94-842 PDF
2d Session
108-309
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION BILL, 2005
| JULY 15, 2004- Ordered to be printed | |
| Mrs. HUTCHISON, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following | |
| REPORT | |
| [To accompany S. 2674] |
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2674) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
| Total of bill as reported to Senate | $10,003,000,000 |
| Amount of 2005 budget estimate | 9,553,375,000 |
| Amount of 2004 appropriations | 9,316,000,000 |
| The bill as reported to the Senate: | |
| Over the budget estimate, 2005 | 449,625,000 |
| Above appropriations for fiscal year 2004 | 687,000,000 |
| CONTENTS | Page | |
| Background: | ||
| Purpose of the bill | 3 | |
| Comparative statement | 3 | |
| Compliance with section 308 of the Budget Control Act | 8 | |
| Committee recommendation | 8 | |
| Items of special interest | 9 | |
| Military construction, Army | 18 | |
| Military construction, Navy | 18 | |
| Military construction, Air Force | 19 | |
| Military construction, Defense-wide | 21 | |
| Military construction, Reserve components | 24 | |
| NATO Security Investment Program | 26 | |
| Family housing overview | 27 | |
| Family housing, Army | 27 | |
| Family housing, Navy and Marine Corps | 29 | |
| Family housing, Air Force | 30 | |
| Family housing, Defense-wide | 32 | |
| Family housing improvement fund | 32 | |
| Base realignment and closure account, part IV | 33 | |
| General provisions | 35 | |
| Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 36 | |
| Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 36 | |
| Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 37 | |
| Project listing by location | 38 |
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The Military Construction appropriation bill provides necessary funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of military facilities worldwide, both for Active and Reserve Forces. It also finances the construction, alteration, improvement, operation, and maintenance of military family housing, including payments against past housing mortgage indebtedness. Certain types of community impact assistance may be provided, as well as assistance to members of the military who face loss on the sale of private residences due to installation realignments and closures. The bill is also the source for the U.S. share of the NATO Security Investment Program. In addition, the bill provides funding to implement base closures and realignments authorized by law.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT
The Committee recommends appropriations totaling $10,003,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 military construction, family housing, and base closure. The following table displays the Committee recommendation in comparison with the current fiscal year, and the President's fiscal year 2005 request.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2004 enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation Increase (+) or decrease (-) compared with--
2004 enacted Budget estimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military construction, Army 1,448,239 1,771,285 1,977,166 +528,927 +205,881
Rescissions -183,615 +183,615
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-106) 162,100 -162,100
Total 1,426,724 1,771,285 1,977,166 +550,442 +205,881
Military construction, Navy 1,238,458 1,060,455 1,016,315 -222,143 -44,140
Rescissions -45,622 +45,622
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-106) 45,530 -45,530
Total 1,238,366 1,060,455 1,016,315 -222,051 -44,140
Military construction, Air Force 1,067,751 663,964 841,131 -226,620 +177,167
Rescission -23,000 +23,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-106) 292,550 -292,550
Total 1,337,301 663,964 841,131 -496,170 +177,167
Military construction, Defense-wide 653,656 709,337 696,491 +42,835 -12,846
Rescission -72,309 +72,309
Total 581,347 709,337 696,491 +115,144 -12,846
Total, Active components 4,583,738 4,205,041 4,531,103 -52,635 +326,062
Military construction, Army National Guard 311,592 295,657 381,765 +70,173 +86,108
Military construction, Air National Guard 222,908 127,368 231,083 +8,175 +103,715
Military construction, Army Reserve 88,451 87,070 66,325 -22,126 -20,745
Military construction, Naval Reserve 45,498 25,285 33,735 -11,763 +8,450
Military construction, Air Force Reserve 62,032 84,556 101,373 +39,341 +16,817
Total, Reserve components 730,481 619,936 814,281 +83,800 +194,345
Total, Military construction 5,314,219 4,824,977 5,345,384 +31,165 +520,407
Appropriations (5,138,585) (4,824,977) (5,345,384) (+206,799) (+520,407)
Rescissions (-324,546) (+324,546)
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program 169,300 165,800 165,800 -3,500
Rescission -8,000 +8,000
Total 161,300 165,800 165,800 +4,500
Family housing construction, Army 383,591 636,099 636,099 +252,508
Rescission -94,151 +94,151
Total 289,440 636,099 636,099 +346,659
Family housing operation and maintenance, Army 1,033,026 928,907 928,907 -104,119
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-106) 11,420 -11,420
Total 1,044,446 928,907 928,907 -115,539
Family housing construction, Navy and Marine Corps 184,193 139,107 139,107 -45,086
Rescission -40,508 +40,508
Total 143,685 139,107 139,107 -4,578
Family housing operation and maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps 835,078 704,504 704,504 -130,574
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-106) 6,280 -6,280
Total 841,358 704,504 704,504 -136,854
Family housing construction, Air Force 657,065 846,959 846,959 +189,894
Rescission -19,347 +19,347
Total 637,718 846,959 846,959 +209,241
Family housing operation and maintenance, Air Force 816,074 863,896 856,114 +40,040 -7,782
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 108-106) 6,981 -6,981
Total 823,055 863,896 856,114 +33,059 -7,782
Family housing construction, Defense-wide 350 49 49 -301
Family housing operation and maintenance, Defense-wide 49,440 49,575 49,575 +135
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund 300 2,500 2,500 +2,200
Rescission -9,692 +9,692
Total -9,392 2,500 2,500 +11,892
Total, Family housing 3,820,100 4,171,596 4,163,814 +343,714 -7,782
Chemical demilitarization construction, Defense 119,815 81,886 81,886 -37,929
Base realignment and closure account 370,427 246,116 246,116 -124,311
General provision (sec. 118) 55,000 63,000 -55,000 -63,000
New budget (obligational) authority 9,840,861 9,553,375 10,003,000 +162,139 +449,625
Appropriations (9,812,244) (9,553,375) (10,003,000) (+190,756) (+449,625)
Emergency appropriations (524,861) (-524,861)
Rescissions (-496,244) (+496,244)
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNTS
Military Construction, Army 1,426,724 1,771,285 1,977,166 +550,442 +205,881
Military Construction, Navy 1,238,366 1,060,455 1,016,315 -222,051 -44,140
Military Construction, Air Force 1,337,301 663,964 841,131 -496,170 +177,167
Military Construction, Defense-wide 581,347 709,337 696,491 +115,144 -12,846
Total, Active components 4,583,738 4,205,041 4,531,103 -52,635 +326,062
Military Construction, Army National Guard 311,592 295,657 381,765 +70,173 +86,108
Military Construction, Air National Guard 222,908 127,368 231,083 +8,175 +103,715
Military Construction, Army Reserve 88,451 87,070 66,325 -22,126 -20,745
Military Construction, Naval Reserve 45,498 25,285 33,735 -11,763 +8,450
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve 62,032 84,556 101,373 +39,341 +16,817
Total, Reserve components 730,481 619,936 814,281 +83,800 +194,345
Total, Military Construction 5,314,219 4,824,977 5,345,384 +31,165 +520,407
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program 161,300 165,800 165,800 +4,500
Family Housing, Army:
Construction 289,440 636,099 636,099 +346,659
Operation and Maintenance 1,044,446 928,907 928,907 -115,539
Total, Family Housing, Army 1,333,886 1,565,006 1,565,006 +231,120
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps:
Construction 143,685 139,107 139,107 -4,578
Operation and Maintenance 841,358 704,504 704,504 -136,854
Total, Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps 985,043 843,611 843,611 -141,432
Family Housing, Air Force:
Construction 637,718 846,959 846,959 +209,241
Operation and Maintenance 823,055 863,896 856,114 +33,059 -7,782
Total, Family Housing, Air Force 1,460,773 1,710,855 1,703,073 +242,300 -7,782
Family Housing, Defense-wide:
Construction 350 49 49 -301
Operation and Maintenance 49,440 49,575 49,575 +135
Total, Family Housing, Defense-wide 49,790 49,624 49,624 -166
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund -9,392 2,500 2,500 +11,892
Total, Family Housing 3,820,100 4,171,596 4,163,814 +343,714 -7,782
