75–251

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–207

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

SEPTEMBER 20, 2001.—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

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 2904]

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, 2002.

CONTENTS

Page

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 2

Conformance With Authorization Bill .................................................................... 2

Summary of Committee Recommendation ............................................................ 3

Items of Special Interest ......................................................................................... 6

Military Housing ...................................................................................................... 6

Historic Properties ................................................................................................... 7

Overseas Military Construction .............................................................................. 7

Building to Private Sector Standards .................................................................... 8

Contingency Funding .............................................................................................. 9

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization ....................................................... 9

Fiscal Year 2002 Barracks Request ....................................................................... 9

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 11

Hospital and Medical Facilities .............................................................................. 12

Military Construction:

Army .................................................................................................................. 13

Navy ................................................................................................................... 13

Air Force ............................................................................................................ 14

2

Defense-wide ..................................................................................................... 14

Army National Guard ...................................................................................... 15

Air National Guard .......................................................................................... 16

Army Reserve .................................................................................................... 16

Naval Reserve ................................................................................................... 17

Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 17

NATO Security Investment Program ..................................................................... 17

Family Housing Overview ....................................................................................... 18

Family Housing:

Army .................................................................................................................. 20

Navy ................................................................................................................... 21

Air Force ............................................................................................................ 22

Defense-wide ..................................................................................................... 22

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund .............................. 23

Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense ................................................................ 23

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................. 24

General Provisions ................................................................................................... 25

Changes in Application of Existing Law ................................................................ 27

Definition of Program, Project and Activity .......................................................... 28

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law ................................................................. 28

Transfer of Funds .................................................................................................... 29

Rescission of Funds ................................................................................................. 29

Constitutional Authority ......................................................................................... 29

Comparisons With Budget Resolution ................................................................... 29

Five-Year Projection of Outlays .............................................................................. 30

Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments ........................................ 30

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 30

Full Committee Votes .............................................................................................. 30

State List .................................................................................................................. 30

Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority ................................................. 4, 54

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The Military Construction Appropriation Bill provides funding

for planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of

military facilities worldwide, both for active and reserve forces. Additionally, the bill appropriates amounts for construction, alteration, improvement, operation, and maintenance of military family

housing, and for payments against past housing mortgage indebtedness. The bill provides funds for the U.S. share of the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP). Finally, the bill provides funds

to implement base realignments and closures (BRAC) and impact

assistance in communities where BRACs cause property values to

decrease.

CONFORMANCE WITH AUTHORIZATION BILL

On August 1, 2001, the House Armed Services Committee

marked up H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act for

fiscal year 2002. At this time, conference action on the legislation

has not occurred; therefore, projects in this bill are approved subject to authorization.

3

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,500,000,000 in new budget

(obligational) authority for the Department of Defense, Military

Construction Appropriation Bill. This recommendation is

$528,688,000 above the President’s request and $1,563,502,000

above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in the bill compared to

amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

4


Insert offset folio 01 here HR207.001
5


Insert offset folio 02 here HR207.002
6

TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

The Committee fully supports the President, Departments, and

agencies in all their efforts to recover from and respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the United States. The

Committee is committed to working with the Defense Department

to ensure necessary resources are available for reconstructing the

Pentagon and improving the anti-terrorism and force protection

measures of defense facilities at home and abroad.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

For the most part, the President’s budget request is a great improvement over past requests. The request increases the military

construction budget by $1,034,814,000, or 11 percent, above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level of $8,936,498,000; decreases the current

facility replacement rate of 192 years to 101 years, and maintains

the goals of improving barracks and base housing by 2008 and

2010 respectively.

However, military installations face other challenges not addressed by the request. For example, according to the Installations

Readiness Report (IRR), 69% of Department of Defense (DoD) facilities continue to be rated C–3 (deficiencies that prevent performing some missions) or C–4 (major facility deficiencies that preclude accomplishing the mission satisfactorily). Likewise, while the

new replacement rate is better under this budget, it falls short of

the Department’s goal of 67 years, and even further than commercially-acceptable rates. Finally, the budget fails to implement a

consistent, comprehensive strategy for maintaining and recapitalizing facilities so that mission performance and quality of life for

troops and their families are not compromised. To ameliorate these

problems, DoD should consider the pros and cons of implementing

an aggressive asset management program that provides for effective and routine maintenance, as well as for adequate recapitalization of facilities, and determine whether it could be effectively implemented on military installations.

MILITARY HOUSING

The Committee is pleased with the Administration’s commitment

to execute the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. However,

once again, this budget fails to address several issues associated

with the initiative. First, budget scoring of the alternative authorities is inconsistent and is not always based on sound financial principles. DoD is directed to work with Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) to compare the current scoring methodology with

similar federal housing programs, and to report the findings to the

appropriate Congressional committees by March 15, 2002. This exercise should be helpful to OMB when it reexamines the scoring

matrix for this program.

Second, because most privatization contracts are fifty years in

length, the Committee believes that monitoring and enforcing contractual obligations will be paramount to program success. Each

service should begin to develop capacity in this area. Similarly, because the initiative involves complex and complicated real estate

transactions dissimilar to the traditional military housing program,

each service should develop expertise in this area.

7

Finally, in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill, the Committee

directed each service to submit a Family Housing Master Plan no

later than July 1, 2001. Currently, only the Army’s plan has been

received by the Committee. The information contained in these

plans is vital because it enables the Committee to understand how

each service intends to meet the goal of eliminating all inadequate

housing by fiscal year 2010. Therefore, the Committee urges the

Navy and Air Force to submit their plans on time in the future.

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

As noted in the past, the Committee is concerned with the inordinate expenditures associated with improving and maintaining historically significant properties. The National Historic Preservation

Act of 1966 requires the Department to 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. In the future,

these costs will grow as the number of properties eligible for listing

on the Register grows. In the next five years alone, the Department

will have approximately 38,000 structures that reach 50 years of

age.

To reduce the costs associated with maintaining historic properties, the Department should pursue innovative funding sources

and operating methods. Several examples were discussed during

the Historic Properties hearing on March 15, 2001, such as expanded gift acceptance authority, leasing to third parties like the

Park Service, and demolition where appropriate.

During the hearing, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that inventory control systems available to the services are

inaccurate. The Committee recommends the services work with the

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and

Environment) to develop better inventory controls and a plan that

addresses the increasing number of aging structures. Furthermore,

the Committee directs the Department to conduct a seminar on

working with State Historic Preservation Offices. Finally, the Committee directs the Department to pursue a cooperative agreement

with the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Cold War era

housing, such as Capehart, Wherry and Lustron homes, that is

similar to the 1986 programmatic memorandum of agreement on

World War II wooden buildings.

OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

This year, the Committee held several hearings about the condition of overseas military installations and facilities. The Commanders-in-Chief of the European, Pacific, and Korean Commands

provided testimony. General Joseph Ralston, Admiral Dennis Blair,

and General Thomas Schwartz testified their top two spending priorities were military construction and real property maintenance,

and the Committee commends them for their leadership.

Despite being unable to include a substantial increase in overseas construction projects, the Committee would like to highlight

several items of interest. First, the European Command priorities

of better housing and vehicle maintenance facilities are duly warranted. Further, the Committee commends General Ralston and his

8

staff for their efforts to close and consolidate bases scattered

throughout Europe and to find alternative funding sources. The

Committee believes the Command would benefit from a consolidated European master plan, and encourages DoD and General

Ralston to consider the feasibility of developing a master plan and

report the findings to the Committee.

Admiral Blair testified that as the Pacific Command becomes

more strategically important, its installations would require substantial upgrades, particularly in the area of technology. In addition, he emphasized the need to improve the living conditions

throughout the Command, particularly in Korea, in order to retain

highly trained troops and staff.

General Schwartz concurred with Admiral Blair, testifying that

some of the worst housing and working conditions in the Pacific

Command are in Korea. To ameliorate the conditions, General

Schwartz has developed a Land Partnership Plan that consolidates

many existing camps and relocates troops to more suitable areas.

The Committee commends him for his efforts and will review the

plan when the Quadrenniel Defense Review (QDR), which will discuss force structure requirements in Korea, is submitted to Congress.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Korean Special Measures

Agreement (SMA) will be re-negotiated in the near future. DoD is

encouraged to aggressively pursue additional host nation funding

consistent with the overall congressional goal of seventy-five percent contained in the 1998 Defense Authorization bill.

ENERGY EFFICIENCIES

The Committee encourages energy efficiency and the maximum

use of energy produced from noncarbon and renewable sources at

military installations. The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense is mandated to comply with Executive Order

13123 (‘‘Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management’’) to meet energy management requirements, reduce

greenhouse gases, and expand the use of renewable sources.

To assist DOD in complying with the Executive Order, and to

build upon the effort to expand the use of noncarbon and renewable

sources, the Committee directs that not later than January 1, 2003,

the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a plan to achieve

at military installations the goals specified in sections 201, 202,

and 203 of Executive Order 13123 (64 Fed. Reg. 30851; 42 U.S.C.

8251 note), relating to greenhouse gases reduction goals and energy

efficiency improvement goals, by maximizing the use of (1) energy

efficiency products and services and (2) energy produced from noncarbon and renewable sources.

BUILDING TO PRIVATE SECTOR STANDARDS

Section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2001

(Public Law 106–398) repealed the military family housing square

footage limitations included in Section 2826 of title 10, United

States Code. These limitations were in place for many years and

were inconsistent with housing constructed in the private sector.

Waiving these limitations should create incentives for the military departments to replace large, inefficient housing units with

9

more energy efficient and appropriately sized homes to meet the

needs of military families. For instance, some General and Flag Officer Quarters (GFOQs) exceed 5,000 square feet because they were

built for other purposes many decades ago. Because many of these

homes are approaching 50 years of age, the minimum age for inclusion on the National Historic Preservation list, they would require

special handling for maintenance and repair requirements. As a result, the costs to maintain and improve these homes generally exceed the costs for new homes built in the private sector.

The Committee directs the Department to replace larger, inefficient housing units with housing built to private sector standards

wherever feasible. Building to local private sector standards could

save the Department the added cost and burden of maintaining

historic homes. Furthermore, when executing projects included in

the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, the Committee expects the Department to construct housing to community standards rather than

to the standards previously included in Section 2826 of title 10,

United States Code.

CONTINGENCY FUNDING

Most construction projects include a five percent reserve account

to offset any unexpected project costs, called contingency costs.

Last year, the Department did not include contingency costs in

their budget request in an attempt to reduce the overall budget request. This year, however, the Department has requested funds

sufficient to cover these costs for every project, and the Committee

commends them for taking this action.

SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION

The Department is directed to continue describing on form 1390,

the backlog of Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization needs

at installations with future construction projects. For troop housing

requests, the form 1391 should describe any Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization conducted in the past two years, and future requirements for unaccompanied housing at that installation.

Additionally, the forms should include English equivalent measurements for projects presented in metric measurement. Finally, the

rules for funding repairs of facilities under the Operation and

Maintenance account are described below:

• 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 concurrently with repair projects, as

long as the final conjunctively funded project is a complete and usable facility.

• The appropriate service secretary shall notify the appropriate

Committees 21 days prior to carrying out any repair project with

an estimated cost in excess of $7,500,000.

FISCAL YEAR 2002 BARRACKS REQUEST

The Committee recommends appropriating $1,200,525,000 to construct or modernize 15,466 barracks spaces in fiscal year 2002.

10

This recommendation is $35,090,000 above the request, and

$391,325,000 above the amount enacted in fiscal year 2001. This

recommendation also constructs or renovates an additional 1,854

barracks spaces, and maintains the departmental goal of eliminating all inadequate barracks by 2008.

The following troop housing construction projects are recommended for fiscal year 2002:

FISCAL YEAR 2002 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS

Location Request Recommended

Army:

Alaska-Fort Richardson .......................................................................................... $45,000,000 $45,000,000

California-Defense Language Institute .................................................................. 0 5,900,000

Colorado-Fort Carson .............................................................................................. 25,000,000 25,000,000

Hawaii-Schofield Barracks ..................................................................................... 23,000,000 23,000,000

Hawaii-Wheeler Army Airfield ................................................................................. 50,000,000 50,000,000

Kentucky-Fort Campbell .......................................................................................... 47,000,000 47,000,000

New Jersey-Fort Monmouth ..................................................................................... 20,000,000 20,000,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg ...................................................................................... 49,000,000 49,000,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg ...................................................................................... 27,000,000 27,000,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg ...................................................................................... 17,500,000 17,500,000

Texas-Fort Hood ...................................................................................................... 41,000,000 41,000,000

Washington-Fort Lewis ........................................................................................... 48,000,000 48,000,000

Germany-Bamberg .................................................................................................. 20,000,000 20,000,000

Germany-Darmstadt ................................................................................................ 6,700,000 6,700,000

Germany-Darmstadt ................................................................................................ 6,800,000 6,800,000

Germany-Hanau ...................................................................................................... 7,200,000 7,200,000

Germany-Heidelberg ................................................................................................ 6,800,000 6,800,000

Germany-Heidelberg ................................................................................................ 8,500,000 8,500,000

Korea-Camp Hovey .................................................................................................. 33,000,000 33,000,000

Korea-Camp Humphreys ......................................................................................... 14,500,000 14,500,000

Korea-Camp Stanley ............................................................................................... 28,000,000 28,000,000

Korea-Yongsan Garrison ......................................................................................... 0 12,800,000

Subtotal, Army .................................................................................................... 524,000,000 542,700,000

Navy/Marine Corps:

California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base .................................................... 21,200,000 21,200,000

California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base .................................................... 21,600,000 21,600,000

California-El Centro Naval Air Facility ................................................................... 23,520,000 23,520,000

California-Lemoore Naval Air Station ..................................................................... 10,010,000 10,010,000

California-San Diego Naval Station ....................................................................... 47,240,000 47,240,000

California-Twentynine Palms .................................................................................. 29,675,000 29,675,000

District of Columbia-Anacostia .............................................................................. 9,810,000 9,810,000

Florida-Mayport Naval Station ................................................................................ 16,420,000 16,420,000

Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Base ............................................................... 24,920,000 24,920,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex ...................................................................... 17,300,000 17,300,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex ...................................................................... 23,300,000 23,300,000

Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training Center ............................................................ 41,130,000 41,130,000

Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training Center ............................................................ 41,130,000 41,130,000

Maine-Brunswick Naval Air Station ....................................................................... 22,630,000 22,630,000

Mississippi-Gulfport Naval Construction Battalion Center .................................... 14,300,000 14,300,000

Missouri-Kansas City Marine Corps Support Activity ............................................ 9,010,000 9,010,000

North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base ................................................ 16,530,000 16,530,000

North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base ................................................ 13,550,000 13,550,000

South Carolina-Beaufort Naval Hospital ................................................................ 0 7,330,000

Virginia-Norfolk Naval Station ................................................................................ 14,730,000 14,730,000

Virginia-Quantico Marine Corps Combat Development Command ........................ 9,390,000 9,390,000

Greece-Larissa Naval Support Activity ................................................................... 12,240,000 12,240,000

Guam-Guam Naval Support Activity ...................................................................... 9,300,000 9,300,000

Subtotal, Navy .................................................................................................... 448,935,000 456,265,000

Air Force:

Alabama-Maxwell AFB ............................................................................................ 11,800,000 11,800,000

11

FISCAL YEAR 2002 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS—Continued

Location Request Recommended

Alabama-Maxwell AFB ............................................................................................ 13,600,000 13,600,000

Alaska-Elmendorf AFB ............................................................................................ 20,000,000 20,000,000

Arizona-Davis-Monthan AFB ................................................................................... 8,700,000 8,700,000

Colorado-Buckley AFB ............................................................................................. 11,200,000 11,200,000

Oklahoma-Tinker AFB ............................................................................................. 10,200,000 10,200,000

Texas-Lackland AFB ................................................................................................ 8,600,000 8,600,000

Texas-Sheppard AFB ............................................................................................... 16,000,000 16,000,000

Texas-Sheppard AFB ............................................................................................... 21,000,000 21,000,000

Virginia-Langley AFB .............................................................................................. 8,300,000 8,300,000

Germany-Ramstein AB ............................................................................................ 11,000,000 11,000,000

Italy-Aviano AB ....................................................................................................... 8,200,000 8,200,000

Korea-Osan AB ........................................................................................................ 14,400,000 14,400,000

Korea-Osan AB ........................................................................................................ 15,800,000 15,800,000

Korea-Osan AB ........................................................................................................ 9,700,000 9,700,000

Turkey-Eskisehir ...................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000

Subtotal, Air Force ............................................................................................. 192,500,000 192,500,000

Navy Reserve:

Texas-Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base ..................................................................... 0 9,060,000

Subtotal, Navy Reserve ...................................................................................... 0 9,060,000

Total ................................................................................................................... 1,165,435,000 1,200,525,000

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

The Committee recommends $42,660,000 for child development

centers. This is $17,200,000 above the budget request, and

$466,000 below last year’s enacted level.

Child Development Centers (CDCs) remain critically important

for military families, especially single parents, dual-income families, and spouses left behind during deployments, and the Committee commends the individual services on the quality of care

CDCs provide. However, the Committee remains concerned with

the limited number of spaces and hours available at these centers,

and encourages the service components to expand service and increase hours where demand warrants it, and to provide acceptable

alternatives where it does not.

The following child development center projects are provided for

fiscal year 2002:

FISCAL YEAR 2002 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Location Request Recommended

Army:

Kansas-Fort Riley ........................................................................................................ $6,800,000 $6,800,000

Maryland-Fort Meade .................................................................................................. 5,800,000 5,800,000

Germany-Bamberg ...................................................................................................... 0 6,500,000

Germany-Weisbaden ................................................................................................... 6,800,000 6,800,000

Subtotal, Army ........................................................................................................ 19,400,000 25,900,000

Navy/Marine Corps:

South Carolina-Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station .................................................... 6,060,000 6,060,000

Subtotal, Navy ........................................................................................................ 6,060,000 6,060,000

Air Force:

Arizona-Davis-Monthan AFB ....................................................................................... 0 6,200,000

12

FISCAL YEAR 2002 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS—Continued

Location Request Recommended

Arizona-Luke AFB ........................................................................................................ 0 4,500,000

Subtotal, Air Force ................................................................................................. 0 10,700,000

Total ....................................................................................................................... 25,460,000 42,660,000

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILITIES

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends

appropriating $198,826,000 for hospitals and medical facilities. The

request includes $193,300,000 for 22 projects, and $5,526,000 for

unspecified minor construction. The recommended appropriation is

$57,589,000 above last year’s enacted level.

The Committee recognizes and commends the Army’s application

of population-based planning and industry-based facility assessments in their development of medical and other facility infrastructure repair and recapitalization requirements. The Committee is

interested in how DoD interprets and further develops requirements into rational, life-cycle based investments to support the Defense Health Program. Using the GAO findings in Report NS/IAD–

99–100 that outline the needs of DoD infrastructure, the Department is directed to provide to the appropriate Committees a strategy for medical facility and installation asset management and

funding by May 15, 2002.

The following hospital and medical facilities are recommended

for fiscal year 2002:

Location Project Title Request Recommended

Alaska-Fort Wainwright ................................ Hospital Replacement (Phase III) ............... $18,500,000 $18,500,000

California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base.

Fleet Hospital Support Facilities ................. 3,150,000 3,150,000

California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base.

Replace Medical/Dental Clinic (Horno) ....... 4,300,000 4,300,000

California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base.

Replace Medical/Dental Clinic (Las Flores) 3,800,000 3,800,000

California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base.

