[House Report 105-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-150
_______________________________________________________________________
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998
_______
June 24, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Packard, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2016]
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, 1998.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Committee Recommendation.............................. 2
Conformance with Authorization Bill.............................. 3
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing.................. 3
Child Development Centers........................................ 5
Hospital and Medical Facilities.................................. 6
Environmental Compliance Projects................................ 6
Crumbling Infrastructure......................................... 7
National Foreign Intelligence Program............................ 8
Unified Design Guidance.......................................... 8
Proposed Financing via Prior Year Savings........................ 9
Real Property Maintenance........................................ 9
Vision 21........................................................ 9
Bold Venture..................................................... 10
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 10
Program, Project and Activity.................................... 10
Planning and Budgeting........................................... 11
Military Construction:
Army......................................................... 11
Navy......................................................... 14
Air Force.................................................... 16
Defense-wide................................................. 17
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund................................... 19
Reserve Components........................................... 21
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 24
Family Housing Overview.......................................... 25
Family Housing:
Army......................................................... 30
Navy......................................................... 31
Air Force.................................................... 32
Defense-wide................................................. 33
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............ 34
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.............................. 35
Base Realignment and Closure:
Overview..................................................... 36
Part I....................................................... 42
Part II...................................................... 42
Part III..................................................... 43
Part IV...................................................... 44
General Provisions............................................... 44
Changes in Application of Existing Law........................... 46
Compliance with Rule XIII--Clause 3.............................. 48
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law............................. 48
Transfer of Funds................................................ 49
Rescission of Funds.............................................. 49
Constitutional Authority......................................... 49
Comparisons with Budget Resolution............................... 49
Advance Spending Authority....................................... 49
Five-Year Projection of Outlays.................................. 49
Financial Assistance............................................. 50
State List....................................................... 50
Summary of Committee Recommendation
The Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget request of
$8,383,248,000 represents a decrease of $1,410,061,000, or 14
percent, from the fiscal year 1997 appropriation of
$9,793,309,000. 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, the Administration has committed
itself to a serious barracks revitalization program. Yet, the
request for barracks construction is $109,063,000 below last
year's appropriation. And, family housing construction and
operation and maintenance accounts are reduced by $386,036,000.
The budget request would provide $680,011,000 for family
housing construction, a reduction of $300,256,000 from current
levels. Of this amount, $317,665,000 is requested for
construction of new family housing units, a reduction of
$188,743,000, or 37 percent, from current spending. And, the
request for improvements to existing family housing units is
reduced by $112,579,000, or 26 percent from the current
program. In addition, the budget request would reduce
maintenance of family housing units a total of $99,675,000.
The lack of funding commitment by the Administration's
proposal is especially of concern due to 62 percent of troop
housing spaces and 64 percent of family housing units are
currently unsuitable. The Department of Defense estimates the
cost of correcting these deficiencies to be roughly
$40,000,000,000.
The Committee believes it is imperative to address the
severe backlog in readiness, revitalization and quality of life
projects. The Committee has recommended an additional
$799,752,000 above the Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget
request to fund the planning and construction of several
barracks, family housing and operational facilities. Included
in this additional funding is:
--$109,370,000 for 10 additional unaccompanied housing
projects;
--$277,657,000 for new construction and improvements to
family housing units, benefitting approximately 2,208
military families;
--$21,430,000 for 4 child development centers;
--$324,350,000 for operational and training facilities for
the active components; and,
--$139,719,000 for operational, training, environmental
compliance and safety related activities for the
reserve components.
The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 1998 is
$9,183,000,000, a reduction of $610,309,000, or six percent,
from fiscal year 1997 funding and an increase of $799,752,000
above the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Conformance with Authorization Bill
The House National Security Committee has reported the
National Defense Authorization Act for 1998 (H.R. 1119), which
contains authorization for the military construction, family
housing and base realignment and closure accounts included in
this bill. Because Senate and conference action on the
authorization had not been completed at the time this bill was
prepared, the Committee is considering only projects
recommended for authorization. All projects included in this
bill are approved subject to authorization.
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing
The Department of Defense estimates that 42 percent of the
enlisted force and 28 percent of the officers are single or
unaccompanied personnel. Although 30 percent live in private
off-base housing, the Department has over 405,000 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 40 years. And, over
100,000 spaces are still serviced by gang latrines. Of the
total inventory approximately 62% 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.
The following chart, compiled by the Department of Defense,
provides a breakout by Service of the deficit of new
construction, replacement and renovation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New
construction Replacement Renovation Total
deficit deficit deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army....................................................... 11,777 37,569 49,014 98,360
Navy....................................................... 25,000 5,500 30,000 60,500
Air Force.................................................. 16,800 39,400 16,900 73,100
Marine Corps............................................... 11,005 10,447 33,016 54,468
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 64,582 92,916 128,930 286,428
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimates with approximately 238,000
unaccompanied permanent party personnel housed in barracks with
open bay, gang latrine, or three-per-room configurations, and
with the average cost to construct a new ``1 plus 1'' barracks
space estimated at $60,000, approximately $14,280,000,000 is
necessary to buy out this deficit. It will take over twenty
years to implement the ``1 plus 1'' standard and achieve
desired end states.
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 National Security 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 1998 barracks request
The Department of Defense has requested $642,701,000 to
construct or modernize 39 barracks in fiscal year 1998. This is
a reduction of $109,063,000 from the enacted fiscal year 1997
appropriation. The Committee strongly supports a steady flow of
funding to rectify the housing situation and directs the
Department to maintain current funding levels in its fiscal
year 1999 budget request.
The Committee has approved the request of $642,701,000 in
full. In order to maintain current funding levels and to help
alleviate the deficit, an additional $109,370,000 is
recommended. The locations were determined by service
priorities and all projects are capable of construction during
fiscal year 1998. The total appropriation for unaccompanied
housing recommended in this bill is $752,071,000.
The following troop housing construction projects are
recommended for fiscal year 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Fort Huachuca, Arizona.............. 20,000,000 20,000,000
Fort Gordon, Georgia................ 22,000,000 22,000,000
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field,
Georgia............................ 0 17,500,000
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.......... 44,000,000 44,000,000
Fort Riley, Kansas.................. 18,500,000 18,500,000
Fort Campbell, Kentucky............. 37,000,000 37,000,000
Fort Knox, Kentucky................. 22,000,000 22,000,000
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.......... 0 9,800,000
Fort Sill, Oklahoma................. 0 8,000,000
Fort Sam Houston, Texas............. 16,000,000 16,000,000
Fort Myer, Virginia................. 8,200,000 8,200,000
Fort Lewis, Washington.............. 31,000,000 31,000,000
Ansbach, Germany.................... 22,000,000 22,000,000
Heidelberg, Germany................. 8,800,000 8,800,000
Kaiserslautern, Germany............. 6,000,000 6,000,000
Mannheim, Germany................... 6,200,000 6,200,000
Camp Casey, Korea................... 5,100,000 5,100,000
Camp Castle, Korea.................. 8,400,000 8,400,000
Camp Humphreys, Korea............... 32,000,000 32,000,000
Camp Red Cloud, Korea............... 23,600,000 23,600,000
Camp Stanley, Korea................. 7,000,000 7,000,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Army.................... 337,800,000 373,100,000
===============================
Navy/Naval Reserve:
Yuma MCAS, Arizona.................. 0 12,250,000
Camp Pendleton MCB, California...... 12,000,000 12,000,000
Camp Pendleton MCB, California...... 0 16,120,000
Kaneohe Bay MCAS, Hawaii............ 19,000,000 19,000,000
Washington NAF, District of Columbia 4,640,000 4,640,000
Great Lakes NH, Illinois............ 5,200,000 5,200,000
Great Lakes NTC, Illinois........... 26,690,000 26,690,000
New Orleans NAS, Louisiana.......... 0 4,520,000
Meridian NAS, Mississippi........... 0 7,050,000
New River MCAS, North Carolina...... 10,600,000 10,600,000
Beaufort MCAS, South Carolina....... 0 15,330,000
Dam Neck FCTC, Virginia............. 7,000,000 7,000,000
Oceana NAS, Virginia................ 20,900,000 20,900,000
Administrative Support Unit, Bahrain
Island............................. 25,000,000 25,000,000
Sigonella NAS, Italy................ 21,440,000 21,440,000
Roosevelt Roads NS, Puerto Rico..... 24,100,000 24,100,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Navy.................... 176,570,000 231,840,000
===============================
Air Force:
Clear AFS, Alaska................... 20,285,000 20,285,000
Peterson AFB, Colorado.............. 4,081,000 4,081,000
Eglin AFB Auxillary Field 9, Florida 6,470,000 6,470,000
Moody AFB, Georgia.................. 0 9,100,000
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho............ 8,959,000 8,959,000
Keesler AFB, Mississippi............ 30,855,000 30,855,000
Pope AFB, North Carolina............ 8,356,000 8,356,000
Pope AFB, North Carolina............ 0 9,700,000
Spangdahlem AB, Germany............. 18,500,000 18,500,000
Kunsan AB, Korea.................... 8,325,000 8,325,000
Osan AB, Korea...................... 11,100,000 11,100,000
RAF Lakenheath, UK.................. 11,400,000 11,400,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Force............... 128,331,000 147,131,000
===============================
Total............................. 642,701,000 752,071,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Development Centers
The Committee has recommended an additional $21,430,000
above the budget estimate of $6,500,000 for a total
appropriation of $27,930,000 for new construction, or
improvements, for child development centers. The Committee
recognizes the increased importance of these centers due to the
rising number of single military parents, dual military couples
and military personnel with a civilian employed spouse.
The following child development center projects are
provided for fiscal year 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
Camp Pendleton MCB, California...... 0 4,480,000
Bremerton Puget Sound NS, Washington 4,400,000 4,400,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 4,400,000 8,880,000
===============================
Air Force:
MacDill AFB, Florida................ 0 3,350,000
McConnell AFB, Kansas............... 0 5,000,000
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.......... 0 8,600,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 0 16,950,000
===============================
Defense Logistics Agency: Defense
General Supply Center, Virginia........ 2,100,000 2,100,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 2,100,000 2,100,000
===============================
Total............................. 6,500,000 27,930,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital and Medical Facilities
The budget request includes $140,875,000 for 15 projects
and for unspecified minor construction to provide hospital and
medical facilities, including both treatment facilities and
medical research and development facilities. The Committee
recommends full funding for the requested items, and one
project in addition to those requested. The following hospital
and medical projects are provided for fiscal year 1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Project title Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California-San Diego NS......................... Environmental Preventive Med 2,100,000 2,100,000
Unit Add/Alter.
Georgia-Robins AFB.............................. Ambulatory Health Care Center 19,000,000 19,000,000
Add/Alter.
Kentucky-Fort Campbell.......................... Consolidated Troop Medical/ 13,600,000 13,600,000
Dental Clinic.
Maryland-Forest Glen (WRAIR).................... Army Institute of Research, 20,000,000 20,000,000
Phase V.
Maryland-Fort Detrick........................... Health/Dental Clinic.......... 4,650,000 4,650,000
New Jersey-McGuire AFB.......................... Ambulatory Health Care Center 35,217,000 35,217,000
Replacement.
New Mexico-Holloman AFB......................... Dental Clinic Replacement..... 3,000,000 3,000,000
Ohio-Wright-Patterson AFB....................... Composite Medical Facility 2,750,000 2,750,000
Alteration.
