87–987 PDF

Calendar No. 176

108TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 108–82

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION BILL, 2004

JUNE 26, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Mrs. HUTCHISON, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1357]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1357) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and

base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Total of bill as reported to Senate ........................... $9,196,000,000

Amount of 2004 budget estimate ............................ 9,117,281,000

Amount of 2003 appropriations ............................... 10,698,800,000

The bill as reported to the Senate:

Over the budget estimate, 2004 ....................... 78,719,000

Below appropriations for fiscal year 2003 ....... 1,502,800,000
(2)

CONTENTS

Page

Background:

Purpose of the bill ............................................................................................ 3

Comparative statement .................................................................................... 3

Compliance with section 308 of the Budget Control Act ............................... 9

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 9

Items of special interest .......................................................................................... 10

Military construction, Army .................................................................................... 20

Military construction, Navy .................................................................................... 21

Military construction, Air Force ............................................................................. 22

Military construction, Defense-wide ....................................................................... 23

Military construction, Reserve components ........................................................... 25

NATO Security Investment Program ..................................................................... 27

Family housing overview ........................................................................................ 28

Family housing, Army ............................................................................................. 28

Family housing, Navy and Marine Corps .............................................................. 29

Family housing, Air Force ....................................................................................... 30

Family housing, Defense-wide ................................................................................ 31

Family housing improvement fund ........................................................................ 31

Base realignment and closure account, part IV .................................................... 32

General provisions ................................................................................................... 34

Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate ... 35

Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 35

Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 36

Project listing by location ........................................................................................ 36
(3)

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The Military Construction appropriation bill provides necessary

funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of military facilities worldwide, both for Active and Reserve Forces. It also finances the construction, alteration, improvement, operation, and maintenance of military family housing, including payments against past housing mortgage indebtedness.

Certain types of community impact assistance may be provided, as

well as assistance to members of the military who face loss on the

sale of private residences due to installation realignments and closures. The bill is also the source for the U.S. share of the NATO

Security Investment Program. In addition, the bill provides funding

to implement base closures and realignments authorized by law.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT

The Committee recommends appropriations totaling $9,196,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 military construction, family

housing, and base closure. The following table displays the Committee recommendation in comparison with the current fiscal year,

and the President’s fiscal year 2004 request.
4

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 enacted Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Increase (∂) or decrease (¥) compared

with—

2003 enacted Budget estimate

Military construction, Army .................................................................................................................... 1,472,022 1,602,060 1,255,155 ¥216,867 ¥346,905

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 211,688 ................................ ................................ ¥211,688 ................................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 1,683,710 1,602,060 1,255,155 ¥428,555 ¥346,905

Rescission ...................................................................................................................................... ¥49,376 ¥66,050 ¥183,615 ¥134,239 ¥117,565Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ..................................................................... 2,000 ................................ ................................ ¥2,000 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 1,636,334 1,536,010 1,071,540 ¥564,794 ¥464,470

Military construction, Navy ..................................................................................................................... 1,095,698 1,147,537 1,195,659 ∂99,961 ∂48,122

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 209,430 ................................ ................................ ¥209,430 ................................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 1,305,128 1,147,537 1,195,659 ¥109,469 ∂48,122

Rescission ...................................................................................................................................... ¥1,340 ¥14,679 ¥39,322 ¥37,982 ¥24,643Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ..................................................................... 48,100 ................................ ................................ ¥48,100 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 1,351,888 1,132,858 1,156,337 ¥195,551 ∂23,479

Military construction, Air Force .............................................................................................................. 891,650 830,671 1,056,377 ∂164,727 ∂225,706

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 188,597 ................................ ................................ ¥188,597 ................................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 1,080,247 830,671 1,056,377 ¥23,870 ∂225,706

Rescission ...................................................................................................................................... ¥13,281 ................................ ................................ ∂13,281 ................................Rescission (Public Law 108–7) .................................................................................................... ¥18,600 ................................ ................................ ∂18,600 ................................Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ..................................................................... 152,900 ................................ ................................ ¥152,900 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 1,201,266 830,671 1,056,377 ¥144,889 ∂225,706

Military construction, Defense-wide ....................................................................................................... 836,345 695,298 712,567 ¥123,778 ∂17,269

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 33,300 ................................ ................................ ¥33,300 ................................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 869,645 695,298 712,567 ¥157,078 ∂17,269
5

Rescissions .................................................................................................................................... ¥2,976 ¥997 ¥32,680 ¥29,704 ¥31,683

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 866,669 694,301 679,887 ¥186,782 ¥14,414Total, Active components .......................................................................................................... 5,056,157 4,193,840 3,964,141 ¥1,092,016 ¥229,699

Military construction, Army National Guard ........................................................................................... 241,377 168,298 304,085 ∂62,708 ∂135,787Military construction, Air National Guard .............................................................................................. 194,880 60,430 221,013 ∂26,133 ∂160,583

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 8,933 ................................ ................................ ¥8,933 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 203,813 60,430 221,013 ∂17,200 ∂160,583

Military construction, Army Reserve ....................................................................................................... 100,554 68,478 73,979 ¥26,575 ∂5,501Military construction, Naval Reserve ..................................................................................................... 67,804 28,032 34,742 ¥33,062 ∂6,710

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 7,117 ................................ ................................ ¥7,117 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 74,921 28,032 34,742 ¥40,179 ∂6,710

Military construction, Air Force Reserve ................................................................................................ 63,650 44,312 57,426 ¥6,224 ∂13,114

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 3,576 ................................ ................................ ¥3,576 ................................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 67,226 44,312 57,426 ¥9,800 ∂13,114

Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 108–7) ...................................................................... 18,600 ................................ ................................ ¥18,600 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 85,826 44,312 57,426 ¥28,400 ∂13,114Total, Reserve components ....................................................................................................... 706,491 369,550 691,245 ¥15,246 ∂321,695Total, Military construction ....................................................................................................... 5,762,648 4,563,390 4,655,386 ¥1,107,262 ∂91,996

Appropriations .................................................................................................................. (5,185,580) (4,645,116) (4,911,003) (¥274,577) (∂265,887)Defense emergency response fund .................................................................................. (662,641) ................................ ................................ (¥662,641) ................................Rescissions ...................................................................................................................... (¥85,573) (¥81,726) (¥255,617) (¥170,044) (¥173,891)

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ......................................................... 167,200 169,300 169,300 ∂2,100 ................................Family housing construction, Army ........................................................................................................ 280,356 409,191 409,191 ∂128,835 ................................

Rescission ...................................................................................................................................... ¥4,920 ¥52,300 ¥52,300 ¥47,380 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 275,436 356,891 356,891 ∂81,455 ................................

Family housing operation and maintenance, Army ............................................................................... 1,106,007 1,043,026 1,043,026 ¥62,981 ................................
6

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 enacted Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Increase (∂) or decrease (¥) compared

with—

2003 enacted Budget estimate

Family housing construction, Navy and Marine Corps .......................................................................... 376,468 184,193 184,193 ¥192,275 ................................

Rescission ...................................................................................................................................... ¥2,652 ................................ ¥3,585 ¥933 ¥3,585

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 373,816 184,193 180,608 ¥193,208 ¥3,585

Family housing operation and maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps ................................................. 861,788 852,778 852,778 ¥9,010 ................................Family housing construction, Air Force .................................................................................................. 684,824 657,065 657,065 ¥27,759 ................................

Rescission ...................................................................................................................................... ¥8,782 ¥19,347 ¥29,039 ¥20,257 ¥9,692

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 676,042 637,718 628,026 ¥48,016 ¥9,692

Family housing operation and maintenance, Air Force ......................................................................... 833,419 834,468 834,468 ∂1,049 ................................

Defense emergency response fund [DERF] ................................................................................... 29,631 ................................ ................................ ¥29,631 ................................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 863,050 834,468 834,468 ¥28,582 ................................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ..................................................................... 1,800 ................................ ................................ ¥1,800 ................................

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 864,850 834,468 834,468 ¥30,382 ................................

Family housing construction, Defense-wide .......................................................................................... 5,480 350 350 ¥5,130 ................................Family housing operation and maintenance, Defense-wide .................................................................. 42,395 49,440 49,440 ∂7,045 ................................Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund ................................................................. 2,000 300 300 ¥1,700 ................................

Total, Family housing ............................................................................................................... 4,207,814 3,959,164 3,945,887 ¥261,927 ¥13,277

Base realignment and closure account ................................................................................................. 561,138 370,427 370,427 ¥190,711 ................................General provision (sec. 118) .................................................................................................................. ................................ 55,000 55,000 ∂55,000 ................................

Grand total:

New budget (obligational) authority ................................................................................ 10,698,800 9,117,281 9,196,000 ¥1,502,800 ∂78,719

Appropriations ......................................................................................................... (10,108,455) (9,270,654) (9,536,541) (¥571,914) (∂265,887)Defense emergency response fund ......................................................................... (692,272) ................................ ................................ (¥692,272) ................................
7

Rescissions ............................................................................................................. (¥101,927) (¥153,373) (¥340,541) (¥238,614) (¥187,168)

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNTS

Military Construction, Army .................................................................................................................... 1,636,334 1,536,010 1,071,540 ¥564,794 ¥464,470Military Construction, Navy .................................................................................................................... 1,351,888 1,132,858 1,156,337 ¥195,551 ∂23,479Military Construction, Air Force .............................................................................................................. 1,201,266 830,671 1,056,377 ¥144,889 ∂225,706Military Construction, Defense-wide ...................................................................................................... 866,669 694,301 679,887 ¥186,782 ¥14,414

Total, Active components .......................................................................................................... 5,056,157 4,193,840 3,964,141 ¥1,092,016 ¥229,699

Military Construction, Army National Guard .......................................................................................... 241,377 168,298 304,085 ∂62,708 ∂135,787Military Construction, Air National Guard .............................................................................................. 203,813 60,430 221,013 ∂17,200 ∂160,583Military Construction, Army Reserve ...................................................................................................... 100,554 68,478 73,979 ¥26,575 ∂5,501Military Construction, Naval Reserve ..................................................................................................... 74,921 28,032 34,742 ¥40,179 ∂6,710Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ................................................................................................ 85,826 44,312 57,426 ¥28,400 ∂13,114

Total, Reserve components ....................................................................................................... 706,491 369,550 691,245 ¥15,246 ∂321,695Total, Military Construction ...................................................................................................... 5,762,648 4,563,390 4,655,386 ¥1,107,262 ∂91,996

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ......................................................... 167,200 169,300 169,300 ∂2,100 ................................Family Housing, Army:

Construction .................................................................................................................................. 275,436 356,891 356,891 ∂81,455 ................................Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 1,106,007 1,043,026 1,043,026 ¥62,981 ................................

Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps:

Construction .................................................................................................................................. 373,816 184,193 180,608 ¥193,208 ¥3,585Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 861,788 852,778 852,778 ¥9,010 ................................

Family Housing, Air Force:

Construction .................................................................................................................................. 676,042 637,718 628,026 ¥48,016 ¥9,692Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 864,850 834,468 834,468 ¥30,382 ................................

Family Housing, Defense-wide:

Construction .................................................................................................................................. 5,480 350 350 ¥5,130 ................................Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 42,395 49,440 49,440 ∂7,045 ................................

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund ................................................................. 2,000 300 300 ¥1,700 ................................

Total, Family Housing ............................................................................................................... 4,207,814 3,959,164 3,945,887 ¥261,927 ¥13,277

Base Realignment and Closure Account ............................................................................................... 561,138 370,427 370,427 ¥190,711 ................................
8

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 enacted Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Increase (∂) or decrease (¥) compared

with—

2003 enacted Budget estimate

General provision .................................................................................................................................... ................................ 55,000 55,000 ∂55,000 ................................

Grand Total ............................................................................................................................... 10,698,800 9,117,281 9,196,000 ¥1,502,800 ∂78,719
9

COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 308 OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT

Section 308(a) of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of

1974 (Public Law 93–344) requires that the Committee include in

its report a comparison of its recommendations with levels contained in the first concurrent resolution. Appropriate data are reflected below:

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution

for 2004: Subcommittee on Military Construction:

Discretionary ........................................................................ 9,196 9,196 10,297 1 10,273

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2004 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 2,593

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,376

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,883

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 722

2008 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 622

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2004 ......................................................................................... NA .................... NA ....................

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends new fiscal year 2004 appropriations

of $9,196,000,000. This is $78,719,000 over the budget request, and

$1,502,800,000 below the appropriations for fiscal year 2003. The

basis for this recommendation is contained in the following ‘‘Items

of special interest,’’ and under the discussions pertaining to each

individual appropriation. Complete project detail is provided in the

tables at the end of the report.
(10)

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Military Construction held a hearing on

the fiscal year 2004 budget request during March 2003. The subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of the military

services and defense agencies concerning fiscal year 2004 budget

priorities and base realignment and closure [BRAC] issues. The

subcommittee also held a hearing in March on the BRAC process,

with testimony from Defense Department officials and from representatives of communities which have undergone BRAC. In April,

the subcommittee held a hearing in which the commanders of

United States forces in Europe and Korea testified about their visions for revising the structure of military base facilities in their

respective commands.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 reflects a decrease of

$1,581,519,000 from the amount enacted in fiscal year 2003.

The Committee recommends an additional $78,719,000 above the

fiscal year 2004 budget request. The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 2004 is $9,196,000,000, a decrease of

$1,502,800,000 from fiscal year 2003 funding.

OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

The budget request included over $1,000,000,000 for military

construction at U.S. installations outside the United States, much

of it destined for facilities constructed for prosecution of the cold

war. For several years, the Committee has expressed concern that

our overseas basing structure has not been updated to reflect the

realities of the post-cold war world. Our Nation is dealing with new

threats, new strategies, new force structure, new deployment concepts, and new geopolitical realities, yet a basing structure born of

and rationalized for the cold war endures. The Committee has

questioned the wisdom of continuing to expend taxpayer dollars on

overseas facilities that may not be appropriate to the Nation’s future military needs. To spur the Defense Department to address

this issue, in its report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2002 Military

Construction Appropriations Act, the Committee directed the Defense Department to submit a report on its overseas basing master

plan no later than April 1, 2002; that report has not yet been received.

The Defense Department continues to study the question and has

underway an overseas basing and presence study that will lead to,

among other things, recommendations for a major overhaul of the

United States overseas basing structure. Like the overseas basing

master plan due to Congress, that study has yet to be completed,
11

but in testimony before the Military Construction Subcommittee in

April, two of the combatant commanders—General James Jones,

Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and Commander of United

States European Command, and General Leon LaPorte, Commander of United States Forces, Korea—presented their visions for

military basing in their respective areas of responsibility. General

Jones described a concept for Europe that featured fewer large

bases, several smaller, more austere bases in forward locations,

and greater use of rotational forces in and out of these facilities instead of permanent stationing of large forces with the attendant

support infrastructure. General LaPorte described a vision for

Korea in which United States forces are consolidated at a greatly

reduced number of facilities, located further south on the Korean

peninsula than at present.

As part of the effort to realign overseas basing, the Secretary of

Defense asked the combatant commanders to review whether the

enacted fiscal year 2003 military construction program and their

fiscal year 2004 military construction budget requests supported

the emerging concept for the operation of U.S. military forces in

their respective areas of responsibility. That review resulted in a

budget amendment which rescinded or deleted $531,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 projects at various overseas locations and proposed new construction in an equal amount, approximately $276,000,000 of which was overseas.

The Committee commends both the commanders and the Department for identifying construction projects that are not in accord

with the emerging outlines of a new overseas basing structure.

