```

[House Report 107-207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [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

    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.

                  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.

                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.
    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 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 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. 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                      0         5,900,000
     Institute......................
    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        21,200,000        21,200,000
     Corps Base.....................
    California-Camp Pendleton Marine        21,600,000        21,600,000
     Corps Base.....................
    California-El Centro Naval Air          23,520,000        23,520,000
     Facility.......................
    California-Lemoore Naval Air            10,010,000        10,010,000
     Station........................
    California-San Diego Naval              47,240,000        47,240,000
     Station........................
    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         24,920,000        24,920,000
     Base...........................
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval               17,300,000        17,300,000
     Complex........................
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval               23,300,000        23,300,000
     Complex........................
    Illinois-Great Lakes Naval              41,130,000        41,130,000
     Training Center................
    Illinois-Great Lakes Naval              41,130,000        41,130,000
     Training Center................
    Maine-Brunswick Naval Air               22,630,000        22,630,000
     Station........................
    Mississippi-Gulfport Naval              14,300,000        14,300,000
     Construction Battalion Center..
    Missouri-Kansas City Marine              9,010,000         9,010,000
     Corps Support Activity.........
    North Carolina-Camp Lejeune             16,530,000        16,530,000
     Marine Corps Base..............
    North Carolina-Camp Lejeune             13,550,000        13,550,000
     Marine Corps Base..............
    South Carolina-Beaufort Naval                    0         7,330,000
     Hospital.......................
    Virginia-Norfolk Naval Station..        14,730,000        14,730,000
    Virginia-Quantico Marine Corps           9,390,000         9,390,000
     Combat Development Command.....
    Greece-Larissa Naval Support            12,240,000        12,240,000
     Activity.......................
    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
    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                   0         9,060,000
     Base...........................
                                     -----------------------------------
      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            6,060,000        6,060,000
     Corps Air Station................
                                       ---------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy..................        6,060,000        6,060,000
                                       =================================
Air Force:
    Arizona-Davis-Monthan AFB.........                0        6,200,000
    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                 3,150,000       3,150,000
                                                 Facilities.
California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base...  Replace Medical/Dental Clinic          4,300,000       4,300,000
                                                 (Horno).
California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base...  Replace Medical/Dental Clinic          3,800,000       3,800,000
                                                 (Las Flores).
California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base...  Replace Medical/Dental Clinic          4,050,000       4,050,000
                                                 (Las Pulgas).
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            11,000,000      11,000,000
                                                 Clinic.
Maryland-Andrews AFB..........................  Add/Alter Medical/Dental Clinic.       7,300,000       7,300,000
Maryland-Andrews AFB..........................  Branch Medical/Dental Clinic           2,950,000       2,950,000
                                                 Relocation.
New Mexico-Holloman AFB.......................  Medical Clinic Alteration.......       5,700,000       5,700,000
Texas-Dyess AFB...............................  Medical Treatment Facility             3,300,000       3,300,000
                                                 Alteration.
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              28,000,000      28,000,000
                                                 Alteration.
Greenland-Thule AB............................  Composite Medical Facility            10,800,000      10,800,000
                                                 Replacement.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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 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

    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                     $26,000,000     $26,000,000
                                                       Demilitarization Facility
                                                       (Phase VI).
Colorado...............  Pueblo Depot...............  Ammunition                      11,000,000      11,000,000
                                                       Demilitarization Facility
                                                       (Phase III).
Indiana................  Newport Army Ammunition      Ammunition                      66,000,000      66,000,000
                          Plant.                       Demilitarization Facility
                                                       (Phase IV).
Kentucky...............  Blue Grass Army Depot......  Ammunition                       3,000,000       3,000,000
                                                       Demilitarization Facility
                                                       (Phase II).
Maryland...............  Aberdeen Proving Ground....  Ammunition                      66,500,000      66,500,000
                                                       Demilitarization Facility
                                                       (Phase IV).
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      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.
    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 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

    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:

                                         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 
totals $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           -8,000,000
 Marine Corps.........................................
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 exceed $12,000 per unit per year, including 
certification that less expensive housing was not available for 
lease. For foreign leases, the Department is directed to: 
perform an economic analysis on all new leases or lease/
contract agreements where more than 25 units are involved; 
report the details of 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. 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 
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.

         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.

                  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 authority 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-a-fixed-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.
    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.
    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 on-going 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.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                     Last year of  Authorization   in last year   Appropriations
                  Agency/Program                    authorization      level            of         in this bill
                                                                                   authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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                2001         171,622         171,622         162,600
 Investment Program...............................
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              2001         417,235         417,235         334,780
 Corps............................................
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy            2001         899,925         899,925         910,095
 and Marine Corps.................................
Family Housing, Construction, Air Force...........         2001         251,413         251,413         536,237
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air             2001         832,686         832,686         858,121
 Force............................................
Family Housing, Defense-wide......................         2001          44,787          44,787          44,012
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement           2001               0               0           2,000
 Fund.............................................
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense...............         2001               0               0          10,119
Base Realignment and Closure......................         2001       1,031,115       1,031,115         552,713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           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                            Budget
                                                 authority         Outlays         authority         Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................          $10,500           $9,203          $10,500           $9,202
Mandatory...................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    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:


```