Texas-Lackland AFB.............................. Blood Donor Center............ 3,000,000 3,000,000
Utah-Hill AFB................................... Clinic Addition............... 3,100,000 3,100,000
Virginia-Quantico MCB........................... Medical/Dental Clinic 19,000,000 19,000,000
Replacement.
Washington-Everett NS........................... Medical/Dental Clinic......... 7,500,000 7,500,000
Washington-Fort Lewis........................... Troop Medical Clinic.......... 0 5,000,000
Worldwide-Various Locations..................... Unspecified Minor Construction 7,058,000 7,958,000
-------------------------------
Total..................................... .............................. \1\ 140,875,00 \1\ 145,875,00
0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes proposed prior year financing, as follows:
Oklahoma-Tinker AFB, Occupational Health Clinic Replacement: +3,700,000.
Guam-Andersen AFB, Aeromedical Clinic; +6,500,000.
California-McClellan AFB (formerly Mather, AFB), Life Safety/Seismic/Utility Upgrade: -10,280,000. \2\
\2\ No longer required, Hospital will close by 2001 (BRAC IV).
Environmental Compliance Projects
The total budget request and appropriation for 24 projects
needed to meet environmental compliance is $103,581,000. 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.
Following is a listing of all environmental compliance
projects funded in this bill:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Project title Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Fort A.P. Hill, VA............ Central Vehicle Wash 5,400,000
Facility.
Fort Lewis, WA................ Tank Trail Erosion 2,000,000
Mitigation--Yakima.
Navy:
MCAS Camp Pendleton, CA....... Emergency Spill 2,840,000
Control.
NS Pearl Harbor, HI........... Oily Waste 25,000,000
Collection
Treatment Facility.
NSY Portsmouth, VA............ Oily Waste 9,500,000
Collection System.
Air Force:
Indian Mountain, AK........... Upgrade POL System.. 1,991,000
Edwards AFB, CA............... Add/Alter Sewer Line 1,394,000
Edwards AFB, CA............... Upgrade Wastewater 1,493,000
Treatment Plant.
MacDill AFB, FL............... Remediate Small Arms 1,543,000
Range.
Arnold AFB, TN................ Wastewater Treatment 10,750,000
Facilities.
Aviano AB, Italy.............. Wastewater Disposal 7,900,000
System.
Kunsan AB, Korea.............. Fire Training 2,000,000
Facility.
Lajes Field, Portugal......... Water Treatment 4,800,000
Plant.
Air Force Reserve:
Westover ARB, MA.............. Fire Training 1,800,000
Facility.
Minneapolis/St. Paul IAP, MN.. Add/Alter Corrosion 1,550,000
Control.
Air National Guard:
Minneapolis/St. Paul IAP, MN.. Vehicle Waste 360,000
Facility.
Gulfport IAP, MS.............. Regional Fire 900,000
Training Facility.
Charlotte/Douglas IAP, NC..... Alter Fuel Cell/ 2,550,000
Corrosion Control
Facility.
Schenectady County Airport, NY Fuel Cell/Corrosion 5,700,000
Control Facility.
Klamath Falls IAP, OR......... Vehicle Refueling 520,000
Shop & Paint Bay.
Quonset State Airport, RI..... Add/Alter Corrosion 355,000
Control Facility.
McEntire ANGB, SC............. Add/Alter Fuel & 1,500,000
Corrosion Control
Facility.
Salt Lake City IAP, UT........ Vehicle Washing & 460,000
Corrosion Control
Facility.
Defense Logistics Agency:
Various Locations............. Conforming Storage 11,275,000
Facilities.
---------------
Total....................... .................... 103,581,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crumbling Infrastructure
At their core, military installations are very similar to
cities. They rely upon transportation networks such as
railroads, vehicular roads, air operations, and seaport
facilities. They cannot function without communications
systems--telephone lines (both open and secure), and satellite
uplinks and downlinks. They require more mundane but essential
day-to-day support--water and sewer systems, electrical
generation and distribution systems, and climate control.
The Committee is concerned over indications that military
construction projects to provide such infrastructure support do
not receive sufficient priority. It appears that there is great
interest in improving the physical plant of the Department of
Defense, with too little attention paid to the supporting
infrastructure. The Committee is aware of instances where new
barracks facilities are connected to deficient water and sewer
systems.
Reports are beginning to surface regarding aging
installations with crumbling supporting facilities. This
deteriorating base infrastructure has serious implications for
the ability of the military to meet mission requirements.
The Department has recognized this need in the case of the
Pentagon building itself, and has embarked on a multi-year
effort to renovate the facility and its infrastructure. The
Committee supports this initiative, but notes that most
military installations pre-date the Pentagon building, and
suffer similar deficiencies or worse.
The Committee encourages the Department and the Services to
assess the need for installation-wide infrastructure projects
and to program and budget for this work. In addition, the
Committee is aware that the Department and the Services are
working to identify those on-base utility systems which can be
cost-effectively privatized. It is the Committee's view that
the Department should continue to study the feasibility of
privatizing utility systems in an effort to utilize private
capital and expertise to help solve the installation-wide
infrastructure problem in a more reasonable time frame.
National Foreign Intelligence Program
The Committee is concerned about past questionable use of
operation and maintenance account funds for leasing, as well as
the use of research, development, test, and evaluation funds,
for projects for which military construction would be the more
appropriate funding source. The Committee supports on-going
efforts within the Department to assure that construction
requirements of the intelligence agencies and organizations
funded under the National Foreign Intelligence Program are
funded within the military construction accounts.
Unified Design Guidance
The Committee is concerned that each Military Department
expends substantial resources to develop, maintain, and
distribute design criteria, guide specifications, cost
engineering systems, and other design software programs.
Despite many attempts to bring about the efficiencies and cost
avoidance of uniformity, little progress is evident. It is the
Committee's view that the majority of military construction is
not unique to a single Military Department, and is also not
unique to the Department of Defense. Propagation of redundant
programs is costing taxpayers excess design fees, and may also
result in lower quality design criteria and construction.
In order to ensure that more progress is made in this area,
the Committee directs the Department to develop a unified
design guidance program, and to budget for such program
centrally. The Committee directs that the fiscal year 1999
budget request will consolidate funding for this program within
the Military Construction, Defense-wide account for planning
and design, with offsetting reductions in the planning and
design requests for the Military Departments. The explanatory
materials justifying this planning and design budget request
will present a detailed plan of work toward the establishment
of a single system for design criteria distribution, a single
cost engineering system, a single guide specification, and a
single system of design manuals.
Proposed Financing of Current Year Programs Via Prior Year Savings
The budget request for fiscal year 1998 proposed partial
financing of current year programs via prior year savings, as
follows:
Account Amount
Military Construction, Air Force...................... $23,858,000
Military Construction, Army Reserve................... 7,900,000
Family Housing, Navy.................................. 8,463,000
The Committee objects strongly to this method of financing.
If program execution has resulted in identifiable prior year
savings within individual projects, the correct financing
method is to detail such savings and to request rescissions of
funds by account and by fiscal year. The Committee recommends
denying the proposed method of financing, and directs the
Department to follow conventional rescission procedure in
future budget submissions.
Real Property Maintenance
In future budget submissions, the Department is directed to
continue to provide the real property maintenance backlog at
all installations for which there is a requested construction
project. 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 supports the action taken in section 2802 of
the House reported National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1998 (H.R. 1119) with regard to limitations on the
use of operation and maintenance funds for facility repair
projects. The Service Secretary concerned is directed to notify
the National Security Subcommittee and the Military
Construction Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee
before carrying out any repair project with an estimated cost
in excess of $10,000,000. Further, the Committee will expect
that 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 rearrangements 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.
Vision 21
The Committee notes that the Department has embarked upon
an initiative known as ``Vision 21'' to consolidate its testing
and evaluation centers and laboratories. By November of 1998,
this initiative will provide the Secretary of Defense with a 5-
year plan for the consolidation and restructuring of all
defense testing and evaluation centers and laboratories in
order to achieve the most effective intra-Service and cross-
Service organizational arrangements. The Committee will expect
the Secretary of Defense to report findings and recommendations
upon completion of Vision 21.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to certify
that any new starts are required prior to the obligation of
funds.
Bold Venture
``Bold Venture'' is the Department's program to move
Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) currently housed
in private/commercial buildings to military installations in
order to reduce the Department's office space rent expenditures
as well as the costs associated with the housing of recruits in
hotels rather than in barracks. The Committee directs the
Department to report on the current plan of operations for this
program, including: costs and savings to date, estimated
military construction requirements, and the timetable for
submission of military construction appropriations requests.
This report is to be submitted to the Committee by January 15,
1998.
Government Performance and Results Act
The Committee considers the full and effective
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act,
Public Law 103-62, to be a priority for all agencies of
government.
Starting with fiscal year 1999, the Results Act requires
each agency to ``prepare an annual performance plan covering
each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency''.
Specifically, for each program activity the agency is required
to ``establish performance goals to define the level of
performance to be achieved by a program activity'' and
``performance indicators to be used in assessing the relevant
outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program
activity''.
The Committee takes this requirement of the Results Act
very seriously and plans to carefully examine agency
performance goals and measures during the appropriations
process. As a result, starting with the fiscal year 1999
appropriations cycle, the Committee will consider agency
progress in articulating clear, definitive, and results-
oriented (outcome) goals and measures as it reviews requests
for appropriations.
The Committee suggests agencies examine their program
activities in light of their strategic goals to determine
whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more
accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information.
Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they
consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any
requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal year 1999 and
subsequent budget submissions display amounts requested against
program activity structures for which annual performance goals
and measures have been established.
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.
Military Construction, Army
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation..................................... $565,688,000
Rescission........................................ -3,028,000
Net........................................... 562,660,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 595,277,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 721,027,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation................ +158,367,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +125,750,000
The Committee recommends a total of $721,027,000 for
Military Construction, Army for fiscal year 1998. This is an
increase of $125,750,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1998, and an increase of $158,367,000 above the net
appropriation for 1997.
alabama--redstone arsenal: missile software engineering center annex
The Missile Software Engineering Directorate at Redstone
Arsenal is facing a serious overcrowding situation compromising
effectiveness and efficiency. Currently 650 personnel are
employed in inadequate space. There is an anticipated growth
rate of 15% per year over the next five years doubling the
current staff to over 1,300 personnel by the year 2002. The
Army has initiated design for a Missile Software Engineer Annex
and the Committee supports this effort. The Army is encouraged
to complete the design and incorporate this project in the
fiscal year 1999 budget request.
arkansas--pine bluff arsenal: ammunition demilitarization support
facility
The Committee is concerned that the Army has failed to
execute a contract to provide an ammunition demilitarization
support facility as required for the conduct of the chemical
demilitarization program at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas. Funds
for such a facility were budgeted and appropriated in fiscal
year 1993, but will expire on September 30, 1997. The chemical
demilitarization program is discussed in detail later in this
report, under the Military Construction, Defense-wide account,
under which account construction projects are now funded. The
Committee recommends re-appropriating $15,000,000 for this
project, under the Military Construction, Army account, in
order to remain consistent with extension of authorization for
the fiscal year 1993 project.