Moreover, the Committee was impressed by the combatant commanders’ boldness and creativity in reassessing basing needs, and

believes that their respective visions hold great promise for a more

efficient and effective basing structure that will enhance the ability

of the United States to meet new threats. The Committee believes

that when fully developed, this vision will provide a sound basis on

which Congress and the administration will be able to determine

the future of our overseas basing structure.

The Committee recognizes that at this point the vision has not

yet been developed into a comprehensive plan on which decisions

to pursue new construction initiatives can prudently be based. The

overseas basing and presence study involves far more than military

facilities. According to public statements of Defense Department officials, it will result in potentially dramatic changes in the disposition of U.S. forces abroad, including where they are based, how

they operate, how they move to and from their theaters of operations, and even the number of forces deployed in specific theaters.

In various press accounts, administration officials have acknowledged considering: new bases in Australia; Navy ships ported in

Vietnam; increased United States troop presence in Malaysia and

Singapore; bases in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as Senegal, Ghana, Mali, and Kenya; bases on territory of the former Soviet Union; a rotational model for circulating forces in and out of

overseas bases; significant reductions to force levels in Germany;

and a major relocation and possible reduction to forces in the Republic of Korea. Summarizing the extent of the changes under consideration, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy stated that
12

‘‘Everything is going to move everywhere.’’ If the sweeping changes

under consideration are to be implemented, they will require extensive diplomatic efforts both in the nations in which the United

States seeks a new presence and in those in which it will reduce

or reshape its presence.

Because a comprehensive plan is not yet developed, the Committee is unwilling to undertake extensive new military construction projects that would begin the implementation of that plan

without a thorough and deliberate review by Congress. The Committee is particularly concerned about projects proposed for Korea

in the budget amendment submitted May 1, 2003. For example:

—The amendment proposes to build three new barracks on privately held land, which the United States does not control, adjacent to Camp Humphreys. The Minister of National Defense

of the Republic of Korea has committed to obtaining the land

for use by the United States. The Committee applauds and appreciates the commitment of the Korean Government, but it is

not confident the land will in fact be acquired in time to support execution of these projects in fiscal year 2004.

—The budget amendment proposes to build at Camp Humphreys

a fitness center, first appropriated for Camp Kyle in the fiscal

year 2000 Act, then ‘‘realigned’’ to Camp Bonifas in fiscal year

2003, and now ‘‘realigned’’ again to Camp Humphreys. The

Committee is concerned that the repeated movement of this fitness center indicates it is a project in search of a home rather

than part of a comprehensive and sound plan to support military requirements.

—The budget amendment proposes to realign a middle school

from Seoul to Camp Humphreys. This building was designed

as a three story structure because of space limitations in the

urban environment for which it was intended, but Department

officials have indicated that this may not be an appropriate design for a school at a location where similarly restrictive land

constraints do not necessarily exist.

—The budget amendment proposed to ‘‘realign’’ a barracks

project from the K–16 airfield to Camp Humphreys. Subsequent to the budget amendment submission, however, the

Committee was informed by Army officials that this request

was in error, that the barracks was still required at K–16, and

a correction to the budget amendment would be forthcoming.

Then the Committee was then advised that a correction would

not be issued, and the ‘‘realignment’’ request would stand.

The Committee has similar reservations about proposed construction in Europe. For example, the budget request includes a

number of projects in areas in Germany that, according to public

statements of Army and other Defense Department officials, are

likely to see significant force level reductions. Military officials also

have stated that it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement

the rotational unit concept that is central to the emerging vision

of the U.S. overseas presence.

Evaluated against a backdrop of uncertainty about fundamental

aspects of a revised overseas basing structure which the Department has yet to propose, including the number of troops that these

facilities will be required to support, these examples indicate to the
13

Committee that the Defense Department’s overseas basing and

presence plan is not yet sufficiently mature to enable the Committee to commit with confidence to extensive new construction.

Thus the Committee has declined to fund much of the new construction in Europe and Korea requested in the May 1, 2003 budget amendment.

The Committee’s actions do not indicate dissatisfaction with the

general direction in which the Department appears to be headed.

To the contrary, the Committee welcomes what it regards as a refreshing and overdue effort to think creatively about this issue. The

Committee looks forward to receiving and evaluating the Department’s full recommendations once they become available. Although

the Committee expects that the Fiscal Year 2005 Military Construction Act will be the vehicle by which new overseas construction initiatives will be implemented, it does not rule out the possibility of considering pressing military construction needs in a supplemental appropriation. However, the Committee is insistent that

before any such decisions are taken, the Department’s plan be finished and presented to Congress with sufficient time for deliberate

consideration.

OVERSEAS BASING COMMISSION

In keeping with the Committee’s continuing concern about the

Nation’s overseas basing, the Committee recommends a provision

that would establish a commission to conduct a thorough study of

matters related to U.S. military facility structure overseas. The

Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States would consist of eight members appointed

by the congressional leadership. The Commission would be authorized to hold hearings and receive information from Federal agencies in order to assess whether the current U.S. overseas basing

structure is adequate to execute current missions, and to assess the

feasibility of closures, realignments, or establishment of new installations overseas to meet emerging defense requirements. The Commission would not preclude in any way the Defense Department’s

ongoing efforts to develop a comprehensive and integrated global

presence and basing strategy. Rather, it would provide Congress an

independent view of the Nation’s overseas basing requirements to

aid it in its oversight role.

The Commission would submit a report to the President and

Congress by August 30, 2004, containing findings, conclusions, and

recommendations for legislation and administrative actions, as well

as a proposal for an overseas basing strategy to meet current and

future requirements.

COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLANS FOR OVERSEAS MILITARY FACILITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee is concerned about the use of military construction budget authority for construction projects at bases that may

soon be obsolete due to changes being considered in overseas presence and basing. To ensure that military construction funding is

devoted to facilities needed to meet firm future requirements, the

Committee directs the Department of Defense to (1) prepare detailed comprehensive master plans for the changing infrastructure
14

requirements for U.S. military facilities within each of its overseas

regional commands; the plans should, at a minimum identify precise facility requirements, and the status of properties being returned to host nations. The plans also should identify funding requirements and the division of funding responsibilities between the

United States and cognizant host nations; and (2) provide, with

each yearly MILCON budget submission to the congressional defense committees through fiscal year 2008, a report on the status

of those plans and their implementation. The first such report shall

be provided with the fiscal year 2005 MILCON budget submission

and updated each succeeding year to reflect changes to the plans

involving specific construction projects being added, canceled, modified, or funding for those projects being redirected to other needs,

and justification for such changes. During this period, the Committee also directs the General Accounting Office to monitor the infrastructure master plans being developed and implemented for the

overseas regional commands and to provide the congressional defense committees with a report by May 15 of each year giving their

assessment of the status of the plans, associated costs, burdensharing implications, and other relevant information involving

property returns to host nations, restoration issues, and residual

values.

IMPACT OF MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION ON LOCAL SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

This Committee has supported the Department of Defense program to privatize military family housing. The Department has

shown that private sector financing, ownership, operation, and

maintenance of military housing can help to eliminate inadequate

housing faster than could otherwise be achieved. However, the

Committee is concerned about the impact of privatization projects

on local school districts. In most instances, the children of families

living in military-owned housing located on military installations

attend schools operated by local school districts. Because the children live on non-taxed Federal property, the government compensates the local school districts through payment of impact funds

averaging about $2,000 per student. Privatization of the on-base

housing could result in the classification of the property being

changed from Federal to non-Federal. Such a change could result

in the impact funds paid to the local school districts dropping significantly—to about $200 per student. Privatization projects could

also impact local school districts by changing the number or geographic dispersion of the children of military families in local communities thus affecting the size and location of needed schools. For

example, the privatization project at Fort Hood, Texas, is estimated

to create a need for three more schools in the local school district.

Consequently, the Secretary of Defense shall report to congressional defense committees by March 15, 2004, on the impact of privatization of military family housing on local school districts, and

options for addressing local school requirements resulting from the

privatization. The report should include an assessment of whether

establishing military charter schools on Department of Defense installations—modeled on the example of Belle Chasse Academy at

the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans—could pro-
15

ductively help to alleviate the impact of housing privatization on

local school districts. The Comptroller General shall report on his

evaluation of the Secretary’s report within 60 days of its issuance

and make recommendations, if needed, to help ensure that the impacts from privatization on local school districts are mitigated.

PERCHLORATE

The Committee is growing increasingly concerned about the potential impact of perchlorate contamination at installations that

have been closed through the BRAC process as well as at active

and inactive defense sites. Perchlorate, a chemical used in solid

rocket propellant, has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] as an unregulated toxin. Perchlorate contamination has been found in drinking water supplies in 29 States, including California, Texas, Colorado, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

More than 300 groundwater wells in California are contaminated

with perchlorate, as is the Colorado River, which supplies drinking

water to more than 15,000,000 people in the Southwest.

According to the EPA, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are responsible for 90

percent of the perchlorate produced in the United States. Although

the EPA last year concluded in a draft assessment that perchlorate

could pose a risk to human health at drinking water concentrations

of just one part per billion, the Federal Government has yet to set

a drinking water standard for perchlorate. Therefore, no remediation standard exists. The EPA assessment has been referred to

the National Academy of Sciences for review, which could significantly delay the establishment of a national drinking water standard for perchlorate.

The Committee recognizes that, absent a state or Federal standard for perchlorate, the Department of Defense is under no legal

obligation to remediate perchlorate contamination at defense sites.

However, the Committee is disappointed that the Department has

been unresponsive to requests to test for perchlorate at BRAC

properties or other defense sites.

To ensure that the Department is prepared to respond quickly

and appropriately once a perchlorate standard is determined, the

Committee directs that the Department take the following actions:

(1) Submit to the congressional defense committees no later than

December 31, 2003, a report on the activities of the Interagency

Perchlorate Steering Committee of the Department of Defense that

was established in January 1998 and was originally chartered to

facilitate and coordinate accurate accounts of technological issues

(occurrence, health effects, treatability and waste stream handling,

analytical detection, and ecological impacts) related to perchlorate

contamination of drinking water supplies and irrigation water supplies and to create information transfer links for interagency and

intergovernmental activities regarding such areas of concern. The

report shall cover all activities that were identified in the memorandum of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental

Security), dated January 24, 2001, to the Secretaries of the military

departments and the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency.

(2) Identify sources of perchlorate on BRAC properties and develop a plan to remediate perchlorate contamination on BRAC sites
16

that can be implemented rapidly once State or Federal perchlorate

standards are set. The Department shall report to the congressional defense committees on its perchlorate findings and remediation action plan no later than March 30, 2004.

CONFORMANCE WITH AUTHORIZATION BILL

The Committee strongly supports the authorization-appropriation

process. However, the Committee has reported the appropriation

bill prior to completion of the authorization process. Therefore, the

Committee has provided construction funds for specific projects

which were included in the Senate-passed version of the National

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 and projects subject

to authorization.

REPROGRAMMING RULES/CRITERIA

The following rules apply for all military construction and family

housing reprogrammings. A project or account (including the subelements of an account) which has been specifically reduced by the

Congress in acting on the appropriation request is considered to be

a congressional interest item. A prior approval reprogramming is

required for any increase to an item that has been specifically reduced by the Congress. Accordingly, no below threshold

reprogrammings to an item specifically reduced by the Congress

are permitted.

The reprogramming criteria that apply to military construction

projects (25 percent of the funded amount or $2,000,000 which-ever

is less) continue to apply to new housing construction projects and

to improvements over $2,000,000. To provide the individual Services the flexibility to proceed with construction contracts without

disruption or delay, the costs associated with environmental hazard

remediation such as asbestos removal, radon abatement, lead-based

paint removal or abatement, and any other legislated environmental hazard remediation may be excluded, provided that such remediation requirements could not be reasonably anticipated at the

time of budget submission. This exclusion applies to projects authorized in the budget year, and also projects authorized in prior

years for which construction contracts have not been completed.

Furthermore, in instances where a prior approval reprogramming request for a project or account has been approved by the

Committee, the amount approved becomes the new base for any future increase or decrease via below threshold reprogrammings (provided that the project or account is not a congressional interest

item).

TRANSFER AUTHORITY

The budget request proposed a general provision which would

allow the transfer of appropriations for military family housing for

a given military service to appropriations available for pay and allowance of military personnel of the same service, to be merged

with and to be available for the same purposes and period of time

as the account to which transferred. The Committee believes that

existing reprogramming procedures are sufficient in solving urgent

funding problems and denies this request.
17

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

The Committee has included $370,427,000 for the ‘‘Base realignment and closure’’ account, an amount equal to the budget request.

BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $1,211,800,000 to

construct or modernize 43 barracks projects.

The Committee recommends $1,068,100,000 for barracks construction projects in fiscal year 2004, a decrease of $143,700,000

from the budget request.

BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Location/Project Request Recommended

Army:

Alaska:

Fort Richardson Barracks Complex D Street, Ph 3 (144 spaces) ....................... $33,000,000 $33,000,000

Fort Richardson Barracks Complex (60 spaces) .................................................. ........................ 8,200,000

Fort Wainwright Barracks Luzon Avenue (144 spaces) ....................................... 21,500,000 21,500,000

Georgia:

Fort Stewart Barracks Complex Perimeter Road (576 spaces) ............................ 49,000,000 49,000,000

Fort Stewart Barracks (Phase I) (298 spaces) .................................................... 17,000,000 17,000,000

Hawaii:

Schofield Barracks, Barracks Complex Capron Road, Ph 2 (180 spaces) .......... 49,000,000 49,000,000

Schofield Barracks, Barracks Complex Quad E (150 spaces) ............................. 49,000,000 49,000,000

Kansas: Fort Riley Barracks Complex Graves Street (312 spaces) .............................. 40,000,000 40,000,000

Kentucky: Fort Campbell Barracks Complex Range Road, Ph 2 (372 spaces) ............ 49,000,000 49,000,000

North Carolina:

Fort Bragg Barracks Complex Bastogne Drive, Ph 1 (448 spaces) .................... 47,000,000 47,000,000

Fort Bragg Barracks Complex Butner Road, Ph 4 (240 spaces) ......................... 38,000,000 38,000,000

Fort Bragg Barracks D Area, Ph 4 (384 spaces) ................................................. 17,000,000 17,000,000

New York:

Fort Drum Barracks 10200 Area (276 spaces) .................................................... 22,500,000 22,500,000

Fort Drum Barracks Complex Wheeler Sack AAF (240 spaces) ........................... 49,000,000 49,000,000

Texas: Fort Hood Barracks Complex 67th & Battalion Ave (480 spaces) .................... 47,000,000 47,000,000

Washington: Fort Lewis Barracks Complex 17th & B St, Ph 3 (300 spaces) .............. 48,000,000 48,000,000

Germany:

Grafenwoehr, Brigade Complex Barracks ............................................................. 30,000,000 ........................

Heidelberg, Hospital Barracks .............................................................................. 17,000,000 ........................

Vilsek, Barracks Complex (Phase I) ..................................................................... 12,000,000 ........................

Korea:

Camp Humphreys (Realigned from Camp Casey) ................................................ 41,000,000 ........................

Camp Humphreys (Realigned from Camp Casey) ................................................ 35,000,000 ........................

Camp Humphreys (Realigned from Camp Hovey) ................................................ 29,000,000 ........................

