[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Murray, Reed, Nelson, Hutchison,
Craig, and Brownback.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT WILSON, U.S. ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF,
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND CARPENTER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
BRIGADIER GENERAL JULIA ANN KRAUS, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. This hearing will come to order. I welcome
everyone to this morning's hearing to discuss the President's
2009 budget request for military construction for the Army and
Air Force. We will hear from two panels of witnesses today,
beginning with representatives from the Army. Secretary Eastin,
General Wilson, General Carpenter--who is from South Dakota, by
the way--and General Kraus, thank you for coming today. We look
forward to your testimony.
The military construction budget request for the Army this
year is larger than ever. After nearly doubling last year from
$2 billion to $4 billion, the active duty Army's 2009 request
is a record $4.6 billion, an increase of 17 percent over the
2008 enacted level. Most of this increase can be attributed to
the ``grow the Army'' initiative to add 74,000 soldiers by
2013. This initiative, combined with the severe stresses of two
wars and the long-term strategic realignment, has required
unprecedented investments in Army construction.
In light of this large request, it is all the more
imperative that we closely examine how well the Army is
executing its military construction program and whether its
requests are appropriately prioritized to meet our military
future. One area of particular concern to the committee is the
deplorable conditions at some permanent party Army barracks,
including those housing soldiers returning from the war, which
have recently come to light. The situations that have been
uncovered are, quite simply, unacceptable and I look forward to
hearing from our Army witnesses how they intend to address the
problem.
Senator Hutchison, would you care to make some opening
remarks?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is nice to have the representatives of the Army and the
Air Force for the second part of our round of hearings on our
military construction appropriations for this year. I think the
chairman has mentioned some of the points that I would make,
but let me just say that I think the emphasis on the Army is
certainly essential, given that the Army is going to grow its
end strength by 65,000 active duty, 8,200 National Guard
soldiers, and 1,000 reservists over the next 5 years, along
with the consolidation of troops in the United States from
overseas.
I do support this increase in end strength. It is the right
thing to do. So it means that we do have to have the increases
in military construction to assure the quality of life, which I
also think is well covered in this appropriations request. You
have $1.3 billion, an 85 percent increase over last year, on
quality of life facilities, which I think is absolutely well
placed.
The Overseas Basing Commission, as I have said many times,
is a product of this committee. After traveling through some of
our bases overseas and seeing the lack of training space, the
separation, and the costs in foreign bases, we recommended that
the foreign bases be looked at. In fact, the Department of
Defense did jump right in and made good solid recommendations
about moving many of our scattered facilities in Germany and
Korea, consolidating the ones that did have the need and the
capability. It will be much more efficient to have our overseas
bases run more consolidated, as we are doing in the United
States.
So the overseas basing issues, the BRAC recommendations,
and the new global defense posture that focuses on expanded
allied roles and new partnerships, will allow us to relocate
our soldiers back to the United States. When the new emphasis
on global restationing plan for the Army is completed by the
end of 2011, we should see 90 percent of our U.S. Army forces
based in the United States. This is a good plan and one our
service members are counting on. It will provide more
operational freedom of action, better training, and better
family support than would be possible otherwise.
Along with BRAC, it will produce a stronger, more
deployable, more efficient Army in which vast, but constantly
stretched, resources of our Army can be used in the most
efficient manner.
I want to mention the Army's new modular force plan, which
will reorganize units into brigade combat teams. The new plan
calls for five new brigade combat teams that would be stationed
at Fort Bliss, Fort Stewart, and Fort Carson. I am told that
the European commander wants to keep two of those BCTs in
Europe for up to 2 years longer than the Army had originally
planned. I would like not to see the delay at all. But I hope
there is a commitment not to make that into a more permanent
decision, I think the decision to move as many of our Army
personnel as possible back to the United States, where there is
a continuity of service and training capabilities, is the right
decision. I hope that we're not backing off from that in any
way, despite any European pressure on that account,
particularly when we have not yet gotten very much cooperation
from the Europeans in Afghanistan. I would hope that the
original decision is not in any way being questioned.
Another area that I want to focus on is joint basing. We
have the Air Force taking the lead in 6 of the first 12 joint
basing pilot projects. I don't mean that it would be temporary,
but the Air Force will be the lead in many of these bases. I
think that's a good decision because the Air Force is known for
taking care of its property well and operating well.
I do want to make sure that certain Army bases like Fort
Sam Houston, which have quite a history and quite a cultural
uniqueness, are maintained as what they are, a very historic
and important part of the Army throughout the years. I think
the joint base in San Antonio that will be operated by the Air
Force, putting together Lackland, Randolph, and Fort Sam, is
probably a good decision, as I said, because the Air Force does
so well in operating. I'm sure it will be more efficient. But I
don't want to lose any of the unique history of Fort Sam
Houston. If somebody suggests that we modernize the old basic
Fort Sam Houston structures, they're going to have trouble from
me if I'm still around. So I hope that that would not be
anything that would be in the offing.
So with that having been said, I thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and look forward to hearing the witnesses.
Senator Johnson. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. I suggest 7-minute rounds for questions.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
Senator Johnson. To our witnesses, thank you again for
appearing before our committee. Your full prepared statement
will be entered in the record. Secretary Eastin, please
proceed.
Mr. Eastin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief in my
opening remarks. I'm sure you'd like to get on with questioning
of us on some of our matters.
A couple points I would like to make. We are, of course,
very heavily involved in the BRAC process and we are committed
to completing the BRAC process on time in September of 2011. To
do that, however, we would appeal to you to restore about $560
million to the BRAC account which was decremented last year.
Without this, it will be nearly impossible to complete many of
the actions that would take place.
We've got--and most of these 59 separate actions involved,
most of them of a reserve nature, reserve centers, National
Guard activities, are not going to be able to be completed if
we don't get some restoration of that sort of thing. So we
appreciate your help in doing that if you can.
A topic on many people's minds, of course, is what we're
doing with our barracks situation. General Wilson will discuss
this in further detail himself, but let me assure the committee
we take this very seriously. Our military construction budget
alone this year, about 25 percent of it will be for the
replacement of old Korean war era and earlier barracks, which
are the subject of certain controversy here in the last several
weeks.
So we are committed in replacing these barracks and
otherwise taking care of our soldiers so that their home away
from their original home is something they can be proud of.
With that, I'll turn this over, if you don't mind, to
General Wilson, who can further enlighten us on where we are on
the barracks matters.
General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, Senator
Reed, Senator Nelson: On behalf of the Army's senior leaders
and more than 1 million soldiers that comprise our Army, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2009
military construction budget.
Our MILCON request is crucial to the success of the Army's
strategic imperatives, to sustain, prepare, and transform our
Army, and military construction plays a key role in each of
these imperatives. We must sustain our soldiers and families
with programs such as the Soldier-Family Action Plan, which
will standardize soldier and family programs and services,
increase accessibility and quality of health care, improve
soldier and family housing, ensure excellence in schools, youth
services, and child care, and expand education and employment
opportunities for family members.
We are establishing superb training facilities with $850
million in this year's budget for new ranges and training
facilities to support our training readiness. The Army's
medical action plan will integrate care and services for
wounded warriors and their families and provide world-class
care to our warriors in transition for reintegration into the
force or transition to civilian life. We thank you for your
support in this vital program.
The creation of the Installation Management Command in
October 2006 continues our progress in centralized installation
management and fosters more consistent, cost effective and
predictable delivery of installation funding and services, and
to improve these efficiencies and effectiveness we are
achieving and reshaping our installations through BRAC, GDPR,
Global Defense Posture Realignment, while simultaneously
converting to the Army modular force, growing the Army, and
assisting the Army Reserve in becoming an operational force,
all of this while at war for 6 years.
Our military construction request supports this integrally
woven, tightly synchronized stationing plan. In the last few
years, as a result of our continuing resolutions we have lost 4
to 6 months of building time, basically delay in awarding
projects. There is a provision in this year's budget, section
121, that would give us additional flexibility and I ask for
your support in that new provision in this military
construction bill.
Finally, I want to address the barracks situation at Fort
Bragg. The recent video images are alarming and are not
indicative of the standards for how we want our soldiers
housed. We were not able to get the barracks to the quality of
life the soldiers expected nor deserved prior to their return.
This should have been prevented.
We have fixed all life, health and safety issues in
Building Charlie 4122 and reprogrammed $2.9 million to Fort
Bragg to inspect and correct all of the like buildings, which
are 22, unlike the ones you saw on the video, and improve the
condition of these barracks.
Since this incident surfaced, I ordered a sweeping
inspection of over 3,300 barracks worldwide, 146,500 rooms, to
ascertain the extent of the problem. All identified barracks
deficiencies were ordered corrected throughout the Installation
Management Command and any soldier found living in a
substandard room has been relocated.
We have made changes to the way we manage our barracks by
standing up maintenance teams at each installation to focus on
barracks quality of life. We are placing sergeants major at
directorates of public works, beginning with our 16 largest
installations, to assist in barracks readiness, and we have
transferred barracks ownership from deploying units to the
garrison in order to better maintain them at an acceptable
standard. We are now centrally managing our barracks and our
training and tracking our barracks quality of life monthly.
Additionally, we have reprioritized $248 million to address
our most urgent priorities, representing 48 projects across 8
installations. Mold is our largest problem, most prevalent in
the Southeast, but across all of our installations. Each
installation has the capability to test mold and take immediate
corrective measures, including soldier reassignment. We are
applying several initiatives to reduce mold growth.
I'm confident we can improve the quality of life for our
soldiers serving our Nation so proudly. The Army has invested
$13 billion since 1994 to modernize our barracks, get soldiers
out of the old barracks and build new, modern barracks with
more space and amenities. We are proud of this effort, but
still have 9 years and $10 billion to go before our barracks
will be brought to standard.
About 79.4 percent of our barracks were built in 1979 or
earlier. Thirty-five percent are 50 to 60 years old, just like
the barracks you saw at Fort Bragg. We must continually triage
these old barracks to keep them livable. To cope with this
challenge, the Army has invested $975 million since 2005 to
sustain our barracks awaiting replacement. We will require a
continual investment and leadership focus to maintain these
barracks until we complete our buyout plan in 2015.
In closing, our $11.4 billion request for MILCON, BRAC, and
family housing plays a critical role in allowing us to put the
Army back in balance and sustain the current fight and
restation our force. We thank the Congress for its unwavering
support of the Army's military construction program over the
years and we ask for your continued support. Our goal is to
have premier installations across the globe. Our soldiers and
families deserve nothing less.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
BARRACKS INSPECTIONS
Senator Johnson. Secretary Eastin or General Wilson, as you
note in your testimony, the Army is now in its 16 year of a
campaign to modernize its permanent party barracks. It is
deeply troubling, after 16 years of this effort, that many of
our soldiers are still forced to live in conditions like what
recently came to light at Fort Bragg.
General Wilson, you noted the barracks inspections you
recently ordered. How many soldiers were relocated as a result
and can we see the results of that inspection?
General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, 13 soldiers were relocated, 8
in CONUS and 5 overseas. Eleven of these rooms were in regard
to mold. This is not the black mold, but the mold that I talked
about earlier. That inspection was done throughout the world,
overseas and CONUS, as I related to. And yes, sir, we'll make
that available to you.
[The information follows:]
Barracks Inspections
When the Fort Bragg video surfaced, the Army conducted a world-wide
barracks inspection to ensure all rooms met life, health, and safety
standards, or relocate Soldiers within 72 hours. As a result, 13
Soldiers were moved out of rooms due to mold or other unacceptable
conditions. To address the immediate issue, $2.9 million in Sustainment
funding was diverted so Fort Bragg could correct Building C-4122
deficiencies and other barracks on post in similar condition. Army-
wide, $248 million was reprioritized, to address ``worst needs''
barracks at eight installations.
To avoid a repetition of the Fort Bragg scenario, the Installation
Management Command is changing the way barracks are managed by
transferring responsibility from deploying units to the installation
garrison staff; providing senior noncommissioned officer facility
oversight, in conjunction with the emerging First Sergeants Barracks
Initiative; establishing and maintaining a quality of life standard
focusing on living space, latrines, lounges, and lobbies; and
programming funds to eliminate conditions conducive to mold growth.
Senator Johnson. Which barracks are in the most urgent need
of repair and have you requested accelerated funding for them?
How do you plan to accelerate the Army's barracks construction
program to address these problems?
General Wilson. Sir, we noted 48 projects in eight of our
installations in most urgent need. The method we can deal with
that is to reprogram some of our sustainment dollars from other
projects to these most urgent ones and that's how we plan on
dealing with it.
Senator Johnson. How will the reduction in deployment tours
from 15 to 12 months affect this situation? You will have more
soldiers coming home at a faster rate. How are you going to
ensure that all of them are adequately housed?
General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, you're precisely correct. As
we begin to bring soldiers home from the surge, it's going to
necessitate us to get in front of the problem so we avoid
anything that happened at Fort Bragg. We think by the actions
that we've directed, by standing up maintenance teams, placing
the barracks under the garrison and public works for
management, and also having monthly assessment reports to
report through the operations channels and command sergeant
major channels where they stand at each installation in
preparation for returning soldiers, that we will be able to
address these urgent needs in the future redeployments.
GUARD/RESERVE COMPONENT
Senator Johnson. General Carpenter and General Kraus, a
major concern for this committee has been the chronic
underfunding of the infrastructure needs of our Guard and
Reserve components. Last year, for example, U.S. Army Reserve
and Army Guard MILCON funding saw major decreases. I'm pleased
that this year's military construction request for the Army
Guard and Reserve has increased, but the request still only
meets about 40 percent of the requirements.
Understanding the need to prioritize in a time of
tightening budgets, are the Guard and Reserve getting what they
need?
General Carpenter. Sir, Mr. Chairman, it's nice to see a
fellow South Dakotan, by the way.
From the Guard perspective, we are working diligently with
the Army to make sure that the Army National Guard projects are
incorporated into the Army priorities. We have an adjutant
general military construction GOSC that is engaged in that
process.
We see the challenge for us in the Army Guard is to
incorporate our needs into first of all the validated
requirements for the Army and then the critical funding
requirements. We are working with the Army in that process and,
quite honestly, we are seeing some success.
Senator Johnson. General Kraus.
General Kraus. Yes, sir. We have an aggressive program,
which is 41 percent of the budget to be funded in the next,
fiscal year 2009, and it takes us out with the prioritized list
to 2013. What's critical for us at this point in time is that
that 560 be re-added in, because it was 10 Army Reserve centers
that had been shelved that we need to bring forward, and we're
working on it.
FISCAL YEAR 2009 MILCON BUDGET EXECUTION
Senator Johnson. Secretary Eastin, your 2009 budget request
for military construction is the largest ever submitted by the
Army. Will you be able to execute it?
Mr. Eastin. You're right, it is very large and it's very
challenging. At Bliss alone we have $1 billion worth of
military construction going on in the current year.