Replace Medical/Dental Clinic (Las Pulgas) 4,050,000 4,050,000

California-Twentynine Palms ........................ Hospital LDRP Conversion ........................... 1,600,000 1,600,000

Colorado-Schriever AFB ................................ Medical/Dental Clinic .................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000

Florida-Hurlburt Field ................................... Add/Alter Medical/Dental Clinic .................. 8,800,000 8,800,000

Florida-Mayport Naval Station ..................... Replace Medical/Dental Clinic .................... 24,000,000 24,000,000

Georgia-Albany Marine Corps Logistics

Base.

Replace Medical/Dental Clinic .................... 5,800,000 5,800,000

Georgia-Fort Stewart .................................... Consolidated Troop Medical Clinic .............. 11,000,000 11,000,000

Maryland-Andrews AFB ................................. Add/Alter Medical/Dental Clinic .................. 7,300,000 7,300,000

Maryland-Andrews AFB ................................. Branch Medical/Dental Clinic Relocation ... 2,950,000 2,950,000

New Mexico-Holloman AFB ........................... Medical Clinic Alteration ............................. 5,700,000 5,700,000

Texas-Dyess AFB ........................................... Medical Treatment Facility Alteration ......... 3,300,000 3,300,000

Texas-Fort Hood ............................................ Add/Alter Hospital ....................................... 12,200,000 12,200,000

Virginia-Norfolk ............................................. Add/Alter Branch Medical Clinic ................. 21,000,000 21,000,000

Washington-Whidbey Island Naval Air Station.Water Survival Facility ................................ 6,600,000 6,600,000

Wyoming-F. E. Warren AFB ........................... Medical Clinic Alteration ............................. 2,700,000 2,700,000

Germany-Heidelberg ..................................... Hospital Addition/Clinic Alteration .............. 28,000,000 28,000,000

Greenland-Thule AB ...................................... Composite Medical Facility Replacement ... 10,800,000 10,800,000

Portugal-Lajes Field ..................................... Dental Clinic Replacement .......................... 3,750,000 3,750,000

Various .......................................................... Unspecified Minor Construction .................. 5,526,000 5,526,000

Total ................................................ ...................................................................... 198,826,000 198,826,000

13

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation ............................................................................... $907,243,000

Miscellaneous Appropriation (P.L. 106–554) ............................ 26,941,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 9,144,000

Total .......................................................................................... 943,328,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 1,760,541,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,702,934,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +759,606,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... ¥57,607,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,702,934,000 for Military Construction, Army, for fiscal year 2002. This is a decrease of

$57,607,000 below the budget request and an increase of

$759,606,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

The budget request proposes, as it has for several years, that

chemical demilitarization projects be appropriated in this account.

However, the Committee recommends that the request of

$172,500,000 be appropriated in the ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account, in order to better track expenses, and to avoid

distorting the size of the Army’s military construction program.

Pennsylvania-Tobyhanna Army Depot: Training and Conference

Center.—Of the additional amount provided for planning and design within this account, the Committee directs that not less than

$225,000 be made available to design this facility.

Worldwide Classified-Classified Location: Classified Project.—

The Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law

106–52) appropriated $36,400,0000 for a classified project at a classified location. This project has been cancelled. As a result, the

Committee rescinds $36,400,000 from the ‘‘Military Construction,

Army’’ account.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation ............................................................................... $926,224,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 3,187,000

Total .......................................................................................... 929,411,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 1,071,408,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,134,660,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +205,249,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +63,252,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,134,660,000 for Military Construction, Navy, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase

of $63,252,000 above the budget request and an increase of

$205,249,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee rescinds $19,588,000 of unobligated planning and design

funds from this account. These funds will be used to offset unfunded Navy BRAC requirements.

California-Monterey Naval Postgraduate School: Replacement of

Spanagel Hall.—The Committee is aware that a new academic facility is needed at the Naval Postgraduate School. Spanagel Hall is

almost 50 years old and is costly to maintain. Furthermore, the facility suffers from substandard classrooms and laboratories incapable of supporting today’s advanced technologies. A new facility is

critical to the continued success of graduate education for the

Navy. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Navy to make this

14

project a priority and program the requirement within the Future

Years Defense Plan.

Mississippi-Meridian NAS: Airfield Lighting.—The Committee is

aware that the existing airfield electrical distribution system at the

Meridian Naval Air Station (NAS) is 40 years old and impedes

flight operations. In addition, the current lighting system in place

at Meridian NAS does not meet Naval Air Systems Command criteria. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Navy to make this

project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan.

Washington-Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Center.—The Committee understands that a Center for Integrated Undersea Warfare

(USW) Systems Dependability is needed at the Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Center to integrate all range communications and

worldwide communication links for the Northwest Range Complex

and ensure access to the Complex for all fleet and Navy customers.

Consequently, the Committee encourages the Navy to make this

project a priority within the Future Years Defense Program.

Japan-Camp Schwab: 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force Training

Facility.—With the additional funds provided for Unspecified Minor

Construction, the Committee directs the Navy to execute a project

in the amount of $1,490,000 to provide this facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001:

Appropriation ............................................................................... $868,294,000

Miscellaneous Appropriation (P.L. 106–554) ............................ 11,974,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 5,065,000

Total .......................................................................................... 885,333,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 1,068,250,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,185,220,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +299,887,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +116,970,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,185,220,000 for Military Construction, Air Force, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $116,970,000 above the budget request and an increase

of $299,887,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

Delaware-Dover Air Force Base.—The Committee recognizes that

an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliant fire station and a modern control tower at Dover Air Force

Base are vital to the mission capability of our armed services.

Funding for these projects will increase safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of Dover Air Force Base. The Committee considers these

projects as top priorities, and encourages the Air Force to include

this project in the Future Years Defense Plan.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001:

Appropriation ............................................................................... $812,839,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... ¥14,376,000

Total .......................................................................................... 798,463,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 694,558,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 852,808,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +54,345,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +158,250,000

15

The Committee recommends a total of $852,808,000 for Military

Construction, Defense-wide, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase

of $158,250,000 above the budget request and an increase of

$54,345,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level.

Aruba-Forward Operating Location.—Division B, Title III, Chapter 3 of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public

Law 106–246) appropriated a total of $10,250,000 to construct a

Forward Operating Location in Aruba. This requirement is no

longer needed. Therefore, the Committee rescinds $10,250,000 from

the ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account.

Chemical Demilitarization.—The 1986 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 99–145) authorized the Chemical Demilitarization program for the purpose of destroying all U.S. stockpiled

chemical agents and weapons by April 29, 2007. In 1991, Congress

expanded the law to include the destruction of chemical warfare

material not part of the stockpile, such as buried munitions and

former weapons production facilities. The Department of the Army

is the agent responsible for program management and oversight.

As requested by the President, the Committee recommends appropriating $172,500,000 for chemical demilitarization projects, which

is $2,900,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

The following chart displays the fiscal year 2002 funding increments:

State Installation Project Request Recommended

Arkansas ...... Pine Bluff Arsenal .......................... Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase VI).$26,000,000 $26,000,000

Colorado ....... Pueblo Depot .................................. Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase III).11,000,000 11,000,000

Indiana ......... Newport Army Ammunition Plant ... Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase IV).66,000,000 66,000,000

Kentucky ....... Blue Grass Army Depot .................. Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase II).3,000,000 3,000,000

Maryland ...... Aberdeen Proving Ground ............... Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase IV).66,500,000 66,500,000

Total ......................................................... ......................................................... 172,500,000 172,500,000

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation ............................................................................... $281,097,000

Miscellaneous Appropriation (P.L. 106–554) ............................ 4,490,000

Total .......................................................................................... 285,587,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 267,389,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 313,348,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +27,761,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +45,959,000

The Committee recommends a total of $313,348,000 for Military

Construction, Army National Guard, for fiscal year 2002. This is an

increase of $45,959,000 above the budget request and an increase

of $27,761,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

Arkansas-Warren: Readiness Center.—The Committee is aware

that a new armory is needed to accommodate various classrooms,

offices and utility-related rooms for the 3rd Battalion 153 Infantry

in Warren, Arkansas. The Committee encourages the Army National Guard to make this project a priority within the Future

Years Defense Plan.

16

Michigan-Shiawassee County: Readiness Center.—The Committee

understands that a readiness center in Shiawassee County, Michigan would alleviate the problems currently associated with soldiers

assigned to an overcrowded, substandard, and aged facility in nearby Owosso. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Army National Guard to make this project a priority within the Future

Years Defense Plan.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2001:

Appropriation ............................................................................... $203,381,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 6,700,000

Total .......................................................................................... 210,081,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 149,072,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 198,803,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. ¥11,278,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +49,731,000

The Committee recommends a total of $198,803,000 for Military

Construction, Air National Guard, for fiscal year 2002. This is an

increase of $49,731,000 above the budget request and a decrease of

$11,278,000 below the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

Montana-Malmstrom AFB: Training and Mobility Storage Facility.—The Committee understands that a training and mobility storage facility is needed for the Montana Air National Guard’s 219th

Red Horse team for storage of mobility equipment, cargo preparation and processing, equipment maintenance, and an indoor team

training area. Consequently, the Committee encourages the Air National Guard to make this project a priority within the Future

Years Defense Plan.

South Carolina-McEntire Air National Guard Station: Joint

Headquarters.—Of the additional amount provided for planning

and design in this account, the Committee directs that not less

than $1,331,000 be made available to design this facility.

Delaware-New Castle County Airport.—The Committee recognizes that an upgraded parking apron/taxiway for the Air National

Guard at New Castle County Airport is vital to the mission capability of our armed services. Funding for this project will increase

safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Air National Guard at

New Castle County Airport. The Committee considers this project

a top priority, and encourages the Air National Guard to include

the project in the Future Years Defense Plan.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $108,499,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 111,404,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 167,769,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +59,270,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +56,365,000

The Committee recommends a total of $167,769,000 for Military

Construction, Army Reserve, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $56,365,000 above the budget request and an increase of

$59,270,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

Pennsylvania-Johnstown: Security Improvements.—With the additional funds provided for Unspecified Minor Construction, the

17

Committee directs the Army Reserve to execute a project in the

amount of $500,000 to improve security at this location.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVAL RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $61,931,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 33,641,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 61,426,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. ¥505,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +27,785,000

The Committee recommends a total of $61,426,000 for Military

Construction, Naval Reserve, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $27,785,000 above the budget request and a decrease of

$505,000 below the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee

rescinds $925,000 of unobligated planning and design funds from

this account. These funds will be used to offset unfunded Navy

BRAC requirements.

Louisiana-New Orleans Joint Reserve Base: Joint Reserve Center

and Runway Extension.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000

for the second phase of the Joint Reserve Center at the New Orleans Joint Reserve Base (JRB). This joint use center will include the

Army Reserve and other reserve components. As stated in the

House Report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Bill (Report 106–614), this multi-service center

can dramatically increase deployment, mobilization, and training

capabilities. In addition to this project, the Department of the Navy

is encouraged to complete design of the 4,000-foot runway extension project at the New Orleans JRB and make the project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $36,510,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 53,732,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 81,882,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +45,372,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +28,150,000

The Committee recommends a total of $81,882,000 for Military

Construction, Air Force Reserve, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $28,150,000 above the budget request and an increase of

$45,372,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

C–17 Facilities.—Of the additional amount provided for planning

and design within this account, the Committee directs that no less

than $3,000,000 be made available for planning and site assessments of March AFB and Wright-Patterson AFB in order to provide

long-term support for C–17 aircraft within Air Force Reserve Command operations.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT

PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $171,622,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 162,600,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 162,600,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. ¥9,022,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... 0

18

The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) is paid for with

annual contributions by NATO member countries. The program finances the costs of construction needed to support the roles of the

major NATO commands. The investments cover facilities such as

airfields, fuel pipelines and storage, harbors, communications and

information systems, radar and navigational aids, and military

headquarters. The U.S. share of the NSIP for fiscal year 2002 is

$199,000,000, or roughly 25% of the total NSIP program amount of

$802,000,000.

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends

$162,600,000 for the NSIP, which is a decrease of $9,022,000 below

the appropriation for fiscal year 2001. To offset the total U.S. share

of the program, $11,000,000 from projected savings from

recoupments of pre-financed projects, and $25,000,000 from prior

year obligations, are available for expenditure.

In each year since 1997, the U.S. has been forced to temporarily

block authorization of projects due to shortfalls in U.S. obligation

authority. The Committee is concerned that the U.S. has been

placed in this position, and has been assured by DoD that the total

U.S. program share of $199,000,000 is sufficient to preclude similar

action in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee intends to monitor the program, and directs DoD to notify the Committee within

30 days after taking such action.

FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

Historically, housing for military personnel and their families

has been a low priority for DoD. Consequently, the inventory is old

and in most cases is substandard. Currently, DoD estimates that

180,000 of the 300,000 military family housing units it owns and

operates are substandard, and that it would cost more than $16 billion to improve or replace them.

In testimony before this subcommittee on March 8, 2001, senior

enlisted service members stated that housing was one of the most

important factors soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines consider

when deciding whether to remain on active duty or to leave the

service. Military spouses who testified before the subcommittee

echoed these statements.

To ameliorate the costs associated with providing decent housing,

Congress authorized the Military Housing Privatization Initiative.

The initiative’s intent is to create more housing quickly, to attract

private capital, and to make the private sector responsible for providing routine maintenance for the term of the contract. Whether

the initiative has been successful is still unclear.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends funding of $1,165,309,000 for family

housing construction for fiscal year 2002, an increase of

$50,880,000 above the budget request, and $261,224,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The following chart provides a service component breakout of the current family housing deficit, both

in units and in cost of new construction, replacement, and improvements:

19

DEFICITS (CURRENT PROJECTIONS)

[Dollars in thousands]

New construction Replacement Improvement Grand total

Army:

Number of Units ................................... 1,368 3,724 26,769 31,861

Costs ..................................................... $410,400 $604,404 $2,003,240 $3,018,044

Navy:

Number of Units ................................... 15,600 5,569 18,801 39,970

Costs ..................................................... 2,294,300 1,162,000 1,737,200 5,193,500

Marine Corps:

Number of Units ................................... 9,449 8,501 7,805 25,755

Costs ..................................................... 1,457,200 1,696,900 454,500 3,608,600

Air Force:

Number of Units ................................... 6,000 26,300 32,900 65,200

Costs ..................................................... 780,845 3,421,860 2,959,110 7,161,815

Total DOD:

Number of Units ................................... 32,417 44,094 86,275 162,786

Costs ..................................................... 4,942,745 6,885,164 7,154,050 18,981,959

The fiscal year 2002 request for operation and maintenance to- tals $2,939,969,000. The operations and maintenance accounts provide for annual family housing expenditures for maintenance and

repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, leasing, interest, mortgage insurance, and miscellaneous expenses. The Committee recommends a total of $2,908,409,000 for fiscal year 2002

which is $31,560,000 below the President’s request and $154,876,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

UTILITY ESTIMATES

The Committee includes a total reduction of $30,000,000 to the

following appropriations because current utility rates are more favorable than the Department predicted when it submitted its fiscal

year 2002 budget request:

Account Amount

Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Army ..................... ¥$11,000,000

Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Navy and Marine

Corps ................................................................................................ ¥8,000,000

Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Air Force .............. ¥11,000,000

Total .......................................................................................... ¥$30,000,000

FOREIGN CURRENCY SAVINGS

Once again, the Committee directs that savings from foreign currency re-estimates be used to maintain existing family housing

units. The Comptroller is directed to report to the Committee on

how these savings are allocated by December 1, 2002. Likewise,

only 10% of funds made available to the construction account and

operation and maintenance accounts may be transferred between

the accounts. Such transfers must be reported to the Committee

within thirty days of such action.

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 exVerDate 31-AUG-2001 01:43 Sep 21, 2001 Jkt 075251 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR207.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR207
20

ceed $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 new or renewal lease that exceeds

$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.

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 improvement projects over $2,000,000.

FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $235,437,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 291,542,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 294,042,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +58,605,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +2,500,000

The Committee recommends a total of $294,042,000 for Family

Housing Construction, Army, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is an increase of $2,500,000 above the budget request, and an

increase of $58,605,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

The appropriation includes $61,700,000 to construct new family

housing units, $220,750,000 to improve existing units, and

$11,592,000 for planning and design.

California-Presidio of Monterey: Residential Communities Initiative.—The military family housing at the Presidio of Monterey is

scheduled for privatization under the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) program in fiscal year 2002. The scope of the planned

project is 1,675 housing units. The National Defense Authorization

Act for fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) included a provision,

which expanded the types of entities eligible to participate in the

Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) to include a State

or local government, or a housing authority of a State or local government. Therefore, the Committee expects that governmental entities, specifically local housing authorities, shall have standing to

submit proposals and compete fairly for the privatization of military family housing at the Presidio of Monterey in California.

FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation ............................................................................... $949,655,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 26,480,000

Total .......................................................................................... 976,135,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 1,108,991,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,096,431,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation ......................................... +120,296,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... ¥12,560,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,096,431,000 for Family

Housing Operations and Maintenance, Army, for fiscal year 2002.

21

This appropriation is a decrease of $12,560,000 below the budget

request, and an increase of $120,296,000 above the fiscal year 2001

appropriation.

Maintenance and Repair: General Quarters.—The Committee defers $1,560,000 from the maintenance and repair account until further justification is provided for two general officer quarters

projects. Specifically, the Committee defers $1,200,000 for the

maintenance and repair of Quarters 3 at Fort McNair in Washington, DC; and $360,000 for the maintenance and repair of Quarters 1000 at Camp Zama in Japan.

FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $417,235,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 304,400,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 334,780,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation ......................................... ¥82,455,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +30,380,000

The Committee recommends a total of $334,780,000 for Family

Housing, Navy and Marine Corps, for fiscal year 2002. This is an

increase of $30,380,000 above the budget request, and a decrease

of $82,455,000 below the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The appropriation includes $124,847,000 to construct new family housing

units, $203,434,000 to improve existing units, and $6,499,000 for

planning and design.

Construction Improvements.—Of the amount provided for construction improvements, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to

execute the following projects: $11,840,000 for whole-site revitalization (69 units) at Barking Sands Pacific Missile Range Facility in

Hawaii, $6,940,000 for whole house revitalization (124 units) at

Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts, and $1,600,000 to

renovate Quarters 1 and Quarters 3 at 8th and I Marine Barracks

in Washington, DC.

Washington, DC—8th and I Marine Barracks: Historic Residences.—The Committee notes the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to use funds received pursuant to section 2601 of title 10,

United States Code, for the construction, improvement, repair, and

maintenance of historic residences located at the 8th and I Marine

barracks. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to use

funds received pursuant to this authority to offset the total cost of

all construction improvement projects at 8th and I Marine Barracks included in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.

FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND

MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2001:

Appropriation ............................................................................... $879,625,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 20,300,000

Total .......................................................................................... 899,925,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 918,095,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 910,095,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation ......................................... +10,170,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... ¥8,000,000

The Committee recommends a total of $910,095,000 for Family

Housing Operations and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps, for

22

fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is a decrease of $8,000,000

below the budget request, and an increase of $10,170,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $251,413,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 518,237,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 536,237,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +284,824,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... +18,000,000

The Committee recommends a total of $536,237,000 for Family

Housing Construction, Air Force, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is an increase of $18,000,000 above the budget request,

and an increase of $284,824,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The appropriation includes $140,800,000 to construct new

family housing units, $370,879,000 to improve existing units, and

$24,558,000 for planning and design.

Construction Improvements.—Of the amount provided for construction improvements, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed

to execute the following project: $18,000,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (164 units) at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001:

Appropriation ............................................................................... $819,061,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 13,625,000

Total .......................................................................................... 832,686,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 869,121,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 858,121,000

Comparison with:.

Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation ......................................... +25,435,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... ¥11,000,000

The Committee recommends a total of $858,121,000 for Family

Housing Operations and Maintenance, Air Force, for fiscal year

2002. This appropriation is a decrease of $11,000,000 below the

budget request, and an increase of $25,435,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 appropriation.

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $44,787,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 44,012,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 44,012,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. ¥775,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... 0

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends

$44,012,000 for Family Housing, Defense-wide, for fiscal year 2002.

This amount is a decrease of $775,000 below the appropriation for

fiscal year 2001. Of this amount $250,000 is for construction,

$43,762,000 is for operations and maintenance.

23

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. $2,000,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 2,000,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +2,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... 0

The Family Housing Improvement Fund is used to build or renovate family housing by mixing or matching various authorities in

the authorization, and by utilizing private capital and expertise to

the maximum extent possible. The fund, administered as a single

account without fiscal year limitations, contains appropriated and

transferred funds from family housing construction accounts. 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 deposited into this fund, and any use

of the fund is subject to annual appropriations. The authority to

utilize the alternative authorities is due to expire on December 31,

2004; however, the Committee supports the House Armed Services

Committee proposal to make the authorities permanent.

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends

$2,000,000 for the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2002, which is $2,000,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Department is directed to continue providing quarterly status reports on each privatization

project.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. $10,119,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 10,119,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. +10,119,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... 0

The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving

fund which provides assistance to homeowners. The fund was established in recognition that base closure and reduction actions

cause adverse economic impacts on local communities. Service

members may access the fund when military installations are

closed or operations are reduced, and the value of their home diminishes accordingly. 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.

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee appropriates

$10,119,000 for the Homeowners Assistance Fund for fiscal year

2002, which is $10,119,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year

2001.

Total Fund requirements for fiscal year 2002 are estimated to be

$31,615,000. Additional amounts will be derived from transfers

from the Base Realignment and Closure account, revenue from

sales of acquired property, and prior year unobligated balances.

24

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation ............................................................................... $1,022,115,000

Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107–20) ............................... 9,000,000

Total .......................................................................................... 1,031,115,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. $532,200,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 552,713,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. ¥478,402,000

Fiscal year 2002 estimate ........................................................... 20,513,000

The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–526) and the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–510)

enacted legislation that instituted four base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds between 1988 and 1995 for the purposes of reducing excess military bases and infrastructure. The BRAC rounds

closed 97 of 495 major domestic installations, realigned several

other facilities, and are estimated to save $15.5 billion through fiscal year 2001. BRAC legislation requires DoD to fund the environmental restoration and caretaker costs for facilities closed in previous BRAC rounds.

The Committee is recommending $552,713,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure Account for fiscal year 2002, which is

$478,402,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001,

and $20,513,000 above the President’s request. The additional

amount is for previously unfunded cleanup requirements at Navy

BRAC sites. Of the total amount provided, $544,983,000 is for environmental restoration and caretaker costs of facilities closed under

previous rounds of BRAC. Also included in the appropriation is

$7,730,000 that will be transferred during execution to the Homeowner’s Assistance Program to provide assistance to military personnel and civilian homeowners affected by base closures.

The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of

$21,141,854,000 for the BRAC program from fiscal years 1990

through 2001. Within this total, the Department has allocated

$6,868,497,000 for activities associated with environmental restoration.

The Committee, in appropriating such funds, has provided the

Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by service component, by functions and by base. Recognizing the complexities of providing for environmental restoration of properties, the Committee

has provided flexibility to allow the Office of the Secretary of Defense to monitor program execution to redistribute unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid delays, and to effect timely execution

of environmental cleanup responsibilities.

California-Fort Ord: Affordable Housing.—There are circumstances under which local reuse authorities stand to generate

substantial revenues from the conveyance of closed or realigned

bases and the facilities on the installation. In those instances, it is

appropriate for the authority to work cooperatively with the services, and state and local governments, to ensure that those revenues are directed towards public purposes.

For example, in Monterey County, California, the local base

reuse authority stands to generate substantial revenues from the

conveyance of Fort Ord by developing new homes on open land as

well as retrofitting existing homes on the base, for which the auVerDate 31-AUG-2001 01:43 Sep 21, 2001 Jkt 075251 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR207.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR207
25

thority paid nothing, and selling this housing at prices that reflect

the market rates in the area. Though the plan of the reuse authority is well-intentioned, the area suffers from a serious shortage of

housing that is affordable for lower and middle-income families.

The median home price in the area is $400,000, which is simply

unaffordable to working families making 60 or 80 percent of area

median income.

Clearly, it is in the best interests of the local reuse authority and

government to find ways to make affordable homes available for

hard working families, particularly when the property is being conveyed at no cost to the community. There are many housing programs—private and public—that undertake multi-income projects

with little effort and minimal effects on profit margins. The reuse

authority in Monterey County is urged to consider including such

a program in its overall reuse plan. In addition, the authority is

urged to increase the amount of affordable housing at the former

Fort Ord.

California-Fort Ord: Hazardous Waste from Building Removal.—

The Committee is concerned about the environmental challenges

associated with the base closure re-use issues at the former Fort

Ord in California and the disposal of lead-based paint (LBP), asbestos, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) that will be generated

during building removal. Accordingly, the Army shall develop, demonstrate, and validate innovative technologies to specifically address the remediation of LBP, asbestos, and PCBs generated from

the 12th Street Corridor building removal at Fort Ord. These technologies may include, but are not necessarily limited to,

thermochemical conversion processes. A successful technology solution from this effort will also be beneficial for other closed or realigned defense installations facing similar challenges.

The Department of the Army shall work with the Fort Ord Reuse

Authority in its efforts to advance the 12th Street Corridor Project

and report on the progress of these technology efforts as part of the

mandated Environmental Quality Technology Report to Congress

until this project is completed, at which time a final report specifically focused on this initiative will be provided to Congress which

should make suggestions for further building removal activities.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Administration proposed eliminating several general provisions enacted in P.L. 106–246: sections 111, 113, 119, 121, 122,

124, 125, and 128–139. The Committee recommends retaining

every provision except for sections 128–139. Additionally, the Administration proposed a new provision that allowed the transfer of

up to $67,000,000 among any accounts in the bill. The Committee

did not include this provision.

General Provisions included in the bill are as follows:

Section 101 of the General Provisions limits DoD from spending

funds appropriated in this Act for payments under a cost-plus-afixed-fee contract for construction where cost estimates exceed

$25,000. An exception for Alaska is provided.

Section 102 of the General Provisions permits the hire of passenger motor vehicles.

26

Section 103 of the General Provisions permits funds to be expended on the construction of defense access roads under certain

circumstances.

Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits construction of

new bases inside the continental United States without a specific

appropriation.

Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of funds for

purchase of land or land easements that exceed 100% of value.

Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of funds

to acquire land, prepare sites, or install utilities for family housing

except housing for which funds have been appropriated.

Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of minor construction funds to be transferred or relocated from one installation

to another.

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 limits appropriations from

being used to pay 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 preference for

American architectural and engineering services where the services

are in Japan, NATO member countries, and the Arabian Gulf.

Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes a 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 where

construction costs exceed $100,000.

Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations to no

more than 20% during the last two months of the fiscal year.

Section 115 of the General Provisions permits DoD to make

available funds appropriated in prior years for new projects 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 requires the Secretary of

Defense to report annually on actions taken during the current fiscal year to encourage other member nations of the NATO, Japan,

Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to assume a

greater share of defense costs.

Section 120 of the General Provisions authorizes the transfer of

proceeds from ‘‘Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I’’ to

the continuing Base Realignment and Closure accounts.

27

Section 121 of the General Provisions prohibits the availability of

funds to any entity that violates 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 limits the obligation of

funds for Partnership for Peace Programs.

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 appropriations from this Act be the sole source of all operation and maintenance for flag and general officer quarter houses and limits the repair on these quarters to $25,000 per year.

Section 128 of the General Provisions requires the Army, Navy,

Marine Corps, and Air Force to submit a Family Housing Master

Plan to the appropriate committees of Congress by July 1, 2002.

Section 129 of the General Provisions authorizes additional funds

for a project at Masirah Island Airfield in Oman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the rules of the House of Representatives.

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 that directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities that 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.

Language is included that enables various appropriations to remain available for more than one year for some programs for which

the basic authority legislation does not presently authorize such extended availability.

Language is included under Military Construction, Defense-wide,

which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to other

accounts for military construction or family housing.

Language is included under Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV, limiting the amount of funds that shall be available

solely for environmental restoration.

28

Language is included under the General Provisions authorizing

additional funds for a project at Masirah Island Airfield in Oman.

DEFINITION OF 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), and by the Budget Enforcement Act of

1990 (Public Law 101–508), the following information provides the

definitions of the terms ‘‘program, project and activity’’ for appropriations contained in the Military Construction Appropriations

Act. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the

most specific level of budget items, identified in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2002, the accompanying House and

Senate reports, and the conference report of the joint explanatory

statement of the managers of the committee of conference.

In carrying out any sequestrations, the Department of Defense

(DoD) and related agencies shall carry forth the sequestration

order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the DoD and the related agencies, and no program, project, and activity should be

eliminated or reduced to a level of funding that would adversely affect DoD ability to effectively continue any program, project, and

activity.

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:

[Dollars in thousands]

Agency/Program

Last year

of authorization

Authorization

level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

Military Construction, Army ................................................................. 2001 $943,328 $943,328 $1,702,934

Military Construction, Navy .................................................................. 2001 929,411 929,411 1,134,660

Military Construction, Air Force ........................................................... 2001 885,333 885,333 1,185,220

Military Construction, Defense-wide .................................................... 2001 798,463 798,463 852,808

Military Construction, Army National Guard ........................................ 2001 285,587 285,587 313,348

Military Construction, Air National Guard ........................................... 2001 210,081 210,081 198,803

Military Construction, Army Reserve .................................................... 2001 108,499 108,499 167,769

Military Construction, Naval Reserve .................................................. 2001 61,931 61,931 61,426

Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ............................................. 2001 36,510 36,510 81,882

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...... 2001 171,622 171,622 162,600

Family Housing, Construction, Army .................................................... 2001 235,437 235,437 294,042

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Army ........................... 2001 976,135 976,135 1,096,431

Family Housing, Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ...................... 2001 417,235 417,235 334,780

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine

Corps ............................................................................................... 2001 899,925 899,925 910,095

Family Housing, Construction, Air Force ............................................. 2001 251,413 251,413 536,237

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ..................... 2001 832,686 832,686 858,121

Family Housing, Defense-wide ............................................................. 2001 44,787 44,787 44,012

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund ............... 2001 0 0 2,000

Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense .............................................. 2001 0 0 10,119

Base Realignment and Closure ........................................................... 2001 1,031,115 1,031,115 552,713

29

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 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 recommends rescissions

of:

Military Construction, Army—$36,400,000

Military Construction, Navy—$19,588,000

Military Construction, Naval Reserve—$925,000

Military Construction, Defense-Wide—$10,250,000

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 authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary .......................................................... $10,500 $9,203 $10,500 $9,202

Mandatory ............................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

30

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 2002 ....................................................... $10,500,000

Outlays:

2002 ................................................................................................. 2,690,000

2003 ................................................................................................. 4,042,000

2004 ................................................................................................. 2,337,000

2005 ................................................................................................. 785,000

2006 and beyond ............................................................................. 598,000

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

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of 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:

31


Insert offset folio 03 here HR207.003
32


Insert offset folio 04 here HR207.004
33


Insert offset folio 05 here HR207.005
34


Insert offset folio 06 here HR207.006
35


Insert offset folio 07 here HR207.007
36


Insert offset folio 08 here HR207.008
37


Insert offset folio 09 here HR207.009
38


Insert offset folio 010 here HR207.010
39


Insert offset folio 011 here HR207.011
40


Insert offset folio 012 here HR207.012
41


Insert offset folio 013 here HR207.013
42


Insert offset folio 014 here HR207.014
43


Insert offset folio 015 here HR207.015
44


Insert offset folio 016 here HR207.016
45


Insert offset folio 017 here HR207.017
46


Insert offset folio 018 here HR207.018
47


Insert offset folio 019 here HR207.019
48


Insert offset folio 020 here HR207.020
49


Insert offset folio 021 here HR207.021
50


Insert offset folio 022 here HR207.022
51


Insert offset folio 023 here HR207.023
52


Insert offset folio 024 here HR207.024
53


Insert offset folio 025 here HR207.025
54


Insert offset folio 026 here HR207.026
55


Insert offset folio 027 here HR207.027
56


Insert offset folio 028 here HR207.028
57


Insert offset folio 029 here HR207.029
58


Insert offset folio 030 here HR207.030
59


Insert offset folio 031 here HR207.031