Subtotal, Army .................................................................................................. 740,000,000 584,200,000

Navy:

California:

Camp Pendleton Bachelor Enlisted Quarters San Mateo (400 spaces) .............. 22,900,000 22,900,000

Monterey Bachelor Officer Quarters (280 spaces) ............................................... 35,600,000 35,600,000

San Nicolas Island Transient Quarters (32 spaces) ............................................ 6,200,000 6,200,000

San Diego Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Homeport Ashore (500 spaces) .............. 42,700,000 42,700,000

Twentynine Palms Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (384 spaces) .............................. 26,100,000 26,100,000

Illinois:

Great Lakes Recruit Barracks (1056 spaces) ...................................................... 31,600,000 31,600,000

Great Lakes Recruit Barracks (1056 spaces) ...................................................... 34,100,000 34,100,000

Rhode Island: Newport Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Replacement (NAPS) (360

spaces) ...................................................................................................................... 16,100,000 16,100,000

Virginia: Norfolk Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Shipboard Ashore, Ph II (500 spaces) ... 46,700,000 46,700,000

United Kingdom: Saint Mawgan Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (48 spaces) ................... 7,100,000 7,100,000

Subtotal, Navy & Marine Corps ................................................................................ 269,100,000 269,100,000
18

BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

Location/Project Request Recommended

Air Force:

Alabama: Maxwell AFB SOS Dormitory, Ph 3 (162 spaces) .......................................... 13,400,000 13,400,000

Alaska: Eielson AFB Dormitory (96 spaces) .................................................................. 13,900,000 13,900,000

California: Beale AFB Global Hawk Dormitory (96 spaces) .......................................... 13,300,000 13,300,000

North Carolina: Seymour Johnson AFB Dormitory (144 spaces) ................................... 9,500,000 9,500,000

Ohio: Wright-Patterson AFB Dormitory (144 spaces) .................................................... 10,500,000 10,500,000

South Carolina: Charleston AFB Dormitory (144 spaces) ............................................. 8,900,000 8,900,000

Texas:

Goodfellow AFB Student Dormitory (200 spaces) ................................................. 18,100,000 18,100,000

Lackland AFB Student Dormitory (200 spaces) ................................................... 21,000,000 21,000,000

Lackland AFB Student Dormitory (300 spaces) ................................................... 35,300,000 35,300,000

Sheppard AFB Student Dormitory (300 spaces) ................................................... 28,600,000 28,600,000

Korea: Osan AB Dormitory (156 spaces) ....................................................................... 16,600,000 16,600,000

United Kingdom: Royal AF Lakenheath Dormitory (120 spaces) .................................. 13,600,000 13,600,000

Subtotal, Air Force ..................................................................................................... 202,700,000 202,700,000

Air National Guard:

Virginia: Camp Pendleton Troop Training Quarters (Red Horse) (40 spaces) .............. ........................ 2,500,000

Air Force Reserve:

New York: Niagara Falls ARS Visiting Officer’s Quarters (65 spaces) ......................... ........................ 9,600,000

Subtotal, Reserve Components ................................................................................. ........................ 12,100,000

Total Barracks Construction ...................................................................................... 1,211,800,000 1,068,100,000

BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

The General Accounting Office [GAO] issued a report in June

2003 that discussed opportunities for DOD to reduce costs in the

unaccompanied housing program (Military Housing: Opportunities

That Should Be Explored to Improve Housing and Reduce Costs for

Unmarried Junior Service members, GAO—03–602, June 10, 2003).

GAO found that DOD and the services had not fully explored barracks privatization to determine whether the concept could provide

a better economic value to the government than the use of military

construction financing, and that DOD and the military services had

not taken advantage of opportunities to potentially reduce their

housing costs for unmarried service members through use of residential construction practices in government-owned barracks construction and better utilization of existing government-owned barracks. GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense promote a

coordinated, focused effort to determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of barracks privatization and that DOD undertake engineering studies to resolve questions about the use of residential

construction practices, issue guidance to direct the maximum use

of required existing barracks space, and identify and eliminate any

barracks space determined to be excess. DOD generally agreed

with the recommendations.

The Committee believes that the report’s recommendations

should be implemented without delay and directs the Secretary of

Defense to provide a progress report to the Committee by March

1, 2004. The progress report should detail actions taken in response to the recommendations and itemize any budgetary savings

achieved as a result of implementing the recommendations.
19

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REPORTING REQUIREMENT

The Committee recommends a continuation of the following general rules for repairing a facility under Operations and Maintenance account funding:

Components of the facility may be repaired by replacement, and

such replacement can be up to current standards or code.

Interior arrangements and restorations may be included as repair, but additions, new facilities, and functional conversions must

be performed as military construction projects.

Such projects may be done concurrent with repair projects, as

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

The appropriate Service Secretary shall submit a 21-day notification prior to carrying out any repair project with an estimated cost

in excess of $7,500,000.

The Department is directed to continue to provide the real property maintenance backlog at all installations for which there is a

requested construction project in future budget requests. This information is to be provided on Form 1390. In addition, for all troop

housing requests, the Form 1391 is to continue to show all real

property maintenance conducted in the past 2 years and all future

requirements for unaccompanied housing at that installation.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes $3,646,000 for one

child development center project. The Committee recommends

$16,096,000 for a total of three projects.
(20)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,636,334,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,536,010,000

Committee recommendation (including rescission) ............................. 1,071,540,000

The Committee recommends $1,071,540,000 for the Army for fiscal year 2004. This is a decrease of $464,470,000 from the budget

request for fiscal year 2004. (See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)

The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects

to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2004 as practical:

Water Treatment Facility, Hawthorne Army Depot, Nevada.—Of

the funds provided in this account for minor construction involving

urgent life, health, and safety issues, the Committee directs that

$2,950,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Hawthorne’s surface water and well water are out of compliance

with State environmental and drinking water standards, and the

facility recently received notice from the Nevada Division of Health

that the surface water system must be brought into compliance by

May 21, 2004. In addition to constructing this treatment facility to

address the surface water issues, the Committee also urges the Department to include the necessary funding for a new and urgently

needed treatment facility for drinking water at Hawthorne in the

fiscal year 2005 budget request.

Chaffee (Main) Gate, Fort Bliss, Texas.—Of the funds provided

for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that

$910,000 be made available for the construction of this gate.

Chapel Expansion, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs

that $1,500,000 be made available for the construction of this chapel expansion.

Dining Facilities Renovation, Fort Knox, Kentucky.—Of the funds

provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee

directs that $178,000 be made available for the design of the facilities.

Gymnasium Addition, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.—Of the funds

provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for the construction of this

gymnasium addition.

Replace Ship Creek Bridge, Fort Richardson, Alaska.—Of the

funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for the construction of this bridge.

Robert E. Lee (Main) Gate, Fort Bliss, Texas.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs

that $1,200,000 be made available for the construction of this gate.
21

Tactical Equipment Shop, Fort Bliss, Texas.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $663,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Donnelly Training Area, Alaska.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Urban Assault Course (101st Airborne Division), Fort Campbell,

Kentucky.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $239,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Wheeled Vehicle Rebuild Facility, Red River Army Depot,

Texas.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this ac- count, the Committee directs that $2,890,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Battery Test Facility, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.—Of the funds

provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee

directs that $182,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Conversion of Former Officer’s Club, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.— Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the

Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for the conversion of the former officers’ club into an Army Community Center.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,351,888,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,132,858,000

Committee recommendation (including rescission) ............................. 1,156,337,000

The Committee recommends $1,156,337,000 for Navy and Marine

Corps military construction for fiscal year 2004. This amount is an

increase of $23,479,000 from the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

(See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)

The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects

to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2003 as practical:

Blue Angels Hangar, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida.—Of

the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the

Committee directs that $1,400,000 be made available for the design

of this facility.

Engineering Management and Logistics Facility, Carderock

Naval Special Warfare Center, Maryland.—Of the funds provided

for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that

$1,500,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Structural Shop Consolidation, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, New

Hampshire.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available

for the design of this facility.

Suspect Cargo Handling Facility, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,420,000 be made available for

the construction of this facility.

Range Operations Complex, Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this ac-
22

count, the Committee directs that $1,250,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Support Facility,

Indian Head Naval Special Warfare Center, Maryland.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,200,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,201,266,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 830,671,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,056,377,000

The Committee recommends $1,056,377,000 for the Air Force in

fiscal year 2004. This is an increase of $225,706,000 from the fiscal

year 2004 budget request. (See State tables at the end of the report

for complete program recommendations.)

The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects

to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2004 as practical:

Addition/Alteration to Fitness Center, Malmstrom AFB, Montana.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this ac- count, the Committee directs that $684,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Addition/Alteration to Training Annex Fire Station, Lackland

AFB, Texas.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $950,000 be made available for

the construction of this annex.

Air Mobility Operations Group [AMOG] Global Reach Deployment

Center, Travis AFB, California.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that

$1,350,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Child Development Center, Charleston Air Force Base, South

Carolina.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $500,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Combat Offload Ramp, Lakehurst Naval Air Station, New Jersey.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this ac- count, the Committee directs that $400,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Consolidated Software Support Facility, Hill Air Force Base,

Utah.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this ac- count, the Committee directs that $1,710,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Corrosion Control Facility, Malmstrom AFB, Montana.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $504,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

Elevated Basic Military Training [BMT] Troop Walk at Carswell

Avenue, Lackland AFB, Texas.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $756,000

be made available for the construction of this elevated walkway.

Fire Crash Rescue Station, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $990,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.
23

Fire Department Addition, Laughlin AFB, Texas.—Of the funds

provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $450,000 be made available for the construction of this

addition.

Fitness Center, Goodfellow AFB, Texas.—Of the funds provided

for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that

$1,475,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Mission Support Complex, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,200,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Repair Alaska Command Headquarters, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account,

the Committee directs that $3,000,000 be made available for the

design of this facility.

Replace Working Dog Kennel, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.—Of the

funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,400,000 be made available for the construction of this kennel.

Squadron Operations Facility, Laughlin AFB, Texas.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $200,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

War Reserve Material Storage Facility, Holloman AFB, New Mexico.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account,

the Committee directs that $1,026,000 be made available for the

design of this facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $866,679,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 694,301,000

Committee recommendation (including rescissions) ........................... 679,887,000

The Committee recommends $679,887,000 for projects considered

within the ‘‘Defense-wide’’ account. The amount recommended is an

decrease of $39,914,000 from the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

(See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)

The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects

to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2004 as possible.

Biometrics Training Center, Bridgeport, West Virginia.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,400,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

DOD Hospital [TRICARE], Denver, Colorado.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $4,000,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Tripler Army Hospital, Biomedical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.—

Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the

Committee directs that $4,600,000 be made available for the design

of this facility.
24

MEDICAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $161,699,000 for

seven major construction projects plus planning and design, and

unspecified minor construction. The Committee recommends a total

of $170,299,000, which fully funds the budget request and provides

additional planning and design funding.

Location/project title Request Recommended

Alaska: Fort Wainwright, Hospital Replacement (Phase V) ................................................... $71,600,000 $71,600,000

Colorado: U.S. Air Force Academy, Hospital Addition/Alteration ............................................ 21,500,000 21,500,000

Connecticut: New London, Dental Clinic Replacement .......................................................... 6,400,000 6,400,000

District of Columbia: Anacostia, Medical/Dental Clinic Conversion ...................................... 15,714,000 15,714,000

District of Columbia: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Energy Plant ................................ 9,000,000 9,000,000

Germany: Grafenwoehr, Dispensary/Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration ................................... 12,585,000 12,585,000

Guam: Andersen Air Force Base, Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement .................................. 24,900,000 24,900,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 161,699,000 161,699,000

CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION

The Committee has provided $8,960,000 for the Secretary of Defense ‘‘Contingency construction’’ account in accordance with the

budget request. This account provides funds which may be used by

the Secretary of Defense for unforeseen facility requirements. The

Committee believes that the funding provided in the account is

adequate to meet the needs of the Department.

ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends the full budget request of

$69,500,000 for the Energy Conservation Investment Program

[ECIP] and commends the Department for emphasizing the importance of this innovative program. The Defense Department accounts for three fourths of Federal energy consumption. In 2001,

the Department spent $6,800,000,000 on energy use, including

fuels. According to DoD, ECIP projects improve energy and water

efficiency in existing facilities and produce average savings of four

dollars for every dollar invested. The Department has estimated

that up to $420,000,000 in energy cost savings could be produced

as a result of the proposed fiscal year 2004 ECIP investment.

The Committee is particularly pleased to note the inclusion of

several renewable energy projects in the fiscal year 2004 ECIP program, including the acquisition of geothermal heat pumps at Fort

Sill, Oklahoma, and wind generators at Vandenberg Air Force

Base, California, and F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. The

Committee is aware that acquisition of renewable energy is often

the most cost effective means of reaching energy conservation

goals, and encourages the use of ECIP funding for that purpose.

In fiscal year 2002, the Committee provided $10,000,000 to fund

an assessment of the regional potential of renewable energy generation, transmission, and distribution by industry on or near Department of Defense installations in the United States (Senate Report 107–68). The Committee directs that of the funds included in

the fiscal year 2004 ECIP account, $2,500,000 be used to continue

this important work. The Committee further directs that the Air

Force continue to serve as program management lead for the as-
25

sessment. The report should include proposals to coordinate and accelerate renewable energy development and utilization, focused on

building capability according to the potential within each of the

services. Because of the complexity and scope of the assessment,

the Committee agrees to provide additional time for completion of

the study. The Department is therefore directed to provide the congressional defense committees an interim report no later than October 30, 2003, and a final report no later than July 31, 2004.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, RESERVE COMPONENTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $706,491,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 369,550,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 691,245,000

The Committee recommends $691,245,000 for military construction projects for the Guard and Reserve components. This amount

is $321,695,000 above the fiscal year 2004 budget request. This increase reflects the Committee’s continued strong support for the

Guard and Reserve.

The Committee’s recommended action on each Reserve component project is reflected in the State list at the end of this report.

The Committee recommends approval of military construction,

Reserve component as outlined in the following table:

RESERVE COMPONENT

Component Request Recommended

Army National Guard ............................................................................................................... $168,298,000 $304,085,000

Air National Guard .................................................................................................................. 60,430,000 221,013,000

Army Reserve ........................................................................................................................... 68,478,000 73,979,000

Naval Reserve ......................................................................................................................... 28,032,000 34,742,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................................................... 44,312,000 57,426,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 369,550,000 691,245,000

The Committee has added funding for specific Reserve component planning and design initiatives. The Committee recommendation also provides additional funding over the budget request for

minor construction activities for the Reserve components.

The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects

to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2004 as practical:

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Army National Guard Aviation Support Facility, North Little

Rock, Arkansas.—The committee understands the need to upgrade

the aviation facilities at Camp Robinson at North Little Rock, Arkansas and urges the Department to include this facility in the fiscal year 2005 budget request.

Aviation Support Facility, Grand Island, Nebraska.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,555,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

Aviation Support Facility, Kingston, Rhode Island.—Of the funds

provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee

directs that $2,014,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
26

Aviation Support Facility, Rochester, New York.—Of the funds

provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee

directs that $1,549,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Aviation Support Facility, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.— Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the

Committee directs that $1,769,000 be made available for the design

of this facility.

Federal Scout Readiness Center, Angoon, White Mountain, Alaska.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,018,000 be made available for the

construction of this center.

Federal Scout Storage Facilities, Manokotak, Toksook Bay,

Napaskiak, Alaska.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $246,000 be made

available for the construction of these facilities.

Information Systems Facility, Colchester, Camp Johnson,

Vermont.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $498,000 be made available for

the design of this facility.

Maneuver Training Center, Ammunition Supply Point, Fort

Smith, Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.—The Committee understands the

need to upgrade the facilities at Fort Chaffee in Fort Smith, Arkansas and urges the Department to include this facility in the fiscal

year 2005 budget request.

Organizational Maintenance Shops, Hamilton, Ohio.—Of the

funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Pistol Range Replacement, Marseilles, Illinois.—Of the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs

that $1,100,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Readiness Center, Camp Dodge, Iowa.—Of the funds provided for

minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that

$1,500,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Readiness Center, Monticello, Mississippi.—Of the funds provided

for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that

$515,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Readiness Center, Pascagoula, Mississippi.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $356,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Readiness Center, Sacramento, California.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $306,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

Readiness Center, Watertown, South Dakota.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,228,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

TASS Barracks, Gowen Field, Idaho.—Of the funds provided for

minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that

$1,140,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Unit Training & Equipment Site, Souix Falls, South Dakota.—Of

the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the
27

Committee directs that $758,000 be made available for the design

of this facility.

Readiness Center/Maintenance Shop, Iowa City, Iowa.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $830,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

C–5 Upgrades, Martinsburg, West Virginia.—Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $5,000,000 be made available for the design of facilities

required to support the C–5 program.

Mobility Storage Warehouse Addition, Kulis, Alaska.—Of the

funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be made available for the construction of this addition.

Munitions Administration Facility, Klamath Falls, Oregon.—Of

the funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,350,000 be made available for the construction of this facility.

Repair Maintenance Shops, Fargo, North Dakota.—Of the funds

provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,400,000 be made available for the construction of

these facilities.

Air Mobilization Facility, Burlington, Vermont.—Of the funds

provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee

directs that $443,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, U.S. ARMY RESERVE

Reserve Center, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.—Of the funds provided

for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that

$631,000 be made available for the design of this facility.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Headquarters Building, 911th Airlift Wing, Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station, Pennsylvania.—Of the funds provided for planning

and design in this account, the Committee directs that $684,000 be

made available for the design of this facility.

Upgrade Utilities, March Air Reserve Base, California.—Of the

funds provided for minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,444,000 be made available for the construction of these upgrades.

Squadron Operations Center, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.—Of the

funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $426,000 be made available for the design of

this facility.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $167,200,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 169,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 169,300,000
28

The Committee has provided $169,300,000 for the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization [NATO] Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2004, fully funding the budget request.

The Committee continues the requirement that no funds will be

used for projects (including planning and design) related to the enlargement of NATO and the Partnership for Peace program, unless

Congress is notified 21 days in advance of the obligation of funds.

In addition, the Committee’s intent is that section 122 of the General Provisions shall apply to this program.

The Department of Defense is directed to identify separately the

level of effort anticipated for NATO enlargement and for Partnership for Peace for that fiscal year in future budget justifications.

MISSILE DEFENSE STUDIES

The Committee has been made aware that approximately

$44,000,000 in funds appropriated for the NATO Security Investment Program in past years have been expended on studies examining the feasibility of theater ballistic missile defense for NATO.

While the Committee fully supports the development and fielding

of missile defense systems, it believes missile defense studies are

an inappropriate expenditure of funds intended to provide critically

needed infrastructure to the Alliance. Accordingly, the Committee

directs that no funds appropriated in this or any other Act for the

NATO Security Investment Program be obligated or expended for

missile defense studies.

FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

The Committee has provided $3,945,887,000 for family housing

construction, operations and maintenance, and the Department’s

family housing improvement fund. This amount is $13,277,000

below the fiscal year 2004 budget request and $261,927,000 below

the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003.

FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,381,443,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,399,917,000

Committee recommendation (including rescission) ............................. 1,399,917,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,399,917,000 for family

housing, Army, in fiscal year 2004. This is equal to the fiscal year

2004 budget request.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $220,673,000 for new construction,

as shown below:

Location/project Request Recommended

Alaska:

Fort Wainwright, (100 Units) ......................................................................................... $44,000,000 $44,000,000

Fort Wainwright (40 Units) ............................................................................................ 20,000,000 20,000,000

Arizona:

Fort Huachuca, (60 Units) ............................................................................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000

Fort Huachuca Replace (160 Units) .............................................................................. 27,000,000 27,000,000

Kansas:

Fort Riley (32 Units) ...................................................................................................... 8,300,000 8,300,000
29

Location/project Request Recommended

Fort Riley (30 Units) ...................................................................................................... 8,400,000 8,400,000

Kentucky: Fort Knox (178 Units) ............................................................................................. 41,000,000 41,000,000

New Mexico: White Sands Missile Range (58 Units) ............................................................. 14,600,000 14,600,000

Oklahoma:

Fort Sill (50 Units) ......................................................................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000

Fort Sill (70 Units) ......................................................................................................... 15,373,000 15,373,000

Virginia: Fort Lee (90 Units) ................................................................................................... 18,000,000 18,000,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 220,673,000 220,673,000

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

The following projects are to be accomplished within the amounts

provided for construction improvements:

Location/project Requested Recommended

New York:

Fort Drum (Privatization 2,272 Units) ........................................................................... $52,000,000 $52,000,000

USMA (56 Units) ............................................................................................................ 530,000 530,000

Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks (Privatization 316 Units) .................................................... 22,000,000 22,000,000

Texas:

Fort Bliss (Privatization 2,776 Units) ............................................................................ 38,000,000 38,000,000

Fort Sam Houston (Privatization 926 Units) ................................................................. 6,600,000 6,600,000

Utah:

Dugway Proving Ground (162 Units) ............................................................................. 8,100,000 8,100,000

Dugway Proving Ground (29 Units) ............................................................................... 3,200,000 3,200,000

Germany:

Baumholder (112 Units) ................................................................................................ 11,600,000 11,600,000

Baumholder (96 Units) .................................................................................................. 14,000,000 14,000,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 156,030,000 156,030,000

FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,235,604,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,036,971,000

Committee recommendation (including rescission) ............................. 1,033,386,000

The Committee recommends $1,033,386,000 for family housing,

Navy and Marine Corps, in fiscal year 2004. This amount is

$3,585,000 below the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $155,366,000 for new construction,

as shown below:

Location/project Requested Recommended

California: Lemoore (187 Units) ............................................................................................. $41,585,000 $41,585,000

Florida: Pensacola (25 Units) ................................................................................................. 3,197,000 3,197,000

North Carolina:

Camp Lejeune (161 Units) ............................................................................................ 21,537,000 21,537,000

Camp Lejeune (358 Units) ............................................................................................ 46,244,000 46,244,000

Cherry Point (339 Units) ................................................................................................ 42,803,000 42,803,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 155,366,000 155,366,000

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

The following projects are to be accomplished within the amounts

provided for construction improvements:
30

Location/project Requested Recommended

Arizona: Yuma (Privatization 821 Units) ................................................................................ $12,654,000 $12,654,000

California: Lemoore (3 Units) ................................................................................................. 331,000 331,000

Maryland: Annapolis (51 Units) .............................................................................................. 6,737,000 6,737,000

Japan: Iwakuni (44 Units) ...................................................................................................... 724,000 724,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 20,446,000 20,446,000

FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,540,892,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,472,186,000

Committee recommendation (including rescission) ............................. 1,462,494,000

The Committee recommends $1,462,494,000 for family housing,

Air Force, in fiscal year 2004, which is $9,692,000 below the budget

request.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $399,598,000 for new construction,

as requested, as shown below:

Location/project Requested Recommended

Arizona: Davis Monthan AFB (93 Units) ................................................................................. $19,357,000 $19,357,000

California: Travis AFB (56 Units) ........................................................................................... 12,723,000 12,723,000

Delaware: Dover AFB (112 Units) ........................................................................................... 19,601,000 19,601,000

Florida: Eglin AFB (279 Units) ................................................................................................ 32,166,000 32,166,000

Idaho: Mountain Home AFB (186 Units) ................................................................................ 37,126,000 37,126,000

Maryland: Andrews AFB (50 Units) ........................................................................................ 20,233,000 20,233,000

Missouri: Whiteman AFB (100 Units) ..................................................................................... 18,221,000 18,221,000

Montana: Malmstrom AFB (94 Units) ..................................................................................... 19,368,000 19,368,000

North Carolina: Seymour Johnson AFB (138 Units) ................................................................ 18,336,000 18,336,000

North Dakota:

Grand Forks AFB (144 Units) ........................................................................................ 29,550,000 29,550,000

Minot AFB (200 Units) ................................................................................................... 41,117,000 41,117,000

South Dakota: Ellsworth AFB (75 Units) ................................................................................ 16,240,000 16,240,000

Texas:

Dyess AFB (116 Units) ................................................................................................... 19,973,000 19,973,000

Randolph AFB (96 Units) ............................................................................................... 13,754,000 13,754,000

Korea: Osan AB (111 Units) ................................................................................................... 44,765,000 44,765,000

Portugal: Lajes Field (42 Units) ............................................................................................. 13,428,000 13,428,000

United Kingdom: RAF Lakenheath (89 Units) ........................................................................ 23,640,000 23,640,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 399,598,000 399,598,000

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

The following projects are to be accomplished within the amounts

provided for construction improvements:

Location/project Requested Recommended

Arizona: Luke AFB (Privatization 874 Units) .......................................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 )

California: Los Angeles AFB (279 Units) ................................................................................ $19,483,000 $19,483,000

Hawaii: Hickam AFB (90 Units) .............................................................................................. 26,955,000 26,955,000

Oklahoma:

Altus AFB (Privatization 966 Units) .............................................................................. 3,093,000 3,093,000

Tinker AFB (Privatization 730 Units) ............................................................................. 14,338,000 14,338,000

South Carolina: Shaw AFB (Privatization 1,702 Units) .......................................................... 3,087,000 3,087,000

Texas: Sheppard AFB (Privatization 1,288 Units) .................................................................. 17,736,000 17,736,000

Washington: McChord AFB (Privatization 950 Units) ............................................................. ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Wyoming: FE Warren AFB (Privatization 265 Units) ............................................................... 5,391,000 5,391,000

Germany: Ramstein AB (216 Units) ....................................................................................... 62,211,000 62,211,000
31

Location/project Requested Recommended

Guam: Andersen AFB (165 Units) .......................................................................................... 24,456,000 24,456,000

Japan:

Kadena AB (122 Units) .................................................................................................. 24,224,000 24,224,000

Install Government Furnished Materials .............................................................. 565,000 565,000

Misawa AB, Install Government Furnished Materials ................................................... 405,000 405,000

Yokota AB, (263 Units) .................................................................................................. 26,035,000 26,035,000

Funded from Prior Year Savings ............................................................................................ ¥4,000,000 ¥4,000,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 223,979,000 223,979,000

1 No cost to the government privatization.

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $49,875,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 50,090,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,090,000

The Committee recommends $50,090,000 for family housing, Defense-wide, in fiscal year 2004. This amount is equal to the budget

request. Specific details are included in the tables at the end of the

report.

FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $2,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 300,000

The Committee recommends $300,000 for the Family Housing

Improvement Fund. This amount is equal to the budget request.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT OVERVIEW

The Congress has appropriated a net total of $22,587,164,000 for

the Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] program for fiscal years

1990 through 2003. For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends $370,427,000, an amount equal to the budget request,

with the explicit understanding that the appropriated funds are to

be supplemented in fiscal year 2004 with $21,300,000 in prior year

unobligated balances and $68,000,000 in land sale revenue, as proposed by the Department.

In appropriating these funds, the Committee continues to provide

the Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by Service, by

function, and by installation. The Committee recognizes the complexity of the base realignment and closure process, and particularly of the environmental clean up requirements, and believes that

it is important to give the Department a significant degree of flexibility in order to execute the program efficiently.

The following table displays the total amount appropriated for

each round of base closure, including amounts recommended for fiscal year 2004.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2004]

Fiscal year 1990

through fiscal year

2002

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

Committee recommendedTotal

Part I ..................................................... $2,684,557,000 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) $2,684,557,000
32

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—Continued

[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2004]

Fiscal year 1990

through fiscal year 2002

Fiscal year 2003 enacted

Fiscal year 2004

Committee recommendedTotal

Part II .................................................... 4,915,636,000 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 4,915,636,000

Part III ................................................... 7,269,267,000 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 7,269,267,000

Part IV ................................................... 7,156,566,000 $561,138,000 $370,427,000 8,088,131,000

Total ........................................ 22,026,026,000 561,138,000 370,427,000 22,957,591,000

1 Not Applicable.

Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment and

Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have appropriated a net total of $22,587,164,000 for the entire program for fiscal years 1990 through 2003. The total amount appropriated combined with the Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004

Base Realignment and Closure is $22,957,591,000.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT, PART IV

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $561,138,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 370,427,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 370,427,000

The Committee recommends a total of $370,427,000 for the base

realignment and closure account, part IV. This is a decrease of

$190,711,000 from the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. However, the

fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget also assumes an additional

$21,300,000 from prior year unobligated balances and $68,000,000

from Navy land sale revenue, which is to be used to increase the

Navy’s BRAC budget. With the additional monies, the funding for

BRAC environmental cleanup and caretaker costs totals

$459,727,000. The Military Departments have assured the Committee that this level of funding is adequate to address urgent

BRAC requirements for fiscal year 2004.

Expeditious cleanup of environmental contaminants at closed or

realigned bases remains a priority of the Committee. In the past

two years, the Committee has been able to increase appropriations

over the President’s budget request to expedite environmental

cleanup. This year, the Department anticipates that revenue from

land sales will significantly supplement the BRAC budget request,

and will enable the Department to meet or exceed its requirements

for fiscal year 2004 BRAC environmental remediation.

The Navy, for example, recently completed the public sale of approximately 235 acres at the former Marine Corps Air Station at

Tustin, California. According to the Navy, the sale generated

$208,500,000 in revenue, about four times as much as all previous

Navy BRAC property sales. The Committee commends the Navy for

pursuing public land sales where circumstances permit to complement and enhance the public benefit and economic development

conveyance program.

Existing statutes require BRAC land sale revenue to be deposited

into the Department of Defense BRAC account, which funds BRAC

activities for all of the military services and defense agencies. To

ensure equity and provide an incentive for the military services to

pursue public sales of BRAC property when warranted, the Com-
33

mittee directs the Department of Defense to apply BRAC land sale

revenue to the Military Department that earned the revenue to be

used to accelerate environmental cleanup of that Department’s remaining BRAC sites. The Committee intends for the revenue from

land sales to be used to supplement, not offset, funds appropriated

by Congress to the BRAC account.

As the Department prepares to undertake a new round of BRAC

in fiscal year 2005, it is imperative that the environmental cleanup

of sites that were closed or realigned under previous BRAC rounds

be completed as expeditiously as possible. The Navy’s BRAC budget

for fiscal year 2004, including $68,000,000 in land sale revenue and

unobligated balances from previous years, totals $180,600,000.

However, the Navy estimates that it could execute an additional

$250,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 for environmental cleanup. Likewise, the Air Force could execute $64,700,000 in environmental

cleanup projects in fiscal year 2004 above its budget allocation of

$198,700,000. The Army estimates that it could execute

$42,400,000 for BRAC clean up in fiscal year 2004 in addition to

its budget allocation of $67,500,000.

Clearly, the backlog of BRAC environmental remediation requirements continues to be a problem for the Department, and for the

communities in which the contaminated property is located. The

Committee intends to monitor carefully the effectiveness of using

BRAC land sale revenues to accelerate the cleanup process. In the

meantime, the Committee directs the Department to provide sufficient resources in future budget requests to expedite the environmental cleanup of existing BRAC property.
(34)

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The following lists general provisions proposed by the Committee. The Committee recommends inclusion of several proposals

which have been incorporated in previous appropriations acts, provisions requested by the Defense Department, and new provisions.

The Committee recommendations are as follows:

SEC. 101. Restricts payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for work, except in cases of contracts for environmental restoration at base closure sites.

SEC. 102. Permits use of funds for hire of passenger motor vehicles.

SEC. 103. Permits use of funds for defense access roads.

SEC. 104. Prohibits construction of new bases inside the continental United States for which specific appropriations have not

been made.

SEC. 105. Limits the use of funds for purchase of land or land

easements.

SEC. 106. Prohibits the use of funds to acquire land, prepare a

site, or install utilities for any family housing except housing for

which funds have been made available.

SEC. 107. Limits the use of minor construction funds to transfer

or relocate activities among installations.

SEC. 108. Prohibits the procurement of steel unless American

producers, fabricators, and manufacturers have been allowed to

compete.

SEC. 109. Prohibits payments of real property taxes in foreign

nations.

SEC. 110. Prohibits construction of new bases overseas without

prior notification.

SEC. 111. Establishes a threshold for American preference of

$500,000 relating to architect and engineering services.

SEC. 112. Establishes preference for American contractors for

military construction in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific, and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Sea.

SEC. 113. Requires notification of military exercises involving

construction in excess of $100,000.

SEC. 114. Limits obligations during the last 2 months of the year.

SEC. 115. Permits funds appropriated in prior years to be available for construction authorized during the current session of Congress.

SEC. 116. Permits the use of expired or lapsed funds to pay the

cost of supervision for any project being completed with lapsed

funds.

SEC. 117. Permits obligation of funds from more than 1 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.
35

SEC. 118. Allows expired funds to be transferred to the ‘‘Foreign

currency fluctuations, construction, defense’’ account.

SEC. 119. Directs the Department to report annually on actions

taken to encourage other nations to assume a greater share of the

common defense budget.

SEC. 120. Allows transfer of proceeds from earlier base realignment and closure accounts to the continuing base realignment and

closure accounts.

SEC. 121. Permits the transfer of funds from Family Housing

Construction accounts to the DOD Family Housing Improvement

Fund.

SEC. 122. Restricts the use of funds for the Partnership for Peace

Program.

SEC. 123. Requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees of all family housing privatization solicitations and agreements which contain any clause providing consideration for base realignment and closure, force reductions and extended deployments.

SEC. 124. Provides transfer authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program.

SEC. 125. Requires that all Military Construction Appropriations

Acts be the sole funding source of all operation and maintenance

for family housing, including flag and general officer quarters, and

limits the repair on flag and general officer quarters to $35,000 per

year without prior notification to the defense committees.

SEC. 126. Limits funds from being transferred from this appropriation measure into any new instrumentality without authority

from an appropriation Act.

SEC. 127. Prohibits funds appropriated for the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program from being obligated or expended for the purpose of missile defense studies.

SEC. 128. Establishes a commission to review the overseas military facility structure of the United States and provide a report of

its findings to the President and Congress no later than August 30,

2004.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate

during that session.’’

The Committee bill as recommended contains no such provisions.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 26, 2003, the

Committee ordered reported an original Military Construction Appropriations bill, 2004, subject to amendment and subject to its

budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being

present. The vote was as follows:
36

Yeas Nays

Chairman Stevens

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

Mr. DeWine

Mr. Brownback

Mr. Byrd

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Ms. Landrieu

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’

The Committee bill as recommended contains no such provisions.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

ALABAMA

ARMY: REDSTONE ARSENAL: VIBRATION DYNAMIC TEST FACILITY .................. 5,500 5,500 ......................

AIR FORCE: MAXWELL AFB: SQUADRON OFFICER COLLEGE DORMITORY

(PHASE III) ................................................................................................... 13,400 13,400 ......................
37

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

DEFENSE-WIDE: REDSTONE ARSENAL: ADMIN/OPS COMPLEX, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY PH III .................................................................................. ...................... 20,000 ∂20,000

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

FORT MC CLELLAN: FIRE STATION .......................................................... 1,873 1,873 ......................

FORT PAYNE: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ..................... 3,648 3,648 ......................

MOBILE: ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER (PHASE II) ........................ 2,943 2,943 ......................

SPRINGVILLE: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ..................... 3,365 3,365 ......................

VINCENT: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ............................ 3,353 3,353 ......................

TOTAL, ALABAMA ................................................................................. 34,082 54,082 ∂20,000

ALASKA

ARMY:

FORT RICHARDSON:

BARRACKS COMPLEX—D STREET (PHASE III) ............................... 33,000 33,000 ......................

BARRACKS ...................................................................................... ...................... 8,200 ∂8,200

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP ........................................................ ...................... 2,500 ∂2,500

FORT WAINWRIGHT:

ALERT HOLDING AREA FACILITY ..................................................... 32,000 32,000 ......................

AMMUNITION SUPPLY POINT UPGRADE .......................................... 10,600 10,600 ......................

BARRACKS COMPLEX—LUZON AVENUE ........................................ 21,500 21,500 ......................

MILITARY OPERATIONS ON URBAN TERRAIN FACILITY ................... 11,200 11,200 ......................

MULTI-PURPOSE TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX ................................ 47,000 47,000 ......................

PALLET PROCESSING FACILITY ....................................................... 16,500 16,500 ......................

AIR FORCE:

EIELSON AFB:

DORMITORY .................................................................................... 13,914 13,914 ......................

JOINT SECURITY FORCES COMPLEX ............................................... ...................... 15,800 ∂15,800

REPAIR/EXPAND ENROUTE RAMP ................................................... 19,060 19,060 ......................

ELMENDORF AFB: MAINTENANCE FACILITY ............................................. 2,000 2,000 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE:

EIELSON AFB: REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM ................................... 17,000 17,000 ......................

FORT WAINWRIGHT: HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT (PHASE V) ...................... 71,600 71,600 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: JUNEAU: ORGANIZATION MAINTENANCE SHOP ........ ...................... 3,100 ∂3,100

TOTAL, ALASKA .................................................................................... 295,374 324,974 ∂29,600

ARIZONA

NAVY:

YUMA MARINE CORPS AIR STATION:

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR ................................................. 14,250 14,250 ......................

STATION ORDNANCE AREA (PHASE II) ........................................... 7,980 7,980 ......................

AIR FORCE:

DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB:

C–130 APRON/SHOULDERS ............................................................ 1,954 1,954 ......................

HH–60 SQUADRON OPERATIONS/AIRCRAFT MAINT UNIT ............... 6,004 6,004 ......................

MISSION READY SUPPLY PARTS WAREHOUSE ............................... 1,906 1,906 ......................

LUKE AIR FORCE BASE: LAND ACQUISITION MODIFICATION ................... ...................... 14,300 ∂14,300

TOTAL, ARIZONA .................................................................................. 32,094 46,394 ∂14,300

ARKANSAS

AIR FORCE:

LITTLE ROCK AFB:

C–130 OPERATIONS TRAINING FACILITY ........................................ 2,478 2,478 ......................

C–130J ADD/ALTER HANGAR 280 .................................................. 1,144 1,144 ......................

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER ....................................................... ...................... 3,750 ∂3,750

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: WARREN: READINESS CENTER ................................ ...................... 3,610 ∂3,610

TOTAL, ARKANSAS ............................................................................... 3,622 10,982 ∂7,360
38

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

CALIFORNIA

NAVY:

CAMP PENDLETON MARINE CORPS BASE:

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS—SAN MATEO ............................ 22,930 22,930 ......................

TERTIARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (PHASE II) ........................ 24,960 24,960 ......................

CHINA LAKE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER: AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS UPGRADE ................................................................................................. 12,890 12,890 ......................

LEMOORE NAVAL AIR STATION:

INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE HANGAR ............................................. 24,610 24,610 ......................

OPERATIONAL TRAINER FACILITY ................................................... 9,900 9,900 ......................

MIRAMAR MARINE CORPS AIR STATION: AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE

STATION .............................................................................................. 4,740 4,740 ......................

MONTEREY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL: BACHELOR OFFICER

QUARTERS ........................................................................................... 35,550 35,550 ......................

NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION:

SQUADRON OPERATIONS FACILITY ................................................. 35,590 35,590 ......................

TAXIWAY/AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ........................................ 13,650 13,650 ......................

POINT MUGU: AIRCRAFT TEST STAND ..................................................... ...................... 3,000 ∂3,000

SAN NICOLAS ISLAND NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION: TRANSIENT

QUARTERS ........................................................................................... 6,150 6,150 ......................

SAN CLEMENTE NAVAL AIR FACILITY: OPERATIONAL ACCESS—SHORE

BOMBARDMENT AREA ......................................................................... 18,940 18,940 ......................

SAN DIEGO: BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS—HOMEPORT ASHORE .... 42,710 42,710 ......................

TWENTYNINE PALMS:

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS ................................................... 26,100 26,100 ......................

EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE OPERATIONS CENTER ................................ 2,290 2,290 ......................

AIR FORCE:

BEALE AFB:

GLOBAL HAWK DORMITORY ............................................................ 13,342 13,342 ......................

GLOBAL HAWK UPGRADE DOCK ..................................................... 8,958 8,958 ......................

EDWARDS AFB: JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER COMPLEX (PHASE I) ................. 19,060 19,060 ......................

LOS ANGELES AFB: AREA B MAIN GATE COMPLEX ................................. ...................... 5,000 ∂5,000

VANDENBERG AFB: CONSOLIDATED FITNESS CENTER ............................ 16,500 ...................... ¥16,500

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

BAKERSFIELD: READINESS CENTER ........................................................ 5,495 5,495 ......................

LOS ALAMITOS: REPLACE UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE, PHASE I ........... ...................... 21,000 ∂21,000

NAVAL RESERVE: NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION: C–40 AIRCRAFT

MAINTENANCE HANGAR ............................................................................... 15,973 15,973 ......................

TOTAL, CALIFORNIA ............................................................................. 360,338 372,838 ∂12,500

COLORADO

AIR FORCE:

BUCKLEY AFB: UPGRADE BASE INFRASTRUCTURE (PHASE III) .............. 6,957 6,957 ......................

PETERSON AFB: ADD/ALTER MISSION SUPPORT FACILITY ...................... ...................... 10,200 ∂10,200

U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY: HOSPITAL ADDITION/ALTERATION ................ 21,500 21,500 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: FORT CARSON: CENTENNIAL TRAINING SITE, PHASE

II, III (DESIGN) ............................................................................................. ...................... 4,500 ∂4,500

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: BUCKLEY AFB: CIVIL ENGINEER COMPLEX ................. 6,900 6,900 ......................

TOTAL, COLORADO .............................................................................. 35,357 50,057 ∂14,700

CONNECTICUT

NAVY: NEW LONDON NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE: TOMAHAWK MISSILE MAGAZINE ............................................................................................................. ...................... 3,000 ∂3,000

DEFENSE-WIDE: NEW LONDON NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE: DENTAL CLINIC

REPLACEMENT ............................................................................................. 6,400 6,400 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

NEWTOWN MILITARY RESERVATION: WORKING ANIMAL BUILDING .......... 2,167 2,167 ......................

STONE RANCH MILITARY RESERVATION: FIRE STATION .......................... 2,422 2,422 ......................
39

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

TOTAL, CONNECTICUT ......................................................................... 10,989 13,989 ∂3,000

DELAWARE

AIR FORCE: DOVER AFB: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ................................ ...................... 8,500 ∂8,500

TOTAL, DELAWARE .............................................................................. ...................... 8,500 ∂8,500

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NAVY: MARINE BARRACKS, 8TH AND I: MOTOR TRANSPORT FACILITY ADDITION ............................................................................................................. 1,550 1,550 ......................

AIR FORCE: BOLLING AFB: AIR FORCE CENTRAL ADJUDICATION FACILITY ...... 9,300 9,300 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE:

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD: MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC CONVERSION/RENOVATION .............................................................................................. 15,714 15,714 ......................

WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER: HOSPITAL ENERGY PLANT ADDITION ................................................................................................. 9,000 9,000 ......................

TOTAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ..................................................... 35,564 35,564 ......................

FLORIDA

NAVY:

BLOUNT ISLAND: LAND ACQUISITION ...................................................... 115,711 115,711 ......................

JACKSONVILLE NAVAL AIR STATION: AIRFIELD PERIMETER SECURITY .... 3,190 3,190 ......................

PANAMA CITY COASTAL SYSTEMS STATION: LITTORAL WARFARE RESEARCH COMPLEX .............................................................................. 9,550 9,550 ......................

WHITING FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION: CLEAR ZONE LAND ACQUISITION .. 4,830 4,830 ......................

AIR FORCE:

HURLBURT FIELD:

AFC2TIG SYSTEM/WARRIOR SCHOOL COMPLEX ............................. 19,400 19,400 ......................

SPECIAL TACTICS ADVANCED SKILLS TRAINING FACILITY .............. 7,800 7,800 ......................

PATRICK AFB: SECURITY FORCES OPERATIONS FACILITY ....................... ...................... 8,800 ∂8,800

TYNDALL AFB: F–22 PARKING APRON/RUNWAY EXTENSION ................... 6,195 6,195 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE:

EGLIN AFB: REPLACE JET FUEL STORAGE COMPLEX .............................. 4,800 4,800 ......................

HURLBURT FIELD:

REPLACE FUEL PIER ....................................................................... 3,500 3,500 ......................

AC–130 SQUADRON OPERATIONS/AIRCRAFT MAINT UNIT .............. 6,000 6,000 ......................

MACDILL AFB: ADD/ALTER BUILDING 501A ............................................. 25,500 25,500 ......................

TOTAL, FLORIDA .................................................................................. 206,476 215,276 ∂8,800

GEORGIA

ARMY:

FORT BENNING: MULTI-PURPOSE TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX ............... 30,000 30,000 ......................

FORT GORDON: TRAINING SUPPORT CENTER .......................................... ...................... 4,350 ∂4,350

FORT STEWART:

BARRACKS (PHASE I) ..................................................................... 17,000 17,000 ......................

BARRACKS COMPLEX—PERIMETER ROAD ..................................... 49,000 49,000 ......................

COMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY ............................................... 25,050 ...................... ¥25,050

PHYSICAL FITNESS TRAINING CENTER ........................................... 15,500 15,500 ......................

NAVY:

KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE:

RIFLE RANGE .................................................................................. 8,170 8,170 ......................

WATERFRONT SECURITY FORCE FACILITY ADDITION ...................... 3,340 3,340 ......................

AIR FORCE:

MOODY AFB: C–130 MAINTENANCE HANGAR ......................................... ...................... 7,600 ∂7,600

ROBINS AFB:

CORROSION CONTROL PAINT FACILITY .......................................... 25,731 25,731 ......................

J–STARS FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY ........................................... 2,954 2,954 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE: FORT BENNING: PHYSICAL EVALUATION CENTER .................. 2,100 ...................... ¥2,100
40

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

ARMY RESERVE: FORT GILLEM: ORG MAINT SHOP/DIRECT SUPPORT/PARTS

WHSE/STORAGE ............................................................................................ 7,620 7,620 ......................

TOTAL, GEORGIA ................................................................................. 186,465 171,265 ¥15,200

HAWAII

ARMY:

HELEMANO MILITARY RESERVATION:

LAND EASEMENT ............................................................................ 1,400 1,400 ......................

POHAKULOA TNG AREA SADDLE RD ACCESS, PHASE III ................ ...................... 17,000 ∂17,000

SCHOFIELD BARRACKS:

BARRACKS COMPLEX—CAPRON ROAD (PHASE II) ........................ 49,000 49,000 ......................

BARRACKS COMPLEX—QUAD E ..................................................... 49,000 49,000 ......................

INFORMATION SYSTEMS FACILITY .................................................. 18,000 18,000 ......................

LAND ACQUISITION ......................................................................... 19,400 19,400 ......................

MISSION SUPPORT TRAINING FACILITY .......................................... 33,000 33,000 ......................

NAVY:

LUALUALEI NAVAL MAGAZINES: ORDNANCE HOLDING AREAS ................. 6,320 6,320 ......................

PEARL HARBOR:

PERIMETER SECURITY LIGHTING .................................................... 7,010 7,010 ......................

WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... 32,180 32,180 ......................

AIR FORCE:

HICKAM AFB:

C–17 CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE COMPLEX ............................ 7,529 7,529 ......................

C–17 CORROSION CONTROL/MAINTENANCE FACILITY ................... 30,400 30,400 ......................

C–17 FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY ................................................ 5,623 5,623 ......................

C–17 KUNTZ GATE AND ROAD ....................................................... 3,050 3,050 ......................

C–17 SQUADRON OPERATIONS FACILITY ....................................... 10,674 10,674 ......................

C–17 SUPPORT UTILITIES (PHASE I) .............................................. 4,098 4,098 ......................

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM .............................................. ...................... 6,800 ∂6,800

EXPAND STRATEGIC AIRLIFT RAMP ................................................ 10,102 10,102 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE: HICKAM AFB: REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM ................... 14,100 14,100 ......................

TOTAL, HAWAII .................................................................................... 300,886 324,686 ∂23,800

IDAHO

AIR FORCE:

MOUNTAIN HOME AFB:

726TH AIR CONTROL SQUADRON COMPLEX .................................. ...................... 9,800 ∂9,800

FITNESS CENTER ADDITION ............................................................ 5,337 5,337 ......................

TOTAL, IDAHO ............................................................................. 5,337 15,137 ∂9,800

ILLINOIS

NAVY:

GREAT LAKES NAVAL TRAINING CENTER:

BATTLE STATION TRAINING FACILITY (PHASE I) ............................. 13,200 13,200 ......................

RECRUIT BARRACKS ....................................................................... 31,600 31,600 ......................

RECRUIT BARRACKS ....................................................................... 34,130 34,130 ......................

AIR FORCE: SCOTT AFB: SHILOH GATE ............................................................ 1,900 1,900 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: GALESBURG: READINESS CENTER ........................... ...................... 3,750 ∂3,750

TOTAL, ILLINOIS .................................................................................. 80,830 84,580 ∂3,750

INDIANA

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

CAMP ATTERBURY: READINESS CENTER ADDITION ................................ 2,849 2,849 ......................

ELKHART: READINESS CENTER ADDITION ............................................... 1,770 1,770 ......................

GARY:

LIMITED AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY ............................................ ...................... 15,581 ∂15,581

READINESS CENTER ADDITION ....................................................... 1,417 1,417 ......................
41

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

SOUTH BEND: READINESS CENTER ADDITION ......................................... 1,496 1,496 ......................

TOTAL, INDIANA ................................................................................... 7,532 23,113 ∂15,581

IOWA

AIR NATIONAL GUARD:

SIOUX CITY: UPGRADE RUNWAYS/TAXIWAYS PHASE II ........................... ...................... 2,000 ∂2,000

SIOUX GATEWAY AIRPORT: KC–135 FIRE CRASH/RESCUE STATION ....... 6,091 6,091 ......................

TOTAL, IOWA ....................................................................................... 6,091 8,091 ∂2,000

KANSAS

ARMY:

FORT LEAVENWORTH: LEWIS AND CLARK INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITY

(PHASE I) ............................................................................................ 28,000 28,000 ......................

FORT RILEY:

BARRACKS COMPLEX—GRAVES STREET ....................................... 40,000 40,000 ......................

COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE TRAINING FACILITY PH II .............. ...................... 13,600 ∂13,600

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: KANSAS CITY: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ..................................................................................................... 2,982 2,982 ......................

TOTAL, KANSAS ................................................................................... 70,982 84,582 ∂13,600

KENTUCKY

ARMY:

FORT CAMPBELL: BARRACKS COMPLEX—RANGE ROAD (PHASE II) ...... 49,000 49,000 ......................

FORT KNOX:

DINING FACILITY ............................................................................. ...................... 10,000 ∂10,000

MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE ............................................................. 3,500 3,500 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE: FORT CAMPBELL: FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY ..................... 7,800 7,800 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

GREENVILLE: FIRE STATION ..................................................................... 2,238 2,238 ......................

MAYSVILLE: READINESS CENTER ............................................................ 4,997 4,997 ......................

RICHMOND: READINESS CENTER ADDITION ............................................ 756 756 ......................

TOTAL, KENTUCKY ............................................................................... 68,291 78,291 ∂10,000

LOUISIANA

ARMY:

FORT POLK:

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR ................................................. 34,000 34,000 ......................

ALERT HOLDING AREA FACILITY ..................................................... 8,400 8,400 ......................

ARMS STORAGE FACILITY ............................................................... 1,350 1,350 ......................

MISSION TRAINING SUPPORT FACILITY .......................................... 27,000 27,000 ......................

SHOOT HOUSE ................................................................................ 1,250 1,250 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: PINEVILLE: CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE FACILITY

(PHASE I) ..................................................................................................... 18,579 18,579 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: NAS/JRB NEW ORLEANS: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT FACILITY ................................................................... ...................... 6,300 ∂6,300

TOTAL, LOUISIANA ............................................................................... 90,579 96,879 ∂6,300

MAINE

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: BANGOR: AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY, PHASE II ... ...................... 14,900 ∂14,900

TOTAL, MAINE ..................................................................................... ...................... 14,900 ∂14,900

MARYLAND

ARMY:

ABERDEEN: CHEM/BIO SAMPLE RECEPTION FACILITY ............................ ...................... 13,000 ∂13,000

FORT MEADE: DINING FACILITY ............................................................... 9,600 9,600 ......................
42

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

NAVY:

INDIAN HEAD NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER: WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 14,850 14,850 ......................

PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER: JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER TEST AND SUPPORT FACILITIES .................................................... 24,370 24,370 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE: FORT MEADE: CRITICAL UTILITY CONTROL (PHASE II–B) ...... 1,842 1,842 ......................

ARMY RESERVE: FORT MEADE: RESERVE CENTER/OMS/WAREHOUSE (PHASE

I) .................................................................................................................. 19,710 19,710 ......................

AIR FORCE RESERVE:

ANDREWS AFB:

ALTER AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE SHOPS ........................................ 2,900 2,900 ......................

HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM ................................................................. 7,375 7,375 ......................

UPGRADE AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS .................................................... 835 835 ......................

TOTAL, MARYLAND ..................................................................... 81,482 94,482 ∂13,000

MASSACHUSETTS

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: OTIS (FALMOUTH): FIRE CRASH/RESCUE STATION ...... ...................... 11,000 ∂11,000

TOTAL, MASSACHUSETTS .................................................................... ...................... 11,000 ∂11,000

MICHIGAN

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

CALUMET: SINGLE UNIT NG READINESS CENTER ................................... ...................... 3,370 ∂3,370

JACKSON: READINESS CENTER ................................................................ 5,591 5,591 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD:

ALPENA: DINING FACILITY ....................................................................... ...................... 8,500 ∂8,500

SELFRIDGE ANGB:

JOINT MEDICAL TRAINING FACILITY ................................................ ...................... 9,600 ∂9,600

PASS AND ID/VISITORS CENTER ..................................................... ...................... 4,000 ∂4,000

TOTAL, MICHIGAN ....................................................................... 5,591 31,061 ∂25,470

MINNESOTA

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: DULUTH: AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE FACILITY MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. ...................... 9,000 ∂9,000

TOTAL, MINNESOTA ............................................................................. ...................... 9,000 ∂9,000

MISSISSIPPI

NAVY: MERIDIAN NAVAL AIR STATION: FIRE AND RESCUE STATION ................ 4,570 4,570 ......................

AIR FORCE:

COLUMBUS AFB: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER .................................... ...................... 5,500 ∂5,500

KEESLER AFB: CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER ........................................ ...................... 2,900 ∂2,900

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

CAMP SHELBY: REGIONAL MILITARY EDUCATIONAL CENTER (PHASE

I) ......................................................................................................... 7,733 7,733 ......................

GULFPORT: ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOPS .............................. ...................... 4,650 ∂4,650

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: CAMP SHELBY: C–17 ASSAULT RUNWAY .................... 7,409 7,409 ......................

AIR FORCE RESERVE: KEESLER AFB: FUEL CELL MAINTENANCE HANGAR ...... 6,650 6,650 ......................

NAVAL RESERVE: PASCAGOULA: LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM FACILITY ............................................................................................................. ...................... 6,100 ∂6,100

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI ............................................................................. 26,362 45,512 ∂19,150

MISSOURI

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: KANSAS CITY: READINESS CENTER ......................... 4,947 4,947 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: ROSECRANS FIELD: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAINING

COMPLEX ..................................................................................................... ...................... 8,000 ∂8,000

TOTAL, MISSOURI ................................................................................ 4,947 12,947 ∂8,000
43

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

MONTANA

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

BILLINGS: ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP ADDITION .................. 1,209 1,209 ......................

KALISPELL:

ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER ................................................ ...................... 9,020 ∂9,020

ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP ADDITION .......................... 706 706 ......................

TOTAL, MONTANA ................................................................................ 1,915 10,935 ∂9,020

NEBRASKA

DEFENSE-WIDE: OFFUTT AFB: REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM ................... 13,400 13,400 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

CAMP ASHLAND: CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE LEVEE SEGMENT .................... ...................... 3,000 ∂3,000

COLUMBUS: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ....................... 618 618 ......................

NORFOLK: FIRE STATION ......................................................................... 1,068 1,068 ......................

OMAHA:

ARMY RESERVE CENTER LAND ACQUISITION ................................. ...................... 3,100 ∂3,100

READINESS CENTER ....................................................................... 5,804 5,804 ......................

YORK: READINESS CENTER ALTERATION ................................................. 758 758 ......................

TOTAL, NEBRASKA ............................................................................... 21,648 27,748 ∂6,100

NEVADA

NAVY: FALLON NAVAL AIR STATION: HIGH EXPLOSIVE MAGAZINES ................. ...................... 4,700 ∂4,700

AIR FORCE: NELLIS AFB: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE COMPLEX ........................... ...................... 11,800 ∂11,800

DEFENSE-WIDE: NELLIS AFB: HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM .................................... 12,800 12,800 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: RENO: REPLACE COMMUNICATION AND SECURITY

FORCES FACILITY ......................................................................................... ...................... 9,000 ∂9,000

TOTAL, NEVADA ................................................................................... 12,800 38,300 ∂25,500

NEW HAMPSHIRE

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: PEASE ANG BASE: FIRE STATION ................................ ...................... 6,100 ∂6,100

TOTAL, NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................... ...................... 6,100 ∂6,100

NEW JERSEY

NAVY:

EARLE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION: GENERAL PURPOSE BERTHING PIER

REPLACEMENT .................................................................................... 26,740 26,740 ......................

LAKEHURST NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER: ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCHING SYSTEM FACILITY ................................................. 20,681 20,681 ......................

AIR FORCE:

MCGUIRE AFB:

C–17 MAINTENANCE TRAINING DEVICE FACILITY .......................... 6,862 6,862 ......................

C–17 ROADS AND UTILITIES .......................................................... 4,765 4,765 ......................

TOTAL, NEW JERSEY .................................................................. 59,048 59,048 ......................

NEW MEXICO

AIR FORCE:

CANNON AFB:

AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT COMPLEX ................................. ...................... 7,700 ∂7,700

INSTALL APPROACH LIGHTS, RUNWAY 13 ...................................... ...................... 1,300 ∂1,300

TULAROSA RADAR TEST SITE: UPGRADE RADAR TEST FACILITY ............ 3,600 3,600 ......................

KIRTLAND AFB: ARSENIC TREATMENT SYSTEMS ..................................... 6,957 6,957 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: ALBUQUERQUE: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ..................................................................................................... 2,533 2,533 ......................

TOTAL, NEW MEXICO ........................................................................... 13,090 22,090 ∂9,000
44

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

NEW YORK

ARMY:

FORT DRUM:

BARRACKS—10200 AREA .............................................................. 22,500 22,500 ......................

BARRACKS COMPLEX—WHEELER SACK AAF (PHASE I) ................ 49,000 49,000 ......................

MOUNTAIN RAMP EXPANSION ......................................................... 11,000 11,000 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

ROCHESTER: READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION ...................... 4,332 4,332 ......................

UTICA: ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP ....................................... 3,261 3,261 ......................

AIR FORCE RESERVE: NIAGRA ARS: VISITING AIRMAN’S QUARTERS ............... ...................... 9,600 ∂9,600

TOTAL, NEW YORK .............................................................................. 90,093 99,693 ∂9,600

NORTH CAROLINA

ARMY:

FORT BRAGG:

BARRACKS COMPLEX—BASTOGNE DRIVE (PHASE I) .................... 47,000 47,000 ......................

BARRACKS COMPLEX—BUTNER ROAD (PHASE IV) ....................... 38,000 38,000 ......................

BARRACKS-D AREA (PHASE IV) ...................................................... 17,000 17,000 ......................

NAVY:

CAMP LEJEUNE MARINE CORPS BASE:

CONSOLIDATED ARMORIES ............................................................. 10,270 10,270 ......................

HEADQUARTERS AND ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY .............. 6,300 6,300 ......................

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING FACILITIES ......................................... 12,880 12,880 ......................

MCAS CHERRY POINT: LAND ACQUISITION ............................................. ...................... 1,270 ∂1,270

NEW RIVER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION: WATER TREATMENT FACILITY .................................................................................................... 6,240 6,240 ......................

AIR FORCE:

POPE AFB:

C–130J 2-BAY HANGAR ................................................................. 15,629 15,629 ......................

C–130J UPGRADE HANGAR 6 ......................................................... 2,716 2,716 ......................

C–130J/30 RAMP UPGRADE ........................................................... 1,239 1,239 ......................

C–130J/30 TECH TRAINING FACILITY ............................................. 4,431 4,431 ......................

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB:

BOUNDARY FENCE .......................................................................... 1,500 1,500 ......................

DORMITORIES ................................................................................. 9,530 9,530 ......................

FIRE/CRASH RESCUE STATIONS ..................................................... ...................... 11,400 ∂11,400

DEFENSE-WIDE: CAMP LEJEUNE: NEW MAINSIDE PRIMARY SCHOOL .............. 15,259 15,259 ......................

FORT BRAGG:

BATTALION AND COMPANY HEADQUARTERS .................................. 4,200 4,200 ......................

COMPANY OPERATIONS FACILITY ADDITION ................................... 1,500 1,500 ......................

JOINT OPERATIONS COMPLEX ......................................................... 19,700 19,700 ......................

MAZE AND FACADE ........................................................................ 2,400 2,400 ......................

TRAINING COMPLEX ........................................................................ 8,500 8,500 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

ASHEVILLE: READINESS CENTER ............................................................. 6,251 6,251 ......................

LENOIR: READINESS CENTER .................................................................. 5,184 5,184 ......................

MORRISVILLE: FIRE STATION ................................................................... 1,306 1,306 ......................

SALISBURY: FIRE STATION ...................................................................... 926 926 ......................

TOTAL, NORTH CAROLINA ................................................................... 237,961 250,631 ∂12,670

NORTH DAKOTA

AIR FORCE:

MINOT AFB:

ADD/ALTER MISSILE MAINTENANCE VEHICLE FACILITY .................. 3,050 3,050 ......................

FITNESS CENTER ............................................................................ ...................... 9,500 ∂9,500

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: BISMARCK: READINESS CENTER ADDITION ............. 1,873 1,873 ......................

TOTAL, NORTH DAKOTA ....................................................................... 4,923 14,423 ∂9,500
45

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

OHIO

AIR FORCE: WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB: DORMITORY ........................................ 10,500 10,500 ......................

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: CAMP SHERMAN, CHILLICOTHE: READINESS CENTER .............................................................................................................. ...................... 5,560 ∂5,560

ARMY RESERVE: CLEVELAND: RESERVE CENTER/OMS/AMSA/STORAGE .......... 21,595 21,595 ......................

TOTAL, OHIO ........................................................................................ 32,095 37,655 ∂5,560

OKLAHOMA

ARMY:

FORT SILL:

CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE COMPLEX (PHASE II) ..................... 13,000 13,000 ......................

MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE .................................................... 3,500 3,500 ......................

AIR FORCE:

ALTUS AFB: C–17 MODIFY SIMULATOR BAYS ......................................... 1,144 1,144 ......................

TINKER AFB:

BUILDING 3001 REVITALIZATION (PHASE I) ................................... 19,060 19,060 ......................

CONSOLIDATED INTEGRATION SUPPORT FACILITY .......................... ...................... 7,500 ∂7,500

VANCE AFB: CONSOLIDATED LOGISTICS COMPLEX ................................. ...................... 15,000 ∂15,000

TOTAL, OKLAHOMA ..................................................................... 36,704 59,204 ∂22,500

OREGON

AIR FORCE RESERVE:

PORTLAND IAP:

ALTER FLIGHTLINE FACILITIES ........................................................ 2,900 2,900 ......................

FIRE/CRASH RESCUE STATION ....................................................... 4,300 4,300 ......................

HYDRANT REFUELING SYSTEM (PHASE II) ..................................... 3,050 3,050 ......................

TOTAL, OREGON ......................................................................... 10,250 10,250 ......................

PENNSYLVANIA

NAVY: PHILADELPHIA FOUNDRY: UPGRADE LARGE PROPELLER SHOP BLDG

546 .............................................................................................................. ...................... 10,200 ∂10,200

DEFENSE-WIDE:

HARRISBURG IAP: C130J EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITY .............. 3,000 3,000 ......................

NEW CUMBERLAND DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT: REPLACE GENERAL PURPOSE WAREHOUSES ............................................................ 27,000 27,000 ......................

TOTAL, PENNSYLVANIA ................................................................... 30,000 40,200 ∂10,200

RHODE ISLAND

NAVY:

NEWPORT NAVAL STATION:

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS REPLACEMENT ........................... 16,140 16,140 ......................

IMPROVE GATE I SECURITY ............................................................ ...................... 2,550 ∂2,550

UNDERWATER WEAPON SYSTEMS LABORATORY ............................ 10,890 10,890 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: QUONSET STATE AIRPORT: REPLACE COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE COMPLEX .................................................................. 18,500 18,500 ......................

TOTAL, RHODE ISLAND ........................................................................ 45,530 48,080 ∂2,550

SOUTH CAROLINA

AIR FORCE:

CHARLESTON AFB: DORMITORY .............................................................. 8,863 8,863 ......................

SHAW AFB: DEPLOYMENT PROCESSING CENTER .................................... ...................... 8,500 ∂8,500

TOTAL, SOUTH CAROLINA .................................................................... 8,863 17,363 ∂8,500
46

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

SOUTH DAKOTA

AIR FORCE: ELLSWORTH AFB: B–1 WEAPONS SYSTEM TRAINING FACILITY .... ...................... 9,300 ∂9,300

TOTAL, SOUTH DAKOTA ....................................................................... ...................... 9,300 ∂9,300

TENNESSEE

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: NASHVILLE: READINESS CENTER, PHASE I .............. ...................... 8,100 ∂8,100

AIR NATIONAL GUARD:

MEMPHIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: C–5 MAINTENANCE SHOPS CONVERSION .............................................................................................. ...................... 5,000 ∂5,000

NASHVILLE: COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE COMPLEX, PHASE

II ......................................................................................................... ...................... 11,000 ∂11,000

MCGHEE-TYSON: FIRE STATION/SECURITY FORCES FACILITY ................. ...................... 6,000 ∂6,000

ARMY RESERVE: NASHVILLE: RESERVE CENTER/OMS/UNHEATED STORAGE ... 8,955 8,955 ......................

TOTAL, TENNESSEE ............................................................................. 8,955 39,055 ∂30,100

TEXAS

ARMY:

FORT HOOD:

BARRACKS COMPLEX—67TH ST AND BATTALION AVE .................. 47,000 47,000 ......................

URBAN ASSAULT COURSE .............................................................. 2,800 2,800 ......................

NAVY: CORPUS CHRISTI NAVAL AIR STATION: NS INGLESIDE: HEADQUARTERS, MINE WARFARE COMMAND ....................................................... ...................... 7,070 ∂7,070

AIR FORCE:

GOODFELLOW AFB:

FIRE TRAINING CLASSROOM FACILITY ............................................ 1,863 1,863 ......................

STUDENT DORMITORY .................................................................... 18,107 18,107 ......................

LACKLAND AFB:

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER PHASE II ........................................ ...................... 8,700 ∂8,700

STUDENT DORMITORY .................................................................... 20,966 20,966 ......................

STUDENT DORMITORY .................................................................... 35,260 35,260 ......................

RANDOLPH AFB:

FITNESS CENTER ............................................................................ ...................... 13,600 ∂13,600

STUDENT DORMITORY .................................................................... 28,590 28,590 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE: LAUGHLIN AFB: REPLACE TRUCK FUEL LOADING FACILITY ... 4,688 4,688 ......................

TOTAL, TEXAS ...................................................................................... 159,274 188,644 ∂29,370

UTAH

AIR FORCE:

HILL AFB:

AEF DEPLOYMENT CENTER ............................................................. ...................... 5,900 ∂5,900

MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE FACILITY .............................................. 1,000 1,000 ......................

REPLACE MUNITIONS STORAGE IGLOOS ......................................... 13,000 13,000 ......................

SMALL DIAMETER BOMB STORAGE IGLOOS ................................... 1,811 1,811 ......................

TOTAL, UTAH .............................................................................. 15,811 21,711 ∂5,900

VERMONT

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: SOUTH BURLINGTON: ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT

FACILITY ....................................................................................................... 23,827 23,827 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: BURLINGTON: AIR MOBILIZATION FACILITY ................. ...................... 5,400 ∂5,400

TOTAL, VERMONT ................................................................................ 23,827 29,227 ∂5,400

VIRGINIA

ARMY: FORT MYER: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY .................................... 9,000 9,000 ......................

NAVY:

ARLINGTON: PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER ADDITION ................................ 1,970 1,970 ......................
47

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

DAHLGREN NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER:

OPERATIONS CENTER ADDITION ..................................................... 20,520 20,520 ......................

WEAPONS DYNAMIC RDT&E CENTER ............................................. ...................... 3,500 ∂3,500

LITTLE CREEK NAVAL AMPHIBIOUS BASE: GATE 1 IMPROVEMENTS ....... 3,810 3,810 ......................

NORFOLK:

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR ................................................. 36,460 36,460 ......................

BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS—HOMEPORT ASHORE (PHASE

II) ............................................................................................... 46,730 46,730 ......................

CRANE/WEIGHT HANDLING EQUIPMENT SHOP ................................ 17,770 17,770 ......................

PIER 11 REPLACEMENT (PHASE I) ................................................. 27,610 27,610 ......................

QUANTICO MARINE CORPS BASE:

NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER .................................................... ...................... 14,420 ∂14,420

WEAPONS TRAINING BATTALION LOAD AND TEST FACILITY ........... 3,700 3,700 ......................

AIR FORCE:

LANGLEY AFB:

F–22 CLEAR WATER RINSE PAD .................................................... 2,383 2,383 ......................

F–22 SQUADRON OPERATIONS/AMU/HANGAR ................................ 20,013 20,013 ......................

F–22 VERTICAL WING TANK STORAGE ........................................... 2,573 2,573 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE:

ARLINGTON: PENTAGON ATHLETIC CENTER RESTORATION PROJECT ...... 38,086 38,086 ......................

DAM NECK FLEET COMBAT TRAINING CENTER:

MISSION SUPPORT FACILITY ........................................................... 5,600 5,600 ......................

SMALL ARMS RANGE ...................................................................... 9,681 9,681 ......................

LITTLE CREEK OPERATIONS CENTER .............................................. ...................... 9,000 ∂9,000

FORT BELVOIR: DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION CENTER (PHASE II) ....... 25,700 25,700 ......................

LANGLEY AFB: REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM .................................. 13,000 13,000 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: CAMP PENDLETON: TROOP TRAINING QUARTERS (RED

HORSE) ........................................................................................................ ...................... 2,500 ∂2,500

NAVAL RESERVE: QUANTICO: RESERVE CENTER ............................................. 9,497 9,497 ......................

TOTAL, VIRGINIA .................................................................................. 294,103 323,523 ∂29,420

WASHINGTON

ARMY:

FORT LEWIS:

BARRACKS COMPLEX—17TH AND B STREET (PHASE III) ............. 48,000 48,000 ......................

DEPLOYMENT STAGING FACILITY .................................................... 2,650 2,650 ......................

SHOOT HOUSE ................................................................................ 1,250 1,250 ......................

NAVY:

BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE:

SERVICE PIER UPGRADE AND BUILDING ADDITION ....................... 33,820 33,820 ......................

WATERFRONT SECURITY FORCE FACILITY ...................................... 6,530 6,530 ......................

INDIAN ISLAND NAVAL MAGAZINES: ORDNANCE TRANSFER FACILITY .... 2,240 2,240 ......................

AIR FORCE: MCCHORD AFB: UPGRADE MISSION SUPPORT CENTER (PHASE

II) ................................................................................................................. 19,000 19,000 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE: MCCHORD AFB: BULK FUEL STORAGE TANKS ....................... 8,100 8,100 ......................

AIR NATIONAL GUARD: CAMP MURRAY: RED HORSE MEDICAL TNG COMPLEX ............................................................................................................. ...................... 7,500 ∂7,500

TOTAL, WASHINGTON ........................................................................... 121,590 129,090 ∂7,500

WEST VIRGINIA

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: ELEANOR: ROAD SECURITY FORCE PROTECTION

MODIFICATION .............................................................................................. ...................... 4,000 ∂4,000

AIR NATIONAL GUARD:

MARTINSBURG:

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ....................................................... ...................... 5,800 ∂5,800

C–5 PARKING APRON, JET FUEL STORAGE, HYDRANT SYS ........... ...................... 20,000 ∂20,000

TOTAL, WEST VIRGINIA ............................................................... ...................... 29,800 ∂29,800
48

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

WISCONSIN

ARMY RESERVE: FORT MCCOY: BATTLE SIMULATION CENTER ........................ ...................... 4,340 ∂4,340

TOTAL, WISCONSIN .............................................................................. ...................... 4,340 ∂4,340

WYOMING

AIR FORCE: F. E. WARREN AFB: STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

PHASE I ........................................................................................................ ...................... 10,000 ∂10,000

TOTAL, WYOMING ................................................................................ ...................... 10,000 ∂10,000

BAHRAIN

NAVY: BAHRAIN NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY: OPERATIONS CONTROL

CENTER ........................................................................................................ 18,030 18,030 ......................

TOTAL, BAHRAIN ................................................................................. 18,030 18,030 ......................

GERMANY

ARMY:

GRAFENWOEHR:

BRIGADE COMPLEX—BARRACKS AND MAINT/SUPPORT ................ 30,000 ...................... ¥30,000

BRIGADE COMPLEX—TROOP SUPPORT FACILITIES ....................... 46,000 ...................... ¥46,000

HEIDELBERG: BARRACKS—HEIDELBERG HOSPITAL ............................... 17,000 ...................... ¥17,000

HOHENFELS: PHYSICAL FITNESS TRAINING CENTER ............................... 13,200 ...................... ¥13,200

VILSECK: BARRACKS COMPLEX (PHASE I) .............................................. 12,100 ...................... ¥12,100

AIR FORCE:

RAMSTEIN AB:

CIVIL ENGINEERING MIDFIELD COMPLEX ....................................... 6,250 ...................... ¥6,250

CONSOLIDATE 1ST COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRON

(PHASE II) .................................................................................. 19,713 19,713 ......................

FITNESS CENTER ANNEX ................................................................ 15,903 15,903 ......................

SPANGDAHLEM AB:

FIRE STATION ANNEX AND TRAINING FACILITY .............................. 3,865 ...................... ¥3,865

PASSENGER TERMINAL ................................................................... 1,546 ...................... ¥1,546

DEFENSE-WIDE:

GRAFENWOEHR:

DISPENSARY/DENTAL CLINIC ADDITION/ALTERATION ..................... 12,585 12,585 ......................

ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL .............................................. 36,247 18,616 ¥17,631

HEIDELBERG: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ...................................................... 3,086 3,086 ......................

STUTTGART: FORWARD STATION COMPLEX ............................................. 11,400 11,400 ......................

VILSECK: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RENOVATION/ADDITION ........................ 1,773 1,773 ......................

TOTAL, GERMANY ................................................................................ 230,668 83,076 ¥147,592

GUAM

NAVY: GUAM: DEFENSE-WIDE: ANDERSEN AFB: MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................. 24,900 24,900 ......................

TOTAL, GUAM ...................................................................................... 24,900 24,900 ......................

ITALY

ARMY:

AVIANO AB:

JOINT DEPLOYMENT FACILITY (PHASE I) ........................................ 15,500 15,500 ......................

JOINT DEPLOYMENT FACILITY (PHASE II) ....................................... 13,000 ...................... ¥13,000

LIVORNO: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY ........................................... 22,000 22,000 ......................

NAVY:

LA MADALENA NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY: CONSOLIDATE SANTO

STEFANO FACILITIES ........................................................................... 39,020 39,020 ......................

SIGONELLA NAVAL AIR STATION:

BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT FACILITIES (PHASE I) ....................... 34,070 34,070 ......................
49

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT FACILITIES (PHASE II) ...................... 14,679 ...................... ¥14,679

AIR FORCE:

AVIANO AB:

REMOVE AIRFIELD OBSTRUCTION—SOUTH RAMP ......................... 7,730 7,730 ......................

MUNITIONS ADMINISTRATION FACILITY .......................................... 5,301 5,301 ......................

ZULU ARM/DEARM PAD .................................................................. 994 994 ......................

DEFENSE-WIDE:

SIGONELLA NAVAL AIR STATION: ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONS/RENOVATIONS ........................................................................ 13,969 13,969 ......................

VICENZA: ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONS/RENOVATIONS .. 16,374 16,374 ......................

TOTAL, ITALY ....................................................................................... 182,637 154,958 ¥27,679

KOREA

ARMY:

CAMP HUMPHREYS:

BARRACKS COMPLEX ..................................................................... 35,000 ...................... ¥35,000

BARRACKS COMPLEX ..................................................................... 41,000 ...................... ¥41,000

BARRACKS COMPLEX ..................................................................... 29,000 ...................... ¥29,000

AIR FORCE:

KUNSAN AB: UPGRADE HARDENED AIRCRAFT SHELTERS ....................... 7,059 7,059 ......................

OSAN AB: DORMITORY ............................................................................ 16,638 16,638 ......................

TOTAL, KOREA ..................................................................................... 128,697 23,697 ¥105,000

KWAJALEIN

ARMY:

KWAJALEIN ATOLL: VEHICLE PAINT AND PREP FACILITY ......................... 9,400 9,400 ......................

TOTAL, KWAJALEIN .............................................................................. 9,400 9,400 ......................

PORTUGAL

AIR FORCE: LAJES FIELD: ADD/ALTER FITNESS CENTER .................................. 4,086 4,086 ......................

TOTAL, PORTUGAL ............................................................................... 4,086 4,086 ......................

TURKEY

AIR FORCE: INCIRLIK AB: CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY .......... 3,262 ...................... ¥3,262

TOTAL, TURKEY ................................................................................... 3,262 ...................... ¥3,262

UNITED KINGDOM

NAVY: SAINT MAWGAN: BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS ............................... 7,070 7,070 ......................

AIR FORCE:

RAF MILDENHALL:

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER ANNEX ........................................... 3,646 3,646 ......................

POST OFFICE .................................................................................. 3,592 3,592 ......................

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE COMPLEX ................................................. 3,320 3,320 ......................

RAF LAKENHEATH:

ADD/ALT CRASH FIRE STATION ...................................................... 2,667 2,667 ......................

COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ........................................................... 8,436 8,436 ......................

DORMITORY .................................................................................... 13,606 13,606 ......................

FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER .............................................................. 5,878 5,878 ......................

MOBILITY CARGO PROCESSING CENTER ........................................ 11,900 11,900 ......................

TOTAL, UNITED KINGDOM ........................................................... 60,115 60,115 ......................

WAKE ISLAND

AIR FORCE:

WAKE ISLAND:

REPAIR AIRFIELD PAVEMENT (PHASE III) ....................................... 14,000 14,000 ......................
50

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

UPGRADE ISLAND-WIDE INFRASTRUCTURE (PHASE I) ................... 10,000 10,000 ......................

TOTAL, WAKE ISLAND ................................................................. 24,000 24,000 ......................

NATO

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ......................................................... 169,300 169,300 ......................

WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED

ARMY: CLASSIFIED LOCATION: CLASSIFIED PROJECT ....................................... 178,700 ...................... ¥178,700

AIR FORCE:

CLASSIFIED LOCATION:

CLASSIFIED PROJECT ...................................................................... 3,250 3,250 ......................

PREDATOR B-SQUADRON OPS/AMU AND HANGAR ......................... 25,731 25,731 ......................

TOTAL, WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED ................................................ 207,681 28,981 ¥178,700

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED

ARMY:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

HOST NATION SUPPORT .................................................................. 22,000 22,000 ......................

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 100,710 112,645 ∂11,935

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 20,000 32,560 ∂12,560

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–249) ............................................. ¥66,050 ¥142,200 ¥76,150

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–64) ............................................... ...................... ¥24,000 ¥24,000

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 106–246) ............................................. ...................... ¥17,415 ¥17,415

NAVY:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 65,612 77,283 ∂11,671

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 12,334 13,754 ∂1,420

OUTLYING LANDING FIELD FACILITIES (PHASE I) ........................... 27,610 27,610 ......................

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–249) ............................................. ¥14,679 ¥27,213 ¥12,534

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–64) ............................................... ...................... ¥12,109 ¥12,109

AIR FORCE:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 79,116 112,075 ∂32,959

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 12,000 17,020 ∂5,020

DEFENSE-WIDE:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................... 8,960 8,960 ......................

ENERGY CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ....................... 69,500 69,500 ......................

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–249) ............................................. ¥997 ¥32,680 ¥31,683

PLANNING AND DESIGN:

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND .......................................... 14,768 14,768 ......................

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT EDUCATION ............ 6,500 6,500 ......................

TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY .......................................... 18,616 27,216 ∂8,600

UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................... 20,997 22,397 ∂1,400

SUBTOTAL, PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................. 60,881 70,881 ∂10,000

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION:

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND .......................................... 2,723 2,723 ......................

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ................................................... 2,600 600 ¥2,000

DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE .................... 1,500 1,500 ......................

UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................... 3,000 3,000 ......................

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................ 6,330 6,330 ......................

SUBTOTAL, UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............ 16,153 14,153 ¥2,000

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 26,570 48,612 ∂22,042

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 1,451 7,955 ∂6,504
51

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

AIR NATIONAL GUARD:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 16,030 36,163 ∂20,133

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 5,500 9,250 ∂3,750

ARMY RESERVE:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 7,712 8,873 ∂1,161

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 2,886 2,886 ......................

NAVAL RESERVE: UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS: PLANNING AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 2,562 3,172 ∂610

AIR FORCE RESERVE:

UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS:

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................. 11,142 13,212 ∂2,070

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 5,160 6,604 ∂1,444

TOTAL, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED ............................................. 492,163 459,551 ¥32,612

FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY

ALASKA:

FORT WAINWRIGHT (100 UNITS) ............................................................. 44,000 44,000 ......................

FORT WAINWRIGHT (40 UNITS) ............................................................... 20,000 20,000 ......................

ARIZONA:

FORT HUACHUCA (160 UNITS) ................................................................ 27,000 27,000 ......................

FORT HUACHUCA (60 UNITS) .................................................................. 14,000 14,000 ......................

KANSAS:

FORT RILEY (32 UNITS) ........................................................................... 8,300 8,300 ......................

FORT RILEY (30 UNITS) ........................................................................... 8,400 8,400 ......................

KENTUCKY: FORT KNOX (178 UNITS) ............................................................... 41,000 41,000 ......................

NEW MEXICO: WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE (58 UNITS) ............................... 14,600 14,600 ......................

OKLAHOMA:

FORT SILL (50 UNITS) ............................................................................. 10,000 10,000 ......................

FORT SILL (70 UNITS) ............................................................................. 15,373 15,373 ......................

VIRGINIA: FORT LEE (90 UNITS) ....................................................................... 18,000 18,000 ......................

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 156,030 156,030 ......................

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................................... 32,488 32,488 ......................

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–249) ............................................................... ¥52,300 ¥52,300 ......................

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 356,891 356,891 ......................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:

UTILITIES ACCOUNT ................................................................................. 167,332 157,332 ¥10,000

SERVICES ACCOUNT ................................................................................ 46,735 46,735 ......................

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ......................................................................... 86,326 96,326 ∂10,000

MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 1,311 1,311 ......................

FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT .......................................................................... 44,658 44,658 ......................

LEASING ................................................................................................... 234,471 234,471 ......................

MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY ........................................................ 432,605 432,605 ......................

MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM .......................................................... 1 1 ......................

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS ............................................. 29,587 29,587 ......................

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ....................................... 1,043,026 1,043,026 ......................

TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY ......................................................... 1,399,917 1,399,917 ......................

FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

CALIFORNIA: LEMOORE (187 UNITS) ................................................................ 41,585 41,585 ......................

FLORIDA: PENSACOLA (25 UNITS) .................................................................... 3,197 3,197 ......................

NORTH CAROLINA:

CHERRY POINT (339 UNITS) ................................................................... 42,803 42,803 ......................

CAMP LEJEUNE (161 UNITS) ................................................................... 21,537 21,537 ......................

CAMP LEJEUNE (358 UNITS) ................................................................... 46,244 46,244 ......................

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 20,446 20,446 ......................
52

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................................... 8,381 8,381 ......................

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–249) ............................................................... ...................... ¥3,585 ¥3,585

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 184,193 180,608 ¥3,585

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:

UTILITIES ACCOUNT ................................................................................. 164,556 154,556 ¥10,000

FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT .......................................................................... 25,462 25,462 ......................

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ......................................................................... 78,325 78,325 ......................

MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 807 807 ......................

SERVICES ACCOUNT ................................................................................ 62,730 62,730 ......................

LEASING ................................................................................................... 132,433 132,433 ......................

MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY ........................................................ 377,792 387,792 ∂10,000

MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM .......................................................... 64 64 ......................

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS ............................................. 10,609 10,609 ......................

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ....................................... 852,778 852,778 ......................

TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ........................ 1,036,971 1,033,386 ¥3,585

FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE

ARIZONA: DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB (93 UNITS) .................................................... 19,357 19,357 ......................

CALIFORNIA: TRAVIS AFB (56 UNITS) ............................................................... 12,723 12,723 ......................

DELAWARE: DOVER AFB (112 UNITS) .............................................................. 19,601 19,601 ......................

FLORIDA: EGLIN AFB (279 UNITS) .................................................................... 32,166 32,166 ......................

IDAHO: MOUNTAIN HOME AFB (186 UNITS) ..................................................... 37,126 37,126 ......................

MARYLAND: ANDREWS AFB (50 UNITS) ........................................................... 20,233 20,233 ......................

MISSOURI: WHITEMAN AFB (100 UNITS) .......................................................... 18,221 18,221 ......................

MONTANA: MALMSTROM AFB (94 UNITS) ......................................................... 19,368 19,368 ......................

NORTH CAROLINA: SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB (138 UNITS) ............................... 18,336 18,336 ......................

NORTH DAKOTA:

GRAND FORKS AFB (144 UNITS) ............................................................. 29,550 29,550 ......................

MINOT AFB (200 UNITS) .......................................................................... 41,117 41,117 ......................

SOUTH DAKOTA: ELLSWORTH AFB (75 UNITS) ................................................. 16,240 16,240 ......................

TEXAS:

DYESS AFB (116 UNITS) ......................................................................... 19,973 19,973 ......................

RANDOLPH AFB (96 UNITS) ..................................................................... 13,754 13,754 ......................

KOREA: OSAN AB (111 UNITS) ......................................................................... 44,765 44,765 ......................

PORTUGAL: LAJES FIELD (42 UNITS) ................................................................ 13,428 13,428 ......................

UNITED KINGDOM: RAF LAKENHEATH (89 UNITS) ............................................ 23,640 23,640 ......................

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 223,979 223,979 ......................

PLANNING AND DESIGN .................................................................................... 33,488 33,488 ......................

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 107–249) ............................................................... ¥19,347 ¥19,347 ......................

RESCISSION (PUBLIC LAW 105–237) ............................................................... ...................... ¥9,692 ¥9,692

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 637,718 628,026 ¥9,692

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:

UTILITIES ACCOUNT ................................................................................. 132,651 142,651 ∂10,000

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ......................................................................... 70,083 60,083 ¥10,000

SERVICES ACCOUNT ................................................................................ 26,070 26,070 ......................

FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT .......................................................................... 43,006 43,006 ......................

MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 2,527 2,527 ......................

LEASING ................................................................................................... 119,908 119,908 ......................

MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY ........................................................ 395,650 395,650 ......................

MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM .......................................................... 37 37 ......................

PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS ............................................................. 44,536 44,536 ......................

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ....................................... 834,468 834,468 ......................

TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE ................................................. 1,472,186 1,462,494 ¥9,692
53

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS (NSA) ............................................................ 50 50 ......................

PLANNING AND DESIGN (DLA) .......................................................................... 300 300 ......................

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 350 350 ......................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:

UTILITIES ACCOUNT (NSA) ....................................................................... 413 413 ......................

FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT (NSA) ................................................................ 112 112 ......................

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT (NSA) ............................................................... 13 13 ......................

MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT (NSA) ........................................................... 51 51 ......................

SERVICES ACCOUNT (NSA) ...................................................................... 405 405 ......................

LEASING (NSA) ........................................................................................ 11,987 11,987 ......................

MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY (NSA) .............................................. 2,528 2,528 ......................

FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT (DIA) ................................................................. 3,844 3,844 ......................

LEASING (DIA) ......................................................................................... 27,225 27,225 ......................

UTILITIES ACCOUNT (DLA) ....................................................................... 412 412 ......................

FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT (DLA) ................................................................ 32 32 ......................

SERVICES ACCOUNT (DLA) ...................................................................... 72 72 ......................

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT (DLA) ............................................................... 289 289 ......................

MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY (DLA) .............................................. 2,057 2,057 ......................

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ....................................... 49,440 49,440 ......................

TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE .......................................... 49,790 49,790 ......................

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND ................ 300 300 ......................

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT ................................................ 370,427 370,427 ......................

GENERAL PROVISIONS

GENERAL PROVISION (SEC. 118) ..................................................................... 55,000 55,000 ......................

GRAND TOTAL ..................................................................................... 9,117,281 9,196,000 ∂78,719

RECAPITULATION

ARMY ................................................................................................................ 1,602,060 1,255,155 ¥346,905

RESCISSION ............................................................................................. ¥66,050 ¥183,615 ¥117,565

NAVY ................................................................................................................. 1,147,537 1,195,659 ∂48,122

RESCISSION ............................................................................................. ¥14,679 ¥39,322 ¥24,643

AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................ 830,671 1,056,377 ∂225,706

DEFENSE-WIDE ................................................................................................. 695,298 712,567 ∂17,269

RESCISSION ............................................................................................. ¥997 ¥32,680 ¥31,683

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ................................................................................... 168,298 304,085 ∂135,787

AIR NATIONAL GUARD ...................................................................................... 60,430 221,013 ∂160,583

ARMY RESERVE ................................................................................................ 68,478 73,979 ∂5,501

NAVAL RESERVE ............................................................................................... 28,032 34,742 ∂6,710

AIR FORCE RESERVE ........................................................................................ 44,312 57,426 ∂13,114

TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 4,563,390 4,655,386 ∂91,996

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................... 169,300 169,300 ......................

FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY .................................................................................. 1,399,917 1,399,917 ......................

(CONSTRUCTION) ..................................................................................... (409,191) (409,191) ......................

(RESCISSION) ................................................................................. (¥52,300) (¥52,300) ......................

(OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE) ............................................................ (1,043,026) (1,043,026) ......................

FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ................................................. 1,036,971 1,033,386 ¥3,585

(CONSTRUCTION) ..................................................................................... (184,193) (184,193) ......................

(RESCISSION) ................................................................................. ...................... (¥3,585) (¥3,585)
54

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation and project Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

budget

estimate

(OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE) ............................................................ (852,778) (852,778) ......................

FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE .......................................................................... 1,472,186 1,462,494 ¥9,692

(CONSTRUCTION) ..................................................................................... (657,065) (657,065) ......................

(RESCISSION) ................................................................................. (¥19,347) (¥29,039) (¥9,692)

(OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE) ............................................................ (834,468) (834,468) ......................

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 49,790 49,790 ......................

(CONSTRUCTION) ..................................................................................... (350) (350) ......................

(OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE) ............................................................ (49,440) (49,440) ......................

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND ................ 300 300 ......................

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT ................................................ 370,427 370,427 ......................

GENERAL PROVISION ........................................................................................ 55,000 55,000 ......................

GRAND TOTAL ..................................................................................... 9,117,281 9,196,000 ∂78,719

Æ