California--Barstow-Daggett: Heliport
The Committee strongly supports the Army's plan to build a
heliport for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin,
California, to be located at Barstow-Daggett, California. Funds
to initiate this project are available from prior year
unobligated appropriations. The Committee notes that section
2105 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1998 (H.R. 1119)
corrects the authorized uses of funds appropriated for fiscal
years 1995 and 1996 for construction of an air field at
Barstow-Daggett, in order to permit the use of such amounts for
the construction of a heliport facility at the same location
for maintenance and repair of equipment assigned to the
National Training Center and Fort Irwin. The Committee concurs
with this correction, and directs that fiscal year 1994
planning and design funds in the amount of $2,400,000, as well
as fiscal year 1995 funds in the amount of $10,000,000 and
fiscal year 1996 funds in the amount of $10,000,000 shall be
available for construction of this heliport in lieu of the air
field. No reprogramming request is required to accomplish the
execution of this project.
The Committee directs the Army to expedite the execution of
this project.
california--fort irwin: heavy equipment maintenance building
Fort Irwin is expecting to receive the 3rd Platoon 2nd
Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) Company in October 1997. The
HET Platoon will require a vehicle maintenance facility to
support 26 heavy equipment transports and 70 additional
personnel. Fort Irwin currently does not have any other
maintenance facilities that can be used by the platoon. The
Army is encouraged to fund these facilities under minor
construction.
kansas--fort leavenworth: u.s. disciplinary barracks
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 to initiate
construction of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort
Leavenworth, rather than $63,000,000 as requested for full
funding for this project. The estimated start date for
construction of this project is December of 1997, and the
Army's estimate of the amount of construction that can be put
in place during fiscal year 1998 is $20,000,000. Therefore,
full funding of the project in a single fiscal year is not
required.
virginia--charlottesville: national ground intelligence center
The Committee recommends a technical correction to the
method of funding $3,100,000 for planning and design of the
National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville,
Virginia. The budget request contained an error in displaying
this item as a line entry for a construction project, rather
than as one component within the lump sum requested for
planning and design. The Committee recommends not funding the
erroneous line entry, and directs the Secretary of the Army to
apply $3,100,000 to conduct planning and design activities for
the construction of the National Ground Intelligence Center
within the additional amount provided for planning and design.
virginia--twin bridges site: army museum
The Committee is aware that the Army is continuing to
pursue the establishment of a National Army Museum, using non-
appropriated funds. The Committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to report the status of efforts to acquire the Twin
Bridges site, as well as efforts to construct a National Army
Museum at this or any other site. This report is to be
submitted to the Committee by December 15, 1997.
european construction
The Committee has recommended $80,300,000 for five barracks
projects and three family housing improvement projects in
Europe. The Committee commends the Army for beginning to
program and budget for the necessary projects in fiscal year
1998 to begin to address the deficiency of quality of life
facilities in Europe, and will expect this commitment to
continue.
Southern Command
The Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 requires the withdrawal of
United States military forces from Panama by December 31, 1999,
including the relocation of the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
The Army plans to relocate SOUTHCOM headquarters to the Miami,
Florida area. This entire SOUTHCOM headquarters relocation will
be accomplished by lease, with no military construction
appropriations requirement.
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to prepare
a comprehensive report of all costs related to the relocation
of the Southern Command to Miami, Florida. This report is to
include the total requirement and cost for all leased land,
leased administrative space, leased housing (both unaccompanied
housing and family housing), and morale welfare and recreation
facilities (including a proposed commissary). The report is to
include plans for providing leased space for foreign national
liaison officers. The report is to identify separately one-time
costs and recurring annual costs. The report is to be submitted
to the Committee not later than September 8, 1997.
In addition, the Committee directs the Army to continue to
report semiannually on the status of negotiations with Panama
toward a base rights agreement and a Status of Forces Agreement
that will take effect on January 1, 2000.
Korea
The Army shows a total facilities deficit of $5,300,000,000
in Korea, of which $1,100,000,000 is for barracks. Of this
barracks deficit, $625,000,000 is for barracks construction and
the remaining $485,000,000 is for repair and maintenance of
existing barracks. The Committee directs the Army to report on
this deficit in some detail, together with the plan for
correcting this deficiency through a combination of military
construction funding, host nation funding via the Combined
Defense Improvement Program (CDIP) and the Republic of Korea
Funded Construction (ROKFC) program, and other approaches. This
report is to be submitted by January 1, 1998.
Military Construction, Navy
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation..................................... $707,094,000
Rescission........................................ -19,780,000
Net........................................... 687,314,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 540,106,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 685,306,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation................ -2,008,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +145,200,000
The Committee recommends a net total of $685,306,000 for
Military Construction, Navy for fiscal year 1998. This is an
increase of $145,200,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1998, and a decrease of $2,008,000 below the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
arizona--yuma marine corps air station: land acquisition for ordnance
storage
The Committee is concerned that a waiver of explosives
safety criteria is required for ordnance storage at Yuma Marine
Corps Air Station because the explosive safety quantity
distance arcs extend beyond station boundaries onto private
property. Real estate easements limiting land usage to
agriculture are required from the adjacent private property
owners in order to meet mission ordnance storage requirements.
The Committee directs the Marine Corps to address this
situation by including the required land acquisition project
within the budget submission for fiscal year 1999.
california--naval ordnance center, pacific division, fallbrook
detatchment
The Committee is concerned that the Navy has taken more
than twenty years to dispose of the approximately 34,100
delivery canisters filled with napalm currently stored at the
Naval Ordnance Center in Fallbrook, California. The Committee
is aware that many of these canisters have been found to be
leaking and pose a possible threat to the surrounding
community. In March of 1996, the Navy announced an action
memorandum for the removal of the napalm by the end of 1999.
The Committee directs the Navy to make every effort possible to
speed this process and to dispose of these canisters of napalm
prior to the end of 1999. The Committee directs the Navy to
report on its progress and its plan of work for the completion
of this effort. This report is to be submitted to the Committee
not later than September 8, 1997.
california--twentynine palms marine corps air-ground combat center:
traffic safety
Last year a young Marine was killed as he rode his bicycle
to work at the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat
Center. The Committee directs the Marine Corps to investigate
possible improvements in the safety of bicycle traffic to and
from the Center, to work with the City of Twentynine Palms
toward providing a bicycle path for commuters to the Center,
and to report to the Committee by January 1, 1998 on these
efforts to improve traffic safety.
north carolina--cherry point marine corps air station
The 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission required
the relocation of F/A-18 aircraft from Cecil Field Naval Air
Station to Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station. The 1995
Commission changed the receiving site to Oceana Naval Air
Station. The Committee understands that environmental impact
considerations may preclude stationing at Oceana. The Committee
directs the Navy to report by September 15, 1997 regarding the
current status of the relocation from Cecil Field, and urges
the Navy to reconsider Cherry Point as an option for the
receiving site if stationing at Oceana is not feasible.
pennsylvania--philadelphia naval shipyard: casting pit modernization
The Committee directs the Navy to include the casting pit
modernization project at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard within
the budget submission for fiscal year 1999.
Puerto Rico--Roosevelt Roads Naval Station
More than 40 years ago, the Navy acquired land abutting
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station from the municipality of Ceiba,
Puerto Rico. The Committee is concerned about reports that this
land has never been utilized, and is aware of proposals by
Ceiba to utilize this unused land. The Committee directs the
Navy to report by September 8, 1997 on the Navy's plans for
taking appropriate cooperative actions for land utilization,
including but not limited to agreements for increased access to
beaches and to potable water supplies.
Child Development Centers
Testimony before the Committee indicates that the Navy
planning system has validated a prioritized list of twenty
child development center construction projects, at a total cost
of $53,456,000. The Committee directs the Navy to submit the
appropriate budget request for fiscal year 1999 in order to
meet the Department of Defense goal of providing for 65 percent
of the child care requirement at the earliest possible date. In
particular, the Navy is directed to include the child
development center at the New London, Connecticut Naval
Submarine Base in the budget request for fiscal year 1999.
The Committee is aware of the Navy's on-going efforts to
privatize child development centers in fleet concentration
areas in order to ``buy down'' the child care requirement
through civilian accredited child development centers. Under
these arrangements, the service member will pay the same rate
as they would pay at an on-base child development center, and
the government would pay the contractor any difference in total
cost. Criteria for civilian centers to participate in this
program is national accreditation. The Navy is also conducting
an A-76 Commercial Activities Study in the San Diego area in
order to write a performance work statement, develop the
government's most efficient organization on a regional basis,
and determine if the private sector can effectively compete and
meet the requirement at equal or better quality and
availability, for equal or less cost to the government. The
Committee supports and encourages these efforts to privatize
child care, and directs the Navy to report to the Committee by
September 8, 1997 on the current status and future plan of work
in this area.
Pollution Abatement Projects
The Navy is directed to continue to provide individual 1391
budget justification documents for each future pollution
abatement project.
Military Construction, Air Force
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation..................................... $754,064,000
Rescission........................................ -5,100,000
Net........................................... 748,964,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 495,782,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 662,305,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation................ -86,659,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +166,523,000
The Committee recommends a total of $662,305,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 1998. This is
an increase of $166,523,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1998, and a decrease of $86,659,000 below the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
arizona--Davis-Monthan AFB: Runway Extension
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
report on plans to extend the runway at Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base. This report should: address the timetable for city,
county, and state government actions to accommodate this
project; estimate when local and state governments will have
the necessary land purchased, cleared, and made environmentally
acceptable; and detail efforts made by the Air Force to
coordinate the required military construction funding request
with the earliest availability of the necessary land. This
report is to be submitted to the Committee not later than
September 15, 1997.
washington--mcchord afb: c-17 engine test cell facility
The Committee recommends no funding for the budgeted
$3,185,000 project to provide a C-17 engine test cell facility
at McChord AFB. This project is no longer required due to the
consolidation of C-17 engine maintenance functions at
Charleston AFB.
Military Construction, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation..................................... $763,922,000
Rescission........................................ -51,000,000
Net........................................... 712,922,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 673,633,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 613,333,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation................ -99,589,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... -60,300,000
The Committee recommends a total of $613,333,000 for
Military Construction, Defense-wide for fiscal year 1998. This
is a decrease of $60,300,000 below the budget request for
fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $99,589,000 below the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program
The budget request includes a total of $120,527,000 for the
following funding increments for the chemical weapons
demilitarization program for fiscal year 1998:
Alabama:
Anniston:
Ammunition demilitarization facility.......... $9,900,000
Arkansas:
Pine Bluff:
Ammunition demilitarization facility.......... 44,000,000
Oregon:
Umatilla:
Ammunition demilitarization facility.......... 57,427,000
Unspecified Worldwide Locations:
Planning and Design............................... 9,200,000
-----------------
Total......................................... 120,527,000
The following chart displays the scope of the military
construction investment in the overall chemical
demilitarization program:
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM MILITARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
[Then-year dollars in millions/fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Project 1996 & 1997 1998 1999 2000- Total est.
Prior 2003 funded cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston Atoll...................................... 50.0 ...... ...... ...... ...... 50.0 50.0
Chemical Demil Training Facility.................... 16.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... 16.1 16.1
Tooele Facility..................................... 198.0 ...... ...... ...... ...... 198.0 198.0
Anniston Facility................................... 150.0 ...... 9.9 ...... ...... 159.9 159.9
Depot Spt....................................... 14.3 ...... ...... ...... ...... 14.3 14.3
Umatilla Facility................................... 12.0 64.0 57.4 52.0 ...... 185.4 186.7
Depot Spt....................................... 11.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... 11.1 11.1
Pine Bluff Facility................................. 3.0 46.0 44.0 41.0 ...... 134.0 134.0
Depot Spt....................................... 15.0 ...... ...... ...... ...... 15.0 15.0
Pueblo Facility \1\................................. ...... ...... ...... 12.0 54.0 66.0 197.0
Depot Spt....................................... 6.3 ...... ...... ...... ...... 6.3 6.3
Blue Grass Facility \1\............................. ...... ...... ...... 11.0 52.0 63.0 189.0
Depot Spt....................................... ...... ...... ...... 11.2 ...... 11.2 11.2
Aberdeen Facility \2\............................... ...... ...... ...... ...... 133.5 133.5 137.0
Depot Spt....................................... ...... ...... ...... ...... 8.7 8.7 8.7
Newport Facility \2\................................ ...... ...... ...... ...... 112.7 112.7 125.9
Depot Spt....................................... ...... ...... ...... ...... 2.0 2.0 2.0
Planning and Design................................. 88.7 4.1 9.2 4.4 2.7 109.1 109.1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total Milcon.................................. 564.5 114.1 120.5 131.6 365.6 1,296.3 1,571.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding requirement may change pending assessment of Alternative Technologies for Assembled Chemical
Munitions in consonance with Public Law 104-208.
\2\ Funding requirement will change based on Department of Defense decision to plan for pilot testing using
neutralization for bulk agent disposal.
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 Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston Atoll.................. ........................ ....................... 3QFY90 \1\-4QFY00
Tooele, UT...................... ........................ ....................... 4QFY96-4QFY03
Anniston, AL.................... 3QFY97.................. 2QFY00................. 4QFY01-1QFY05
Umatilla, OR.................... 2QFY97.................. 1QFY00................. 1AFY02-1QFY05
Pine Bluff, AR.................. 4QFY97.................. 3QFY00................. 4QFY01-1QFY05
Pueblo, CO \2\.................. On Hold................. ....................... ...........................
Blue Grass, KY \2\.............. On Hold................. ....................... ...........................
Aberdeen, MD \3\................ 1QFY00.................. 3QFY02................. 1QFY04-1QFY05
Newport, IN \3\................. 1QFY00.................. 3QFY02................. 1QFY04-1QFY05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full-scale operations began 2QFY94.
\2\ Schedule on-hold pending assessment of Alternative Technologies for Assembled Chemical Munitions in
consonance with Public Law 104-208.
\3\ Schedule represents Department of Defense decision to plan for pilot testing using neutralization for bulk
agent disposal.
arkansas--pine bluff chemical activity: ammunition demilitarization
facility
The Committee recommends deferring $44,000,000 for the
budgeted ammunition demilitarization facility at the Pine Bluff
Chemical Activity, based on delay in receipt of required
environmental permits. However, the Committee also recommends
reappropriating $15,000,000 under the Military Construction,
Army account for a fiscal year 1993 project to provide an
ammunition demilitarization support facility at Pine Bluff. It
is the Committee's view that this support facility project,
together with $46,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1997 but
not yet executed, is the maximum amount of construction that
can be put in place during fiscal year 1998, and that therefore
no additional funding is required at this time.
military construction, defense-wide: administrative provision
Statutory language included under this account provides
that the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds from this
account to the military construction and family housing
accounts. The Committee directs that any exercise of this
authority must fall under the Committee's standing procedures
for approval of reprogramming requests.
military construction, defense-wide: planning and design
The budget request includes $55,650,000 for the planning
and design account, which provides for preparing plans and
specifications for construction of the Defense Agencies and
Secretary of Defense Activities. This is an increase of
$43,321,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 1997. Due
to the lack of justification, the Committee recommends
$34,350,000 for this account for fiscal year 1998, which is a
reduction of $21,300,000 from the budget request.
prior year savings--defense medical facilities
The Committee notes that the Department's request for
authorization includes a proposal to use prior year savings
from a fiscal year 1995 project at McClellan AFB that is no
longer required due to the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure
Commission decision to close a hospital by 2001 in order to
finance two new construction projects at Andersen AFB and
Tinker AFB. Should this request be enacted, the Committee
directs that any exercise of this authority must fall under the
Committee's standing procedures for approval of reprogramming
requests.
defense medical facilities--italy-naval support activity, naples
The Committee is not convinced that continued long-term
leasing of a Naval Hospital at Naval Support Activity, Naples
is the most cost effective alternative. The Committee strongly
encourages the Department to reevaluate the anticipated life-
cycle costs for the hospital and, if supported by the results
of the analysis, to request the necessary funding in the
appropriate account to buy-out the lease at the most opportune
time.
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 0
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 0
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... -5,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund for fiscal year 1998. This is equal to the
budget request for fiscal year 1998, and a decrease of
$5,000,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
Last year, the Committee initiated and appropriated
$5,000,000 for the Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement
Fund in order to demonstrate its support of privatization. The
Committee is disappointed that there is no budget request for
fiscal year 1998 for this account. In addition, the Committee
is concerned that the Department has not yet identified any
requirements against the $5,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year
1997. It is the Committee's view that the Department should
aggressively apply these authorities to obtain and use private
capital to improve living conditions for unaccompanied military
personnel in a more reasonable time frame.
Overview
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
1996, P.L. 104-106, established new authorities to increase the
use of the private sector and capital to improve unaccompanied
housing. The authorities include: direct loans and loan
guarantees to private developers; leasing of new housing;
investments in nongovernmental entities; rental guarantees;
differential lease payments and conveyance or lease of existing
property and facilities.
The Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund will be
used to build or renovate unaccompanied housing, mixing or
matching the various authorities contained in the
authorization, and utilize private capital and expertise to the
maximum extent possible. This fund is to contain appropriated
and transferred funds from military construction accounts, and
the total value in budget authority of all contracts and
investments undertaken may not exceed $150,000,000. Sources for
transfers into the funds are solely to be derived from funds
appropriated for the acquisition or construction of military
unaccompanied housing. Transfers into the fund are authorized
contingent upon a 30-day notification by the Secretary of
Defense to the appropriate committees of Congress. 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 Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement
Fund is to be administered as a single account without fiscal
year limitations and the authority to enter into contracts and
partnerships and to make investments shall expire on September
30, 2000.
Reporting Requirements
The Committee reiterates the existing reporting
requirements. The Service Secretary concerned may not enter
into any contract until after the end of the 21-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 21-day notification requirement
applies to any project, regardless of whether it is financed
entirely by transfer of funds into the Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund, or it is fully financed within funds
available in the Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement
Fund, or it is funded by combining transferred funds with funds
available in the Fund.
Budget justification documents are to display project and
administrative costs. No transfer of appropriated funds into
the account may take place until after the end of the 30-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.
Military Construction, Reserve Components
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation..................................... $413,868,000
Rescission........................................ -5,000,000
Net........................................... 408,868,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 172,886,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 327,808,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation................ -81,060,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +154,922,000
The Committee recommends a total of $327,808,000 for
Military Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 1998.
This is an increase of $154,922,000 above the budget request
for fiscal year 1998, and a decrease of $81,060,000 below the
net appropriation for 1997.
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............... $45,098,000 $45,098,000
Air National Guard................ 60,225,000 137,275,000
Army Reserve...................... 39,112,000 77,731,000
Naval Reserve..................... 13,921,000 40,561,000
Air Force Reserve................. 14,530,000 27,143,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 172,886,000 327,808,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard
The current plant replacement value of the Army National
Guard's physical plant is $16,300,000,000. Of this amount,
$7,900,000,000 is in armories (also known as readiness
centers), $4,200,000,000 is in training facilities,
$2,800,000,000 is in logistical facilities, and $1,400,000,000
is in aviation facilities. The average age of these facilities
is 36 years. These facilities contain 65,800,000 square feet
which the Federal government supports, and 67,000,000 square
feet which the States support. Among these facilities are 3,214
armories, 241 United States Property and Fiscal Officer
facilities, 121 Army Aviation facilities, 4 Aviation
Classification and Repair Depots, 701 Organizational
Maintenance Shops, 69 Combined Support Maintenance Shops, 24
Mobilization and Training Equipment Sites, 40 Unit Training and
Equipment Sites, 10,576 training facilities, and 4,520
miscellaneous logistical facilities.
The Future Years Defense Plan contains forty-seven projects
at a total cost of $188,485,000 to address the military
construction needs of the Army National Guard, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year program No. of projects Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Budget Request................... 11 $35,600,000
1999.................................. 8 23,640,000
2000.................................. 7 40,732,000
2001.................................. 6 26,799,000
2002.................................. 8 29,438,000
2003.................................. 7 32,276,000
---------------------------------
Total, 1998 through 2003........ 47 188,485,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Reporting Requirement--Backlog
The Army National Guard reports that the current backlog of
facility requirements totals 788 unbudgeted projects at a cost
of $3,485,117,380 beyond those projects currently programmed
through fiscal year 2003 in the Future Years Defense Plan. The
Committee will expect that this itemized list of 788 specific
projects (which is described as a 25 year facilities plan) will
be maintained, updated, and revised as necessary for the
indefinite future. The Committee directs the Secretary of the
Army and the Director of the Army National Guard to make a
joint report annually on the current backlog of facilities
requirements of the Army National Guard, using the itemized
list of 788 specific projects as a starting point and
justifying in detail any cancellation, substitution, addition,
re-prioritization, re-pricing, re-scoping, and any other
revision to this list. This joint annual report is to be
submitted concurrently with the annual budget request.
Armories/Readiness Centers
The Committee is aware that the existing inventory of 3,214
armories/readiness centers includes the full range of
conditions, from poorly maintained aged facilities to excellent
modern facilities. In a number of instances, facilities have
not kept pace with new mission assignments. However, the
Committee questions the extent to which considerable resources
have been expended on armory/readiness center upgrades and
replacements which may have been redundant and excess to the
needs of the Army National Guard. The Committee has received
reports of overbuilding in some areas to the point at which
armories/readiness centers are burdensome to the recipient
states, which must bear the cost of operation and maintenance
expenses. Part of this problem is the Army National Guard's
lack of a comprehensive approach to armory construction, and
inadequate prioritization of projects against a set of well-
defined criteria.
The Committee will expect the Army National Guard to take a
more direct role in selecting and prioritizing those armories/
readiness centers for which it is seeking funding, or for which
state Adjutant Generals and local officials are seeking
Congressional support. Priority for armory projects will
include but not be limited to the following criteria:
Construction for units which have a high relative
priority within the state and within the Army National
Guard;
Construction that is required to transition to a new
mission, or to meet changes in unit equipment;
Construction which incorporates standardized design
criteria, and which is fully designed and executable at
the time of funding, and for which state matching funds
are available;
Construction for units with over 200 assigned
personnel, especially for those units which achieved
that level through consolidation of smaller units, or
for combinations of smaller units totaling over 200
personnel;
Construction for planned armory/readiness center
utilization of two to four weekends per month by
resident units, that is, for multi-unit armories;
Construction for rehabilitation, modification, and
re-use of surplus Federal facilities (such as buildings
at current and/or former military installations) as
armories/readiness centers, in lieu of new
construction; and
Construction for projects that have received high
priority ranking in the state's Long Range Construction
Program, in the state's Master Plan and Real Property
Maintenance Plan, in the Department's Future Years
Defense Plan, and in the newly required annual report
on the current backlog of facilities requirements of
the Army National Guard.
The Committee will consider future requests for armory/
readiness center projects in light of these criteria.
annual reporting requirement--armory infrastructure
The Army National Guard and the National Guard Bureau are
directed to undertake a nationwide effort to:
1. Develop a plan for the long-range stationing of Army
National Guard units, reflecting anticipated changes in
missions and opportunities for reduced facilities requirements.
2. Identify priorities for new or reconfigured armories,
based on the above criteria.
3. Evaluate and rate existing armories according to age,
condition, recruiting potential, size of facility, location,
land availability, accessibility to a major highway system,
distance from major training areas, and operating costs.
The Secretary of the Army, the Director of the National
Guard Bureau, and the Director of the Army National Guard are
directed to report jointly to the Committee by January 1, 1998
on the status of this nationwide effort.
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.
ownership and control of armories/readiness centers
According to National Guard Bureau policy, states sign
cooperative agreements whereby armories built on state land,
but financed primarily with Federal funds, will be owned and
controlled by the states but obligated to Federal use for 25
years. At the expiration of that period, there is no further
legal obligation for Federal use, unless the Federal Government
has financed a major renovation, alteration, or addition of the
armory, in which case the 25-year period begins anew at the
time of such modification. The Army Audit Agency has noted that
the design life of such structures is up to 80 years. Typical
life expectancy of such structures is at least 50 years. The
average age of all facilities used by the Army National Guard
is 36 years.
The Committee encourages the National Guard Bureau to
review its policy of 25-year use agreements so that the Federal
Government may share in the fair market value of armories/
readiness centers for the entire economic life of the
structure. The Committee will expect that all future contract
awards for armories/readiness centers will be contingent upon
signed cooperative agreements obligating facilities to Federal
use for not less than 50 years, unless specifically justified
for shorter periods of time.
academic/educational facilities
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the
Director of the Army National Guard to report jointly to the
Committee by January 1, 1998 on the review and approval process
that is applied to certify the facilities requirement for
academic/educational facilities for the Army National Guard.
This report should address specifically the system that is used
to inventory the infrastructure capacity currently available to
the Army and the Army National Guard, and the means of
determining and validating the future infrastructure
requirements of the Army and the Army National Guard for
academic/educational facilities.
Army Reserve
california--sacramento: usarc/oms/amsa
The Committee recommends $20,972,000 for construction of a
US Army Reserve Center/Organizational Maintenance Shop/Area
Maintenance Support Activity in the Sacramento, California
area, as requested. However, the Committee is concerned
regarding the siting of this project. Therefore, no funds may
be obligated until 21 days after the Secretary of the Army
submits a report on the most efficient and cost-effective
location for new Army Reserve facilities in the Sacramento
area. At a minimum, the Committee will expect that this report
will evaluate the justification and cost of locating this
project at the former Sacramento Army Depot as proposed, rather
than at McClellan Air Force Base.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $172,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 176,300,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 166,300,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... -5,700,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... -10,000,000
The Committee recommends a total of $166,300,000 for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program.
This is a decrease of $10,000,000 below the budget request for
fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $5,700,000 below the
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
For 1998, the NATO nations have agreed on a funding level
of approximately $890,700,000. Of this amount, the U.S.
requirement is based on a cost share which averages about 26%.
In addition to the recommended appropriation of $166,300,000,
approximately $23,700,000 is expected to be available from
recoupments from prior year U.S. funded work, and from
deobligation of NATO funds for previously obligated projects
that were reduced in scope or canceled.
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 has received assurances that no fiscal year
1998 funds will be obligated for projects (including planning
and design) related to the enlargement of NATO. The Committee
will expect that no funds will be used for such purposes,
unless Congress is notified 21 days in advance of the
obligation of funds.
Further, the Committee will expect that no funds will be
used for projects (including planning and design) related to
the Partnership for Peace, unless Congress is notified 21 days
in advance of the obligation of funds.
The Committee will expect the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for the NATO Security Investment Program to identify
separately the level of effort anticipated for NATO enlargement
and for Partnership for Peace within the funds requested for
fiscal year 1999.
Family Housing
Overview
The need for military family housing has changed with the
all-volunteer structure of the force. In the mid-1950s forty-
two percent of the force was married, compared to sixty-one
percent today. The percentage of service members with families
will continue to grow, and the nature of an all-volunteer force
implies greater expectations for the availability, size and
amenities of family housing. At the same time, the Department
is faced with a changing military environment due to overseas
reductions, domestic base closures, major force reductions, and
increased deployments.
Today, the family housing program is even more important
because it provides a quality of life incentive which attracts
and retains dedicated individuals to serve in the military.
However, the housing deficiencies are a severe disincentive to
reenlistment. Testimony before the Committee states that it
costs over $26,000 to recruit and train an enlisted soldier for
the first assignment. This investment is lost each time a
soldier must be replaced. The Committee has no question that
housing is directly linked to readiness, morale and retention.
While this Committee has focused on the need for adequate
family housing over the years, resources have been scarce. The
family housing crisis exists today due to the majority of
housing in the Department's inventory being substandard; high
cost areas where housing deficits exist; and problems young
families are facing who cannot afford to live in local
communities.
DOD policy is that married couples will live off-base when
the economy can support them, and about two-thirds of all
military families do reside off-base. Where there is sufficient
affordable housing in the community and commuting distances are
not over one hour, most of these families are doing well.
However, 12 percent of military families living in civilian
communities are in substandard housing. This is often the case
when rents are excessive or a family can only afford to live in
distant, isolated, and sometimes unsafe neighborhoods. This is
occurring more often because housing allowances are covering
only 75 percent of the cost of civilian housing, on average.
Many younger families only have one car and are faced with
driving distances of over an hour to the installation. In some
instances, families are choosing to remain separated simply
because suitable, affordable housing is not available at a new
assignment.
The Department of Defense has a total of 319,822 on-base
housing units in its inventory, with an average age of 34
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 201,183 units, is in need of major
improvements or replacement at a total cost of $16,582,782,000.
Unsuitable units require a major investment in maintenance
and repair to correct deteriorated infrastructure, provide
basic living standards and meet contemporary code requirements
for electrical and mechanical systems, and for energy
efficiency. Examples provided to the Committee of a typical
scenario military families face include: severe health and
safety deficiencies such as electrical systems and water pipes
needing replacement; non-working or inefficient heating and
cooling systems; nails coming through the ceilings and floors;
kitchen cabinets water-logged and sinking; ceiling and wall
paint chipped and peeling; screens with holes in them; doors
coming apart; malfunctioning smoke detectors; light fixtures
broken, and stoves and ovens with elements not working. The
current backlog of deferred maintenance and repair totals in
excess of $9,311,048,000. When housing units are not adequately
maintained, eventually they must be closed and abandoned or
demolished. Families who could have been housed in these units
must then live off-base. In turn, this creates an additional
expense for payment of housing allowances.
Aside from the problems confronting the current inventory,
the Department estimates a new construction deficit of 53,087
units at a cost of $5,460,273,000. The Secretary of Defense
proposed, and Congress has approved, a plan for a private
sector initiative which is discussed later in this report. The
Committee is hopeful this initiative will be successful and
help to resolve the new construction deficit in a timely
manner.
It will be necessary to use many different approaches to
help meet the current family housing need. The challenge is for
a sustained overall commitment, at funding levels that will
reduce the backlog of inadequate houses, reduce the housing
deficits, and increase the quality of living conditions in a
reasonable period of time. The Department estimates it will
take over $26,100,103,000 to correct the existing problem.
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)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New
construction Replacement Improvement Deferred RPM Grand total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Number of Units............. 10,000 26,140 73,250 0 109,390
Costs....................... $1,327,200 $3,398,070 $4,248,360 $5,200,000 $8,973,630
Navy:
Number of Units............. 15,000 5,100 26,000 0 46,100
Costs....................... $670,400 $758,000 $1,761,200 $2,300,000 $5,489,600
Air Force:
Number of Units............. 17,910 18,560 39,440 0 75,910
Costs....................... $2,149,000 $2,227,000 $3,155,000 $959,000 $8,490,000
Marine Corps:
Number of Units............. 10,177 643 12,050 0 22,870
Costs....................... $1,313,673 $135,910 $845,242 $852,048 $3,146,873
Total:
Number of Units............. 53,087 50,443 150,740 0 254,270
Costs....................... $5,460,273 $6,518,980 $10,009,802 $9,311,048 $26,100,103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction overview
The Committee is concerned over the fiscal year 1998 budget
request for family housing new construction, construction
improvements and planning of $680,011,000. Housing continues to
be a top priority, yet the Department's budget represents a
reduction of $300,256,000 or 31%, from the fiscal year 1997
appropriation for new construction and construction
improvements. The Committee strongly believes it is imperative
that construction funding levels must be maintained, along with
any privatization efforts, to help resolve the serious family
housing deficits. Therefore, the Committee recommends total
funding of $957,668,000 for family housing construction for
fiscal year 1998. This represents a decrease of $22,599,000
below the fiscal year 1997 appropriation and an increase of
$277,657,000 over the budget request.
new housing construction
The fiscal year 1998 request is $317,665,000 to build 2,157
units of new family housing for all Services. This is
$188,743,000 or 37 percent, under the fiscal year 1997 enacted
level. The Committee has approved all requested projects for
new housing construction, except for one project to provide
eight units of housing in Miami, Florida. In addition, the
Committee has recommended an additional $136,224,000 to build
894 units of new family housing. The total appropriation for
new construction is $453,889,000 and will provide 3,051 new
units. 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 $325,675,000 has been requested for post-
acquisition construction for all services to improve 3,937
housing units. This is a decrease of $112,579,000, or 26
percent, from the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. Post-
acquisition construction is focused on modernizing existing
units that are uneconomical to repair. The Committee recommends
full funding of the request. In addition, the Committee has
provided an additional $141,433,000 for construction
improvement projects which are listed in this report under the
individual component accounts, to improve an additional 1,314
units. The total appropriation for post-acquisition
construction is $467,108,000 and will improve 5,251 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 1998 request for operation and maintenance
expenses totals $2,988,399,000, a decrease of $92,260,000, from
the fiscal year 1997 appropriation. 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, $1,364,077,000 is for maintenance
and repair of existing housing, a reduction of $99,675,000 from
fiscal year 1997 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,
1997.
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 $15,000 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.
general and flag officer quarters
The existing reporting requirements for general and flag
officer quarters continue in full force and effect, in order to
control expenditures for high cost quarters. The purpose of
these requirements is to ensure that the total amount of all
obligations for maintenance and repair (excluding operations)
on each general or flag officer quarters is limited to $25,000
per year, unless specifically included in the annual budget
justification material. This continues the policy initiated in
1984 and developed and elaborated over several years, to ensure
that separate controls are established for orderly planning and
programming to accomplish this work.
Recognizing the uncertainties involved in accurately
forecasting ``change in occupancy'' work, the Committee
continues the following previously established notification
requirement. The Committee must be notified when maintenance
and repair costs for a unit will exceed the amount submitted in
the budget justification by 25 percent or $5,000, whichever is
less. The Committee must also be notified when maintenance and
repair costs will exceed $25,000 for a unit not requested in
the budget justification.
Notifications of each proposed expenditure must be
submitted over the signature of the Service Secretary for case-
by-case review and approval. Each Service is directed to
continue to limit out-of-cycle submissions to one per year,
except for situations which are justified as emergencies or
safety-related.
leasing reporting requirement
The Committee continues the reporting requirement for both
domestic and foreign leases. For domestic leases (not funded by
the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund), the Department is
directed to report quarterly on the details of all new or
renewal domestic leases entered into during the previous
quarter which exceed $12,000 per unit per year, including
certification that less expensive housing was not available for
lease. For foreign leases, the Department is directed to:
perform an economic analysis on all new leases or lease/
contract agreements where more than 25 units are involved;
report the details of any new or renewal lease exceeding
$20,000 per year (as adjusted for foreign currency fluctuation
from October 1, 1987, but not adjusted for inflation), 21 days
prior to entering into such an agreement; and base leasing
decisions on the economic analysis.
exclusion of asbestos and lead-based paint removal from maintenance and
repair limits
The Committee continues the requirement of an after-the-
fact notification where asbestos and/or lead-based paint
removal costs cause the maintenance and repair thresholds of
$15,000 for a military family housing unit, or $25,000 for a
General or Flag Officer Quarters, to be exceeded. The
notification shall include work, scope, cost break-out and
other details pertinent to asbestos and/or lead-based paint
removal work and shall be reported on a semi-annual basis.
reprogramming criteria
The reprogramming criteria that apply to military
construction projects (25 percent of the funded amount or
$2,000,000, whichever is less) also apply to new housing
construction projects and to improvement projects over
$2,000,000.
Family Housing, Army
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,370,969,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 1,291,937,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,351,068,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... -19,901,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +59,131,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,351,068,000 for
Family Housing, Army for fiscal year 1998. This is an increase
of $59,131,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 1998,
and a decrease of $19,901,000 below the appropriation for
fiscal year 1997.
construction
The Committee recommends $101,650,000 for new construction,
instead of $88,650,000, as requested, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Fort Huachuca (55 units). 0 8,000,000
Florida: Miami (8 Units).......... 2,300,000 0
Hawaii: Schofield Barracks (132
units)........................... 26,600,000 26,600,000
Maryland: Fort Meade (56 units)... 7,900,000 7,900,000
New Jersey: Picatinny Arsenal (35
units)........................... 0 7,300,000
North Carolina:
Fort Bragg (142 units)........ 16,800,000 16,800,000
Fort Bragg (32 units)......... 3,350,000 3,350,000
Texas:
Fort Bliss, (91 units)........ 12,900,000 12,900,000
Fort Hood (130 units)......... 18,800,000 18,800,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 88,650,000 101,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
florida--miami: (US Southern Command Headquarters) (8 units)
The Committee recommends denying the request to provide
$2,300,000 for the construction of eight units of family
housing for the leadership of the US Southern Command, due to
the unacceptably high cost per unit. The Committee concurs with
the action of the authorization committee to permit the
Secretary of the Army to lease not more than eight housing
units for key and essential personnel, at a total cost of not
to exceed $280,000 per year, with no lease on any individual
housing unit to exceed $60,000 per year. Funds may not be
obligated for such leases until after the end of the 21-day
period beginning on the date the Secretary submits written
detailed justification of the specific proposed leases, as well
as the comprehensive report of all costs related to the
relocation of the Southern Command which is directed earlier in
this report under the Military Construction, Army account.
Construction Improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the budget request for
construction improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Number of units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska--Fort Wainwright........... 32 8,300,000
Kansas--Fort Riley................ 214 14,200,000
Kentucky--Fort Campbell........... 86 8,500,000
New York--West Point.............. 56 5,400,000
Virginia--Fort Belvoir............ 98 8,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 486 44,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,520,607,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 1,255,437,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,385,682,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... -134,925,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +130,245,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,385,682,000 for
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 1998.
This is an increase of $130,245,000 above the budget request
for fiscal year 1998, and a decrease of $134,925,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Construction
The Committee recommends $179,796,000 for new construction,
instead of $90,053,000, as requested, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:
Camp Pendleton MCB (171 units) 22,518,000 22,518,000
Lemoore NAS (128 units)....... 23,226,000 23,226,000
Miramar MCAS (166 units)...... 28,881,000 28,881,000
San Diego NC (94 units)....... 0 13,500,000
Twentynine Palms MCAGCC (132
units)....................... 23,891,000 23,891,000
Hawaii: Pearl Harbor NC (84 units) 0 17,900,000
Louisiana: New Orleans NC (100
units)........................... 0 11,930,000
Texas: Kingsville/Corpus Christi
NC (212 units)................... 0 22,250,000
Washington: Bangor NC (118 units). 0 15,700,000
Worldwide Various:
Reduction From Prior Year
Savings...................... -8,463,000 0
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 90,053,000 179,796,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the budget request for
construction improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/Project units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California--China Lake NAWC \1\......... 0 4,193,000
Illinois--Great Lakes PWC............... 64 7,700,000
Maryland--Patuxent River NAWC........... 123 12,390,000
North Carolina--Cherry Point MCAS....... 155 11,300,000
Washington--Bremerton NC................ 100 4,919,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 442 40,502,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes demolition of 120 units.
italy--naval support activity, naples and sigonella nas
The Committee is concerned about the quality of life for
military personnel and their families assigned to bases in
Italy. In this regard, the Committee fully supports the
Department's efforts to obtain family housing and community
facilities at Sigonella and Naples. However, the Committee is
not convinced that continued long-term leasing is the most cost
effective alternative. The Committee strongly encourages the
Department to reevaluate the anticipated life-cycle costs for
these facilities and, if supported by the results of the
analysis, to request the necessary funding in the appropriate
account to buy-out the leases at the most opportune time.
Family Housing, Air Force
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,134,016,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 1,083,362,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,171,643,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... +37,627,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... +88,281,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,171,643,000 for
Family Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 1998. This is an
increase of $88,281,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1998, and an increase of $37,627,000 above the
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
Construction
The Committee recommends $172,443,000 for new construction,
instead of $138,962,000, as requested, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Davis-Monthan AFB (70
units)........................... 0 $9,800,000
California:
Edwards AFB, Phase III (51
units)....................... $8,500,000 8,500,000
Edwards AFB (44 units)........ 0 8,300,000
Travis AFB (70 units)......... 9,714,000 9,714,000
Vanderberg AFB (108 units).... 17,100,000 17,100,000
Delaware: Dover AFB (Housing
Maintenance Facility)............ 831,000 831,000
District of Columbia: Bolling AFB
(46 units)....................... 5,100,000 5,100,000
Florida:
MacDill AFB (58 units)........ 10,000,000 10,000,000
Tyndall AFB (32 units)........ 4,200,000 4,200,000
Georgia: Robins AFB (60 units).... 6,800,000 6,800,000
Idaho: Mountain Home AFB (60
units)........................... 11,032,000 11,032,000
Kansas:
McConnell AFB (19 units)...... 2,951,000 2,951,000
McConnell AFB (Housing
Management Office)........... 0 581,000
Mississippi:
Columbus AFB (50 units)....... 6,200,000 6,200,000
Keesler AFB (40 units)........ 5,000,000 5,000,000
Montana: Malmstrom AFB (28 units). 4,842,000 4,842,000
New Mexico: Kirtland AFB (180
units)........................... 20,900,000 20,900,000
North Dakota: Grand Forks AFB (42
units)........................... 7,936,000 7,936,000
Texas:
Dyess AFB (70 units).......... 10,503,000 10,503,000
Goodfellow AFB (3 units)...... 500,000 500,000
Lackland AFB (50 units)....... 0 7,400,000
Sheppard AFB (40 units)....... 0 7,400,000
Wyoming: F E Warren AFB (52 units) 6,853,000 6,853,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 138,962,000 172,443,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the request for construction
improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location/Project units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California--Travis AFB.................. 147 $10,500,000
Delaware--Dover AFB..................... 50 5,100,000
New Mexico--Cannon AFB.................. 147 8,900,000
Oklahoma--Tinker AFB.................... 60 4,600,000
South Carolina--Shaw AFB................ 98 10,500,000
Washington--Fairchild AFB............... 42 5,500,000
Guam--Andersen AFB...................... 64 9,700,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 608 54,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Housing, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $35,334,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 37,674,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 37,674,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... +2,340,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $37,674,000 for Family
Housing, Defense-wide for fiscal year 1998. This is equal to
the budget request for fiscal year 1998, and an increase of
$2,340,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $25,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 0
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 0
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... -25,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for
fiscal year 1998. This is equal to the budget request for
fiscal year 1998, and a decrease of $25,000,000 below the
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
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. 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 will be 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 on September 30, 2000.
Reporting Requirements
Budget justification documents are to continue to display
project and administrative costs.
The Committee reiterates the existing reporting
requirements. The Service Secretary concerned may not enter
into any contract until after the end of the 21-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 21-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 30-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.
corpus christi, texas
Upon initial full occupancy of the Corpus Christi, Texas
project, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to the
Committee on the total number of units built, the number
occupied by military personnel, and the rank of the initial
occupants.
everett, washington
The project at Everett, Washington was designed for
occupancy by E-5 military personnel. The terms of the agreement
permit the developer to sell units during years 5 through 10.
Upon initial full occupancy of the Everett, Washington project,
the Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to the
Committee on the total number of units built, the number
occupied by military personnel, and the rank of the initial
occupants. In addition, when the developer begins to sell
units, the Secretary is directed to submit annual reports to
the Committee (as part of the justification of budget
estimates) on the number of units sold, the number sold to
military personnel, and the rank of such military personnel.
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $36,181,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 0
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 0
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.................... -36,181,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense for fiscal year 1998. This
is equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1998, and a
decrease of $36,181,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year
1997.
The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving
fund which finances a program for providing assistance to
homeowners by reducing their losses incident to the disposal of
their homes when military installations at or near where they
are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope
of operations is reduced. The Fund was established in
recognition of the fact that base closure and reduction actions
can have serious economic effects on local communities. The
Fund receives funding from several sources: appropriations,
borrowing authority, reimbursable authority, prior fiscal year
unobligated balances, revenue from sale of acquired properties,
and recovery of prior year obligations.
Recent base closure and realignment actions have had a
significant impact on this account. The total estimated
requirements for fiscal year 1998 are $143,193,000 to be
financed by estimated revenue of $78,069,000 and prior year
carryover of $88,496,000.
Base Realignment and Closure
Overview
The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of
$15,746,672,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure program
since fiscal year 1990. In the bill for fiscal year 1998, the
Committee is recommending total funding of $2,060,854,000 under
three accounts, 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 1998:
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1998]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1990
through fiscal Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Total
year 1996 enacted \3\ recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I.............................. $2,672,830,000 NA NA $2,672,830,000
Part II \1\......................... 4,840,153,000 $317,409,000 $116,754,000 5,274,316,000
Part III \2\........................ 5,075,646,000 896,287,000 768,702,000 6,740,635,000
Part IV............................. 784,569,000 1,159,778,000 1,175,398,000 3,119,745,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 13,373,198,000 2,373,474,000 2,060,854,000 17,807,526,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transfer of $133,000,000 from ``Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.''
\2\ Includes: Rescission of $507,692,000 (P.L. 103-211); rescission of $32,000,000 (P.L. 104-6).