Chemical demilitarization construction, Defense 119,815 81,886 81,886 -37,929
Base Realignment and Closure Account 370,427 246,116 246,116 -124,311
General provision 55,000 63,000 -55,000 -63,000
Grand Total 9,840,861 9,553,375 10,003,000 +162,139 +449,625
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 308 OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT
Section 308(a) of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires that the Committee include in its report a comparison of its recommendations with levels contained in the first concurrent resolution. Appropriate data are reflected below:
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
Committee allocation 1 Amount of bill Committee allocation 1 Amount of bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution for 2005: Subcommittee on Military Construction:
Discretionary NA 10,003 NA 1 9,995
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2005 2 2,438
2006 3,591
2007 2,244
2008 939
2009 and future years 669
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2005 NA NA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends new fiscal year 2005 appropriations of $10,003,000,000. This is $449,625,000 over the budget request, and $687,000,000 above the appropriations for fiscal year 2004. The basis for this recommendation is contained in the following `Items of special interest,' and under the discussions pertaining to each individual appropriation. Complete project detail is provided in the tables at the end of the report.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Military Construction held two hearings on the fiscal year 2005 budget request. On March 30, 2004, the subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force concerning fiscal year 2005 budget priorities, base realignment and closure [BRAC], and the impending restructuring of United States military facilities overseas. On April 7, 2004 the subcommittee held a hearing on the budget requests of the United States Army and United States Navy.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The budget request for fiscal year 2005 reflects an increase of $237,375,000 from the amount enacted in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee recommends an additional $449,625,000 above the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 2005 is $10,003,000,000, an increase of $687,000,000 from fiscal year 2004 funding.
OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
The Committee continues to be concerned about expenditures for military facilities outside the United States. The report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations bill noted that the Department of Defense was more than a year overdue in reporting to this Committee on its overseas basing master plan. In the face of great uncertainty over future basing, the Committee declined funding for numerous overseas construction projects.
A year later, the master plan still has not been received, and the Department has yet to announce the results of its global basing and presence study. The Committee recognizes the Department's efforts, in the absence of a completed plan, to reduce somewhat its request for overseas construction, and concurs with that decision. However, in the face of continued uncertainty about the future of the U.S. military presence overseas, the Committee recommends against funding several construction projects outside the United States. The Committee looks forward to the opportunity to carefully consider the Department's plans, once they are released, as well as the report of the Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States.
OVERSEAS BASING COMMISSION
The fiscal year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-132) created the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States (the Overseas Basing Commission) to provide Congress an independent assessment of the Nation's requirement for overseas military bases. The Commission's final report to the Congress and the President will help inform the Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] process, congressional consideration of the Department's global basing and presence plan, and congressional consideration of the fiscal year 2006 military construction appropriations request.
Although the Department expressed its opposition to creation of the Commission, the Commission became law when the President signed the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act on November 22, 2003. The law provides that `the Commission may secure directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the Commission considers necessary . . .'. The law also provides authority for the Department of Defense to detail to the Commission any employee, without compensation. Regardless of the Department's original antipathy, the Commission is law and the Committee expects the Defense Department's full cooperation with the Commission on these and all matters provided for in the authorizing legislation.
Because of delays in the appointment of commissioners, the establishment of suitable Commission facilities, and the submission to the Congress of the Department's global basing and presence plan, the deadline for the Commission's final report is extended to August 15, 2005. This will make the Commission's life coterminal with its funding, which under current law expires September 30, 2005, and will provide an opportunity for the Commission to interact with the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, whose members need not be appointed until March 15, 2005. However, in order to inform both BRAC and consideration of the fiscal year 2006 military construction appropriations bill, the committee urges the Overseas Basing Commission to present its preliminary conclusions to the Congress no later than March 31, 2005.
UNPROGRAMMED PROJECTS
The Committee is greatly concerned about the increasing frequency with which the Department has submitted requests for out-of-cycle and over-threshold construction projects purporting to rectify `life/safety/health' deficiencies. This justification has been used especially often to justify projects, such as new gates or large vehicle inspection facilities, intended to correct anti-terrorism/force protection [ATFP] deficiencies.
The Committee fully recognizes the need to improve security and provide adequate protection to personnel working and living on military installations. In the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation for the Department of Defense, the Committee provided broad authority to expend appropriations from the Defense Emergency Response Fund [DERF] for just such military construction projects, including some $113,000,000 for access control initiatives identified by the Department.
However, as reiterated in the Senate Armed Services Committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, the life/safety/health exception is intended solely for urgent construction projects addressing deficiencies whose sudden emergence could not have been anticipated and which pose so immediate a threat to the life, safety, or health of personnel that their correction cannot wait until the next appropriation cycle. The exception is not intended as a catch-all provision enabling the Department to use excess funds for miscellaneous projects for which it has failed to properly program. Unfortunately, the Department appears to view the provision in just such a way as it has submitted numerous projects under the rubric of life/safety/health that do not meet these criteria. For example:
--The Navy cited this provision as justification for building a shooting range in Bahrain, on the theory that sailors not properly trained in small arms would be unable to carry out their defensive mission, thus endangering their lives and those of their comrades. While the Committee firmly believes in providing adequate resources to support training requirements, there is virtually no construction project--tank ranges, aircraft simulators, recruit training barracks--which could not be justified under such an expansive definition of `life/safety/health.' Such an expansive reading renders the exception meaningless.
--The Air Force notified the Committee in June 2004--three quarters of the way through fiscal year 2004--of its intent to correct `life/safety/health' ATFP deficiencies that `were identified and fully defined in mid fiscal year 2003.' If these deficiencies truly posed an immediate threat to the life, safety or health of personnel, the Air Force was woefully negligent in waiting 15 months to correct them. The Committee prefers to believe that the Air Force is merely attempting to use this exception as a convenient excuse to meet a requirement for which it had not budgeted.
--On April 9, 2003, the Department notified the Committee of its intent to expend $29,500,000 of DERF funds to improve gate security at seven Army bases in the United States. In February 2004, the Army cited `life/safety/health' as the authority to proceed with several of the same projects, asserting that the security deficiencies posed `unacceptable and imminent risk to personnel.' Asked why the projects had not been executed in accordance with the previous year's notification, the Army explained that the Office of the Secretary of Defense had withdrawn the funding--without notifying Congress--to use it for other purposes. If the Department itself did not feel sufficient urgency to execute the projects nearly a year earlier, when it not only had the funding available but also had notified the Congress of its intention to proceed, it is difficult for the Committee to take seriously later claims of imminent life/safety/health risks.
Force protection is a serious matter; the Committee treats it as such and is committed to providing the resources necessary to adequately protect Department personnel. However, nearly 3 years after September 11, it is unthinkable that the Department continues to discover force protection deficiencies that require immediate remediation. Indeed, in light of the Committee's appreciation for the capabilities and competence of the Department, it is not credible that the Department is unaware of such deficiencies and is unable to program for them.
The Department's credibility is also becoming strained with respect to projects justified as `emergency' construction under Section 2803, Title 10, USC. This provision has been cited to justify unauthorized construction projects that the Department reasonably should have been able to anticipate and program for, or which are of questionable urgency.
The Committee will scrutinize carefully any out-of-cycle construction projects justified on the basis of life/safety/health or emergency considerations to ensure there is compelling evidence that such projects meet these criteria. The Committee directs the Department to submit to congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 2004, a comprehensive list of outstanding antiterrorism/force protection construction requirements for United States military bases, including the location, project description, estimated cost, and fiscal year in which the project is expected to be funded.
ANTI-TERRORIST/FORCE PROTECTION [ATFP] CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Revised ATFP standards have imposed significant additional requirements on military construction, including greater blast resistance, increased standoff distances, and resistance to chemical and biological weapons. These requirements make it imperative that the United States employs the most cost-effective technology to enhance the security of its military personnel. The Committee is aware that the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom has accepted for use a steel sandwich construction system comprising two steel plates separated by transverse steel bars and capable of being filled with various materials which provide a range of protection levels. The Committee directs the Department to examine the potential suitability of this technology for use in U.S. military construction and to report its findings to the Committee no later than December 31, 2004.
STEEL FRAMING
The Committee understands that the Department currently uses cold-formed steel for the framing of both residential and non-residential construction projects in tropical and coastal regions. Steel is more resistant than other building materials to the hurricane, mold, rot, and insect problems indigenous to those areas. Further, steel is fire resistant, domestically produced, and can have lower life cycle costs. The Committee applauds the Department for its current use, and encourages the Department to expand the use of steel framing to other regions as well.
BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $1,035,895,000 to construct or modernize 35 barracks projects.
The Committee recommends $1,015,145,000 for barracks construction projects in fiscal year 2005, a decrease of $20,750,000 from the budget request.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
The Committee notes that the military housing privatization program has been very successful in improving the quality of housing for military families and has encouraged more military families with school age children to live on or adjacent to military installations. The Committee also recognizes that the privatization program can impact the demographics of the communities surrounding military installations, and has a potentially significant impact on some local school districts. In view of the current Base Realignment and Closure process and the Defense Department's Global Posture Review, both of which could consolidate more military families at fewer installations, the Committee believes it is increasingly important to understand the impact of housing privatization on local educational resources. The privatization program has generated various approaches to address the resultant educational impact on local communities. One particularly innovative example is the charter school at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Belle Chasse, Louisiana. The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of using charter schools in conjunction with the privatization program to address military school requirements, and to explore the feasibility of using the Belle Chasse charter school as a model to be replicated in other parts of the country.
BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Service Installation Project Request Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Army Fort Richardson Barracks Complex (60 Person) 7,600 7,600
Army Fort Wainwright Barracks Complex--Lorraine Road (144 Person) 39,815 39,815
Army Fort Wainwright Barracks Complex Renewal--Santiago Road (144 Person) 30,912 30,912
Arizona Navy Yuma Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (150 Room) 18,740 18,740
Air Force Luke AFB Dormitory (120 Room) 10,000 10,000
California Navy Camp Pendleton Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (200 Room) 19,975 19,975
Colorado Army Fort Carson Barracks Complex--Hospital Area (128 Person) 14,108 14,108
Georgia Army Fort Benning Barracks Complex--Kelley Hill/Main Post (456 Person) 49,565 49,565
Army Fort Stewart Barracks Complex--5Th & 16Th St Ph 2 (336 Person) 32,950 32,950
Hawaii Army Schofield Barracks Barracks Complex Renewal--Capron Ave Ph 3 (200 Person) 48,000 48,000
Army Schofield Barracks Barracks Complex--Quad E, Ph 2 (150 Person) 36,000 36,000
Illinois Navy Great Lakes RTC Barracks (1,056 Person) 35,920 35,920
Navy Great Lakes RTC Barracks (1,056 Person) 38,851 38,851
Kansas Army Fort Riley Barracks Complex Renewal (312 Person) 41,000 41,000
Kentucky Army Fort Campbell Barracks Complex--42Nd St/Indiana Ave Ph 1 (504 Person) 30,000 30,000
Louisiana Air Force Barksdale AFB Dormitory (168 Room) 13,800 13,800
Minnesota Air National Guard Duluth IAP Air Sovereignty Alert--Crew Quarters (12 Person) 3,000 3,000
New York Army Fort Drum Barracks Complex--Wheeler Sack AAF Ph 2 (480 Person) 48,000 48,000
North Carolina Army Fort Bragg Barracks Complex Renewal Blackjack St Ph 1 (200 Person) 49,000 49,000
Army Fort Bragg Barracks Complex--Bastogne Dr Ph 2 (768 Person) 48,000 48,000
Army Fort Bragg Barracks Complex--Donovan Street Ph 5 (240 Person) 15,500 15,500
Navy New River Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (216 Room) 20,780 20,780
Texas Army Fort Hood Barracks Complex (480 Person) 49,888 49,888
Air Force Sheppard AFB Student Dormitory (300 Room) 29,000 29,000
Virginia Army Fort Myer Barracks Complex--Sheridan Ave Ph 1 (420 Person) 49,526 49,526
Navy Quantico Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (130 Room) 15,090 15,090
Washington Army Fort Lewis Barracks Complex--41St Div Dr/B St Ph 2 (420 Person) 48,000 48,000
Navy Bremerton BEQ--Shipboard Ashore (198 Room) [Phase I] 34,125 34,125
Bahamas Navy Andros Island Bachelor Quarters (76 Room) 20,750
Greenland Air Force Thule AB Dorm (72 Room) 19,800 19,800
Germany Army Grafenwoehr Barracks Complex 28,500 28,500
Army Grafenwoehr Barracks Complex--Brigade 34,000 34,000
Korea Air Force Kunsan AB Dormitory (144 Room) 18,550 18,550
Air Force Kunsan AB Dormitory (144 Room) 18,550 18,550
Air Force Osan AB Dormitory (156 Room) 18,600 18,600
Total 1,035,895 1,015,145
Army Total 700,364 700,364
Navy Total 204,231 183,481
Air Force Total 128,300 128,300
Air National Guard Total 3,000 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFORMANCE WITH AUTHORIZATION BILL
The Committee strongly supports the authorization-appropriation process. However, the Committee has reported the appropriation bill prior to completion of the authorization process. Therefore, the Committee has provided construction funds for specific projects which were included in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
REPROGRAMMING RULES/CRITERIA
The following rules apply for all military construction and family housing reprogrammings. A project or account (including the sub-elements of an account) which has been specifically reduced by the Congress in acting on the appropriation request is considered to be a congressional interest item. A prior approval reprogramming is required for any increase to an item that has been specifically reduced by the Congress. Accordingly, no below threshold reprogrammings to an item specifically reduced by the Congress are permitted.
The reprogramming criteria that apply to military construction projects (25 percent of the funded amount or $2,000,000, whichever is less) continue to apply to new housing construction projects and to improvements over $2,000,000. To provide the individual Services the flexibility to proceed with construction contracts without disruption or delay, the costs associated with environmental hazard remediation such as asbestos removal, radon abatement, lead-based paint removal or abatement, and any other legislated environmental hazard remediation may be excluded, provided that such remediation requirements could not be reasonably anticipated at the time of budget submission. This exclusion applies to projects authorized in the budget year, and also projects authorized in prior years for which construction contracts have not been completed.
Furthermore, in instances where a prior approval reprogramming request for a project or account has been approved by the Committee, the amount approved becomes the new base for any future increase or decrease via below threshold reprogrammings (provided that the project or account is not a congressional interest item).
REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REPORTING REQUIREMENT
The Committee recommends a continuation of the following general rules for repairing a facility under Operations and Maintenance account funding:
Components of the facility may be repaired by replacement, and such replacement can be up to current standards or code.
Interior arrangements and restorations may be included as repair, but additions, new facilities, and functional conversions must be performed as military construction projects.
Such projects may be done concurrent with repair projects, as long as the final conjunctively funded project is a complete and usable facility.
The appropriate Service Secretary shall submit a 21-day notification prior to carrying out any repair project with an estimated cost in excess of $7,500,000.
The Department is directed to continue to provide the real property maintenance backlog at all installations for which there is a requested construction project in future budget requests. This information is to be provided on Form 1390. In addition, for all troop housing requests, the Form 1391 is to continue to show all real property maintenance conducted in the past 2 years and all future requirements for unaccompanied housing at that installation.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
| Appropriations, 2004 | $1,426,724,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 1,771,285,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 1,977,166,000 |
The Committee recommends $1,977,166,000 for the Army for fiscal year 2005. This is an increase of $205,881,000 over the budget request for fiscal year 2005. (See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)
The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2005 as practical:
Ammunition Igloo Door Installation, Toole Army Depot, UT- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,400,000 be made available for this project.
Facilities Upgrade, Camp Rudder, Eglin AFB, FL- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $365,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
MacGregor Range Tank Bypass, Holloman AFB, NM- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,656,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Soldier Service Center, Fort Campbell, KY- This project, currently programmed for fiscal year 2009, will consolidate soldier support facilities under one roof. During the 101st Airborne Division's deployment and redeployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, these activities were spread out over numerous locations and required a physical fitness center to be shut down in order to serve as a soldier processing center. This facility will improve greatly the power projection capabilities of the 101st Airborne by enhancing their ability to prepare and process individual soldiers to deploy out of Fort Campbell. The Committee strongly urges the Army to move this project forward to fiscal year 2006.
Taxiway Improvements, Godman Army Airfield, Fort Knox, KY- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $940,000 be made available for completion of this project.
Woodlawn Road Relocation, Fort Belvoir, VA- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,890,000 be made available for the design of this project.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY
| Appropriations, 2004 | $1,238,366,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 1,060,455,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 1,016,315,000 |
The Committee recommends $1,016,315,000 for Navy and Marine Corps military construction for fiscal year 2005. This amount is a decrease of $44,140,000 from the fiscal year 2005 budget request. (See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)
The Committee fully expects contracts for the following project to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2005 as practical:
Waterfront Operations Facilities, Kaneohe Bay, HI- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $600,000 be made available for the design of these facilities.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
| Appropriations, 2004 | $1,337,301,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 663,964,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 841,131,000 |
The Committee recommends $841,131,000 for the Air Force in fiscal year 2005. This is an increase of $177,167,000 from the fiscal year 2005 budget request. (See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)
SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, GERMANY
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, currently hosts an Air Force fighter wing and is an integral part of the program to move airlift capabilities from Rhein Main Air Base. The future of the fighter presence at Spangdahlem is uncertain in light of the Department's ongoing global basing and presence review, but given significant investments made under the Rhein Main Transition Program, a continued U.S. presence at this base is likely. Increased military construction requirements are already forcing an expansion into areas northwest of the base, and future plans call for the potential acquisition of still more land outside the base's current boundaries. However, significant acreage around the Spangdahlem flight line is occupied by aging hardened shelters in which fighter aircraft are housed. These shelters provide substandard work space, are expensive to maintain, and are arrayed to enhance the security of the aircraft, not to maximize the utilization of space. A legacy of the cold war, the aircraft shelters may not be appropriate to current and projected military requirements; demolishing them and putting the space to better use may be a more cost-effective alternative to further expansion of the base. The Committee directs the Air Force to examine this alternative, given projected military requirements at Spangdahlem, and report its findings to the congressional defense committees no later than January 31, 2005.
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
The Committee is aware of new and expanded missions at Scott Air Force Base [IL], including procurement of C-40C aircraft to be flown by the 932nd Airlift Wing with the 375th Air Wing as an active associate and the transfer of C-9C aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base [MD] to Scott AFB. The expanded C-9 mission and the new C-40 mission will tax U.S. TRANSCOM and Tanker Airlift Command Center headquarters and require additional administrative and operations space/structures. The Committee recognizes the importance of Scott Air Force Base to our national defense. In order to accommodate additional capacity at the Base and fully support the new and expanded missions, the Committee directs the Air Force to pursue options, including consideration of an agreement with St. Clair County, Illinois, to expedite the construction of joint administrative and operations structures at Scott Air Force Base.
The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2005 as practical:
Clear Rinse Facility, Hickam AFB, HI- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $92,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Joint Regional Combat Arms Training Center, Hickam AFB, HI- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $693,000 be made available for the design of this training center.
Land Acquisition, Dover Air Force Base, DE- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $740,000 be made available for this land acquisition.
Main/Satellite Fire/Crash Rescue Station, Hickam AFB, HI- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,340,000 be made available for the design of this rescue station. This is an urgent requirement, and the Committee urges the Air Force to retain it in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission.
Parking Structure, Los Angeles AFB, CA- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $640,000 be made available for the design of this structure.
Port of Anchorage Stryker Access Road, Elmendorf AFB/Fort Richardson, AK- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $2,000,000 be made available for the design of this project.
Propulsion Energetics Science Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CA- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,314,000 be made available for the design of this laboratory.
Visiting Airmen's Quarters, Elemendorf AFB, AK- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $140,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Water Treatment Facility, Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, NV- The committee directs the Air Force to conduct a study on the feasibility of constructing a waste water treatment facility in Indian Springs, Nevada, and report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 2004. The study should be conducted jointly with the Clark County Water Reclamation District and the township of Indian Springs, Nevada. The study should take into account the proposed expansion of the Air Force mission at Indian Springs Auxiliary Field, as well as the long term needs of the community. Efficiencies and cost savings resulting from a jointly constructed and managed facility should be explored in detail.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE
| Appropriations, 2004 | $581,347,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 709,337,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 696,491,000 |
The Committee recommends $696,491,000 for projects considered within the `Defense-wide' account. The amount recommended is a decrease of $12,846,000 from the fiscal year 2005 budget request. (See State tables at the end of the report for complete program recommendations.)
The Committee fully expects contracts for the following project to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2005 as possible:
Special Operations Forces Cold Weather Training Facility, Kodiak Island, AK- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $720,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
MEDICAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $183,138,000 for nine major construction projects. The Committee recommends a total of $187,838,000 for 10 projects, an increase of $4,700,000.
MEDICAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Service Installation Project Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Defense Wide Fort Wainwright Hospital Replacement Phase VI 9,900 9,900
California Air National Guard Fresno-Yosemite Int'l Airport Medical Training & Security Forces Complex 4,700
Colorado Defense Wide Buckley Air Force Base Aeromedical Clinic Addition/Alteration 2,100 2,100
Florida Defense Wide Jacksonville Hospital Addition/Alteration 28,438 28,438
Georgia Defense Wide Fort Benning Consolidated Health Clinic 7,100 7,100
South Carolina Defense Wide Parris Island Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement 25,000 25,000
Virginia Defense Wide Langley AFB Hospital Addition/Alteration 50,800 50,800
Defense Wide Fort Belvoir Hospital Replacement Phase I 43,000 43,000
Diego Garcia Defense Wide Diego Garcia Dental Clinic Replacement 3,800 3,800
Germany Defense Wide Grafenwoehr Dispensary/Dental Clinic Additon/Alteration 13,000 13,000
Total 183,138 187,838
Defense Wide Total 183,138 183,138
Air National Guard Total 4,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Secretary of Defense `Contingency construction' account in accordance with the budget request. This account provides funds which may be used by the Secretary of Defense for unforeseen facility requirements. The Committee believes that the funding provided in the account is adequate to meet the needs of the Department.
ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends the full budget request of $60,000,000 for the Energy Conservation Investment Program [ECIP]. The Committee maintains a strong interest in renewable energy resources, including wind, solar, and geothermal, and commends the Services for the awards they have received for renewable energy initiatives, including the Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management. The Committee also commends the Navy for its geothermal energy program at China Lake, California. According to the General Accounting Office, the program generates a revenue stream of, on average, $14,700,000 a year, two-thirds of which the Navy invests in a variety of energy conservation and renewable energy projects. However, the other Services do not have any similar renewable energy revenue streams, and overall, renewable energy efforts to date represent a very small percentage of the potential for increased renewable energy use at Department of Defense [DoD] installations.
In fiscal year 2002, the Committee provided $10,000,000 in ECIP funding to initiate an assessment of renewable energy opportunities on or near U.S. Defense installations (Senate Report 107-68). In fiscal year 2004, the Committee provided an additional $2,500,000 to enable the Air Force, which serves as lead agent for the assessment, to complete the study by November 30, 2004.
It is the understanding of the Committee that the 2004 funding has not yet been released, and that the study cannot be completed on time if the funding is not forthcoming. The Committee is concerned that the delays have been caused by a lack of leadership and cooperation between OSD and the Services. The Committee believes that renewable energy holds great potential for helping DoD achieve energy efficiency targets and reduce energy costs. Moreover, in the face of continued instability in the Middle East and rising threats to overseas oil production, renewable energy resources have become an increasingly important component of energy security and reliability.
For these reasons, the Committee directs the Department to release the funding needed to complete the renewable energy assessment as expeditiously as possible. The Committee also directs the Department to provide to the congressional defense committees a strategy and projected budget for implementing the findings and recommendations of the report within 90 days after the completion of the report. The plan should include the following elements: a detailed budget proposal and timeline encompassing short term and long term objectives; management and personnel requirements to execute the plan in each of the Services; and an explanation of any changes needed in procurement, legal, or regulatory requirements to streamline the procurement of renewable energy at U.S. defense installations. The plan should also provide a detailed description of standardized processes and procedures to provide ongoing program support and address operational, environmental, cost, education, and technology issues.
Because of the delays over the past year, the Committee extends the deadline for the report until December 31, 2004. Further, the Committee directs that, of the funds provided in this bill for ECIP projects, $3,000,000 be made available for solar structures, including roofing shingles and free-standing solar shade structures, to be added to or integrated into new or existing military construction or family housing projects to promote energy conservation as well as to provide other benefits, including improved working conditions for military personnel who maintain equipment outdoors.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, RESERVE COMPONENTS
| Appropriations, 2004 | $730,481,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 619,936,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 814,281,000 |
The Committee recommends $814,281,000 for military construction projects for the Guard and Reserve components. This amount is $194,345,000 above the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Committee applauds the Department for its significantly increased Reserve Component budget request but believes funding for the Reserve Component still falls woefully short of requirements, particularly in the face of the extensive demands made on the Guard and Reserve in the current war effort. Accordingly, the Committee recommends significant increases to Reserve Component funding.
The Committee's recommended action on each Reserve component project is reflected in the State list at the end of this report.
The Committee recommends approval of military construction, Reserve component as outlined in the following table:
RESERVE COMPONENT
----------------------------------------------
Component Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------
Army National Guard $295,657,000 $381,765,000
Air National Guard 127,368,000 231,083,000
Army Reserve 87,070,000 66,325,000
Naval Reserve 25,285,000 33,735,000
Air Force Reserve 84,556,000 101,373,000
Total 619,936,000 814,281,000
----------------------------------------------
The Committee has added funding for specific Reserve component planning and design initiatives. The Committee recommendation also provides additional funding over the budget request for minor construction activities for the Reserve components.
The Committee fully expects contracts for the following projects to be awarded, as early in fiscal year 2005 as practical:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Auditorium/Instructor Support Building, Camp Murray Air National Guard Station, WA- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,390,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
Multi-Purpose Machine Gun Range, Fort Chaffee, AR- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,282,000 be made available for the construction of this range.
National Guard Armory, Ontario, OR- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $473,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
National Guard Armory, Winchester, VA- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $530,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Readiness Center and Organizational Maintenance Shop, Sacramento, CA- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $2,015,000 be made available for the design of these facilities.
Taxiway/Apron, Williamstown, WV- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
Training Area Railhead, Gowen Field, ID- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $1,349,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Team Facility, Fort Dix, NJ- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,402,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Team Facility, Fort Meade, MD- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,414,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Team Facility, Jackson, MS- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,313,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Team Facility, Rapid City, SD- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that $1,500,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Air National Guard C-5 Conversion Program- The Committee recognizes the importance of the Air National Guard C-5 conversion program as an essential element of the Air Force transformation initiative. In order to keep this program on schedule, it is imperative that all C-5 facility conversion requirements at Memphis, Tennessee, and Martinsburg, West Virginia, be fully funded by fiscal year 2007 or earlier to ensure that the facilities are ready for the arrival of the C-5 aircraft in 2008. The Committee therefore urges the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain the current funding schedule, or accelerate the schedule where feasible, to provide full funding for the remainder of these facilities in the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 time frame.
C-5 Facilities, Martinsburg, WV- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that not less than $3,000,000 be made available for the design of these facilities.
Fire/Rescue Replacement and Deployment Training Facility, Hector, ND- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $702,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Munitions Maintenance and Storage Facility, Gowen Field, ID- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that not less than $900,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Pararescue Readiness Facility, Francis Gabreski Airport, Westhampton, NY- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $990,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
Security Police Annex, Great Falls International Airport, MT- Of the funds provided for unspecified minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that not less than $900,000 be made available for construction of this facility.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, U.S. ARMY RESERVE
Armed Forces Reserve Center, Houston, TX- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $3,278,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVAL RESERVE
Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Facility, New Orleans Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base, LA- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $750,000 be made available for the design of this facility.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE
Fire Crash Rescue Station, Niagara Air Reserve Station, NY- Of the funds provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that $702,000 be made available for the design of this station.
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
| Appropriations, 2004 | $161,300,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 165,800,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 165,800,000 |
The Committee has provided $165,800,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2005, fully funding the budget request.
The Committee continues the requirement that no funds will be used for projects (including planning and design) related to the enlargement of NATO and the Partnership for Peace program, unless Congress is notified 21 days in advance of the obligation of funds. In addition, the Committee's intent is that section 121 of the General Provisions shall apply to this program.
The Department of Defense is directed to identify separately the level of effort anticipated for NATO enlargement and for Partnership for Peace for that fiscal year in future budget justifications.
The Committee continues to direct that no funds appropriated in this or any other Act for the NATO Security Investment Program be obligated or expended for missile defense studies.
FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Committee has provided $4,163,814,000 for family housing construction, operations and maintenance, and the Department's family housing improvement fund. This amount is $7,782,000 below the fiscal year 2005 budget request but $343,714,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
FAMILY HOUSING, ARMY
| Appropriations, 2004 | $1,333,886,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 1,565,006,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 1,565,006,000 |
The Committee recommends a total of $1,565,006,000 for family housing, Army, in fiscal year 2005. This is equal to the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
CONSTRUCTION
The Committee recommends $394,900,000 for new construction, as shown below:
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Project Title Request Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Fort Wainwright Family Housing New Construction (100 Units) 41,000 41,000
Fort Wainwright Family Housing Replacement Construction (60 Units) 37,000 37,000
Fort Wainwright Family Housing Replacement Construction (86 Units) 46,000 46,000
Fort Richardson Family Housing Replacement Construction (92 Units) 42,000 42,000
Arizona Fort Huachuca Family Housing Replacement Construction (205 Units) 41,000 41,000
Yuma Family Housing Replacement Construction (55 Units) 14,900 14,900
Kansas Fort Riley Family Housing Replacement Construction (126 Units) 33,000 33,000
New Mexico White Sands Family Housing Replacement Construction (156 Units) 31,000 31,000
Oklahoma Fort Sill Family Housing Replacement Construction (247 Units) 47,000 47,000
Virginia Fort Lee Family Housing Replacement Construction (218 Units) 46,000 46,000
Fort Monroe Family Housing Replacement Construction (68 Units) 16,000 16,000
Total 394,900 394,900
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
The following projects are to be accomplished within the amounts provided for construction improvements:
ARMY CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Project Title Request Recommended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Redstone Arsenal Family Housing Privatization 590 590
Fort Rucker Family Housing Privatization 24,000 24,000
Georgia Fort Benning Family Housing Privatization 57,000 57,000
Fort Gordon Family Housing Privatization 9,000 9,000
Kansas Fort Leavenworth Family Housing Privatization 15,000 15,000
Fort Riley Family Housing Improvements 30,000 30,000
Kentucky Fort Knox Family Housing Privatization 31,000 31,000
New York U.S. Military Academy Family Housing Improvements 10,600 10,600
South Carolina Fort Jackson Family Housing Improvements 20,000 20,000
Germany Grafenwoehr Family Housing Improvements 5,300 5,300
Stuttgart Family Housing Improvements 9,500 9,500
Total 211,990 211,990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
| Appropriations, 2004 | $985,043,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 843,611,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 843,611,000 |
The Committee recommends $843,611,000 for family housing, Navy and Marine Corps, in fiscal year 2005. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
CONSTRUCTION
The Committee recommends $27,002,000 for new construction, as shown below:
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Project Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Cherry Point MCAS Slocum Village Replacement Phase III (198 Units) 27,002 27,002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
The following projects are to be accomplished within the amounts provided for construction improvements:
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Project Title Request Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Twentynine Palms MCAGCC Whole House Improvement 25,702 25,702
Missouri Kansas City MCSA Whole House Improvement 20,238 20,238
North Carolina Camp Lejeune MCB Whole House Improvement 56,165 56,165
Japan Yokosuka CNF Whole House Improvement 10,000 10,000
Total 112,105 112,105
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE
| Appropriations, 2004 | $1,460,773,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 1,710,855,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 1,703,073,000 |
The Committee recommends $1,703,073,000 for family housing, Air Force, in fiscal year 2005, which is $7,782,000 below the budget request.
CONSTRUCTION
The Committee recommends $570,340,000 for new construction, as requested, as shown below:
AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Project Title Request Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Davis-Monthan AAFB Replace Family Housing Phase 6 (250 Units) 48,500 48,500
California Edwards AFB Replace Family Housing (218 Units) 41,202 41,202
California Vandenberg AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 8 (120 Units) 30,906 30,906
Florida MacDill AFB Construct Housing Maintenance Facility 1,250 1,250
Florida MacDill AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 6 (61 Units) 21,723 21,723
Idaho Mountain Home AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 6 (147 Units) 39,333 39,333
Mississippi Columbus AFB Family Housing Management Facility 711 711
Missouri Whiteman AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 6 (160 Units) 37,087 37,087
Montana Malmstrom AFB Replace Family Housing (115 Units) 29,910 29,910
North Carolina Seymour Johnson AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 8 (167 Units) 32,693 32,693
North Dakota Minot AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 11 (142 Units) 37,087 37,087
North Dakota Grand Forks AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 2 (90 Units) 26,169 26,169
South Carolina Charleston AFB Construct Huntley Park Fire Station 1,976 1,976
South Dakota Ellsworth AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 4 (75 Units) 21,482 21,482
Texas Goodfellow AFB Construct Family Housing Phase 1 (127 Units) 20,604 20,604
Texas Dyess AFB Replace Family Housing Phase 5 (127 Units) 28,664 28,664
Germany Ramstein AB Replace Family Housing (144 Units) 57,691 57,691
Italy Aviano AB Replace Housing Office 2,542 2,542
Korea Osan AB Construct Family Housing Phase 3 (117 Units) 46,834 46,834
United Kingdom Royal Air Force Lakenheath Replace Family Housing (154 Units) 43,976 43,976
Total 570,340 570,340
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
The following projects are to be accomplished within the amounts provided for construction improvements:
AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Project Title Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Eielson AFB Construct Utility Corridor 3,762 3,762
Colorado AF Academy Improve Infrastructure 173 173
Peterson AFB Improve Parking 414 414
District of Columbia Bolling AFB Improve Electrical System 310 310
Florida Patrick AFB Construct River Walk 442 442
Patrick AFB Construct Tot Lot 100 100
Tyndall AFB Privatize Family Housing
Georgia Robins AFB Improve Family Housing 24,146 24,146
Robins AFB Improve Infrastructure 1,236 1,236
Illinois Scott AFB Privatize Family Housing 5,151 5,151
Louisiana Barksdale AFB Improve Family Housing, Phase I 9,109 9,109
Maryland Andrews AFB Improve Family Housing 36,381 36,381
Mississippi Columbus AFB Privatize Family Housing
Keesler AFB Privatize Family Housing 35,854 35,854
Montana Malmstrom AFB Construct Access Road 200 200
New Mexico Holloman AFB Privatize Family Housing 24,448 24,448
North Carolina Pope AFB Improve Housing Office 360 360
Tennessee Arnold AFB Improve Infrastructure 1,222 1,222
Texas Randolph AFB Improve Family Housing 28,900 28,900
Virginia Langley AFB Improve Electrical System 1,726 1,726
Washington Fairchild AFB Privatize Family Housing 17,410 17,410
Japan Kadena AB Improve Family Housing 26,722 26,722
Kadena AB Install Government Furnished Materials 843
Kadena AB Install Government Furnished Materials 730 730
Kadena AB Improve Erosion Control 750 750
Kadena AB Improve Storm Drainage System 110 110
Misawa AB Construct Storage Sheds 1,089 1,089
Yokota AB Improve Family Housing 16,483 16,483
Yokota AB Improve Family Housing 282 282
Total 238,353 238,353
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-WIDE
| Appropriations, 2004 | $49,790,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 49,624,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 49,624,000 |
The Committee recommends $49,624,000 for family housing, Defense-wide, in fiscal year 2005. This amount is equal to the budget request. Specific details are included in the tables at the end of the report.
FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND
| Appropriations, 2004 | $300,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 2,500,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 2,500,000 |
The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the Family Housing Improvement Fund. This amount is equal to the budget request.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEMILITARIZATION CONSTRUCTION
| Appropriations, 2004 | $119,815,000 |
| Budget Estimate, 2005 | 81,886,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 81,886,000 |
The Committee recommends $81,886,000 for chemical weapons demilitarization construction, an amount equal to the budget request.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT, PART IV
| Appropriations, 2004 | $370,427,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2005 | 246,116,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 246,116,000 |
The Committee recommends a total of $246,116,000 for the base realignment and closure account, part IV. This is an amount equal to the budget request and a decrease of $124,311,000 from the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee notes, however, that the Department of the Navy requested no funds for BRAC cleanup, informing the committee that it intended to expend in fiscal year 2005 at least $115,000,000 in anticipated proceeds from the sale of excess land from previous BRAC rounds. The Committee regards this as a commitment by the Department and fully expects it to expend these funds for BRAC cleanup in fiscal year 2005. With the additional monies, the funding for BRAC environmental cleanup and caretaker costs totals $361,116,000. The Military Departments have assured the Committee that this level of funding is adequate to address urgent BRAC requirements for fiscal year 2005.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT OVERVIEW
Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC], Military Construction Appropriations Acts have appropriated a net total of $22,957,591,000 for the entire program for fiscal years 1990 through 2004. The total amount appropriated combined with the Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2005 BRAC $23,203,727,000.
In appropriating these funds, the Committee continues to provide the Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by Service, by function, and by installation. The Committee recognizes the complexity of the base realignment and closure process, and particularly of the environmental clean up requirements, and believes that it is important to give the Department a significant degree of flexibility in order to execute the program efficiently.
The following table displays the total amount appropriated for each round of base closure, including amounts recommended for fiscal year 2005.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2005]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 enacted Fiscal year 2005 Committee recommended Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I $2,684,577,000 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) $2,684,577,000
Part II 4,915,636,000 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 4,915,636,000
Part III 7,269,267,000 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 7,269,267,000
Part IV 7,717,704,000 $370,427,000 $246,116,000 8,334,247,000
Total 22,587,184,000 370,427,000 246,116,000 23,203,727,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORT HUNTER LIGGETT, CALIFORNIA
The Committee is aware of interest by the U.S. Forest Service in incorporating Fort Hunter Liggett Army Reserve Base in California into the National Forest System in the event that the Defense Department determines that the base is no longer needed for military purposes. Currently, Fort Hunter Liggett fulfills a critical requirement as an Army Reserve training base, and the Committee is aware of no plans to close the base at this time. However, in view of the ongoing Base Realignment and Closure process, and the unique attributes of Fort Hunter Liggett, the Committee believes it is important to lay the groundwork for the possible future disposition of the installation.
Fort Hunter Liggett occupies 165,000 acres in an extraordinary location, in the heart of California's Big Sur region adjacent to the Los Padres National Forest. In an effort to preserve and protect this irreplaceable land for generations to come, the Forest Service is considering a proposal that would incorporate Fort Hunter Liggett and the Los Padres National Forest into a new Big Sur National Forest, should the base be closed. The area is one of California's most pristine and scenic regions. The land provides habitat for several federally listed threatened and endangered species, and also contains numerous Native American archaeological and cultural sites. The area also offers outstanding recreational opportunities including hiking, mountain biking, equestrian use, camping, nature study, fishing and hunting. Nearly half of the land that comprises Fort Hunter Liggett was national forest before being transferred to the War Department in World War II. For these reasons, the Committee believes that if the current military use of the Forest should terminate in the future, first consideration for use of the land should be for National Forest purposes, for which it is uniquely suited.
In recognition of Fort Hunter Liggett's extraordinary attributes and unique location, and in view of the potential to preserve the land as a National Forest, the Committee recommends a provision to give the Secretary of Agriculture, whose agency oversees the Forest Service, the right of first refusal to negotiate with the Secretary of the Army to accept the administrative jurisdiction of the land that comprises Fort Hunter Liggett for incorporation into the National Forest System at such time as the base may be declared excess of Federal military needs.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following lists general provisions proposed by the Committee. The Committee recommends inclusion of several proposals which have been incorporated in previous appropriations acts, provisions requested by the Defense Department, and new provisions. The Committee recommendations are as follows:
SEC. 101. Restricts payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for work, except in cases of contracts for environmental restoration at base closure sites.
SEC. 102. Permits use of funds for hire of passenger motor vehicles.
SEC. 103. Permits use of funds for defense access roads.
SEC. 104. Prohibits construction of new bases inside the continental United States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
SEC. 105. Limits the use of funds for purchase of land or land easements.
SEC. 106. Prohibits the use of funds to acquire land, prepare a site, or install utilities for any family housing except housing for which funds have been made available.
SEC. 107. Limits the use of minor construction funds to transfer or relocate activities among installations.
SEC. 108. Prohibits the procurement of steel unless American producers, fabricators, and manufacturers have been allowed to compete.
SEC. 109. Prohibits payments of real property taxes in foreign nations.
SEC. 110. Prohibits construction of new bases overseas without prior notification.
SEC. 111. Establishes a threshold for American preference of $500,000 relating to architect and engineering services.
SEC. 112. Establishes preference for American contractors for military construction in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific, and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Sea.
SEC. 113. Requires notification of military exercises involving construction in excess of $100,000.
SEC. 114. Limits obligations during the last 2 months of the year.
SEC. 115. Permits funds appropriated in prior years to be available for construction authorized during the current session of Congress.
SEC. 116. Permits the use of expired or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any project being completed with lapsed funds.
SEC. 117. Permits obligation of funds from more than 1 fiscal year to execute a construction project, provided that the total obligation for such project is consistent with the total amount appropriated for the project.
SEC. 118. Directs the Department to report annually on actions taken to encourage other nations to assume a greater share of the common defense budget.
SEC. 119. Allows transfer of proceeds from earlier base realignment and closure accounts to the continuing base realignment and closure accounts.
SEC. 120. Permits the transfer of funds from Family Housing Construction accounts to the DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund and from Military Construction accounts to the DOD Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund.
SEC. 121. Restricts the use of funds for the Partnership for Peace Program.
SEC. 122. Requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees of all family housing privatization solicitations and agreements which contain any clause providing consideration for base realignment and closure, force reductions and extended deployments.
SEC. 123. Provides transfer authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
SEC. 124. Requires that all Military Construction Appropriations Acts be the sole funding source of all operation and maintenance for family housing, including flag and general officer quarters, and limits the repair on flag and general officer quarters to $35,000 per year without prior notification to the defense committees.
SEC. 125. Limits funds from being transferred from this appropriation measure into any new instrumentality without authority from an appropriation Act.
SEC. 126. Prohibits funds appropriated for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program from being obligated or expended for the purpose of missile defense studies.
SEC. 127. Modifies the due date for the final report of the Commission on the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States.
SEC. 128. Provides authority to expend funds from the Ford Island Improvement Account.
SEC. 129. Provides to the Secretary of Agriculture the right of first refusal to negotiate over disposal of any land at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, determined to be in excess of military needs.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to the House bill `which proposes an item of appropriation which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.'
The Committee bill as recommended contains no such provisions.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 15, 2004, the Committee ordered reported en bloc S. 2666, an original bill making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and S. 2674, an original bill making appropriations for Military Construction of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, with each subject to amendment, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
| Yeas | Nays |
| Chairman Stevens | |
| Mr. Cochran | |
| Mr. Specter | |
| Mr. Domenici | |
| Mr. Bond | |
| Mr. McConnell | |
| Mr. Burns | |
| Mr. Shelby | |
| Mr. Gregg | |
| Mr. Bennett | |
| Mr. Campbell | |
| Mr. Craig | |
| Mrs. Hutchison | |
| Mr. DeWine | |
| Mr. Brownback | |
| Mr. Byrd | |
| Mr. Inouye | |
| Mr. Hollings | |
| Mr. Leahy | |
| Mr. Harkin | |
| Ms. Mikulski | |
| Mr. Reid | |
| Mr. Kohl | |
| Mrs. Murray | |
| Mr. Dorgan | |
| Mrs. Feinstein | |
| Mr. Durbin | |
| Mr. Johnson | |
| Ms. Landrieu |
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part of any statute include `(a) the text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by the committee.'
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108-132
* * * * * * *
GENERAL PROVISIONS
- SEC. 128. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (b) * * *
- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (3)(A) Not later than [Struck out->]
[ December 31, 2004 ][<-Struck out] August 15, 2005, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a report which shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions as it considers appropriate.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LISTING BY LOCATION
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation and project Budget request Committeerecommen-dation Change frombudgetestimate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ARMY:
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT: POWERTRAIN COMPONENT REBUILDING FACILITY 23,690 23,690
FORT RUCKER: AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR 16,500 +16,500
DEFENSE-WIDE: HUNTSVILLE: MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY CENTER, VON BRAUN COMPLEX (PHASE II) 19,560 19,560
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:
CENTREVILLE: ADDITION/ALTERATION READINESS CENTER 5,537 5,537
CLANTON: ADDITION/ALTERATION READINESS CENTER 3,649 3,649
ONEONTA: ADDITION/ALTERATION READINESS CENTER 4,527 4,527
TOTAL, ALABAMA 56,963 73,463 +16,500
ALASKA
ARMY:
FORT RICHARDSON:
BARRACKS COMPLEX 7,600 7,600
DIGITAL MULTIPURPOSE TRAINING RANGE 13,600 13,600
SNIPER FIELD FIRE RANGE 3,100 3,100
FORT WAINWRIGHT:
BARRACKS COMPLEX--LORRAINE ROAD 39,815 39,815
BARRACKS COMPLEX RENEWAL--SANTIAGO ROAD 30,912 30,912
COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE TRAINING FACILITY 21,732 21,732
AIR FORCE:
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE:
C-17 SUPPORT UTILITIES 6,400 6,400
C-17 FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY 7,700 7,700
FITNESS CENTER 11,957 11,957
LARGE AIRFRAME MAINTENANCE HANGAR 28,000 +28,000
DEFENSE-WIDE: FORT WAINWRIGHT: HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT (PHASE VI) 9,900 9,900
TOTAL, ALASKA 152,716 180,716 +28,000
ARIZONA
ARMY: FORT HUACHUCA: ARMY GLOBAL INFORMATION FACILITY 18,000 +18,000
NAVY:
YUMA:
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS 18,740 18,740
STATION ORDNANCE AREA 7,930 7,930
AIR FORCE:
DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE:
AIRFIELD OBSTRUCTION--HAZARDOUS CARGO PAD 4,243 4,243
COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE C-130 SQUADRON OPERA- TIONS 5,786 5,786
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE: DORMITORY (120 ROOM) 10,000 10,000
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: CAMP NAVAJO: QUALIFICATION TRAINING RANGE 3,000 3,000
TOTAL, ARIZONA 49,699 67,699 +18,000
ARKANSAS
AIR FORCE: LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE: C-130J ADDITION/ALTERATION SIMULATOR FACILITY 5,031 5,031
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD:
CAMP ROBINSON: ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY 33,020 33,020
FORT CHAFFEE: AMMUNITION SUPPLY POINT 13,798 13,798
AIR NATIONAL GUARD: FORT SMITH: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & AREOSPACE COMPLEX 6,000 +6,000
TOTAL, ARKANSAS 51,849 57,849 +6,000
CALIFORNIA
ARMY:
FORT IRWIN:
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION COMMAND FIELD OPERATIONS BUILDING 2,600 2,600
COMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY 21,000 21,000
LAND ACQUISITION (PHASE II) 14,500 14,500
SIERRA ARMY DEPOT: RUNWAY EXTENSION 13,600 +13,600
NAVY:
CAMP PENDLETON:
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS 19,975 19,975
CLOSE COMBAT PISTOL COURSE 6,940 6,940
CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS CENTER 4,910 4,910
TERTIARY SEWAGE TREATMENT (PHASE II) 25,690 25,690
WEIGHT HANDLING SHOP 6,630 6,630
EL CENTRO: APRON AND HANGAR RECAPITALIZATION (PHASE I) 33,331 33,331
MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT: INITIAL ISSUE SUPPLY WAREHOUSE 8,110 +8,110
AIR FORCE:
BEALE AIR FORCE BASE: