STATEMENT
OF
REAR
ADMIRAL DAVID PRUETT
DIRECTOR
CIVIL
ENGINEERING READINESS DIVISION
CHIEF
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
JULY
11, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Mister
Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Navy's Military Construction,
Family Housing, and Base Realignment and
Closure programs.
I am Rear Admiral David Pruett,
Director, Civil Engineering Readiness
Division, on the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
staff.
It is my job to ensure that the
Navy's investment in facilities and
infrastructure results in Fleet readiness
both now and in the future. This investment
will positively affect our Sailors; the
backbone of the Navy that guarantees freedom
of the seas to ensure uninterrupted flow of
maritime trade critical to U.S. economic
prosperity.
While deployed forward, our forces
represent sovereign combat power overseas in
regions of U.S. interest, providing timely
response in crisis as well as capabilities
to project both offensive and defensive
power ashore to assure access for the Joint
Force.
The
Navy's amended fiscal year 2002 Military
Construction budget request inaugurates a
strong commitment by the Navy and the
Administration to upgrade our aging
infrastructure.
It increases funding to meet current
needs and begins a long-range plan to
streamline, restructure, and upgrade the
Navy's facilities.
PROGRAMMATIC
APPROACH
Admiral
Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, has
clearly articulated his top five priorities
for the Navy: Manpower, Current Readiness,
Future Readiness, Quality of Service
(quality of life and work), and Alignment.
These priorities provide our "road
map" for handling our daily operations in
support of the Fleet and play a significant
role in shaping the Navy's strategies for
future investment in facilities and
infrastructure.
The
Military Construction program directly
supports the CNO's top five priorities
through a set of programmatic categories
that we use to evaluate infrastructure
investments.
These categories are: Restoration and
Modernization (primarily Waterfront and
Airfields); Environmental Compliance;
Deficit Reduction (primarily Bachelor
Quarters and QOL); New Mission; and Family
Housing. By using these programmatic
categories as our guide, the Navy's
military construction program is properly
aligned with Fleet requirements.
FACILITIES
INVESTMENT
The
Navy owns more than 160,000 facilities
valued in excess of $125 billion dollars. Our infrastructure includes operational, training,
maintenance, administration, housing,
research, development, testing, and
evaluation (RDT&E), supply, and medical
facilities, as well as utility systems.
The Navy's infrastructure is old,
and its age and condition are negatively
impacting readiness. Forty-three percent of our infrastructure was constructed
before 1950.
The average age of Navy facilities is
45 years.
The Navy reported 67% of its facility
categories in a C-3 or C-4 condition in the
fiscal year 2000 Installation Readiness
Report (IRR) submitted to Congress by the
Secretary of Defense in February 2001.
A C-3 condition code is used to
identify facilities that marginally meet
mission demands with major difficulty.
A C-4 condition code identifies
facilities that do not meet the vital
demands of the mission category.
Our desired state is C-2
(meets mission demands with some minor
deficiencies that have a limited impact on
mission capability) or
C-1 (meets mission demands with minor
deficiencies that have a negligible impact
on mission capability).
The
Secretary of Defense is committed to a
Facility Strategic Plan that will
streamline, restructure, and upgrade our
facilities.
One of the goals of this plan is to
reduce the age of the Department of
Defense's facilities by reducing the
Navy's historic average recapitalization
rate of over 160 years to 67 years.
As
I previously presented to this Committee on
April 26, 2001, the Navy has adopted a new
investment strategy for our facilities that
is founded on the Facility Sustainment Model
(FSM).
The FSM provides a life cycle based
approach to computing our sustainment
requirement by multiplying facility
quantities (most often square feet) from our
inventory times unit cost factors (most
often dollars per square foot) from
industry.
Sustainment is defined as the annual
maintenance and scheduled repairs required
to maintain an inventory of facilities in
their current condition without incurring
additional deterioration.
The portion of facility investment
that goes beyond sustainment to improve
facility conditions is called Restoration
and Modernization, and includes both
Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
funded repair projects and Military
Construction projects. The "SRM" (Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization) program
replaces what was previously known as the
"Real Property Maintenance" (RPM)
program. By linking SRM and Military
Construction together in a complete facility
investment strategy, the Navy can prepare a
more comprehensive and credible analysis of
these requirements.
The Navy will use this methodology
for developing the fiscal year 2003 Military
Construction program.
MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
The
Navy's Military Construction budget
includes these appropriations: Military
Construction, Navy (MCON); Military
Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR); Family
Housing, Navy (FHN); and Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC).
The Navy's fiscal year 2002
Military Construction program totals $1.83
billion, approximately 2% of the
entire Department of the Navy fiscal year
2002 budget.
The
overall Navy military construction request
for fiscal year 2002 is lower than the
fiscal year 2001 enacted amount due
primarily to decreases in BRAC and Family
Housing.
However, the budget request for
Military Construction, Navy (MCON), Military
Construction, Navy Reserve (MCNR), and
Family Housing Operations and Maintenance
are 19%, 133%, and 3% respectively, greater
than the fiscal year 2001 requested amounts.
The following table outlines the
Navy's fiscal year 2002 military
construction budget request compared to the
fiscal year 2001 budget request and enacted
amounts (not including the recent
supplemental bill):
FY
2002 Military Construction Budget Request
ACCOUNT |
FY01
Request
|
FY01
Enacted
|
FY02
Request
|
%
Growth
Request
FY02
- FY01
|
MCON
|
$607.0M
|
$733.1M
|
$724.1M
|
19%
|
MCNR
|
$9.5M
|
$43.3M
|
$22.1M
|
133%
|
Family
Housing Construction
|
$294.8M
|
$339.9M
|
$195.0M
|
-34%
|
Family
Housing Ops & Maint.
|
$736.6M
|
$733.9M
|
$759.0M
|
3%
|
BRAC
|
$447.0M
|
$467.2.0M
|
$131.5M
|
-71%
|
TOTAL
|
$2,094.9
|
$2,317.4
|
$1,831.7
|
-14%
|
Our
BRAC request for fiscal year 2002 is of some
concern. I will discuss this in more detail later.
PROGRAM
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Utilizing
CNO's top five priorities and
corresponding programmatic categories as our
"programming benchmark," the fiscal year
2002 military construction budget was
developed based on the following guidance:
·
Maintain and modernize essential
existing infrastructure while reducing
excesses
·
Meet all legislative, regulatory, or
agreement-based compliance requirements
·
Improve readiness
·
Improve quality of service for
members and families
The
fiscal year 2002 budget request continues to
support the Navy's specific philosophy of
improving living conditions for members and
families.
Fifty-five percent of the fiscal year
2002 budget request (excluding BRAC) will
fund quality of life projects.
The current budget will significantly
reduce inadequate family housing and reduce
the housing deficit in high cost areas by
2009 through a combination of construction,
improvements, and public/private ventures (PPV).
Central heads in the Navy's
bachelor quarters will be eliminated by
fiscal year 2008. We are constructing and renovating bachelor quarters to
comply with the 1 + 1 room configuration for
permanent party personnel.
The budget also includes four
bachelor quarters to begin addressing
berthing required for the 25,000 sailors who
now live aboard ship while in homeport.
Specific highlights for the various
military construction appropriations are
described below.
MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY & NAVAL RESERVE
Our
Military Construction, Navy and Naval
Reserve programs continue our approach of
budgeting for those projects that meet the
highest priority of readiness and quality of
service needs of the Fleet and Reserves.
The Navy convenes a Shore
Installations Programming Board (SIPB) each
year to evaluate and prioritize military
construction projects with other
installation investments.
Projects are selected based on a
number of different criteria, including
Fleet priorities and the most critical
readiness, quality of service, and
compliance needs.
The
Navy's fiscal year 2002 military
construction program (including Reserves) is
$746.2 million dollars, 21% greater than the
fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Navy is making significant investments to improve
existing infrastructure by earmarking 74% of
the fiscal year 2002 program for restoration
and modernization projects.
Approximately 23% of the program is
dedicated to deficit reduction projects and
3% to projects supporting new mission. The majority of projects supporting deficit reduction and new
mission are for bachelor quarters.
Phase
Funded Projects
The
Navy continues to utilize phase funding for
projects with a cost greater than $50
million.
Full authorization is requested for
each project in the first year and the
appropriation in annual increments,
generally over 2 to 3 years.
Phase funding is generally used for
pier projects because they are very
expensive and require a lengthy construction
period.
In
the fiscal year 2002 program, we are
requesting the final increment of funding
for pier replacements at Naval Station, San
Diego, California and Naval Shipyard, Puget
Sound, Bremerton, Washington.
Additionally, we are requesting
funding to complete the CINCPAC Headquarters
building at Camp HM Smith, Hawaii. The budget also includes a request for full authorization and
the first increment of funding for a pier
replacement at Naval Station, Norfolk,
Virginia.
Operational
and Training Facilities
Our
construction program funds 18 operational
facilities (including phase funded projects)
totaling $189 million. Examples include:
·
Pier Replacement at Naval Station,
Norfolk, Virginia: This $55.6 million dollar
project replaces Pier 3 that was originally
constructed as a supply pier.
The new pier will provide the
capability to berth all classes of ships
(except aircraft carriers) that are
currently homeported or planned to be
homeported at NAVSTA Norfolk.
·
Pier Replacement at Naval Station,
San Diego, California: This $53.2 million
dollar project replaces Piers 10 and 11 that
have deteriorated beyond economical repair.
The new pier will support large deck
amphibious assault ships and surface
combatants that are currently homeported or
planned to be homeported at NAVSTA San
Diego.
There
are also 3 training projects totaling $19
million dollars.
Examples include:
·
Surface Warfare Officers School
Applied Instruction Building at Naval
Station, Newport, Rhode Island:
This $15.3 million dollar project
provides a properly sized and configured
training facility to meet current and future
student population.
·
Reserve Center Addition at Naval
Reserve Center, Duluth, Minnesota:
This $3 million project provides an
addition and renovates existing space to
adequately support training and
administration of assigned Naval Reserve
units.
Maintenance
Facilities
There
are 16 maintenance projects totaling $122
million dollars.
Examples include:
·
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Naval
Air Station, Brunswick, Maine:
This $41.7 million dollar project
constructs a new six bay hangar to replace
inadequate and structurally unsound
facilities.
·
Drydock Support Facility at Naval
Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii:
This $7.9 million dollar project
constructs permanent waterfront facilities
for shipyard personnel working on ships
undergoing major maintenance at the forward
section of Drydock 2.
Utilities
There
are 8 projects in the program totaling $77
million dollars to support utilities
improvements.
Examples include:
·
Waterfront Electrical Upgrades at
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia:
This $14.8 million dollar project
upgrades the capacity of the electrical
distribution system to support ships'
electrical demand requirements.
·
Sewer Force Main at Public Works
Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii:
This $16.9 million dollar project
provides a new sewer main to replace an
aging force main from Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard to
the Navy's water treatment facility.
Quality
of Life
There
are important quality of life projects
included in our fiscal year 2002 budget.
The single largest effort is for the
construction and modernization of Bachelor
Quarters (BQs).
Today, we have 75,000 single sailors
assigned to shore duty and 16,000 recruits
in training at NTC Great Lakes.
Our responsibility is to provide
quality shelter for these Sailors in the
most cost effective manner possible,
considering facilities on base or in the
community. To provide a greater degree of privacy for single military
members, the Department of Defense adopted a
1 + 1 construction standard in 1995 for
permanent party personnel.
This configuration consists of two
individual living and sleeping rooms with
closets, and a shared bath and service area. The 1 + 1 standard does not apply to recruits, students, and
transients.
Since 1995, the Navy has constructed
41 projects to support 12,900 Sailors.
The
Navy has 14 BQ projects to support 4,722
Sailors in the fiscal year 2002 budget
totaling $303 million:
·
Two recruit barracks at NTC Great
Lakes housing 2,112 recruits
·
Two barracks modernization projects
for permanent party enlisted personnel
providing 444 bed spaces at Naval Activities
Guam, and Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.
·
Two replacement barracks projects for
permanent party enlisted personnel providing
300 bed spaces at Naval Air Facility
Washington DC and Naval Construction
Battalion Center Gulfport, Mississippi.
·
Two new barracks projects for
permanent party enlisted personnel providing
256 beds spaces at Headquarters Command
Larissa, Greece and Naval Air Station
Lemoore, California.
·
Two barracks for transient students
providing 410 bed spaces at Naval Air
Station Brunswick, Maine and Naval Air
Facility El Centro, California.
·
Four new barracks providing 1,200 bed
spaces for shipboard Sailors at Naval
Station Mayport, Florida, Naval Station San
Diego, California and Naval Station Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii.
Two of these four barracks also
support permanent party enlisted personnel
at Pearl Harbor.
Navy
Homeport Ashore Program
In
addition to our ongoing program to improve
the living conditions for our shore station
Sailors, the Navy is addressing one of its
most pressing challenges: the 25,000 E-1
through E-4 enlisted unaccompanied Sailors
who now live aboard ship while in homeport.
Studies and surveys have shown that
these young Sailors have the worst
accommodations in the Department of Defense.
When deployed, these Sailors have no
choice but to sleep in bunk beds in open
spaces with dozens of their shipmates, and
little more than a small locker to store
their personal belongings.
When the ship returns to homeport,
these Sailors must continue to live aboard
ship. In
contrast, unaccompanied E-1 through E-4s
assigned to aviation squadrons or submarines
live aboard ship when deployed, but merit BQ
spaces when the ship is in homeport. A 1999 Navy Quality of Life Domain Study concluded that
shipboard life and standards of living are
major dissatisfiers for target retention
groups.
The
Chief of Naval Operations has committed to
developing a Homeport Ashore program that
will provide these Sailors accommodations,
either in a BQ or in the community, when
their assigned ship is in homeport. We have
a pilot project underway at Naval Base Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii, where a unique combination
of recent fleet reductions, a large initial
inventory of BQ spaces, and a desire of more
senior enlisted to live in the community,
has made BQ spaces available. About 1,500 shipboard E-1 through E-4 Sailors are afforded
the opportunity to "move ashore" into BQ
spaces when their ships return from
deployments.
Initial results are extremely
positive.
While the Navy is focused on
retaining Sailors at all levels, the efforts
at Naval Base Pearl Harbor have contributed
to increases in first term Sailor retention
of 7.7% above the PACFLT average and an
overall increase in retention of 2.3% above
the PACFLT average.
The
Navy remains committed to providing BQs that
meet the 1 + 1 construction standards.
While
I am pleased to announce the broad
commitment, there are key aspects that must
still be resolved.
Specific procedures associated with
the housing of the shipboard Sailors, the
rate at which we will construct to meet our
needs, individual stations' ability to
support the construction effort while
continuing operations, and the mix of
construction for shore Sailors or shipboard
Sailors must be evaluated and weighed
carefully.
FAMILY
HOUSING
Our
Family Housing program continues our
commitment to eliminate inadequate family
housing and reduce the housing deficit in
high cost areas by fiscal year 2010 through
a combination of construction, improvements,
and public/private ventures (PPV).
In fact, the updated Family Housing
Master Plan that we will be submitting to
Congress will show that the Navy will
eliminate inadequate housing in 2009 due in
part to an acceleration of PPV projects.
The
Navy's fiscal year 2002 family housing
construction program is $195 million
dollars, 42% less than the fiscal year 2001
enacted amount.
This reduction in funding represents
an expanded use of PPV by the Navy.
However, we are still constructing,
replacing, and improving family housing in
our inventory.
Major projects in our fiscal year
2002 program include the following:
·
Construction of 160 homes at Naval
Station, Pascagoula, Mississippi for $23.4
million dollars;
·
Replacement of 70 homes in Hawaii for
$16.8 million dollars;
·
Replacement of 10 homes at Naval Air
Station, Sigonella, Italy for $2.4 million
dollars; and
·
Improving 1,290 homes at various
locations for $123 million dollars.
We
are continuing to have success with our PPV
efforts.
Since the implementation of
"differential lease payments," bringing
military member's out-of-pocket expenses
to zero, the percentage of military
occupants at the Everett and South Texas
locations continues to grow.
The
second phases of both Kingsville and Everett
PPV's were executed in November and
December 2000, respectively.
Phase I of a San Diego privatization
effort for 3,248 homes is scheduled to begin
this summer. Later this year, we anticipate
executing PPV agreements at New Orleans and
South Texas, totaling more than 1,500 homes.
The fiscal year 2002 budget includes
a follow-on phase of a privatization effort
in San Diego that will help alleviate the
housing shortage in one of the Navy's
highest cost of living areas. Additionally,
we are about to enter negotiations with the
Virginia Housing Development Authority on a
Hampton Roads, Virginia project and have
notified the Congressional Committees of our
intent to issue a solicitation for a
regional Pennsylvania project.
The
Navy's fiscal year 2002 family housing,
operations and maintenance program is $759
million dollars, 3% greater than the fiscal
year 2001 enacted amount. This increase is due primarily to increasing utility
costs.
These funds are essential to maintain
our existing inventory by funding
operations, utilities, maintenance, and
leasing costs.
BASE
REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
While
I want to highlight our accomplishments in
this program, I also want to put these past
successes in context of the future.
Our base closure account, due to
several factors, is becoming a limiting
factor on property conveyance.
Realignment
and Closure Status
We
are implementing four rounds of base
realignment and closure (BRAC), 1988 under
Public Law 100-526 and 1991, 1993, and 1995
under Public Law 101-510.
As a result of these decisions, we
are executing a total of 178 actions
consisting of 46 major closures, 89 minor
closures, and 43 realignments.
We
will complete closure and realignment of all
bases by July 2001, except two moves from
leased space to government owned space.
One remaining activity is the Naval
Management Systems Support Office (NAVMASSO)
Chesapeake, VA.
The primary actions were completed in
October 1997 when NAVMASSO was
disestablished and re-established as the
Space and Naval Warfare Systems (SPAWAR)
Center Chesapeake, an Echelon III command
under SPAWAR. Relocation of this activity has been deferred until January
2002 due to construction delays of the joint
use facility NAVMASSO will be occupying.
The other remaining BRAC action will
move the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition) and
Chief of Naval Operations, Environmental
Readiness Directorate offices from leased
space in Crystal City into the Pentagon in
April 2003.
BRAC
Costs and Savings
We
have closed or realigned bases to make the
Navy's shore infrastructure more
proportional to its force structure and to
provide resources to recapitalize our
weapons systems and platforms.
We are reaping the financial rewards
of our investments; through fiscal year
2000, we had spent approximately $10 billion
dollars on all four BRAC rounds to construct
new or adapt existing facilities, move
personnel, equipment, ships and aircraft to
their new homeports, and clean up
contamination.
By the end of fiscal year 2001, the
Navy will achieve a net savings of $5.8
billion dollars. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, we will save an additional
$2.5 billion dollars annually.
These net savings estimates have been
validated by several independent sources.
Environmental
Cleanup
One
of our main focuses is now on finishing
environmental cleanup and completing
property disposal.
This is no easy task.
We have already spent more than $1
billion dollars through fiscal year 2000 on
environmental work at our BRAC bases.
Each
base has established a BRAC cleanup team
composed of remediation managers from the
Navy, the State, and the Environmental
Protection Agency to review, prioritize, and
expedite the necessary cleanup consistent
with reuse plans.
We recognize the dynamics of reuse
and stand prepared to phase our cleanup
plans as needed to support community
redevelopment needs.
We're
making good progress in cleanup of
contaminated property.
The Navy identified about 900
contaminated sites at 51 BRAC installations.
A contaminated site crosses the
"cleanup finish line" when it achieves
Remedy-in-Place/Response Complete (RIP/RC)
and the environmental regulator subsequently
concurs. As of the end of fiscal year 2000, we had achieved RIP/RC
status at 64% of the contamination sites.
By the end of fiscal year 2001, we
expect to have completed cleanup at 79% of
all BRAC sites.
Property
Reuse
The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 requires that we consider the potential
environmental impacts of disposal and reuse
of base closure property before we convey
property.
We evaluate issues involving historic
preservation, air quality, noise, traffic,
natural habitat, and endangered species.
The NEPA process concludes with the
issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD).
The Navy has three disposal RODs
remaining to be issued for the former Naval
Station Treasure Island, Fuel Depot at Point
Molate, and Naval Air Station South
Weymouth.
All
Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRA) have
developed their reuse plans.
We strive to support immediate reuse
opportunities through Interim Leases and
Leases in Furtherance of Conveyance. This immediate reuse effort enables communities to move in
and transform the property from vacant
buildings to an interim use while we pursue
final transfer.
Section
334 Early Transfer
Section
334 of the fiscal year 1997 Defense
Authorization Act established a framework
for the Department of Defense (DoD) to
initiate an early transfer of contaminated
property to the community.
This authority allows DoD to defer
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
requirement that all remediation actions
have been taken before the date of property
transfer.
We had previously completed two such
transfers: the former Fleet Industrial and
Supply Center Oakland, CA was conveyed to
the Port of Oakland in June 1999, and the
former Naval Air Station Memphis, TN was
conveyed to the Municipality of Millington
in December 1999.
Since last year's budget
submission, we have completed four
additional early transfers.
·
The
former Fleet Industrial and Supply Center
Alameda Annex, CA was conveyed to the City
of Alameda in July, 2000.
·
A
portion (51 acres) of the former Naval
Training Center San Diego, CA was conveyed
to the San Diego Unified Port District in
February 2001 to be used for airport
operations.
·
The
former Naval Air Station, Guam, consisting
of approximately 1,800 acres, was
transferred to the Guam Aviation Authority
in September, 2000.
·
The
fourth early transfer consisted of several
parcels of property, approximately 1,500
acres, located on Guam.
This property was transferred to the
local government in April 2001.
Property
Disposal
The
Navy must dispose of 51 parcels of land
covering 161,000 acres at 88 BRAC bases. Each BRAC base has a disposal strategy tailored for that base
that incorporates LRA reuse plans with
environmental cleanup timetables, NEPA
documentation, conveyance plans and
schedules.
To
date, the Navy has conveyed over 65,000
acres through economic development
conveyances, negotiated sales, public sales,
or public benefit transfer.
After
a base closes, disposal of the base closure
property presents the most complex
challenge.
Section 2821 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000
(Public Law 106-65), amended the Department
of Defense's Economic Development
Conveyance (EDC) authority to give us the
authority to transfer property to local
redevelopment authorities exchanging
consideration for job creation
opportunities.
Section 2821 also provides authority
to modify previously approved EDC agreements
if a change in economic circumstances
necessitates such a modification.
Although LRAs have applied for "no
cost" EDCs of our remaining bases, this
will only expedite disposal of base closure
property to a certain extent.
LRAs must still satisfy regulatory
criteria to acquire property by way of an
EDC. The
key to disposal of BRAC property is
environmental remediation of the property.
BRAC
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
The
BRAC account has been buffeted by budget
reductions from the Department of Defense to
the Congress in the last few years,
primarily due to the expectations that prior
year unexpended balances could be used to
fund current requirements.
The Naval Audit Service has been
reviewing task order documents across all
commands with BRAC prior year unexpended
funds, and will conclude their analysis in a
few months.
I
regret to report that because of competing
budget needs, we were unable to fully fund
our BRAC funding requirement in the fiscal
year 2002 budget.
I cannot predict if we will be able
to substantially reduce, through
negotiations with regulators, the amount of
work specified in State and Federal cleanup
agreements.
We have other initiatives underway to
make our infrastructure more effective and
cost efficient.
Two of those efforts, privatization
of utilities and demolition, are described
below.
PRIVATIZATION
OF UTILITIES
Defense
Reform Initiative Directive 49 directed all
of the military services to privatize all
their natural gas, water, wastewater, and
electrical systems, except where
uneconomical or where the systems are
required for unique security reasons.
This is expected to reduce costs
while providing quality utility service.
The Navy has 735 systems valued at
$16.8 billion dollars available for
privatization.
We are moving forward and making good
progress in issuing all requests for
proposals for these systems by September 30,
2001. The
goal is to award all contracts by September
30, 2003.
DEMOLITION
The
demolition program eliminates aging and
un-needed facilities and their associated
operating and maintenance costs.
Defense Reform Initiative Directive
36 directed the Navy to dispose of 9.9
million square feet by the end of fiscal
year 2002.
The centralized demolition program
has been a huge success for the Navy.
We are currently on track to meet
this goal by the end of fiscal year 2001.
However, we are not stopping at the
Directive's goal.
We are continuing to demolish
facilities either through the centralized
program or as a result of military
construction projects.
The fiscal year 2002 plan is to
demolish 2 million square feet utilizing the
centralized demolition program.
CONCLUSION
As
Admiral Clark has stated on many occasions,
the Fleet is the essence of the Navy and
must remain the focal point of our efforts. Quality facilities and infrastructure are key elements in
maintaining high Fleet readiness, now and in
the future.
There is no "quick fix" to
correct our infrastructure deficiencies.
The fiscal year 2002 military
construction program is a positive step in a
multi-year program to (1) bring our
facilities and infrastructure to a level
that meets Fleet readiness and (2) sustain
that level of readiness.
Continued support by both the
Congress and the Administration over the
long term is vital to improve the condition
of our facilities.
This
concludes my statement.
I thank you for the support that this
Committee and Staff has given to the Navy
and ask for your continued support and
assistance in enabling the Navy to achieve
its vision of facilities and infrastructure
which support Fleet readiness both now and
in the future.
I am prepared to respond to your
questions.