We've had to take a look at how we build things very
carefully and basically transform that. We're proud at Bliss,
for example, we are turning out one new building per week and
we'll be doing that for the next several years. But it's
required a complete relook of how we do construction,
standardized designs, centers of excellence across the Corps,
where not every region will be developing both, say, barracks
and maintenance facilities and dining facilities, but we have
centers that do each of those and try to standardize the design
for each.
Also, much of the construction is actually manufactured in
a factory and brought in and set up, so you're not doing sticks
and bricks out on the posts themselves. But we're bringing them
in state of the art construction methods now, and things that
can be brought in from the outside and constructed even in
other States and brought in and put in place.
So we have a real organization set up there to do it. We
are confident this will--in fact be done this year, and we're
also confident that our BRAC time deadlines are going to be
met.
Senator Johnson. With all the initiatives the Army has
currently undertaken--Grow the Force, Global Realignment,
etcetera--what is your top construction priority?
BARRACKS
General Wilson. Sir, I think it's clear our top
construction priority on our installations and what we would
call our pacing item would be barracks. We've got to address
those 35 percent of our barracks that are 50 to 60 years old
and our urgent requirement is to try to replace all of them as
soon as possible.
Senator Johnson. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BRAC
Mr. Eastin, we are working in the supplemental for the full
restoration of the BRAC funding. Right now it's $780 million,
$787 million, that would go into the BRAC account. If that
stays all the way through the process, then are you on course
to finish the BRAC requirements by 2011?
Mr. Eastin. Senator, I sat up here last year and I said:
Don't ask me tomorrow, but today we are on track everywhere to
meet the September 2011 deadline. I'm happy to report that I
will respond with the same--make the same response this year,
that: Don't ask me tomorrow, but I know of no BRAC single
action that is not going to be on track.
Some of these are going to be real challenges, but I know
of none that will not be met by the 2011 deadline.
OVERSEAS BASES
Senator Hutchison. General Wilson, I mentioned in my
opening statement that part of the global restationing
initiative was spurred by the Overseas Basing Commission that
this committee on a bipartisan basis put forward. I want to ask
you, because of this potential delay of two combat brigade
units, are we going to bring our forces back as originally
proposed by the Department of Defense, and will you be able to
complete the permanent facilities that you need for the Grow
the Army timelines in military construction? And is there going
to be more than a 2-year delay in those two units that are
scheduled to come back as part of the five?
General Wilson. Senator, there is a 2-year delay on those
last two brigades and that's what we're planning. Even with
that, that last brigade is coming back to Fort Bliss, the
permanent construction will not be completed when they return.
Our current plan will be to use the relocatables that are
available until the permanent construction is completed.
Senator Hutchison. Do you see any lessening of the
commitment to bring those troops home from Germany after the 2
years?
General Wilson. The only thing that I'm aware about was the
Secretary of Defense and the President's decision to do a 2-
year delay and keep them within the FYDP, and that's what we're
planning for our military construction quality of life efforts
based on that decision. That would be 2012 and 2013.
Senator Hutchison. Do you sense that there is a negotiation
going on with the Europeans using the troops and the Europeans'
desire to keep them there at the same time that we're trying to
move them back?
General Wilson. Ma'am, I don't have any knowledge of that.
I'm sure that the COCOM commander and the Joint Staff may be
able to address that, but I'm not aware of it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, it's my fear that we are going to
succumb to political pressure from local governments and the
Government of Germany, and I think that would be a real
mistake. I think you made the decision based on the needs of
the United States and our military personnel. The Germans have
been difficult to deal with in military construction, requiring
more expensive construction standards, and have not been
willing to help in paying for those even if they are going to
be left in Germany.
So I would just say that from my vantage point, I will be
looking to the Army to negotiate with the Germans in the best
interests of America and not allow them to not help pay for
these added standards that they are requiring and not to leave
more troops there than are in the best interests of the United
States and our training and our quality of life for our
military.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With the returning soldiers from the surge and with the
Army growing the force 95,000 troops and facilities already
behind the funding curve, as you look at this what kind of
planning can you take within the budget that was presented to
be able to meet all those needs? I guess Mr. Secretary.
EXECUTION PLAN
Mr. Eastin. Perhaps General Wilson can shed a little more
detail on this. But we have a very carefully laid out
integrated, interdependent plan to take care of all of the
construction, both for the Grow the Army, the BRAC process, the
global defense repositioning activity. All of that has been
taken care of, all laid out, and, as I said to Senator
Hutchison, I believe all currently on time.
I know it sounds incredible that we can kind of put this
kind of money in there and have this kind of activity, but
right now it's all working and it's all going according to the
plans that basically the Corps of Engineers, our construction
agent, has put together.
Senator Nelson. General.
General Wilson. Senator, I might just add to Secretary
Eastin it's challenging. It's challenging at best to coordinate
and synchronize all the things that have just been said: the
restationing of one-third of our Army in the United States, the
BRAC, return of soldiers from overseas, Grow the Army,
converting and modernizing, the Army modular force.
But we work that through what we call the Army campaign
plan and we synchronize that very carefully. And we meet weekly
to synchronize our Army staff elements to ensure that we are
able to provide support for the war, as well as support our
soldiers and families. We feel confident that we're on track to
do that. It's a challenge that we have to face every day.
BARRACKS
Senator Nelson. Well, the daunting challenge of dealing
with the increased requirements because of Grow the Army,
returning the military from overseas, including Germany, would
be sufficient to keep you busy. But is it because of all the
requirements that you currently have to build and to be
prepared for the additional capacity, is that the reason why
maybe the eyes were taken off current facilities that fell into
disrepair, that have fallen into disrepair?
General Wilson. Well, I think--it's difficult to answer
that. I will tell you, we're moving soldiers and families and
units and redeploying and resetting them as quickly as we can
so they can get some rest, and then they have to train up for
the fight. It's just in time equipping, just in time manning,
and it's very taxing and very difficult for the soldiers to
tend to their soldiers and to tend to the barracks management.
It makes it doubly difficult when you have 50- to 60-year-
old barracks, and we just have to pay more attention to it. We
fumbled on that, that one at Fort Bragg, and we put things in
place so we won't do that again. It's too important to our
soldiers and they deserve to come back to better billets and
better barracks than they left. So we're taking extraordinary
measures to try to preclude that from happening again.
Senator Nelson. Well, sir, and I applaud you for doing
that, because one of the best reasons to do it, in addition to
quality of life, is if you're looking to recruit and retain you
certainly don't want to fumble the ball that often or you might
expect that it would affect at least retention.
In terms of the barracks issue, is it appropriate for any
disciplinary action to be taken that would be appropriate based
on the fact that somebody at some level knew that these
facilities were in disrepair and either they didn't report it
or they reported it up and someone didn't act on it, if that
was the case? So do you know whether any disciplinary action is
appropriate in this situation?
General Wilson. Senator, I was at Fort Bragg yesterday
morning and I walked through the barracks that are at question
here and I talked to the division commander of the 82nd
Airborne, I talked to the brigade, the chief of staff, the
garrison commander and the acting corps commander. And I asked
that specific question and the senior commander determined that
there was a breakdown in procedures and to return the barracks
to standard before the soldiers redeployed. Leaders should have
prevented this avoidance.
He determined, however, there was no purposeful neglect on
anyone's part. And I asked him that specifically. I talked to
the first sergeant that was back trying his level best to get
that, and his people, to get that together. There was a
breakdown. There was not a good handoff of this unit's coming
back 3 weeks earlier than planned and they didn't reset the
barracks in time. But it wasn't because they didn't care or it
wasn't because they failed in their leadership.
Senator Nelson. Well, even if it's not purposeful, the
breakdown would appear to be at least negligent in the process.
It would seem that someone at some level was responsible who
didn't through as they should have or that that responsibility
wasn't assigned. Is there a question of whether the
responsibility was properly assigned to the appropriate
personnel?
General Wilson. I think the procedures are in place and
yes, the rear detachment and the advance party that came back
to get the billets ready knew that that was their mission
clearly, to ready those billets for the incoming battalion.
They were part of that battalion. The problem was they thought
they had 3 weeks to get that particular billets ready and they
were focusing on the other billets that had less time, and
that's what caused the error.
Once they had 72 hours notice, they found out they are
coming back, they did everything in their power to get it done.
They didn't raise it to the right level that we could have
said, wait, stop----
Senator Nelson. That's what I'm trying to get to.
General Wilson. They didn't sound the alarm. But it wasn't
because that they failed, in the commander's eyes here, in the
division commander's eyes. It's because they just did not think
to call in the cavalry.
Now, what we've done, we've made changes to preclude that.
Senator Nelson. Now, which is the more important question,
which was my next one: What is being done, not just in the case
of Fort Bragg, but in the case of other facilities which might
involve the same kind of circumstances? So what is being done
so that that doesn't occur again?
General Wilson. We made several changes. One, we did a mass
inspection of all barracks across the Army, in CONUS and
overseas, and determined there was no--where there was life,
safety, or health instances, we fixed it right away.
Then we looked at our priorities, our worst barracks, and
we then put money against fixing those. We've also increased
our manning at the installations, where we're standing up
maintenance teams to work for the DPWs to be able to deal
directly with barracks, and that's their priority of mission,
is barracks.
Senator Nelson. This will be an ongoing----
General Wilson. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson [continuing]. Requirement, an ongoing
mission? Because this isn't something that you can just have
one-time full inspection and expect that things will not change
over the next 5 or 10 years or over the next year. So are you
going to have this be more like an audit inspection or is it
going to be across the board continuously over the next several
years?
General Wilson. It's going to be continuous, Senator. We're
funding it as a sustaining requirement at each installation and
we're adding 16 command sergeant majors at our largest
installations to work in the DPWs to focus on barracks. And
we're turning over the barracks management, not put that on the
rear detachments; we put it on the garrison and DPWs to handle
in the future.
Senator Nelson. So you're reasonably hopeful, at least, if
not certain, that you'll be able to catch these situations
before somebody with a camera comes by and takes a picture of
it?
General Wilson. Well, our effort is to preclude it from
happening again and to raise the quality of life where we don't
see that again. We know we have barracks like that and we know
we have to reset them, and we've got to get--and yes, I'm
confident we're going to get in front of it so we can reset
them before the soldiers come back home.
I'm not confident that I'm going to preclude any more
pictures. I just hope they give us a chance first and call us
and say we've got a problem.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. To all of you, I
appreciate your presence. I have no questions of you other than
to say we're extremely proud of our efforts at Gowan Field in
Boise with our National Army Guard and our Army Reserve and the
efforts that go on there. Actually, I'm waiting for the Air
Force to land and I think they're in the next panel.
With that, thank you all so very much for your presence
today and your candidness. We appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. To Secretary Eastin and the rest of our
witnesses: Thank you again for your testimony and for appearing
before this committee. Thank you. You may be excused.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
INSTALLATIONS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES RUBEOR, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF THE AIR
FORCE RESERVE
BRIGADIER GENERAL STANLEY CLARKE III, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR
NATIONAL GUARD
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We welcome our second panel of witnesses, the Honorable
Kathleen I. Ferguson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Installations; Brigadier General James Rubeor, Deputy
to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve; and Brigadier General
Stanley Clarke III, Deputy Director of the Air National Guard.
Ms. Ferguson, I understand that Secretary Anderson was
unable to join us today, but we look forward to your testimony.
Thank you for coming today. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON
Ms. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. On behalf of America's airmen, it's a
pleasure to be here and I appreciate the committee accepting me
as a substitute on such short notice. I'll keep my opening
remarks brief and begin by thanking the committee for its
continued support of America's Air Force and the many brave and
dedicated airmen who serve around the globe to keep this
country safe.
As our Nation finds itself in both a time of war and a time
of transition, the Air Force continues to evolve to ensure we
stand ready to protect America and our interests. Beginning
with Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the Air Force
has been in continuous combat operations for more than 17
years. We currently have over 22,000 airmen deployed in direct
support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Our
team is firmly committed to supporting the Air Force priorities
of winning today's fight, taking care of our people, and
preparing for tomorrow's challenges.
We are changing on a scale not seen since the post-cold war
drawdown and for us to support these priorities we must be
transformational in all we do. In order to provide global
vigilance, global reach, and global power, we need high-quality
warfighting platforms for our installations.
I would like to highlight just a few of the significant
initiatives we are implementing to ensure installation quality
and superior warfighting support well into the future. Under
our Corps of Discovery effort, we are benchmarking Fortune 500
companies such as General Electric, General Motors, IBM, and
Bank of America. We are learning from industry leaders and are
capturing best practices in all aspects of infrastructure, from
adopting an asset management philosophy to transforming our
informational technology systems.
With our organizational transformation, we are committed to
making joint basing a raging success. The Air Force fully
supports the spirit and intended results of the joint basing
provisions of BRAC 2005. The Air Force has worked diligently
with the other services and OSD to ensure that the maximum
financial, facility, and personnel effectiveness can be
achieved via joint basing without impacting command and control
of base or mission commanders.
The Air Force has expressed concern related to the
execution strategy of joint basing, which may impact mission.
However, the Air Force is not advocating any position that
would inhibit carrying out any BRAC recommendation.
Let me take a moment to talk about energy. The increasing
cost of energy and the Nation's commitment to reducing its
dependence on foreign oil had led to the development of the Air
Force energy strategy, to reduce demand, increase supply, and
change the culture within the Air Force so that energy is a
consideration in everything we do.
The Air Force is investing in its facility energy future
with $14 million in 2008 and $229 million across the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP). We've been recognized as the
number one Federal purchaser of renewable energy 4 years in a
row.
The Air Force is DOD's leading consumer of jet fuel and 10
percent of the total U.S. jet fuel market. To meet our jet fuel
needs of the future, the Air Force is evaluating domestically
sourced synthetic fuel alternatives. We've certified the B-52
to fly on a synthetic fuel blend and we're on track to test and
certify the C-17, B-1, and F-22 in this fiscal year, with the
entire fleet certified by early 2011.
At Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, through a public-private
partnership we installed the largest solar array in the
Americas, providing over 14.2 megawatts of clean renewable
power, while delivering a savings of nearly $1 million a year
for the installation and the American taxpayer.
On under utilized land at Malmstrom Air Force Base,
Montana, the Air Force is exploring the potential for a
privately financed and operated coal-to-liquid fuels plant. We
are pursuing solar energy enhanced use lease projects at
Edwards Air Force Base, California, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona, and Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. We are also
looking into the merits of hosting a small package nuclear
facility on an Air Force installation at the request of some
members of the Senate.
At the same time, the Air Force recognizes that energy and
the environment are tightly linked. Not only have we committed
to purchase only alternative energy sources with a greener
footprint than current options, the Air Force has committed to
be a leader in establishing a global consortium to tackle the
reduction, capture, and reuse of greenhouse gas emissions.
Being a driving force is not risk-free. Our installations
are warfighting platforms which must continually perform to
support the warfighter. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget
request for Air Force military construction is more than $2.1
billion, comprised of traditional MILCON, BRAC, and housing
investments. Unfortunately, we face demands on our resources
that require tough choices. Our challenging budgetary
environment includes the increased operations, maintenance, and
personnel costs, the cost of the war against terrorism, and
inflation factors that reduce our overall buying power.
Those demands have forced us to self-finance the
centerpiece of future dominance, a massive and critical
recapitalization and modernization effort over our aging air
and space force. To accomplish this, we are accepting
manageable risks in facilities and infrastructure funding. The
current and future readiness and capability of our Air Force to
deter enemies and, when necessary, fight and win our Nation's
wars depends heavily upon the state of our power projection
platforms--our installations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As the Air Force continues to modernize and recapitalize,
we will wisely invest our precious funding allocated to
military construction, operations and maintenance, BRAC, the
environment, military family housing, and energy. This will
enable us to win today's fight, take care of our people, and
prepare for tomorrow's challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William C. Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics)
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, and distinguished members of the
Committee, as our Nation and Department finds itself in both a time of
war and a time of transition; the Air Force continues to evolve to
ensure we stand ready to protect America and its interests. The Air
Force is the preeminent force for operations beyond the bounds of
earth, and is vital to the success of ground operations as well, which
is being proven daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beginning with
Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, the Air Force has been at
continuous combat operations for more than 17 years. We cannot provide
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, or Global Power without our warfighting
platforms--our installations--and the airmen that construct, operate
and maintain those installations. I would like to highlight just a few
of the significant ways our Total Force Airmen are serving this great
Nation in this capacity.
We are firmly committed to supporting the Air Force's number one
priority, ``winning today's fight.'' Approximately 25,000 airmen are
currently deployed in direct support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and
IRAQI FREEDOM. More than 2,500 are engineers. Forty percent of the
engineers are serving side-by-side with our Army comrades-in-arms by
filling ``Joint Sourced,'' ``in lieu of'' or ``individual augmentee''
positions, often sharing the same level of risk while operating
``outside the wire.'' Our heavy construction RED HORSE engineers and
our Prime BEEF engineers are well-known in the AOR for their ability to
build and maintain expeditionary installation weapons platforms,
whether bedding down Air Force, joint, or multinational forces. Our Air
Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) airmen make up 37 percent of
Central Command's joint EOD capability in theatre and in calendar year
2007 they responded to more than 8,400 calls to destroy improvised
explosive devices, unexploded ordnance, or weapons caches. Sixty-six
percent of these EOD warriors are operating ``outside the wire''
alongside their joint peers. Our ``customers,'' whether joint, other
Federal agency, or multinational, continually let us know how impressed
they are by the capabilities our combat support personnel bring to the
fight. While twenty of our logistics and installation airmen have made
the ultimate sacrifice in this war, we are proud to be part of the
joint effort serving our Nation's call to arms.
The reconstruction effort stands alongside the operational mission
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force Center for Engineering and the
Environment (AFCEE) is successfully executing a robust program to win
the hearts and minds of Iraqi and Afghan citizens and help set the
conditions for more free societies. Thus far, their efforts have
included the execution of more than 576 projects, worth more than $4.6
billion, to construct or repair more than 4,000 facilities, to include
government and military facilities, airports, roads, schools, medical
clinics, police stations, utilities systems, and more. Much of this
work is being done by Iraqi and Afghan citizens making up more than 90
percent of the construction workforce and 70 percent of the project
engineers. External audits have validated AFCEE's efficiency: low
overhead costs in manpower and financial resources, minimized in-
country presence, and successful leveraging of the latest in efficient
and effective business processes.
Our capabilities are vital to the Global War on Terror and other
American interests overseas. We are also leading the way in many
initiatives on the home front. Let me briefly highlight a few. The Air
Force is a great example of leadership in energy, facilities
management, and the environment. We have been recognized as the number
one Federal purchaser of renewable energy 4 years running, and we are
overall number three in the Nation. We will achieve the DOD's 2014 goal
for environmental restoration 2 years early. Our housing privatization
efforts have leveraged more than $350 million taxpayer dollars,
bringing in $6 billion in private sector investment, speeding the
delivery of adequate housing to our airmen. The Air Force is solidly on
track to eliminate inadequate housing overseas, having already received
support from this Congress through 2007 to completely fund the
elimination of inadequate stateside family housing. Our emergency
responders implemented the cross-functional Air Force Incident
Management System in December 2007, making us the first Federal agency
to meet the Executive Order and the Department of Homeland Security
directive for implementing the National Incident Management System,
assuring seamless and coordinated emergency response among agencies at
or near our installations. The Air Force wants to ensure that
appropriate conditions exist to make Joint Basing a raging success. We
have a long and successful history of working toward common goals in a
Joint environment, without compromising Air Force principles and the
well-being of our people. Joint Basing initiatives are no exception.
Therefore, to guarantee success, each Joint Base will provide an
appropriate setting to all of its assigned personnel to facilitate
mission success and provide improved quality of life through consistent
installation standards, currently being developed. Our Soldiers,
Sailors, Airmen, Marines, DOD Civilians and their families will benefit
from efficient, consistent Installation Support Services. These
standards will ensure the Air Force and our sister Services continue to
provide all personnel with the level of Installation Support Services
they deserve. Our base commanders and their local service providers
are, of course, on the front lines of our efforts to maintain and
improve services. As we work with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and our sister Services, we will ensure all Joint Basing
initiatives contribute to DOD's ability to perform its mission. Joint
Basing allows us to build closer relationships and forge stronger ties
among the Services.
While we are proud of these successes, we have much work to do. Our
Air Force's biggest challenge is to modernize our air, space, and
cyberspace capabilities to ensure we continue to provide our Nation
with its decisive military advantage. While not optimal, we must take
manageable risk in our facilities and infrastructure to free up funding
for weapons modernization. We also, however, have a vision to transform
and overcome these challenges.
transformation
Our Air Force is transforming around new concepts of operations,
organizational change, and advanced technologies. Accordingly, we are
on a difficult but promising journey to transform our installations
support enterprise. We are changing on a scale not seen since the post-
Cold War draw down. As part of our Air Force strategy to internally
fund weapon systems recapitalization and modernization, we needed to
reduce manpower. We took this as an opportunity to restructure our
Civil Engineer and Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA) organizations
and improve support to the warfighter. The first major initiatives to
transform how we effectively manage support for our installations are
largely complete. We've reorganized Civil Engineering at all levels;
rebalanced the force to include manpower increases in our high-demand
RED HORSE and EOD combat engineer capabilities; and centralized the
execution of all MILCON, housing MILCON, and environmental restoration
at the AFCEE in San Antonio, Texas. BRAC 2005 directed the relocation
of AFRPA to San Antonio and we took advantage of this to restructure
AFRPA at the same time, to attract new skills and ideas to preserve and
improve our focus on unlocking value in our underutilized real
property.
We are also transforming our business processes, infrastructure,
and technology to enable us to operate our installations within reduced
funding levels and thereby continue to support our weapons
modernization and recapitalization initiatives. Our approach includes
producing efficiencies in enterprise-wide business processes while
reducing by 20 percent, by the year 2020, the funding required for
sustaining and maintaining our $243 billion physical plant. Let me
emphasize installation support funding has already been reduced by 14
percent in the last 3 years; now we are figuring out ways to live
within this funding level for the long haul and not impact our
standards. Not only are we elevating internal best practices to the
strategic level and using the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st
Century toolkit of ``LEAN'' and ``Six Sigma'' process improvement
methods, we are also incorporating best practices from our strategic
partnership with leading private sector companies, called the ``Corps
of Discovery.''
Our installations organization established ``Corps of Discovery''
teams to visit companies such as GM, IBM, GE, Bank of America,
ExxonMobil, CB Richard Ellis, Jones Lang LaSalle, Archibus, and others.
We found we share many of the same challenges in maintaining our
operational or primary mission edge while effectively balancing
investment in infrastructure. Through this mutually-beneficial
relationship, these patriotic companies are sharing their invaluable
transformation ``lessons learned.'' We are centering our transformation
strategy on these key ``lessons learned,'' such as strategic sourcing
and real estate management from a portfolio perspective. Leading edge
companies manage their real estate and physical plant with a holistic
and integrated asset management approach that enables them to better
articulate and manage risk while supporting their company's mission. We
recently reorganized our installations organizational structure and
people around Asset Management. True transformation, takes years, and
these companies have proven the value of this long-term investment.
Their knowledge and experience is proving invaluable to us as we
transition to the asset management approach, which is also playing a
key role in installations transformation.
Maintaining our installations within current funding levels
requires an aggressive approach to efficiently utilize our physical
assets and target limited funding on the most critical portions of our
physical plant. An asset management-based operation allows us to attach
value to our built and natural environment. This business case analysis
approach will provide better decision making in a resource constrained
environment. Our asset management initiatives to reach this goal
include utilities privatization; energy conservation; redesigned
incentive-based consolidation, demolition, and demolition in situ
programs; housing privatization; and others. Finally, we have initiated
a focused effort to identify opportunities where Enhanced Use Lease
(EUL) authority can help us find ways to leverage our physical plant
value while providing a mechanism to offset facilities and utilities
operations and maintenance costs, especially energy costs. As a force
multiplier, we are leveraging our Air Force Real Property Agency to be
our center of excellence for identifying and acting upon EUL
opportunities across the Air Force. Following on the tremendous success
of the construction of the largest photovoltaic solar installation in
the Americas at Nellis AFB, NV, we are pursuing five major energy-
related EUL projects: solar energy at Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ;
and Kirtland AFB, NM; and a prospective nuclear energy project at a
location yet to be identified.
Successful implementation of transformed business processes that
will drive these physical plant utilization initiatives requires an
enabling information technology (IT) system. We are transforming IT
systems to support reengineered business processes and maximize the
efficiency of our work force. Our benchmarking found integrated
workplace management systems commonly used at these Fortune 500
companies, and we are examining how these IT systems could enable our
own transformation. Launched the first part of this year, our IT
acquisition strategy is leveraging key insights from the ``Corps of
Discovery'' partnerships, and will also leverage capable commercial-
off-the-shelf systems. While meeting executive, department and Air
Force requirements for real property accountability systems and data
transparency, the new Agile Installation Management IT system will
enable enterprise-wide reengineered business processes centered on the
complete lifecycle of asset management.
As you can see, we are transforming enterprise-wide, from core
business processes to organizational structure and IT systems. We are
also providing leadership to our government and even the private
sector, from purchasing and producing alternative energy, to housing
privatization and asset management. We are making process changes at
every level, resulting in resource savings and more efficient
operations. At the heart of all of our efforts are of course our
customers. Exceeding the expectations of our warfighters, their
families and the communities that support our installations, in terms
of cost, quality of service and delivery, stands as the centerpiece of
our installations business model.
These efforts are the means by which we are meeting the enormous
challenges of today and the foreseeable future, and they ultimately
enable us to sustain and modernize the world's best air, space, and
cyberspace force. These transformational changes will help us maintain
our focus on our Air Force's three overarching priorities: winning
today's fight, taking care of our people, and preparing for tomorrow's
challenges.
fiscal year 2009 air force milcon, brac, environmental, operations and
maintenance and family housing programs
Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC programs are
key components of our support infrastructure. At home, our
installations provide stable training environments as we equip and
reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and overseas installations
provide force projection platforms to support Combatant Commanders
(COCOMs), from homeland defense sorties over New York, to strike
missions in Iraq. Our installations are weapons systems and in order to
support our base-centric concept of operations, the Air Force has
developed an infrastructure investment strategy that focuses on
enabling COCOMs to win today's fight, take care of our people, prepare
for tomorrow's challenges, implement BRAC, protect and restore our
natural environment, drive energy efficiency and independence, sustain
our infrastructure, and strive to recapitalize our aging
infrastructure. We are the DOD's leader in expeditionary combat support
and continue that role with pride. Our total force military
construction, family housing, environmental, energy, and sustainment,
restoration, and modernization programs are paramount to successful
operations and maintaining the quality of life that our men and women
in uniform and their families deserve.
The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget (PB) request for Air Force
military construction is more than $2.1 billion, comprised of
traditional MILCON ($988 million), BRAC 2005 ($734 million) and housing
investments ($396 million). Unfortunately, we face demands on our
resources that require tough choices. Our challenging budgetary
environment includes: increased operations, maintenance, and personnel
costs; the cost of the war against terrorism; and absorbing inflation
factors that reduce overall buying power. These factors have forced us
to self-finance the centerpiece of future dominance--a massive and
critical recapitalization and modernization effort of our aging air and
space force. To accomplish this, we are accepting manageable risk in
facilities and infrastructure funding. The Total Force MILCON portion
($988 million) of the Air Force fiscal year 2009 PB military
construction request reflects our highest construction priorities. This
request includes $935 million for active military construction, just
over $34 million for the Air National Guard, and $19 million for the
Air Force Reserve. In addition, this budget carefully balances our
facility operations and maintenance accounts for sustainment,
restoration, and modernization with military construction programs to
make the most effective use of available funding in support of the Air
Force mission, while keeping ``good facilities good.'' The Air Force
Total Force sustainment funding in fiscal year 2009 is $2 billion, 90
percent of the amount called for by the Facility Sustainment Model. The
fiscal year 2009 Total Force restoration and modernization (R&M)
funding is $514 million--an increase of approximately $168 million over
last year's request.
The Air Force fiscal year 2009 PB request of $396 million for the
Military Family Housing investment program balances new construction,
improvements, and planning and design work, and completes the funding
to eliminate inadequate housing overseas. We cannot allow our current
housing stock to fall into disrepair. Therefore, in addition to the
$396 million requested for housing investment, we request nearly $599
million for operations and maintenance, for a total housing investment
of just under $1 billion.
To continue our proactive and responsive environmental quality and
restoration programs, the fiscal year 2009 PB request includes $1,015
million for direct-funded non-BRAC environmental programs. In addition
to the $435 million we requested for traditional environmental
restoration activities, the fiscal year 2009 PB request includes $367
million for environmental compliance activities and projects, $82
million for pollution prevention initiatives, $53 million for funding
environmental conservation activities, $61 million for munitions
response activities, and $17 million in investments in promising
environmental technologies.
The Air Force is investing in its facility energy future, with $14
million in 2008 and $229 million more across the FYDP. These monies are
lead-turning important initiatives such as establishing Resource
Efficiency Managers Air Force-wide and enhancing our aggressive utility
rate and Energy Savings Performance Contract management teams to ensure
we are getting the best value for every tax-payer dollar. We also are
investing in the highest payback energy conservation initiatives such
as upgrading our energy-intensive aircraft paint hangars;
decentralizing heat plants; recommissioning facility heating,
ventilating and air conditioning systems; and installing ground-source
heat pumps. We expect the return on investment on these initiatives to
be 2.5 to 1 or, a savings of approximately $550 million by 2015.
To continue our aggressive BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal
year 2009 PB request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC-related activities,
of which $734 million is construction. The Air Force is lead for 64
BRAC business plans and has equity in 16 additional business plans.
Full support of this funding request is critical to ensure we remain on
track to meet the requirement for compliance by 2011.
Sound investment in our installations postures the Air Force to
support our priorities of winning today's fight, taking care of our
people, and preparing for tomorrow's challenges. We believe the fiscal
year 2009 PB proposal will provide the funds to ensure our
installations continue to serve as effective power projection platforms
that enable the continued success of our core Air Force missions.
winning today's fight
The Air Force's first priority is to win today's fight. We plan to
invest $222 million on 14 projects that support and enhance the Air
Force's ability to deliver intelligence, maintenance, and operational
capabilities to our COCOMs. The Air Force is executing five projects
directly contributing to winning today's war within the CENTCOM area of
responsibility (AOR). CENTCOM's AOR is the geographic and ideological
heart of today's fight. A war without borders, it spans 27 countries in
the Central Asian region of the world. The five projects in CENTCOM's
AOR provide much-needed in-theater aircraft maintenance as well as
appropriate parking, fueling, and cargo handling space. An additional
eight projects in the contiguous United States (CONUS) provide critical
infrastructure necessary to continue to deliver, grow, and improve the
high demand for an Unmanned Aircraft System presence in current and
future operations. The Air Force will also construct a large vehicle
inspection station to greatly improve the force protection and
operational capability of the forces at RAF Lakenheath in the United
Kingdom.
taking care of our people
The Air Force sees a direct link between readiness and quality of
life. The Air Force is committed to creating and maintaining a
consistent, high quality, and safe environment in locations where
airmen work, train, reside, and recreate. Our Total Force Airmen are
the most valuable assets we have in winning today's fight and ensuring
our air, space and cyberspace dominance. We must continue to recruit,
train, develop, and retain the best America has to offer. As our Air
Force becomes more capable, more efficient and more lethal, so will our
airmen. The quality of life we provide for our airmen and their
families is a distinct determining factor in how long they remain in
our service. The sacrifices our airmen and their families make are
enormous. We are deeply committed to providing every Airman and their
family with the best possible quality of life as they serve our Nation.
In this year's budget we strive to promote a wide spectrum of projects
that take care of our airmen and their families; from quality family
housing for our families, quality dormitories for unaccompanied airmen,
functional fitness centers, and safe child development centers, to
realistic training and operational facilities.
Workplace
The Air Force is fully committed to the ensuring the safety and
protection of human health for all of our personnel, both on and off
duty. The Air Force evaluated its current injury and illness rates for
airmen and determined implementation of the Occupational Safety and
Health Adminstration's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) would improve
upon that commitment. VPP implementation historically results in a
major reduction in illness/injury compared with non-VPP sites in like
industries, and reductions on the order of 50 percent are not uncommon.
The Air Force formalized this commitment to VPP last August through
signing of a partnership agreement between the Air Force and OSHA. The
agreement included a commitment to reduce civilian and military
workforce injuries and illness by at least 3 percent per year and to
expand participation in VPP and increase awareness of the value of
effective safety and health management. Currently, 20 Air Force
installations have begun work toward implementing the elements of VPP,
and five will be ready to apply for formal OSHA evaluation and
designation in 2008--Altus AFB, OK; Hanscom AFB, MA; Tinker AFB, OK;
Robins AFB, GA; and Eielson AFB, AK. Eventually all Air Force
installations both in the continental United States and overseas will
use this tool. To make sure the Air Force is gaining from others who
have improved workplace safety, we are working closely with civilian
companies who have proven their commitment to the highest level of
health and safety performance. We have already learned from these
companies and have used their experiences to improve our safety
processes, and also have found VPP implementation a common element at
these high-performing organizations. Our ultimate goal is to make VPP a
way of thinking both on duty and off duty for our airmen. VPP is one
way to give our airmen the safest possible environment in which to work
and live.
Energy
The Air Force Model Energy Base Initiative is testing the breadth
of initiatives and best practices in facility management, aviation fuel
reduction, and ground vehicle management. McGuire AFB, NJ and Barksdale
AFB, LA are the two bases selected to demonstrate the effectiveness of
comprehensive efforts by the Air Force to implement its energy
strategy. McGuire AFB was selected because it represented for the Air
Force a base with an Air Mobility mission in a region with a large
heating load in the winter. Barksdale AFB represents an air combat
mission with a large cooling load in the summer. The Air Force will be
disseminating lessons learned and best practices throughout the
organization as they become available, and will share with our sister
services and other energy partners.
Under the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century
processes, we have established the HQ Air Force Energy Senior Focus
Group and Provide Infrastructure Working Group which look at four
strategic pillars to maximize our energy efficiencies: Improve current
infrastructure, improve future infrastructure, expand renewables, and
manage cost. We have established metrics to track compliance with
executive orders and Air Force guidance.
We are continuing our aggressive stance with five major energy-
related EUL projects: solar energy at Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ;
and Kirtland AFB, NM; and a prospective nuclear energy project at a
location yet to be identified.
Family Housing
The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan details our Housing
military construction, operations and maintenance, and privatization
efforts. To implement the plan, our fiscal year 2009 budget request for
family housing is just under $1 billion. Consistent with Department of
Defense Strategic Planning Guidance, the Air Force is on track to fund
projects through 2009 that will eliminate inadequate overseas housing.
For fiscal year 2009, the requested $396 million for our housing
investment program will replace and improve more than 2,100 housing
units at eight overseas bases. An additional $599 million will pay for
operations, maintenance, utilities and leases to support the family
housing program.
We have used the privatization authorities granted by Congress to
accelerate our family housing improvement program. By fiscal year 2009,
the Air Force will privatize 41,500 housing units, and with the funding
of the fiscal year 2009 PB the Air Force plans to privatize an
additional 4,300 housing units. The Air Force projects it will have
strategically leveraged more than $350 million in government investment
to bring almost $6 billion in private sector total housing development.
That is $16 of private investment for each public tax dollar. The Air
Force is evaluating the privatization of remaining CONUS installations
where feasible.
Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories)
The fiscal year 2009 total Air Force requirement for dormitory
rooms is 60,200. We have made great progress using the three-phased
investment strategy outlined in our Dormitory Master Plan (DMP). Phase
I, now construction complete, eliminated central latrine dormitories.
With the fiscal year 2007-2009 MILCON programs we have the necessary
funding to complete Phase II of our DMP, which is our permanent party
and pipeline dorm room shortage (deficit), by building new dormitories.
In Phase III, now underway, we will replace existing dormitories at the
end of their useful life with a standard Air Force-designed private
room configuration under the ``Dorms-4-Airmen'' concept. Our ``Dorms-4-
Airmen'' concept capitalizes on our wingman strategy and keeps our dorm
residents socially and emotionally fit.
Our fiscal year 2009 Program reflects this strategy. The $104
million request for dormitory investment will replace or construct more
than 1,400 rooms for unaccompanied personnel at three CONUS bases. We
are equally committed to providing adequate housing and improving the
quality of life for our unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel as we
are to our families.
Fitness and Child Development Centers
The Air Force maintains its strong commitment to the ``Fit-to-
Fight'' program. Fitness and exercise is a regular part of airmen's
lives as they prepare to meet the rigors of the expeditionary
environment. Our goal is to replace at least one fitness center per
year until we have the resources to do more. This year we will
construct a new fitness center at Dover AFB, Delaware.
We also remain committed to our Air Force families and we are
dedicated to providing them with adequate and nurturing child care
facilities. The most urgent need in 2009 is at Columbus AFB,
Mississippi. Its current facility only meets half of the childcare
requirement and is being supplemented by a leased trailer. Our $8
million fiscal year 2009 MILCON project will construct a Child
Development Center to provide supervised care for 128 infants and
preschool children.
Operations and Training
Our MILCON program supports our expanded view of quality of life
for airmen by providing facilities from which to train in and operate.
New Security Forces Operations and Communications facilities in
Burlington, Vermont will provide the men and women of the Air National
Guard in one of our most stressed career fields with functional, up-to-
date facilities to meet necessary training and day-to-day operational
requirements. This year's program also includes a 56-position Combat
Arms Training and Marksmanship facility at Maxwell AFB, Alabama to
supplement the existing, undersized, high-demand range. The range
enables the continuing improvement of our Air and Space Basic Course by
providing combat-focused training to our junior officers. Finally, a
recapitalization project at the Air Force Academy concludes the phased
upgrade of the Fairchild Hall academic building.
Environmental Management Programs
Our environmental management programs continue to ensure our most
basic quality of life needs are being met for our airmen and
surrounding communities: clean air, clean drinking water, and healthy
working and living conditions for our workforce and base residents. We
are also implementing refinements to our environmental management
approach to incorporate best practices where we find opportunities. All
Air Force installations have put in place and continue to utilize their
Environmental Management Systems to identify environmental aspects of
base operations, assess their impacts, and allow commanders to make
informed decisions and investments to reduce environmental risks and
compliance costs. Also, last year, I challenged our installation
commanders to significantly reduce new environmental enforcement
actions, and I'm proud to tell you we cut our new enforcement actions
by 39 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007--a major
success story. We intend to cut enforcement actions by another 14
percent in fiscal year 2008.
preparing for tomorrow's challenges
Our third priority is to prepare for tomorrow's challenges. Our
2009 MILCON program is a direct reflection of our strong commitment to
the current and future success of our Air Force and is heavily weighted
toward preparing for tomorrow's challenges by addressing our most
critical modernization and recapitalization needs. The $493 million
fiscal year 2009 Total Force military construction program consists of
32 projects that are essential to modernization and recapitalization,
The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's primary air superiority fighter
and key enabler, providing operational access, homeland and cruise
missile defense, and force protection for joint forces. Combat-capable
Raptors are in full rate production on the world's only 5th generation
production line. Elmendorf AFB, AK will be the second operational
Raptor base, and Holloman AFB, NM will be the third. We are
constructing 13 projects to continue to beddown the world's premier
fighter at a cost of $197 million. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter is our 5th generation multi-role strike fighter aircraft
optimized for air-to-ground attack. The F-35 will recapitalize combat
capabilities currently provided by the F-16 and A-10, and will
complement the capabilities of the F-22. A student dormitory project at
Eglin AFB, FL continues the beddown for joint F-35 training squadrons.
To provide the best possible training to our aircrews by using a
professional adversary force of pilots and controllers, the Air Force
is pressing forward with its vision for a more robust Aggressor
program. Constructing a squadron operations facility and aircraft
maintenance unit at Nellis AFB, NV supports the beddown of a full 24-
aircraft F-16 Aggressor squadron.
Our Tactical Air Controllers are embedded with ground forces,
directing Air Power in support of ground operations. This year's MILCON
program provides the 3rd Air Support Operations Group with a Joint Air
Ground Center at the unit's host Army installation, Fort Hood Texas.
This facility supports the U.S. Army's brigade transformation and
provides Air Force Tactical Air Controllers with the training space
required to support the critical Close Air Support mission.
We are modernizing and recapitalizing our facilities in support of
large-frame aircraft as well. The C-17 continues its outstanding
support for humanitarian operations and the Joint warfighter. The
addition and alteration of simulator facilities at Charleston, AFB, SC
and McChord AFB, WA will greatly improve the program's training
efficiency. A MILCON project at Cheyenne, WY constructs a C-130
squadron operations facility to support daily 24-hour operations for
airborne firefighting, aeromedical evacuation, and homeland defense
missions. Tinker AFB, OK is also receiving a hangar to satisfy
scheduled maintenance requirements for Air Force Reserve and Air
National Guard associate KC-135 units.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR),
communications, and space systems play an ever-increasing role in what
we do. The Total Force Initiative (TFI) Information Operations Squadron
Facility at New Castle, Delaware will provide real-time information
operations mission support, analysis, and feedback of reconnaissance
missions around the world supporting commanders in the field.
Depot Maintenance Reengineering and Transformation (DMRT) remains
essential to revitalizing depots using ``LEAN'' principles to increase
aircraft availability by reducing depot cycle time, defects, and costs.
This program has played a significant role in transforming our
industrial base to more effectively support warfighter requirements.
The 2009 program supports the DMRT initiative with two projects, one at
Robins AFB, Georgia and one at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, together totaling
$73 million.
The 2009 military construction program has five other
infrastructure modernization projects worth $109 million. These
projects cover the spectrum from a SOCCENT headquarters facility at
MacDill AFB, Florida and personnel moves in the National Capitol
Region, to an infrastructure project on Guam that enables the
relocation of a Combat Communications unit from Kadena AB, Japan to
Andersen AFB, Guam. These projects recapitalize our aging
infrastructure and enable us to support our vision for a modernized
force.
base realignment and closure
The ongoing implementation of Base Realignment and Closure
recommendations is among the Air Force's efforts to transform the Total
Force. In this round of BRAC, 78 percent of our required actions
involve the Air Reserve Component while in past rounds; fewer than 20
percent involved the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. This
transformational effort across the force will ensure the Air Force is
more lethal, agile, and capable of maintaining total dominance in air,
space, and cyberspace domains.
Joint Basing
We have a long and successful history of working toward common
goals in a Joint environment, without compromising Air Force principles
and the well-being of our people. Joint Basing initiatives are no
exception. Therefore, to guarantee success, each Joint Base will
provide an appropriate setting to all of its assigned personnel to
facilitate mission success and provide improved quality of life through
common standards, currently being developed. Our Soldiers, Sailors,
Airmen, Marines, DOD Civilians and their families will benefit from
efficient, consistent Installation Support Services standards. These
standards will ensure the Air Force and our sister Services continue to
provide all personnel with the level of Installation Support Services
they deserve. Our base commanders and their local service providers
are, of course, on the front lines of our efforts to maintain and
improve services. A Senior Joint Base Working Group, led by the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), is developing
policy to implement joint bases by September 15, 2011, in accordance
with BRAC law. The group is in the process of defining common standards
for delivery of service of installation support functions before they
are transferred. Once standards and corresponding performance metrics
are established, the bases will develop formal support agreements and
implementation plans in order to proceed with the joint base construct.
San Antonio Medical Merger
In San Antonio, TX, the Air Force is the lead for implementing one
of the most complex sets of BRAC recommendations in history. Along with
our sister Services, and the TRICARE Management Activity, we continue
to make significant strides to change the way military health care is
delivered, and to consolidate all Services' enlisted medical education
and training from across the United States onto a single campus at Fort
Sam Houston, and to centralize a significant part of military medical
research.
Execution of BRAC recommendations in San Antonio is fully funded
and on-schedule. On January eleventh of this year, the Corps of
Engineers broke ground on a $92 million Battlefield Health and Trauma
Research facility which will be integral to developing life saving
medical care for our war-fighters. Additionally, beginning this year,
we will begin constructing instructional facilities, dining facilities,
and dormitories in direct support of world-class training for our Joint
medics. Just this month, two dormitory contracts have been let in
support of this effort.
BRAC 2005 Execution Report Card
Managing and executing the multi-million dollar program, with
diverse interests, locations, and economic influencers involved, is a
major endeavor. As a result the Air Force underwent an effort to
identify, analyze and define its requirements and the assets needed to
implement its program.
The Air Force has executed 80 percent of our fiscal year 2007 BRAC
MILCON projects, with the total contract awards staying within 99
percent of the original programmed amount. I am content with the
current working estimates for our unexecuted fiscal year 2007 projects
and confident we will award the projects and stay within budget.
Current working estimates for the Air Force's fiscal year 2008 BRAC
MILCON projects again show we should execute within our overall
programmed amount.
The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the Department of Defense
BRAC 2005 account must be restored. If left unfunded, the reduction
will result in the Air Force receiving $235 million less than required
in fiscal year 2008. The Air Force will experience delays and
disruptions in construction and the movement of our people and assets.
Delays will impact our ability to meet mandated completion deadlines
and could ultimately result in a failure to complete mandated actions.
Prompt action and restoration of full funding will permit us to stay on
course in executing our obligations for timely completion of the BRAC
recommendations as approved by the Congress. We solicit your support in
advocating that action occur.
air force real property agency brac and real estate
The Air Force is a Federal leader in the implementation of the real
property management principles outlined in Presidential Executive Order
13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management. We aggressively manage
our property assets to deliver maximum value for the taxpayer, support
to the Air Force warfighter, and improved quality of life for our
airmen and their families. The Air Force is achieving these priorities
through two fundamental efforts: (1) completion of our BRAC property
disposal mission; and (2) leveraging the value of our non-BRAC property
assets using a suite of property management and disposal tools.
The Air Force has successfully deeded 85 percent of the 87,000
acres of legacy Air Force BRAC property to date. The highly successful
reuse of Air Force base closure property led to the creation of tens-
of-thousands of jobs in the affected communities. To complete the clean
up and transfer of remaining property, the Air Force is partnering with
industry leaders on innovative business practices for its ``way ahead''
strategy. These include an emphasis on performance-based environmental
remediation contracts, using such performance-based contracts on
regional clusters of BRAC bases, and innovative tools such as early
property transfer and privatization of environmental cleanup. Our
objectives remain constant and clear: (1) provide reuse opportunities
that best meet the needs of the Air Force and local communities, (2)
move the process along smartly in each situation to get property back
into commerce as soon as practical, and (3) provide transparency
throughout the process. Of the 32 legacy BRAC bases slated for closure,
the Air Force has completed 19 whole-base transfers. The remaining 13
are targeted for transfer by 2010.
As the Air Force transfers BRAC property for civic and private
reuse, it is paramount that we ensure any past environmental
contamination on the property does not endanger public health or the
environment. The Air Force will continue to fulfill this most solemn
responsibility, as reflected in our fiscal year 2009 request of $120
million for legacy BRAC clean up activities.
At our non-BRAC Air Force installations, we continue to reshape our
infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Air Force
seeks fair market value for disposal or outgrants of property, and uses
new tools, such as Enhanced Use Leasing, or EUL, authority, to optimize
our resources and obtain value from our underutilized or excess
capacity--value we can return to the warfighter.
EUL constitutes a rapidly growing segment of our efforts to
leverage the value of our property assets. EUL allows the Air Force to
lease military property that is currently underutilized, but that is
still needed for future mission needs, to private industry and public
entities in exchange for cash or in-kind consideration that will
provide certain services, facilities, or property repair and
renovations to the Air Force. EULs are win-win scenarios for all
involved. Through EUL projects, developers can establish long-term
relationships with private and government partners who are potential
tenants with specific real estate needs. Additionally, developers can
receive market rates of return on design, construction, maintenance,
tenant leases and property management activities. The Air Force
Enhanced Use Lease Program is active with 21 projects undergoing
feasibility studies across the Nation. A 10 USC 2869 exchange is
another asset management tool, allowing the Air Force to work with
communities to find effective win-win solutions to the disposal of BRAC
and non-BRAC property. Communities benefit from receipt of real
property, in exchange for which, value is returned to the Air Force in
the form of approved MILCON projects. The Air Force is actively engaged
in 2869 exchanges at Lynn Haven, FL and Norwalk, CA.
federal facility agreements for cleanup
The Air Force is fully committed to the protection of human health
and the environment, to be good steward of taxpayer dollars and to full
compliance with applicable law at all of its facilities and for all
programs, including cleanup The Air Force has committed to protection
of human health and the environment and the Air Force has established
an aggressive, internal goal to have cleanup remedies in place at all
active installations by the end of fiscal year 2012. That is 2 years
ahead of the current DOD goal.
maintaining our facilities and operational infrastructure
The Air Force remains focused on sustaining, restoring, and
modernizing our operational infrastructure. Through our ``Corps of
Discovery'' partnerships, we have been benchmarking the ``best of the
best'' asset managers that our country has to offer. We are finding and
implementing ways to manage better, utilize resources more wisely,
leverage private sector investment potential, and use smart information
technology. Our aim is to effectively manage assets by optimizing
resources to deliver operational infrastructure for the warfighter at
our installations and ranges. In 2009, we have focused sustainment
funding on keeping our ``good facilities good'' and targeted limited
Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding to fix critical facility
and infrastructure deficiencies to maintain readiness.
Our sustainment program is aimed at maximizing the life of our
facilities and infrastructure in order to preserve our existing
investment. Without proper sustainment, our facilities and
infrastructure rapidly wear out. Additionally, commanders in the field
are driven to use other operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts to
address facility requirements that impact their mission capabilities.
When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a
balanced program of O&M and military construction funding to make them
``mission ready.'' Unfortunately, restoration and modernization
requirements in past years exceeded available O&M funding, causing us
to defer much-needed work. It is important for us to steadily increase
the investment in restoration and modernization in order to halt the
growth of this backlog, while fully funding sustainment to maximize the
life of our facilities and infrastructure.
The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding request in fiscal
year 2009 is $2 billion, 90 percent of the amount called for by the
Facility Sustainment Model (FSM). The fiscal year 2009 Total Force R&M
funding request is $514 million, a much needed improvement over our
fiscal year 2008 PB request. This is an area where the Air Force is
taking manageable risk given our other budgetary priorities.
demolition of excess, obsolete facilities
In addition to modernizing and restoring worn out facilities, we
also demolish excess and obsolete facilities. This ensures funds are
focused on facilities we need, not on sustaining those we do not. For
the past 10 years, the Air Force has aggressively demolished or
disposed of facilities that were unneeded or no longer economically
viable to maintain. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2007, we
demolished 27.3 million square feet of non-housing facilities and
infrastructure at a cost of $303 million in O&M funding. This is
equivalent to demolishing more than three average size Air Force
installations and has allowed us to target our O&M funding on
facilities we need for the long-term mission. As part of its
transformation vision, the Air Force will continue to aggressively
identify opportunities to eliminate excess and obsolete facilities.
planning and design/unspecified minor construction
This year's Air Force MILCON request includes $88 million for
planning and design, of which $8 million is for military family
housing. The request includes $71 million for active duty, $5 million
for the Air National Guard and $4 million for the Air Force Reserve.
These funds will allow us to complete the design work for fiscal year
2010 construction programs and to start the designs for fiscal year
2011 projects, allowing us to award contracts in the year of
authorization and appropriation.
This year's request also includes $28 million for the Total Force
unspecified minor construction program, which is our primary means for
funding smaller projects.
energy strategy
The increasing costs of energy and our commitment to reducing our
dependence on foreign oil have led to the development of the Air Force
energy strategy--to reduce demand, increase supply, and change the
culture within the Air Force so that energy is a consideration in
everything we do.
In view of this commitment, the Air Force is implementing
aggressive demand side fuel optimization and energy efficiency
initiatives on each of our three energy sectors: aviation operations,
ground transportation and support equipment, and installations. We are
also assuring energy supply side availability of fuel for our aircraft,
ground vehicles and equipment, and our facilities through initiatives
such as testing and certifying our aircraft to use synthetic fuel and
exploring public-private partnerships so that renewable sources of
energy are available. Third, and perhaps the most important element of
our energy strategy, we are ensuring that our strategy transcends the
present to create a lasting culture of change in all airmen so that
energy becomes a consideration in all we do through the strong
involvement of our senior leadership, changes to our training and
curricula at all levels throughout the Air Force and communication
efforts so that every Airman knows the importance of what they are
doing to conserve energy.
Synthetic Fuel
Taking the lead to reduce dependence on foreign oil, the Air Force
is evaluating a broad range of energy alternatives and the Air Force
Synthetic Fuels Initiative is a key part to our energy strategy. As the
DOD's leading consumer of jet fuel, we are currently engaged in
evaluating alternative fuels and engine technologies leading to greater
fuel efficiency. We've certified the B-52 to fly on a synthetic fuel
blend, and are on track to test and certify the C-17, B-1 and F-22 in
the near future, with the entire Air Force fleet certified by early
2011.
Reduction of Facility Energy Usage
The Air Force has an aggressive facility energy conservation
program that achieved an impressive 30 percent reduction in energy use
over the past 20 years. Your Air Force is the Federal Government's
largest purchaser of ``green power'' and the third largest in the
Nation overall. Thirty-seven of our bases purchase green power--at
Dyess AFB, TX, Fairchild AFB, WA, and Minot AFB, ND, 100 percent of the
electrical energy purchased came from renewable sources.
Public-Private Partnerships and Energy Enhanced Use Leases
The Air Force continues to look for opportunities at our
installations for installing and developing renewable energy projects
for wind, solar, biomass, waste-to-energy, landfill gas and geothermal
power as well as commercial-scale ethanol and biodiesel fuel plants.
At Nellis AFB, NV, through a public-private partnership with
Powerlight, a subsidiary of Sun Power Corporation, we installed the
largest solar photovoltaic array in the Americas. It became operational
in November and produces over 14.2 megawatts of clean, renewable,
power. Overall, this renewable source of power results in a cost
savings of nearly $1 million a year for the installation and the
American taxpayer. Similar solar energy EUL projects we are pursuing at
Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ; and Kirtland AFB, NM; would utilize a
private-public partnership where private industry would utilize Air
Force property in return for in-kind considerations.
Nuclear Energy
Given the energy requirements of our air bases, as well as the
unique demands of some of our remote installations, small modular
nuclear reactors seem to provide a viable option to meet our future
energy demands. We believe that the market is best suited to identify
technological and economic winners. We expect the nuclear power project
to be commercially funded and financially viable with normal commercial
risk. In all cases, the Air Force would not develop, design, own,
operate, or be the licensee for the nuclear power plant. We are in the
process of gathering and assessing responses to a Request for
Information from industry. The current estimate is that any plant built
and operated pursuant to this initiative could be operational in latter
half of next decade. Under ideal circumstances the Air Force intends to
sign one or more letters of intent with viable consortiums by October
2008.
Alternative Vehicles and Fuels
We currently have over 5,200 FlexFuel vehicles in our fleet and
nearly 8 percent of our diesel fuel is B20, which is a blend of 80
percent conventional diesel and 20 percent renewable bio-fuels. We
spent approximately $10 million on alternative fuels alone for ground
vehicles and equipment in fiscal year 2007 and have budgeted over $100
million over the next 5 years for alternative fuel and low-speed
vehicles.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Air Force recognizes that energy and environmental management
decisions are essentially two sides of the same coin; the
interdependence between the two areas is clear. While our overall
energy strategy is driven by the imperative to ensure the security and
sustainability of mission critical energy resources, likewise, our
environmental management strategy is looking beyond the regulatory
paradigm to ensure mission needs are supported by sustainable
environmental practices.
As an Air Force with global reach and alliances, we are well aware
of the international concern regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and
recognize the importance placed on greenhouse gas emissions management
by our allies, global partners, and here in the homeland. In order to
make proactive, informed decisions about greenhouse gas emissions
management with respect to energy use, alternate energy options, as
well as chemical use, land management and process improvement
opportunities, the Air Force has initiated a comprehensive greenhouse
gas inventory to identify overall greenhouse gas emission sources from
a ``top down'' aggregate energy use perspective, as well as from a
detailed ``bottom up'' perspective, identifying greenhouse gas
emissions from material usage and process activities. Further, we are
identifying and quantifying biological carbon sequestration on our Air
Force properties so that biological sequestration opportunities are
understood as we manage over 9.8 million acres of Air Force
installations and military range lands. We intend to complete our first
comprehensive inventory by September 1st of this year.
The Air Force is positioned to be a significant player in solving
the global carbon dioxide issue. We are reaching out to others to
partner in establishing a ``man on the moon'' scope project to address
the reduction, capture, and reuse of greenhouse gases. We need to push
for a holistic look at emissions from all energy sources. This will
allow for the examination of all emissions across the lifecycle and
then we can prioritize opportunities to drive true, measurable
emissions reductions.
utility privatization
Turning to utilities privatization, similar to our efforts in
privatizing housing, the Air Force is privatizing utilities where it
makes economic sense and does not adversely affect readiness, security,
or mission accomplishment. Because installations are key to our
operational capabilities, our network of bases provide necessary
infrastructure for deploying, employing, and sustaining air and space
operations and re-deploying and reconstituting the force afterwards.
Reliable utility systems are critical infrastructure components and
essential to air operations and quality of life at every Air Force
base. Additionally, these systems must be consistent with modern
technology to optimize energy conservation. We believe privatization
offers an important tool in the toolbox for simultaneously meeting both
these requirements.
To date, under Office of the Secretary of Defense's utilities
privatization program, the Air Force has conveyed 14 systems under 10
U.S.C. 2688 and six additional systems using standard FAR clauses, for
a total of 20 privatized systems with a plant replacement value in
excess of $300 million. We are currently evaluating an additional 335
systems for privatization. Additionally, where market conditions may
have changed, we plan to re-solicit 145 systems previously determined
``uneconomic.'' We anticipate possibly privatizing another ten systems
in fiscal year 2008. By the time the program concludes, we now
anticipate more than half of about 500 systems could be privatized.
During the course of this process, we further expect many competitive
solicitations will end up as sole source procurements from local
utility companies.
conclusion
The current and future readiness and capability of our Air Force to
deter our enemies and, when necessary, fight and win our Nation's wars,
depends heavily upon the state of our power projection platforms--our
installations. As the Air Force continues to modernize and
recapitalize, we will continue to wisely invest our precious funding
allocated to military construction, the environment, operations and
maintenance, BRAC, military family housing, and energy. This will
enable us to win today's fight, take care of our people, and prepare
for tomorrow's challenges. Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the Committee for you support of the Air Force.
Senator Johnson. Secretary Ferguson, the active duty Air
Force's military construction request for 2009 is 19 percent
below last year's enacted level. I fear that the Air Force may
be charging up a bill that is going to come due in future years
by neglecting infrastructure needs in favor of other things.
According to your testimony, the Air Force has been self-
financing the effort to modernize its air and space force by
accepting manageable risk in facilities and infrastructure
funding. That sounds like to me the Air Force has made a
decision to cannibalize its military construction funds to buy
airplanes. Is that the case?
Ms. Ferguson. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it's the
case that we are cannibalizing our MILCON. Our fiscal year 2009
budget request is about the same level as our fiscal year 2008
budget request. What we have also done is we have funded our
sustainment to a 90 percent level, which funds our facilities
to keep good facilities in good condition. We've also increased
our funding by $168 million over our fiscal year 2008 budget
request in modernization and restoration, which takes care of
the major infrastructure upgrades that need to occur on an
installation such as roofs and pavements.
Senator Johnson. In 2006 the request for Air Guard MILCON
was $165 million, almost five times larger than this year's
Guard request of only $35 million. The Air Guard's budget
request for military construction has fallen by 80 percent in
only 3 years. How do you justify that?
General Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee
members. The Air National Guard is serving overseas as well as
at home, accomplishing missions, everything from defense
support of civil authorities to the overseas missions, and we
appreciate the support that we've had in the past and the
Congressional adds we've gotten to ensure that these world-
class airmen in the Air National Guard can continue to do those
missions at home and abroad.
The funding levels, obviously we're in the total strategy
of recapitalizing our force as well. We have aging airplanes in
the Air National Guard. So when we look at the future--and I
talk to my fellow guardsmen and we hear loud and clear from the
State TAGS and in the National Guard Bureau that there is a
need to accomplish MILCON projects, but also we're very
concerned about the recapitalization.
I heard this quote from one of my guardsmen out in the
field, that said: Would you rather be in a 50-year-old building
or would you rather fly a 50-year-old airplane? So we
understand the recapitalization and the need to be a part of
that. So we've taken the risk in the MILCON area as well. We
think that's prudent.
However, we also realize that there are MILCON needs out
there that we need to have addressed, particularly with regard
to the new missions under the total force initiative concept,
that we'd like to see funded in the future, and we look forward
to your help on that, please.
Senator Johnson. The Air Force Reserve has seen even more
drastic cuts. Its entire budget request this year is for three
projects, for a total of $19 million, a decline of 76 percent
in the last 3 years. Is your justification similar to that of
the Air Guard?
General Rubeor. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. Like the Air
National Guard, we're very proud of the contributions of our
Air Force Reserve members, very much committed to the fight
along with our active duty and Guard partners. I will tell you
that we have been looking at this issue hard. We've had some
very constructive negotiations with the active duty. We've made
some changes on how we're going to allocate Air Force Reserve
and Air National Guard MILCON projects. That's going to be a
change not only in the upcoming fiscal year, but also in the
out years. It's going to provide us more opportunities to take
a look at additional projects and increase the number of
projects that are in the FYDP.
So I think we've recognized the fact that there were some
problems that led us to this year's very small MILCON, but
we've taken steps to address that and I'm very satisfied, the
Air Force Reserve is very satisfied with the changes that we're
proposing.
Senator Johnson. Secretary Ferguson, in January the Deputy
Secretary of Defense issued an initial guidance to the services
to begin joint basing implementation. Is the Air Force
committed to the joint basing concept?
Ms. Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force fully supports
joint basing and is committed to making it a success. Major
General Eulberg and myself have participated in all meetings
that Mr. Arny has chaired since he has come on board. We have
worked with the other services developing the common operating
level standards, and we are fully behind joint basing.
There was a kickoff video telecommunications conference
that Mr. Arny hosted that we all participated in about 4 weeks
ago with all 26 installations that make up the 12 joint bases.
We will also travel out to Washington State in just a few weeks
at the end of June to have a kickoff meeting, a further kickoff
meeting, in person with all the services, OSD, senior staff
from each one of the services here in the Pentagon, the major
commands, and each one of the 26 installations, to further the
joint basing implementation efforts.
Senator Johnson. What is your understanding of how the
joint basing process will work?
Ms. Ferguson. OSD has issued the joint basing
implementation guidance, has issued the templates for the MOAs
and the supplemental guidance. There's basically two phases of
implementation for the bases. The first phase, the MOAs, are
scheduled to be signed later this year, in September of this
year, with an initial operating capability (IOC) of January
2009 and full operating capability (FOC) in October 2009.
The phase two bases will start at the same time, but will
have MOAs signed in September 2009, with IOC, in January 2009--
I'm sorry, January 2010, and FOC in October 2010.
Senator Johnson. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass for now
and I will submit my questions for the record. I'm sorry, I
missed your testimony, so I hate to jump in here if you've
answered my questions already. Thank you very much.
Senator Johnson. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, as we all know, Cyber Command is critical
to our Nation's defense and some of the asymmetrical threats
that we're going to encounter in the future will involve
countering threats in this virtual domain. General McCaffrey
recently said: ``There is no such thing as a secure computer
system. Attacks could negate current U.S. military supremacy in
the field and cripple the Nation's transportation, water,
electrical, financial, and trading systems.''
One of the greatest threats we currently face is an attack
on our computer systems. General Pace recently said: ``I know
what we can do to other people, which means that eventually
they can do it to us.''
While we support a very thorough process to select the
location, which is a facilities question, the location of the
headquarters for Cyber Command, why does it appear that the
process keeps being pushed to the right as opposed to
continuing to have pressure to establish that location as soon
as possible, given the need to protect against cyber space
attacks that we're most certainly going to have, if we're not
having them already? There is a general belief that we're
already experiencing some of this, at least testing us to see
whether or not we're prepared to deal with it.
So I guess the question is: Why do we wait for a final
decision to 2009 as opposed to moving it forward, particularly
with respect to facilities?
Ms. Ferguson. Thank you for the question. We are following
the National Environmental Policy Act for the selection of the
beddown location for Cyber Command. We're taking a little bit
different approach also, in that we're incorporating a lot of
community involvement in the basing decision as we go through
this.
My boss, Secretary Anderson, sent initial letters out to 18
States for 17 locations, to the governors and also information
letters to each one of the congressional delegations (CODELs,)
announcing what we would be doing and how we would be doing
that. The initial letter went out. We're anticipating sending
another letter out the middle of next week providing additional
guidance to the local communities on the information that we
will be considering as the Air Force works through our base
selection process.
Later this year, Air Force Cyber Command Provisional, with
support from major commands, will be going out and doing site
visits at the locations. It is anticipated that site surveys,
the NEPA process, the data, and the final basing decision will
take about 6 to 9 months to complete.
Senator Nelson. Well, I understand the process and I guess
I support it. But it seems that the process is delaying as
opposed to accelerating the determination of a location. It
would seem that the Air Force could have winnowed down the
location to fewer than 18 sites. By adding more sites it just
has extended the whole process because of the complications
that you get with having more things to review. An egalitarian
approach makes some sense, but in this situation it seems to me
that the primary objective is to find a facility, find a
location, establish a facility, and have the command fully
operational as soon as possible.
Ms. Ferguson. What I can do is I can take that back for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Cyber Command Locations
Initial efforts by the AFCYBER planning and basing team were
focused on the urgency of standing up the new command. For this reason,
the initial basing criteria focused on utilizing existing facilities.
Then, SECAF asked us to consider ``virtual'' and ``distributed''
operations based on corps of discovery with industry leaders. So we
developed an interim location basing strategy--focused on quickly
activating the command, in a distributed ops fashion (supporting the
AFCYBER mission in the near-term). This interim solution will provide
more operational capability in the near-term and enabled the
development of the non-traditional basing approach to solicit State and
local feedback on potential permanent location basing alternatives.
Listed below are the potential candidate bases identified by 18
States for further information gathering and analysis for the proposed
permanent basing of Air Force Cyber Command:
--Barksdale, LA
--Beale, CA
--Hanscom, MA
--Hill, UT
--Iowa (on behalf of Offutt)
--Keesler, MS
--Kirtland, NM
--Lackland, TX
--Langley, VA
--Little Rock, AR
--NORAD (Colorado Springs), CO
--Offutt, NE
--Pennsylvania ANG bases
--Maxwell, AL
--McGuire, NJ
--Michigan ANG bases
--Whiteman, MO
--Wright-Patterson, OH
Senator Nelson. I think I've already extended it to the
record back there, too. But I thought maybe you might have some
enlightenment as to why we would expand the process at a time
when it's critically important to get the location established
and put in place as soon as possible.
Ms. Ferguson. I think we're looking at all potential
opportunities for where we might bed down this and following
the NEPA and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process
to ensure that we do the right thing as we make the selection
for this key mission.
Senator Nelson. The facility will be a driving factor, I
hope, as well as just a location of the command.
Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Deputy Secretary Ferguson, Generals, thank you for being
with us. I'm going to be very specific on a very specific
project today at Mountain Home Air Force Base, and I brought
along pictures, because pictures in this instance are worth a
thousand words.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'll be specific because I'm talking
about an air base that our Commander in Chief awarded as the
top air base in the world last year, and we're very proud of
Mountain Home for a lot of reasons. The men and women that make
it up are the first reason. But secondarily, we have a
uniqueness there that is one of the top training ranges in the
world now, that the world wants to come and play on; and not
just our Air Force, but other air forces, Singapore and
Israeli, German, because of its uniqueness.
But inside that base is a problem and it's a problem I've
talked about with all of you for a long time and it's now time
to get it fixed. It's a building, a building that has been
literally condemned since the 1990s, with risk of roof falling
in. It's the Logistics Readiness Center.
Bring on the pictures, please. For the last 5 years, the
Idaho Congressional delegation has suggested that this become a
top priority for this facility. You know, Ms. Ferguson, I
talked about efficiencies of energy. This used to house, at
least co-locate, at least seven different activities on the
base. We've had to take them out of there and spread them all
over the base, and we use lots of energy moving people around.
The reason is that people who work in this building now have to
wear hard hats for fear of something falling on them. I've been
in the building and I was required to wear a hard hat while I
was there.
Yet this building is still operable until it gets four
inches of snow on it, and then we evacuate everybody for risk
of the roof falling in.
Now, I know that we send our soldiers on very dangerous
missions. The greatest danger to some of Mountain Home airmen
and women is entering this building on base.
I don't know how to make my point other than to suggest
this. Last year Congressman Mike Simpson of the Second
District, working on the other side of the Rotunda in the
Appropriations Committee, put $1.593 million in to start the
process. And yet the Air Force said, no, you can only have 35
percent of the funding because Congress hasn't funded the
whole. We wanted to start the process, get the logistics, the
design and all of that ready, and yet we were handicapped in
doing that.
I don't know any other way to impress upon the Air Force
the reality of this problem. It is a significant problem at a
world class air base and it's a significant problem that now
we've had to go in and shore up with wood because they need to
continue to use it. We have an armory in there for firearms and
all of that kind of thing, and a housing, encasement, if you
will, for them that we're not going to move anywhere else for
that matter.
We're not talking about a huge ticket item. We're talking
about a reality and a risk in a world-class base that is a
factor now of human life.
I finally said to the base folks: Okay, I'm going to drop
the anchor on this one and I'll do everything I can with this
committee to get it solved. But I'm pleading with you to adjust
a very minor amount of priorities here when it comes to dollars
and cents to replace this facility, because we now have spread
out all over the base when it needs to be co-located there for
efficiency, for energy savings, and I applaud you for what
you've said on energy.
Secretary Anderson and I visited about small nuclear and
their future can give our bases anywhere in the world that
potential in time, and that technology is now moving toward
development, small modular reactors. That will play in time and
I'm glad the Air Force is doing what it's doing.
But efficient as we might want to become, this is the
most--this is the most egregious example of inefficiency I've
seen to date. Your reaction?
Ms. Ferguson. Senator Craig, we have funded the design and
have begun the design for the replacement facility at Mountain
Home. It is undergoing right now--it will be 35 percent
designed in October. The cost for the replacement facility, as
you pointed out, is right about $20 million and we anticipate
it will be in our fiscal year 2010 submission to the Congress.
Senator Craig. You plan to submit it in fiscal year 2010?
Ms. Ferguson. Right now, we have not got the fiscal year
2010 program from the major command yet. But what we have heard
is that it's Air Combat Command's number one priority within
the command for this year. So given that, we would anticipate
that would be in our fiscal year 2010 submittal to the
Congress.
Senator Craig. How do we nudge you along?
Ms. Ferguson. I think you just did.
Senator Craig. Oh, oh, is that what I just did?
Ms. Ferguson. But we still have a long way to go. I have to
caveat that it's still a long way to go between now and when
the President's Budget (PB) comes over here. But what I am
hearing now that is what Air Combat Command will come in with.
As the committee well knows, we've continued to take risks in
infrastructure, but we will be going into budget deliberations
shortly as we go through the next 6 months or so.
But what we're hearing from Air Combat Command is they have
made that their number one priority in the command, and so we
should see that when it comes up. We should see that at our
level in the District of Columbia when it comes up from Air
Combat Command.
Senator Craig. Well, I've been focused on this for a long
while. I waited until after BRAC 2005 to see how we survived
and we survived with obvious flying colors, and immediately
within a short time after that recognized as one of the top air
bases in the world and certainly in the country.
Like I say, it's a lot more about people than it is about
facility, but at the same time facilities are critical.
Well, I'll take that as more than a maybe and I'll follow
you very closely to make sure that happens. And if we can nudge
it along here, I'll make every effort to do that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here this morning. During the BRAC
process the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves had
projects that were joint-funded projects. However, in the
regular MILCON world it's very difficult to have a joint
project for the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.
As I understand it, each service would have to include their
portion of the funding in their own budget at the same time,
and that just is not easy to do and there's no real process to
efficiently pay for joint projects.
What is the possibility of creating a joint 5-year budget
to manage joint MILCON projects?
Ms. Ferguson. That's really a question I can't answer. It's
really a question that the comptroller and Mr. Arny would need
to answer. That's something that's beyond Air Force control. I
can take that and bring that back.
[The information follows:]
Joint Five-Year Military Construction Budget
The organization best suited to respond to this question is the
Office of the Under Secretary Defense Comptroller (OUSD-C). The OUSD-C
has the visibility into all of the Service Components MILCON project
requirements and capabilities to determine whether creating a joint 5-
year budget would be possible or in the best interests of the
Department of Defense.
Senator Murray. I would very much appreciate it. I think we
have to look at it. I assume you think it's a problem?
Ms. Ferguson. It's easier to work within service. It's
harder to work combined across the services for joint MILCON.
Senator Murray. Well, I am curious how----
Ms. Ferguson. It's not impossible.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I'm curious how each of the
services decides what MILCON requests go forward in a given
year. Is a percentage of each one of these MILCON requests set
apart for reserve component requests?
Ms. Ferguson. What the Air Force does is we look overall at
the requirements, at the new mission beddown requirements, and
those are--I don't want to say they're funded off the top, but
those get a fairly high priority as they go through, those
projects to bed down the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, C-17.
Those are needed to bed down the weapons systems at the
installations.
The current mission dollars--and General Rubeor mentioned
this a little while ago. We've changed our process within the
Air Force to allocate more dollars to the Guard and Reserve,
particularly in the out-years, so that they compete for
Congressional adds.
Senator Murray. Given the utilization of the Guard and
Reserve at this time, doesn't it make sense to put some
percentage in place or make sure that they have a higher
priority?
General Rubeor. The answer to your question, ma'am, is yes,
there is a formula. It's based on plant replacement value.
I want to go back just a second, though. For the Air Force
Reserve, our most efficient model is what we call the Associate
model. A lot of folks have heard about TFI, Total Force
Integration, and that's kind of what I'm talking about. We are
at our most effective when we are on an active duty base and
the active duty owns the equipment and the infrastructure and
we just provide manpower. It is a very cost-effective model for
the U.S. taxpayer.
The vast majority of our force is in that model and it is
growing. We used to have it primarily restricted to the
mobility assets, C-5s and C-141s. We're growing it now into the
tanker business. We're growing it into the bomber business,
growing it into the fighter business. We're doing a lot of
innovative stuff.
For instance, we are now associating with the Air National
Guard. At Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, we own the airplanes
and the Air National Guard is associating with us. They are
providing the crews and training on that platform.
So that particular model, I don't think it receives enough
attention. Again, it's the big part of our business. Whenever
the active duty gets infrastructure and gets MILCONs and gets
all of those things, we benefit because we use those facilities
as part of this TFI.
So the very small part of our business is when we own the
base, and we have about 10 of those. There are five air reserve
stations and five air reserve bases. When you talk about
MILCON, that's where we're at and that's where we probably need
some attention. And we've already addressed that with the
active duty Air Force.
That formula, which again to your point is basically a
thing called plant replacement value. You take a look--and
there's a lot of ways to do this, but this is the way we've
chosen to do it. And oh, by the way, we're looking at that, and
it is the right model.
But for today, for this budget submission, we have 4
percent of the active duty plant replacement value. So you take
your budget and multiply it and that's how we get it.
Senator Murray. Okay, great. I want to move on because I
don't have that much time.
Ms. Ferguson. If I could just add just one comment to what
General Rubeor said. When you look at what the active component
has put in as part of Total Force Integration and what it
benefits to the Guard and Reserve components, it's been about
$1.3 billion between fiscal year 2006 and 2009, and that is
kind of buried in what the committee sees. But that number was
just verified and documented by GAO, about 70 projects totaling
over a billion dollars that support both.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Let me go to another topic. In Secretary Anderson's written
testimony that the committee has been provided, he mentioned
that his third priority is preparing for tomorrow's challenges.
I wanted to ask you about that because the Air Force has stated
that MILCON for the KC-X tanker will include modification and
new construction of buildings, new hangars, new ramps, and
moving fuel hydrants. What preparation have you done for
meeting that challenge?
Ms. Ferguson. It might be better to take that for the
record, but I can tell you we have not--within the
installations community, we have not worked that yet.
[The information follows:]
Military Construction for KC-X
With respect to Military Construction (MILCON), the Air Force
evaluates MILCON requirements and estimates the funding through an
iterative process. As the program progresses through System Development
and Demonstration (SDD) and aircraft basing decisions are finalized,
the initial MILCON estimates will be updated to reflect specific MILCON
projects. This refinement is a normal part of the process.
The Air Force calculated and took into consideration MILCON cost
estimates for active duty bases, overseas locations, guard, and reserve
components. Since a basing strategy has not been finalized, the Air
Force conducted site surveys of several existing tanker bases. These
surveys were used as a basis for estimating MILCON costs for 10 bases,
which included four Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve bases and two
overseas locations. The Air Force is confident in this initial MILCON
estimate and will continue to refine it based on specific requirements
as basing decisions are made. It's important to note that MILCON cost
estimates were not considered in isolation by the source selection
team, but were included as a component of the Most Probable Life Cycle
Cost, accounting for approximately 2 percent of the total costs.
Senator Murray. So there's been no preparation for that?
Ms. Ferguson. For individual bases, that is correct.
Senator Murray. Did you or your office or anybody have a
role in setting the requirements or the scope of the MILCON
need for the KC-X?
Ms. Ferguson. No.
Senator Murray. So you were not involved in that at all. So
we've got really tight budgets here. We've got to plan for
costs on the horizon. We need to know what the costs are for
that, and it's surprising to me that no one asked any of you
ever what the costs for the MILCON would be.
Ms. Ferguson. The source selection team that made the
selection for the KC-X, did consider that as a factor. I do not
have that, but we can get that from the acquisition community.
Senator Murray. Well, let me ask, did the active duty and
Reserve component provide any cost estimates for their side of
this?
Ms. Ferguson. I don't know the answer to that.
Senator Murray. You don't know. Well, Secretary Wynne
responded to some written questions and said that one member of
the National Guard Bureau participated in the development of
the requirements and supported the KC-X source selection as a
subject matter expert. Do you know what expertise that member
of the National Guard Bureau has regarding military
construction? Do any of you know who that was or what their
expertise was?
General Rubeor. No, ma'am.
Ms. Ferguson. We'll have to go back and find that out.
Senator Murray. No idea? Well, okay. Well, there's going to
be costs associated either with the 767 or the Airbus plane,
and I want to how the difference in size and weight of the two
tankers was considered when this was evaluated. There's
construction costs for hangars, for ramps, for taxiways. How
was that input given? Does anybody know?
Ms. Ferguson. We'll have to take that for the record. None
of the members on this panel are aware of that.
Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do find that very
troubling. This is a major MILCON request. It has major MILCON
impacts. We were told that the costs of all of this were taken
into account and it's troubling to me that this is going to
have a huge impact on this committee and our future
responsibilities, and certainly we need to know that.
So I will submit some other questions for all of you
regarding that, that I think this committee needs to understand
in our future obligations. Construction as I understand it
would need to begin in 2009 or 2010 in order to be ready for
the first delivery of this tanker if it goes forward. That's
going to have a huge impact on this committee, Mr. Chairman.
I realize my time's out. I have some questions I will
submit for the record on this and I hope we can get timely
responses.
Senator Johnson. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are along the same line, that I would like to
know about as well, the bid on this. The Air Force said they
took the bigger Airbus plane because, one of the primary
factors being, okay, it carries a bigger payload. That was the
Air Force's--in the Air Force's announcement as I understand
it. But that bigger plane requires bigger hangar space that's
going to have to be adjusted. If it's going to carry the bigger
load, it may well require strengthening of runways and aprons
to hold it up. Is that correct?
Ms. Ferguson. Since I did not participate in this, I would
be guessing to answer the question. But what I will do is I
will go back and get the folks that were on the acquisition
selection team to go forward and provide the responses to that.
[The information follows:]
Military Construction for KC-X
The KC-30 and KC-767 aircraft are larger than the KC-135 and will
require a similar degree of MILCON. The estimated MILCON costs are
source selection sensitive and cannot be disclosed here but the costs
are higher for the KC-30 when compared to the KC-767. MILCON costs were
similar for fuel hydrant relocations, training devices, and simulators.
The majority of cost differences were in hangar modifications and ramp
upgrades. It's important to note that MILCON cost estimates were not
considered in isolation by the source selection team, but were included
as a component of the Most Probable Life Cycle Cost, accounting for
approximately 2 percent of the total costs.
Senator Brownback. Isn't this something you prepare for all
the time? I mean, it seems like if you're going to buy a new
weapon system--you were talking about bedding down other
weapons systems--that you would be preparing for that now.
Ms. Ferguson. Quite honestly, our installations offices
don't get involved until after the selection of the aircraft.
We don't normally get involved at the beginning. Not to say
that there was engineers that were involved in the acquisition.
It's just not those of us that are sitting here at the table
today.
So I apologize. We'll have to get back to you on the
questions specifically to the KC-X and the selection process
and the engineering criteria, analysis, and assumptions that
were used going into the selection process.
Senator Brownback. Let me ask General Clarke because it's
active duty, it's Guard and Reserve that fly a lot of these
tankers. Have you done, has your group done, an assessment of
what you're going to have to change spacewise, either landing
or hangars for the new aircraft?
General Clarke. No, sir, not at the National Guard Bureau
level. But the States themselves obviously once they heard
about the selection started looking at their facilities and
started determining where they might fit in the source
selection after the announcement. To my knowledge, the National
Guard Bureau itself has not done any type of analysis like
that.
Senator Brownback. What have you heard back from the
States, though? If they are doing this assessment, then they
must have something that they've assessed.
General Clarke. I would say that most of them would tell
you that either tanker probably would not fit in their existing
facility. They're all built for KC-135 size or smaller type
aircraft. So I don't think that they would tell you that the
existing facilities would accommodate either tanker.
Senator Brownback. Have they said anything about the
bigger, the Airbus plane, since it is a bigger plane that it
will require more space or reinforcing of runways?
General Clarke. Yes, sir, in some locations that may be
true. I don't have any analysis, though, to back that up.
Senator Brownback. Have they told you that?
General Clarke. Only anecdotally. They have not come
forward with any metrics per se to say this is what we've
measured and looked at as far as weight on the ramp, taxiways
and things that you brought up, sir.
Senator Brownback. They have done no official assessment?
General Clarke. To my knowledge, no, sir.
Senator Brownback. General, this seems kind of odd to me.
This is a $40 billion contract and it's not been hidden from
the public. So it's kind of known. And it's a bigger plane, and
your guys know how to handle planes.
General Clarke. Yes, sir.
Senator Brownback. I've got a group of them in my State who
do a fabulous job. So I've got to think they've been all over
this thing about now, where are we going to put this thing? And
you've got no assessment?
General Clarke. To my knowledge, no, sir, we don't. No,
sir.
Senator Brownback. Now, that seems to be intentional, that
you have no assessment.
General Clarke. Intentional on the part of the National
Guard Bureau, sir?
Senator Brownback. Yes.
General Clarke. Oh, no, sir, not at all.
Senator Brownback. Does that make sense to you, that you're
going to have a big new plane and you haven't assessed where
you're going to put it?
General Clarke. To my knowledge, sir, we were never given
any direction to go look at this. We don't have any funding to
go out and send teams to analyze it. We don't have any way to
do this at the base level other than maybe just to do an
overprint of the size of the aircraft against existing
facilities.
Senator Brownback. Have you made a request for that
assessment to be done?
General Clarke. No, sir. No, sir.
Senator Brownback. Why not?
General Clarke. Sir, we're going to work with the Air Force
and the Air Mobility Command when they finally make the
selection of where we're going to put these aircraft in their
road map. But at this time it would be speculative to say where
these airplanes are actually going to go at this time. We have
no idea where they might be bedded down.
Senator Brownback. Well, I guess I would--I'm sitting here
on a MILCON committee thinking there's going to be a big price
tag on this and you guys are going to submit it. And it seems
like we ought to have it as part of the overall estimate,
because either plane is going to be different than your current
one. So that you would think you would do an assessment, here's
what it would be for the Boeing, the 767, and here's what it's
going to be for the Airbus A-330; and that you would have that
so you would know, because these are going to be in a lot of
bases in this country and a lot of bases around the world. My
guys, they're going all the time.
So I'd kind of think you would do that now.
Ms. Ferguson. My understanding is that was done as part of
the source selection evaluation. It just was done by a
different group than the three of us up here, and MILCON cost
were considered as one of the factors in their evaluation. But
we will have to get the level that that was provided and the
information, whatever the acquisition selection team can
provide, and get that back to you.
Senator Brownback. But none of you were involved in this?
Ms. Ferguson. None of the three of us were involved.
Senator Brownback. Why weren't you involved? I mean, you
would be the ones to be in charge of doing it, right?
Ms. Ferguson. We work the execution piece. We typically
don't get involved in the selection of the new weapons systems.
We work the beddown piece, but we don't get involved in the up-
front end.
Senator Brownback. When you come back for all the upgrades
on this, I may have some real questions for you then, too, of
why we weren't preparing for the billions on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Johnson. I would like to thank all our witnesses
for their appearances before the subcommittee today. We look
forward to working with you this year as the 2009 budget
process continues.
For the information of subcommittee members, if you have
questions for the record that you would like to submit please
do so by the close of business on May 15, 2008.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
fydp cutbacks
Question. As I noted at the hearing, I am deeply concerned over the
declining level of military construction funding requested for the Air
Guard and Air Force Reserve. The Future Years Defense Plans (FYDPs),
for the Guard and Reserve have been severely cut; over the next 5
years, the Air Guard has proposed only 40 projects, or an average of 8
per year. The Air Force Reserve has proposed only 13 projects, an
average of less than 3 per year. By the Senate's rules, we cannot
appropriate money for projects that are not in the Services' FYDPs.
Thus, even if Congress wants to increase funding for the Guard and
Reserve above the request, there are very few eligible projects to put
money toward.
Why have the FYDPs for the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve been cut
back so drastically? Whose decision was that?
Answer. Air Force leadership corporately decided to take risk in
infrastructure in order to fund higher priority requirements, such as
modernizing and recapitalizing our aging aircraft fleet. This decision
reduced the total Air Force Military Construction program greatly over
the fiscal year 2009-2013 FYDP. Corporately we are taking steps to
change how Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Military
Construction projects are allocated which will increase the number of
Guard and Reserve Military Construction projects in the FYDP.
guard and reserve construction requirements
Question. Please provide the Committee with a list of Guard and
Reserve military construction (MILCON) requirements that have been left
out of the FYDP.
Answer. In order to recapitalize and modernize the fleet, the Air
Force started ``taking risk in infrastructure'' in the fiscal year 2008
President's Budget (PB), which resulted in a reduced MILCON FYDP. With
a larger FYDP, all components would have been able to list more MILCON
projects. Using the fiscal year 2006 PB as a representative size FYDP,
the additional Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve projects may
have included the projects below in the current FYDP.
The Air National Guard MILCON projects highlighted below represent
those projects that may have been included in a larger FYDP ($350.6
million). The other projects listed below are additional Air National
Guard MILCON requirements (part of the overall MILCON backlog).
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Project Title Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL...................................... MONTGOMERY................ TFI-Replace Squadron Ops 8.9
Facility.
AL...................................... MONTGOMERY................ Replace Fuel Cell/ 7.8
Corrosion Control.
AR...................................... FORT SMITH................ Repl Civil Engineer 9.0
Complex.
AZ...................................... DAVIS MONTHAN............. TFI-Predator Beddown--FOC. 6.7
AZ...................................... FORT HUACHUCA............. TFI-Predator LRE Beddown.. 11.0
CA...................................... SCLA...................... TFI-Predator FTU LRE 8.4
Beddown.
CO...................................... BUCKLEY................... ADALWpn Rel Shp, Bldg 805. 3.3
CT...................................... BRADLEY................... TFI-cNAF Beddown.......... 9.2
DE...................................... NEW CASTLE................ Replace Fuel Cell Hangar.. 11.2
DE...................................... NEW CASTLE................ Replace Acft Maintenance 11.6
Shops.
DE...................................... NEW CASTLE................ Joint Forces Ops--ANG 1.5
Share.
DE...................................... NEW CASTLE................ Replace Maintenance Shops. 11.2
FL...................................... MACDILL................... Construct Vehicle 2.6
Maintenance Facility.
GA...................................... SAVANNAH.................. Relocate ASOS............. 7.7
HI...................................... HICKAM.................... TFI-F-22 Hangar, Squad Ops 48.0
and AMU.
HI...................................... HICKAM.................... TFI09F0922 Weapons Load 7.0
Crew.
HI...................................... HICKAM.................... TFI09F0922 Upgrade 18.0
Munitions.
HI...................................... HICKAM.................... TFI09F0922 Infrastructure 6.7
Support.
HI...................................... HICKAM.................... TFI09F0922 Flight Sim 19.0
Facility.
HI...................................... HICKAM.................... TFI09F22-Aircraft Parking 12.0
Apron.
IA...................................... DES MOINES................ Replace Comm Facility..... 5.9
IA...................................... DES MOINES................ ADAL Security Forces...... 4.6
IL...................................... CAPITAL................... Relocate Base Entrance.... 6.1
IL...................................... CAPITAL................... TFI09cNAF Beddown......... 12.4
IN...................................... FORT WAYNE................ ASE and GP Shop Addn...... 4.2
IN...................................... FORT WAYNE................ Add To Fire/Crash/Rescue.. 2.0
IN...................................... HULMAN.................... TFI09ASOS beddown......... 4.4
KS...................................... FORBES.................... Replace Squad Ops Facility 9.5
KS...................................... MCCONNELL................. TFI-Expand DCGS Facilities 8.9
KY...................................... LOUISVILLE................ TFI09CRG Facility......... 7.1
LA...................................... HAMMOND................... Upgrade Comm and Supp Fac. 5.0
LA...................................... NEW ORLEANS............... Replace Security Forces 5.2
Fac.
MA...................................... BARNES.................... ADAL Aircraft Maintenance 10.6
Hangar.
MA...................................... OTIS...................... TFI09cNAF Beddown......... 4.7
MA...................................... MILFORD................... Joint Forces Headquarters-- 1.5
ANG Share.
MD...................................... MARTIN STATE.............. Composite Trng Facility... 6.5
MD...................................... ANDREWS................... Replace Munitions Storage 14.0
complex.
ME...................................... BANGOR.................... Add/Alter Fire Crash/ 5.1
Rescue.
ME...................................... BANGOR.................... Replace KC09135 Hangar and 28.0
Shops.
MI...................................... SELFRIDGE................. ADAL Squad Ops............ 9.3
MI...................................... W K KELLOGG............... TFI09cNAF Beddown......... 9.2
MN...................................... DULUTH.................... Load Crew Trng/Weapons 8.0
Release.
MN...................................... MINN ST PAUL.............. Aircraft De-icing Apron... 1.5
MO...................................... WHITEMAN.................. TFI09B092 Ops and Trng.... 6.4
MO...................................... LAMBERT................... TFI09cNAF Beddown......... 8.4
MS...................................... JACKSON................... Security Forces/med 7.7
training.
MS...................................... KEY FIELD................. TFI09cNAF Beddown and 17.0
AFFOR.
NC...................................... STANLY.................... Upgrade ASOS Complex...... 2.4
NE...................................... LINCOLN................... Joint Forces Headquarters-- 1.5
ANG Share.
NH...................................... PEASE..................... Replace Squadron 9.8
Operations.
NJ...................................... MCGUIRE................... Replace Base Civil 9.5
Engineer.
NJ...................................... MCGUIRE................... TFI--Upgrade CRG Facility. 4.2
NJ...................................... ATLANTIC CITY............. Dining Hall and Services 8.4
Facility.
NM...................................... KIRTLAND.................. ADAL Security Forces Bldg 1.7
1062.
NV...................................... CREECH.................... TFI09UAS Squad Ops........ 2.2
NY...................................... GABRESKI.................. Communications Facility... 5.8
NY...................................... STEWART................... Security Forces/Mobility 9.5
Fac.
NY...................................... FT DRUM................... TFI-Reaper LRE Beddown.... 2.0
OH...................................... TOLEDO.................... Small Arms Range.......... 4.0
OH...................................... TOLEDO.................... Construct Band Facility... 2.0
OH...................................... TOLEDO.................... Repl Sec Forces Complex... 8.5
OH...................................... TOLEDO.................... Replace Fire/Crash/Rescue 5.4
Station.
OH...................................... TOLEDO.................... Munitions Storage Complex. 11.6
OR...................................... KLAMATH................... Security Forces Facility.. 5.0
OR...................................... KLAMATH................... Add to Fire/Crash/Rescue 1.5
Station.
PA...................................... WILLOW.................... TFI09cNAF Beddown......... 9.2
RI...................................... QUONSET................... Medical Training/Dining 9.9
Hall.
SC...................................... MCENTIRE.................. Joint Forces HQ-ANG Share. 1.3
SC...................................... MCENTIRE.................. Wastewater Treatment 1.5
Facility.
SC...................................... MCENTIRE.................. Expand Arm/Dearm Pad...... 3.0
SC...................................... MCENTIRE.................. Construct CATS and CATM... 1.3
TN...................................... MEMPHIS................... BCE Maintenance/Training 7.4
Complex.
TN...................................... NASHVILLE................. TFI-Intel Squadron 6.0
Facility.
TN...................................... NASHVILLE................. TFI-Establish C-130 FTU... 6.3
TX...................................... ELLINGTON................. Security Forces Facility.. 5.5
TX...................................... ELLINGTON................. TFI09ASOS Beddown......... 6.8
TX...................................... TBD....................... TFI-Predator LRE beddown.. 7.0
TX...................................... FORT WORTH NAS JRB........ ECM Shop Addition, B1675.. 1.1
UT...................................... SALT LAKE................. Upgrade ESC Complex....... 8.8
UT...................................... SALT LAKE................. Replace Composite Fire 12.0
Station.
VA...................................... LANGLEY................... TFI09F0922 Ops and Trng 6.5
Fac.
VT...................................... BURLINGTON................ ADAL Fire Crash/Rescue 5.8
Station.
WI...................................... GEN MITCHELL.............. Upgrade Corrosion Control 4.7
Hangar.
WI...................................... VOLK FLD.................. Replace Troop Trng 9.8
Quarters.
WV...................................... SHEPHERD FLD.............. C095 Aircraft Upgrade 10.0
Taxiways.
WV...................................... SHEPHERD FLD.............. C095 Avionics Shop........ 4.3
WV...................................... YEAGER.................... AGE and Security Complex.. 11.0
WV...................................... YEAGER.................... Replace Communications 5.4
Training Facility.
WY...................................... CHEYENNE.................. Vehicle Maint & Deploy 7.5
Process.
---------------
TOTAL............................. .......................... .......................... 681.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Air Force Reserve MILCON projects highlighted below represent
those projects that may have been included in a larger FYDP ($153.6
million). The other projects listed below are additional Air Force
Reserve MILCON requirements (part of the overall MILCON backlog).
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Project Title Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL...................................... Maxwell................... AERIAL PORT SQUADRON 4.9
FACILITY.
AL...................................... Maxwell................... AIRCRAFT PARKING RAMP..... 15.7
AL...................................... Maxwell................... LOGISTICS/AGE/AVIONICS 4.3
FACILITY.
AL...................................... Maxwell................... SHORTFIELD RUNWAY......... 12.9
AL...................................... Maxwell................... SQUADRON OPERATIONS/OG/OSF 7.0
FACILITY.
AZ...................................... Luke...................... AEROMEDICAL STAGING 4.7
SQUADRON FACILITY.
CA...................................... Travis.................... C17 & C5 ALTER FOR RESERVE 5.0
TRAINING FACILITY.
CA...................................... March..................... INDOOR SMALL ARMS FIRING 5.9
RANGE.
CA...................................... March..................... JOINT REGIONAL DEPLOYMENT 7.0
CARGO CENTER.
CA...................................... Beale..................... 940 ARW CONSOLIDATED 4.2
TRAINING FACILITY.
CA...................................... Travis.................... COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING 2.3
FACILITY.
CA...................................... Travis.................... AIRLIFT CONTROL FLIGHT 2.4
TRAINING FACILITY.
CA...................................... March..................... RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 10.9
CA...................................... Travis.................... RESERVE RECRUITING 2.2
SQUADRON.
CA...................................... March..................... WIDEN TAXIWAY A........... 9.1
CA...................................... March..................... CONTROL TOWER............. 10.3
CA...................................... March..................... C-17 ASSAULT STRIP........ 7.9
CA...................................... March..................... CLEAR ZONE DRAINAGE....... 10.1
CA...................................... March..................... UNDERWING HIGH EXPANSION 3.1
FOAM (HEF) SYSTEM.
CO...................................... Peterson.................. SECURITY FORCES FACILITY.. 5.0
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. DINING FACILITY........... 6.0
FL...................................... Patrick................... MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP 10.0
COMPLEX.
FL...................................... Patrick................... WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY 10.5
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. ENTRY CONTROL COMPLEX..... 9.5
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. ADD/ALTER COMMAND POST 2.1
BUILDING 360.
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 3.2
DISPOSAL FACILITY.
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. AERIAL PORT SQUADRON 6.7
FACILITY.
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. ADD VISITING QUARTERS 3.9
BUILDING 410.
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. STORAGE FACILITY OPS/MX... 2.3
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 11.0
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 11.0
FL...................................... Homestead ARB............. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 11.0
GA...................................... Dobbins................... FIRE STATION AND SECURITY 10.2
COMPLEX.
GA...................................... Dobbins................... WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY 4.3
GA...................................... Dobbins................... FITNESS CENTER............ 4.0
GA...................................... Dobbins................... RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 16.5
PHASE 1.
GA...................................... Dobbins................... RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 16.5
PHASE 2.
GA...................................... Dobbins................... RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 15.5
PHASE 3.
GA...................................... Dobbins................... PURCHASE AICUZ CLEAR ZONES 34.0
GA...................................... Dobbins................... EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 3.1
DISPOSAL FACILITY.
GA...................................... Robins.................... HQ AFRC COMPLEX PHASE 1... 100.0
GA...................................... Robins.................... HQ AFRC COMPLEX PHASE 2... 50.0
HI...................................... Hickam.................... 624 RSG HQ FACILITY....... 12.2
IN...................................... Grissom................... ADD/ALTER AIRCRAFT 9.8
MAINTENANCE HANGAR.
IN...................................... Grissom................... SECURITY FORCES SQUADRON 7.4
FACILITY.
KS...................................... McConnell................. RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY 1.6
931 ARG.
LA...................................... Barksdale................. B-52 FUEL CELL MAINTENANCE 12.8
DOCK.
LA...................................... Barksdale................. WING TRAINING FACILITY.... 2.8
MA...................................... Westover.................. SQUADRON OPERATIONS 10.0
FACILITY.
MA...................................... Westover.................. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 10.5
MA...................................... Westover.................. WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY 8.4
MA...................................... Westover.................. INDOOR SMALL ARMS FIRING 6.7
RANGE.
MA...................................... Westover.................. DINING FACILITY........... 7.7
MA...................................... Westover.................. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 10.8
MA...................................... Westover.................. AEROMEDICAL STAGING 5.2
SQUADRON FACILITY.
MA...................................... Westover.................. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 7.7
MA...................................... Westover.................. RESERVE LODGING FACILITY.. 10.0
MA...................................... Westover.................. PAVEMENTS AND GROUNDS 3.7
FACILITY.
MA...................................... Westover.................. OVERRUNS AND SHOULDERS 4.7
RUNWAY 15/33.
MA...................................... Westover.................. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 6.3
FACILITY.
MA...................................... Westover.................. LAND ACQUISITION BASE 4.0
PERIMETER.
MN...................................... Minn-St Paul.............. AERIAL PORT SQUADRON 7.5
FACILITY.
MN...................................... Minn-St Paul.............. PARKING RAMP--VEHICLE..... 11.0
MO...................................... Whiteman.................. MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE 2.2
FACILITY.
NC...................................... Seymour Johnson........... OPERATIONS GROUP FACILITY. 6.3
NC...................................... Seymour Johnson........... COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRON 5.6
FACILITY.
NJ...................................... McGuire................... AIRLIFT CONTROL FLIGHT 3.9
FACILITY.
NJ...................................... McGuire................... ADD/ALTER WING 5.7
HEADQUARTERS BLDG 2217.
NJ...................................... McGuire................... CIVIL ENGINEER TRAINING 6.4
FACILITY.
NY...................................... Niagara Falls............. RESERVE APRON............. 13.3
NY...................................... Niagara Falls............. AFRC/ANG BASE OPERATIONS 3.3
FACILITY.
OH...................................... Youngstown................ RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 9.4
PHASE 3.
OH...................................... Youngstown................ INDOOR SMALL ARMS FIRING 9.4
RANGE.
OH...................................... Youngstown................ MISSION SUPPORT COMPLEX... 4.4
OH...................................... Youngstown................ SECURITY FORCES SQUADRON 4.0
FACILITY.
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 9.2
PHASE 1.
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY 9.8
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 8.6
PHASE 2.
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ MODIFIED SMALL FITNESS 6.1
CENTER.
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ ADD/ALTER WEST APRON 9.1
REPLACEMENT.
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ DINING FACILITY, 17.5
RECREATION CENTER AND
RESERVE LODGING--PHASE 3.
PA...................................... Pittsburgh................ RESERVE LODGING FACILITY-- 13.0
PHASE 4.
SC...................................... Charleston................ ADD/ALTER AEROMEDICAL 2.5
FACILITY.
SC...................................... Charleston................ RED HORSE HQ AND 3.5
ENGINEERING FACILITY.
SC...................................... Charleston................ ADD/ALTER 315TH SQUADRON 4.3
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
SC...................................... Charleston................ RED HORSE AIR FIELDS AND 8.6
VEHICLE MAINT.
TX...................................... Lackland.................. 433 AW HQ FACILITY........ 5.8
TX...................................... Lackland.................. CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE 15.2
FACILITY.
UT...................................... Hill...................... RESERVE TRAINING COMPLEX.. 5.5
UT...................................... Hill...................... AERIAL PORT SQUADRON 3.0
FACILITY.
WA...................................... McChord................... AEROMEDICAL STAGING 2.8
SQUADRON FACILITY.
---------------
TOTAL............................. .......................... .......................... 834.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
transition from cheyenne mountain to peterson afb, co
Question. Mr. Anderson, as you continue to transition from Cheyenne
Mountain to Building 2 at Peterson AFB, I'm concerned about force
protection. In the FYDP for fiscal year 2010, the Air Force has
included a plan to acquire 23 acres surrounding Building 2 specifically
for force protection. I have requested that the funding be made
available in fiscal year 2009, as I believe it to be a vital project
for Peterson. If this funding is not included for fiscal year 2009,
what are your plans to move forward with protecting the area
surrounding Building 2?
Answer. We are aware of the security concerns around building
number two at Peterson Air Force Base, CO. The 23-acre land acquisition
military construction (MILCON) project is part of the solution to
provide force protection. We are currently in the process of building
our fiscal year 2010-2015 Program Objective Memorandum. The Air Force
Corporate Structure will make every attempt to place its most urgent
MILCON requirements in the fiscal year 2010 MILCON program as part of
fiscal year 2010-2015 Program Objective Memorandum build and will
consider this project during its deliberations of the Air Force fiscal
year 2010-2015 MILCON program build.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Johnson. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, May 8, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]