64–278

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–614

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

MAY 11, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. HOBSON, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 4425]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for

military construction, family housing, and base realignments and

closures for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 2001.

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Committee Recommendation ............................................................ 2

Conformance With Authorization Bill .................................................................... 3

Advance Appropriations .......................................................................................... 3

Proposed Financing of Current Year Programs via Prior Year Savings ............. 4

Quadrennial Defense Review .................................................................................. 5

Foreign Currency Fluctuations ............................................................................... 5

Reprogramming Criteria ......................................................................................... 6

Historic Preservation ............................................................................................... 6

Joint Use Facilities .................................................................................................. 7

Transfer Authority ................................................................................................... 7

Paint ......................................................................................................................... 7

Recycled Foundry Sand ........................................................................................... 7

Real Property Maintenance .................................................................................... 8

Program, Project and Activity ................................................................................ 8

Planning and Budgeting ......................................................................................... 8

Metric Conversion .................................................................................................... 9

Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing ......................................... 9

Fiscal Year 2001 Barracks Request ....................................................................... 9

Child Development Centers .................................................................................... 10

Hospital and Medical Facilities .............................................................................. 11

Environmental Compliance Projects ...................................................................... 12

Military Construction:

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

Navy ................................................................................................................... 14

Air Force ............................................................................................................ 16

2

Defense-wide ..................................................................................................... 17

Reserve Components ............................................................................................... 20

NATO Security Investment Program ..................................................................... 23

Family Housing Overview ....................................................................................... 24

Family Housing:

Army .................................................................................................................. 29

Navy ................................................................................................................... 31

Air Force ............................................................................................................ 32

Defense-wide ..................................................................................................... 33

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund .............................. 33

Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense ................................................................ 36

Base Realignment and Closure:

Overview ............................................................................................................ 37

Part I ................................................................................................................. 40

Part II ................................................................................................................ 40

Part III .............................................................................................................. 40

Part IV ............................................................................................................... 40

Changes in Application of Existing Law ................................................................ 40

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law ................................................................. 43

Transfer of Funds .................................................................................................... 43

Rescission of Funds ................................................................................................. 43

Constitutional Authority ......................................................................................... 44

Comparisons With Budget Resolution ................................................................... 44

Advance Spending Authority .................................................................................. 44

Five-Year Projection of Outlays .............................................................................. 44

Financial Assistance ................................................................................................ 45

State List .................................................................................................................. 45

Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority ............................................... 64

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Administration’s fiscal year 2001 budget request of

$8,033,908,000 represents a decrease of $306,682,000 from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $8,340,590,000. The request only includes $3,379,058,000 for military construction, $3,480,481,000 for

family housing and $1,174,369,000 for activities associated with

base closure and realignment.

While there are aspects of the budget request that help to solve

the long-term infrastructure problems faced by the Department of

Defense, the Committee has some concerns over the request. For

example, excluding base closure and realignment, the military construction and family housing accounts decrease $951,150,000, or 12

percent, from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Family housing

construction and operation and maintenance accounts are reduced

by $109,749,000. The budget request would provide $748,411,000

for family housing construction, a reduction of $18,878,000 from

current levels. Of this amount, $287,968,000 is requested for construction of new family housing units, a reduction of $91,117,000,

or 24 percent, from current spending. And, the request for operation and maintenance of existing family housing units is reduced

by $90,871,000 from the current program.

The Committee believes it is imperative to address these serious

shortfalls and the severe backlog in readiness, revitalization and

quality of life projects. Therefore, the Committee has recommended

an additional $600,092,000 above the Administration’s fiscal year

2001 budget request.

The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is

$8,634,000,000, an increase of $293,410,000, or 4 percent, from the

fiscal year 2000 appropriation and an increase of $600,092,000

above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The appropriation inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:22 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR614
3

cludes $3,901,441,000 for military construction, $3,558,190,000 for

family housing, and $1,174,369,000 for activities associated with

base realignment and closure. The following table provides a breakout of the highlights of the bill:

FY 2000:

Enacted .................................................................................... $8.37 billion

Consolidated Appropriation (P.L. 106–113) .......................... ¥33 million

Net Appropriation ............................................................ 8.34 billion

President’s FY 2001 Request ......................................................... 8.03 billion

Subcommittee Recommendation ................................................... 8.63 billion

Increase over FY 2000 Appropriation ........................................... 293 million

Increase over President’s Request ................................................ 600 million

Military Construction: $3.9 billion (45% of total bill), including:

$759 million for barracks

$43 million for child development centers

$141 million for hospital and medical facilities

$26 million for environmental compliance

$175 million for the chemical weapons demilitarization

program

$178 million for NATO Security Investment Program

$83 million for National Missile Defense

$458 million for Guard and Reserve components

Family Housing: $3.5 billion (41% of total bill), including:

$859 million for new family housing units, and for

improvements to existing units

$2.699 billion for operation and maintenance of existing

units

Base Realignment and Closure: $1.2 billion (14% of total bill),

including:

$13 million for military construction and family housing

$865 million for environmental cleanup

$294 million for operations and maintenance

CONFORMANCE WITH AUTHORIZATION BILL

The Subcommittee on Military Installations of the House Armed

Services Committee conducted its mark up on May 2, 2000 of the

authorization for military construction, family housing and base realignment and closure accounts included in this bill. Because conference action on the authorization had not been completed at the

time this bill was prepared, all projects in this bill are approved

subject to authorization.

ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

The Department has requested advance appropriations in the

amount of $820,704,000, spread over four fiscal years, for eight

projects. It is the Committee’s view that there is no precedence for

advance funding military construction projects. Following is a

breakout of the individual projects, by account and fiscal year,

which total the $820,704,000 advance appropriation request. The

Committee denies all of the advance appropriations and directs the

Department to request these funds in the appropriate fiscal year.

4

Account and fiscal year Amount Location/project

Milcon, Army:

2002 ............................................... $80,500,000 Pueblo, CO: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Phase III.

2002 ............................................... 78,000,000 Newport, IN: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Phase IV.

2002 ............................................... 51,750,000 Aberdeen, MD: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Phase IV.

Subtotal ..................................... 210,250,000

Milcon, Army:

2003 ............................................... 83,400,000 Pueblo, CO: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Phase IV.

Milcon, Army:

2004 ............................................... 10,890,000 Pueblo, CO: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, Phase V.

Milcon, Navy:

2002 ............................................... 14,813,000 San Diego, CA: Berthing Pier.

2002 ............................................... 30,664,000 Camp Smith, HI: CINCPAC Headquarters.

2002 ............................................... 23,587,000 Puget Sound, WA: Pier Replacement.

Subtotal ..................................... 69,064,000

Milcon, Defense-Wide:

2002 ............................................... 38,000,000 Fort Wainwright, AK: Hospital Replacement, Phase III.

2002 ............................................... 192,800,000 Unspecified Worldwide: National Missile Defense.

Subtotal ..................................... 230,800,000

Milcon, Defense-Wide:

2003 ............................................... 20,000,000 Fort Wainwright, AK: Hospital Replacement, Phase IV.

2003 ............................................... 127,400,000 Unspecified Worldwide: National Missile Defense.

Subtotal ..................................... 147,400,000

Milcon, Defense-Wide:

2004 ............................................... 10,000,000 Fort Wainwright, AK: Hospital Replacement, Phase V.

2004 ............................................... 40,000,000 Unspecified Worldwide: National Missile Defense.

Subtotal ..................................... 50,000,000

Milcon, Defense-Wide:

2005 ............................................... 18,900,000 Unspecified Worldwide: National Missile Defense.

Grand Total ................................ 820,704,000

PROPOSED FINANCING OF CURRENT YEAR PROGRAMS VIA PRIOR

YEAR SAVINGS

The budget request for fiscal year 2001 proposed partial financing of current year programs via prior year savings, as follows:

Account/location Project description Authorization Appropriation

Military Construction, Navy:

District of Columbia: Naval Research

Lab.

Nano-Science Research Facility .................. $12,390,000 0

Texas: Kingsville Naval Air Station ..... Aircraft Parking Apron ................................. 2,670,000 0

North Carolina: Camp Lejeune MCB ... Armories ....................................................... 14,000,000 $10,000,000

Italy: Sigonella Naval Air Station ........ Community Facilities ................................... 32,969,000 32,029,000

Total ................................................ ...................................................................... 62,029,000 42,029,000

If program execution has resulted in identifiable prior year savings within individual projects, the correct financing method is to

detail such savings and to request rescissions of funds by account

5

and by fiscal year. The Committee directs the Under Secretary of

Defense (Comptroller) to follow the conventional rescission procedure in future budget submissions.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT/ELIMINATION OF CONTINGENCY FOR

INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS

The Committee agrees that the amount requested in prior fiscal

years for construction contingencies, 5 percent for new construction

and 10 percent for alterations or additions, is excessive. The budget

submission has eliminated all contingency funds for all military

construction and family housing construction programs in fiscal

year 2001 and beyond. The Committee directs the Under Secretary

of Defense (Comptroller) to closely monitor the impacts of this reduction to ensure that this action will provide an incentive for the

services to improve their cost estimating and monitoring procedures. It is further directed, that no project for which funds were

previously appropriated, or for which funds are appropriated in

this bill, may be canceled as a result of this reduction.

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

The Committee is concerned with the Defense Department’s declining investments in the construction, replacement, and revitalization of facilities. The cost of operating an aged inventory is significantly higher than the cost of operating a more modern inventory, so the savings realized by not making construction investments are lost to higher operating costs. Additionally, the Committee is concerned that this aged inventory will not be ready and

structured to support effective military operations in the future.

The Department’s recent budgets have conveyed an emphasis on

procurement of new, modern weapons systems. These same budgets have not placed the same priority on housing these new systems and the people that operate them in modern facilities. The

Committee believes that the Department must program and budget

sufficient funds to control the aging of the facilities inventory and

eventually reduce the average age to a level consistent with a modern, effective, and efficient military organization. The Committee

also believes facility modernization is connected to new ways of

doing business, future force levels, weapon system modernization

and mission requirements. Therefore, the Committee expects the

Department to include a thorough review of its basing capacity,

outsourcing strategy, and military construction requirements and

related facilities restoration and modernization programs as part of

the Congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review.

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS

The U.S dollar has significantly improved against most foreign

currencies than the Department of Defense predicted when it submitted its fiscal year 2001 budget. Accordingly, the Committee recommends reductions to the following appropriations due to these

favorable fluctuations in exchange rates:

6

Military Construction, Army ............................................................. ¥$635,000

Military Construction, Navy .............................................................. ¥2,889,000

Military Construction, Defense-Wide ................................................ ¥7,115,000

Family Housing, Army ....................................................................... ¥19,911,000

Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps ........................................ ¥1,071,000

Family Housing, Air Force ................................................................ ¥12,231,000

Total .......................................................................................... ¥$43,852,000

REPROGRAMMING CRITERIA

The Committee believes that there is a need to clarify the rules

for military construction and family housing reprogrammings. A

project or account (including the sub-elements of an account) which

has been specifically reduced by the Congress in acting on the appropriation request is considered to be a congressional interest

item. A prior approval reprogramming is required for any increase

to an item that has been specifically reduced by the Congress. Consequently, there can be no below threshold reprogrammings to an

item specifically reduced by the Congress.

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

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

item).

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The Committee is concerned the inordinate expenditures associated with improving and maintaining historically significant properties will eventually overburden the Defense Department’s housing and maintenance accounts. As required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Department must manage those

units listed on the National Historic Register, as well as any units

that meet the criteria of being potentially eligible for listing, in a

way that preserves their historic significance and integrity. As a result, operation and maintenance costs of historic properties are, on

average, two to three times the cost of a non-historic property.

In the future, the costs associated with maintaining historic

properties will escalate as the number of properties eligible for

placement on the National Historic Register continues to grow. For

instance, the Army and Navy have 203,817 buildings and structures in their current inventory, which will become eligible for the

National Historic Register over the next 20 to 30 years. The Air

Force is unable to provide this data.

The Committee believes that innovative funding and operating

methods should be pursued by the Department in order to reduce

costs and improve care of historic properties. Alternative funding

sources and methods that may be explored include establishing a

trust fund, expanding gift acceptance authority, seeking sponsors,

and leasing to third parties for the maintenance of these properties. The Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations to submit a report no later than March 30,

2001 on the development of innovative initiatives and future plans

that can help reduce costs and improve maintenance of historic

properties.

7

JOINT USE FACILITIES

The Committee supports joint use of facilities between the various components of the Defense Department. Joint use facilities can

optimize military construction and operation and maintenance

funds while enhancing joint training and the total force concept.

However, only the Reserve Components currently have a formal

process for reviewing military construction projects for joint use potential and that process is not rigorously applied. As such, it appears opportunities for the benefits of joint use facilities may be

missed. To ensure joint use construction is considered when the Department assesses facilities needs, the Committee directs that any

Form 1390/1391 which is presented as justification include a certification by the Secretary concerned that the proposed project has

been considered for joint use potential, a recommendation for either

joint use or unilateral construction, and the reason(s) for that recommendation if joint use is not recommended. The certification

may be delegated not lower than the Assistant Secretary responsible for the project. This review/certification is to be reviewed by

the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) during the budget review to ensure impartial review.

TRANSFER AUTHORITY

The budget request proposed a general provision which would

allow the transfer of up to $67,000,000 between any accounts in the

bill, and this could be accomplished at the determination of the

Secretary of Defense and upon the approval of OMB. Congress

would be given an ‘‘after the fact’’ notification. The Committee believes that the existing reprogramming procedures are sufficient in

solving urgent, high priority funding problems within available resources and denies this request.

PAINT

The Committee is aware that innovations in paint are occurring

on an almost daily basis. The Committee is concerned that the

Services might not be taking advantage of such innovations which

have the ability to prolong the useful life of buildings, promote energy conservation, and even reduce the impact of fires by utilizing

fire resistant paint. Therefore, the Committee directs the Deputy

Under Secretary of Defense for Installations to review current military specifications and costs for paint to determine if the use of

higher quality paints can, in fact, be more economical over the life

cycle of the activity. In addition, this review should include an examination of the attributes of fire resistant paint in regard to its

potential use as a life saving material and the costs in comparison

to current materials specified in federal standards. The Committee

expects a report on the findings no later than March 30, 2001.

RECYCLED FOUNDRY SAND

The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers and the Naval

Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) to utilize recycled

foundry sand in military construction projects where economically

feasible. It is the Committee’s understanding that foundry sand

meets the Federal Specifications for construction. Further, the

8

Committee directs the Corps and NAVFAC to report back to the

Committee on the prior and potential use of foundry sand in military construction no later than March 30, 2001.

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

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

requested construction project in future budget submissions. This

information is to be provided on Form 1390. In addition, for all

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

real property maintenance conducted in the past two years and all

future requirements for unaccompanied housing at that installation.

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE: REPORTING REQUIREMENT

The Committee continues to expect the general rules for repairing a facility under Operation and Maintenance account funding

will be as follows:

Components of the facility may be repaired by replacement, and

such replacement can be up to current standards or codes.

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

be performed as military construction projects.

Such projects may be done concurrent with repair projects, as

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

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

in excess of $10,000,000.

PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY

For the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of

1987, (Public Law 100–119), the term ‘‘Program, Project and Activity’’ will continue to be defined as the appropriation account.

PLANNING AND BUDGETING

The Committee relies on officials in the Department of Defense

to provide the most honest assessment of competing facilities

needs, based on the most informed judgment of military requirements. The Committee understands and supports the process the

Department employs to identify requirements, to prioritize those

requirements, and to live within budgetary constraints. It is the

view of the Committee that the best way to accomplish this task

is to have a disciplined long-range planning process, with annual

adjustments to meet changing circumstances. The Committee supports efforts within the Services and within the Under Secretary of

Defense (Comptroller) to formulate and present a coherent Future

Years Defense Plan at the project level of detail, and encourages

efforts to reconcile annual adjustments in this plan.

9

METRIC CONVERSION

The Committee directs the Comptroller of the Department of Defense to assure that any Form 1390/1391 which is presented as justification in metric measurement shall include parenthetically the

English measurement.

PERMANENT PARTY UNACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL HOUSING

The Department of Defense estimates that 42 percent of the enlisted force and 27 percent of the officers are single or unaccompanied personnel. Although 30 percent live in private off-base housing, the Department has over 416,463 men and women living in

permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing. Approximately

one-half of the barracks were built 30 or more years ago, with an

average age of over 30 years. And, over 46,500 spaces are still serviced by gang latrines and approximately 60,900 additional spaces

are considered substandard and continuous maintenance is necessary to deal with such problems as asbestos, corroded pipes, inadequate ventilation, faulty heating and cooling systems, and peeling lead-based paint.

In fiscal year 1997, the respective Services deficit count due to

the lack of barracks spaces to house single service members or the

need to replace or improve current spaces was 238,000. As a result

of the Congressional initiative to accelerate the barracks revitalization effort, current deficit estimates have been reduced to 114,000

single service members. The Department of Defense estimates current total costs to achieve desired end states at $7,643,000,000, as

compared to $14,280,000,000 in fiscal year 1997. And, the timetable to accomplish the revitalization has decreased from over

twenty years to thirteen years.

The Committee understands that improving troop housing does

not lie solely in new construction and renovations. Retiring the

backlog of maintenance and repair, which is under the jurisdiction

of the Defense Subcommittee, and an adequate funding commitment to prevent future backlogs plays an important role in this

process. It is necessary to use many different approaches to help

meet the unaccompanied housing need. The challenge is for a sustained overall commitment, at funding levels that will reduce the

backlog of substandard spaces, reduce the housing deficits, and increase the quality of living conditions in a reasonable period of

time.

FISCAL YEAR 2001 BARRACKS REQUEST

The Department of Defense has requested $668,025,000 to construct or modernize 38 barracks in fiscal year 2001. The Committee

has approved the request of $668,025,000 in full. In order to help

alleviate the unaccompanied housing deficit, an additional

$90,615,000 is recommended. The total recommended appropriation

for unaccompanied housing in this bill is $758,640,000.

The following troop housing construction projects are recommended for fiscal year 2001:

10

FISCAL YEAR 2001 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS

Location Request Recommended

Army:

California-Fort Irwin ....................................................................................................... $31,000,000 $31,000,000

California-Presidio of Monterey ...................................................................................... 0 2,600,000

Georgia-Fort Benning ...................................................................................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000

Georgia-Fort Stewart ....................................................................................................... 26,000,000 26,000,000

Hawaii-Schofield Barracks ............................................................................................. 46,400,000 46,400,000

Hawaii-Wheeler Army Air Field ....................................................................................... 43,800,000 43,800,000

Kansas-Fort Riley ............................................................................................................ 15,000,000 15,000,000

Kentucky-Fort Campbell .................................................................................................. 9,400,000 9,400,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg .............................................................................................. 26,000,000 26,000,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg .............................................................................................. 45,600,000 45,600,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg .............................................................................................. 38,600,000 38,600,000

Germany-Bamberg .......................................................................................................... 7,800,000 7,800,000

Germany-Bamberg .......................................................................................................... 3,850,000 3,850,000

Germany-Darmstadt ........................................................................................................ 5,700,000 5,700,000

Germany-Darmstadt ........................................................................................................ 5,600,000 5,600,000

Germany-Mannheim ........................................................................................................ 4,050,000 4,050,000

Korea-Camp Carroll ........................................................................................................ 0 10,000,000

Korea-Camp Hovey .......................................................................................................... 0 26,000,000

Korea-Camp Hovey .......................................................................................................... 0 9,950,000

Korea-Camp Humphreys ................................................................................................. 14,200,000 14,200,000

Korea-Camp Page ........................................................................................................... 19,500,000 19,500,000

Kwajalein-Kwajalein Atoll ............................................................................................... 18,000,000 18,000,000

Subtotal, Army ............................................................................................................ 384,500,000 433,050,000

Navy/Marine Corps:

California-Lemoore Naval Air Station ............................................................................. 8,260,000 8,260,000

California-Twentynine Palms .......................................................................................... 0 21,770,000

District of Columbia-Washington Marine Barracks ....................................................... 17,197,000 17,197,000

Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Base ....................................................................... 18,400,000 18,400,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Station ................................................................................ 16,500,000 16,500,000

Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training Center .................................................................... 37,000,000 37,000,000

Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training Center .................................................................... 37,700,000 37,700,000

North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base ........................................................ 14,300,000 14,300,000

Virginia-Norfolk Naval Shipyard ..................................................................................... 16,100,000 16,100,000

CONUS Various ............................................................................................................... 11,500,000 11,500,000

Italy-Naples Naval Support Activity ............................................................................... 15,000,000 15,000,000

Subtotal, Navy ............................................................................................................ 191,957,000 213,727,000

Air Force:

Alaska-Eielson AFB ......................................................................................................... 14,540,000 14,540,000

Alaska-Elmendorf AFB .................................................................................................... 15,920,000 15,920,000

Colorado-Peterson AFB ................................................................................................... 11,000,000 11,000,000

Florida-Eglin AFB ............................................................................................................ 5,600,000 5,600,000

Louisiana-Barksdale AFB ................................................................................................ 6,390,000 6,390,000

Oklahoma-Tinker AFB ..................................................................................................... 5,800,000 5,800,000

Oklahoma-Tinker AFB ..................................................................................................... 0 8,745,000

Texas-Lackland AFB ........................................................................................................ 5,500,000 5,500,000

Utah-Hill AFB .................................................................................................................. 0 11,550,000

Virginia-Langley AFB ...................................................................................................... 7,470,000 7,470,000

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

Korea-Osan AB ................................................................................................................ 11,348,000 11,348,000

Subtotal, Air Force ..................................................................................................... 91,568,000 111,863,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 668,025,000 758,640,000

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

The Committee has recommended an additional $25,830,000

above the budget estimate of $17,040,000 for a total appropriation

11

of $42,870,000 for new construction, or improvements, for child development centers. The Committee notes that there are currently

around 800 child development centers run by DoD on military

bases. These centers have the capacity to care for about 60,000

children. According to DoD estimates, an additional 256,000 child

care spaces (either in centers or in family day care) are necessary

to meet the needs of military families. The demand for additional

spaces in the child development centers is severe and the majority

of parents face long waiting lists. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a plan to the Committee for the creation of an additional 25,000 child care spaces through constructing

child development centers over the next five years. This report

should be submitted to the Committee no later than February 15,

2001.

The following child development center projects are provided for

fiscal year 2001:

FISCAL YEAR 2001 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Location Request Recommended

Army:

Arizona-Fort Huachuca ................................................................................................... 0 $3,350,000

Arkansas-Pine Bluff Arsenal .......................................................................................... 0 2,750,000

Kansas-Fort Riley ............................................................................................................ 0 5,600,000

Germany-Kaiserslautern .................................................................................................. $3,400,000 3,400,000

Subtotal, Army ............................................................................................................ 3,400,000 15,100,000

Navy:

California-Lemoore Naval Air Station ............................................................................. 0 2,500,000

Florida-Jacksonville Naval Air Station ............................................................................ 0 1,400,000

Florida-Panama City Naval Coastal Systems Center ..................................................... 0 1,000,000

Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training Center .................................................................... 0 3,400,000

North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base ........................................................ 4,420,000 4,420,000

Guam-Guam Naval Activities ......................................................................................... 0 1,000,000

Subtotal, Navy ............................................................................................................ 4,420,000 13,720,000

Air Force:

District of Columbia-Bolling AFB ................................................................................... 4,520,000 4,520,000

Texas-Lackland AFB ........................................................................................................ 0 4,830,000

Subtotal, Air Force ..................................................................................................... 4,520,000 9,350,000

Defense-Wide:

Pennsylvania-Susquehanna Defense Distribution Depot ............................................... 4,700,000 4,700,000

Subtotal, Defense-Wide .............................................................................................. 4,700,000 4,700,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 17,040,000 42,870,000

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILITIES

The budget request includes $180,887,000 for 13 projects and for

unspecified minor construction to provide hospital and medical support facilities, including both treatment facilities and medical support facilities. The Committee has recommended a total appropriation of $141,237,000 for hospital and medical facilities in this bill.

This is $39,650,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee

notes the deferral of the Medical/Dental Facility Replacement at

12

the Naples Naval Support Activity in Italy due to the uncertainty

of the legality of the land acquisition, zoning, and building permits.

The following hospital and medical facilities are recommended

for fiscal year 2001:

Location Project title Request Recommended

Alaska—Fort Wainwright ............... Hospital Replacement (Phase II) ............................... $44,000,000 $44,000,000

California—Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.Fleet Hospital Ops/Training Command Support Fac 2,900,000 2,900,000

California—Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement (Horno) .............. 3,950,000 3,950,000

California—Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement (Las Flores) ...... 3,550,000 3,550,000

California—Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement (Las Pulgas) ..... 3,750,000 3,750,000

California—Edwards AFB .............. Medical Clinic Addition/Dental Clinic Alteration ....... 17,900,000 17,900,000

Florida—Eglin AFB ........................ Add/Alter Hospital/Life Safety Upgrade ..................... 37,600,000 37,600,000

Florida—Patrick AFB ..................... Medical Clinic ............................................................ 2,700,000 2,700,000

Florida—Tyndall AFB ..................... Add/Alter Medical Clinic ............................................ 7,700,000 7,700,000

New York—Fort Drum .................... Veterinary Treatment Facility ..................................... 1,400,000 1,400,000

Texas—Fort Bliss .......................... Laboratory Renovation ............................................... 0 4,200,000

Germany—Kitzingen ...................... Health/Dental Clinic Life Safety Upgrade ................. 1,400,000 1,400,000

Germany—Wiesbaden AB .............. Add/Alter Health/Dental Clinic ................................... 7,187,000 7,187,000

Italy—Naples Naval Support Activity.Medical/Dental Facility Replacement ........................ 43,850,000 0

Various ........................................... Unspecified Minor Construction ................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000

Total .................................. .................................................................................... 180,887,000 141,237,000

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROJECTS

The total budget request and appropriation for 8 projects needed

to meet environmental compliance is $25,660,000. The Federal Facilities Compliance Act requires all federal facilities to meet both

federal and State standards. These projects are considered Class I

violations and are out of compliance; have received an enforcement

action from the Environmental Protection Agency, the State, or

local authority; and/or a compliance agreement has been signed or

consent order received. Environmental projects that are Class I violations are required to be funded, and therefore are placed at the

top of the priority list. The Committee has approved the budget request in full. The total appropriation for environmental compliance

projects in this bill is $25,660,000.

Following is a listing of all environmental compliance projects

funded in this bill:

Installation Project title Request Recommended

Navy:

Washington: Puget Sound

Naval Shipyard.

Oily Wastewater Collection ........................................ $6,600,000 $6,600,000

Air Force:

Alaska: Cape Romanzof ........ Generator Fuel Storgae .............................................. 3,900,000 3,900,000

Alaska: Eielson AFB .............. Hazardous Material Storage ...................................... 1,450,000 1,450,000

California: Beale AFB ............ Water Treatment Plant ............................................... 3,800,000 3,800,000

California: Vandenberg AFB .. Upgrade Water Distribution System .......................... 4,650,000 4,650,000

Georgia: Moody AFB .............. Water Treatment Plant ............................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000

Turkey: Incirlik Air Base ........ Fire Training Facility .................................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000

Air National Guard

Arkansas: Fort Smith ............ Fire Training Facility .................................................. 1,760,000 1,760,000

Total .................................. .................................................................................... 25,660,000 25,660,000

13

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,042,033,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 897,938,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 869,950,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥172,083,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... ¥27,988,000

The Committee recommends a total of $869,950,000 for Military

Construction, Army for fiscal year 2001. This is a decrease of

$27,988,000 below the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and a

decrease of $172,083,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year

2000. Absent the transfer of $175,400,000 for the Chemical Demilitarization Program from the ‘‘Military Construction, Army’’ account

to the ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account, the Committee recommends an increase of $147,412,000 above the Military

Construction, Army budget request.

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

The budget request proposes that a total of $175,400,000 should

be appropriated under the ‘‘Military Construction, Army’’ account

for chemical demilitarization facilities. As in prior years, the Committee recommends that these amounts be appropriated under the

‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account, in order to facilitate

the tracking of expenses for the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and to avoid distorting the size of the Army’s military construction program. It is the Committee’s view that this is an accounting decision, and that it will have no impact on the operation

of the program or on administrative overhead expenses within the

Office of the Secretary of Defense.

ALABAMA-ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT: POWERTRAIN/FLEXIBLE

MAINTENANCE CENTER

Within the additional funds provided for planning and design,

the Army is directed to complete design of the Powertrain/Flexible

Maintenance Center at Anniston Army Depot in Alabama and include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002

budget request.

KENTUCKY-BLUEGRASS ARMY DEPOT: CONSOLIDATED SHIPPING

CENTER

The Army is directed to accelerate the design of the Consolidated

Shipping Center at the Bluegrass Army Depot, and to include the

required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.

NEW YORK: U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY: MULTIMEDIA LEARNING CENTERS

Within funds provided for unspecified minor construction, the

Committee directs the Army to execute a project in the amount of

$500,000 to provide Multimedia Learning Centers at the United

States Military Academy in New York. This project is a pilot test

of technologically modern study environments for use at the military academies. These centers will substantially facilitate student

learning, research, and academic project development through diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
14

rect connection to all Academy network services, the Internet, and

the National Digital Library being developed by the Library of Congress.

VIRGINIA-FORT BELVOIR: ARMY MUSEUM

Within ninety days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the

Army is directed to report to the Committee as to whether Fort

Belvoir in Virginia is an appropriate site for the National Museum

of the United States Army.

WASHINGTON-FORT LEWIS: VANCOUVER BARRACKS

Within the additional funds provided for unspecified minor construction, the Army is directed to provide no less than $1,500,000

for the stabilization and layaway work of the Vancouver Barracks

at Fort Lewis in Washington.

BELGIUM: BARRACKS

The Committee is aware there is a deficit of barracks spaces for

U.S. personnel assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium and the

Chievres Air Base in Belgium. In order to provide sufficient space

to accommodate unaccompanied soldiers assigned to these installations, the Army is directed to accelerate the design of barracks

projects and include the required construction funding in its fiscal

year 2002 budget request.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $901,531,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 753,422,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 891,380,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥10,151,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... +137,958,000

The Committee recommends a total of $891,380,000 for Military

Construction, Navy for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of

$137,958,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and a

decrease of $10,151,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year

2000.

NAVY HOMEPORT ASHORE PROGRAM

The Committee commends the Navy for its Homeport Ashore

Program to provide unaccompanied E–1 through E–4s, who currently live aboard ship when in homeport, decent accommodations,

either in a BEQ or in the community. Conditions aboard ship are

the worst throughout the Department of Defense, sleeping in bunk

beds in cramped spaces with dozens of shipmates, and only a small

locker to store their personal belongings. When these ships return

to homeport, sailors continue to sleep aboard. The Committee looks

forward to reviewing the implementation plan and to working with

the Navy to accomplish this very needed quality of life initiative.

15

CALIFORNIA-LEMOORE NAVAL AIR STATION: QUALITY OF LIFE AND

WORK SPACE CONDITIONS

Earlier this year, the Navy provided a report to the Committee

regarding its efforts to enhance and improve the quality of life and

living conditions at the Lemoore Naval Air Station (NAS) in California. The Committee appreciates the efforts the Navy has made

regarding the development of an Infrastructure Improvement Plan,

which provides for a significant investment in Lemoore’s aviation,

housing, and recreation facilities while serving as a road map for

future improvements. While the Navy has made significant strides

to improve all aspects of quality of life at the Lemoore NAS, the

Committee is still concerned and interested in the quality of life

projects, the working conditions, and the pilot retention rates at

the base. Considering the costs of training these pilots and maintaining the best quality of life for our sailors and their families at

Lemoore NAS, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to the

Committee by March 15, 2001 regarding execution of the Infrastructure Improvement Plan for Lemoore NAS. This report should

also include any changes or modifications that have been made to

the plan and the reasons therefor.

CALIFORNIA-NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION: TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE

The North Island Naval Air Station has expanded rapidly over

the past 20 years. As the Naval presence has increased, so have

the number of people traveling to and from the base. However, the

Committee is aware the transportation infrastructure has not kept

pace with the growth of military activity or personnel at the site.

The Committee directs the Navy to begin design of a project to alleviate traffic flow problems at North Island NAS within the additional amount provided for planning and design. In addition, the

Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to the Committee no

later than September 15, 2000 on the Navy’s plan to address this

issue.

VIRGINIA-QUANTICO MCCDC: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

The Military Construction Appropriations Act for 1997 (Public Law 104–196) provided $8,930,000 for a sanitary landfill at the

Quantico Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC)

in Virginia. The sanitary landfill project is no longer a Marine

Corps requirement. The Committee supports the efforts of the

House Armed Services Committee for the extension of authorization and modification of authorization to ensure these funds are expended on infrastructure improvements at Quantico MCCDC. The

Committee believes this project is needed for continued growth and

development of the installation.

PUERTO RICO-ROOSEVELT ROADS NAVAL STATION

More than 40 years ago, the Navy acquired land abutting Roosevelt Roads Naval Station within the Municipality of Ceiba, Puerto Rico. Concerned that this land has never been utilized and

aware of detailed proposals by the Municipality of Ceiba to utilize

the unused land, the Committee directed the Navy to report on

16

plans for taking appropriate cooperative actions for land utilization

in fiscal year 1998. Because the actions taken by the Navy were

unresponsive to this directive, in fiscal year 2000, the Committee

directed the Navy to report by January 15, 2000, on a plan and development schedule agreeable to both the Navy and the Municipality of Ceiba to resolve this issue.

In a letter dated January 27, 2000, the Navy claimed that the

Mayor of Ceiba had not presented formal proposals for joint utilization of the land. The Committee recognizes that the Mayor has presented several detailed proposals and has made continuous efforts

to work with the Navy to find a mutually acceptable solution. On

the other hand, developments have arisen in Puerto Rico which

may have impact on the future mission of the Naval Station, and

the Navy is reluctant to go forward with the land issue until these

matters are resolved. The Committee is also aware of a meeting between the Mayor of Ceiba and representatives from Roosevelt

Roads Naval Station subsequent to the January 27, 2000 letter,

during which steps were taken toward realization of a mutually acceptable utilization plan.

To augment this progress, the Committee directs the Secretary

of the Navy to present within 90 days of enactment of this Act a

report outlining (1) the options available for development of the

land abutting Roosevelt Roads, taking into consideration the impact of any possible change in mission at the base, (2) a timetable,

which the Navy should develop in conjunction with the Municipality of Ceiba, for the disposition of the land at issue under the

presumption that the mission of the base will not change, and (3)

actions to be taken by the Department to work closely and cooperatively with the Municipality of Ceiba to resolve this issue.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $777,238,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 530,969,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 703,903,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥73,335,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... +172,934,000

The Committee recommends a total of $703,903,000 for Military

Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of

172,934,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and a

decrease of $73,335,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year

2000.

MARYLAND-ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE: ADD/ALTER ELECTRICAL

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

The Committee is aware there is a serious need to replace the

deteriorated lines and add additional power to the east side of Andrews AFB. The existing substation is 38 years old and the circuit

breakers are obsolete and no longer manufactured. There is no additional electrical capacity available, resulting in unreliable power

and limiting development or improvements to important quality of

life and operational facilities. As recent as November 1999, a partial power failure on the existing feeder for the entire airfield was

experienced. This emergency was corrected with O&M funding at

17

a cost of $631,000, which affected only a small portion of the distribution system. Although emergency repairs were made, it did

not provide a redundant source for the airfield feeder. Due to the

dire need of replacement, the Committee urges the Air Force to

seek emergency construction funding for this project.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $593,615,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 784,753,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 800,314,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. +206,699,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... +15,561,000

The Committee recommends a total of $800,314,000 for Military

Construction, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase

of $15,561,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and

an increase of $206,699,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year

2000.

ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY

The Committee remains concerned that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) continues to fail health safety codes and

requires renovation. Pursuant to the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 2000 (Public

Law 106–65), the Secretary of Defense was to submit with the fiscal year 2001 budget submission a report on alternative methods

for improving AFIP, including private funding and lease-back. To

date, this report has not been submitted. The Committee directs

the Department of Defense to accelerate the design of this project

and include the required construction funding in the fiscal year

2002 budget request.

FORWARD OPERATING LOCATIONS

Funding for planning and design, and construction related to the

establishment of forward operating locations in Ecuador, Curacao

and Aruba is contained in the Fiscal Year 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 3908, as passed by the House on

March 30, 2000.

DODEA-SHAPE SCHOOL FACILITIES

The Committee is concerned about the overcrowding and substandard conditions of SHAPE American High School and Elementary School in Mons, Belgium. These schools have been identified

by a recent Department of Defense Education Activity study as

among the worst facility conditions throughout the Department of

Defense Dependents school system. The SHAPE school facilities

are in need of expansion and modernization to reach the defensewide goal of an 18 to 1 student-ratio. The unique blend of American

and international students at the SHAPE schools presents a challenge in funding the upgrades to these facilities. The Committee

recommends that the SHAPE schools be placed on a priority list to

expedite the modernization and expansion of these facilities.

18

ITALY-NAPLES NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY: MEDICAL/DENTAL FACILITY

REPLACEMENT

The Committee denies the request of $43,850,000 for the purchase of a replacement hospital in Naples, Italy without prejudice.

The Italian court issued a sequestration order on all construction

at the Gricignano Support Site in February. Due to the uncertainty

of the legality of the land acquisition, zoning, and building permits,

it does not seem prudent to appropriate funds for the purchase of

the hospital at this time. The Committee notes that this action

does not impact the current lease arrangement for this facility.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

The Department has requested a total of $103,581,000 to provide

facilities needed for the development and deployment of ballistic

missile defense systems. This includes $14,729,000 for planning

and design, $3,694,000 for unspecified minor construction, and

$85,095,000 for major construction. The Committee notes that this

is the first phase of a $488,590,000 construction program for the

initial deployment facilities. The Committee is concerned about the

major construction request of $85,095,000 due to the fact that a decision to go forward with this program has not been made, a site

has not been selected, and specific project justification is not available. This creates serious concerns about the Department’s ability

to execute the full amount of the request during fiscal year 2001.

Therefore, the Committee has reduced the major construction request by $20,000,000 without prejudice. The ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account is carrying approximately $334,000,000

in unobligated balances. Should this additional $20,000,000 be necessary, the Committee will entertain a reprogramming request for

the funds. Further, to address the Committee’s concerns over a

‘‘System-Level’’ justification, with one single DD Form 1391, the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is to notify the

Committee of specific projects with detailed justification thirty days

prior to obligation of the funds.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

The budget request includes a total of $175,400,000 for the following funding increments of the chemical weapons demilitarization program for fiscal year 2001:

State Installation Project Request Recommended

Arkansas .................... Pine Bluff Arsenal ... Ammunition Demilitarization Facility,

Phase V.

$43,600,000 $43,600,000

Colorado ..................... Pueblo Depot Activity Ammunition Demilitarization Facility,

Phase II.

10,700,000 10,700,000

Indiana ....................... Newport Army Ammunition Plant.Ammunition Demilitarization Facility,

Phase III.

54,400,000 54,400,000

Kentucky ..................... Bluegrass Army

Depot.

Ammunition Demilitarization Facility,

Phase II.

8,500,000 8,500,000

Maryland .................... Aberdeen Proving

Ground.

Ammunition Demilitarization Facility,

Phase II.

45,700,000 45,700,000

Maryland .................... Aberdeen Proving

Ground.

Munitions Assessment/Processing Systems

Fac.

3,100,000 3,100,000

Oregon ........................ Umatilla Depot Activity.

Ammunition Demilitarization Facility,

Phase VI.

9,400,000 9,400,000

19

State Installation Project Request Recommended

Total ............. .................................. ..................................................................... 175,400,000 175,400,000

The budget request proposes that these amounts should be appropriated under the ‘‘Military Construction, Army’’ account. As in

prior years, the Committee recommends that these amounts be appropriated under the ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account, in order to facilitate the tracking of expenses for the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and to avoid distorting the size of

the Army’s military construction program.

The following chart displays the scope of the military construction investment in the overall chemical demilitarization program:

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM MILITARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS

[Current year dollars in millions/fiscal year]

Project

Fiscal years—

1999 Total

and

prior

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

PM-Chem Demil Training Facility ........... 16.10 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 16.10

Tooele, UT Facility ................................... 198.00 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 198.00

Anniston, AL Facility ............................... 174.20 7.00 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 181.20

Umatilla, OR Facility .............................. 168.60 25.90 9.40 ............ ............ ............ ............ 203.90

Pine Bluff, AR Facility ............................ 68.00 49.80 43.60 ............ ............ ............ ............ 161.40

Pueblo, CO Facility ................................. 6.30 ............ 10.70 80.50 83.40 10.90 ............ 191.80

Blue Grass, KY Facility ........................... ............ 2.00 8.50 20.00 78.00 87.00 10.00 205.50

Aberdeen, MD Facility ............................. 28.40 53.50 45.70 51.60 ............ ............ ............ 179.20

Newport, IN Facility ................................ 13.50 35.90 54.40 78.00 ............ ............ ............ 181.80

MAPS Facility .......................................... ............ ............ 3.10 ............ ............ ............ ............ 3.10

Planning & Design ................................. 114.50 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 114.50

Total .......................................... 787.60 174.10 175.40 230.10 161.40 97.90 10.00 1,636.50

The following chart displays the timetable and the milestones for

completion of the chemical demilitarization program:

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM TIMETABLE AND MILESTONES

Location Start of construction Start of systemization 4 Operations

Johnston Atoll 1 .................................................... ...................................... ........................................... 3QFY90–2QFY01

Tooele, UT ............................................................ ...................................... 4QFY93 ............................. 4QFY96–4QFY03

Anniston, AL ......................................................... 3QFY97 ......................... 1QFY01 ............................. 2QFY02–1QFY06

Umatilla, OR ........................................................ 3QFY97 ......................... 1QFY01 ............................. 2QFY02–3QFY05

Pine Bluff, AR ...................................................... 2QFY99 ......................... 1QFY02 ............................. 4QFY03–1QFY07

Pueblo, CO 2 ......................................................... ...................................... ...........................................

Blue Grass, KY 2 .................................................. ...................................... ...........................................

Aberdeen, MD 3 .................................................... 3QFY00 ......................... 3QFY02 ............................. 3QFY05–3QFY06

Newport, IN 3 ........................................................ 3QFY00 ......................... 4QFY02 ............................. 3QFY04–1QFY05

1 Full scale operations began 2QFY94.

2 Schedule on hold pending technology selection.

3 Schedule represents employment of neutralization based technologies. This data represents construction of main building (Chem Demil

Building). Administrative buildings have been completed. 4 Some systemization activities overlap with the construction phase. This date is when construction is substantially complete.

ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM

The Committee denies the budget request of $33,570,000 for the

Energy Conservation Investment Program and notes that there is

$39,500,000 in unobligated balances in this account.

20

PENTAGON BUILDING CONTROL SYSTEMS

The Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

for Installations to ensure that the ongoing renovation of the Pentagon includes the most up to date technology to best automate its

building control systems. These systems monitor and control functions such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, fire

alarms and power monitoring and will result in reduced maintenance and operation costs in the future. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations is encouraged to use unobligated

funds in the Energy Conservation Improvement Program for this

purpose.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, RESERVE COMPONENTS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $695.381,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 221,976,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 458,394,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥236,987,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... +236,418,000

The Committee recommends a total of $458,394,000 for Military

Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 2001. This is an

increase of $236,418,000 above the budget request for fiscal year

2001, and a decrease of $236,987,000 below the total appropriation

for fiscal year 2000.

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

The Committee recommends approval of Military Construction,

as follows:

Component Request Recommended

Army National Guard ............................................................................................................... $59,130,000 $137,603,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................................................... 50,179,000 110,585,000

Army Reserve ........................................................................................................................... 81,713,000 115,854,000

Naval Reserve .......................................................................................................................... 16,103,000 50,604,000

Air Force Reserve ..................................................................................................................... 14,851,000 43,748,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 221,976,000 458,394,000

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT—BACKLOG

The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Army National Guard to continue to make a joint report

annually on the current backlog of facilities requirements of the

Army National Guard to be submitted concurrently with the annual budget request.

ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT—ARMORY INFRASTRUCTURE

The Secretary of the Army, the Director of the National Guard

Bureau, and the Director of the Army National Guard are directed

to continue to report jointly to the Committee by January 1, 2001

on the status of armory infrastructure.

21

FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PLAN

It is the Committee’s view that section 123 of Public Law 104–

196 constitutes a continuing permanent requirement for the Army

National Guard and the Air National Guard to present the Future

Years Defense Plan to Congress concurrent with the President’s

budget submission for each fiscal year. The Committee will expect

subsequent submissions of the Future Years Defense Plan to include explanatory notes justifying any modification of prior year

plans.

CALIFORNIA-RIDGECREST: READINESS CENTER

The Army National Guard is directed to complete design of the

Readiness Center in Ridgecrest, California and to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.

CALIFORNIA-CAMP SAN LUIS OBISPO

The Committee directs the Army National Guard to begin planning and design of the Consolidated Dining Facility and Organizational Maintenance Shop at Camp San Luis Obispo, California, and

to include the necessary funding for these facilities in the fiscal

year 2002 budget submission.

CALIFORNIA-WOODLAND: READINESS CENTER

Within the funds provided for planning and design, the Army

National Guard is directed to complete design of the Readiness

Center in Woodland, California and include the required construction funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.

CALIFORNIA-SACRAMENTO READINESS CENTER

The Army National Guard is directed to accelerate the design of

the readiness center in Sacramento, California and to include the

required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.

IOWA-ESTHERVILLE: READINESS CENTER

The Committee directs the Army National Guard to begin planning and design of the Readiness Center at Estherville, Iowa, and

to include the necessary funding for this project in the fiscal year

2002 budget submission.

IOWA-FAIRFIELD: READINESS CENTER ADDITION

Within the additional funds provided for unspecified minor construction, the Army National Guard is directed to provide no less

than $1,066,000 for an addition to the readiness center at Fairfield,

Iowa.

MICHIGAN-CALUMET: READINESS CENTER ADA IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee is concerned over the lack of compliance with the

Americans with Disabilities Act at the Calumet, Michigan Readiness Center. The existing armory was built in 1918 and does not

have ADA accessibility. Therefore, the Army National Guard is directed to begin planning and design of these improvements, and to

22

include the necessary funding for this project in the fiscal year

2002 budget submission.

MICHIGAN: MIDLAND: ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP

The budget proposed the construction of an organizational maintenance shop in Midland, Michigan. Due to an unexpected unit activation in Augusta, Michigan, the Army National Guard has requested the project be changed to that location. The activation was

announced after the budget was submitted. The Committee has

recommended the location change. The original project cost of

$3,600,000 remains the same.

MINNESOTA-CAMP RIPLEY: COMBINED SUPPORT MAINTENANCE SHOP

(PHASE II)

Authorization in the amount of $10,368,000 for second phase of

the Combined Support Maintenance Shop at Camp Ripley in Minnesota is contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for

2000 (Public Law 106–65).

ARMY RESERVE

CALIFORNIA-LOS ALAMITOS: JOINT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

The Army Reserve is directed to accelerate the design of the

Joint Headquarters Building in Los Alamitos, California and to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002

budget request.

LOUISIANA-NEW ORLEANS: USAR CENTER/ORGANIZATIONAL

MAINTENANCE SHOP/UNHEATED STORAGE

The Committee denies funding for the Army Reserve Center in

New Orleans, Louisiana in the amount of $10,375,000 and instead

re-directs this amount for the first phase of a Joint Reserve Center

to be located at the New Orleans Naval Air Station which will include the Army Reserve. This is in line with the Department’s and

Committee’s emphasis on joint use of facilities. A multi-service reserve center can dramatically increase deployment, mobilization

and training capabilities by: (1) offering immediate access to a

major military airfield that already houses joint reserve forces and

can accommodate any aircraft in the current military and commercial inventory; (2) providing access to a current major rail line and

Mississippi River port facilities as well as joint air and base training capabilities; and, (3) providing the capability to consolidate, on

a major military airbase, the majority of guard and reserve forces

in the area.

UTAH: S.A. DOUGLAS ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER: PARKING AND

SITE IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee directs the Army Reserve to execute a project to

provide parking and site improvements at the S. A. Douglas Armed

Forces Reserve Center in Utah using funds available for unspecified minor construction. The estimated cost of this project is

$700,000.

23

NAVAL RESERVE

MASSACHUSETTS-WESTOVER AFRB: MARINE RESERVE TRAINING

FACILITY

The Military Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998

(Public Law 105–45) provided funding for the renovation of Building 1900 at the Westover Air Force Reserve Base in Massachusetts.

The project was to provide the Marine Corps Reserve with a training facility at that location. After renovation on Building 1900

started, asbestos and many other environmental problems with the

building were uncovered. Due to the escalating costs, the Marine

Corps Reserve halted the renovation project and believes it is now

more cost efficient to build a new facility. The Committee recommends funding for a new facility in this bill. Additionally, the

Committee rescinds $2,400,000 from the ‘‘Military Construction,

Naval Reserve’’ account. These are the funds which remain unobligated and available for rescission from the original renovation

project.

AIR FORCE RESERVE

FLORIDA-HOMESTEAD ARS: ADD/ALTER FIRE STATION

The Committee has recommended an additional $2,000,000 for

the completion of this project. The Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106–52) contained $2,950,000 for

the first phase of this project and authorization is contained in the

National Defense Authorization Act, 2000 (Public Law 106–65).

NEW YORK-NIAGARA FALLS IAP ARS: VISITING OFFICER QUARTERS

The Air Force Reserves is directed to accelerate the planning and

design of the Visiting Officers Quarters at the Niagara Falls International Airport and to include the required construction funding

in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT

PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $81,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 190,000,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 177,500,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. +96,500,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... ¥12,500,000

The Committee recommends a total of $177,500,000 for the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program

(NSIP). This is a decrease of $12,500,000 below the budget request

for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $96,500,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

The Committee notes that the actual fiscal year 2000 requirement for the NATO Security Investment Program was

$172,000,000. Of this amount, $91,000,000 was provided by the

Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

(Public Law 106–31).

For fiscal year 2001, the NATO nations have agreed to a funding

level of about $730,000,000. The U.S. requirement is based on a

24

cost share, which is approximately 24.7 percent. In addition to the

recommended appropriation of $177,500,000, approximately

$11,000,000 is anticipated to be available from recoupments,

deobligations, and unobligated balances brought forward.

The Committee continues to support full U.S. participation in the

NSIP program. The foreign currency fluctuation has increased the

value of the U.S. dollar against most other NATO nation’s currencies. These savings have been realized throughout other accounts in the bill and the NSIP program should be of no exception.

Therefore, the Committee has reduced the budget request by

$12,500,000 and notes that this is an increase of $5,500,000 above

the current fiscal year. This funding should be sufficient to satisfy

the Secretary’s commitments to NATO.

The Department of Defense is directed to continue to report to

the Committees on Appropriations, on a quarterly basis, the following information:

(1) NATO nations share of construction costs based on fund

authorizations;

(2) NATO nations shares of procurement costs based on fund

authorizations; and

(3) A listing of all obligations incurred that quarter broken

out by infrastructure category and procurement category. This

listing should show the total project costs, the U.S. cost share

and all other NATO nations cost shares.

NATO EXPANSION

The Committee continues the requirement that no funds will be

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

is notified 21 days in advance of the obligation of funds. In addition, the Committee’s intent is that Section 110 of the General Provisions shall apply to this program.

The Committee continues to carry a General Provision, Section

124, which prohibits the use of NSIP funds for any aspect of the

Partnership for Peace Program in the New Independent States of

the fortmer Soviet Union.

The Department of Defense is directed to identify separately the

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

FAMILY HOUSING

OVERVIEW

The Department of Defense has approximately 300,000 on-base

housing units in its inventory, with an average age of 35 years.

Two-thirds of the inventory is over 30 years old and requires a substantial annual investment to meet maintenance requirements.

Over the years, the majority of these homes have gone without adequate maintenance and repair. And over fifty percent of the inventory, or 155,889 units, is in need of major improvements or replacement at a total cost of $14,718,359,000.

The quality of housing for Service members and their families is

a critical quality of life incentive, which attracts and retains dedicated individuals to serve in the military. However, the housing deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
25

ficiencies are a severe disincentive to reenlistment. The Committee

commends the Department for making housing one of its top priorities this year and establishing a three-pronged initiative to improve military family housing, which includes the following components:

—increasing housing allowances to eliminate the out-of-pocket costs paid by Service members for off-base housing in the

United States;

—increasing reliance upon the private sector through privatization; and

—maintaining military construction funding.

The Department’s Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) plan is to

completely eliminate out-of-pocket costs paid by Service members

for off-base housing by 2005. The funding to achieve this initiative

exceeds $3,000,000,000 over the next five years. The Committee

notes that increasing the BAH will reduce the demand for on-base

housing and eliminate some of the Department’s older, high-cost

units and make better use of housing funds. The Committee directs

the Department to closely monitor the impact of this initiative on

the on-base housing requirements and ensure the Services’ family

housing master plans reflect the impact of the initiative.

The following chart provides a Service breakout of the current

family housing deficit, both in units and in cost of new construction, replacement, improvements and deferred maintenance and repair:

Deficits (current projections)

[Dollars in thousands]

New construction Replacement Improvement Grand total

Army:

Number of Units .................................................... 7,400 20,000 41,000 68,400

Costs ..................................................................... 965,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,965,000

Navy:

Number of Units .................................................... 15,600 4,200 13,600 33,400

Costs ..................................................................... 2,294,300 693,000 1,088,000 4,075,300

Marine Corps:

Number of Units .................................................... 10,731 5,611 6,278 22,620

Costs ..................................................................... 1,622,464 960,135 370,717 2,953,316

Air Force:

Number of Units .................................................... 6,000 26,700 38,500 71,200

Costs ..................................................................... 417,845 2,575,395 3,031,112 6,024,352

Total DOD:

Number of Units .................................................... 39,731 56,511 99,378 195,620

Costs ..................................................................... 5,299,609 7,228,530 7,489,829 20,017,968

CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

The Committee is concerned over the fiscal year 2001 budget request for family housing new construction and construction improvements of $709,151,000. The Department has made housing

one of its top priorities for fiscal year 2001, and one component of

its three-pronged approach to improve military family housing is to

maintain military construction funding. Yet, the budget request

represents a reduction of $24,968,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level for new construction and construction improvements.

The Committee strongly believes it is imperative that construction

26

funding levels must be maintained, along with any privatization or

basic allowance for housing efforts, to help resolve the serious family housing deficits. The Committee recommends total funding of

$820,213,000 for family housing construction and improvements for

fiscal year 2001, an increase of $111,062,000 above the budget request.

NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

The fiscal year 2001 request is $287,968,000 to build 1,656 units

of new family housing for all Services. This is $91,117,000 or 24

percent, under the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee

has approved all requested projects for new construction. In addition, the Committee has recommended an additional $103,143,000

to construct 775 units of new family housing. The total appropriation for new construction is $391,111,000. Details of the Committee’s recommendations for new construction are provided in this report under the individual component accounts. The Committee expects that none of the approved projects will be reduced in scope.

It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of the Committee, funds appropriated for a new construction project may be

transferred to the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for

the purpose of a private sector pilot project at the same location.

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

A total of $421,183,000 has been requested for post-acquisition

construction for all services to improve 4,291 housing units. Postacquisition construction is focused on modernizing existing units

that are uneconomical to repair. In addition, the Committee has

provided an additional $14,350,000 for construction improvement

projects which are listed in this report under the individual component accounts, to improve an additional 111 units. The total appropriation for post-acquisition construction is $429,102,000 and will

improve 4,402 units of family housing.

It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of the Committee, funds appropriated for a construction improvement project

may be transferred to the Defense Family Housing Improvement

Fund for the purpose of a private sector pilot project at the same

location.

The Committee continues the restriction on the amount invested

in improving foreign source housing units. The three-year limitation on overseas units is $35,000. If the components intend to program improvements to specific units, which exceed $35,000 over a

period of three years, total funding should be requested in one

year. The justification for each unit should identify all improvements and major maintenance work done in the past three years,

and all improvements and major maintenance planned in the following three years.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2001 request for operation and maintenance expenses totals $2,732,070,000, a decrease of $105,544,000 from the

27

fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,698,717,000 for fiscal year 2001. These accounts

provide for annual expenditures for maintenance and repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, leasing, interest, mortgage insurance and miscellaneous expenses. Of the total request for

operation and maintenance, $1,221,047,000 is for maintenance and

repair of existing housing, a decrease of $62,234,000 from fiscal

year 2000 levels.

The Committee directs that any savings from foreign currency

re-estimations in the family housing operation and maintenance accounts be applied for maintenance of existing family housing units.

The Comptroller is directed to report to the Committee on the allocation of this savings by December 1, 2000.

Expenditures from this account for general and flag officer quarters are to be reported in accordance with the guidelines previously

established and reiterated later in this report. The Committee also

continues the direction that the details of all other expenditures

from this account which exceed $20,000 per unit, per year for major

maintenance and repair of non-general and flag officer quarters be

included as part of the justification material. The general provision

limiting obligations from this account to no more than 20 percent

of the total in the last two months of the fiscal year is included in

this year’s bill.

The Committee continues the restriction on the transfer of funds

between the operation and maintenance accounts. The limitation is

ten percent to all primary accounts and subaccounts. Such transfers are to be reported to the Committee within thirty days of such

action.

FAMILY HOUSING MASTER PLANS

Section 128 of the bill directs that the Army, Navy, Marine Corps

and Air Force submit to the appropriate committees of Congress by

June 1, 2001, a Family Housing Master Plan demonstrating how

they plan to meet the Department’s goal to eliminate all inadequate housing by 2010 with traditional construction, demolition,

operation and maintenance support, as well as privatization initiative proposals. Each plan shall include projected life cycle costs for

family housing construction, basic allowance for housing, operation

and maintenance, demolition, other associated costs, and a time

line for housing completions each year. The Committee commends

the Air Force for recently completing its two year effort which involved installation visits to document the existing conditions of

base housing units, initially assess the feasibility of housing privatization and to produce an installation plan. The Army, Navy and

Marine Corps are directed to mirror the Air Force’s efforts.

GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER QUARTERS

Last year, the Committee learned that the Navy and Air Force

had in recent years supplemented family housing funds with the

Services regular operations and maintenance funds on general and

flag officer quarters. As a result, the Committee had no recourse

but to include a provision which statutorily prohibited the mixing

of operations and maintenance and family housing funds on genVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
28

eral and flag officer quarters. To assure there are no future occurrences of this misappropriation of funds, the Committee continues

to statutorily prohibit the mixing of these funds by including a provision (Section 127) in this bill.

In order to control expenditures for high cost quarters, the existing reporting requirements for general and flag officer quarters

continue in full force and effect. No more than $25,000 per unit can

be spent annually for the maintenance and repair of any general

and flag officer quarters without prior notification of the appropriate committees of Congress. Out of cycle notifications are prohibited unless justified as emergencies or safety related. Additionally,

the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is required to submit

an annual report detailing the total amount spent on operation and

maintenance of individual general and flag officer quarters for the

past fiscal year to the appropriate committees of Congress. Finally,

the Committee continues the notification requirement when maintenance and repair costs for change in occupancy work for a unit

will exceed the amount submitted in the budget justification by 25

percent or $5,000, whichever is less.

GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER QUARTERS: BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

Despite the existing expense thresholds and reporting requirements, the Committee is concerned the Department’s expenditures

associated with maintaining general and flag officer quarters continue to rise beyond reason. The budget proposal included numerous maintenance and repair requests in excess of $50,000 per unit

for general and flag officer quarters. Of great concern to the Committee is the lack of justification material provided with these requests. Therefore, the Services’ are prohibited from executing any

general and flag officer quarters project in excess of $50,000 per

unit until further justification is provided to the Committee. This

requirement applies to both maintenance and repair projects and

construction projects.

LEASING REPORTING REQUIREMENT

The Committee continues the reporting requirement for both domestic and foreign leases. For domestic leases (not funded by the

Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund), the Department is

directed to report quarterly on the details of all new or renewal domestic leases entered into during the previous quarter which exceed $12,000 per unit per year, including certification that less expensive housing was not available for lease. For foreign leases, the

Department is directed to: perform an economic analysis on all new

leases or lease/contract agreements where more than 25 units are

involved; report the details of any new or renewal lease exceeding

$20,000 per year (as adjusted for foreign currency fluctuation from

October 1, 1987, but not adjusted for inflation), 21 days prior to entering into such an agreement; and base leasing decisions on the

economic analysis.

29

EXCLUSION OF ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT REMOVAL FROM

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR LIMITS

The Committee continues the requirement of an after-the-fact notification where asbestos and/or lead-based paint removal costs

cause the maintenance and repair thresholds of $20,000 for a military family housing unit, or $25,000 for a General or Flag Officer

Quarters, to be exceeded. The notification shall include work,

scope, cost break-out and other details pertinent to asbestos and/

or lead-based paint removal work and shall be reported on a semiannual basis.

REPROGRAMMING CRITERIA

The reprogramming criteria that apply to military construction

projects (25 percent of the funded amount or $2,000,000, whichever

is less) also apply to new housing construction projects and to improvement projects over $2,000,000.

FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,167,012,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 1,140,381,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,152,249,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥14,763,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... +11,868,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,152,249,000 for Family

Housing, Army for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of

$11,868,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and a

decrease of $14,763,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year

2000.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $115,974,000 for new construction,

instead of $91,974,000, as requested, as shown below.

Location/project Number of units Requested Recommended

Army:

Arizona-Fort Huachuca ....................................................................... 110 $16,224,000 $16,224,000

Hawaii-Schofield Barracks ................................................................. 72 15,500,000 15,500,000

Kentucky-Fort Campbell ..................................................................... 56 7,800,000 7,800,000

Kentucky-Fort Campbell ..................................................................... 58 0 8,000,000

Maryland-Fort Detrick ........................................................................ 48 5,600,000 5,600,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg ................................................................. 112 14,600,000 14,600,000

North Carolina-Fort Bragg ................................................................. 64 0 7,400,000

South Carolina-Fort Jackson .............................................................. 1 250,000 250,000

Texas-Fort Bliss ................................................................................. 64 10,200,000 10,200,000

Virginia-Fort Lee ................................................................................ 51 0 8,600,000

Korea-Camp Humphreys .................................................................... 60 21,800,000 21,800,000

Subtotal, Army ............................................................................... 696 91,974,000 115,974,000

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

The following projects are to be accomplished within the amount

provided for construction improvements:

30

Location/project Number of units Requested Recommended

Alaska-Fort Wainwright ............................................................................... 28 $7,200,000 $7,200,000

California-Fort Irwin .................................................................................... 28 0 4,700,000

District of Columbia-Fort McNair ............................................................... 8 1,300,000 1,300,000

Missouri-Fort Leonard Wood ....................................................................... 56 0 4,150,000

New York-United States Military Academy ................................................. 59 9,100,000 9,100,000

Virginia-Fort Belvoir .................................................................................... 148 14,000,000 14,000,000

Virginia-Fort Belvoir .................................................................................... 27 0 5,500,000

Germany-Ansbach ....................................................................................... 42 4,200,000 4,200,000

Germany-Wiesbaden AB .............................................................................. 144 13,200,000 13,200,000

Germany-Wuerzburg .................................................................................... 64 6,300,000 6,300,000

Germany-Heidelberg .................................................................................... 276 8,200,000 8,200,000

Korea-Yongsan ............................................................................................ 1 90,000 90,000

Total, Army .................................................................................... 881 63,590,000 77,940,000

FIRE SUPPRESSION

The Committee is concerned over the response of the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment to questions raised about the fire safety in the stairwell apartments in

Germany. It is not acceptable to wait for future renovations to install additional smoke detectors, alarms and fire extinguishers in

the common areas of stairwells. In addition, the Committee sees no

reason to wait until fiscal year 2002 to include fire suppression

sprinkler systems in apartment renovations in Germany. The Committee considers this fire safety issue of utmost importance and

therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that smoke

detectors, alarms and fire extinguishers are installed in all common

areas of stairwell apartments in Germany within sixty days of enactment of this Act. And, all construction improvement projects in

Germany which have previously been appropriated and under construction and those included in the fiscal year 2001 program shall

be equipped with fire suppression sprinkler systems. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the Committee on Appropriations the actions taken to correct these deficiencies within thirty days after enactment of this Act.

FAMILY HOUSING OFFICE—MONS, BELGIUM

The Committee is concerned over the availability of housing for

U.S. personnel assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium. In addition,

there is no U.S. housing office to assist personnel in locating housing on the economy. U.S. personnel must go through a highly inefficient allied office that is extremely complicated and not very helpful. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army is directed to establish a

housing office at SHAPE which finds suitable homes, makes arrangements with owners, and facilitates the process for U.S. personnel. In addition, this office would serve as the liaison with the

SHAPE housing office on behalf of U.S. personnel.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The request of $978,275,000 has been reduced by $6,571,000. It is the Committee’s intent that the appropriation of $397,792,000

for the maintenance of real property not be reduced. If the need

arises for additional funding within the account, the Committee enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
31

courages the Army to submit a prior approval reprogramming request.

FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,232,541,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 1,245,460,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,298,792,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 total appropriation ................................................. +66,251,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. +53,332,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,298,792,000 for Family

Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. This is an

increase of $53,332,000 above the budget request for fiscal year

2001, and an increase of $66,251,000 above the total appropriation

for fiscal year 2000.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $213,720,000 for new construction,

instead of $159,317,000, as requested, as shown below.

Location/project Number of units Request Recommended

Navy:

California-Camp Pendleton ................................................................ 98 0 $8,600,000

California-Lemoore Naval Air Station ................................................ 160 27,768,000 27,768,000

California-Lemoore Naval Air Station ................................................ 100 0 20,103,000

California-Twentynine Palms ............................................................. 79 13,923,000 13,923,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex ................................................. 98 22,230,000 22,230,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex ................................................. 62 14,237,000 14,237,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex ................................................. 112 23,654,000 23,654,000

Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marines Corps Base ........................................ 84 21,910,000 21,910,000

Louisiana-New Orleans Naval Complex ............................................. 100 0 5,000,000

Maine-Brunswick Naval Air Station ................................................... 168 18,722,000 18,722,000

Mississippi-Gulfport Naval Constr Battalion Center ......................... 157 0 20,700,000

Washington-Whidbey Island Naval Air Station .................................. 98 16,873,000 16,873,000

Subtotal, Navy ............................................................................... 1,316 159,317,000 213,720,000

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

The following projects are to be accomplished within the amount

provided for construction improvements:

Location/Project Number of Units Recommended

California-San Diego CNB ....................................................................................................... 347 $27,123,000

California-Camp Pendleton MCB ............................................................................................. 332 24,969,000

Connecticut-New London NSB ................................................................................................. 111 10,429,000

Connecticut-New London NSB ................................................................................................. 184 18,694,000

District of Columbia-Marine Barracks, 8th & I ...................................................................... 1 223,000

District of Columbia-Marine Barracks, 8th & I ...................................................................... 1 178,000

District of Columbia-Marine Barracks, 8th & I ...................................................................... 1 190,000

Hawaii-Pearl Harbor CNB ........................................................................................................ 12 2,729,000

Illinois-Great Lakes PWC ......................................................................................................... 180 23,293,000

Maryland-US Naval Academy .................................................................................................. 7 2,654,000

Maryland-Patuxent River NAS .................................................................................................. 17 822,000

New Jersey-Lakehurst NAES ..................................................................................................... 72 7,759,000

Tennessee-Memphis NSA ......................................................................................................... 250 10,892,000

Virginia-Norfolk CNB ................................................................................................................ 125 9,318,000

Virginia-Norfolk CNB ................................................................................................................ 308 18,617,000

Washington-Whidbey Island NAS ............................................................................................. 28 1,851,000

Iceland-Keflavik NAS ............................................................................................................... 44 9,016,000

Japan-Yokosuka ....................................................................................................................... 96 11,884,000

32

Location/Project Number of Units Recommended

Japan-Iwakuni MCAS ............................................................................................................... 132 873,000

Japan-Iwakuni MCAS ............................................................................................................... 44 2,033,000

Total, Navy ................................................................................................................. 2,292 183,547,000

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS

Due to the unfavorable fluctuations in exchange rates of some

foreign currencies, the Committee has provided an additional

$2,359,000 for Navy construction improvements.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—MARINE CORPS BARRACKS

A general provision, Section 130, is included which authorizes

the use of private funds for the construction, improvement, repair,

and maintenance of the historic residences located at Marine Corps

Barracks, 8th and I Street, Washington, D.C. The Secretary of the

Navy is to notify the appropriate committees of Congress thirty

days in advance of the intended use of such funds.

FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $1,167,848,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 1,049,754,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,062,263,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥105,585,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... +12,509,000

The Committee recommends a total of $1,062,263,000 for Family

Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of

$12,509,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and a

decrease of $105,585,000 above the total appropriation for fiscal

year 2000.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $61,417,000 for new construction,

instead of $36,677,000 as requested, as shown below.

Location/Project Number of Units Request Recommended

Air Force:

California-Edwards AFB ..................................................................... 57 0 $9,870,000

California-Travis AFB ......................................................................... 64 0 9,870,000

District of Columbia-Bolling AFB ...................................................... 136 $17,137,000 17,137,000

Nevada-Nellis AFB ............................................................................. 26 0 5,000,000

North Dakota-Cavalier ....................................................................... 2 443,000 443,000

North Dakota-Minot AFB .................................................................... 134 19,097,000 19,097,000

Subtotal, Air Force ......................................................................... 419 36,677,000 61,417,000

CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

The following projects are to be accomplished within the amount

provided for construction improvements:

Location/Project Number of Units Recommended

Alaska-Elmendorf AFB 1 ........................................................................................................... ........................ $1,127,000

Arizona-Luke AFB 1 ................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,109,000

Arkansas-Little Rock AFB 2 ...................................................................................................... 1,535 2,000,000

33

Location/Project Number of Units Recommended

California-Vandenberg AFB 2 ................................................................................................... 506 7,013,000

Colorado-Peterson AFB 1 .......................................................................................................... ........................ 721,000

District of Columbia-Bolling AFB ............................................................................................ 3 216,000

Georgia-Moody AFB 2 ................................................................................................................ 696 8,401,000

Louisiana-Barksdale AFB 1 ...................................................................................................... ........................ 513,000

Massachusetts-Hanscom AFB ................................................................................................. 100 711,000

Missouri-Whiteman AFB 1 ........................................................................................................ ........................ 470,000

Nebraska-Offutt AFB 2 ............................................................................................................. 2,580 14,982,000

North Carolina-Pope AFB 1 ....................................................................................................... ........................ 919,000

North Dakota-Cavalier AS ........................................................................................................ 12 426,000

Oklahoma-Tinker AFB .............................................................................................................. 144 7,741,000

South Carolina-Charleston AFB 2 ............................................................................................. 488 2,000,000

Tennessee-Arnold AFB ............................................................................................................. 40 1,007,000

Utah-Hill AFB 2 ......................................................................................................................... 1,116 11,271,000

Utah-Hill AFB ........................................................................................................................... 8 1,011,000

Germany-Ramstein AB ............................................................................................................. 434 45,813,000

Germany-Spangdahlem AB ...................................................................................................... 162 15,342,000

Japan-Kadena AB .................................................................................................................... 52 9,074,000

Korea-Osan AB ......................................................................................................................... 10 2,169,000

United Kingdom-RAF Fairford .................................................................................................. 106 10,923,000

United Kingdom-RAF Lakenheath ............................................................................................ 158 15,910,000

United Kingdom-RAF Molesworth ............................................................................................ 130 13,177,000

Subtotal, Air Force ..................................................................................................... 8,280 174,046,000

1 Site improvements.

2 Privatization request.

AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

The budget request recommends six additional privatization

projects affecting 6,921 units with a total appropriation of

$45,667,000 at six locations: Charleston AFB, South Carolina; Hill

AFB, Utah; Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; Moody AFB, Georgia;

Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Vandenberg AFB, California. The Committee’s recommendation of appropriations for these projects in no

way constitutes approval of privatization projects at these locations. The Air Force is reminded that the existing notification and

approval process still applies for these six projects.

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $41,490,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 44,886,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 44,886,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. +3,396,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... 0

The Committee recommends a total of $44,886,000 for Family

Housing, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2001. This is equal to the

budget request for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $3,396,000

above the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $2,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 0

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 0

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. ¥2,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... 0

34

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year

2001. This is equal to the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and

$2,000,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

OVERVIEW

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

(P.L. 104–106) addressed the family housing crisis by authorizing

a five year private sector pilot project to replace or renovate approximately 200,000 units of family housing within the United

States, its territories and possessions, and in Puerto Rico, but not

overseas. The Privatization Initiative provides the military services

with several authorities designed to leverage appropriated housing

construction funds and government-owned assets to attract private

investment in military family housing. Authority was granted to:

guarantee mortgage payments and rental contracts to developers

as incentives to build family housing; authorize commercial-style

lease agreements for family housing; and engage in joint ventures

with developers to construct family housing on government property.

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

authorization, and utilizing private capital and expertise to the

maximum extent possible. The Fund is to contain appropriated and

transferred funds from family housing construction accounts, and

the total value in budget authority of all contracts and investments

undertaken may not exceed $850,000,000. Proceeds from investments, leases, and conveyances are to be deposited into this Fund,

and any use of the Fund is subject to annual appropriations. The

Family Housing Improvement Fund is to be administered as a single account without fiscal year limitations. This authority to enter

into contracts and partnerships and to make investments shall expire in February 2001. The Committee supports the requested statutory change to extend the initiative for an additional five years.

The Department of Defense intends to privatize approximately

40,000 housing units by December 2001. While the Committee supports the extension of the authority for this program it continues

to believe this is a pilot program. It is the Committee’s intent that

several projects need to be completed to review the success of this

program prior to privatizing additional housing units. Following is

the latest quarterly report on the status of these projects.

MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE—HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REPORT TO CONGRESS

[April 2000 quarterly report]

Installation Scope* Notify Congress

solicitation

Notify Congress selectionDeal closing/con- tract award

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Ft Carson ................................................................ 2,663 ............... Sep—96 Sep—99 Sep—99

CDMP Subject to OSD Approval

Ft Hood ................................................................... 6,631** ........... Dec—98 Jan—00 Nov—00

Ft Lewis .................................................................. 3,955** ........... Nov—99 May—00 Nov—00

Ft Meade ................................................................. 3,170** ........... Mar—00 Oct—00 Apr—00

35

MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE—HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REPORT TO CONGRESS—

Continued

[April 2000 quarterly report]

Installation Scope* Notify Congress

solicitation

Notify Congress

selection

Deal closing/contract award

AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Lackland AFB .......................................................... 420 .................. Sep—96 May—98 Aug—98

Robins AFB ............................................................. 670 .................. Oct—98 Jun—00 Jul—00

Patrick AFB ............................................................. 960 .................. Jul—00 Dec—00 Jan—01

Dyess AFB ............................................................... 402 .................. Jun—99 Jul—00 Sep—00

Elmendorf AFB ........................................................ 828 .................. Dec—98 Jun—00 Jul—00

Kirtland AFB ........................................................... 1,890 ............... May—00 Oct—00 Nov—00

Dover AFB ............................................................... 450 .................. Aug—00 Dec—00 Jan—01

Subject to OSD Approval

Wright-Patterson AFB ............................................. 1,536 ............... Jun—00 Dec—00 Jan—01

McGuire AFB Ft Dix ................................................ 900 .................. On Hold On Hold On Hold

Tinker AFB .............................................................. 730 .................. On Hold On Hold On Hold

Goodfellow AFB ....................................................... 198 .................. Jun—00 Nov—00 Jan—01

Little Rock AFB ....................................................... 1,535 ............... Sep—00 Feb—01 Mar—01

Vandenberg AFB ..................................................... 506 .................. Sep—00 Mar—01 Apr—01

Moody AFB .............................................................. 696 .................. Sep—00 Feb—01 Mar—01

Offutt AFB ............................................................... 2,580 ............... Oct—00 May—01 Jun—01

Charleston AFB ....................................................... 488 .................. Nov—00 Jun—01 Jul—01

Hill AFB ................................................................... 1,116 ............... Dec—00 Jul—01 Aug—01

NAVY FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Corpus Christi ........................................................ 404 .................. .......................... May—96 Jul—96

Everett .................................................................... 185 .................. .......................... Oct—96 Mar—97

Everett II ................................................................. 300 .................. Oct—98 Jun—00 Aug—00

Kingsville II ............................................................. 150 .................. Oct—98 Jun—00 Jul—00

San Diego ............................................................... 3,248 ............... Nov—98 Jan—01 Mar—01

South Texas ............................................................ 812 .................. Nov—98 Feb—01 Apr—01

NAS New Orleans ................................................... 763 .................. Dec—98 Jan—01 Mar—01

Subject to OSD Approval

Hampton Roads ...................................................... 80 .................... TBD TBD TBD

MARINE CORPS FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

MCLB Albany .......................................................... 114 .................. Jan—98 Nov—00 Dec—00

Camp Pendleton ..................................................... 712 .................. Oct—98 Aug—00 Sep—00

Stewart Army Subpost ............................................ 200 .................. Feb—00 Sep—01 Oct—01

Subject to OSD Approval

MCAS Beaufort/Parris Isle ...................................... 684 .................. Jun—00 Nov—01 Dec—01

*Total estimated project units at project award.

**Maximum possible project units (current inventory plus deficit).

CONTRACTOR SUPPORT FOR FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

The Committee is concerned about the Army spending excessive

amounts on contractor support to evaluate and develop family

housing privatization proposals. Therefore, the Committee is directing the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense (Installations) to quarterly review, and report to the appropriate Committees of Congress, the expenses of each Component to ensure excessive

amounts are not being spent on contractor support.

To clarify the Committee’s position with respect to these costs in

the future, amounts appropriated into the Family Housing Improvement Fund will be the sole source of funds to finance the operation of the former Housing Revitalization Support Office. Family

Housing Operations and Maintenance will be the sole source of

funds to develop, evaluate, and oversee privatization deals; howVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
36

ever, these funds will be separately identified and justified as a

sub-element of the Family Housing Operation account similar to

management. Further this sub-element is considered a congressional interest item and may not be increased from the amount enacted without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee is concerned that the 21-day period of review

prior to entering a privatization contract is too limited, and is extending this review period to a 45-day period. The Service Secretary concerned may not enter into any contract until after the

end of the 45-day period beginning on the date the Secretary concerned submits written notice of the nature and terms of the contract to the appropriate committees of Congress.

To clarify existing reporting requirements, this 45-day notification requirement applies to any project, regardless of whether it is

financed entirely by transfer of funds into the Family Housing Improvement Fund, or it is fully financed within funds available in

the Family Housing Improvement Fund, or it is funded by combining transferred funds with funds available in the Family Housing Improvement Fund.

In addition, no transfer of appropriated funds into the account

may take place until after the end of the 45-day period beginning

on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written notice and

justification for the transfer to the appropriate committees of Congress. The Appropriations Committee expects to receive prior notification of all such transfers of funds.

The Department is to continue its quarterly reports on the status

of privatization projects.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 0

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 0

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. 0

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... 0

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Homeowners Assistance Fund. This is equal to the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and equal to the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

Requirements for fiscal year 2000 were financed by a prior year

carryover, revenue, and transfers from other accounts.

The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving

fund which finances a program for providing assistance to homeowners by reducing their losses incident to the disposal of their

homes when military installations at or near where they are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope of operations

is reduced. The Fund was established in recognition of the fact that

base closure and reduction actions can have serious economic effects on local communities. The Fund receives funding from several

sources: appropriations, borrowing authority, reimbursable authorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
37

ity, prior fiscal year unobligated balances, revenue from sale of acquired properties, and recovery of prior year obligations.

The total estimated requirements for fiscal year 2001 are esti- mated at $29,323,000 and will be funded with transfers from the

Base Realignment and Closure account, revenue from sales of acquired property, and prior year unobligated balances.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

OVERVIEW

The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of $20,110,739,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure program for

fiscal years 1990 through 2000. In the bill for fiscal year 2001, the

Committee is recommending total funding of $1,174,369,000 under

one account, as requested. These funds are necessary to ensure closure schedules can be met and anticipated savings will be realized.

In addition, funding is essential for accelerated cleanup which is

necessary for reuse of surplus properties and future job creation.

The Committee, in appropriating such funds, has provided the

Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by Service, by

function and by base. The Committee, in recognizing the complexities of realigning and closing bases and providing for environmental restoration, has provided such flexibility to allow the Office

of the Secretary of Defense to monitor the program execution of the

Services and to redistribute unobligated balances as appropriate to

avoid delays and to effect timely execution of realignment and closures along with environmental restoration.

The following table displays the total amount appropriated for

each round of base closure including amounts recommended for fiscal year 2001:

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2001]

Fiscal year 1990

through fiscal year

1999

Fiscal year 2000

enacted

Fiscal year 2001

recommended Total

Part I .............................................................. $2,672,830,000 N/A N/A $2,672,830,000

Part II ............................................................. 5,274,316,000 N/A N/A 5,274,316,000

Part III ............................................................ 7,167,799,000 N/A N/A 7,167,799,000

Part IV ............................................................ 4,323,483,000 672,311,000 1,174,369,000 6,170,163,000

Total .................................................. 19,438,428,000 672,311,000 1,174,369,000 21,285,108,000

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment and

Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have appropriated a net total of $20,110,739,000 for the entire program for fiscal years 1990 through 2000. Within this total, the Department has

allocated $5,994,179,000 for activities associated with environmental restoration.

The Committee is concerned that the design and cost of environmental restoration efforts should be tailored to match the proposed

re-use of an installation in order to assure that costs are reasonable and affordable. Therefore, the Committee continues to recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:04 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR614
38

ommend statutory language to establish a ceiling on the level of

funding for environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense determines additional obligations are necessary and notifies

the Committees on Appropriations of his determination and the

necessary reasons for the increase.

The following table displays the statutory ceiling established by

the Committee and is equal to the Department’s execution plan for

fiscal year 2001.

Account Total program

Ceiling on

environmental restoration

year costs

BRAC IV ............................................................................................................................... 1,174,369,000 865,318,000

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to devote the

maximum amount of resources to actual cleanup and, to the greatest extent possible, to limit resources expended on administration,

support, studies, and investigations.

CALIFORNIA: EAST FORT BAKER

The Army shall select and perform cleanup activities at East

Fort Baker in accordance with appropriate state and federal laws,

and provide a timetable for such activities. In accordance with

CERCLA, the Army shall consider National Park Service reuse

plans for the site. The Army shall also provide adequate funding

for the cleanup process in order to ensure a timely transfer of the

site to the National Park Service.

CALIFORNIA—HUNTERS POINT NAVAL SHIPYARD

The Committee remains seriously concerned over the lack of

progress made by the Navy in proceeding with remediation of

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, which was closed by the Navy in

1991. Since that time, the Navy has failed to fully implement all

response actions necessary for the clean-up of this Superfund site,

leaving revitalization plans adopted by the Bayview-Hunters Point

community and the City from proceeding in a timely manner.

The Committee directs the Navy, in conveying parcels of Hunters

Point to the City, to take all necessary steps, funding and otherwise, to ensure the timely remediation of hazardous materials on

these parcels to a level that permits the full range of uses designated in the City’s adopted redevelopment plan.

Until such time as agreement with the City over conveyance are

complete, the Department of the Navy shall continue to provide

adequate public protection services to the property, including police

and fire services. The Secretary of the Navy is directed to report

to the Committee no later than January 15, 2001 on the status of

the conveyance and remediation of the property.

CALIFORNIA-RIO VISTA RESERVE CENTER: CLEANUP EFFORTS AND

ASBESTOS REMEDIATION

The Rio Vista Reserve Center consists of approximately 28.8

acres and includes 22 wood frame buildings. The majority of these

buildings contain asbestos. The Rio Vista Reuse Plan envisions removal/demolition of all currently existing structures on the propVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:22 May 12, 2000 Jkt 064278 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR614.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR614
39

erty. The Secretary of the Army is directed to report to the Committee no later than September 15, 2000 on the plans for building

demolition at the installation, including the required funding, funding source, and estimated dates for completion of such activities.

TEXAS—REESE AIR FORCE BASE: BUILDING DEMOLITION

The Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Bill (Public Law 106–52) directed

the Air Force to submit a report to Congress on plans for demolition at Reese AFB in Texas, including funding and estimated dates

for completion. The report submitted to Congress states, it would

be acceptable to the Air Force to fund the demolition of identified

buildings over a four-year period. The Committee directs the Air

Force to complete this work using any unexpired funds appropriated under the ‘‘Base Realignment and Closure’’ account.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TASK FORCE

The Defense Environmental Response Task Force (DERTF) was

established in fiscal year 1991 to report on ways to improve interagency coordination and to improve and streamline policies and

procedures relating to environmental response actions at closing installations. Since all closures resulting from Defense Base Closure

and Realignment Commission decisions will be completed by July

13, 2001, the Committee believes that the mission of the DERTF

will be completed by that time and that no further meetings of the

DERTF are necessary.

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee agrees that any transfer of funds which exceeds

reprogramming thresholds for any construction project financed by

any Base Realignment and Closure Account shall be subject to a

21-day notification to the Committees, and shall not be subject to

reprogramming procedure.

In order to avoid additional interest payments and delays, cost

increases that are solely the result of a negotiated or an adjudicated settlement of any contractor claim shall be subject to an

after the fact notification.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

The Department of Defense has requested a total of $12,800,000

within the fiscal year 2001 budget request for one Air Force construction project funded under the Base Realignment and Closure

Account, Part IV. The Committee recommends full funding for the

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Complex at Fort Sam

Houston, Texas.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Department of Defense is required to notify the appropriate

Committees of Congress 21 days prior to the initiation of any new

project which has not been included in the Department’s budget request for the current (or any previous) fiscal year. If the Department wishes to finance a previously approved prior year project in

the current fiscal year, no notification is required.

40

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE, PART I

The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 was the last year for

appropriations into this account.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE, PART II

The Committee notes that fiscal year 1998 was the last year for

appropriations into this account.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE, PART III

The Committee notes that fiscal year 1999 was the last year for

appropriations into this account.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE, PART IV

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .......................................................... $672,311,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 1,174,369,000

Committee recommendation in the bill ............................................ 1,174,369,000

Comparison with:

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation .................................................. +502,058,000

Fiscal year 2001 estimate ........................................................... 0

The Committee recommends a total of $1,174,369,000 for Base

Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 2001. This is

equal to the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

$502,058,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Below is the recommended distribution of funds:

Military Construction ............................................................................ $12,800,000

Family Housing ...................................................................................... 0

Environmental ....................................................................................... 865,318,000

Operations and Maintenance ................................................................ 293,723,000

Military Personnel (PCS) ...................................................................... 5,419,000

Other ....................................................................................................... 862,000

Revenues ................................................................................................. (7,817,000)

Homeowner’s Assistance Program ........................................................ 4,064,000

Total .................................................................................................... $1,174,369,000

CHANGES IN APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3 (f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities which require annual authorization or additional

legislation, which to date has not been enacted.

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law.

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for

more than one year for some programs for which the basic authority legislation does not presently authorize such extended availability.

A provision of the ‘‘Military Construction, Naval Reserve’’ account which rescinds $2,400,000 from Public Law 106–52.

41

A provision of the ‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ account

which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to other

accounts for military construction or family housing.

A provision of the ‘‘Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV’’ states that not more than $865,318,000 of the funds appropriated shall be available solely for environmental restoration.

Section 101 of the General Provisions states that none of the

funds appropriated in Military Construction Appropriations Acts

shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed $25,000, to be

performed within the United States, except Alaska, without the

specific approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense.

Section 102 of the General Provisions permits use of funds for

hire of passenger motor vehicles.

Section 103 of the General Provisions permits use of funds for

Defense Access Roads.

Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits construction of

new bases inside the continental United States for which specific

appropriations have not been made.

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

purchase of land or land easements.

Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of funds

to acquire land, prepare a site, or install utilities for any family

housing except housing for which funds have been made available.

Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of minor construction funds to transfer or relocate activities among installations.

Section 108 of the General Provisions prohibits the procurement

of steel unless American producers, fabricators, and manufacturers

have been allowed to compete.

Section 109 of the General Provisions prohibits payment of real

property taxes in foreign nations.

Section 110 of the General Provisions prohibits construction of

new bases overseas without prior notification.

Section 111 of the General Provisions establishes a threshold for

American preference of $500,000 relating to architect and engineer

services in Japan, in any NATO member country, and in the Arabian Gulf.

Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes preference for

American contractors for military construction in the United States

territories and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or

in the Arabian Gulf, except bids by Marshallese contractors for

military construction on Kwajalein Atoll.

Section 113 of the General Provisions requires the Secretary of

Defense to give prior notice to Congress of military exercises involving construction in excess of $100,000.

Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations during

the last two months of the fiscal year.

Section 115 of the General Provisions permits funds appropriated

in prior years to be available for construction authorized during the

current session of Congress.

Section 116 of the General Provisions permits the use of expired

or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any project being

completed with lapsed funds.

42

Section 117 of the General Provisions permits obligation of funds

from more than one fiscal year to execute a construction project,

provided that the total obligation for such project is consistent with

the total amount appropriated for the project.

Section 118 of the General Provisions allows expired funds to be

transferred to the ‘‘Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Construction,

Defense’’ account.

Section 119 of the General Provisions directs the Secretary of Defense to report annually regarding the specific actions to be taken

during the current fiscal year to encourage other member nations

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Japan, Korea, and

United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share

of the common defense burden.

Section 120 of the General Provisions allows transfer of proceeds

from ‘‘Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I’’ to the continuing Base Realignment and Closure accounts.

Section 121 of the General Provisions prohibits expenditure of

funds except in compliance with the Buy American Act.

Section 122 of the General Provisions states the Sense of the

Congress notifying recipients of equipment or products authorized

to be purchased with financial assistance provided in this Act to

purchase American-made equipment and products.

Section 123 of the General Provisions permits the transfer of

funds from Family Housing, Construction accounts to the DOD

Family Housing Improvement Fund.

Section 124 of the General Provisions prohibits the obligation of

funds for Partnership for Peace Programs in the New Independent

States of the former Soviet Union.

Section 125 of the General Provisions requires the Secretary of

Defense to notify congressional defense committees of all family

housing privatization solicitations and agreement which contain

any clause providing consideration for base realignment and closure, force reductions, and extended deployments.

Section 126 of the General Provisions provides transfer authority

to the Homeowners Assistance Program.

Section 127 of the General Provisions requires that all Military

Construction Acts be the sole source of all operation and maintenance for flag and general officer quarter houses and limits the repair on these quarters of $25,000 per year.

Section 128 of the General Provisions directs that the Army,

Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force submit to the appropriate committees of Congress by June 1, 2001, a Family Housing Master

Plan.

Section 129 of the General Provisions allows the transfer of funds

appropriated in Public Law 106–52 under the heading ‘‘Military

Construction, Naval Reserve’’ to ‘‘Military Construction, Navy’’.

Section 130 of the General Provisions allows the use of private

funds for the construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance

of the historic residences located at the Marine Corps Barracks, 8th

and I Streets, Washington, D.C.

The Committee recommends deleting the following General Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 106–52), because these

43

provisions are no longer required [section numbers refer to sections

contained in Public Law 105–237]:

Section 127 requiring a report on the adequacy of special education facilities for DoD family members. Section 129 which

amends the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act to

allow the transfer of funds to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. Section 131 which restricts construction of chemical demilitarization facilities at the Bluegrass

Army Depot, KY, until reporting requirements are met.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

Military Construction, Army

Military Construction, Navy

Military Construction, Air Force

Military Construction, Defense-wide

Military Construction, Army National Guard

Military Construction, Air National Guard

Military Construction, Army Reserve

Military Construction, Naval Reserve

Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment

Program

Family Housing, Construction, Army

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Army

Family Housing, Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine

Corps

Family Housing, Construction, Air Force

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

Family Housing, Construction, Defense-wide

Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide

Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, a statement is required describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. Sections 115, 118, 120, 123, 126,

and 129 of the General Provisions, and language included under

‘‘Military Construction, Defense-wide’’ provide certain transfer authority.

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends a rescission of $2,400,000, from Public Law 106–52,

under ‘‘Military Construction, Naval Reserve’’.

44

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

Appropriations contained in this bill are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution

COMPARISONS WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section of 302(a) allocation.

[In millions of dollars]

302(b) allocation This bill—

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary ................................................................... 8,634 8,684 8,634 8,625

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

ADVANCE SPENDING AUTHORITY

This bill provides no advance spending authority.

FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION OF OUTLAYS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying

bill:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget authority, fiscal year 2001 .................................................... $8,634,000

Outlays:

2001 .............................................................................................. 2,524,000

2002 .............................................................................................. 3,144,000

2003 .............................................................................................. 1,744,000

2004 .............................................................................................. 688,000

2005 and beyond .......................................................................... 501,000

45

The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax expenditures,

direct loan obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments

under existing law.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

New budget authority ........................................................................ 0

Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 0

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of the rule XIII of the

House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an

amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of

those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

There were no recorded votes.

STATE LIST

The following is a complete listing, by State and country, of the

Committee’s recommendations for military construction and family

housing projects:

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

64

65

66

67

68