\3\ Includes rescissions enacted in Public Law 105-18, as follows: Part II--$35,391,000; Part III--$75,638,000;
and Part IV--$22,971,000.
environmental restoration
Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment
and Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have
appropriated a net total of $15,746,672,000 for the entire
program for fiscal years 1990 through 1997. Within this total,
the Department has allocated $4,149,900,000 for activities
associated with environmental restoration.
The Committee is concerned that the design and cost of
environmental restoration efforts should be tailored to match
the proposed re-use of an installation in order to assure that
costs are reasonable and affordable. Therefore, the Committee
continues to recommend statutory language to establish a
ceiling on the level of funding for environmental restoration,
unless the Secretary of Defense determines additional
obligations are necessary and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of his determination and the necessary reasons
for the increase.
The following table displays the statutory ceiling
established by the Committee and is equal to the Department's
execution plan for fiscal year 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling on
Account Total program environmental
restoration costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC II........................... $116,754,000 $105,224,000
BRAC III.......................... 768,702,000 398,499,000
BRAC IV........................... 1,175,398,000 353,604,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,060,854,000 857,327,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
construction projects
The Department of Defense has requested a total of
$461,894,000 within the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
base realignment and closure for construction projects funded
under the Base Realignment and Closure Accounts, Parts II, III,
and IV. The Committee recommends full funding for these
important projects. The Committee provides approval and
appropriated funds for the following construction projects as
contained in Executive Summary of Justification Data submitted
to Congress February 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Component/State/Project description BRAC round (thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army BRAC III construction, Fiscal Year
1998:
Texas:
Fort Bliss:
Repair Aircraft Hangar (46865) III.............. 3,650
------------
Subtotal Army Texas......... ................. 3,650
============
Total for Army BRAC ................. 3,650
III Construction,
Fiscal Year 1998.
============
Army BRAC IV Construction, Fiscal Year
1998:
Alaska:
Fort Wainwright:
Missile Test Facility (46159). IV............... 600
------------
Subtotal Army Alaska........ ................. 600
============
California:
Camp Parks:
Army Reserve Center Facility IV............... 9,500
(46206).
Sierra Army Depot:
Consolidated Security (45872). IV............... 900
Travis AFB:
Administrative Facility IV............... 2,250
(47187).
------------
Subtotal Army California.... ................. 12,650
============
Colorado:
Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center:
Sanitary Sewer (46341)........ IV............... 2,100
Fort Carson:
Readiness Group Administrative IV............... 2,500
Facility (46413).
------------
Subtotal Army Colorado...... ................. 4,600
============
District of Columbia:
Walter Reed AMC:
Nurse Training Facility IV............... 1,500
(463342).
------------
Subtotal Army District of ................. 1,500
Columbia.
============
Maryland:
Fort Detrick:
Health Clinic (46329)......... IV............... 650
Fort Meade:
Administrative Facility IV............... 6,300
(47237).
------------
Subtotal Army Maryland...... ................. 6,950
============
Michigan:
Detroit Arsenal:
Storage Facility (46300)...... IV............... 5,900
------------
Subtotal Army Michigan...... ................. 5,900
============
Missouri:
Fort Leonard Wood:
Range Modifications (46094)... IV............... 17,500
Military Operations in IV............... 6,900
Urbanized Terrain Facility
(45892).
------------
Subtotal Army Missouri...... ................. 24,400
============
Nevada:
Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant:
Warehouse (46217)............. IV............... 1,550
Nellis AFB:
Administrative Facility IV............... 3,850
(46291).
------------
Subtotal Army Nevada........ ................. 5,400
============
New York:
Fort Totten:
Storage facility (46258)...... IV............... 1,900
------------
Subtotal Army New York...... ................. 1,900
============
South Carolina:
Fort Jackson:
DOD Polygraph Instructional IV............... 4,600
Facility (45839).
------------
Subtotal Army South Carolina ................. 4,600
============
Virginia:
Fort Pickett:
Reserve Center Building IV............... 3,100
(46354).
------------
Subtotal Army Virginia...... ................. 3,100
============
Washington:
Fort Lewis:
Center for Health Promotion IV............... 3,150
(46056).
------------
Subtotal Army Washington.... ................. 3,150
============
Various Locations:
Program Management.............. IV............... 3,750
============
Total for Army BRAC IV ................. 78,500
Construction, Fiscal Year
1998.
============
Navy BRAC III Construction, Fiscal Year
1998:
California:
Naval Air Station Lemoore:
Administrative Office (186T).. III.............. 2,586
Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar:
Support Facilities (007T)..... III.............. 48,773
Pacific Fleet Antisubmarine
Warfare Training Center San
Diego:
Gym (387T).................... III.............. 3,501
Naval Submarine Base San Diego:
Pier Renovation (124T)........ III.............. 891
Public Works Center San Diego:
Public Works Shop (175T)...... III.............. 1,821
------------
Subtotal Navy California.... ................. 57,572
============
Florida:
Naval Aviation Depot
Jacksonville:
Administrative Building (220T) III.............. 5,074
Naval Air Station Jacksonville:
Aviation Physiology Training III.............. 3,383
Building (831T).
Naval Training Center Orlando:
Facility Modifications (001T). III.............. 2,686
------------
Subtotal Navy Florida....... ................. 11,143
============
Georgia:
Naval Air Station Atlanta:
Marine Reserve Training III.............. 9,053
Facility (906T).
------------
Subtotal Navy Georgia....... ................. 9,053
============
Hawaii:
Pacific Missile Range Facility
Barking Sands:
Ordnance Facilities (297T).... III.............. 612
Marine Corps Station Kaneohe
Bay:
Aviation Supply Facilities III.............. 1,491
(274T).
Utilities Upgrade (504T)...... III.............. 2,168
Ordnance Facilities (508T).... III.............. 1,160
Naval Station Pearl Harbor:
Fleet Imaging Center (524T)... III.............. 1,005
Public Works Center Pearl
Harbor:
Utility System Modifications III.............. 1,492
(539T).
------------
Subtotal Navy Hawaii........ ................. 7,928
============
Virginia:
Naval Station Norfolk:
Adminstrative Facility (360T). III.............. 995
------------
Subtotal Navy Virginia...... ................. 995
============
Washington:
Naval Hospital Bremerton:
Outpatient Clinic (019T)...... III.............. 10,409
------------
Subtotal Navy Washington.... ................. 10,409
============
Wisconsin:
Fort McCoy:
Equipment Maintenance Facility III.............. 2,295
(701T).
------------
Subtotal Navy Wisconsin..... ................. 2,295
============
Total for Navy BRAC III ................. 99,395
Construction, Fiscal Year
1998.
============
Navy BRAC IV Construction, Fiscal Year
1998:
California:
Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar:
Administrative/Training Spaces IV............... 1,403
(020U).
Naval Air Station North Island:
Operational Facility and IV............... 28,750
Parking (820U).
Intermediate Maintenance IV............... 1,273
Facility (822U).
------------
Subtotal Navy California.... ................. 31,426
============
District of Columbia:
Commandant Naval District
Washington:
Naval Sea Systems Command IV............... 86,045
Headquarters Relocation
(088U).
------------
Subtotal Navy District of ................. 86,045
Columbia.
============
Florida:
Naval Air Station Jacksonville:
Medical/Dental Additions IV............... 2,985
(231U).
S-3 Naval Maintenance Training
Group:
Modifications (239U).......... IV............... 1,329
------------
Subtotal Navy Florida....... ................. 4,314
============
Guam:
Naval Activities:
Building Renovation (416U).... IV............... 597
------------
Subtotal Navy Guam.......... ................. 597
============
Pennsylvania:
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Philadelphia:
Acoustics R&D Facility (185U). IV............... 6,151
------------
Subtotal Navy Pennsylvania.. ................. 6,151
============
Virginia:
Naval Air Station Oceana:
Flight Simulator Building IV............... 8,998
Addition (160U).
Corrosion Control Hangar IV............... 4,775
(576U).
Hangar Utilities Improvements IV............... 1,244
(165U).
F/A 18 Aviation Maintenance IV............... 2,686
Additions (164U).
Renovate/Addition Training IV............... 5,671
Facility (161U).
Fleet Industrial Supply Center
Williamsburg:
Building Renovation (028U).... IV............... 2,437
Cargo Staging Area (029U)..... IV............... 1,443
------------
Subtotal Navy Virginia...... ................. 27,254
============
Total Navy BRAC IV ................. 155,787
Construction, Fiscal Year
1998.
============
Air Force BRAC III Construction, Fiscal
Year 1998:
California:
Travis AFB:
Land Purchase (XDZT973300).... III.............. 2,050
------------
Total for Air Force BRAC III ................. 2,050
Construction, Fiscal Year
1998.
============
Air Force BRAC III Family Housing,
Fiscal Year 1998:
California:
Travis AFB:
Improve Family Housing 375 III.............. 46,010
units (XDAT950000).
------------
Total for Air Force BRAC III ................. 46,010
Family Housing, Fiscal Year
1998.
============
Air Force BRAC IV Construction, Fiscal
Year 1998:
California:
Beale AFB:
Dining Facility (PRJ891009R1). IV............... 2,100
938 Engineering Installation IV............... 8,100
Squadron (PRJY911023R2).
Enlisted Dormitory IV............... 9,000
(PRJY93103R2).
Add to Child Development IV............... 2,100
Center (PRJY95301R1).
Vehicle Maintenance Facility IV............... 1,450
(PRJY953009R1).
Air Force Reserve KC-135 IV............... 1,700
Flight Simulator
(PRJY953046R1).
Palmdale Plant 42:
Add/Alter Secure Warehouse IV............... 580
(PRJY953008R2).
------------
Subtotal Air Force ................. 25,030
California.
============
Colorado:
Falcon AFB:
Satellite Control Facility IV............... 16,000
(GLEN973008A).
Add to Dining Facility IV............... 500
(GLEN973009).
Technical Support Facility IV............... 6,400
(GLEN973010).
Alter Operations Support IV............... 760
Facility (GLEN973020).
Add to Fitness Center IV............... 300
(GLEN973023).
Peterson AFB:
Enlisted Dormitory IV............... 1,200
(TDKA963004).
------------
Subtotal Air Force Colorado. ................. 25,160
============
New York:
Fort Drum:
Vehicle Operations Heated IV............... 1,700
Parking (WOXG959613).
Add to Fire Station IV............... 300
(FPBB969510).
------------
Subtotal Air Force New York. ................. 2,000
============
Ohio:
Wright-Patterson AFB:
Renovate Support Facility IV............... 2,500
(PRJY921012R1).
------------
Subtotal Air Force Ohio..... ................. 2,500
============
Oklahoma:
Vance AFB:
Add to Child Development IV............... 330
Center (XTLF983303).
------------
Subtotal Air Force Oklahoma. ................. 330
============
Texas:
Brooks AFB:
Add/Alter Life Sciences/ IV............... 3,900
Textile Laboratory
(CNBC993000).
Kelly AFB:
Communications Infrastructure IV............... 2,500
Support (MBPB993225R1).
Lackland AFB:
838th Engineer Installation IV............... 5,600
Squadron (MBPB993201R1).
Child Development Center IV............... 480
(MBPB993209R2).
Add to Auto Hobby Shop IV............... 1,100
(MBPB993222R1).
Laughlin AFB:
Engine Staging Facility IV............... 2,950
(MXDP973004R2).
------------
Subtotal Air Force Texas.... ................. 16,530
============
Various Locations:
Planning and Design (BCL98RD4) IV............... 4,157
------------
Total for Air Force BRAC IV ................. 75,707
Construction, Fiscal Year
1998.
============
Air Force BRAC IV Family Housing, Fiscal
Year 1998:
Texas:
Lackland AFB:
General Officers Quarters IV............... 790
(MBPB99203R2).
------------
Total for Air Force BRAC IV ................. 790
Family Housing, Fiscal Year
1998.
------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Defense Logistics Agency and Defense Information Systems Agency
BRAC III and IV Construction, Fiscal Year 1998. Defense Logistics
Agency and Defense Information Systems Agency have no construction
projects relating to any BRAC round requested in fiscal year 1998.
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. As in the case with other military
construction projects, reprogramming requests shall only be
required when the project cost exceeds the funded amount by
more than 25 percent or $2,000,000, whichever is less. Thus, if
the Department wishes to accelerate an outyear project into the
current fiscal year, a 21-day notification and a reprogramming
request (citing the source of funds) is required. But if the
Department wishes to finance a previously approved prior year
project into the current fiscal year, no notification or
reprogramming request is required.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part I
The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 was the last year
for appropriations into this account.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part II
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation..................................... $352,800,000
Rescission........................................ -35,391,000
Net............................................. 317,409,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................. 116,754,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 116,754,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation................ -200,655,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $116,754,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part II for fiscal year 1998. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease
of $200,655,000 below the net amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1997. Below is the recommended distribution of funds as
requested:
Activity Amount
Military Construction................................. $0
Family Housing........................................ 0
Environmental......................................... 105,224,000
Operations and Maintenance............................ 11,530,000
Military Personnel (PCS).............................. 0
Other................................................. 0
Revenues.............................................. 0
-----------------
Total............................................. 116,754,000
Base Realignment and Closure, Part III
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation....................................... $971,925,000
Rescission.......................................... -75,638,000
Net............................................... 896,287,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................... 768,702,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 768,702,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation.................. -127,585,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $768,702,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part III for fiscal year 1998. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease
of $127,585,000 below the net amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1997. Below is the recommended distribution of funds as
requested:
Activity Amount
Military Construction................................... $105,095,000
Family Housing.......................................... 46,010,000
Environmental........................................... 398,499,000
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 212,401,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 6,697,000
Other................................................... 0
Revenues................................................ 0
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 768,702,000
california--presidio of san francisco: environmental restoration
The Committee is concerned that environmental restoration
of the Presidio of San Francisco should meet the deadlines
identified in the National Park Service's General Management
Plan. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to report the detailed plan for achieving environmental
restoration, as well as steps being taken to coordinate Army
cleanup activities with General Management Plan deadlines. This
report is to be submitted to the Committee by September 8,
1997.
virginia--vint hill farms
The Committee is concerned for the successful re-
development of Vint Hill Farms Station. Therefore, the
Secretary of the Army is directed to report his recommendations
regarding the demolition and asbestos removal that may be
required. This report is to be submitted to the Committee by
September 15, 1997.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part IV
Fiscal year 1997:
Appropriation....................................... $1,182,749,000
Rescission.......................................... -22,971,000
Net............................................... 1,159,778,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate............................... 1,175,398,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,175,398,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1997 net appropriation.................. +15,620,000
Fiscal year 1998 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $1,175,398,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 1998. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1998 and an
increase of $15,620,000 above the net amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1997. Below is the recommended distribution of
funds as requested:
Activity Amount
Military Construction................................... $309,994,000
Family Housing.......................................... 790,000
Environmental........................................... 353,604,000
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 487,151,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 739,000
Other................................................... 23,120,000
Revenues................................................ 0
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 1,175,398,000
Kentucky--Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville: Environmental
Restoration
The Committee recommends $4,146,000 for environmental
restoration at Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky, as
requested. The Committee will expect the Navy to expedite its
work to determine the impact, effect, and environmental safety
of dioxin compounds that have been detected in trace amounts.
The Committee notes that the Navy is budgeting $5,140,000 for
the continuation of environmental assessment and remediation of
the privatized Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, facility
during fiscal year 1999. The Secretary of the Navy is directed
to report to the Committee by December 15, 1997 regarding the
current status of this environmental restoration work, as well
as the plan for completion of this effort.
General Provisions
The bill carries a number of routine General Provisions
that have been included for several years.
The following is a further description of the Committee's
recommendation regarding sections 101, 112, and 124 of the
General Provisions.
``Cost-Plus'' Contracting
Section 101 of the General Provisions is intended to
prevent the use of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts for
construction. In the fiscal year 1996 Military Construction
Appropriations Act, this section was amended to provide an
exception to the prohibition, in the case of contracts for
environmental restoration at bases being closed when payments
are made from a Base Realignment and Closure Account. This
exception was added in recognition of the fact that unknown
factors in environmental restoration efforts make this
exception a practical necessity in order to allow such
contracts to proceed.
This year's budget request proposed language (with
subsequent technical corrections) that was intended to further
expand the exception to the prohibition in order to exempt all
contracts for all purposes which are funded from the Base
Realignment and Closure accounts, particularly operation and
maintenance contracts. The Committee does not recommend this
further expansion to the exception. If the Department wishes to
pursue this matter in the future, the Committee will expect
detailed justification citing instances in which closure and
realignment actions have been impeded by the existing language
in section 101.
With regard to the use of project labor agreements in
federal contracts for construction, the Secretary of Defense is
directed to report to the Committee not later than September 8,
1997 on whether such agreements constitute cost reimbursement
agreements, and whether the prohibition contained in section
101 applies to such agreements.
Kwajalein Atoll
Section 112 of the General Provisions permits a preference
for American contractors in the United States territories and
possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, and in
countries bordering the Arabian Gulf. At the request of the
Department, the Committee recommends modifying this language so
that it does not apply in the case of Marshallese contractors.
Housing Revitalization Support Office
The Committee recommends a new General Provision (section
124), which clarifies that appropriations made available to the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund shall be
the sole source of funds available for planning,
administrative, and oversight costs relating to military family
housing and military unaccompanied housing privatization
initiatives. The Committee is taking this action to assure that
the administrative costs of such initiatives will remain under
the jurisdiction of the Military Construction Appropriations
bill.
The Housing Revitalization Support Office (HRSO) has just
completed its first year of operations as the centralized
administrative office for managing the Department's military
housing privatization efforts. The Committee is concerned with
the distribution of resources between HRSO's staff and its
consultant expenses. It is the Committee's strong view that
HRSO should develop in-house expertise in private sector
operations in order to effectively manage this very important
program that shows so much promise, and to reduce its reliance
upon consultants. The Committee will expect that the
explanatory materials in support of the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for HRSO planning, administrative, and oversight costs
will report on steps being taken to address the Committee's
concern.
Changes in Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted
describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill
which directly or indirectly change the application of existing
law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain
available for more than one year for some programs for which
the basic authority legislation does not presently authorize
such extended availability.
A provision of the ``Military Construction, 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 II'' states that not more than $105,224,000 of the funds
appropriated shall be available solely for environmental
restoration.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part III'' states that not more than $398,499,000 of the funds
appropriated shall be available solely for environmental
restoration.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part IV'' states that not more than $353,604,000 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 work, 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,
except in the case of contracts for environmental restoration
at base closure sites.
Section 102 of the General Provisions permits use of funds
for hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 103 of the General Provisions permits use of funds
for Defense Access Roads.
Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases inside the continental United States
for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of
funds for purchase of land or land easements.
Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of
funds to acquire land, prepare a site, or install utilities for
any family housing except housing for which funds have been
made available.
Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of
minor construction funds to transfer or relocate activities
among installations.
Section 108 of the General Provisions prohibits the
procurement of steel unless American producers, fabricators,
and manufacturers have been allowed to compete.
Section 109 of the General Provisions prohibits payment of
real property taxes in foreign nations.
Section 110 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases overseas without prior notification.
Section 111 of the General Provisions establishes a
threshold for American preference of $500,000 relating to
architect and engineer services in Japan, in any NATO member
country, and in the Arabian Gulf.
Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes
preference for American contractors for military construction
in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, except bids by
Marshallese contractors for military construction on Kwajalein
Atoll.
Section 113 of the General Provisions requires the
Secretary of Defense to give prior notice to Congress of
military exercises involving construction in excess of
$100,000.
Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations
during the last two months of the fiscal year.
Section 115 of the General Provisions permits funds
appropriated in prior years to be available for construction
authorized during the current session of Congress.
Section 116 of the General Provisions permits the use of
expired or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any
project being completed with lapsed funds.
Section 117 of the General Provisions permits obligation of
funds from more than one fiscal year to execute a construction
project, provided that the total obligation for such project is
consistent with the total amount appropriated for the project.
Section 118 of the General Provisions allows expired funds
to be transferred to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations,
Construction, Defense'' account.
Section 119 of the General Provisions directs the Secretary
of Defense to report annually regarding the specific actions to
be taken during the current fiscal year to encourage other
member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Japan, Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to
assume a greater share of the common defense burden.
Section 120 of the General Provisions allows transfer of
proceeds from ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I''
to the continuing Base Realignment and Closure accounts.
Section 121 of the General Provisions prohibits expenditure
of funds except in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 122 of the General Provisions states the Sense of
the Congress notifying recipients of equipment or products
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
in this Act to purchase American-made equipment and products.
Section 123 of the General Provisions permits the transfer
of funds from the Base Realignment and Closure accounts to the
``Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.''
Section 124 of the General Provisions states that the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund shall be
the sole source of funds available for administrative costs
relating to military family housing and military unaccompanied
housing privatization initiatives.
The Committee recommends deleting the following General
Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 1997 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 104-196), because
these provisions are no longer required [section numbers refer
to sections contained in Public Law 104-196]:
Section 123, requiring the National Guard Bureau to prepare
and present annually a future years defense plan.
Section 124, stating the sense of the Congress regarding
the naming of buildings at Redstone Arsenal.
Compliance With Rule XIII--Clause 3
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends no
changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI 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 II
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV
The Committee notes that authorization for appropriations
in this bill is contained in H.R. 1119, which was reported by
the National Security Committee on June 16, 1997. It is
anticipated the authorization will be enacted into law later
this year.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, a statement is required describing the
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. Sections
115, 118, 120, and 123 of the General Provisions, and language
included under ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' provide
certain transfer authority.
Rescission of Funds
In compliance with clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends no
rescissions in the bill, as reported.
Constitutional Authority
Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI 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
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, 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
602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602(b) Allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary....................... $9,183 $9,965 $9,183 $9,909
Mandatory........................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Spending Authority
This bill provides no advance spending authority.
Five-Year Projection of Outlays
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office.
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget authority, fiscal year 1998...................... $9,183,000
Outlays:
1998................................................ 3,071,000
1999................................................ 2,847,000
2000................................................ 1,728,000
2001................................................ 906,000
2002 and beyond..................................... 485,000
The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax
expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan
guarantee commitments under existing law.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the new budget authority and outlays provided by the
accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local
governments are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
New budget authority.................................... 0
Fiscal year 1998 outlays resulting therefrom............ 0
State List
The following is a complete listing, by State and country,
of the Committee's recommendations for military construction
and family housing projects: