Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee - The 2005 BRAC Process - Part 2

REP. HEFLEY: Would you express more clearly, Ms. Wilson, how you feel about the process?

(Laughter.)

Mr. Taylor.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and again, thank you for what you do for our nation. I certainly disagree with you on this issue but I don't want to-I want you to know that I value that you are willing to serve your nation.

Mr. Dubois, today is budget day. While we're going to accept the president's budget, I did a little research. In FY 02, the budget conference report passed by the House on May 9th, projected a on- budget surplus of $161 billion surplus. Instead, FY 02 ended $317 billion in deficit. So the president's projection was wrong by $478 billion.

In '03, the budget passed. The president's budget, March 20, showed an on-budget deficit of $225 billion. Instead, the year ended with a $536 billion deficit. So, once again, the administration's budget projections were off by $311 billion. FY 04 conference report projected a deficit of $558 billion. By February, OMB estimated that the '04 budget deficit would be $675 billion. So with more than this fiscal year still ahead, the budget's already wrong by $117 billion.

I fail to say that, when you send me a publication predicting budget savings. You don't say which bases you're going to close. You don't mention the cost, what's it going to cost to clean up those bases you're going to close. You don't mention, like in the case of Cecil Field, what you're going to have to go buy to make up for what you gave away.

You don't mention the cost of housing that we will have to replace, the hospitals we have to replace. I've got to say that, when it comes to other people's money, this administration's powers of prognostication have been pitifully poor and to ask me to give you my constitutional responsibility, to delegate it to some people appointed by the administration to make those decisions that the Constitution very clearly gives to me and every member of this body, I'm not going to do that.

Okay. Having said that, I tried to scan through your presentation. Over the years, as different people appear before this committee, very good secretaries, very good generals and admirals talk about force protection. Very good secretaries, very good general and admirals talk about quality of life, healthcare, schools, housing. I heard very smart people talk about encroachment, how important it is to have bases and neighborhoods that we work with so we don't have encroachment.

I heard people talk about the horror stories of the unanticipated $14 billion cost of cleaning up bases that were closed, in many instances, just to give away.

To what extent are those factors going to be considered in this round of base closure? Because-and again, I hope to be here for a while. The citizens will make that decision. But for every wrong decision, I'm already dealing with $1 trillion 445 billion of new debt just in the past three years. So those are some bad decisions that I've got to deal with. Dealing with replacing people's housing, where they're going to eat, where their families are going to live. We can't afford many more stakes like that.

MR. DUBOIS: Mr. Taylor, you raise issues that pertain to the determination as to whether or not savings existed in the past, as we've discussed, both GAO and CBO have stated that the savings are real and continue.

REP. TAYLOR: If I may, sir, the GAO says here that they can't predict savings and that the numbers that you use are fuzzy at best.

MR. DUBOIS: They do. You're correct to use the term "imprecise." But I believe, I don't have the quote in front of me. But they say the savings are real and persistent. It is a fact that in the selection criteria number five, and I quote, "the extent and timing of potential cost and savings, including the number of years beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment for the savings to exceed the cost." End quote. That is a crucial selection criterion.

REP. TAYLOR: If I may, to what extent will the Base Closure Commission, because we know that force protection is important and we got a very strong reminder of that three years ago in September-to what extent this force protection is a factor? We know the quality of life is a huge factor, particularly in those forces who try to get close to half of their people to reenlist every four years. To what extent is that a factor? To what extent is the goodwill of a community? Those communities that voluntarily restrict the height of buildings around their runways or tell people when they're getting ready to buy a house near a firing range that they had best anticipate that there will be some noise there and a lot of it is going to be at night because we train at night and aren't encroaching. I mean, these are the communities that are trying to work with us.

What value will be given, for example, to the citizens of Mississippi who paid $20 million to build a causeway to an uninhabited island so that the Navy could use it? Or the county, not a wealth country, that paid for the utilities to go there? What value did they get for their investment? And to what extent will that be taken into account?

MR. DUBOIS: I believe it will be taken into account in terms of military value. Military value-a number of the issues that you have just articulated enter into, it seems to me, into the military value assessment.

REP. TAYLOR: Do you know that or do you think that?

MR. DUBOIS: No, no. It is --

REP. TAYLOR: Is it spelled out? Is quality of life spelled out? Is force protection spelled out? Is housing, is hospitalization spelled out?

MR. DUBOIS: Anything that has already been done in that community to contribute to the military value of that installation is considered under the BRAC process. It includes force protection, many hundreds of millions of dollars, by the way, which has been already invested over the past three years in antiterrorism force protection, both technologies and barriers and perimeter issues, and guards, all enter into the calculation of military value. You mentioned the causeway. That is clearly a piece of the military value. You mentioned land use controls in and around the base to mitigate and/or prohibit encroachment, especially important in terms of Air Force installations. That contributes to the military value of that installation.

REP. TAYLOR: Do you factor in the cost of building new houses to make up for the ones that we're shutting down?

MR. DUBOIS: The cost and savings have to be articulated, have to be quantified when the recommendations go the commission-the secretary's recommendations go to the commission.

REP. TAYLOR: One last point. During the Clinton administration my office, and I presume every office, was besieged by angry letters of military retirees who felt that they had been betrayed on the promise of lifetime healthcare because as we drew down the number of doctors, it got harder and harder to be treated at the military treatment facility. And we were able to determine that over half of our nation's military retirees live very close to a base so they can use that hospital. Will the BRAC Commission-okay, not only who receives the letters, these letters were also making their way to the letters to the editor, encouraging young people not to join. The words "betrayal" were used regularly, and much harsher terms than that, telling kids, "Don't join. They lied to me, they're going to lie to you."

To what extent will the Base Closure Commission take into account the hardship that will be placed on those military retirees who live near a base if that base and its military treatment facility are closed? Or do you just go back to ignoring them like they think the administration and others do?

GEN. CARTWRIGHT: Clearly-and I'll jump in here for a second because the retiree community is one that you accurately portray as having a direct link to our ability to stand up and continue to support a force. This committee, and certainly the Congress, has done a lot to create healthcare, to create a benefits system that allows our retired community to not have to reside so close to bases as we did before. And a lot of the discussion that you have on healthcare are changes that have occurred independent of BRAC from the standpoint of how many doctors are at a base and the access to different facilities and functions there.

So I think it is important. I think it's something that we are considering and it's something that clearly relates, as you put it, directly to our ability to sustain the force. So it has to be considered. And you've gone well beyond just considering it. I mean, the Congress has taken action to give these benefits and create --

REP. TAYLOR: General, since you gave me the opportunity. Again, over half of them intentionally retired near a base. They're getting up in age. They thought that hospital would be there forever. They don't want to pick up and move when they are 80 years old to go find another base. And, quite frankly, they knew they had the choice of going to a private sector doctor or going to a base hospital.

They want to go to a base hospital. They like being called Colonel or Master Sergeant or Chief. That's their family and they don't like the idea of their family moving and leaving them behind. And I really foresee-and I would sure hope that you folks would play this into your equation. You're going to have a lot of angry retirees writing letters to the editor once again, saying, "Don't join, they broke their promise to me." And I think if while-we fixed it for a little while. Why reopen that can of worms?

MR. DUBOIS: Mr. Taylor, the impact of a closure or realignment on a local community, including military retirees residing therein, will be considered in the selection criteria numbers 5, 6 and 7. And the effects, the economic effects, are going to be determined by using information, using statistical information obtained from the Departments of Labor and Commerce, as well as our own statistical base with respect to retirees.

Now, on a personal note, my father was retired-he's dead now, but he was a retired Naval officer. My mother-they both benefited by being in this area and close to some fabulous military medical treatment facilities. I'm personally aware of this tie. I'm also personally aware of the extent to which the department, with the Congress' help, have expanded the opportunities for retirees, not just in military treatment facilities. Nonetheless, I'm sensitive to your issue and, as I suggested-more than suggested, as I pointed out, the criteria 5, 6, and 7 take that into consideration.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you both, gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman, you've been very generous.

REP. HEFLEY: Mr. Cole.

REP. TOM COLE (R-OK): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few questions, if I might, because I find this always a very frustrating topic although I'm generally in agreement with what you're trying to accomplish. But let me just ask, for historical purposes, could you gentlemen give me your opinion of the base closing process before BRAC? How it worked? I mean, I can look at my particular state and we've got Clinton-Sherman Air Force Base. It's still got 13,000 feet of runway out there but not much else. Ardmore-in other words, we were able to close facilities, I'm sure, always at great trauma and great cost on a fairly regular basis and usually after mobilization, downsizing after-but Clinton-Sherman was closed down in the 1960s at the height of the Cold War. Large American military force, so it wasn't a reaction to downsizing after the Second World War.

So why is the current process superior today as opposed as to what we used to do because we clearly were able to close facilities in the past, however painful it might be.

MR. DUBOIS: Precisely because of the history, and the painful history, of base closure pre-BRAC is why I think the Congress embraced this particular process before us. As I remember, when I served with Secretary Rumsfeld in 1975 to '77, there was some considerations of bases to be realigned or closed and, at that point, the secretary of Defense-the secretary of Defense had, shall we call it, unfettered ability to close and realign.

But then the Congress restricted that authority through what we call Section 2687, 10 U.S. Code 2687. It, I think, was precipitated by-as I remember, Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense Weinberger in the '87 or 8 timeframe, came and made an announcement of, I think it was a handful or maybe six or seven, bases that he wished to realign and close. And the Congress reacted, as you might expect, with some reluctance to embrace his recommendations. And thereby was born the BRAC process, which then began. The first BRAC Commission was stood up in '88 and then '91, '93, '95. That's my recollection.

REP. COLE: So, from your point of view, is it fair to say this is the worst process except for all the others we used to have?

MR. DUBOIS: I think this is an accurate statement, Congressman.

REP. COLE: I think, from a member's standpoint, it is particularly-it's difficult because it's a process, frankly, that, as hard as you make it, it's never as transparent as we would like and, as honest as you are, is never a very easy one for us to deal with because we are essentially waiting in a powerless situation for an up or down vote that we don't think we can really affect in so far as our individual installations are concerned. And I don't know how we get out of that other than frankly try to structure a system that we collectively agree on is fair, try to constantly badger you and bring you up here before hearings and make you convince us on a regular basis that it's fair. And I think you've done a reasonably good job, quite frankly, at doing that.

But if you had to design the next one, what would you do differently? Anything?

MR. DUBOIS: I studied the first four in detail when, in February of 2001, the secretary said we must try to work with Congress to get this authorization. In that research, I talked to many of you and many of your colleagues in the other body and as well as communities who have been impacted by BRAC. I came up with a list of items that we needed to do differently and, I must say, one of them is the disposal process. The biggest problem that the community faces when it's faced with the closure is that it takes too long to move that heretofore military real property asset to economic redevelopment and new employment basis for the community.

Mr. Grone, sitting behind me, I've charged with the task to assess how we streamline the disposal process, telescope the disposal process, overcome the inevitable local impediments, be they economic, developmental, political, environmental, so that the community can move quickly to redevelopment. What we have suggested and what the Congress has authorized us to do is, in our view, the most fair and balanced and honest process ever entered into with respect to base closure.

REP. COLE: Let me ask you this, if I may. These decisions made, I would assume, become, in a military sense, progressively more difficult. That is you should have by now got the, quote, "low hanging fruit", if that's an appropriate phrase. Technology and the speed of transportation makes-there's a lot of places now you could deploy out of, particularly if you're talking about deploying into foreign theaters. It really doesn't matter that much if it's 500 miles this way or that way inside the United States in many cases.

When you get down to these decisions and they're close, in terms of military value and mission, then do things like community support, the impact on the community, how decisive do they become?

MR. DUBOIS: A two-part question and I truly appreciate you raising this issue because others have talked about, well, low hanging fruit '88, some more in '91, '93. There isn't any more. Well, in point of fact, there is and notwithstanding Congresswoman Wilson's remarks, the excess capacity analysis indicates strongly that continued excess capacity exists. In one particular way that didn't exist before, is that technology, as you pointed out, fast sealift, fast airlift, the appropriate strategic assets that we have funded, that you all have funded for those purposes, have changed the dynamics where installations necessary have to be and how they are configured.

Now, the second part of your question. If it comes down, what's the tie breaker? What could be tie breakers? I think tie breakers, to use that perhaps inappropriate or not exactly an exacting term, are contained in the considerations of the so-called 5, 6, 7, 8 criteria. The primacy of the first four criteria, focusing on military value, are just that. They hold primacy. When it comes down-were to come down between base A and base B, I think the criteria 5, 6, 7 and 8, to include the environmental impact, the impact of cost related to waste management, the ability of both existing and receiving communities to support missions and personnel, all of these issues will come into play.

And I think that Congressman Taylor made a very important observation. Many communities have consistently, year after year after year, out of their own tax base, done what was right for our military families and military community and it's reflected in the excellence of their schools and the transportation corridors and the infrastructure, spousal employment, which, when I was in the Army, many years ago, arguably was not nearly so important as it is today. These communities and their efforts are reflected ultimately, in my view, in the military value of that installation.

REP. COLE: The chairman has been generous as always.

Just last comment. I would ask you-one of the things that I know causes me a lot of problems-I'm sure other members of the committee-there are always magic lists that float out there and I promise you, once you have a facility that appears on a list, you know, then it really does drive the panic level enormously high in the locale as you can imagine. So, in so far as you can, not take people off but be very careful in terms of what you do and what you say and very emphatic that these lists, at this phase don't matter, or they're manufactured, that is helpful because it does get-those lists always create the sense that hey, the decision really has already been made, no matter what they say. It's just being postponed through some process, the outcome of which is already known by somebody magic in the Pentagon. That undermines the whole credibility of what you're trying to accomplish.

MR. DUBOIS: If there were such a list, I can assure you that I and General Cartwright, and the gentleman and lady behind me and so many others in the Pentagon, to include all the service secretaries, all the service chiefs and vice-chiefs, the senior leadership of the departments, civilian and military, would not be expending the enormous amount of time that they've already expended and will expend over the next year.

Just as a personal aside, the angst that associates with so- called lists, I once tried to add a little levity to a meeting, I walked in and I have a big clipboard and on the back of the clipboard in big red letters, it said B-R-A-C.

And I walked in and everybody-you could hear the wind sucking in, if you will, and I turned the clipboard around and said, There's nothing on it. I don't know yet.

REP. COLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HEFLEY: Thank you.

Ms. Davis.

REP. SUSAN A. DAVIS (D-CA): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary and General, thank you very much for your continuing service. I don't think any of us can sit here and think that you've got an easy task ahead of you. I appreciate that. But I think Mr. Cole's comments really underscore the concern that we all have with transparency. I appreciate your comments and I think that there is nothing more important right now than giving communities that sense that they have an opportunity to question, to provide their input. And so I wonder if we could just go to one of the issues that has come up before, the issue of synergy in a community and the extent to which the success that we're having is created by the interplay by our public and private sectors and our industries' contracts within communities.

And I wonder if you could speak to that because you said that synergy, I think-apparently a number of people wrote to you about this, about that relationship and you suggested that we could accomplish that in criteria 1, 3 and 7. Criteria 7, as you know, is the ability of both existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, mission and personnel. And that, particularly I think, speaks a lot to operational activities without necessarily expanding to the research and development activities that we have throughout the country and particularly well developed in several areas.

I think it's at that point that we have well developed communities that support research and development and technology, skill the workforce, the presence in the community of intellectual capital that's resident in both the private sector and the academic institutions. Could you give us a better sense, more specific, of how you're going to go about trying to evaluate that? Does that come from individuals who are working in a joint facility where we have a lot of contracts that are military based but we obviously depend on the private sector for a lot of the skilled personnel that are there, that intellectual capital? How are you going to get at that issue"

MR. DUBOIS: Ms. Davis, there-you're one of many folks who have raised this issue, in particular, of intellectual capital. And thank you for referring to criteria 1, 3 and 7. Especially number seven, where it talks about, as you pointed out, the ability of both existing and potential receiving communities to support-and underline "missions", missions plural. It is not to be defined as solely operational missions, the same way that it wouldn't be defined as logistical missions or training missions or educational missions or supply and storage missions.

Synergy with nearby institutions, private sector institutions, public sector institutions, industrial clusters, academic institutions, any and other organizations are important. It's an interesting fact, I believe, that this day and age, one could say intellectual capital is hard to be moved. And it is true. There are some centers of intellectual and scientific and research excellence in this country, centers plural, that I suppose, if I were to go to one of them and say, Okay, would you be willing to move across the country or from northeast to southeast or something, a number of people would say, I'm not sure.

But the other side of that coin, which I think is equally as interesting today, is just that. Information technology and advanced technology allow us to communicate with each other in a real time virtual fashion that didn't exist 10 or 20 years ago. That and that alone is going to impact how we, the military departments and the Infrastructure Steering Group assess-the Joint Cross-Service Steering Group assess these current military installations and pockets of excellence in communities of intellectual excellence, where, heretofore, we might have said, You know, we probably could close that. Now it may not be necessary to close it because they can connect-those scientists, those researchers can connect with others on an instantaneous basis.

Having said that, one also has to consider the antiterrorism force protection issues. How many of these places do we have, must we have? Again, I think this BRAC is more complex and yet has the opportunity to rationalize and not necessarily close, as I indicated in my opening remarks.

REP. DAVIS: Just trying to get a little bit further, would you anticipate that the Joint Cross-Service Group, are they going to be visiting these different areas and again, trying to get a handle on-you know, what makes it work? That's what people are concerned about. They'd like to know how you're going to do that.

MR. DUBOIS: A number of the Joint Cross-Service groups have and will take this into consideration. The membership on those groups, as I said, represent all of the military services and the unique disciplines involved and focused on by those services and, by definition, have visited most, if not all of them. I personally have visited 117 installations and ranges over the past three years.

Now, it is also true that, if one were to categorize or put a number to installations of any consequence-and I'm not talking about the three acres with an antenna site on it, although I have visited some of those too-there clearly are 400, 500, 600 of them. I've only done 117. But my colleagues, the three assistant service secretaries for I&E, Installations and Environment, and the undersecretaries of the services and the service secretaries, between us, I can almost guarantee we have visited at least once all of them.

REP. DAVIS: If I hear from organizations that feel that they are very key in this way and yet no one is asking them what they think or how they feel or they know that that's not being communicated in any way, what can I tell them?

MR. DUBOIS: Should that occur-and I have to question, you know, because of the closeness between bases and especially academic institutions where they are, it's not they don't talk to each other. It's not like one isn't contracted to the other, I would find it unusual that, quote, "they haven't been heard" or haven't had an opportunity to submit a paper or an analysis-were that to come to your attention or were they to send that to you, I'll come up and visit.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you, General.

REP. HEFLEY: Mr. Forbes.

REP. J. RANDY FORBES (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for what you're doing. We know you're working in the best interests of the country and this committee is one that stands with you in trying to protect the national defense. There's just so many of these issues we know that we can't afford to get them wrong and that's why we want to ask these questions.

One of the things, Mr. Dubois, you've heard when we talk about the synergy and all of the component parts and the complexity of that, I think that's why so many of these communities feel that they do need to retain lobbyists or consultants to help gather that information and make sure it's presented because sometimes it is that. And it's complex. And I don't care how many times you visit those facilities, it's easy to miss something. They're thinking about a tie breaker out there or something of that nature. It's just important to them that they make sure that this information is laid before you.

But we know one key component of DOD's transformation initiatives involved the repatriating of a large percentage of U.S. troops that are now based overseas.

If we reduced our troops overseas, we'll need to have stateside bases for them. And the first question I have, has the assessment of the size of that repatriation changed or been modified in the last two-year period of time?

MR. DUBOIS: In the last two-year period of time? I think the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs are of a mind, in terms of their conversations with General Jones in Europe and Admiral Fargo in the Pacific Command and General Abizaid in CENTCOM and General Hill in SOCOM, the four major regional combatant commanders, of what the-shall we call them the major muscle moves that need to be made.

I made a comment, in a hearing in front of your colleagues on the Military Construction Subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee, that I thought the basic building blocks of overseas-of returnable overseas force structure, we are close to defining them. The secretary, I testified, would probably have them in hand-the basic building blocks by May of this year. It is so very important that he do so because then he has to tell the services and the Joint Cross- Service Groups to plan for the receiving of this force structure and it may force structure package A or force structure package B. We want you to understand where is the best place to put them, were those force structure packages to return.

I've read on the front page of the Washington Post this morning, which reflected-did not reflect ground truth, I might add. However, where this force structure comes back to is an extremely important issue and it is best determined within the BRAC process. But the BRAC process has to be informed and those decisions, I understand it, will be made by the president and the secretary of Defense later this spring. Certainly, the alternative force packages.

REP. FORBES: And I concur with that. I guess my question will be too, has that modified or changed significantly in the last two years from the assessment we would have made two years ago to where we are currently in looking at those packages? I believe it has --

MR. DUBOIS: Specially in no small measure, because of the lessons learned out of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

REP. FORBES: The reason I raise that question is because, if these troops are really not expected to repatriate before 2006, is there a concern that that package could change significantly in the next two years between now and 2006, when we're making BRAC decisions in 2005?

MR. DUBOIS: Precisely, because of the question as you have posed it, sir, the secretary knows that he needs to make those decisions so that they do inform the domestic BRAC process. The issues as to whether it would change two years from now, while academically speaking, is a legitimate concerning question. The secretary and the chairman, as I indicated, and the Joint Chiefs, along with the combatant commanders, have a pretty good sense now, given again what's in this report, the probable threats and the force structure that we will, with your help, fund over the next 20 years, we kind of know where they ought to be. Because where they are now, where they are now is not correct.

REP. FORBES: Will the cost of repatriating the overseas troops be paid for out of savings realized from BRAC base closures or will they be paid for separately?

MR. DUBOIS: If the return or re-stationing decisions are made in the BRAC process, which is what the secretary intends to do, the costs and savings will enter into the recommendations to the commission and to the Congress. What it would cost to bring back force structure will be in the BRAC recommendations and therefore reside-the costs and savings will reside in the BRAC account.

REP. FORBES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HEFLEY: Mr. McHugh.

REP. JOHN M. McHUGH (R-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, welcome. Obviously, there are some disagreements on this panel as to going forward with BRAC. I think you've heard in all the comments a common concern about what the process and the way in which it will be done and then the ultimate effect of that. Unlike some of my colleagues, I have supported this initiative after a lot of hard thought and a lot of concern and I continue to. I know, although I take a different perspective, in most instances, than Mr., say, Taylor on this, I certainly wanted to underscore his concerns about issues such as encroachment.

You got a lot of bases out there that aren't what they are described to be. And this is no fault of their own but the variety of encroachments that have eroded away the efficacy and capacity of bases is frightening to me and I-the chairman of the subcommittee, in his previous life and his current life and, I suspect, if he chooses to, his future life, has led the fight that we have tried to join in trying to place reasonable limits on those encroachments. But I think we've got to be honest as we approach a BRAC; that we've got to take a hard look at what each base actually can do, given the reality of encroachments. And I just wanted to editorialize and to state that.

We've talked about a lot of things here today and that's good. And we've heard a lot about the criteria and the selection process. It's a tough thing. I'm concerned about what I haven't heard more than what I've heard, because with the chairman's support, the chairman and the full committee and the Senate's agreement, we've added some basing considerations that you've talked all around here today. And I don't intend to ascribe and motivation there, I just want to make sure it was an inadvertent omission. I mean, we've added the consideration of basing that takes into account for the assurance of equitable geographical distribution so there are military facilities of one dimension or another found in all parts of this country, that we're not geographically segmenting them and that the presence of a military uniform doesn't become a foreign presence in our own nation. That's in the law and it was in the preliminary criteria as we have-insurance that we have variety in geographic climatological training facilities.

I've been to a lot of places. I've been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan once in the past few months. A lot different weather, and I think we better be able to train in both kinds. And Congress agreed. So I just wanted-I don't think there is any need for you to comment there. If you'd like to, I'd be delighted to listen to what you might like to say. But let me get to my final area.

Over the past-well, let me take it from this way. Secretary, you spent a lot of time, and I thought very thoughtfully so, in describing the process that you're going through and that you will be going through. Describing the various criteria. Describing the way in which military value will be judged and that really thousands upon thousands of data points will be consulted and considered. You also talked about the need to do this in a way that considers almost intangibles. All of that I assume-I know was intended to instill confidence in the integrity of the process. And I support that and I believe in it. I do, however, become concerned not so much about the military and the DOD's role in this process, but rather what a BRAC commission might choose to do.

We have, again with the chairman's support, I think somewhat narrowed their unfettered prerogatives. It concerns me when the military spends months and months and months reviewing going through the data points that you talked about, carefully analyzing it, making what I think will be very difficult but highly considered military based decisions, and then to have people in power who may not have necessarily have ever served in the military-not that that would even qualify them. Have no background, no professional association with that process and can under current law totally with no real checks and balance because no Congress is going to reject a BRAC report, in my opinion, can totally reverse the decisions based on military value. And that scares the hell out of me. And it's been done. And I'm not here to document it or to open old wounds, but it's happened.

I would let the Base Closure Commission vote to keep open a base recommended for closure with one vote. One vote. I feel that strongly, because if you keep a base open that perhaps should have been closed, all you're doing is spending the money. But to empower them on a majority vote to close a facility that branches of the military have determined is best for the future of this country, and the secretary of Defense has agreed with a majority vote, is idiocy.

And that is what we've allowed to exist here now.

MR. DUBOIS: Excuse me, sir. The statute says in order to add --

REP. McHUGH: I know. That was my amendment, and I appreciate you bringing it up. But that's to add. There is a second vote to close and it is strict majority. I believe you'll find I'm correct, I've spent a lot of time on this. True?

MR. DUBOIS: To add an installation to foreclosure --

REP. McHUGH: Is a seven to nine vote to-because you've got to take a vote to close. That just puts them on the list when you didn't put them on the list. You then vote to close. That's a majority vote. She's confused, she's not certain. Trust me, that's what it is.

MR. DUBOIS: Mr. McHugh, you may --

REP. McHUGH: If I'm wrong, problem solved. I hope you're right, but I know you're not.

MR. DUBOIS: I would suggest, sir, that if-we will obviously immediately look at this after this hearing is over. But if you're correct, I would ask the chairman that we confer how to-how maybe to fix that.

REP. McHUGH: I'm going to suggest how you can fix it.

REP. HEFLEY: You are correct. I'm --

REP. McHUGH: I know I am. But that's not why I'm here. I'm not going to-you're right, you're wrong, you know. I am correct and in my opinion that is wrong. The department has-here's my point and all I'm suggesting. The department has in the past, as we have opened up the defense authorization bill, issued more or less blank letters saying, "We oppose any changes to the BRAC law." I understand the motivation of that. You're concerned that BRAC might not go forward and I support you in that.

What I would ask, however, is that you consider not issuing such a blank letter this year or next year. And that if there are provisions added or proposed that you're concerned about, you'll oppose them as you will but do it on a case by case basis. Because what has happened is that we have had my amendment adopted here in this subcommittee and then passed by the House and then taken to Conference Committee and had our dear friends in the Senate oppose it, supposedly because they-not supposedly, they did, but claiming the main motivation was the department opposes any changes to BRAC.

All I want to do is-my approach-and if you have different approaches, why I'd be thrilled to hear them. My approach is to say I'd like to do it unanimously, but I would certainly would agree to a seven of nine super majority also to close any base that the department and the secretary of Defense has recommended be kept open. To close it. They can still keep open a base that you have decided to close with a majority vote. Just on closure because, as you've heard here repeatedly, once a base is gone-Army, Air Force, Marine, Navy, doesn't make any difference-it's gone and you're not going to get it back. So I hope you would consider that.

MR. DUBOIS: I think my response and my reaction would belie a sympathy to your position, Congressman.

REP. McHUGH: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.

That's it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HEFLEY: Thank you, and I'm glad you raise these points. I think that's an excellent point and, rest assured, we'll be working on it in this subcommittee again. And any support you can give for Mr. McHugh's position we would appreciate.

Mr. Jones.

REP. JONES: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

And to the panelists, thank you. And since I'm at the end, I only have a couple of questions and just a few remarks. And that's the advantage for you because most of what I would like to say or ask has been covered by my colleagues in a very fine way. I guess in looking at this-I came-in 1994 I was elected and then became a congressman in 1995. I have Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson Air Force base and Camp Lejeune and New River in my district. And I just want to share a story very quickly.

I will never forget my first or second month I was asked, along with I'm sure my other colleagues, to go to a BRAC round before the commissioners over in Maryland. I forgot which university-it was University of Maryland, branch so and so. And the point I wanted to make is that prior to being elected to Congress I went down to Cherry Point and the base commander at that time was the assassin, Fred McCorkle (ph), General McCorkle. And I was told that two or three years before that the Navy had put millions of dollars into improving and enhancing the infrastructure at Cherry Point because there were going to be a transfer of F-18s out of Jacksonville that were going to be located at Cherry Point.

Well, as politics happens, there was a very powerful man in the state of Virginia that thought F-18s should be at Oceania. Well, ever since they have been located there, it's just been one problem after one lawsuit after one problem because politics got into a decision that probably in reflecting back, the best location would have been eastern North Carolina, where the Navy right now is negotiating for the 30,000 acres in eastern North Carolina. I only mentioned that because I think what Mr. McHugh said, and my colleagues have probably said before I came in this afternoon, that once it goes to the commission, as good a job as you all have done or will do, the commission itself I think can create some problems.

But there's nothing I can do about it or you can do about it. Maybe the committee can do something about it. But that will always stay with me because millions of dollars have been spent at Cherry Point to enhance the infrastructure, and yet the planes that were supposed to go in that direction ended up going to Oceania.

Just a couple of points. I wish you would explain-and we've got a vote. In section 6 it says, "the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the military installation." Mr. Secretary, can you explain that fairly quickly as to if that is one of the military values, one of the criteria, it says "other considerations," how does that weigh in to a recommendation? Let's say it's going to be a negative impact because a base is going to be recommended for closing or realigning into another area?

MR. DUBOIS: That particular criterion is, I think, fairly straightforward, Congressman. And the service involved, the military department involved, based on statistical evidence provided by the Departments of Commerce and Labor as well as local statistical-metropolitan statistical area evidence, has to take in and adjust or assess what would be the negative impact were that base, that installation, to close. I don't know what more I can say other than it would be taken into consideration.

REP. JONES: Well, in your recommendation and evaluation, my point is that if you know this is going to be a significant economic negative for that area, and obviously you are moving to close a base in a certain-how does that play into a decision? In other words, you're going to close the base based on these seven or eight other items and I'm trying to figure out how that-does it have any weight in a decision or recommendation?

MR. DUBOIS: It certainly would have weight once the first four criteria have been satisfied. The military value criteria one through four have primacy. If-and I don't know whether this would be the case. But if it came down to military Installation A, B and C all more or less weighted equally in military value, but number six criterion indicated that Installation C would have a far greater negative impact on its surrounding community economically were it to be closed, that would come into play.

REP. JONES: Just a couple other points, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciated your statements, you and General Cartwright-primarily you-to some other questions and statements by my colleagues. This is a process that I assume-I was not here when they debated and voted on the need for a round of BRACs. But it is a process that in a way is very sad because I think about my own great state of North Carolina.

We're in a tight budget year, a very difficult budget year for the legislature. Yet, they're going to spend thousands of dollars. They've already hired a law firm, a high powered law firm to come up here, and I don't know what they're going to do, quite frankly, except cost the taxpayers of North Carolina a lot of money. Now, that's not your fault. That's the fault we have these rounds of BRACs.

And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how else it can be done, to be honest with you. I'm not that smart. But I would tell you that it is-it's a sad case when communities have to spend millions of dollars and have lobbyists that come up here-and I don't know what they're going to do until recommendations start being made public. So there is probably seven or eight months that they're going to be on a retainer making thousands of dollars. And that's all over this nation, it's not just North Carolina.

I want to ask you-this would be my last question to you. You said that you from time to time, and this was-and I've not read your statement. But you said in answer to a question that from time to time you meet with certain groups from certain parts of the country. In other words, if a commission or representatives of a commission from a certain state called you and said, "Mr. Secretary, we'd like to come up and talk to you about this round of BRAC," does that happen? When you were making that reference is that what you were talking about, meeting with representatives from states that want to meet with you to find out what you all are going to be doing?

MR. DUBOIS: I was specifically referring to situations where a member of Congress, either House or Senate, or a governor would ask me-ask to see me and to discuss installations writ at large in their district or their state. Oftentimes they bring with them county commissioners and mayors. I met with almost all the members of the Pennsylvania delegation recently. I met with almost all the members of the Massachusetts delegation a couple of months ago-along with Governor Romney I might add, he was also in the meeting-to explain to them what the process was, pure and simple. That is one of my jobs.

Now, I will say this-and many of you have heard me say this before, I will say it again: I think money can be better spent by communities than retaining lawyers, lobbyists and consultants. And I have said this before and I will say this again. I do not answer phone calls from lobbyists, lawyers and consultants when it comes to BRAC, period.

REP. JONES: Well, Mr. Chairman, with that I'm going to close because Mr. Bishop might have questions. Thank you again for being here today and I know you will try to keep the process as honest as possible.

MR. DUBOIS: Thank you, sir.

REP. JONES: And I appreciate that.

REP. HEFLEY: We're going to have to recess again.

Mr. Bishop, you're the last one. Do you have questions that you want to hold them over for?

REP. BISHOP: Mr. Chairman, I do. But in fairness to the witnesses, who've been here a long time, Mr. Chairman, if I just submit these for the record. I'm assuming I'm the last one, Mr. Chairman?

REP. HEFLEY: You are the last one, except that Mr. Marshall had another question.

Do you want to submit yours for the record or do you want to --

REP. MARSHALL: I can do that. Mine is pretty brief, but it-do we need to leave right --

REP. BISHOP: If Mr. Marshall wants to ask a question, I'll come back and do it. If not, I'll just submit these and then you can dismiss the witnesses.

REP. HEFLEY: Mr. Marshall, what's your pleasure? Do you want to keep them over?

REP. MARSHALL: Bring them back, if it's okay.

Sorry, fellas. Stay with us for just a little while we walk over and vote.

REP. HEFLEY: It's another quick one vote. We'll be back, we stand in recess.

(Recess.)

REP. HEFLEY: The meeting will come back to order.

Mr. Marshall?

REP. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dubois, I wanted to follow up on the question that I previously asked about cross service teams, and service to service teams and how you're going to integrate the information that you get back if I understood you correctly, your expectation would be that Robins, for example, which was the specific example I used of a facility that has multiple uses right now, multiple capacities, over 60 different units there. Blended wing, Army, Air Force, National Guard, I mean just a lot going on there. You said you thought that there would be cross service teams that would be looking at the depot and some other things and then service to service would probably be Air Force.

We're in a joint world now, more so than we ever have been, at least in my lifetime, and I find myself wondering how you get information or how you get the right kind of balanced feedback from-I'm just going to pick it-the Army, when the Army hasn't done a service to service analysis of Robins and it may well be that in, as you put it, the realignment part of closure and realignment, with realignment being the major emphasis, a base like Robins would be an appropriate place to house any number of non-Air Force activities and yet you don't have the non-Air Force crowd specifically looking at Robins with that in mind as a possibility, though you do have these cross service teams.

So I just wanted to add to the question that I had concerning how you're going to integrate all of this when you've got separate teams looking at separate things, a question concerning how you do the service specific analysis of the capacity of individual installations like Robins, to try to determine whether or not that base, though it's quote, "Air Force", whether or not that Air Force base has things to offer for other services.

MR. DUBOIS: Mr. Marshall, the very question you have posed was discussed in a recent infrastructure steering group meeting. Insofar as a joint cross service group, as you say, will look at the industrial activities on Warner Robins, the Air Force will look at the operational mission activities on Warner Robins, the joint cross service group on education and training would look at whether to be a training mission on Warner Robins. We have ourselves asked how would we cross fertilize the results of the respective analyses and we're deliberating on that right now.

That very question has been posed, everyone around the table, all the vice chiefs and the assistant service secretaries agreed there must be a mechanism by which we can bring those heretofore disparate analyses to the table to do just what you've asked, as well as make certain that the other services are aware as criterion seven says, the ability of both existing and potential receiving communities infrastructure to support forces and missions and personnel not there today but might-we've been very blunt among ourselves. Can we move an Army, aircraft mission to an Air Force base? Can we move an Air Force aircraft mission to a Marine Corps airbase? That is very much conceptually on the table.

GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I would just add one more piece to that and it was referred to earlier as the synergies. In other words, we could have disparate pieces on these bases doing things and we haven't necessarily captured the synergy of the value of having those pieces altogether. Whether it be training or whether it be the R&D etcetera, and that's another piece of trying to make sure that we have an apples to apples comparison that allows us to look across disciplines to be able to understand the potential synergies that could be there.

REP. MARSHALL: Having spent a little bit of time on many Army bases and having seen some Air Force bases, I can tell you-not too many Marines but I suspect you are just as Spartan as the Army, the Army and the Marines are going to want to go to the Air Force bases.

REP. HEFLEY: Mr. Bishop?

REP. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your being here and your candor and staying longer than you ever wanted to and I apologize for that as well. I also apologize for missing the first hour of this, it's not intended as a disrespect. Somehow I'm going to ask the chairman to show me how you handle constituents in your office at the same time you have a committee meeting two buildings away, and then later on tonight I'm going to ask the Lord for forgiveness about what I said about the elevator system in this building. And whoever the architect was that designed the foot traffic in here.

I did have the chance of reading your testimony and, Mr. Secretary, I'm encouraged at the parts where you talk about the necessity of preserving the surge capacity. I believe, and probably all the committee believes that's critical and especially when it comes to logistics areas and support, including the depot system of which I'm very concerned, and also keeping core capabilities in-house and the government depot system so that as far as readiness of troops, you'll always have some predictability and maybe eliminate some of the factors that are inherent in the private sector while still gaining the benefits of that private sector. So I do have about four questions if I could pose to you, Mr. Secretary?

First of all, does the department still believe in it is important to retain that core in-house depot maintenance capability through the BRAC process? And especially in light of the fact that virtually all the services depots are running 85 to 90 percent of capacity right now.

MR. DUBOIS: The Joint Cross Service Group on industrial activities has within its purview the depots and the air logistic centers and the shipyards and the arsenals and the ammunitions. How the JCSG industrial activities will assess the depots, will be in accordance with the selection criteria and the philosophy, nay the rules, that we have, all installations shall be looked at equally and comprehensively. You raise some very interesting and important issues that they are wrestling with. Capacity, utilization, the 50/50 rule, the core systems rule, they're taking all of these issues under consideration, but I think it's important that we recognize that all installations are being addressed.

REP. BISHOP: Well, I appreciate that, let me try-because you hit on about three or four other questions right there. Let me try and go one more time and see if I could better ask the question. Is there still a commitment, though, to maintaining a core program within the depot system?

MR. DUBOIS: We know that the law requires on both the 50/50 and the core clauses that the depots maintain a certain amount of-spend U.S. taxpayers dollars in a certain way. We are mindful of those statutes, and we do not intend in any way to ignore them. How that JCSG or where that JCSG is maybe a better word, ends up a year from now, I can't predict. And I think that's one of the things I hope gives you all confidence that this is going to be as thorough a process as it can possibly be. We do know, and I will repeat this, that there is excess capacity, you yourself mentioned it.

REP. BISHOP: Yes, and I'm sure it's going to be thorough, I don't know if confidence is the right word, but it's going to be thorough for sure. You did, and I'm glad you brought up the concept of 50/50, there have been some that have mentioned that since the BRAC legislation was passed after the statute that implied the 50/50, that 50/50 indeed, could be ignored in making BRAC recommendations and decisions. We've asked informally on some of the service groups and I've received a negative response that that will indeed be the case. Can I just ask as far as the department is concerned is the concept that since BRAC was passed after 50/50, it takes -- 50/50 could be ignored in this entire process?

MR. DUBOIS: We certainly don't intend that, you know, let's-as depot level maintenance and repair facilities, as I said, are examined within the BRAC process, the requirements of section 2466 as well as all other statutory constraints are going to be carefully considered, they have to be, we will do that.

REP. BISHOP: Does that mean that the 50/50 statute is still considered as a statute and would not be dismissed because of legislation that was passed afterwards?

MR. DUBOIS: It will not be dismissed.

REP. BISHOP: Thank you. Now I think we're saying the same thing and I appreciate you saying that very much. When you determine the excess capacity that's got to be maintained, especially in the depots, is it your intention to use the figures each service currently has as far as their workload and capacity, or is there some new standard that you envision being adopted for that measurement?

MR. DUBOIS: As I said in answer to several other questions, the excess capacity analysis submitted in the report by the secretary earlier this week was to give us a sense of confidence that he-give him a sense of confidence that in point of fact, with certainty we have excess capacity. The various percentages in categories and by service, however, will not determine the outcome of what installations are closed or realigned.

REP. BISHOP: Okay, so I'm taking that there's not necessarily be a new standard that's going to be produced, you'll use the same figures that are currently being discussed in the process?

MR. DUBOIS: In the case of those-remember those categories are in the aggregate parametric projections. The standards, the criteria that Congress told us to use are going to be applied in terms of each individual type of facility.

REP. BISHOP: All right, thank you. Once again, I appreciate that and if at any time, you know, if there's some redundancy with this I once again apologize if you've already answered these at an earlier time when I was not here. And I take this, once again, all the time that the department has no attempt in any way the decision this time to redefine what is considered being core in any of the upcoming BRAC rounds and your commitment to the 50/50 rule as well as that core capacity, is something that I appreciate hearing from you very much.

MR. DUBOIS: As I indicated, we are committed to taking it into consideration.

REP. ORTIZ: Would the gentleman yield, for just --

REP. BISHOP: I'd be happy to.

REP. ORTIZ: You know the thing, and I understand, you know, that you're going to consider what the gentleman just talked about, the 50/50. But will you abide by it because it's the law?

MR. DUBOIS: We will not ignore any statute on the books as it pertains to any of the real property assets which we're going to assess and analyze.

REP. ORTIZ: Thank you so much.

REP. BISHOP: And if I could just reclaim my time. Mr. Secretary, that is the important question that we had and I appreciate that. As I've said, there have been some who've contended that it could be ignored regardless of the fact of the statute because of the circumstances of the timing of its passage, so your statements are very reassuring on that issue, thank you.

REP. HEFLEY: So that's it?

REP. BISHOP: I'm done. It wasn't worth coming back for, was it?

REP. HEFLEY: Mr. Secretary and General, we appreciate you spending a very enlightening afternoon with us, I'm sure we're enlightened by your testimony. I hope you're a bit enlightened by the questions and comments of the committee, and I hope some of these questions and comments you'll take to heart, as we look at how we might refine this BRAC process.

You know it-up here I think the feeling runs all the way from not doing any more BRAC processes to postponing the BRAC process, to tweaking the BRAC process. There are some tweaks that I think need to be done, and I think some of those were expressed today and I hope you'll work with us on those.

MR. DUBOIS: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, and I would only conclude by asking we, the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all the senior leadership of the department, recognize the difficulty that BRAC presents, both internally to us from an analytic standpoint, and quite frankly, externally to you all. But we hope that you will sincerely understand that there is every-we are making every effort to do this in such a way as to benefit our national military command structure and our national security first and foremost. Thank you, sir.