.
Our policy direction for corrosion control of facilities and
infrastructure is defined in Air Force Instruction 32-1054. This
guidance directs the consideration of corrosion control in project
designs and mandates use of corrosion control measures in our
infrastructure. Areas that are addressed are the use of protective
coatings, cathodic protection and industrial water treatment. Our
bridges are inspected, per the federal requirements, for corrosion
deficiencies of structural members. We submit annual updates to the
national Bridge Inventory database to indicate condition and status. We
are partnering with the Defense Logistics Agency to inspect and repair
our fuels infrastructure including fuel storage tanks and underground
piping for corrosion degradation. Key aspects include tank bottom
inspections, evaluations of cathodic protection systems and pipeline
condition evaluations. We are also evaluating our fuels infrastructure
to determine any corrosive or material degradation effects from the
proposed use of alternative jet fuels.
To better manage real property assets, we have instituted improved
processes to better manage corrosion degradation and overall facilities
and infrastructure sustainment. We have successfully partnered with
industry reviewing asset management practices by visiting corporate
leadership of national companies who manage large scale properties and
infrastructure similar to our Air Force. To implement improvements, the
Air Force is instituting systematic and integrated processes to manage
built infrastructure, their associated performance, risk and
expenditures over their lifecycle. Success to date includes adopting
the International Infrastructure Management Manual processes,
reorganization of personnel better aligning with strategic objectives
and comprehensive analysis of our IT needs. We are also
institutionalizing detailed condition and performance assessments
across our vertical and horizontal infrastructure to better understand
risks and to strategize investment planning. While this transition is
on-going, we are staging introductory phases leveraging existing IT
systems and personnel. We will continue implementation as our new IT
systems evolve and as our Air Force's asset management practices
mature.
We participate in the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office under
the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) Integrated Product Team (IPT) process.
Under the OSD IPT, we participate in the Facilities/Infrastructure
working group and interact with OSD and the technical corrosion
representatives of our sister Services. This working group addresses
corrosion control technologies and knowledge transfer to the working
field.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
