[House Report 106-614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-614
======================================================================
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
_______
May 11, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hobson, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4425]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and
base realignments and closures for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Committee Recommendation.............................. 2
Conformance With Authorization Bill.............................. 3
Advance Appropriations........................................... 3
Proposed Financing of Current Year Programs via Prior Year
Savings........................................................ 4
Quadrennial Defense Review....................................... 5
Foreign Currency Fluctuations.................................... 5
Reprogramming Criteria........................................... 6
Historic Preservation............................................ 6
Joint Use Facilities............................................. 7
Transfer Authority............................................... 7
Paint............................................................ 7
Recycled Foundry Sand............................................ 7
Real Property Maintenance........................................ 8
Program, Project and Activity.................................... 8
Planning and Budgeting........................................... 8
Metric Conversion................................................ 9
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing.................. 9
Fiscal Year 2001 Barracks Request................................ 9
Child Development Centers........................................ 10
Hospital and Medical Facilities.................................. 11
Environmental Compliance Projects................................ 12
Military Construction:
Army......................................................... 13
Navy......................................................... 14
Air Force.................................................... 16
Defense-wide................................................. 17
Reserve Components............................................... 20
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 23
Family Housing Overview.......................................... 24
Family Housing:
Army......................................................... 29
Navy......................................................... 31
Air Force.................................................... 32
Defense-wide................................................. 33
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............ 33
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.............................. 36
Base Realignment and Closure:
Overview..................................................... 37
Part I....................................................... 40
Part II...................................................... 40
Part III..................................................... 40
Part IV...................................................... 40
Changes in Application of Existing Law........................... 40
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law............................. 43
Transfer of Funds................................................ 43
Rescission of Funds.............................................. 43
Constitutional Authority......................................... 44
Comparisons With Budget Resolution............................... 44
Advance Spending Authority....................................... 44
Five-Year Projection of Outlays.................................. 44
Financial Assistance............................................. 45
State List....................................................... 45
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority.................... 64
Summary of Committee Recommendation
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request of
$8,033,908,000 represents a decrease of $306,682,000 from the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $8,340,590,000. The request
only includes $3,379,058,000 for military construction,
$3,480,481,000 for family housing and $1,174,369,000 for
activities associated with base closure and realignment.
While there are aspects of the budget request that help to
solve the long-term infrastructure problems faced by the
Department of Defense, the Committee has some concerns over the
request. For example, excluding base closure and realignment,
the military construction and family housing accounts decrease
$951,150,000, or 12 percent, from the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level. Family housing construction and operation and
maintenance accounts are reduced by $109,749,000. The budget
request would provide $748,411,000 for family housing
construction, a reduction of $18,878,000 from current levels.
Of this amount, $287,968,000 is requested for construction of
new family housing units, a reduction of $91,117,000, or 24
percent, from current spending. And, the request for operation
and maintenance of existing family housing units is reduced by
$90,871,000 from the current program.
The Committee believes it is imperative to address these
serious shortfalls and the severe backlog in readiness,
revitalization and quality of life projects. Therefore, the
Committee has recommended an additional $600,092,000 above the
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is
$8,634,000,000, an increase of $293,410,000, or 4 percent, from
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and an increase of
$600,092,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The
appropriation includes $3,901,441,000 for military
construction, $3,558,190,000 for family housing, and
$1,174,369,000 for activities associated with base realignment
and closure. The following table provides a breakout of the
highlights of the bill:
FY 2000:
Enacted......................................... $8.37 billion
Consolidated Appropriation (P.L. 106-113)....... -33 million
Net Appropriation........................... 8.34 billion
President's FY 2001 Request......................... 8.03 billion
Subcommittee Recommendation......................... 8.63 billion
Increase over FY 2000 Appropriation................. 293 million
Increase over President's Request................... 600 million
Military Construction: $3.9 billion (45% of total bill),
including:
$759 million for barracks
$43 million for child development centers
$141 million for hospital and medical facilities
$26 million for environmental compliance
$175 million for the chemical weapons
demilitarization
program
$178 million for NATO Security Investment Program
$83 million for National Missile Defense
$458 million for Guard and Reserve components
Family Housing: $3.5 billion (41% of total bill),
including:
$859 million for new family housing units, and for
improvements to existing units
$2.699 billion for operation and maintenance of
existing
units
Base Realignment and Closure: $1.2 billion (14% of total
bill),
including:
$13 million for military construction and family
housing
$865 million for environmental cleanup
$294 million for operations and maintenance
Conformance With Authorization Bill
The Subcommittee on Military Installations of the House
Armed Services Committee conducted its mark up on May 2, 2000
of the authorization for military construction, family housing
and base realignment and closure accounts included in this
bill. Because conference action on the authorization had not
been completed at the time this bill was prepared, all projects
in this bill are approved subject to authorization.
Advance Appropriations
The Department has requested advance appropriations in the
amount of $820,704,000, spread over four fiscal years, for
eight projects. It is the Committee's view that there is no
precedence for advance funding military construction projects.
Following is a breakout of the individual projects, by account
and fiscal year, which total the $820,704,000 advance
appropriation request. The Committee denies all of the advance
appropriations and directs the Department to request these
funds in the appropriate fiscal year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account and fiscal year Amount Location/project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milcon, Army:
2002........................ $80,500,000 Pueblo, CO: Ammunition
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase III.
2002........................ 78,000,000 Newport, IN: Ammunition
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase IV.
2002........................ 51,750,000 Aberdeen, MD: Ammunition
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase IV.
--------------
Subtotal.................. 210,250,000
==============
Milcon, Army:
2003........................ 83,400,000 Pueblo, CO: Ammunition
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase IV.
==============
Milcon, Army:
2004........................ 10,890,000 Pueblo, CO: Ammunition
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase V.
==============
Milcon, Navy:
2002........................ 14,813,000 San Diego, CA: Berthing
Pier.
2002........................ 30,664,000 Camp Smith, HI: CINCPAC
Headquarters.
2002........................ 23,587,000 Puget Sound, WA: Pier
Replacement.
--------------
Subtotal.................. 69,064,000
==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
2002........................ 38,000,000 Fort Wainwright, AK:
Hospital Replacement,
Phase III.
2002........................ 192,800,000 Unspecified Worldwide:
National Missile
Defense.
--------------
Subtotal.................. 230,800,000
==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
2003........................ 20,000,000 Fort Wainwright, AK:
Hospital Replacement,
Phase IV.
2003........................ 127,400,000 Unspecified Worldwide:
National Missile
Defense.
--------------
Subtotal.................. 147,400,000
==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
2004........................ 10,000,000 Fort Wainwright, AK:
Hospital Replacement,
Phase V.
2004........................ 40,000,000 Unspecified Worldwide:
National Missile
Defense.
--------------
Subtotal.................. 50,000,000
==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
2005........................ 18,900,000 Unspecified Worldwide:
National Missile
Defense.
==============
Grand Total............... 820,704,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Financing of Current Year Programs Via Prior Year Savings
The budget request for fiscal year 2001 proposed partial
financing of current year programs via prior year savings, as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/location Project description Authorization Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Navy:
District of Columbia: Naval Research Lab.. Nano-Science Research Facility.. $12,390,000 0
Texas: Kingsville Naval Air Station....... Aircraft Parking Apron.......... 2,670,000 0
North Carolina: Camp Lejeune MCB.......... Armories........................ 14,000,000 $10,000,000
Italy: Sigonella Naval Air Station........ Community Facilities............ 32,969,000 32,029,000
-------------------------------
Total................................... ................................ 62,029,000 42,029,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If program execution has resulted in identifiable prior
year savings within individual projects, the correct financing
method is to detail such savings and to request rescissions of
funds by account and by fiscal year. The Committee directs the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to follow the
conventional rescission procedure in future budget submissions.
Financial Management/Elimination of Contingency for Individual Projects
The Committee agrees that the amount requested in prior
fiscal years for construction contingencies, 5 percent for new
construction and 10 percent for alterations or additions, is
excessive. The budget submission has eliminated all contingency
funds for all military construction and family housing
construction programs in fiscal year 2001 and beyond. The
Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
to closely monitor the impacts of this reduction to ensure that
this action will provide an incentive for the services to
improve their cost estimating and monitoring procedures. It is
further directed, that no project for which funds were
previously appropriated, or for which funds are appropriated in
this bill, may be canceled as a result of this reduction.
Quadrennial Defense Review
The Committee is concerned with the Defense Department's
declining investments in the construction, replacement, and
revitalization of facilities. The cost of operating an aged
inventory is significantly higher than the cost of operating a
more modern inventory, so the savings realized by not making
construction investments are lost to higher operating costs.
Additionally, the Committee is concerned that this aged
inventory will not be ready and structured to support effective
military operations in the future.
The Department's recent budgets have conveyed an emphasis
on procurement of new, modern weapons systems. These same
budgets have not placed the same priority on housing these new
systems and the people that operate them in modern facilities.
The Committee believes that the Department must program and
budget sufficient funds to control the aging of the facilities
inventory and eventually reduce the average age to a level
consistent with a modern, effective, and efficient military
organization. The Committee also believes facility
modernization is connected to new ways of doing business,
future force levels, weapon system modernization and mission
requirements. Therefore, the Committee expects the Department
to include a thorough review of its basing capacity,
outsourcing strategy, and military construction requirements
and related facilities restoration and modernization programs
as part of the Congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense
Review.
Foreign Currency Fluctuations
The U.S dollar has significantly improved against most
foreign currencies than the Department of Defense predicted
when it submitted its fiscal year 2001 budget. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends reductions to the following appropriations
due to these favorable fluctuations in exchange rates:
Military Construction, Army........................... -$635,000
Military Construction, Navy........................... -2,889,000
Military Construction, Defense-Wide................... -7,115,000
Family Housing, Army.................................. -19,911,000
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps................. -1,071,000
Family Housing, Air Force............................. -12,231,000
-----------------
Total........................................... -$43,852,000
Reprogramming Criteria
The Committee believes that there is a need to clarify the
rules for military construction and family housing
reprogrammings. A project or account (including the sub-
elements of an account) which has been specifically reduced by
the Congress in acting on the appropriation request is
considered to be a congressional interest item. A prior
approval reprogramming is required for any increase to an item
that has been specifically reduced by the Congress.
Consequently, there can be no below threshold reprogrammings to
an item specifically reduced by the Congress.
Furthermore, in instances where a prior approval
reprogramming request for a project or account has been
approved by the Committee, the amount approved becomes the new
base for any future increase or decrease via below threshold
reprogrammings (provided that the project or account is not a
congressional interest item).
historic preservation
The Committee is concerned the inordinate expenditures
associated with improving and maintaining historically
significant properties will eventually overburden the Defense
Department's housing and maintenance accounts. As required by
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Department
must manage those units listed on the National Historic
Register, as well as any units that meet the criteria of being
potentially eligible for listing, in a way that preserves their
historic significance and integrity. As a result, operation and
maintenance costs of historic properties are, on average, two
to three times the cost of a non-historic property.
In the future, the costs associated with maintaining
historic properties will escalate as the number of properties
eligible for placement on the National Historic Register
continues to grow. For instance, the Army and Navy have 203,817
buildings and structures in their current inventory, which will
become eligible for the National Historic Register over the
next 20 to 30 years. The Air Force is unable to provide this
data.
