Hearing of the Readiness and Managment Support Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Fiscal Year 2005 Budget

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBJECT: MILITARY INSTALLATION PROGRAMS IN REVIEW OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV)

WITNESSES:

RAYMOND F. DUBOIS, JR., DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT;

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY J. LUST, USA, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY;

REAR ADMIRAL CHRISTOPHER E. WEAVER, USN, COMMANDER, U.S. NAVY INSTALLATIONS;

BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIE J. WILLIAMS, USMC, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMANDANT, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS (FACILITIES), COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS;

MAJOR GENERAL DEAN FOX, USAF, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER

LOCATION: 232 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you, Chairman Ensign. And I apologize that I was delayed-detained by another hearing on another important subject that has to do with reform of our immigration laws. But I did want to come to the hearing. And now that Senator Akaka and I have you the rest of the afternoon, I just have a -- (laughter) -- few questions I want to ask. Seriously, I don't have that many questions but they are important to me and important to the people I represent.

Another hearing is designed to cover a range of important military installation environment programs. But as Mr. DuBois knows from our earlier meeting this week, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask some questions on the record about BRAC. With 17 active military installations in my state and one out of every 10 individuals in uniform calling Texas home, this is a very significant issue. But as I also told Mr. DuBois during the very helpful meeting that we had earlier, I'm fully committed to the goal of being a good steward for the taxpayer, to making sure that every dollar that we spent on the Department of Defense budget is spent wisely and in the national security interests of this country. But this is always a difficult process and hence my interest and my constituents' interest in this subject.

So, Mr. DuBois, I do want to thank you again for your courtesy in meeting with me earlier this week, and we did have an opportunity to meet for a good period of time. But I do want to get your answers to some of these questions, some of which may be slightly repetitive, on the record so I can know that I've discharged my responsibilities and I've got you on the record.

I know you've talked about the Global Defense Posture Review and how that interacts with the domestic BRAC, and I'm advised by my staff that you've indicated that this committee and the Congress ought to be able to get the results of the Global Defense Posture Review by the end of May. Is that correct, sir?

MR. DuBOIS: Yes, Senator. That's my understanding of the secretary's intention.

SEN. CORNYN: Very good. And I have expressed to you in private, and I'll take the opportunity to express again in public, my concern that that's a lot of balls in the air at one time to do the Global Defense Posture Review, which I know has been underway for a number of years and which is now just culminating at the same time we're undertaking to do the base realignment and closing process. And that's why it's important to me, and I know important to you and everyone at the Department of Defense, that it be done as deliberately and as carefully and as precisely as it possibly can be. And so we'll be communicating often about that subject as we go along because I'm intensely interested in how that process is going to go forward.

Could you explain again just briefly how the joint cross-service groups are working with the individual service BRAC analytical teams to incorporate jointness in the process?

MR. DuBOIS: This BRAC, that is to say the BRAC 2005, Senator, has-the secretary has instituted from the beginning of the process seven joint cross-service groups to look at those areas of real property assets that more than one service has. The joint cross- service groups operate independently, however, they all report to the Infrastructure Steering Group. The Infrastructure Steering Group, chaired by the undersecretary for Acquisition, on which I serve as deputy undersecretary for Installations and Environment, the four vice chiefs and the three assistant service secretaries for I&E, along with the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

It is truly an integrated, multi-service effort. Each joint cross-service group, however-and you've asked a very crucial question. How will they interface, interact with the individual services and military departments? We have addressed this issue at the Infrastructure Steering Group level. It is our intention-and each of the four vice chiefs have committed to not only sharing their views of life and installations and military value assessments with the joint cross-service groups and vice versa. In fact, we have a timeline that shows those individual organizations sharing at a particular time.

It is also crucial that the services share between the services. And each of the vice chiefs and each of the assistance service secretaries for Installations and Environment are committed to doing just that. In fact, it's already going on today. Now, I hope everyone in this room appreciates the fact that we must protect this process. And by protection I mean preserving its integrity from outside influences and from an inadvertent release, if you will, if information that taken by itself could lead one to the wrong conclusion.

I have been asked frequently why can't we be more transparent? And I've answered because I think the process is very transparent in what it is supposed to do and how it is organized: the selection criteria, the report that the secretary made a week plus ago. However, the transparency is also sustained at the other end of the process. When the secretary reports to the commission, and no later than May 16, in addition to his conclusions and recommendations will come all the documentation, all the computations, all the implementing guidance, all the so-called sub criteria, all the weightings so that one and all-not just members of the commission, but the public at large, the impacted communities will have plenty of time to assess how the department reached its decisions.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, thank you very much for that. I just have one other question then I'll turn it over to Senator Akaka for any additional questions he may have. And this is a question that, as you noted in our earlier meeting, I put to the secretary of Defense. But I'll ask you now here in this meeting, like I asked him on the record, how will homeland defense be factored into the BRAC process?

MR. DuBOIS: The selection criteria by statute requires homeland defense to be considered in this process. No one knows more intimately or, quite frankly, emotionally than the secretary of Defense as to the importance of our nation's security and our nation's homeland defense, and the responsibility that the department has to keep our people safe, secure, alive and free.

How we go about incorporating the requirements for homeland defense is, another transparency, in the selection criteria. The services will do it, the joint cross-service groups will do it. As a matter of fact, I have already had discussions with the assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, who is our principal point of contact with Secretary Ridge and the Homeland Security Department, on how to best incorporate his views and needs as those of Secretary Ridge. So it is a question and it is an issue that we hold dearly.

SEN. CORNYN: Thank you very much for answering that question. I would just say at the conclusion, before I turn the floor over to Senator Akaka, that I appreciate your recognizing the importance of the transparency that can exist consistent with having a BRAC process that maintains its integrity and freedom from undue political and other influences. As some sage once said, you can't take politics out of politics.

And there are going to be obviously attempt to politicize this process, and we've already seen some of that unfortunately. But as long as I'm convinced, and I'm confident as long as the Congress is convinced, that this process maintains its integrity and its goals and objectives are as you've stated and as we've discussed before, that will retain the confidence of the Congress, no matter how much local disadvantage or disruption may exist. As long as those goals of being a good steward of the taxpayer dollar and maintaining the maximum efficient use of our military force are consistent goals. Thank you.