Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the Active Army and Reserve Components’ military construction request for Fiscal Year 1999. This request will provide new and renovated facilities needed to improve Army readiness, quality of life and efficiency. These matters are of considerable importance to America’s Army, as well as this committee, and we appreciate the opportunity to report to you on them.

  Our statement is in four parts:

  PART I - MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE 

PART II - MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

NATIONAL GUARD 

PART III - MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE 

PART IV - BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

I am pleased to present the Active Army's portion of the Military Construction budget request for Fiscal Year 1999. This budget provides construction and family housing resources essential to support your Army’s role in our National Military Strategy.  

The program presented requests Fiscal Year 1999 authorization of appropriations for Military Construction, Army (MCA) of $790,876,000, $1,208,173,000 for Army Family Housing (AFH) and $12,800,000 for Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense. The Fiscal Year 1999 request for authorization is $1,134,753,000 for MCA, $1,209,812,000 for AFH and $12,800,000 for Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense. The companion request for appropriations in Fiscal Year 1999 includes $790,876,000 for MCA, $1,208,173,000 for AFH and $12,800,000 for Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.  

The Army is a "Total Force." We are an institution with people as its core. We are comprised of Active Duty, National Guard, Army Reserve, civilian employees, and family members serving our nation. We have served the United States with distinction, both at home and abroad, in peace and in war.  

The Army has evolved to meet the challenges of today. Our prime mission remains constant: To fight and win the nation’s wars. However, the Total Army must also perform a wide variety of other missions around the world and at home, including deterring potential adversaries, reassuring and lending stability to allies and supporting our communities in times of emergency.

In the multitude of military operations since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Army has done our nation’s heavy lifting, accounting for over 60 percent of the forces committed to these operations. Deployed or stationed in over 100 countries in 1997, American soldiers and civilians helped shape the international environment by their presence and by carrying the values of our Army and the nation with them. 

The Total Army is a more streamlined force, capable of projecting power from installations either in the United States or from forward deployed bases, and of operating effectively with a broad range of allies or coalition partners. America’s Army is a busy Army. On any given day in 1997, the Army had on average over 31,000 Active and Reserve soldiers and civilians deployed in over 70 countries. In May, we were deployed to over 100 countries for the first time in Army’s history. Soldiers who were deployed on contingency deployments, operational deployments, and non-local training exercises were away from their home stations for an average of 197 days in Fiscal Year 1997.  

Supporting the increased tempo of the post-Cold War requires a Total Army effort. In Bosnia, approximately 25 percent of the Army forces are from the Army Reserve and National Guard. A civilian contingent also provides needed support to our Army in Bosnia. Reserve Component soldiers also augmented active duty soldiers in Macedonia, participated in a wide range of training deployments and exercises, and provided essential backfill to critical support functions in Germany to replace active units that were deployed elsewhere. In day-to-day operations abroad and at home, the collective efforts of Active, Guard, Reserve and civilian members contribute to the success of the Total Army.

In order to continue to undertake our diverse missions, it is imperative that we achieve a predictable environment in the Army. To successfully meet these increasing operational commitments while simultaneously maintaining readiness, we require stability - in force structure, quality of life, installations and funding available to carry out our missions.

An imperative to maintaining a trained and ready Army is taking care of our soldiers and families. People are the defining characteristic of a quality force and are the overarching nucleus of our Army. Our numerous and diverse operations require soldiers who are skilled, well-trained and well-led. They must be capable of adapting to complex, dangerous and ever-changing situations. High caliber quality of life programs are essential to ensuring that the Army continues to attract and retain the soldiers necessary to maintain the Total Army. We must continue to focus on issues important to these men and women who so bravely serve the nation. Programs like the Whole Barracks Renewal, Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Army Family Action Plan and Army Communities of Excellence remain key in our focus. 

Now, I would like to discuss the Army’s facilities strategy as we move toward the new millennium.  

 The Army’s facilities vision is to provide comprehensive, adaptable power projection platforms with the quality facilities, infrastructure and services that are integral to the readiness of the force and the quality of life of our soldiers and their families, while protecting the environment.  

The Army’s facilities strategy is threefold. First, because resources are limited, we must focus our investment on what is most important. To do this we must identify required facilities, infrastructure and services and then focus our resources on those to assure the desired level of readiness. Second, we must divest of all unneeded real property. Third, we must reduce the total cost required to support our facilities and related services, including maintenance of our real property inventory.

  As part of our effort to better focus our investment, we have developed a decision support tool, the Installation Status Report (ISR), Part One (Infrastructure) to help formulate and monitor our facilities strategy. We use it to assess the status of our facilities’ condition. This identifies critical areas for consideration of resource allocation. Also, it assists in condition assessment of our facilities essential to the installation’s mission and quality of life.

 We are reducing our requirement by rigorously eliminating excess facilities. Between our current facilities reduction program and base realignment and closure, we will eliminate over 200,000,000 square feet in the United States by 2003. We continue to demolish one square foot for every square foot constructed and will begin reducing our leasing costs significantly in Fiscal Year 1998. By 2003, with our overseas reductions included, the Army will have eliminated over 400,000,000 square feet from its Fiscal Year 1990 peak of 1,157,700,000 square feet.

We are looking for innovative ways to reduce the cost of our facilities, including privatization or competitive sourcing of certain functions. It is proving an effective solution for installation utilities systems. Our goal is to privatize all utility systems, except those needed for unique security reasons, where it is economically feasible by 2000. Privatization is also being considered to provide better housing for soldiers and their families while reducing the Army’s inventory. Partnering with civilian communities around an installation to provide some facilities is also a viable alternative to Army owned facilities.

 Over the period 1999-2003, the Army plans to achieve over $1,000,000,000 in estimated savings from our Major Commands with U.S. installations to provide additional resources for modernization and other high priorities. These reductions are based on estimated savings derived from performing A-76 cost competition studies of commercial activities comprising over 50,000 positions during Fiscal Years 1999-2003. The Army’s primary challenge is to accomplish these cost effective measures as soon as possible.

 At this time, I will discuss several of the highlights of the budget.   

Within our military construction request, we focus on four major categories of projects: mission facilities; quality of life projects; support programs such as infrastructure and environmental projects; and chemical demilitarization, for which the funding was transferred from the Military Construction, Defense account to the Military Construction, Army program as a result of the Defense Reform Initiative. I will now explain our request for each of these areas. 

In Fiscal Year 1999 there are nine mission facility projects totaling $112,450,000. Essential mission facilities include several initiatives such as the Army Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP), Close Combat Tactical Training (CCTT) facilities, and the relocation of the U.S. Southern Command from Panama.  

ARMY STRATEGIC MOBILITY PROGRAM: Fiscal Year 1999 continues the upgrade of the strategic mobility infrastructure we started several years ago. This program ensures that we maintain the best power projection platforms to meet the mission of the Army.  

Fiscal Year 1999 includes an upgrade to air deployment facilities at Fort Bragg, $30,000,000. We are requesting full authorization and advance appropriation of the railhead loading facility at Fort Hood, $32,500,000 with authorization of appropriations and appropriations for Phase I at $17,500,000. Also included are container and MILVAN loading and shipping facilities for McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, $10,800,000; Tooele Army Depot, $3,900,000; Anniston Army Depot, $3,550,000; Bluegrass Depot Activity, $5,300,000; and Phase 2 at Crane Army Ammunition Activity, $7,100,000.

CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINERS: CCTT facilities leverage technology to enhance training and maintain readiness through a group of fully interactive, networked emulators and command, control and communications work stations. The first CCTT became operational in 1997 and provides a long-term, cost-effective option to field exercises, thereby reducing our reliance on field exercises as the single method for combined arms training. The budget request includes one facility in Fiscal Year 1999 at Fort Lewis, $7,600,000. This request completes the CCTT construction program.  

RELOCATION OF UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND: The Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 mandates that all U.S. military forces relocate out of the Republic of Panama by December 31, 1999. Plans have been developed for the acquisition of the Miami facility for Headquarters, U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) to ensure uninterrupted accomplishment of theater responsibilities. Based on current estimates, our Fiscal Year 1999 budget requests $26,700,000 for the purchase of a headquarters building and land acquisition for force protection. Purchase of the building and land complies with the administration’s position on acquisition of capital assets for the long term.  

The Army remains committed to improving the quality of life of our soldiers and their families, since it has a dominant impact on the Army’s readiness. Over 40 percent of the Fiscal Year 1999 request is for projects in this category. This substantial effort will maintain our goal to improve our unaccompanied living facilities by 2012. In CONUS, we will provide upgraded or new living facilities to our single personnel by the year 2008, while overseas, we will complete the renewal by 2012. Overseas, we are continuing our investment strategy to address long-standing shortfalls in both Korea and Europe. Our programs reflect significant funding levels for quality of life programs in line with the Department of Defense’s emphasis in this area.

WHOLE BARRACKS RENEWAL INITIATIVE: The Army’s Whole Barracks Renewal program provides funding for new construction and modernization projects. It represents our efforts to provide our single soldiers with a quality living environment, not just a place to live. We will provide more space, more privacy and a quality of life for our single soldiers that is comparable to living off the installation or that of our married soldiers. The Whole Barracks Renewal program includes personal privacy, larger rooms, closets, upgraded day rooms, centrally procured furnishings, additional parking, landscaping and administrative offices separated from the barracks. In Fiscal Year 1999, we are planning twelve projects totaling $306,857,000. This includes one project in Europe at $18,000,000 and four projects in Korea at $45,926,000 to address the substandard living conditions there. Our budget also expands and funds the completion of the Fort Sill barracks renewal complex, $20,500,000, that was authorized in Fiscal Year 1998. We are requesting an additional $3,500,000 authorization to complete the project due to an increased price estimate of the total cost to build the barracks complex.  

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS. Two child development centers (CDC) are requested in Fiscal Year 1999, one in Germany at $4,250,000, and the other in Belgium, $6,300,000. These facilities are currently located in temporary, makeshift collection of prefabricated structures that are 20 to 26 years old. The CDCs do not comply with minimum fire safety and health standards and cannot be modified to meet the standards. Constant and intense repair and maintenance are required to keep the facilities operational.  

Included in this area are those projects which provide vital support to installations and balance to the military construction program. In Fiscal Year 1999, we have requested fourteen projects totaling $163,450,000 in this budget area. Projects include three projects at Yakima Training Center - a central fuel facility, $3,950,000; a central vehicle washrack expansion, $4,650,000; and a road upgrade project to comply with the environmental mitigation plan, $2,000,000 - to support stationing and training of the heavy brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington. One project is requested for Fort Irwin: completion of the construction of a heliport at Barstow-Daggett for the National Training Center. The total cost of this project is $27,000,000; however, all but $7,000,000 is authorized and funded in prior years. Construction of the National Ground Intelligence Center at Charlottesville, Virginia, $46,200,000, is in Fiscal Year 1999. Authorization of appropriations and appropriations is requested for the first phase, $12,600,000, of a power plant for Kwajalein Atoll, with full authorization of $48,600,000 and advance appropriation of $36,000,000. Construction of the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks, begun in Fiscal Year 1998 continues with an authorization of appropriations and appropriations request for Phase II at $29,000,000 and a request for advance appropriations of $13,000,000 for the final phase in Fiscal Year 2000. Phase 2 of the Missile Software Engineering Annex, begun in Fiscal Year 1998, is also included. We are requesting authorization of appropriations and appropriations of $13,600,000 to complete the project.

 There are four other projects at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Sill, Fort Detrick, Rock Island Arsenal for infrastructure and revitalization in the United States totaling $27,850,000. Now, let me discuss the project we have requested at the United States Military Academy.

In accordance with the recent Defense Reform Initiative Report, all program funding will be devolved from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the Department of the Army beginning in Fiscal Year 1999. Authorization for $404,777,000 is required for the Chem Demil program which includes the balance of needed authorization for projects previously approved in prior years and full authorization for new projects. A total of $125,300,000 is included in the Army’s Fiscal Year 1999 authorization of appropriations and appropriations submission for this activity. In addition, advance appropriation of $418,050,000 is requested to complete the projects. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Ammun Demil Support Facility $ 1,850,000

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Ammun Demil Facility $26,500,000

Newport Army Depot, IN Ammun Demil Support Facility $ 2,000,000

Newport Army Depot, IN Ammun Demil Facility $27,500,000

Pine Bluff Army Depot, AR Ammun Demil Facility $16,500,000

 The Fiscal Year 1999 MCA budget includes $41,819,000 for planning and design. This request is based on the size of the two succeeding fiscal year military construction programs. The requested amount will be used to complete design on Fiscal Year 2000 projects and to initiate design on Fiscal Year 2001 projects. The size of the Fiscal Year 1999 request is, therefore, a function of the Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001 construction programs.  

Host Nation Support (HNS) Planning and Design (P&D). The Army, as Executive Agent, provides HNS P&D for oversight of Host Nation funded design and construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees the design and construction to ensure the facilities meet our requirements and standards. The Fiscal Year 1998 Congressional reduction in HNS P&D is causing turmoil and necessitating the curtailment of oversight execution. Lack of oversight may result in an increase in design errors and construction deficiencies that will require U.S. dollars to rectify. Maintaining the funding level for this mission results in a payback where one dollar of U.S. funding gains $60 worth of Host Nation Construction. The Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for $20,450,000 will provide oversight for approximately $1 billion of construction in Japan, $100 million in Korea and $52 million in Europe. The budget includes $2,000,000 which is dedicated to the oversight of facilities associated with the Government of Japan (GOJ) funded initiative to consolidate and relocate U.S. Forces on Okinawa. The U.S. Government funding for this initiative is limited to $26.5 million over the next 11 years for costs associated with oversight of the design and construction of the facilities.  

Let me show you the analysis of our Fiscal Year 1999 request.  

BUDGET REQUEST ANALYSIS

SUMMARY. The Fiscal Year 1999 MCA budget includes a request for authorization of appropriations of $790,876,000 and companion appropriations request of $790,876,000.  

Authorization Request. The request for authorization is $1,134,753,000. The authorization of appropriations request is reduced by the authorization from Fiscal Year 1998 to fund the second phase of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, $29,000,000; the Software Engineering Annex at Redstone Arsenal, $13,600,000; and the remainder of the Whole Barracks Renewal Complex at Fort Sill, $17,000,000. Additionally, it is reduced by $44,573,000 for the Umatilla Ammunition Demilitarization project, based on prior year authorization. The request was increased to provide full authorization of: $85,000,000 for the U.S. Military Academy project to replace the Cadet Physical Development Center (only $12,000,000 in appropriations is required for the first phase of this project); $48,600,000 for the Roi Namur Power Plant, with appropriation of $12,600,000 required for the first phase; $32,500,000 for the railhead loading facility at Fort Hood, with appropriations of $17,500,000 for Phase 1 in Fiscal Year 1999; $184,500,000 for the Aberdeen Proving Ground Ammunition Demilitarization project, with appropriations of $26,500,000; $189,550,000 for the Newport Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization project, with appropriations of $27,500,000; and $20,500,000 for the Pine Bluff Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization project, with an appropriations request of $16,500,000.  

The Fiscal Year 1999 request for authorization of appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, by investment focus, is shown in TABLE 1: 

Whole Barracks Renewal $306,857,000 38.8

Strategic Mobility 78,150,000 9.9

Leadership Initiatives 72,900,000 9.2

Environmental 2,000,000 0.3

Critical Mission 133,400,000 16.9

Planning & Design/Minor Construction 72,269,000 9.1

Chemical Demilitarization $125,300,000 15.8

Table 2 shows the Fiscal Year 1999 distribution of the authorization of appropriations request among major Army commands.

AUTHORIZATION OF

($000) OF TOTAL

Forces Command 174,500 22.1

Training & Doctrine Command 119,831 15.2

U.S. Army, Pacific 47,500 6.0

Army Materiel Command 174,850 22.1

Medical Command 25,350 3.2

Intelligence & Security Cmd 46,200 5.8

U.S. Army, South 26,700 3.4

USMA 12,000 1.5

Classified Project 4,600 0.6

SUBTOTAL $631,531 79.9

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES 

Space & Missile Defense Cmd 12,600 1.6

Eighth, United States Army 45,926 5.8

United States Army, Europe 28,550 3.6

SUBTOTAL $ 87,076 11.0

Minor Construction 10,000 1.2

SUBTOTAL $ 72,269 9.1

Advance appropriation. With full authorization, a single contract can be awarded. Advance appropriations allows the Army to construct all phases of a project as a continuous project and minimizes any impact to the contractor due to the incremental funding. With advance appropriations, the contract will not define the work to be performed by the contractor, but only limit the work by the amount appropriated in a given year. Advance appropriations of $555,050,000 are requested for: the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, $13,000,000; the Roi Namur Power Plant, $36,000,000; the Fort Hood Railhead facility, $15,000,000; and the Cadet Physical Development Center, $73,000,000. Also included in the advance appropriations request are four Chem Demil projects at $418,050,000.

TABLE 3 

Redstone

Software Engr Anx 13.600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.000¹ 0

Fort Sill

Barracks Complex 20.500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.000² 3.500

Fort Leavenworth

USDB 29.000 13.000 0.0 0.0 13.000 63.000³ 0

Fort Hood

Railhead Fac 17.500 15.000 0.0 0.0 15.000 0 32.500

West Point

Cadet PDC 12.000 29.000 0.0 44.000 73.000 0 85.000

Kwajalein

Power Plant 12.600 36.000 0.0 0.0 36.000 0 48.600

Umatilla Facility 50.950 9.000 0.0 0.0 9.000 187.000 6.377

Pine Bluff Facility 16.500 72.000 17.000 0.0 89.000 134.000 20.500

Aberdeen Facility 26.500 58.500 85.000 14.500 158.000 0 184.500

Newport Facility 27.500 60.750 87.500 13.800 162.050 0 189.550

1/ $13 million was appropriated in FY98.

2/ $ 8 million was appropriated in FY98.

In an effort to manage our installation family housing program in a more business-like manner, the Army implemented the Business Occupancy Program. Under the terms of this program, family housing operating funds are allocated to our installations on the basis of housing units occupied rather than the total number of units in their inventory. This provides an incentive to more effectively and efficiently manage occupancy, since installation funding is now directly related to the number of units occupied. We have already seen an increase in occupancy rates. Army-wide average occupancy has increased from 86 percent when the program started in October 1995, to 89 percent at the end of September 1997, a 3 percent increase in two years. 

The authorities included in the 1996 Military Housing Privatization Initiative [called Capital Venture Initiative (CVI) in the Army] offer the best hope of revitalizing Army family housing and eliminating the deficit in the U.S. These authorities allow the Army to leverage housing appropriated funds and owned assets to gain private-sector capital and expertise to operate, manage, repair, improve, and construct family housing. Fort Carson, Colorado is the Army’s first CVI project. Our plan is to use these authorities wherever feasible and economical in the U.S. We are applying lessons learned from the Fort Carson project in the development of 26 additional family housing privatization projects. However, CVI authorities do not apply overseas, nor could they because we do not own the land or houses to leverage as we do in the U.S. Therefore, we have submitted a legislative proposal to pilot an Overseas Housing Authority (OHA) to help revitalize our overseas family housing. Analyses show that both of these efforts, CVI and OHA, can solve our Army family housing problems within 5-10 years, compared to 130-plus years under the current system.  

Our Fiscal Year 1999 request for authorization of appropriations is $1,208,173,000, while the authorization request is $1,209,812,000. This difference is due to funding several projects with prior year funds. Our request includes $103,440,000 for a modest replacement construction program for units no longer economical to revitalize, a modest revitalization program for our aging housing inventory, and a planning and design program for future construction projects. Funding for the annual costs of operating, maintaining, and leasing family housing in Fiscal Year 1999 is $1,104,733,000.  

TABLE 4 summarizes each of the categories of the Army Family Housing program. 

TABLE 4 - ARMY FAMILY HOUSING

FACILITY CATEGORY ($000) PERCENT ($000) PERCENT
New Construction 70,100 6% 68,461 6%

Post Acquisition Const 28,629 2% 28,629 2%

Planning and Design 6,350 <1% 6,350 <1%

Operations 184,254 15% 184,254 15%

Utilities 250,407 21% 250,407 20%

Maintenance 467,914 39% 467,914 39%

Leasing 202,155 17% 202,155 17%

Debt 3 <1% 3 <1% 

NEW CONSTRUCTION: The Fiscal Year 1999 new construction program provides WNR projects that replace 506 units at four locations where there is a continuing requirement for the housing and it is more economical to replace than renovate current housing. This replacement construction, which includes the supporting infrastructure, ensures that adequate housing is available for our soldiers and their families without adding to the current inventory. At each location, the housing being replaced will be demolished. Each project is supported with a housing survey showing that adequate and affordable units are not available in the community. 

POST ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION: The Post Acquisition Construction program is an integral part of our housing revitalization program. In Fiscal Year 1999, we are requesting funds for improvements to 514 units at two locations in the U.S. and two locations in Europe. Also included within the scope of each of these projects are efforts to improve supporting infrastructure and energy conservation, and to eliminate environmental hazards. 

The operations, utilities, maintenance and leasing programs comprise the majority of the Fiscal Year 1999 budget request. The requested amount of $1,104,733 for 1999 is nearly 92 percent of the family housing request. This budget provides for the Army's annual expenditures for operations, municipal-type services, furnishings, maintenance and repair, and utilities. The level of funding is below the level needed to protect the Army’s investment of the family housing inventory.  

The family housing utilities request reflects our success in reducing our energy consumption and supports the Army's energy conservation goal of a one and one half percent reduction in overall facility energy requirements. 

The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our military families. We are requesting $202,155,000 in Fiscal Year 1999 to fund existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic leases in the United States, and nearly 10,497 units overseas.  

The Army's total leasing program request supports approximately 14,600 units in Fiscal Year 1999 to satisfy requirements in the United States, Europe, Korea, and other locations. These are our high priority locations where providing flexible family housing solutions is essential to improving the quality of life of our families.

RPM consists of two major functional areas. The Maintenance and Repair of Real Property account pays to repair and maintain buildings, structures, roads and grounds, and utilities systems. The Minor Construction account pays for projects under $1 million which are intended solely to correct a life, health, or safety deficiency. It also funds projects under $500,000 per project for the erection, installation or assembly of a new facility, and for the addition, expansion, or alteration of an existing facility.

 Within the RPM program, there are two areas which I would like to highlight. The first is our Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP). At the completion of the Fiscal Year 1998 program, 48 percent of our requirement for permanent party barracks will meet or approximate the new Department of Defense (DoD) 1+1 barracks standard, 27 percent must still be revitalized or replaced through our Whole Barracks Renewal Program using Military Construction funding, while 25 percent can be modified to an approximate 1+1 standard using RPM resources. In Fiscal Year 1998, Congress provided the Army an additional $100 million in Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense (QOLE,D) funding for repair of facilities key to improving the quality of life of our soldiers. We have allocated all of these funds to bring more of our VOLAR era barracks inventory to the 1+1 standard within the Barracks Upgrade Program. Starting this Fiscal Year and through the completion of the program, the Army committed approximately $150 million per year to continue the efforts to upgrade our single soldiers’ quality of life. The Barracks Upgrade Program, when combined with the Whole Barracks Renewal program, is reducing significantly the amount of time required to improve the living conditions of our single soldiers to the current DoD standard. We expect that all barracks for permanent party soldiers will have been revitalized or replaced by the year 2012.

 The second area is our long range strategy to provide reliable and efficient utility services at our installations. As discussed earlier, privatization of utilities is the first part of our strategy. We are maximizing our efforts to partner with the local communities’ utility departments and private utility companies to provide utility services that are more efficient and reliable. We have already successfully transferred eleven utility systems to the private sector at nine installations. Additionally, seventeen other utility systems are currently in the process of being transferred and over one hundred systems are currently under study for privatization. The second part of the strategy is the utilities modernization program to help upgrade those utility systems that will not be privatized such as central heating plants and distribution systems. We have requested $60,000,000 for utility modernization projects in Fiscal Year 1999. Utility systems at unique or remote installations are particularly reliant on these modernization projects. We are also funding energy saving projects which will further improve our energy efficiency. We have allocated $40,000,000 per year for this effort to assist us in reducing our $1 billion utility bill.  

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE 

The Army is the executive agent for the Homeowners Assistance Program. This program provides assistance to homeowners by reducing their losses incident to the disposal of their homes when the military installations at or near where they are seerving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope of operations reduced. The Fiscal Year 1999 request is for authorization and authorization of appropriations of $12,800,000, along with a companion request for appropriations for the same amount. 

The request will provide assistance to personnel at approximately 25 locations that are impacted with either a base closure or a realignment of personnel resulting in adverse economic effects on local communities. The Homeowners Assistance Program is funded not only from the resources being requested in this budget, but is also dependent, in large part, on the revenue earned during the fiscal year from the sale of properties. 

SUMMARY 

Mr. Chairman, our Fiscal Year 1999 budget for military construction and Army family housing is an essential part of the total Army program to balance all Army programs affecting readiness and the support of our personnel. Our strategy can only be achieved through balanced funding, divestiture of excess capacity and improvements in management. We will continue to work toward maintaining the maximum flexibility for our installation commanders to use the resources available to them, to maintain maximum readiness and to provide the needed support and facilities. We will also continue to streamline, consolidate and establish community partnerships that generate resources for infrastructure improvements and continuance of services.

The Fiscal Year 1999 request for authorization of appropriations for Military Construction Army and Army Family Housing is $1,999,049,000 and $12,800,000 for the Homeowners Assistance Program. With approval of this request, we will continue to: improve our strategic mobilization posture, provide environmental compliant facilities, provide additional adequate housing for soldiers and their families, and meet statutory and regulatory requirements. This request will also provide for family housing leasing and operation and maintenance of the current inventory. Thank you for your continued support for Army facilities funding.

Next, I will present the Army National Guard’s Military Construction program for Fiscal Year 1999.

The Guard’s Fiscal Year 1999 request for military construction authorization and authorization of appropriations of $47,675,000 includes $42,581,000 for major construction, $4,548,000 for planning and design and $546,000 for unspecified minor construction. The companion request for appropriations is the same as the authorization request.

The Army National Guard is America’s community based, dual-use reserve force, "a trained and ready Citizen-Army," and, by statute, an integral part of the first line defense of the United States. The National Guard is manned with over 364,000 quality soldiers in over 2,700 communities nationwide.

Greater reliance is placed on this community based component of America’s Army. We are fully engaged in joint operational support, nation building, military-to-military contact with emerging democracies, and preventive deterrence to hedge against aggression. The Army National Guard’s equally vital role is providing assistance and support to our 54 States and Territories during domestic and community support missions. We have been an active participant in every major American conflict around the world. Last year we deployed 25,000 soldiers to 70 different countries, as well as provided 285,000 federal man-days of emergency services to the States.

The goal of the Army National Guard is to provide state-of-the-art, community based facilities that facilitate communications, operations, training and equipment maintenance in which to station, sustain, and deploy the force. By the end of the decade, our objective is to have the maximum number of units that are manned, trained, equipped, resourced and missioned for Federal as well as State and/or domestic requirements.

In order for the Army National Guard to ensure that it will continue to be able to provide the forces needed to meet the needs of the community, the Army, and the nation, it is a necessity that we have quality facilities. To reach this goal, we intend to design, implement, operate, and maintain our facilities using private sector standards, 21^st century technologies, and commercially available, off-the-shelf facilities software. This is a comprehensive program including but not limited to:

EDUCATION: An extensive training program for our facilities managers’ career field has been established. We want to ensure that these soldiers have the tools to meet our objectives.

MASTER PLANNING: Six States adopted a new State-wide master planning initiative in Fiscal Year 1997. This system will provide the user with a spatial decision support system which uses a geographic information system and computer automated design technology. An additional 12 States are planned to be on-line each year until all 54 States and Territories have completed their Master Plans by 2001.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT: State-of-the-art energy efficient facilities are being constructed. We are also upgrading existing facilities to current energy efficiency standards by funding energy projects from current operating funds, using Energy Savings Performance contracts, developing Energy Conservation Investment Program projects, and implementing energy improvement projects funded by utility companies. We manage an active energy audit program performing audits in seven to eight States per year. The plan calls for each State to train an energy manager and empower them to execute an aggressive energy management program.

DATA ANALYSIS: In Fiscal Year 1997 we began the implementation of computerized systems that allowed cost analysis of budget projections. The end product is an Army National Guard installations program focused on the future, investing to provide efficiencies and not just to repair past mistakes. This is reflected in our Fiscal Year 1999 budget request.

Within our military construction request, we focus on six investment areas: ranges, training facilities, maintenance support shops, readiness centers, minor construction, and planning and design. These projects are mission focused and are centered on the quality of life of our soldiers.

In Fiscal Year 1999 there are nine mission facility projects, totaling $42,581,000. Essential mission facilities include several initiatives such as readiness centers, training site modernization and maintenance facility revitalization.

TRAINING SITE MODERNIZATION: Fiscal Year 1999 continues the slow process of adapting existing State operated training sites to training strategies for the 21^st century. We have included an additional remote electronic targetry system range, $1,023,000, at Camp Ripley, Minnesota. This project greatly enhances the utilization and realism of the Camp Ripley range complex and will permit year round training in all types of weaponry for soldiers of all components in all Services.

MAINTENANCE FACILITY: In Fiscal Year 1999 we have included two revitalization projects, and one replacement project to continue the revitalization of Army National Guard maintenance facilities.

In particular, we will replace a Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS) at Papago Park Military Reservation, Arizona. The current CSMS, built in 1961, is one third the size needed to accommodate the State’s military equipment. It also requires extensive upgrades to electrical and mechanical systems. The construction of this facility will greatly enhance the readiness posture of equipment in the State, and will provide a safe working environment for employees. In addition, the State, using their own funds, plans to convert the existing facility into a Readiness Center for one of their maintenance units.

READINESS CENTERS: A critical focal point of Quality of Life is the Readiness Center. This is where America may have its first and only exposure to the military. The Readiness Center of yesterday, today and tomorrow is a place where the public seeks and finds refuge in times of need. Therefore, in Fiscal Year 1999, we have included in our budget request three readiness centers, two new facilities and one addition/ alteration, totaling $11,124,000.

This MCNG budget request includes a request for authorization and appropriation of $47,675,000 in Fiscal Year 1999.

The Fiscal Year 1999 authorization request, by investment focus, is shown in TABLE 1:

Maintenance Support Shops 24,262,000 50.9 Readiness Centers 11,124,000 23.3 Training Facilities 6,172,000 12.9

Minor Construction 546,000 1.2 Planning and Design 4,548,000 9.5 TOTAL $47,675,000 100.0

TABLE 2 shows the Fiscal Year 1999 distribution of the authorization request:

The States will continue to prudently manage their existing facilities, despite the challenges of age and shrinking real property support funding. They are committed to executing the programs you authorize as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible. Facilities built during the last decade have played major roles in meeting force structure changes, accomplishing quality training, maintaining readiness, and improving soldier quality of life.

The operation and maintenance of our physical plant is an issue of concern. The replacement value of all National Guard facilities exceeds $18 billion. Their average age is 35 years. States take care of these facilities using the limited resources in Real Property Maintenance accounts, as authorized and appropriated by Congress.

They do so, however, in a way appropriate to their unique Federal/State status. The National Guard Bureau does not own, operate, or maintain these facilities. The States, Territories, and Commonwealths perform these functions. The National Guard Bureau transfers to the States money that Congress authorizes and appropriates for this purpose. This money supports critical training, aviation and logistical facilities. For almost half of these facilities, the States, Territories and Commonwealths must contribute at least 25 percent of operations and repair costs.

The States, Territories, and Commonwealths then pay the utility bills, hire those reimbursed employees necessary to operate and maintain these facilities, buy the supplies necessary for operations and maintenance, and contract for renovation and construction projects. They also lease facilities when required. The Construction and Facility Management Offices are making a herculean effort to operate and maintain all National Guard facilities.

The National Guard is a critical part of America’s Army. Today’s challenges are not insurmountable and the National Guard will continue to provide the best facilities with the resources made available. The soldiers of the Army National Guard wish to express their appreciation for the efforts that this subcommittee has made in the past to support our requirements. We look forward to working with you this year.

Next, I will present the Army Reserve's military construction budget request for Fiscal Year 1999. This budget provides essential military construction resources to address the Army Reserve’s highest priority projects, and it will allow the Army Reserve to continue to successfully operate in a resource constrained environment.

The Army Reserve, which is on duty in 80 countries around the world, is an integral part of, and an essential and relevant partner in, America's Army. This fact is clearly evidenced by the fact that Army Reserve units and personnel currently comprise 71 percent of the Reserve Component forces and 29 percent of the total United States Armed Forces Operation Joint Guard. In addition to relying on Reserve forces to deploy and support major worldwide contingencies and warfighting, the Army is increasingly dependent on its Army Reserve for support of a wide variety of daily, ongoing missions at home and abroad during peacetime, including an expanding role in commanding and controlling Army installations and providing regional base operations support. Army Reserve units and soldiers will continue to respond to national security needs and domestic missions into the 21st century. To ensure readiness, we must have the minimum essential facilities resources in which to train, support, and sustain our forces.

The organization, roles, and missions of the Army Reserve dictate the need for a widely dispersed inventory of facilities. It occupies about 1,300 facilities, consisting of more than 2,800 buildings and structures that have an average age of about 33 years. Army Reserve operated installations add another 2,600 buildings and structures to the total inventory. The average age of facilities on these installations is about 47 years.

In order to effectively carry out its stewardship responsibilities toward the facilities inventory, the Army Reserve has adopted priorities and strategies that guide the application of resources. The essence of our program is straightforward: to provide essential facilities to improve readiness and quality of life, to preserve and enhance the Army's image across America, and to conserve and protect the facilities resources for which we are responsible. Our priorities are: provide critical mission needs of Force Support Package units; address the worst cases of facilities deterioration and overcrowding; pursue modernization of the total facilities inventory; and carefully manage Reserve-operated installations. Our strategy for managing the Army Reserve facilities and installations in a resource constrained environment rests on six fundamentals: eliminate leases; dispose of excess facilities; consolidate units into the best available facilities; use Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) enclaves where practical; use the new Modular Design System (MDS) to achieve long term cost savings in construction and design costs; and finally, to pursue economies and efficiencies in installation management, base operations support, and facilities engineering.

READINESS: Army Reserve construction program requirements are quite different from those of the Active Army. Army Reserve forces are community based, not installation based, requiring that forces and facilities be dispersed in hundreds of cities and towns across the Nation. This dispersion of forces and facilities reduces the opportunities for regional consolidation and wholesale reductions in facilities inventory. Facilities must be located in the communities where soldiers live and where their units are based. They must be sufficient to meet the readiness training requirements of the units stationed in them. Reserve facilities serve as locally based extensions of the Army’s power projection platforms by providing essential and cost effective places to conduct training, maintenance, storage of contingency equipment and supplies, and preparation for mobilization and deployment that simply cannot be accomplished elsewhere. Reserve operated installations support mission essential training for thousands of soldiers each year.

QUALITY OF LIFE: Quality, well maintained facilities provide Army Reserve units with the means to conduct necessary individual and collective training, to perform operator and unit maintenance on vehicles and equipment, and to secure, store, and care for organizational supplies and equipment. These facilities also provide other important benefits. Fully functional and well maintained training centers have a positive impact on recruiting and retention, unit morale, and the readiness of the full time support personnel who work in the facilities on a daily basis. In addition to supporting the quality of life of units and support staffs, Reserve facilities project an important and lasting image of America's Army in the local community.

MODERNIZATION: The plant replacement value (PRV) of Army Reserve facilities is approximately $3.6 billion and an additional $1.9 billion for Army Reserve operated installations. The budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 addresses the Army Reserve’s highest priorities for modernizing and revitalizing the inventory and for providing new facilities in response to new and changing missions.

INSTALLATIONS AND BASE SUPPORT: The Army Reserve continues to undergo significant change as America’s Army continues to shape itself for the 21st century. One of these changes is the growing mission to command and control former Active Army installations. These installations serve as high quality, regional training sites for forces of both the Reserve and Active Components of the Army, as well as the other Services; provide sites for specialized training; and offer a variety of supporting facilities. To fulfill this important mission, we must be able to fund projects that support critical training, mobilization, and quality of life requirements at the installations. The Army Reserve's military construction program for Fiscal Year 1999 includes two projects at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, one of the Army’s fifteen power projection platforms. These projects directly support training and readiness of the force, aircraft operations and safety, and improved quality of life for hundreds of students who train at the Army Reserve Readiness Training Center each year. The Army Reserve is also assuming greater responsibilities nationwide in managing base support operations and facilities engineering activities, using the command, control, and management capabilities of its Regional Support Commands. This mission reinforces the Army Reserve’s relevance and value to the total Army as a provider of combat service support and other essential infrastructure support in both peacetime and wartime.

The Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR) budget for Fiscal Year 1999 includes requests for authorization and authorization of appropriations of $71,287,000. This budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 provides essential funds for our highest priority requirements, and it is in line with our commitment to operate successfully in an environment of constrained resources. It also reflects the realities of maintaining near term force readiness and still meeting critical requirements for military construction that directly support that readiness. The MCAR appropriation includes three categories of funding: Major Construction, Unspecified Minor Construction, and Planning and Design.

(1) Major Construction: These funds provide for essential construction, revitalization, expansion, alteration, or conversion of facilities, and for land acquisition, when required. For Fiscal Year 1999, our requests for authorization and authorization of appropriations of $71,287,000, will fund the construction of three new Army Reserve centers in Michigan, Utah, and Virginia to accomplish essential facility replacements; an Aviation Support Facility in Virginia that supports new mission requirements; revitalization of existing facilities in Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York; purchase of an existing leased facility in Ohio; land acquisition to support a future project; and two projects at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin: construction of a crash rescue station at the airfield and construction of an improved machine gun range.

(2) Unspecified Minor Construction: These funds provide for construction of projects not otherwise authorized by law, and which have a funded cost of less than $1,500,000. Unspecified minor construction may include construction, alteration, or conversion of permanent or temporary facilities. This program provides an important means to accomplish small projects that are not now identified, but which may arise during the fiscal year, and that must be accomplished to satisfy critical but unforeseen mission requirements. Based on the availability of unobligated prior year funds, the Army Reserve has adjusted its budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 to include no funds for unspecified minor construction.

(3) Planning and Design: These funds provide for a continuous, multi-year process of designing construction projects for execution in the budget years and beyond. Planning and design activities include the preparation of engineering designs, drawings, specifications, and solicitation documents necessary to execute major and unspecified minor construction projects. Planning and design funds are also required to support the Army Reserve’s share of the costs of the continued development of the Modular Design System as an effective and cost and time saving facility design tool. Our budget request for planning and design is $7,368,000 for Fiscal Year 1999.

Real Property Maintenance (RPM): Another important issue that is directly linked to the Army Reserve’s overall ability to be good stewards of its facilities and installations, is that of funding for real property maintenance (RPM). Although provided separately by the Operation and Maintenance Army Reserve (OMAR) appropriation, these funds complement military construction (MILCON) funds to round out the Army Reserve’s total resources to manage its facilities inventory. Long term resource constraints in both military construction and real property maintenance have a combined effect of increasing the rates of aging and deterioration of our valuable facilities and infrastructure. We are applying available resources to only the most critical maintenance and repair needs. We solicit your support of real property maintenance as an essential adjunct of construction.

In summary, as the national military strategy has changed to meet the challenges of the next century, the Army Reserve will grow in its importance and relevance in the execution of that strategy. The men and women of the Army Reserve have consistently demonstrated that they can respond to the missions and challenges assigned to them. Our Reserve facilities and installations are valuable resources that support force readiness and power projection, while serving as highly visible links between America's Army and America itself. We are grateful to the Congress and the Nation for the support you have given and continue to give to the Army Reserve and our most valuable resource, our soldiers.

Our facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today’s soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support the Army of the 21^st century. To do this we identify the amount of infrastructure we need in order to focus our resources on modernization and readiness. The Army requires fewer facilities than we are currently maintaining. We must reduce the total cost required to support our facilities and manage and maintain our real property inventory. The principal way this is being accomplished is through BRAC. Although the Army is reducing its infrastructure considerably, more reductions are necessary. Therefore, we support the Secretary of Defense’s request for two additional rounds of BRAC in 2001 and 2005.

The BRAC process has proven to be the only viable method to identify and dispose of excess facilities. The Army is in the process of closing 112 installations and realigning an additional 27 from the first four rounds of BRAC. We are now in the final third of the 13 year process to implement these first four rounds. By implementing BRAC, the Army is complying with the law, while saving money that would otherwise support unneeded overhead. These closed assets are now available for productive reuse in the private sector.

BRAC savings do not come immediately because of the up front costs for implementation and the time it takes to close and dispose of property. The resulting savings are not as substantial as originally anticipated because potential land, facilities and equipment revenues are being made available to support local economic opportunities that create jobs and expand the tax base. Environmental costs are significant and are being funded up front to facilitate economic revitalization. The remaining challenges that lie ahead are implementing the final round, BRAC 95, ahead of schedule, disposing of property at closed bases, cleaning up contaminated property and assisting communities with reuse.

In Fiscal Year 1999, we will begin to focus almost exclusively on BRAC 1995, the last of the four rounds along with the conveyance of properties to local communities for conversion to non-military reuse. The Fiscal Year 1999 budget is important because it contains the resources needed for major construction actions and unit movements, and allows us to increase our focus on environmental restoration and property transfer. Therefore, we request that the Congress authorize and appropriate $489,222,000 in support of the Army’s Fiscal Year 1999 BRAC program.

The Army is accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and return assets to the private sector as quickly as available resources will allow. We completed the remainder of all the five closures and realignment actions approved by the 1991 Commission during Fiscal Year 1997. In Fiscal Year 1998, we are closing Stratford Army Engine Plant, Connecticut; Fort Ritchie, Maryland; Fort Missoula, Montana; and Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. We completed the disestablishment and realignment of the Aviation and Troop Command from St. Louis, Missouri to four other locations in December 1997. The Fiscal Year 1999 budget supports the movement of the military police and chemical schools to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and the closure of Fort McClellan, Alabama. The Army also plans to close East Fort Baker, California, and move the Concepts Analysis Agency from leased space in Bethesda, Maryland to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. These actions will nearly complete all planned closure actions except for the six that are scheduled for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.

Although the extensive overseas closures do not receive the same level of public attention as those in the United States, they represent the fundamental shift from a forward deployed force to one relying upon overseas presence and power projection. Without the need for a Commission, we are closing about seven of ten overseas sites in Europe, where we are reducing the number of installations by 68 percent. Forty partial closures represent an additional 5 percent. Reductions in infrastructure roughly parallel troop reductions of 70 percent. In Korea, the number of installations are dropping from 104 to 83, or 20 percent. Another 8 percent are partial closures.

While we constantly evaluate the role of forward deployed forces, overseas presence helps to reassure friends and deter potential enemies. It can reduce our response time in crises by positioning forces nearer potential trouble spots. The Army currently has 100,000 soldiers stationed overseas, and deployed another 31,000 during Fiscal Year 1997 on operational missions and training exercises. This provides tangible proof of the nation’s commitment to defend American interests and those of our allies.

The President's Five Part Community Reinvestment Program, announced on July 2, 1993, speeds economic recovery of communities where military bases are closing by investing in people, investing in industry and investing in communities. The Army is making its bases available more quickly for economic redevelopment because of the additional authorities we now have.

During 1997, the Army reached agreements to convey properties to local communities at four BRAC installations that will result in immediate property reuse. The Army is using all of the conveyance options, to include interim leasing at Letterkenny Army Depot, economic development conveyance at the Materials Technology Lab in Watertown, Massachusetts and Detroit Arsenal, and negotiated sale at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. In many instances, employment levels are expected to exceed those of the Army when the bases were active.

On September 18, 1990, the Secretary of Defense announced the first round of overseas bases to be returned. Since that time, there have been a total of 22 announcements. On January 14, 1993, DoD announced it will withdraw all U.S. military forces from the Republic of Panama and transfer all facilities by December 31, 1999. Of the 13 sites in Panama announced for closure, 10 have been returned. The total number of overseas sites announced for closure or partial closure is 664 (see Table 1). Additional announcements will occur until the base structure matches the force identified to meet U.S. commitments. At this time, we do not see the need for many more overseas closures.

Table 1

Most of the 188 million square feet (MSF) of overseas reductions are in Europe where we are returning over 600 sites. This is equivalent to closing 12 of our biggest installations in the U.S. - Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Lewis, Fort Bliss, Fort Carson, Fort Gordon, Fort Meade, Fort Campbell and Redstone Arsenal. Unquestionably, these reductions are substantial and have produced savings to sustain readiness.

The process for closing overseas is much different than in the U.S. First, unified commanders nominate overseas sites for return or partial return to host nations. Next the Joint Staff, various DoD components, National Security Council and State Department review these nominations. After the Secretary of Defense approves them, DoD notifies Congress, host governments and the media. The Army ends operations by vacating the entire installation and returns it to the host nation. If we reduce operations, we end up keeping some of the facilities.

The Army has completed all realignments and closure actions from the BRAC 88 and BRAC 91 rounds. The work of property disposal and environmental remediation at 18 installations will continue for several years. The Army continues to work with local communities to promote economic redevelopment in disposal of these properties. Introduction of economic development conveyances and interim leasing has resulted in accelerating property reuse and jobs creation at installations that were previously unavailable pending completion of environmental restoration efforts.

The Army continues to accelerate the implementation of the BRAC 93 and BRAC 95 rounds. BRAC 93 is complete, with the exception of the realignment of Fort Monmouth which is scheduled for Fiscal Year 1998. The Army is in the third year of the implementation of BRAC 95, after which 19 of the 29 closure and four of 11 realignment actions will be complete. Interim leases and economic development conveyances are making properties at these installations available to the local communities earlier in the process. The Army is currently working with local communities at Letterkenny Army Depot and Detroit Arsenal to make industrial facilities available for reuse in 1998. The former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center is now being converted to a University Medical Center. Negotiations and required environmental restoration continue at other installations, and additional conveyances are likely in the near future.

For the period 1989 through 1997, the Army has spent $3,570,251,000 to implement the first four rounds of BRAC. The Army is realizing $649,951,000 in annual recurring savings in Fiscal Year 1998, and has realized a total of $2,556,807,000 in savings during the implementation period through the end of Fiscal Year 1997. Upon implementation of all actions from the first four BRAC rounds the Army will achieve annual savings of $949,000,000 beginning in Fiscal Year 2002.

The Army has completed environmental actions at 747 of a total of 1,943 environmental cleanup sites through Fiscal Year 1997. Environmental restoration efforts were complete at 63 installations through Fiscal Year 1997, out of a total of 122 installations. The Army remains focused on supporting environmental cleanup actions required to support property reuse and will continue to fund environmental cleanup actions that are required in support of property transfer and reuse.

Closing and realigning bases saves money that otherwise goes to unneeded overhead and frees up valuable assets for productive reuse. These savings permit us to invest properly in the forces and bases we keep to ensure their continued effectiveness. Continuation of accelerated implementation requires the execution of the Fiscal Year 1999 program as planned and budgeted. We request your support by providing the necessary BRAC funding for Fiscal Year 1999.

We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through economic development conveyances, as well as the early transfer and interim leasing options made possible by Congress last year. Real property assets are being conveyed to local communities, permitting them to quickly enter into business arrangements with the private sector. Local communities, with the Army’s support and encouragement, are working to develop business opportunities that result in jobs and tax revenues. The successful conversion of former Army installations to productive use in the private sector is something all of us can be proud of.

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