The Committee believes that innovative funding and
operating methods should be pursued by the Department in order
to reduce costs and improve care of historic properties.
Alternative funding sources and methods that may be explored
include establishing a trust fund, expanding gift acceptance
authority, seeking sponsors, and leasing to third parties for
the maintenance of these properties. The Committee directs the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations to submit a
report no later than March 30, 2001 on the development of
innovative initiatives and future plans that can help reduce
costs and improve maintenance of historic properties.
Joint Use Facilities
The Committee supports joint use of facilities between the
various components of the Defense Department. Joint use
facilities can optimize military construction and operation and
maintenance funds while enhancing joint training and the total
force concept. However, only the Reserve Components currently
have a formal process for reviewing military construction
projects for joint use potential and that process is not
rigorously applied. As such, it appears opportunities for the
benefits of joint use facilities may be missed. To ensure joint
use construction is considered when the Department assesses
facilities needs, the Committee directs that any Form 1390/1391
which is presented as justification include a certification by
the Secretary concerned that the proposed project has been
considered for joint use potential, a recommendation for either
joint use or unilateral construction, and the reason(s) for
that recommendation if joint use is not recommended. The
certification may be delegated not lower than the Assistant
Secretary responsible for the project. This review/
certification is to be reviewed by the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) during the budget review to ensure
impartial review.
Transfer Authority
The budget request proposed a general provision which would
allow the transfer of up to $67,000,000 between any accounts in
the bill, and this could be accomplished at the determination
of the Secretary of Defense and upon the approval of OMB.
Congress would be given an ``after the fact'' notification. The
Committee believes that the existing reprogramming procedures
are sufficient in solving urgent, high priority funding
problems within available resources and denies this request.
Paint
The Committee is aware that innovations in paint are
occurring on an almost daily basis. The Committee is concerned
that the Services might not be taking advantage of such
innovations which have the ability to prolong the useful life
of buildings, promote energy conservation, and even reduce the
impact of fires by utilizing fire resistant paint. Therefore,
the Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations to review current military specifications and
costs for paint to determine if the use of higher quality
paints can, in fact, be more economical over the life cycle of
the activity. In addition, this review should include an
examination of the attributes of fire resistant paint in regard
to its potential use as a life saving material and the costs in
comparison to current materials specified in federal standards.
The Committee expects a report on the findings no later than
March 30, 2001.
recycled foundry sand
The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers and the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) to utilize
recycled foundry sand in military construction projects where
economically feasible. It is the Committee's understanding that
foundry sand meets the Federal Specifications for construction.
Further, the Committee directs the Corps and NAVFAC to report
back to the Committee on the prior and potential use of foundry
sand in military construction no later than March 30, 2001.
Real Property Maintenance
The Department is directed to continue to provide the real
property maintenance backlog at all installations for which
there is a requested construction project in future budget
submissions. This information is to be provided on Form 1390.
In addition, for all troop housing requests, the Form 1391 is
to continue to show all real property maintenance conducted in
the past two years and all future requirements for
unaccompanied housing at that installation.
Real Property Maintenance: Reporting Requirement
The Committee continues to expect the general rules for
repairing a facility under Operation and Maintenance account
funding will be as follows:
Components of the facility may be repaired by replacement,
and such replacement can be up to current standards or codes.
Interior arrangements and restorations may be included as
repair, but additions, new facilities, and functional
conversions must be performed as military construction
projects.
Such projects may be done concurrent with repair projects,
as long as the final conjunctively funded project is a complete
and usable facility.
The appropriate Service Secretary shall submit a 21-day
notification prior to carrying out any repair project with an
estimated cost in excess of $10,000,000.
Program, Project and Activity
For the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation
Act of 1987, (Public Law 100-119), the term ``Program, Project
and Activity'' will continue to be defined as the appropriation
account.
Planning and Budgeting
The Committee relies on officials in the Department of
Defense to provide the most honest assessment of competing
facilities needs, based on the most informed judgment of
military requirements. The Committee understands and supports
the process the Department employs to identify requirements, to
prioritize those requirements, and to live within budgetary
constraints. It is the view of the Committee that the best way
to accomplish this task is to have a disciplined long-range
planning process, with annual adjustments to meet changing
circumstances. The Committee supports efforts within the
Services and within the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to formulate and present a coherent Future Years
Defense Plan at the project level of detail, and encourages
efforts to reconcile annual adjustments in this plan.
Metric Conversion
The Committee directs the Comptroller of the Department of
Defense to assure that any Form 1390/1391 which is presented as
justification in metric measurement shall include
parenthetically the English measurement.
permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing
The Department of Defense estimates that 42 percent of the
enlisted force and 27 percent of the officers are single or
unaccompanied personnel. Although 30 percent live in private
off-base housing, the Department has over 416,463 men and women
living in permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing.
Approximately one-half of the barracks were built 30 or more
years ago, with an average age of over 30 years. And, over
46,500 spaces are still serviced by gang latrines and
approximately 60,900 additional spaces are considered
substandard and continuous maintenance is necessary to deal
with such problems as asbestos, corroded pipes, inadequate
ventilation, faulty heating and cooling systems, and peeling
lead-based paint.
In fiscal year 1997, the respective Services deficit count
due to the lack of barracks spaces to house single service
members or the need to replace or improve current spaces was
238,000. As a result of the Congressional initiative to
accelerate the barracks revitalization effort, current deficit
estimates have been reduced to 114,000 single service members.
The Department of Defense estimates current total costs to
achieve desired end states at $7,643,000,000, as compared to
$14,280,000,000 in fiscal year 1997. And, the timetable to
accomplish the revitalization has decreased from over twenty
years to thirteen years.
The Committee understands that improving troop housing does
not lie solely in new construction and renovations. Retiring
the backlog of maintenance and repair, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee, and an adequate
funding commitment to prevent future backlogs plays an
important role in this process. It is necessary to use many
different approaches to help meet the unaccompanied housing
need. The challenge is for a sustained overall commitment, at
funding levels that will reduce the backlog of substandard
spaces, reduce the housing deficits, and increase the quality
of living conditions in a reasonable period of time.
fiscal year 2001 barracks request
The Department of Defense has requested $668,025,000 to
construct or modernize 38 barracks in fiscal year 2001. The
Committee has approved the request of $668,025,000 in full. In
order to help alleviate the unaccompanied housing deficit, an
additional $90,615,000 is recommended. The total recommended
appropriation for unaccompanied housing in this bill is
$758,640,000.
The following troop housing construction projects are
recommended for fiscal year 2001:
FISCAL YEAR 2001 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
California-Fort Irwin............... $31,000,000 $31,000,000
California-Presidio of Monterey..... 0 2,600,000
Georgia-Fort Benning................ 24,000,000 24,000,000
Georgia-Fort Stewart................ 26,000,000 26,000,000
Hawaii-Schofield Barracks........... 46,400,000 46,400,000
Hawaii-Wheeler Army Air Field....... 43,800,000 43,800,000
Kansas-Fort Riley................... 15,000,000 15,000,000
Kentucky-Fort Campbell.............. 9,400,000 9,400,000
North Carolina-Fort Bragg........... 26,000,000 26,000,000
North Carolina-Fort Bragg........... 45,600,000 45,600,000
North Carolina-Fort Bragg........... 38,600,000 38,600,000
Germany-Bamberg..................... 7,800,000 7,800,000
Germany-Bamberg..................... 3,850,000 3,850,000
Germany-Darmstadt................... 5,700,000 5,700,000
Germany-Darmstadt................... 5,600,000 5,600,000
Germany-Mannheim.................... 4,050,000 4,050,000
Korea-Camp Carroll.................. 0 10,000,000
Korea-Camp Hovey.................... 0 26,000,000
Korea-Camp Hovey.................... 0 9,950,000
Korea-Camp Humphreys................ 14,200,000 14,200,000
Korea-Camp Page..................... 19,500,000 19,500,000
Kwajalein-Kwajalein Atoll........... 18,000,000 18,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Army.................... 384,500,000 433,050,000
===============================
Navy/Marine Corps:
California-Lemoore Naval Air Station 8,260,000 8,260,000
California-Twentynine Palms......... 0 21,770,000
District of Columbia-Washington 17,197,000 17,197,000
Marine Barracks....................
Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Base 18,400,000 18,400,000
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Station... 16,500,000 16,500,000
Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training 37,000,000 37,000,000
Center.............................
Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training 37,700,000 37,700,000
Center.............................
North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine 14,300,000 14,300,000
Corps Base.........................
Virginia-Norfolk Naval Shipyard..... 16,100,000 16,100,000
CONUS Various....................... 11,500,000 11,500,000
Italy-Naples Naval Support Activity. 15,000,000 15,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Navy.................... 191,957,000 213,727,000
===============================
Air Force:
Alaska-Eielson AFB.................. 14,540,000 14,540,000
Alaska-Elmendorf AFB................ 15,920,000 15,920,000
Colorado-Peterson AFB............... 11,000,000 11,000,000
Florida-Eglin AFB................... 5,600,000 5,600,000
Louisiana-Barksdale AFB............. 6,390,000 6,390,000
Oklahoma-Tinker AFB................. 5,800,000 5,800,000
Oklahoma-Tinker AFB................. 0 8,745,000
Texas-Lackland AFB.................. 5,500,000 5,500,000
Utah-Hill AFB....................... 0 11,550,000
Virginia-Langley AFB................ 7,470,000 7,470,000
Italy-Aviano AB..................... 8,000,000 8,000,000
Korea-Osan AB....................... 11,348,000 11,348,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Force............... 91,568,000 111,863,000
===============================
Total............................. 668,025,000 758,640,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Development Centers
The Committee has recommended an additional $25,830,000
above the budget estimate of $17,040,000 for a total
appropriation of $42,870,000 for new construction, or
improvements, for child development centers. The Committee
notes that there are currently around 800 child development
centers run by DoD on military bases. These centers have the
capacity to care for about 60,000 children. According to DoD
estimates, an additional 256,000 child care spaces (either in
centers or in family day care) are necessary to meet the needs
of military families. The demand for additional spaces in the
child development centers is severe and the majority of parents
face long waiting lists. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a plan to the Committee for the creation of
an additional 25,000 child care spaces through constructing
child development centers over the next five years. This report
should be submitted to the Committee no later than February 15,
2001.
The following child development center projects are
provided for fiscal year 2001:
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Arizona-Fort Huachuca............... 0 $3,350,000
Arkansas-Pine Bluff Arsenal......... 0 2,750,000
Kansas-Fort Riley................... 0 5,600,000
Germany-Kaiserslautern.............. $3,400,000 3,400,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Army.................... 3,400,000 15,100,000
===============================
Navy:
California-Lemoore Naval Air Station 0 2,500,000
Florida-Jacksonville Naval Air 0 1,400,000
Station............................
Florida-Panama City Naval Coastal 0 1,000,000
Systems Center.....................
Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training 0 3,400,000
Center.............................
North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine 4,420,000 4,420,000
Corps Base.........................
Guam-Guam Naval Activities.......... 0 1,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Navy.................... 4,420,000 13,720,000
===============================
Air Force:
District of Columbia-Bolling AFB.... 4,520,000 4,520,000
Texas-Lackland AFB.................. 0 4,830,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Force............... 4,520,000 9,350,000
===============================
Defense-Wide:
Pennsylvania-Susquehanna Defense 4,700,000 4,700,000
Distribution Depot.................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense-Wide............ 4,700,000 4,700,000
===============================
Total............................. 17,040,000 42,870,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital and Medical Facilities
The budget request includes $180,887,000 for 13 projects
and for unspecified minor construction to provide hospital and
medical support facilities, including both treatment facilities
and medical support facilities. The Committee has recommended a
total appropriation of $141,237,000 for hospital and medical
facilities in this bill. This is $39,650,000 below the budget
estimate. The Committee notes the deferral of the Medical/
Dental Facility Replacement at the Naples Naval Support
Activity in Italy due to the uncertainty of the legality of the
land acquisition, zoning, and building permits.
The following hospital and medical facilities are
recommended for fiscal year 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Project title Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska--Fort Wainwright....................... Hospital Replacement (Phase II). $44,000,000 $44,000,000
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.. Fleet Hospital Ops/Training 2,900,000 2,900,000
Command Support Fac.
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.. Medical/Dental Clinic 3,950,000 3,950,000
Replacement (Horno).
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.. Medical/Dental Clinic 3,550,000 3,550,000
Replacement (Las Flores).
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.. Medical/Dental Clinic 3,750,000 3,750,000
Replacement (Las Pulgas).
California--Edwards AFB....................... Medical Clinic Addition/Dental 17,900,000 17,900,000
Clinic Alteration.
Florida--Eglin AFB............................ Add/Alter Hospital/Life Safety 37,600,000 37,600,000
Upgrade.
Florida--Patrick AFB.......................... Medical Clinic.................. 2,700,000 2,700,000
Florida--Tyndall AFB.......................... Add/Alter Medical Clinic........ 7,700,000 7,700,000
New York--Fort Drum........................... Veterinary Treatment Facility... 1,400,000 1,400,000
Texas--Fort Bliss............................. Laboratory Renovation........... 0 4,200,000
Germany--Kitzingen............................ Health/Dental Clinic Life Safety 1,400,000 1,400,000
Upgrade.
Germany--Wiesbaden AB......................... Add/Alter Health/Dental Clinic.. 7,187,000 7,187,000
Italy--Naples Naval Support Activity.......... Medical/Dental Facility 43,850,000 0
Replacement.
Various....................................... Unspecified Minor Construction.. 3,000,000 3,000,000
-------------------------------
Total................................... ................................ 180,887,000 141,237,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Compliance Projects
The total budget request and appropriation for 8 projects
needed to meet environmental compliance is $25,660,000. The
Federal Facilities Compliance Act requires all federal
facilities to meet both federal and State standards. These
projects are considered Class I violations and are out of
compliance; have received an enforcement action from the
Environmental Protection Agency, the State, or local authority;
and/or a compliance agreement has been signed or consent order
received. Environmental projects that are Class I violations
are required to be funded, and therefore are placed at the top
of the priority list. The Committee has approved the budget
request in full. The total appropriation for environmental
compliance projects in this bill is $25,660,000.
Following is a listing of all environmental compliance
projects funded in this bill:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Project title Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
Washington: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.... Oily Wastewater Collection...... $6,600,000 $6,600,000
Air Force:
Alaska: Cape Romanzof..................... Generator Fuel Storgae.......... 3,900,000 3,900,000
Alaska: Eielson AFB....................... Hazardous Material Storage...... 1,450,000 1,450,000
California: Beale AFB..................... Water Treatment Plant........... 3,800,000 3,800,000
California: Vandenberg AFB................ Upgrade Water Distribution 4,650,000 4,650,000
System.
Georgia: Moody AFB........................ Water Treatment Plant........... 2,500,000 2,500,000
Turkey: Incirlik Air Base................. Fire Training Facility.......... 1,000,000 1,000,000
Air National Guard
Arkansas: Fort Smith...................... Fire Training Facility.......... 1,760,000 1,760,000
-------------------------------
Total................................... ................................ 25,660,000 25,660,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Army
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,042,033,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 897,938,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 869,950,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -172,083,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... -27,988,000
The Committee recommends a total of $869,950,000 for
Military Construction, Army for fiscal year 2001. This is a
decrease of $27,988,000 below the budget request for fiscal
year 2001, and a decrease of $172,083,000 below the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000. Absent the transfer of
$175,400,000 for the Chemical Demilitarization Program from the
``Military Construction, Army'' account to the ``Military
Construction, Defense-wide'' account, the Committee recommends
an increase of $147,412,000 above the Military Construction,
Army budget request.
chemical demilitarization program
The budget request proposes that a total of $175,400,000
should be appropriated under the ``Military Construction,
Army'' account for chemical demilitarization facilities. As in
prior years, the Committee recommends that these amounts be
appropriated under the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide''
account, in order to facilitate the tracking of expenses for
the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and to avoid distorting
the size of the Army's military construction program. It is the
Committee's view that this is an accounting decision, and that
it will have no impact on the operation of the program or on
administrative overhead expenses within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
alabama-anniston army depot: powertrain/flexible maintenance center
Within the additional funds provided for planning and
design, the Army is directed to complete design of the
Powertrain/Flexible Maintenance Center at Anniston Army Depot
in Alabama and include the required construction funding in its
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
kentucky-bluegrass army depot: consolidated shipping center
The Army is directed to accelerate the design of the
Consolidated Shipping Center at the Bluegrass Army Depot, and
to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year
2002 budget request.
new york: u.s. military academy: multimedia learning centers
Within funds provided for unspecified minor construction,
the Committee directs the Army to execute a project in the
amount of $500,000 to provide Multimedia Learning Centers at
the United States Military Academy in New York. This project is
a pilot test of technologically modern study environments for
use at the military academies. These centers will substantially
facilitate student learning, research, and academic project
development through direct connection to all Academy network
services, the Internet, and the National Digital Library being
developed by the Library of Congress.
virginia-fort belvoir: army museum
Within ninety days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Army is directed to report to the Committee as to
whether Fort Belvoir in Virginia is an appropriate site for the
National Museum of the United States Army.
washington-fort lewis: vancouver barracks
Within the additional funds provided for unspecified minor
construction, the Army is directed to provide no less than
$1,500,000 for the stabilization and layaway work of the
Vancouver Barracks at Fort Lewis in Washington.
belgium: barracks
The Committee is aware there is a deficit of barracks
spaces for U.S. personnel assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium
and the Chievres Air Base in Belgium. In order to provide
sufficient space to accommodate unaccompanied soldiers assigned
to these installations, the Army is directed to accelerate the
design of barracks projects and include the required
construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Military Construction, Navy
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $901,531,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 753,422,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 891,380,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -10,151,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... +137,958,000
The Committee recommends a total of $891,380,000 for
Military Construction, Navy for fiscal year 2001. This is an
increase of $137,958,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 2001, and a decrease of $10,151,000 below the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
navy homeport ashore program
The Committee commends the Navy for its Homeport Ashore
Program to provide unaccompanied E-1 through E-4s, who
currently live aboard ship when in homeport, decent
accommodations, either in a BEQ or in the community. Conditions
aboard ship are the worst throughout the Department of Defense,
sleeping in bunk beds in cramped spaces with dozens of
shipmates, and only a small locker to store their personal
belongings. When these ships return to homeport, sailors
continue to sleep aboard. The Committee looks forward to
reviewing the implementation plan and to working with the Navy
to accomplish this very needed quality of life initiative.
california-lemoore naval air station: quality of life and work space
conditions
Earlier this year, the Navy provided a report to the
Committee regarding its efforts to enhance and improve the
quality of life and living conditions at the Lemoore Naval Air
Station (NAS) in California. The Committee appreciates the
efforts the Navy has made regarding the development of an
Infrastructure Improvement Plan, which provides for a
significant investment in Lemoore's aviation, housing, and
recreation facilities while serving as a road map for future
improvements. While the Navy has made significant strides to
improve all aspects of quality of life at the Lemoore NAS, the
Committee is still concerned and interested in the quality of
life projects, the working conditions, and the pilot retention
rates at the base. Considering the costs of training these
pilots and maintaining the best quality of life for our sailors
and their families at Lemoore NAS, the Secretary of the Navy is
directed to report to the Committee by March 15, 2001 regarding
execution of the Infrastructure Improvement Plan for Lemoore
NAS. This report should also include any changes or
modifications that have been made to the plan and the reasons
therefor.
california-north island naval air station: transportation
infrastructure
The North Island Naval Air Station has expanded rapidly
over the past 20 years. As the Naval presence has increased, so
have the number of people traveling to and from the base.
However, the Committee is aware the transportation
infrastructure has not kept pace with the growth of military
activity or personnel at the site. The Committee directs the
Navy to begin design of a project to alleviate traffic flow
problems at North Island NAS within the additional amount
provided for planning and design. In addition, the Secretary of
the Navy is directed to report to the Committee no later than
September 15, 2000 on the Navy's plan to address this issue.
virginia-quantico mccdc: infrastructure development
The Military Construction Appropriations Act for 1997
(Public Law 104-196) provided $8,930,000 for a sanitary
landfill at the Quantico Marine Corps Combat Development
Command (MCCDC) in Virginia. The sanitary landfill project is
no longer a Marine Corps requirement. The Committee supports
the efforts of the House Armed Services Committee for the
extension of authorization and modification of authorization to
ensure these funds are expended on infrastructure improvements
at Quantico MCCDC. The Committee believes this project is
needed for continued growth and development of the
installation.
puerto rico-roosevelt roads naval station
More than 40 years ago, the Navy acquired land abutting
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station within the Municipality of Ceiba,
Puerto Rico. Concerned that this land has never been utilized
and aware of detailed proposals by the Municipality of Ceiba to
utilize the unused land, the Committee directed the Navy to
report on plans for taking appropriate cooperative actions for
land utilization in fiscal year 1998. Because the actions taken
by the Navy were unresponsive to this directive, in fiscal year
2000, the Committee directed the Navy to report by January 15,
2000, on a plan and development schedule agreeable to both the
Navy and the Municipality of Ceiba to resolve this issue.
In a letter dated January 27, 2000, the Navy claimed that
the Mayor of Ceiba had not presented formal proposals for joint
utilization of the land. The Committee recognizes that the
Mayor has presented several detailed proposals and has made
continuous efforts to work with the Navy to find a mutually
acceptable solution. On the other hand, developments have
arisen in Puerto Rico which may have impact on the future
mission of the Naval Station, and the Navy is reluctant to go
forward with the land issue until these matters are resolved.
The Committee is also aware of a meeting between the Mayor of
Ceiba and representatives from Roosevelt Roads Naval Station
subsequent to the January 27, 2000 letter, during which steps
were taken toward realization of a mutually acceptable
utilization plan.
To augment this progress, the Committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to present within 90 days of enactment of
this Act a report outlining (1) the options available for
development of the land abutting Roosevelt Roads, taking into
consideration the impact of any possible change in mission at
the base, (2) a timetable, which the Navy should develop in
conjunction with the Municipality of Ceiba, for the disposition
of the land at issue under the presumption that the mission of
the base will not change, and (3) actions to be taken by the
Department to work closely and cooperatively with the
Municipality of Ceiba to resolve this issue.
Military Construction, Air Force
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $777,238,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 530,969,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 703,903,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -73,335,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... +172,934,000
The Committee recommends a total of $703,903,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. This is
an increase of 172,934,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 2001, and a decrease of $73,335,000 below the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
maryland-andrews air force base: add/alter electrical distribution
system
The Committee is aware there is a serious need to replace
the deteriorated lines and add additional power to the east
side of Andrews AFB. The existing substation is 38 years old
and the circuit breakers are obsolete and no longer
manufactured. There is no additional electrical capacity
available, resulting in unreliable power and limiting
development or improvements to important quality of life and
operational facilities. As recent as November 1999, a partial
power failure on the existing feeder for the entire airfield
was experienced. This emergency was corrected with O&M funding
at a cost of $631,000, which affected only a small portion of
the distribution system. Although emergency repairs were made,
it did not provide a redundant source for the airfield feeder.
Due to the dire need of replacement, the Committee urges the
Air Force to seek emergency construction funding for this
project.
Military Construction, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $593,615,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 784,753,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 800,314,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... +206,699,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... +15,561,000
The Committee recommends a total of $800,314,000 for
Military Construction, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2001. This
is an increase of $15,561,000 above the budget request for
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $206,699,000 above the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
The Committee remains concerned that the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology (AFIP) continues to fail health safety
codes and requires renovation. Pursuant to the conference
report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
2000 (Public Law 106-65), the Secretary of Defense was to
submit with the fiscal year 2001 budget submission a report on
alternative methods for improving AFIP, including private
funding and lease-back. To date, this report has not been
submitted. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to
accelerate the design of this project and include the required
construction funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Forward Operating Locations
Funding for planning and design, and construction related
to the establishment of forward operating locations in Ecuador,
Curacao and Aruba is contained in the Fiscal Year 2000
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 3908, as passed
by the House on March 30, 2000.
dodea-shape school facilities
The Committee is concerned about the overcrowding and
substandard conditions of SHAPE American High School and
Elementary School in Mons, Belgium. These schools have been
identified by a recent Department of Defense Education Activity
study as among the worst facility conditions throughout the
Department of Defense Dependents school system. The SHAPE
school facilities are in need of expansion and modernization to
reach the defense-wide goal of an 18 to 1 student-ratio. The
unique blend of American and international students at the
SHAPE schools presents a challenge in funding the upgrades to
these facilities. The Committee recommends that the SHAPE
schools be placed on a priority list to expedite the
modernization and expansion of these facilities.
Italy-Naples Naval Support Activity: Medical/Dental Facility
Replacement
The Committee denies the request of $43,850,000 for the
purchase of a replacement hospital in Naples, Italy without
prejudice. The Italian court issued a sequestration order on
all construction at the Gricignano Support Site in February.
Due to the uncertainty of the legality of the land acquisition,
zoning, and building permits, it does not seem prudent to
appropriate funds for the purchase of the hospital at this
time. The Committee notes that this action does not impact the
current lease arrangement for this facility.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION
The Department has requested a total of $103,581,000 to
provide facilities needed for the development and deployment of
ballistic missile defense systems. This includes $14,729,000
for planning and design, $3,694,000 for unspecified minor
construction, and $85,095,000 for major construction. The
Committee notes that this is the first phase of a $488,590,000
construction program for the initial deployment facilities. The
Committee is concerned about the major construction request of
$85,095,000 due to the fact that a decision to go forward with
this program has not been made, a site has not been selected,
and specific project justification is not available. This
creates serious concerns about the Department's ability to
execute the full amount of the request during fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the Committee has reduced the major construction
request by $20,000,000 without prejudice. The ``Military
Construction, Defense-wide'' account is carrying approximately
$334,000,000 in unobligated balances. Should this additional
$20,000,000 be necessary, the Committee will entertain a
reprogramming request for the funds. Further, to address the
Committee's concerns over a ``System-Level'' justification,
with one single DD Form 1391, the Director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization is to notify the Committee of
specific projects with detailed justification thirty days prior
to obligation of the funds.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM
The budget request includes a total of $175,400,000 for the
following funding increments of the chemical weapons
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation Project Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas.......................... Pine Bluff Arsenal... Ammunition $43,600,000 $43,600,000
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase V.
Colorado.......................... Pueblo Depot Activity Ammunition 10,700,000 10,700,000
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase II.
Indiana........................... Newport Army Ammunition 54,400,000 54,400,000
Ammunition Plant. Demilitarization
Facility, Phase III.
Kentucky.......................... Bluegrass Army Depot. Ammunition 8,500,000 8,500,000
Demilitarization
Facility, Phase II.
Maryland.......................... Aberdeen Proving Ammunition 45,700,000 45,700,000
Ground. Demilitarization
Facility, Phase II.
Maryland.......................... Aberdeen Proving Munitions Assessment/ 3,100,000 3,100,000
Ground. Processing Systems Fac.
Oregon............................ Umatilla Depot Ammunition 9,400,000 9,400,000
Activity. Demilitarization
Facility, Phase VI.
---------------------------
Total....................... ..................... ......................... 175,400,000 175,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget request proposes that these amounts should be
appropriated under the ``Military Construction, Army'' account.
As in prior years, the Committee recommends that these amounts
be appropriated under the ``Military Construction, Defense-
wide'' account, in order to facilitate the tracking of expenses
for the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and to avoid
distorting the size of the Army's military construction
program.
The following chart displays the scope of the military
construction investment in the overall chemical
demilitarization program:
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM MILITARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
[Current year dollars in millions/fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Project 1999 Total
and 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
prior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-Chem Demil Training Facility....... 16.10 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 16.10
Tooele, UT Facility................... 198.00 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 198.00
Anniston, AL Facility................. 174.20 7.00 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 181.20
Umatilla, OR Facility................. 168.60 25.90 9.40 ....... ....... ....... ....... 203.90
Pine Bluff, AR Facility............... 68.00 49.80 43.60 ....... ....... ....... ....... 161.40
Pueblo, CO Facility................... 6.30 ....... 10.70 80.50 83.40 10.90 ....... 191.80
Blue Grass, KY Facility............... ....... 2.00 8.50 20.00 78.00 87.00 10.00 205.50
Aberdeen, MD Facility................. 28.40 53.50 45.70 51.60 ....... ....... ....... 179.20
Newport, IN Facility.................. 13.50 35.90 54.40 78.00 ....... ....... ....... 181.80
MAPS Facility......................... ....... ....... 3.10 ....... ....... ....... ....... 3.10
Planning & Design..................... 114.50 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 114.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 787.60 174.10 175.40 230.10 161.40 97.90 10.00 1,636.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following chart displays the timetable and the
milestones for completion of the chemical demilitarization
program:
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM TIMETABLE AND MILESTONES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of systemization
Location Start of construction \4\ Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston Atoll \1\.................. ....................... ......................... 3QFY90-2QFY01
Tooele, UT.......................... ....................... 4QFY93................... 4QFY96-4QFY03
Anniston, AL........................ 3QFY97................. 1QFY01................... 2QFY02-1QFY06
Umatilla, OR........................ 3QFY97................. 1QFY01................... 2QFY02-3QFY05
Pine Bluff, AR...................... 2QFY99................. 1QFY02................... 4QFY03-1QFY07
Pueblo, CO \2\...................... ....................... ......................... ......................
Blue Grass, KY \2\.................. ....................... ......................... ......................
Aberdeen, MD \3\.................... 3QFY00................. 3QFY02................... 3QFY05-3QFY06
Newport, IN \3\..................... 3QFY00................. 4QFY02................... 3QFY04-1QFY05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full scale operations began 2QFY94.
\2\ Schedule on hold pending technology selection.
\3\ Schedule represents employment of neutralization based technologies. This data represents construction of
main building (Chem Demil Building). Administrative buildings have been completed.
\4\ Some systemization activities overlap with the construction phase. This date is when construction is
substantially complete.
Energy Conservation Investment Program
The Committee denies the budget request of $33,570,000 for
the Energy Conservation Investment Program and notes that there
is $39,500,000 in unobligated balances in this account.
Pentagon Building Control Systems
The Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Installations to ensure that the ongoing renovation of the
Pentagon includes the most up to date technology to best
automate its building control systems. These systems monitor
and control functions such as heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, lighting, fire alarms and power monitoring and
will result in reduced maintenance and operation costs in the
future. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations
is encouraged to use unobligated funds in the Energy
Conservation Improvement Program for this purpose.
Military Construction, Reserve Components
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $695.381,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 221,976,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 458,394,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -236,987,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... +236,418,000
The Committee recommends a total of $458,394,000 for
Military Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 2001.
This is an increase of $236,418,000 above the budget request
for fiscal year 2001, and a decrease of $236,987,000 below the
total appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
The Committee's recommended action on each Reserve
Component is reflected in the State list at the end of this
report.
The Committee recommends approval of Military Construction,
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard..................... $59,130,000 $137,603,000
Air National Guard...................... 50,179,000 110,585,000
Army Reserve............................ 81,713,000 115,854,000
Naval Reserve........................... 16,103,000 50,604,000
Air Force Reserve....................... 14,851,000 43,748,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 221,976,000 458,394,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard
Annual Reporting Requirement--Backlog
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the
Director of the Army National Guard to continue to make a joint
report annually on the current backlog of facilities
requirements of the Army National Guard to be submitted
concurrently with the annual budget request.
Annual Reporting Requirement--Armory Infrastructure
The Secretary of the Army, the Director of the National
Guard Bureau, and the Director of the Army National Guard are
directed to continue to report jointly to the Committee by
January 1, 2001 on the status of armory infrastructure.
Future Years Defense Plan
It is the Committee's view that section 123 of Public Law
104-196 constitutes a continuing permanent requirement for the
Army National Guard and the Air National Guard to present the
Future Years Defense Plan to Congress concurrent with the
President's budget submission for each fiscal year. The
Committee will expect subsequent submissions of the Future
Years Defense Plan to include explanatory notes justifying any
modification of prior year plans.
california-ridgecrest: readiness center
The Army National Guard is directed to complete design of
the Readiness Center in Ridgecrest, California and to include
the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002
budget request.
California-Camp San Luis Obispo
The Committee directs the Army National Guard to begin
planning and design of the Consolidated Dining Facility and
Organizational Maintenance Shop at Camp San Luis Obispo,
California, and to include the necessary funding for these
facilities in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
California-Woodland: Readiness Center
Within the funds provided for planning and design, the Army
National Guard is directed to complete design of the Readiness
Center in Woodland, California and include the required
construction funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
California-Sacramento Readiness Center
The Army National Guard is directed to accelerate the
design of the readiness center in Sacramento, California and to
include the required construction funding in its fiscal year
2002 budget request.
iowa-estherville: readiness center
The Committee directs the Army National Guard to begin
planning and design of the Readiness Center at Estherville,
Iowa, and to include the necessary funding for this project in
the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
Iowa-Fairfield: Readiness Center Addition
Within the additional funds provided for unspecified minor
construction, the Army National Guard is directed to provide no
less than $1,066,000 for an addition to the readiness center at
Fairfield, Iowa.
michigan-calumet: readiness center ada improvements
The Committee is concerned over the lack of compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act at the Calumet, Michigan
Readiness Center. The existing armory was built in 1918 and
does not have ADA accessibility. Therefore, the Army National
Guard is directed to begin planning and design of these
improvements, and to include the necessary funding for this
project in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
Michigan: Midland: Organizational Maintenance Shop
The budget proposed the construction of an organizational
maintenance shop in Midland, Michigan. Due to an unexpected
unit activation in Augusta, Michigan, the Army National Guard
has requested the project be changed to that location. The
activation was announced after the budget was submitted. The
Committee has recommended the location change. The original
project cost of $3,600,000 remains the same.
Minnesota-Camp Ripley: Combined Support Maintenance Shop (Phase II)
Authorization in the amount of $10,368,000 for second phase
of the Combined Support Maintenance Shop at Camp Ripley in
Minnesota is contained in the National Defense Authorization
Act for 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
Army Reserve
California-Los Alamitos: Joint Headquarters Building
The Army Reserve is directed to accelerate the design of
the Joint Headquarters Building in Los Alamitos, California and
to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year
2002 budget request.
Louisiana-New Orleans: USAR Center/Organizational Maintenance Shop/
Unheated Storage
The Committee denies funding for the Army Reserve Center in
New Orleans, Louisiana in the amount of $10,375,000 and instead
re-directs this amount for the first phase of a Joint Reserve
Center to be located at the New Orleans Naval Air Station which
will include the Army Reserve. This is in line with the
Department's and Committee's emphasis on joint use of
facilities. A multi-service reserve center can dramatically
increase deployment, mobilization and training capabilities by:
(1) offering immediate access to a major military airfield that
already houses joint reserve forces and can accommodate any
aircraft in the current military and commercial inventory; (2)
providing access to a current major rail line and Mississippi
River port facilities as well as joint air and base training
capabilities; and, (3) providing the capability to consolidate,
on a major military airbase, the majority of guard and reserve
forces in the area.
Utah: S.A. Douglas Armed Forces Reserve Center: Parking and Site
Improvements
The Committee directs the Army Reserve to execute a project
to provide parking and site improvements at the S. A. Douglas
Armed Forces Reserve Center in Utah using funds available for
unspecified minor construction. The estimated cost of this
project is $700,000.
Naval Reserve
Massachusetts-Westover AFRB: Marine Reserve Training Facility
The Military Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1998 (Public Law 105-45) provided funding for the
renovation of Building 1900 at the Westover Air Force Reserve
Base in Massachusetts. The project was to provide the Marine
Corps Reserve with a training facility at that location. After
renovation on Building 1900 started, asbestos and many other
environmental problems with the building were uncovered. Due to
the escalating costs, the Marine Corps Reserve halted the
renovation project and believes it is now more cost efficient
to build a new facility. The Committee recommends funding for a
new facility in this bill. Additionally, the Committee rescinds
$2,400,000 from the ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve''
account. These are the funds which remain unobligated and
available for rescission from the original renovation project.
Air Force Reserve
Florida-Homestead ARS: Add/Alter Fire Station
The Committee has recommended an additional $2,000,000 for
the completion of this project. The Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-52) contained
$2,950,000 for the first phase of this project and
authorization is contained in the National Defense
Authorization Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
New York-Niagara Falls IAP ARS: Visiting Officer Quarters
The Air Force Reserves is directed to accelerate the
planning and design of the Visiting Officers Quarters at the
Niagara Falls International Airport and to include the required
construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $81,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 190,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 177,500,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... +96,500,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... -12,500,000
The Committee recommends a total of $177,500,000 for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
(NSIP). This is a decrease of $12,500,000 below the budget
request for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $96,500,000
above the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
The Committee notes that the actual fiscal year 2000
requirement for the NATO Security Investment Program was
$172,000,000. Of this amount, $91,000,000 was provided by the
Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 106-31).
For fiscal year 2001, the NATO nations have agreed to a
funding level of about $730,000,000. The U.S. requirement is
based on a cost share, which is approximately 24.7 percent. In
addition to the recommended appropriation of $177,500,000,
approximately $11,000,000 is anticipated to be available from
recoupments, deobligations, and unobligated balances brought
forward.
The Committee continues to support full U.S. participation
in the NSIP program. The foreign currency fluctuation has
increased the value of the U.S. dollar against most other NATO
nation's currencies. These savings have been realized
throughout other accounts in the bill and the NSIP program
should be of no exception. Therefore, the Committee has reduced
the budget request by $12,500,000 and notes that this is an
increase of $5,500,000 above the current fiscal year. This
funding should be sufficient to satisfy the Secretary's
commitments to NATO.
The Department of Defense is directed to continue to report
to the Committees on Appropriations, on a quarterly basis, the
following information:
(1) NATO nations share of construction costs based on
fund authorizations;
(2) NATO nations shares of procurement costs based on
fund authorizations; and
(3) A listing of all obligations incurred that
quarter broken out by infrastructure category and
procurement category. This listing should show the
total project costs, the U.S. cost share and all other
NATO nations cost shares.
NATO Expansion
The Committee continues the requirement that no funds will
be used for projects (including planning and design) related to
the enlargement of NATO and the Partnership for Peace, unless
Congress is notified 21 days in advance of the obligation of
funds. In addition, the Committee's intent is that Section 110
of the General Provisions shall apply to this program.
The Committee continues to carry a General Provision,
Section 124, which prohibits the use of NSIP funds for any
aspect of the Partnership for Peace Program in the New
Independent States of the fortmer Soviet Union.
The Department of Defense is directed to identify
separately the level of effort anticipated for NATO enlargement
and for Partnership for Peace for that fiscal year in future
budget justifications.
Family Housing
overview
The Department of Defense has approximately 300,000 on-base
housing units in its inventory, with an average age of 35
years. Two-thirds of the inventory is over 30 years old and
requires a substantial annual investment to meet maintenance
requirements. Over the years, the majority of these homes have
gone without adequate maintenance and repair. And over fifty
percent of the inventory, or 155,889 units, is in need of major
improvements or replacement at a total cost of $14,718,359,000.
The quality of housing for Service members and their
families is a critical quality of life incentive, which
attracts and retains dedicated individuals to serve in the
military. However, the housing deficiencies are a severe
disincentive to reenlistment. The Committee commends the
Department for making housing one of its top priorities this
year and establishing a three-pronged initiative to improve
military family housing, which includes the following
components:
--increasing housing allowances to eliminate the out-
of-pocket costs paid by Service members for off-base
housing in the United States;
--increasing reliance upon the private sector through
privatization; and
--maintaining military construction funding.
The Department's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) plan is
to completely eliminate out-of-pocket costs paid by Service
members for off-base housing by 2005. The funding to achieve
this initiative exceeds $3,000,000,000 over the next five
years. The Committee notes that increasing the BAH will reduce
the demand for on-base housing and eliminate some of the
Department's older, high-cost units and make better use of
housing funds. The Committee directs the Department to closely
monitor the impact of this initiative on the on-base housing
requirements and ensure the Services' family housing master
plans reflect the impact of the initiative.
The following chart provides a Service breakout of the
current family housing deficit, both in units and in cost of
new construction, replacement, improvements and deferred
maintenance and repair:
Deficits (current projections)
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New
construction Replacement Improvement Grand total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Number of Units............................. 7,400 20,000 41,000 68,400
Costs....................................... 965,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,965,000
Navy:
Number of Units............................. 15,600 4,200 13,600 33,400
Costs....................................... 2,294,300 693,000 1,088,000 4,075,300
Marine Corps:
Number of Units............................. 10,731 5,611 6,278 22,620
Costs....................................... 1,622,464 960,135 370,717 2,953,316
Air Force:
Number of Units............................. 6,000 26,700 38,500 71,200
Costs....................................... 417,845 2,575,395 3,031,112 6,024,352
Total DOD:
Number of Units............................. 39,731 56,511 99,378 195,620
Costs....................................... 5,299,609 7,228,530 7,489,829 20,017,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction overview
The Committee is concerned over the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for family housing new construction and construction
improvements of $709,151,000. The Department has made housing
one of its top priorities for fiscal year 2001, and one
component of its three-pronged approach to improve military
family housing is to maintain military construction funding.
Yet, the budget request represents a reduction of $24,968,000
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level for new construction
and construction improvements. The Committee strongly believes
it is imperative that construction funding levels must be
maintained, along with any privatization or basic allowance for
housing efforts, to help resolve the serious family housing
deficits. The Committee recommends total funding of
$820,213,000 for family housing construction and improvements
for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $111,062,000 above the
budget request.
new housing construction
The fiscal year 2001 request is $287,968,000 to build 1,656
units of new family housing for all Services. This is
$91,117,000 or 24 percent, under the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level. The Committee has approved all requested projects for
new construction. In addition, the Committee has recommended an
additional $103,143,000 to construct 775 units of new family
housing. The total appropriation for new construction is
$391,111,000. Details of the Committee's recommendations for
new construction are provided in this report under the
individual component accounts. The Committee expects that none
of the approved projects will be reduced in scope.
It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-
day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of
the Committee, funds appropriated for a new construction
project may be transferred to the Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector pilot
project at the same location.
construction improvements
A total of $421,183,000 has been requested for post-
acquisition construction for all services to improve 4,291
housing units. Post-acquisition construction is focused on
modernizing existing units that are uneconomical to repair. In
addition, the Committee has provided an additional $14,350,000
for construction improvement projects which are listed in this
report under the individual component accounts, to improve an
additional 111 units. The total appropriation for post-
acquisition construction is $429,102,000 and will improve 4,402
units of family housing.
It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-
day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of
the Committee, funds appropriated for a construction
improvement project may be transferred to the Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector
pilot project at the same location.
The Committee continues the restriction on the amount
invested in improving foreign source housing units. The three-
year limitation on overseas units is $35,000. If the components
intend to program improvements to specific units, which exceed
$35,000 over a period of three years, total funding should be
requested in one year. The justification for each unit should
identify all improvements and major maintenance work done in
the past three years, and all improvements and major
maintenance planned in the following three years.
operation and maintenance
The fiscal year 2001 request for operation and maintenance
expenses totals $2,732,070,000, a decrease of $105,544,000 from
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $2,698,717,000 for fiscal year 2001. These
accounts provide for annual expenditures for maintenance and
repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, leasing,
interest, mortgage insurance and miscellaneous expenses. Of the
total request for operation and maintenance, $1,221,047,000 is
for maintenance and repair of existing housing, a decrease of
$62,234,000 from fiscal year 2000 levels.
The Committee directs that any savings from foreign
currency re-estimations in the family housing operation and
maintenance accounts be applied for maintenance of existing
family housing units. The Comptroller is directed to report to
the Committee on the allocation of this savings by December 1,
2000.
Expenditures from this account for general and flag officer
quarters are to be reported in accordance with the guidelines
previously established and reiterated later in this report. The
Committee also continues the direction that the details of all
other expenditures from this account which exceed $20,000 per
unit, per year for major maintenance and repair of non-general
and flag officer quarters be included as part of the
justification material. The general provision limiting
obligations from this account to no more than 20 percent of the
total in the last two months of the fiscal year is included in
this year's bill.
The Committee continues the restriction on the transfer of
funds between the operation and maintenance accounts. The
limitation is ten percent to all primary accounts and
subaccounts. Such transfers are to be reported to the Committee
within thirty days of such action.
Family Housing Master Plans
Section 128 of the bill directs that the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps and Air Force submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress by June 1, 2001, a Family Housing Master Plan
demonstrating how they plan to meet the Department's goal to
eliminate all inadequate housing by 2010 with traditional
construction, demolition, operation and maintenance support, as
well as privatization initiative proposals. Each plan shall
include projected life cycle costs for family housing
construction, basic allowance for housing, operation and
maintenance, demolition, other associated costs, and a time
line for housing completions each year. The Committee commends
the Air Force for recently completing its two year effort which
involved installation visits to document the existing
conditions of base housing units, initially assess the
feasibility of housing privatization and to produce an
installation plan. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps are directed
to mirror the Air Force's efforts.
General and Flag Officer Quarters
Last year, the Committee learned that the Navy and Air
Force had in recent years supplemented family housing funds
with the Services regular operations and maintenance funds on
general and flag officer quarters. As a result, the Committee
had no recourse but to include a provision which statutorily
prohibited the mixing of operations and maintenance and family
housing funds on general and flag officer quarters. To assure
there are no future occurrences of this misappropriation of
funds, the Committee continues to statutorily prohibit the
mixing of these funds by including a provision (Section 127) in
this bill.
In order to control expenditures for high cost quarters,
the existing reporting requirements for general and flag
officer quarters continue in full force and effect. No more
than $25,000 per unit can be spent annually for the maintenance
and repair of any general and flag officer quarters without
prior notification of the appropriate committees of Congress.
Out of cycle notifications are prohibited unless justified as
emergencies or safety related. Additionally, the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is required to submit an
annual report detailing the total amount spent on operation and
maintenance of individual general and flag officer quarters for
the past fiscal year to the appropriate committees of Congress.
Finally, the Committee continues the notification requirement
when maintenance and repair costs for change in occupancy work
for a unit will exceed the amount submitted in the budget
justification by 25 percent or $5,000, whichever is less.
General and Flag Officer Quarters: Budget Justification
Despite the existing expense thresholds and reporting
requirements, the Committee is concerned the Department's
expenditures associated with maintaining general and flag
officer quarters continue to rise beyond reason. The budget
proposal included numerous maintenance and repair requests in
excess of $50,000 per unit for general and flag officer
quarters. Of great concern to the Committee is the lack of
justification material provided with these requests. Therefore,
the Services' are prohibited from executing any general and
flag officer quarters project in excess of $50,000 per unit
until further justification is provided to the Committee. This
requirement applies to both maintenance and repair projects and
construction projects.
leasing reporting requirement
The Committee continues the reporting requirement for both
domestic and foreign leases. For domestic leases (not funded by
the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund), the Department is
directed to report quarterly on the details of all new or
renewal domestic leases entered into during the previous
quarter which exceed $12,000 per unit per year, including
certification that less expensive housing was not available for
lease. For foreign leases, the Department is directed to:
perform an economic analysis on all new leases or lease/
contract agreements where more than 25 units are involved;
report the details of any new or renewal lease exceeding
$20,000 per year (as adjusted for foreign currency fluctuation
from October 1, 1987, but not adjusted for inflation), 21 days
prior to entering into such an agreement; and base leasing
decisions on the economic analysis.
exclusion of asbestos and lead-based paint removal from maintenance and
repair limits
The Committee continues the requirement of an after-the-
fact notification where asbestos and/or lead-based paint
removal costs cause the maintenance and repair thresholds of
$20,000 for a military family housing unit, or $25,000 for a
General or Flag Officer Quarters, to be exceeded. The
notification shall include work, scope, cost break-out and
other details pertinent to asbestos and/or lead-based paint
removal work and shall be reported on a semi-annual basis.
reprogramming criteria
The reprogramming criteria that apply to military
construction projects (25 percent of the funded amount or
$2,000,000, whichever is less) also apply to new housing
construction projects and to improvement projects over
$2,000,000.
Family Housing, Army
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,167,012,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 1,140,381,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,152,249,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -14,763,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... +11,868,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,152,249,000 for
Family Housing, Army for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase
of $11,868,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001,
and a decrease of $14,763,000 below the appropriation for
fiscal year 2000.
construction
The Committee recommends $115,974,000 for new construction,
instead of $91,974,000, as requested, as shown below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/project units Requested Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Arizona-Fort Huachuca....................................... 110 $16,224,000 $16,224,000
Hawaii-Schofield Barracks................................... 72 15,500,000 15,500,000
Kentucky-Fort Campbell...................................... 56 7,800,000 7,800,000
Kentucky-Fort Campbell...................................... 58 0 8,000,000
Maryland-Fort Detrick....................................... 48 5,600,000 5,600,000
North Carolina-Fort Bragg................................... 112 14,600,000 14,600,000
North Carolina-Fort Bragg................................... 64 0 7,400,000
South Carolina-Fort Jackson................................. 1 250,000 250,000
Texas-Fort Bliss............................................ 64 10,200,000 10,200,000
Virginia-Fort Lee........................................... 51 0 8,600,000
Korea-Camp Humphreys........................................ 60 21,800,000 21,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Army............................................ 696 91,974,000 115,974,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
amount provided for construction improvements:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/project units Requested Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska-Fort Wainwright.......................................... 28 $7,200,000 $7,200,000
California-Fort Irwin........................................... 28 0 4,700,000
District of Columbia-Fort McNair................................ 8 1,300,000 1,300,000
Missouri-Fort Leonard Wood...................................... 56 0 4,150,000
New York-United States Military Academy......................... 59 9,100,000 9,100,000
Virginia-Fort Belvoir........................................... 148 14,000,000 14,000,000
Virginia-Fort Belvoir........................................... 27 0 5,500,000
Germany-Ansbach................................................. 42 4,200,000 4,200,000
Germany-Wiesbaden AB............................................ 144 13,200,000 13,200,000
Germany-Wuerzburg............................................... 64 6,300,000 6,300,000
Germany-Heidelberg.............................................. 276 8,200,000 8,200,000
Korea-Yongsan................................................... 1 90,000 90,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Army............................................... 881 63,590,000 77,940,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fire suppression
The Committee is concerned over the response of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and
Environment to questions raised about the fire safety in the
stairwell apartments in Germany. It is not acceptable to wait
for future renovations to install additional smoke detectors,
alarms and fire extinguishers in the common areas of
stairwells. In addition, the Committee sees no reason to wait
until fiscal year 2002 to include fire suppression sprinkler
systems in apartment renovations in Germany. The Committee
considers this fire safety issue of utmost importance and
therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that
smoke detectors, alarms and fire extinguishers are installed in
all common areas of stairwell apartments in Germany within
sixty days of enactment of this Act. And, all construction
improvement projects in Germany which have previously been
appropriated and under construction and those included in the
fiscal year 2001 program shall be equipped with fire
suppression sprinkler systems. The Committee directs the
Secretary to report to the Committee on Appropriations the
actions taken to correct these deficiencies within thirty days
after enactment of this Act.
family housing office--mons, belgium
The Committee is concerned over the availability of housing
for U.S. personnel assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium. In
addition, there is no U.S. housing office to assist personnel
in locating housing on the economy. U.S. personnel must go
through a highly inefficient allied office that is extremely
complicated and not very helpful. Therefore, the Secretary of
the Army is directed to establish a housing office at SHAPE
which finds suitable homes, makes arrangements with owners, and
facilitates the process for U.S. personnel. In addition, this
office would serve as the liaison with the SHAPE housing office
on behalf of U.S. personnel.
operations and maintenance
The request of $978,275,000 has been reduced by $6,571,000.
It is the Committee's intent that the appropriation of
$397,792,000 for the maintenance of real property not be
reduced. If the need arises for additional funding within the
account, the Committee encourages the Army to submit a prior
approval reprogramming request.
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,232,541,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 1,245,460,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,298,792,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 total appropriation.................. +66,251,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. +53,332,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,298,792,000 for
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001.
This is an increase of $53,332,000 above the budget request for
fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $66,251,000 above the
total appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
construction
The Committee recommends $213,720,000 for new construction,
instead of $159,317,000, as requested, as shown below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/project units Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
California-Camp Pendleton................................... 98 0 $8,600,000
California-Lemoore Naval Air Station........................ 160 27,768,000 27,768,000
California-Lemoore Naval Air Station........................ 100 0 20,103,000
California-Twentynine Palms................................. 79 13,923,000 13,923,000
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex........................... 98 22,230,000 22,230,000
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex........................... 62 14,237,000 14,237,000
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex........................... 112 23,654,000 23,654,000
Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marines Corps Base....................... 84 21,910,000 21,910,000
Louisiana-New Orleans Naval Complex......................... 100 0 5,000,000
Maine-Brunswick Naval Air Station........................... 168 18,722,000 18,722,000
Mississippi-Gulfport Naval Constr Battalion Center.......... 157 0 20,700,000
Washington-Whidbey Island Naval Air Station................. 98 16,873,000 16,873,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Navy............................................ 1,316 159,317,000 213,720,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
amount provided for construction improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/Project Units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California-San Diego CNB................ 347 $27,123,000
California-Camp Pendleton MCB........... 332 24,969,000
Connecticut-New London NSB.............. 111 10,429,000
Connecticut-New London NSB.............. 184 18,694,000
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks, 1 223,000
8th & I................................
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks, 1 178,000
8th & I................................
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks, 1 190,000
8th & I................................
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor CNB................. 12 2,729,000
Illinois-Great Lakes PWC................ 180 23,293,000
Maryland-US Naval Academy............... 7 2,654,000
Maryland-Patuxent River NAS............. 17 822,000
New Jersey-Lakehurst NAES............... 72 7,759,000
Tennessee-Memphis NSA................... 250 10,892,000
Virginia-Norfolk CNB.................... 125 9,318,000
Virginia-Norfolk CNB.................... 308 18,617,000
Washington-Whidbey Island NAS........... 28 1,851,000
Iceland-Keflavik NAS.................... 44 9,016,000
Japan-Yokosuka.......................... 96 11,884,000
Japan-Iwakuni MCAS...................... 132 873,000
Japan-Iwakuni MCAS...................... 44 2,033,000
-------------------------------
Total, Navy....................... 2,292 183,547,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Currency Fluctuations
Due to the unfavorable fluctuations in exchange rates of
some foreign currencies, the Committee has provided an
additional $2,359,000 for Navy construction improvements.
WASHINGTON, D.C.--MARINE CORPS BARRACKS
A general provision, Section 130, is included which
authorizes the use of private funds for the construction,
improvement, repair, and maintenance of the historic residences
located at Marine Corps Barracks, 8th and I Street, Washington,
D.C. The Secretary of the Navy is to notify the appropriate
committees of Congress thirty days in advance of the intended
use of such funds.
Family Housing, Air Force
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,167,848,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 1,049,754,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,062,263,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -105,585,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... +12,509,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,062,263,000 for
Family Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. This is an
increase of $12,509,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 2001, and a decrease of $105,585,000 above the total
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
Construction
The Committee recommends $61,417,000 for new construction,
instead of $36,677,000 as requested, as shown below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/Project Units Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force:
California-Edwards AFB...................................... 57 0 $9,870,000
California-Travis AFB....................................... 64 0 9,870,000
District of Columbia-Bolling AFB............................ 136 $17,137,000 17,137,000
Nevada-Nellis AFB........................................... 26 0 5,000,000
North Dakota-Cavalier....................................... 2 443,000 443,000
North Dakota-Minot AFB...................................... 134 19,097,000 19,097,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Force....................................... 419 36,677,000 61,417,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
amount provided for construction improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/Project Units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska-Elmendorf AFB \1\................ .............. $1,127,000
Arizona-Luke AFB \1\.................... .............. 1,109,000
Arkansas-Little Rock AFB \2\............ 1,535 2,000,000
California-Vandenberg AFB \2\........... 506 7,013,000
Colorado-Peterson AFB \1\............... .............. 721,000
District of Columbia-Bolling AFB........ 3 216,000
Georgia-Moody AFB \2\................... 696 8,401,000
Louisiana-Barksdale AFB \1\............. .............. 513,000
Massachusetts-Hanscom AFB............... 100 711,000
Missouri-Whiteman AFB \1\............... .............. 470,000
Nebraska-Offutt AFB \2\................. 2,580 14,982,000
North Carolina-Pope AFB \1\............. .............. 919,000
North Dakota-Cavalier AS................ 12 426,000
Oklahoma-Tinker AFB..................... 144 7,741,000
South Carolina-Charleston AFB \2\....... 488 2,000,000
Tennessee-Arnold AFB.................... 40 1,007,000
Utah-Hill AFB \2\....................... 1,116 11,271,000
Utah-Hill AFB........................... 8 1,011,000
Germany-Ramstein AB..................... 434 45,813,000
Germany-Spangdahlem AB.................. 162 15,342,000
Japan-Kadena AB......................... 52 9,074,000
Korea-Osan AB........................... 10 2,169,000
United Kingdom-RAF Fairford............. 106 10,923,000
United Kingdom-RAF Lakenheath........... 158 15,910,000
United Kingdom-RAF Molesworth........... 130 13,177,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Force............... 8,280 174,046,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Site improvements.
\2\ Privatization request.
Air Force Family Housing Privatization
The budget request recommends six additional privatization
projects affecting 6,921 units with a total appropriation of
$45,667,000 at six locations: Charleston AFB, South Carolina;
Hill AFB, Utah; Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; Moody AFB, Georgia;
Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Vandenberg AFB, California. The
Committee's recommendation of appropriations for these projects
in no way constitutes approval of privatization projects at
these locations. The Air Force is reminded that the existing
notification and approval process still applies for these six
projects.
Family Housing, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $41,490,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 44,886,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 44,886,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... +3,396,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $44,886,000 for Family
Housing, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2001. This is equal to
the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of
$3,396,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $2,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 0
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 0
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... -2,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for
fiscal year 2001. This is equal to the budget request for
fiscal year 2001, and $2,000,000 below the appropriation for
fiscal year 2000.
overview
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(P.L. 104-106) addressed the family housing crisis by
authorizing a five year private sector pilot project to replace
or renovate approximately 200,000 units of family housing
within the United States, its territories and possessions, and
in Puerto Rico, but not overseas. The Privatization Initiative
provides the military services with several authorities
designed to leverage appropriated housing construction funds
and government-owned assets to attract private investment in
military family housing. Authority was granted to: guarantee
mortgage payments and rental contracts to developers as
incentives to build family housing; authorize commercial-style
lease agreements for family housing; and engage in joint
ventures with developers to construct family housing on
government property.
The Family Housing Improvement Fund is used to build or
renovate family housing, mixing or matching various authorities
in the authorization, and utilizing private capital and
expertise to the maximum extent possible. The Fund is to
contain appropriated and transferred funds from family housing
construction accounts, and the total value in budget authority
of all contracts and investments undertaken may not exceed
$850,000,000. Proceeds from investments, leases, and
conveyances are to be deposited into this Fund, and any use of
the Fund is subject to annual appropriations. The Family
Housing Improvement Fund is to be administered as a single
account without fiscal year limitations. This authority to
enter into contracts and partnerships and to make investments
shall expire in February 2001. The Committee supports the
requested statutory change to extend the initiative for an
additional five years.
The Department of Defense intends to privatize
approximately 40,000 housing units by December 2001. While the
Committee supports the extension of the authority for this
program it continues to believe this is a pilot program. It is
the Committee's intent that several projects need to be
completed to review the success of this program prior to
privatizing additional housing units. Following is the latest
quarterly report on the status of these projects.
MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE--HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REPORT TO CONGRESS
[April 2000 quarterly report]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notify Congress Notify Congress Deal closing/
Installation Scope* solicitation selection contract award
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Ft Carson............................ 2,663................. Sep--96 Sep--99 Sep--99
CDMP Subject to OSD Approval
Ft Hood.............................. 6,631**............... Dec--98 Jan--00 Nov--00
Ft Lewis............................. 3,955**............... Nov--99 May--00 Nov--00
Ft Meade............................. 3,170**............... Mar--00 Oct--00 Apr--00
AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Lackland AFB......................... 420................... Sep--96 May--98 Aug--98
Robins AFB........................... 670................... Oct--98 Jun--00 Jul--00
Patrick AFB.......................... 960................... Jul--00 Dec--00 Jan--01
Dyess AFB............................ 402................... Jun--99 Jul--00 Sep--00
Elmendorf AFB........................ 828................... Dec--98 Jun--00 Jul--00
Kirtland AFB......................... 1,890................. May--00 Oct--00 Nov--00
Dover AFB............................ 450................... Aug--00 Dec--00 Jan--01
Subject to OSD Approval
Wright-Patterson AFB................. 1,536................. Jun--00 Dec--00 Jan--01
McGuire AFB Ft Dix................... 900................... On Hold On Hold On Hold
Tinker AFB........................... 730................... On Hold On Hold On Hold
Goodfellow AFB....................... 198................... Jun--00 Nov--00 Jan--01
Little Rock AFB...................... 1,535................. Sep--00 Feb--01 Mar--01
Vandenberg AFB....................... 506................... Sep--00 Mar--01 Apr--01
Moody AFB............................ 696................... Sep--00 Feb--01 Mar--01
Offutt AFB........................... 2,580................. Oct--00 May--01 Jun--01
Charleston AFB....................... 488................... Nov--00 Jun--01 Jul--01
Hill AFB............................. 1,116................. Dec--00 Jul--01 Aug--01
NAVY FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Corpus Christi....................... 404................... ............... May--96 Jul--96
Everett.............................. 185................... ............... Oct--96 Mar--97
Everett II........................... 300................... Oct--98 Jun--00 Aug--00
Kingsville II........................ 150................... Oct--98 Jun--00 Jul--00
San Diego............................ 3,248................. Nov--98 Jan--01 Mar--01
South Texas.......................... 812................... Nov--98 Feb--01 Apr--01
NAS New Orleans...................... 763................... Dec--98 Jan--01 Mar--01
Subject to OSD Approval
Hampton Roads........................ 80.................... TBD TBD TBD
MARINE CORPS FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
MCLB Albany.......................... 114................... Jan--98 Nov--00 Dec--00
Camp Pendleton....................... 712................... Oct--98 Aug--00 Sep--00
Stewart Army Subpost................. 200................... Feb--00 Sep--01 Oct--01
Subject to OSD Approval
MCAS Beaufort/Parris Isle............ 684................... Jun--00 Nov--01 Dec--01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Total estimated project units at project award.
**Maximum possible project units (current inventory plus deficit).
contractor support for family housing privatization
The Committee is concerned about the Army spending
excessive amounts on contractor support to evaluate and develop
family housing privatization proposals. Therefore, the
Committee is directing the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense
(Installations) to quarterly review, and report to the
appropriate Committees of Congress, the expenses of each
Component to ensure excessive amounts are not being spent on
contractor support.
To clarify the Committee's position with respect to these
costs in the future, amounts appropriated into the Family
Housing Improvement Fund will be the sole source of funds to
finance the operation of the former Housing Revitalization
Support Office. Family Housing Operations and Maintenance will
be the sole source of funds to develop, evaluate, and oversee
privatization deals; however, these funds will be separately
identified and justified as a sub-element of the Family Housing
Operation account similar to management. Further this sub-
element is considered a congressional interest item and may not
be increased from the amount enacted without the prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations.
Reporting requirements
The Committee is concerned that the 21-day period of review
prior to entering a privatization contract is too limited, and
is extending this review period to a 45-day period. The Service
Secretary concerned may not enter into any contract until after
the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date the
Secretary concerned submits written notice of the nature and
terms of the contract to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
To clarify existing reporting requirements, this 45-day
notification requirement applies to any project, regardless of
whether it is financed entirely by transfer of funds into the
Family Housing Improvement Fund, or it is fully financed within
funds available in the Family Housing Improvement Fund, or it
is funded by combining transferred funds with funds available
in the Family Housing Improvement Fund.
In addition, no transfer of appropriated funds into the
account may take place until after the end of the 45-day period
beginning on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written
notice and justification for the transfer to the appropriate
committees of Congress. The Appropriations Committee expects to
receive prior notification of all such transfers of funds.
The Department is to continue its quarterly reports on the
status of privatization projects.
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 0
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 0
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 0
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... 0
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the
Homeowners Assistance Fund. This is equal to the budget request
for fiscal year 2001, and equal to the appropriation for fiscal
year 2000. Requirements for fiscal year 2000 were financed by a
prior year carryover, revenue, and transfers from other
accounts.
The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving
fund which finances a program for providing assistance to
homeowners by reducing their losses incident to the disposal of
their homes when military installations at or near where they
are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope
of operations is reduced. The Fund was established in
recognition of the fact that base closure and reduction actions
can have serious economic effects on local communities. The
Fund receives funding from several sources: appropriations,
borrowing authority, reimbursable authority, prior fiscal year
unobligated balances, revenue from sale of acquired properties,
and recovery of prior year obligations.
The total estimated requirements for fiscal year 2001 are
estimated at $29,323,000 and will be funded with transfers from
the Base Realignment and Closure account, revenue from sales of
acquired property, and prior year unobligated balances.
Base Realignment and Closure
Overview
The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of
$20,110,739,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure program
for fiscal years 1990 through 2000. In the bill for fiscal year
2001, the Committee is recommending total funding of
$1,174,369,000 under one account, as requested. These funds are
necessary to ensure closure schedules can be met and
anticipated savings will be realized. In addition, funding is
essential for accelerated cleanup which is necessary for reuse
of surplus properties and future job creation.
The Committee, in appropriating such funds, has provided
the Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by
Service, by function and by base. The Committee, in recognizing
the complexities of realigning and closing bases and providing
for environmental restoration, has provided such flexibility to
allow the Office of the Secretary of Defense to monitor the
program execution of the Services and to redistribute
unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid delays and to
effect timely execution of realignment and closures along with
environmental restoration.
The following table displays the total amount appropriated
for each round of base closure including amounts recommended
for fiscal year 2001:
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1990
through fiscal Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Total
year 1999 enacted recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I.................................. $2,672,830,000 N/A N/A $2,672,830,000
Part II................................. 5,274,316,000 N/A N/A 5,274,316,000
Part III................................ 7,167,799,000 N/A N/A 7,167,799,000
Part IV................................. 4,323,483,000 672,311,000 1,174,369,000 6,170,163,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 19,438,428,000 672,311,000 1,174,369,000 21,285,108,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental restoration
Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment
and Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have
appropriated a net total of $20,110,739,000 for the entire
program for fiscal years 1990 through 2000. Within this total,
the Department has allocated $5,994,179,000 for activities
associated with environmental restoration.
The Committee is concerned that the design and cost of
environmental restoration efforts should be tailored to match
the proposed re-use of an installation in order to assure that
costs are reasonable and affordable. Therefore, the Committee
continues to recommend statutory language to establish a
ceiling on the level of funding for environmental restoration,
unless the Secretary of Defense determines additional
obligations are necessary and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of his determination and the necessary reasons
for the increase.
The following table displays the statutory ceiling
established by the Committee and is equal to the Department's
execution plan for fiscal year 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling on
environ-
Account Total program mental
restoration
year costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC IV............................... 1,174,369,000 865,318,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to devote
the maximum amount of resources to actual cleanup and, to the
greatest extent possible, to limit resources expended on
administration, support, studies, and investigations.
california: east fort baker
The Army shall select and perform cleanup activities at
East Fort Baker in accordance with appropriate state and
federal laws, and provide a timetable for such activities. In
accordance with CERCLA, the Army shall consider National Park
Service reuse plans for the site. The Army shall also provide
adequate funding for the cleanup process in order to ensure a
timely transfer of the site to the National Park Service.
california--hunters point naval shipyard
The Committee remains seriously concerned over the lack of
progress made by the Navy in proceeding with remediation of
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, which was closed by the Navy in
1991. Since that time, the Navy has failed to fully implement
all response actions necessary for the clean-up of this
Superfund site, leaving revitalization plans adopted by the
Bayview-Hunters Point community and the City from proceeding in
a timely manner.
The Committee directs the Navy, in conveying parcels of
Hunters Point to the City, to take all necessary steps, funding
and otherwise, to ensure the timely remediation of hazardous
materials on these parcels to a level that permits the full
range of uses designated in the City's adopted redevelopment
plan.
Until such time as agreement with the City over conveyance
are complete, the Department of the Navy shall continue to
provide adequate public protection services to the property,
including police and fire services. The Secretary of the Navy
is directed to report to the Committee no later than January
15, 2001 on the status of the conveyance and remediation of the
property.
california-rio vista reserve center: cleanup efforts and asbestos
remediation
The Rio Vista Reserve Center consists of approximately 28.8
acres and includes 22 wood frame buildings. The majority of
these buildings contain asbestos. The Rio Vista Reuse Plan
envisions removal/demolition of all currently existing
structures on the property. The Secretary of the Army is
directed to report to the Committee no later than September 15,
2000 on the plans for building demolition at the installation,
including the required funding, funding source, and estimated
dates for completion of such activities.
texas--reese air force base: building demolition
The Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000
Military Construction Appropriations Bill (Public Law 106-52)
directed the Air Force to submit a report to Congress on plans
for demolition at Reese AFB in Texas, including funding and
estimated dates for completion. The report submitted to
Congress states, it would be acceptable to the Air Force to
fund the demolition of identified buildings over a four-year
period. The Committee directs the Air Force to complete this
work using any unexpired funds appropriated under the ``Base
Realignment and Closure'' account.
Defense Environmental Response Task Force
The Defense Environmental Response Task Force (DERTF) was
established in fiscal year 1991 to report on ways to improve
interagency coordination and to improve and streamline policies
and procedures relating to environmental response actions at
closing installations. Since all closures resulting from
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission decisions will
be completed by July 13, 2001, the Committee believes that the
mission of the DERTF will be completed by that time and that no
further meetings of the DERTF are necessary.
reprogramming
The Committee agrees that any transfer of funds which
exceeds reprogramming thresholds for any construction project
financed by any Base Realignment and Closure Account shall be
subject to a 21-day notification to the Committees, and shall
not be subject to reprogramming procedure.
In order to avoid additional interest payments and delays,
cost increases that are solely the result of a negotiated or an
adjudicated settlement of any contractor claim shall be subject
to an after the fact notification.
construction projects
The Department of Defense has requested a total of
$12,800,000 within the fiscal year 2001 budget request for one
Air Force construction project funded under the Base
Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV. The Committee
recommends full funding for the Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Office Complex at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Administrative Provisions
The Department of Defense is required to notify the
appropriate Committees of Congress 21 days prior to the
initiation of any new project which has not been included in
the Department's budget request for the current (or any
previous) fiscal year. If the Department wishes to finance a
previously approved prior year project in the current fiscal
year, no notification is required.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part I
The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 was the last year
for appropriations into this account.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part II
The Committee notes that fiscal year 1998 was the last year
for appropriations into this account.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part III
The Committee notes that fiscal year 1999 was the last year
for appropriations into this account.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part IV
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $672,311,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate............................. 1,174,369,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,174,369,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... +502,058,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $1,174,369,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 2001. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and an
increase of $502,058,000 above the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2000. Below is the recommended distribution of
funds:
Military Construction................................... $12,800,000
Family Housing.......................................... 0
Environmental........................................... 865,318,000
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 293,723,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 5,419,000
Other................................................... 862,000
Revenues................................................ (7,817,000)
Homeowner's Assistance Program.......................... 4,064,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. $1,174,369,000
Changes in Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3 (f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain
available for more than one year for some programs for which
the basic authority legislation does not presently authorize
such extended availability.
A provision of the ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve''
account which rescinds $2,400,000 from Public Law 106-52.
A provision of the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide''
account which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer
funds to other accounts for military construction or family
housing.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part IV'' states that not more than $865,318,000 of the funds
appropriated shall be available solely for environmental
restoration.
Section 101 of the General Provisions states that none of
the funds appropriated in Military Construction Appropriations
Acts shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-
fee contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense.
Section 102 of the General Provisions permits use of funds
for hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 103 of the General Provisions permits use of funds
for Defense Access Roads.
Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases inside the continental United States
for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of
funds for purchase of land or land easements.
Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of
funds to acquire land, prepare a site, or install utilities for
any family housing except housing for which funds have been
made available.
Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of
minor construction funds to transfer or relocate activities
among installations.
Section 108 of the General Provisions prohibits the
procurement of steel unless American producers, fabricators,
and manufacturers have been allowed to compete.
Section 109 of the General Provisions prohibits payment of
real property taxes in foreign nations.
Section 110 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases overseas without prior notification.
Section 111 of the General Provisions establishes a
threshold for American preference of $500,000 relating to
architect and engineer services in Japan, in any NATO member
country, and in the Arabian Gulf.
Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes
preference for American contractors for military construction
in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, except bids by
Marshallese contractors for military construction on Kwajalein
Atoll.
Section 113 of the General Provisions requires the
Secretary of Defense to give prior notice to Congress of
military exercises involving construction in excess of
$100,000.
Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations
during the last two months of the fiscal year.
Section 115 of the General Provisions permits funds
appropriated in prior years to be available for construction
authorized during the current session of Congress.
Section 116 of the General Provisions permits the use of
expired or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any
project being completed with lapsed funds.
Section 117 of the General Provisions permits obligation of
funds from more than one fiscal year to execute a construction
project, provided that the total obligation for such project is
consistent with the total amount appropriated for the project.
Section 118 of the General Provisions allows expired funds
to be transferred to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations,
Construction, Defense'' account.
Section 119 of the General Provisions directs the Secretary
of Defense to report annually regarding the specific actions to
be taken during the current fiscal year to encourage other
member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Japan, Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to
assume a greater share of the common defense burden.
Section 120 of the General Provisions allows transfer of
proceeds from ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I''
to the continuing Base Realignment and Closure accounts.
Section 121 of the General Provisions prohibits expenditure
of funds except in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 122 of the General Provisions states the Sense of
the Congress notifying recipients of equipment or products
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
in this Act to purchase American-made equipment and products.
Section 123 of the General Provisions permits the transfer
of funds from Family Housing, Construction accounts to the DOD
Family Housing Improvement Fund.
Section 124 of the General Provisions prohibits the
obligation of funds for Partnership for Peace Programs in the
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
Section 125 of the General Provisions requires the
Secretary of Defense to notify congressional defense committees
of all family housing privatization solicitations and agreement
which contain any clause providing consideration for base
realignment and closure, force reductions, and extended
deployments.
Section 126 of the General Provisions provides transfer
authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
Section 127 of the General Provisions requires that all
Military Construction Acts be the sole source of all operation
and maintenance for flag and general officer quarter houses and
limits the repair on these quarters of $25,000 per year.
Section 128 of the General Provisions directs that the
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress by June 1, 2001, a Family
Housing Master Plan.
Section 129 of the General Provisions allows the transfer
of funds appropriated in Public Law 106-52 under the heading
``Military Construction, Naval Reserve'' to ``Military
Construction, Navy''.
Section 130 of the General Provisions allows the use of
private funds for the construction, improvement, repair, and
maintenance of the historic residences located at the Marine
Corps Barracks, 8th and I Streets, Washington, D.C.
The Committee recommends deleting the following General
Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 2000 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-52), because
these provisions are no longer required [section numbers refer
to sections contained in Public Law 105-237]:
Section 127 requiring a report on the adequacy of special
education facilities for DoD family members. Section 129 which
amends the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act to
allow the transfer of funds to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program. Section 131 which
restricts construction of chemical demilitarization facilities
at the Bluegrass Army Depot, KY, until reporting requirements
are met.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
Military Construction, Army
Military Construction, Navy
Military Construction, Air Force
Military Construction, Defense-wide
Military Construction, Army National Guard
Military Construction, Air National Guard
Military Construction, Army Reserve
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program
Family Housing, Construction, Army
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Army
Family Housing, Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine
Corps
Family Housing, Construction, Air Force
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Family Housing, Construction, Defense-wide
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, a statement is required describing the
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. Sections
115, 118, 120, 123, 126, and 129 of the General Provisions, and
language included under ``Military Construction, Defense-wide''
provide certain transfer authority.
Rescission of Funds
In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it
recommends a rescission of $2,400,000, from Public Law 106-52,
under ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve''.
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this bill are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution
Comparisons With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section of 302(a) allocation.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary................................... 8,634 8,684 8,634 8,625
Mandatory....................................... .............. .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Spending Authority
This bill provides no advance spending authority.
Five-Year Projection of Outlays
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget authority, fiscal year 2001.................... $8,634,000
Outlays:
2001.............................................. 2,524,000
2002.............................................. 3,144,000
2003.............................................. 1,744,000
2004.............................................. 688,000
2005 and beyond................................... 501,000
The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax
expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan
guarantee commitments under existing law.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
State and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
New budget authority.................................. 0
Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom.......... 0
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of the rule XIII
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
There were no recorded votes.
State List
The following is a complete listing, by State and country,
of the Committee's recommendations for military construction
and family housing projects: