From GPO Gate
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-591
_______________________________________________________________________
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997
_______
May 23, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Vucanovich, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3517]
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, 1997.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Committee Recommendation.............................. 2
Conformance with Authorization Bill.............................. 3
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing.................. 3
Child Development Centers........................................ 6
Hospital and Medical Facilities.................................. 7
Environmental Compliance Projects................................ 8
Demolition of Excess Facilities.................................. 8
Crumbling Infrastructure......................................... 9
European Construction............................................ 10
Real Property Maintenance........................................ 10
Program, Project and Activity.................................... 10
Military Construction:
Army......................................................... 11
Navy......................................................... 12
Air Force.................................................... 13
Defense-wide................................................. 14
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund................................... 20
Reserve Components........................................... 21
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 24
Family Housing Overview.......................................... 24
Family Housing:
Army......................................................... 29
Navy......................................................... 30
Air Force.................................................... 31
Defense-wide................................................. 33
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............ 33
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.............................. 34
Base Realignment and Closure:
Overview..................................................... 34
Part I....................................................... 43
Part II...................................................... 43
Part III..................................................... 44
Part IV...................................................... 44
General Provisions............................................... 44
Changes in Application of Existing Law........................... 45
Compliance with Rule XIII--Clause 3.............................. 47
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law............................. 47
Transfer of Funds................................................ 48
Rescission of Funds.............................................. 48
Inflationary Impact Statement.................................... 48
Comparisons with Budget Resolution............................... 48
Advance Spending Authority....................................... 48
Five-Year Projection of Outlays.................................. 48
Financial Assistance............................................. 49
State List....................................................... 49
Summary of Committee Recommendation
The Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request of
$9,132,309,000 represents a decrease of $2,044,700,000, or 18
percent, from the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of
$11,177,009,000. 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
about the budget request overall. For example, the
Administration has committed itself to a serious barracks
revitalization program. Yet, the request for barracks
construction is $64,492,000 below last year's appropriation.
And, family housing construction and operation and maintenance
accounts are reduced by $405,339,000. The budget request would
provide $714,246,000 for family housing construction, a
reduction of $228,878,000 from current levels. Of this amount,
$369,587,000 is requested for construction of new family
housing units, a reduction of $97,337,000, or 21 percent, from
current spending. And, the request for improvements to existing
family housing units is reduced by $131,177,000, or 30 percent
from the current program. In addition, the budget request would
reduce maintenance of family housing units a total of
$112,331,000.
The lack of funding commitment by the Administration's
proposal is especially of concern due to the findings of the
Quality of Life Task Force, chaired by former Secretary of the
Army Jack Marsh. In its report, the task force noted that 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 approximately $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
$900,000,000 above the Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget
request to fund the planning and construction of several
barracks, family housing and operational facilities. Included
in this additional funding is:
--$214,116,000 for 21 additional unaccompanied housing
projects;
--$303,152,000 for new construction and improvements to
family housing units, benefitting approximately 3,700
military families;
--$100,000,000 to bring family housing maintenance of real
property in line with current spending;
--$28,260,000 for nine child development centers;
--$25,000,000 to support the privatization of family housing
and unaccompanied personnel housing;
--$155,990,000 for operational and training facilities for
the active components; and,
--$84,066,000 for operational, training, environmental
compliance and safety related activities for the
reserve components.
The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 1997 is
$10,032,309,000, a reduction of $1,144,700,000, or ten percent,
from fiscal year 1996 funding and an increase of $900,000,000
above the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
Conformance with Authorization Bill
The House passed H.R. 3230, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, on May 15, 1996, which
contains the authorization for the military construction,
family housing and base realignment and closure accounts
included in this bill. Because action on the authorization had
not been completed at the time this bill was prepared, the
Committee is considering only projects recommended for
authorization in H.R. 3230. All projects included in this bill
are approved subject to authorization.
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing
The Department of Defense estimates that 44 percent of the
enlisted force and 27 percent of the officers are single or
unaccompanied personnel. Although 18 percent live in private
off-base housing, the Department has over 612,000 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, 116,000
spaces are still serviced by gang latrines. Of the total
inventory over 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......................................................... 800 50,000 78,000 128,800
Navy......................................................... 30,000 7,000 35,600 72,600
Air Force.................................................... 29,000 3,000 700 32,700
Marine Corps................................................. 11,005 14,270 33,016 58,291
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 70,805 74,270 147,316 292,391
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cost to construct a ``1 plus 1'' living space under
the new standard estimated at $52,000, approximately
$12,400,000,000 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.
In addition to construction funding, the Committee has also
recommended $10,000,000 for start-up costs to the Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund which is discussed in
detail later in this report. It is the Committee's intention
that the Department aggressively apply these new authorities to
obtain and use private capital to improve bachelor living
conditions in a more reasonable time frame.
defense science board task force on quality of life
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life,
chaired by the Honorable John O. Marsh, Jr. cited five major
issues affecting the standard of living for single and
unaccompanied service members. These issues include broad
policies for bachelor housing; policy governing required and
allowed residents in barracks; suitability criteria for
bachelor housing; funding for bachelor housing; and management
and operation of barracks. The Committee agrees that these
issues are inter-related and must be addressed as a package.
Many options presented by the Task Force can be accomplished
within the Department and do not require legislative action.
The Department is to submit to the Committee a thorough
implementation plan for these recommendations by January 15,
1997.
``1 plus 1'' barracks standard
In November 1995, the Secretary of Defense approved the new
barracks construction standard, referred to as ``1 plus 1''.
This standard would provide a module consisting of two 118 net
square feet (NSF) rooms, a bath and a kitchenette. Two E1's
through E4's would be assigned to the module (each having a
private 118 NSF room) and share a bath and a kitchenette. One
E5 through E9 would be assigned to a module which would provide
a private bath, kitchenette and a living room. The estimated
cost for this standard is $52,000 per space.
The Committee notes that while the Services strongly
endorse the ``1 plus 1'' concept, concrete funding goals need
to be established and maintained to meet the standard in a
timely manner. The Navy and Air Force have adequately
programmed for fiscal year 1997, yet the Army has only
programmed 85% of its requirement. While there are many
competing factors, such as failing infrastructure, there is a
necessity to reduce the troop housing deficits and the
Committee expects the Services to program properly to eliminate
this deficit, even if it means granting a waiver to the ``1
plus 1'' concept.
The Committee strongly believes that the development of
barracks standard implementation master plans, installation-by-
installation, is necessary. The Air Force has already embarked
on such an effort and, therefore, the Committee directs the
Army, Navy and Marine Corps to initiate such master plans. The
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations is to
monitor this action and report to the Committee by December 16,
1996 of the individual Service's progress.
In addition, the Committee encourages the individual
Services to seek to establish site adaptable design for the new
barrack standard whenever possible. This should result in
significant savings in planning and design for barracks
projects. The Department is to report to the Committee by
February 1, 1997 on its efforts to standardize design.
fiscal year 1997 barracks request
The Department of Defense has requested $561,638,000 to
construct or modernize 41 barracks in fiscal year 1997. This is
a reduction of $64,492,000 from the enacted fiscal year 1996
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 1998 budget request.
The Committee has approved the request of $561,638,000 in
full. In order to maintain current funding levels and to help
alleviate the deficit, an additional $214,116,000 is
recommended. The locations were determined by service
priorities and all projects are capable of construction during
fiscal year 1997. The total appropriation for unaccompanied
housing recommended in this bill is $775,754,000.
The following troop housing construction projects are
recommended for fiscal year 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Fort Huachuca, Arizona........ 0 $21,000,000
Fort Carson, Colorado......... $13,000,000 13,000,000
Fort Benning, Georgia......... 44,000,000 44,000,000
Fort McPherson, Georgia....... 0 9,100,000
Fort Riley, Kansas............ 26,000,000 26,000,000
Fort Campbell, Kentucky....... 35,000,000 35,000,000
Fort Knox, Kentucky........... 0 20,500,000
Fort Hood, Texas.............. 35,000,000 35,000,000
Fort Lewis, Washington........ 49,000,000 49,000,000
Taylor Barracks, Mannheim,
Germany...................... 0 9,300,000
Spinelli Barracks, Mannheim,
Germany...................... 0 8,100,000
Camp Casey, Korea............. 16,000,000 16,000,000
Camp Red Cloud, Korea......... 14,000,000 14,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Army.............. 232,000,000 300,000,000
=====================================
Navy/Naval Reserve:
Yuma MCAS, Arizona............ 0 14,600,000
Camp Pendleton, California.... 10,100,000 10,100,000
Camp Pendleton, California.... 11,800,000 11,800,000
Camp Pendleton, California.... 12,500,000 12,500,000
Port Hueneme, California...... 0 7,700,000
San Clemente, California...... 17,000,000 17,000,000
New London, Connecticut....... 10,600,000 10,600,000
Washington Naval District,
District of Columbia......... 19,300,000 19,300,000
Kaneohe Bay MCAS, Hawaii...... 0 20,080,000
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.......... 19,600,000 19,600,000
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.......... 30,500,000 30,500,000
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.......... 5,390,000 5,390,000
Great Lakes, Illinois......... 22,900,000 22,900,000
Great Lakes NH, Illinois...... 0 15,200,000
Crane NSWC, Indiana........... 0 5,000,000
New Orleans NSA, Louisiana.... 0 8,956,000
Fallon NAS, Nevada............ 0 14,800,000
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.. 5,190,000 5,190,000
Ingleside, Texas.............. 9,600,000 9,600,000
Dahlgren NSWC, Virginia....... 0 8,030,000
Dam Neck FCTC, Virginia....... 0 7,000,000
Everett, Washington........... 10,940,000 10,940,000
Souda Bay (Crete), Greece..... 7,050,000 7,050,000
Souda Bay (Crete), Greece..... 0 4,000,000
Sigonella, Italy.............. 15,700,000 15,700,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Navy.............. 208,170,000 313,536,000
=====================================
Air Force:
Luke AFB, Arizona............. 0 6,700,000
Travis AFB, California........ 7,980,000 7,980,000
Travis AFB, California........ 0 8,250,000
Peterson AFB, Colorado........ 8,350,000 8,350,000
Eglin AFB Aux 9, Florida...... 6,825,000 6,825,000
Robins AFB, Georgia........... 0 4,000,000
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho...... 0 9,300,000
McConnell AFB, Kansas......... 8,480,000 8,480,000
McConnell AFB, Kansas......... 0 7,100,000
Andrews AFB, Maryland......... 5,990,000 5,990,000
Keesler AFB, Mississippi...... 14,465,000 14,465,000
McGuire AFB, New Jersey....... 8,080,000 8,080,000
Seymour Johnson AFB, North
Carolina..................... 1,925,000 1,925,000
Charleston AFB, South Carolina 8,180,000 8,180,000
Brooks AFB, Texas............. 0 5,400,000
Dyess AFB, Texas.............. 5,895,000 5,895,000
Lackland AFB, Texas........... 4,613,000 4,613,000
McChord AFB, Washington....... 5,390,000 5,390,000
Ramstein AB, Germany.......... 5,370,000 5,370,000
Osan AB, Korea................ 9,780,000 9,780,000
Incirlik AB, Turkey........... 1,740,000 1,740,000
RAF Lakenheath, UK............ 7,950,000 7,950,000
RAF Lakenheath, UK............ 4,260,000 4,260,000
RAF Mildenhall, UK............ 6,195,000 6,195,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Force......... 121,468,000 162,218,000
=====================================
Total....................... 561,638,000 775,754,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Development Centers
The Committee has recommended an additional $28,260,000
above the budget estimate of $6,165,000 for a total
appropriation of $34,425,000 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 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Fort Carson, Colorado......... 0 $4,550,000
Fort Eustis, Virginia......... 0 3,550,000
Darmstadt (Lincoln Village),
Germany...................... 0 7,300,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 0 15,400,000
=====================================
Navy/Naval Reserve:
Twentynine Palms MarCorp Air-
Grnd Comb Ctr, California.... $4,020,000 4,020,000
Albany MCLB, Georgia.......... 0 1,630,000
Kings Bay NSB, Georgia........ 0 1,550,000
New Orleans NSA, Louisiana.... 0 1,330,000
Fallon NAS, Nevada............ 0 1,400,000
New River MCAS, North Carolina 0 3,250,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 4,020,000 13,180,000
=====================================
--Air Force:
F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming...... 0 3,700,000
Robins AFB, Georgia........... 2,145,000 2,145,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 2,145,000 5,845,000
=====================================
Total....................... 6,165,000 34,425,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital and Medical Facilities
The budget request includes $332,642,000 for 14 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 a total of $312,642,000 for the requested items. The
reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request is the result
of limiting funds for the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research to the amount of construction that can be executed
during fiscal year 1997. The following hospital and medical
projects are provided for fiscal year 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Project title Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Maxwell AFB............ Ambulatory Health Care $25,000,000
Center, Phase II.
California-Camp Pendleton MCB.. Branch Medical Clinic 3,300,000
(Edson Range)-.
California-NAS Lemoore......... Hospital Replacement---- 38,000,000
.
Florida-Key West NAS........... Medical/Dental Clinic 13,600,000
Replacement--.
Maryland-Andrews AFB........... Life Safety/Emergency 15,500,000
Room Upgrade--.
Maryland-Forest Glen (Walter
Reed Army Institute of
Research).................... Army Institute of 72,000,000
Research, Phase IV.
North Carolina-Fort Bragg...... Cons Troop Med Clinic 11,400,000
(Smoke Bomb Hill)----.
Hospital Replacement, 89,000,000
Phase IV-----.
South Carolina-Charleston AFB.. WRM/BEE Facility---.... 1,300,000
Texas-Fort Bliss............... Life Safety Upgrade----- 6,600,000
.
Texas-Fort Hood................ Social Work Services 1,950,000
Clinic----.
Virginia-Norfolk NAS........... Environmental 1,250,000
Preventive Med Unit
Addition-.
Virginia-Portsmouth Naval Hospital Replacement, 24,000,000
Hospital. Phase VIII-.
Bahrain Island-ASU Bahrain..... Medical/Dental Clinic--- 4,600,000
-.
Worldwide-Various Locations.... Unspecified Minor 5,142,000
Construction--.
---------------
Total.................... ....................... 312,642,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Compliance Projects
The total budget request and appropriation for 31 projects
needed to meet environmental compliance is $88,298,000. 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 Lewis, WA............. Tank Trail Erosion $2,000,000
Mitigation.
Navy:
NSB New London, CT......... Hazardous Materials 3,230,000
Warehouse.
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC....... Wastewater Treatment 3,230,000
Plant (Phase III).
NS Norfolk, VA............. Oily Waste Collection 10,200,000
System.
NAWC Patuxent River, MD.... Wastewater Treatment 1,270,000
Plant Upgrade.
NS San Diego, CA........... Oily Waste Collection 7,050,000
Facility.
MCCOMBDEV Quantico,VA...... Sanitary Landfill...... 8,930,000
Air Force:
Arnold AFB, TN............. Upgrade Engine Test 3,790,000
Facility Refrig System.
Barksdale AFB, LA.......... Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 2,390,000
System.
Beale AFB, CA.............. Landfill Closure....... 6,735,000
Edwards AFB, CA............ Convert Boilers........ 3,120,000
Elmendorf AFB, AK.......... Upgrade Storm Drainage 2,095,000
System.
Langley AFB, VA............ Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 2,845,000
System.
Little Rock AFB, AR........ Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 2,535,000
System.
Minot AFB, ND.............. Underground Fuel 3,940,000
Storage Tanks, Missile
Facility.
Pope AFB, NC............... Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 2,065,000
System.
Shaw AFB, SC............... Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 2,365,000
System.
Army National Guard:
Camp Atterbury, IN......... Central Vehicle Wash 4,747,000
Facility.
Air National Guard:
Jacksonville IAP, FL....... Upgrade Heating Plants 680,000
and Chillers.
Fort Wayne IAP, IN......... Upgrade Drainage System 480,000
Barnes Municipal Apt, MA... Upgrade Heating 500,000
Distribution System.
Selfridge ANGB, MI......... Upgrade Heating Systems 3,000,000
Francis S. Gabreski Apt, NY- Aircraft Washing and 659,000
. Deicing Facility---.
Fort Worth JRB, TX......... Fuel Cell and Corrosion 3,450,000
Control Facility---.
Volk Field ANGB, WI........ Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 850,000
System.
Puerto Rico IAP, PR........ Refueling Vehicle Shop 450,000
and Paint Bay- --.
Air Force Reserve:
Homestead ARB, FL.......... Fire Training Facility. 1,300,000
Niagara Falls ARS, NY...... Fire Training Facility. 1,600,000
Deicing Facility....... 342,000
Youngstown ARS, OH......... Fire Training Facility. 1,500,000
Billy Mitchell Field, WI... Improve Storm Drainage 950,000
System.
---------------
Total.................... ....................... 88,298,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demolition of Excess Facilities
The Committee has recommended a total of $30,000,000 for
the purpose of demolishing excess facilities. The authority for
such demolition is contained in H.R. 3230, as passed the House
on May 15, 1996. Such funds may only be used when the Service
Secretary has determined that the facility is excess to the
needs of the military department or agency concerned and not
suitable for reuse.
Any demolition project exceeding $500,000 may not be
carried out under this appropriation unless approved in advance
by the Service Secretary and a 21-day notification is submitted
to the Appropriations Committees.
The Committee notes that demolition projects involving
military family housing, those as a result of a base closure
and realignment action and as a result of environmental
contamination may not be executed with funds appropriated under
this category. In addition, this appropriation is in no way
meant to preclude the inclusion of demolition of facilities as
an integral part of a specific military construction project
when the demolition is required for accomplishment of the
intent of that construction project.
These funds are to be used solely for demolition purposes
and it is the Committee's intention they will not be used as a
source for reprogrammings. However, savings from specific
projects may be reprogrammed for this purpose, not to exceed
125% of the original appropriation as contained in the enabling
legislation.
The individual Service Secretaries are to report to the
Committee on Appropriations the overall strategy for use of
these funds within thirty days of enactment of this Act.
The Committee recommends a total of $30,000,000 for
demolition distributed as follows:
Component Recommendation
Army.................................................... $10,000,000
Navy.................................................... 10,000,000
Air Force............................................... 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 30,000,000
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), 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.
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.
European Construction
The Committee has recommended the requested $127,071,000
and an additional $48,800,000, for a total of $175,871,000 for
construction in Europe. This includes 25 quality of life and 10
operational projects.
Since fiscal year 1990, U.S. troops stationed in Europe
have drawn-down from 314,200 personnel to 109,000 and the
number of installations has been significantly reduced from
1,387 to 582. The reshaping of U.S. force structure and
installations is complete. While overall infrastructure have
been reduced, the European Command is faced with increased
demands on quality of life facilities and the need for
changing, modernizing, or increasing operational facility
requirements. Obsolete WWII-era utilities do not match modern
loads and require frequent and costly repair and maintenance.
Outdated electrical, heating, sanitary and water distribution
systems are endemic throughout the European Command. And,
safety and environmental concerns exist at older facilities
that are in need of revitalization and modernization.
Deplorable family housing conditions exist and require
immediate attention. The majority of these units have never
been renovated since they were built in the 1950s. Of the
35,885 family housing units in the inventory, 29,764 or 83% of
the total inventory is in need of renovation at an estimated
cost of over $3,000,000,000. The Command's unaccompanied
personnel housing inventory is 37,624 spaces with 15,540, or
41%, classified as substandard and still serviced by gang
latrines, and 21,390, or 58%, in need of renovation.
Now that a stable European force structure is in place, and
facing frequent deployments, it is imperative to reinvest in
quality of life and operational facilities, both essential
components of readiness, in Europe. While the Committee
realizes the benefits of the Payment-in-Kind and residual value
programs, it strongly believes these must be supplemented with
traditional military construction and family housing funds.
Funding for improvements in Europe must be made in order not to
deprive our service members and their families of decent living
and working conditions.
Real Property Maintenance
In future budget submissions, the Department is directed 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
show all real property maintenance conducted in the past two
years and all future requirements for unaccompanied housing at
that installation.
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.
Military Construction, Army
Fiscal year 1996:-
Appropriation....................................... $633,814,000-
Rescission.......................................... -6,385,000--
Net............................................. 627,429,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 434,723,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 603,584,000
Comparison with:-
Fiscal year 1996 net appropriation.................. -23,845,000-
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +168,861,000
The Committee recommends a total of $603,584,000 for
Military Construction, Army for fiscal year 1997. This is an
increase of $168,861,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1997, and a decrease of $23,845,000 below the net
appropriation for 1996.
California--Barstow-Daggett: Heliport
The Committee recommends $7,000,000 to complete funding of
a heliport for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin,
California, to be located at Barstow-Daggett, California.
Additional funds for this project are available from prior year
unobligated appropriations. The Committee notes that section
2105 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1997 (H.R. 3230, as
passed the House on May 15, 1996) 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.
Military Traffic Management Command
Relocations
The 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC IV)
recommended closing the Bayonne, New Jersey Military Ocean
Terminal and relocating the Military Traffic Management Command
Eastern Area Command Headquarters and the traffic management
portion of the 1301st Major Port Command ``to a location to be
determined''. The Commission's report also recommended closing
the Oakland, California Army Base and relocating the Military
Traffic Management Command Western Area Command Headquarters
and the 1302nd Major Port Command ``to locations to be
determined''. No notification has been submitted to Congress
regarding the plans for these relocations. Therefore the Army
is directed to report to the Committee on the current status of
these relocations, options considered for receiving locations,
the approximate number of civilian and military personnel to be
transferred, the military construction requirement (if any),
and the timetable for relocation and closure. This report is to
be submitted not later than January 1, 1997.
european construction
The Secretary of the Army is directed to report to the
Committee on Appropriations by January 1, 1997 on the overall
condition of Army facilities and family housing in Europe. This
report is to contain a thorough review of the needs, along with
what construction is necessary to rectify the deplorable
existing conditions. The Committee has recommended $44,800,000
for two barracks projects, three family housing improvement
projects and one child development center. It is imperative
that the Army begin to program and budget for the necessary
projects in fiscal year 1998 to begin to address this
deficiency.
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 with personnel movements occurring from March to
October 1997, and the main body of the headquarters personnel
moving in September of 1997. This entire SOUTHCOM headquarters
relocation will be accomplished by lease, with no military
construction appropriations requirement.
The Committee directs the Army to report by January 1,
1997, on the book value of all facilities returned to the
Government of Panama through September 30, 1996.
In addition, the Committee directs the Army to report on
the status of negotiations toward a base rights agreement and a
Status of Forces Agreement that will take effect on January 1,
2000. This report is to be submitted by January 1, 1997, and
semi-annually thereafter.
Korea
The Army's ``Headquarters, Real Property Planning and
Analysis'' system shows a total facilities deficit of
$5,600,000,000 in Korea, of which $721,700,000 is for barracks.
The Committee directs the Army to report on this finding 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, 1997.
Military Construction, Navy
(including rescissions)
Fiscal year 1996:
Appropriation....................................... $554,636,000
Rescission.......................................... -6,385,000
Net............................................. 548,251,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 525,346,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation....................................... 724,476,000
Rescissions......................................... -12,000,000
Net............................................. 712,476,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 net appropriation.................. +164,225,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +187,130,000
The Committee recommends a net total of $712,476,000 for
Military Construction, Navy for fiscal year 1997. This is an
increase of $187,130,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1997, and an increase of $164,225,000 above the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
rescissions
The budget request included a general reduction to the
fiscal year 1997 Navy Military Construction account of
$12,000,000. The Committee has denied this general reduction
and has recommended rescissions totaling $12,000,000 resulting
from contract savings or previously approved projects which are
no longer required. The following projects are the sources for
the rescissions:
Fiscal Year 1992:
Iceland-NAS Keflavik: Fuel Facilities (Phase VII)... $6,900,000
Fiscal Year 1993:
Virginia-Naval Supply Center, Norfolk: Cold Storage
Warehouse......................................... 2,800,000
Fiscal Year 1994:
Pennsylvania-Naval Shipyard Philadelphia: Asbestos
Removal Facility.................................. 2,300,000
Pollution Abatement Projects
The Navy is directed to provide individual 1391 budget
justification documents for each future pollution abatement
project.
New Jersey--NWS Earle: Explosive Truck Holding Yard and Pier 4
Extension
The Committee approves the reprogramming request dated
March 28, 1996 in the amount of $2,300,000 for the Explosive
Truck Holding Yard at Earle NWS, New Jersey. This project
provides a safe, well-lit, consolidated controlled access
facility for 60 ordnance loaded trucks, the minimum essential
for loading a U.S. AOE or AE during normal peace time
operations. Funding of $1,290,000 was originally included in
the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill.
The Committee understands that an extension to pier 4 is
necessary at the Naval Weapons Station, Earle, New Jersey. The
Navy is to report to the Committee on the need for this
extension and its plans, including possible NATO funding, for
construction by September 16, 1996.
Military Construction, Air Force
Fiscal year 1996:
Appropriation....................................... $587,234,000
Rescissions......................................... -15,150,000
Net............................................. 572,084,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 603,059,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 678,914,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 net appropriation.................. +106,830,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +75,855,000
The Committee recommends a total of $678,914,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 1997. This is
an increase of $75,855,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1997, and an increase of $106,830,000 above the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
california--mcclellan afb: flood control measures
The budget request includes $8,795,000 for flood control
measures at McClellan AFB, California. The Committee notes that
both the House National Security Committee and the Senate Armed
Services Committee have denied authorization for this project.
Therefore, appropriations for this purpose are not recommended
in this bill.
oklahoma--vance air force base
The Committee is aware of several needs at Vance Air Force
Base, Oklahoma, including a Base Engineering Complex,
alterations to the Physical Fitness Center and alterations to
the Consolidated Logistics Complex. The Air Force is to report
to the Committee on the need for these projects and its plans
for construction by September 16, 1996.
Military Construction, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 1996:
Appropriation....................................... $640,357,000
Rescissions......................................... -41,866,000
Net............................................. 598,491,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 812,945,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 772,345,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 net appropriation.................. +173,854,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... -40,600,000
The Committee recommends a total of $772,345,000 for
Military Construction, Defense-wide for fiscal year 1997. This
is a decrease of $40,600,000 below the budget request for
fiscal year 1997 and an increase of $173,854,000 above the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
Phase-Funded Project
Maryland--Forest Glen (WRAIR): Army Institute of Research, Phase IV
The budget request includes $92,000,000 as the full and
final phase of funding for the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research (WRAIR) at Forest Glen, Maryland. However, the amount
of construction that can be executed during fiscal year 1997
totals $72,000,000. It is the Committee's long standing policy
to limit annual appropriations for military construction
projects to the amount of construction that can be executed
during a single fiscal year. Therefore, the Committee
recommends $72,000,000 for this on-going work for fiscal year
1997, which is a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget
request. This reduction will have no effect on the pace of
construction and will not delay the completion date for this
project. The Department of Defense is directed to include the
appropriate amount for this project in the fiscal year 1998
budget request.
Maryland--Fort Meade: Friendship Annex III Purchase
The Friendship Annex III building (FANX III) was built to
suit the National Security Agency's special purpose needs. The
building contains approximately 420,000 square feet and has
been under lease since 1970. The current terms of the lease,
which was renegotiated in 1991, contain the option to purchase
the building at a fixed price of $25,200,000 during the period
of September 1, 1997 through March 1, 1998, and this amount is
included in the budget request.
The Committee is concerned that the National Security
Agency expended $32,971,000 to renovate FANX III in advance of
the purchase of the building. This renovation was included in
the cost of the lease, which is funded as an operation and
maintenance expense, rather than as a military construction
expense. Had the Agency undertaken the renovation and
acquisition of FANX III as a lease-purchase arrangement, or as
a straightforward purchase of an existing building, regular
procedure would have required prior notice to (and approval of)
Congress. As structured by the Agency, the transaction avoided
all Congressional approval and virtually all Congressional
notification requirements. An acquisition report covering the
lease renegotiation was submitted to Congress on August 30,
1991, but it did not identify the cost of renovation, nor did
it reflect that the improvements were to be paid for as they
were made, as opposed to being amortized over the expected 25-
year life of the lease.
No specific statutory authority existed for the renovation
of FANX III. The lease renegotiation was executed in 1991,
during a period of historically significant Department of
Defense downsizing, with two rounds of base closures yet to be
conducted in 1993 and 1995. Excess facilities were being
disposed of throughout the country, and this process continues.
The Committee is in the process of conducting a thorough
investigation of the National Security Agency's facilities
requirements. Pending the results of this investigation, the
Committee recommends denying funds in the amount of $25,200,000
for the purchase of FANX III.
Ohio--Defense Construction Supply Center (Columbus): Construct Entrance
Roadway (DBOF)
The budget request includes $600,000 to construct an
entrance roadway at the Defense Construction Supply Center in
Columbus, Ohio. This project is required due to a substantial
increase in the number and concentration of personnel at the
Center. It is the Committee's view that this work should have
been included in the cost of either the Columbus Operations
Center project or the DFAS Operations Facility project, because
these personnel create the requirement. The Committee
reluctantly recommends providing for this work to be
accomplished as a separate military construction project, as
requested.
Contingency Construction
The budget request includes $9,500,000 for the contingency
construction account, which provides for urgent unforeseen
military facilities requirements as authorized by 10 USC 2804.
This account funded a single project in fiscal year 1992, no
projects in fiscal years 1993 through 1995, and a single
project to date in fiscal year 1996. Unobligated balances of
prior years' appropriations totaling $9,741,000 remain
available for contingency construction. Therefore, the
Committee recommends $4,500,000 for this account for fiscal
year 1997, which is a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget
request.
Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools
The budget request does not include funds for projects in
support of the Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary
Schools (formerly known as ``Section 6'' schools), despite
requirements totaling $125,501,000. The Committee directs the
Department of Defense to report by January 1, 1997 on this
construction requirement, including a prioritized list of
projects (by location) to correct deficiencies, and encourages
inclusion of such projects in the budget request for fiscal
year 1998.
Overseas Elementary, Junior High, and High Schools
The budget request does not include funds for projects in
support of the 172 overseas schools operated by the Department
of Defense Education Activity. The Committee directs the
Department of Defense to report by January 1, 1997 on
construction requirements in support of these schools,
including a prioritized list of projects (by location) to
correct deficiencies, and encourages inclusion of such projects
in the budget request for fiscal year 1998.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is in the
process of consolidating its activities into five regional
centers and 21 operating locations. This effort includes a
major construction project to provide office and support space
for the Columbus, Ohio Center and the Financial Systems
Activity, Columbus, Ohio. This project is being phase funded in
three increments, as follows:
Fiscal Year In millions of dollars
1996.............................................................. $37.4
1997.............................................................. 20.8
1998.............................................................. 14.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total......................................................... 72.4
In addition, DFAS has programmed the following military
construction projects at operating locations:
Fiscal year and location In millions of dollars
1997--Norton AFB/San Bernardino, CA............................... $13.8
1997--Orlando, FL................................................. 2.6
1997--Rock Island, IL............................................. 14.4
1997--Loring AFB/Limestone, ME.................................... 6.9
1997--Offutt AFB/Omaha, NE........................................ 7.0
1997--Griffiss AFB/Rome, NY....................................... 10.2
1997--Gentile AFB/Dayton, OH...................................... 11.4
1997--Charleston, SC.............................................. 6.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal (including Columbus, OH)............................. 93.3
=================================================================
________________________________________________
1998--Honolulu, HI................................................ 11.2
1998--Columbus, OH................................................ 14.2
1998--Memphis, TN................................................. 5.8
1998--Norfolk, VA................................................. 13.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................................... 44.3
=================================================================
________________________________________________
1999--Fort Ord, CA................................................ 20.0
1999--Chanute AFB, IL............................................. 10.6
1999--Lexington, KY............................................... 8.6
1999--Fort Sill, OK............................................... 12.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................................... 52.0
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Total..................................................... 189.6
The Committee notes that a number of these projects are
located at closing military installations, and constitute
renovations of old facilities for new purposes, reutilizing
federally owned assets without impacting the spirit and letter
of base closure requirements.
The Committee also notes that upon completion of this
three-year program, all military construction requirements of
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service will have been met.
The Committee recommends approval of the requested projects for
fiscal year 1997.
Defense Fuels Supply Center
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has been assigned the
responsibility for programming the military construction
requirements related to serving as the designated bulk
petroleum manager for the Department of Defense. In fiscal year
1997, such projects consume 84 percent of DLA's project, and
only two non-fuels projects are requested by DLA. The Committee
is concerned that no budgetary resources were transferred from
the other components of the Department to DLA at the time of
the assignment of this responsibility, and that other
components realized a windfall at DLA's expense. The Department
is urged to review this situation in order to assure that
depot/storage facilities and operational facilities of DLA are
not neglected.
Italy--Sigonella NAS: Extend Hydrant Fuel System
Spain--Moron AB: Replace Hydrant Fuel System
The budget request includes $6,100,000 for a fuels project
at Sigonella Naval Air Station, Italy, and $12,958,000 for a
fuels project at Moron Air Base, Spain. The Committee
recommends approving these projects, contingent upon the
submission of precautionary prefinancing statements to NATO for
reimbursement of these expenses. The Committee strongly
supports the development of a NATO capabilities package for
Strategic Refueling in order to secure routine NATO financing
of such projects.
Energy Conservation Improvement Program (ECIP)
The Energy Conservation Improvement Program (ECIP) provides
financing for individual projects that are evaluated,
prioritized on the basis of technical merit and return on
investment, and presented individually to Congress for
approval. The budget request includes $47,765,000 as the level
of effort for this program for fiscal year 1997. The primary
benefits of the program include improved facility conditions,
reduced environmental pollution, and utility and maintenance
cost reduction.
The Department is governed by two directives, the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486) and Executive Order
12902. These directives require the Department to identify and
accomplish all energy conservation measures that pay back in
ten years or less. The Department has surveyed its physical
plant and has identified approximately $4 billion of needed
investment to accomplish all identified conservation measures.
There are several means available for performing this work.
Some is done in conjunction with on-going repair and
replacement programs, some through utility company investments,
some through energy performance contracts, some through
operations and maintenance projects and individual Service
energy programs, and some through the Energy Conservation
Improvement Program (ECIP). Generally, ECIP is reserved for
larger projects which deserve closer Departmental scrutiny.
Such items have high savings-to-investment ratios, and also
include a small number of projects that support other goals of
the Energy Policy Act such as renewable energy and water
conservation.
The Committee notes that the Department currently uses 12.4
percent less energy per square foot of occupied buildings than
it did in 1985, saving over $380 million in utility bills in
1995. The Committee believes that this is a sound return on
investment, and recommends full funding of the requested level
of $47,765,000 for this program. The Committee will expect that
each individual project will continue to be supported with an
economic analysis to show the savings-to-investment ratio and
the simple payback, and that life-cycle cost analyses will
continue to be performed as projects are modified by additional
information and design detail. Most importantly, the Committee
will expect the Department to give great consideration to
further reduction in the payback period, especially in such
difficult to quantify areas as renewable energy, water
conservation, emerging technologies, and contribution to
environmental pollution prevention.
The Committee is aware of the Department's efforts to
develop a multi-media energy manager's training program in
partnership with a larger private consortium. The Committee
supports the use of appropriated funds to improve the level of
technical and programmatic knowledge of Defense energy
managers, as well as design engineers and architects, and the
leveraging of Federal funds through participation in public/
private partnerships such as this. Therefore, the Committee
will expect the Department to continue to contribute such sums
as may be required for the on-going computer-based energy
manager training software package in order to complete this
work.
Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program
The budget request includes a total of $131,621,000 for the
following funding increments for the chemical weapons
demilitarization program for fiscal year 1997:
Arkansas:
Pine Bluff Arsenal
Ammunition demilitarization facility, Phase II.. $46,000,000
Colorado:
Pueblo Depot Activity
Ammunition demilitarization facility, Phase I... 17,497,000
Oregon:
Umatilla Depot Activity
Ammunition demilitarization facility, Phase II.. 64,000,000
Unspecified Worldwide Location:
Planning and Design................................. \1\ 4,124,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 131,621,000
\1\ In addition to this amount, prior year unobligated funds totaling
$6,876,000 will be used to fund fiscal year 1997 planning and design
requirements.
The Committee takes note that this budget request is
limited to the amount of construction that can be put in place
during fiscal year 1997, and therefore recommends fully funding
the request.
The following chart displays the scope of the military
construction investment in the overall chemical
demilitarization program:
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM MILITARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
[In millions of dollars, fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 &
Location Prior 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston Atoll.......................... $50.0 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... $50.0
Chemical Demil Training Facility,
Aberdeen, MD........................... 16.1 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 16.1
Tooele Facilities, UT................... 198.0 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 198.0
Anniston Facilities, AL................. 164.3 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 164.3
Umatilla Facility, OR................... 12.0 ....... $64.0 $92.0 $20.0 ....... ....... 188.0
Umatilla Depot Support, OR.............. 11.1 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 11.1
Pine Bluff Facility, AR................. 3.0 ....... 46.0 61.0 8.0 ....... ....... 118.0
Pine Bluff Depot Support, AR............ 15.0 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 15.0
Pueblo Facility, CO..................... ....... ....... 17.5 60.0 97.5 ....... ....... 175.0
Pueblo Depot Support, CO................ 6.3 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6.3
Blue Grass Facility, KY................. ....... ....... ....... 48.7 100.0 $33.3 ....... 182.0
Blue Grass Depot Support, KY............ ....... ....... ....... 7.8 ....... ....... ....... 7.8
Aberdeen Facility, MD................... ....... ....... ....... ....... 45.5 50.0 $23.5 119.0
Aberdeen Depot Support, MD.............. ....... ....... ....... 9.0 ....... ....... ....... 9.0
Newport Facility, IN.................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 30.1 43.5 73.6
Newport Depot Support, IN............... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.1 ....... ....... 2.1
Planning and Design..................... ....... $13.0 4.1 9.7 4.7 2.0 ....... 33.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 475.8 13.0 131.6 288.2 277.8 115.4 67.0 1,368.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following chart displays the timetable and the
milestones for completion of the chemical demilitarization
program:
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM TIMETABLE AND MILESTONES
[In fiscal years]-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Start of
Location Construction Systemization Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Atoll...................................... .............. .............. 3rd Qtr 90-1st Qtr 00
Tooele, UT......................................... 4th Qtr 89 4th Qtr 93 3rd Qtr 96-3rd Qtr 03
Anniston, AL....................................... 4th Qtr 96 3rd Qtr 99 2nd Qtr 01-1st Qtr 05
Umatilla, OR....................................... 4th Qtr 96 4th Qtr 99 3rd Qtr 01-4th Qtr 04
Pine Bluff, AR..................................... 4th Qtr 96 3rd Qtr 99 2nd Qtr 01-3rd Qtr 04
Pueblo, CO......................................... 3rd Qtr 97 2nd Qtr 00 1st Qtr 02-3rd Qtr 04
Blue Grass, KY..................................... 2nd Qtr 98 1st Qtr 01 4th Qtr 02-3rd Qtr 04
Aberdeen, MD....................................... 2nd Qtr 99 3rd Qtr 01 1st Qtr 03-3rd Qtr 03
Newport, IN........................................ 2nd Qtr 00 3rd Qtr 02 1st Qtr 04-3rd Qtr 04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... 0
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 0
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... $10,000,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... +10,000,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +10,000,000
The Committee recommends a total of $10,000,000 for the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund for fiscal year 1997. This is an increase of
$10,000,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 1997, and
an increase of $10,000,000 above the appropriation for fiscal
year 1996.
The Committee has not approved the request for a new
general provision allowing transfer of funds into this account,
and in lieu thereof has provided an initial appropriation of
$10,000,000 and transfer authority within the appropriation
paragraph.
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 new 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 reporting requirements
contained in the enabling legislation. 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.
In the future, 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.
In addition, the Department is to report to the Committee
on Appropriations, within sixty days after enactment of this
Act, it's framework for leveraging these resources.
Military Construction, Reserve Components
Fiscal year 1996:
Appropriation....................................... $436,647,000
Rescission.......................................... -6,700,000
Net............................................. 429,947,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 194,091,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 294,693,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 net appropriation.................. -135,254,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +100,602,000
The Committee recommends a total of $294,693,000 for
Military Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 1997.
This is an increase of $100,602,000 above the budget request
for fiscal year 1997, and a decrease of $135,254,000 below the
net appropriation for 1996.
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............... $7,600,000 - $41,316,000
Air National Guard-............... 75,394,000 - 118,394,000
Army Reserve...................... 48,459,000 50,159,000
Naval Reserve..................... 10,983,000 33,169,000
Air Force Reserve-................ 51,655,000 51,655,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 194,091,000 294,693,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
connecticut--groton: building codes and fire suppression
Funds were authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1995
for additions and alterations to the aviation repair depot at
Groton, Connecticut. The Committee understands that this
project requires an additional $5,647,000 due to changes in
building codes and fire suppression requirements. The Committee
directs the Army National Guard to submit the appropriate scope
and cost variation reports to the appropriate committees in
order to carry out the necessary changes to this project.
illinois--decatur: helicopter landing pads and taxilanes
The Committee directs the Army National Guard to execute a
project to provide helicopter landing pads and taxilanes at the
Decatur, Illinois Army Aviation Support Facility using funds
available for unspecified minor construction. The estimated
cost of this project is $575,000.
mississippi--various locations, south mississippi: beddown avenger
system
The National Guard Bureau directed a reorganization of
units in South Mississippi from Field Artillery to Air Defense
Artillery (the Avenger air defense system). This reorganization
created the need for additions, alterations, and new
construction at several locations. The fiscal year 1994
appropriations act included $5,204,000 for a project to
accomplish this work. An unfavorable bidding climate and
changes in scope requirements would necessitate overruns at the
full scope of work. Contracts have been awarded at reduced
scope, with additives totaling $5,464,000. The Committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to submit the appropriate
scope and cost variation reports to the appropriate committees
in order to accomplish the full scope of work expeditiously.
virginia--richlands: organizational maintenance shop
The Committee is aware that additional funds will be
required to complete the construction of the Organizational
Maintenance Shop at Richlands, Virginia. The Army National
Guard is encouraged to submit a reprogramming request to
complete work on this project.
regional education
The Committee directs the Army National Guard to review the
facilities needs for the Combat Arms Training Brigade for
Region C to carry out its assigned regional educational
missions, and to report by January 1, 1997 on a cost-effective
proposal for meeting these mission requirements.
unobligated balances
The Committee is very concerned over the continuing poor
execution rates for the military construction programs of the
Reserve Components. According to the appendices to the budget
requests for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the following amounts
will remain unobligated at the end of each fiscal year:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 actual- 1995 actual- 1996 1997
Component estimate- estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard-........................................ $366- $277- $232- $100
Air National Guard-......................................... 238- 218- 221- 168
Army Reserve-............................................... 121- 85- 50- 28
Naval Reserve-.............................................. 60- 28- 17- 7
Air Force Reserve-.......................................... 43- 33- 28- 31
---------------------------------------------------
Total-................................................ 828- 641- 548- 334
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee understands that these amounts remain
available for completion of prior year approved budget plans,
that funds remain available for five years, and that the
Reserve Components face a number of difficult challenges in
program execution. However, the Committee will expect to see
increased attention given to assure that contracts are awarded
during the fiscal year in which funds are provided. The
Committee intends to follow closely the Annual Report on Design
and Construction Progress and the reinstated semi-annual
submission of Audit Trail Documents in order to track
improvement in program execution.--
Unawarded Armory Projects
The Army National Guard has not yet awarded twenty-three
armory projects (or armory projects combined with other
facilities, such as organizational maintenance shops or reserve
centers) for which funds were appropriated for fiscal years
1992 through 1995. Due to this backlog of unawarded projects,
the Committee recommended no new armory construction in fiscal
year 1996, and again recommends no such projects for fiscal
year 1997. The unawarded projects are at the following
locations and in the following amounts, according to
information available in Department of Defense accounting
reports as of April, 1996 (the most recent information
available):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Fiscal year, State and location Amount working
appropriated estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992, OH, Toledo........................ $3,183,000 $3,820,000
1993, PA, Indiana....................... 1,700,000 1,391,000
1993, OR, Le Grande..................... 3,049,000 3,049,000
1993, FL, Craig Field (Jacksonville).... 1,480,000 1,192,000
1993, AL, Union Springs................. 800,000 800,000
1993, AL, Tuscaloosa.................... 2,273,000 2,273,000
1994, TN, Sevierville................... 1,352,000 1,103,000
1994, PA, Johnstown..................... 3,309,000 3,143,000
1994, IN, Evansville.................... 6,050,000 6,050,000
1994, CA, Van Nuys...................... 6,518,000 6,518,000
1995, WY, Torrington.................... 5,300,000 5,300,000
1995, TN, Rogersville................... 1,820,000 1,820,000
1995, TN, Springfield................... 1,115,000 1,102,000
1995, TN, Chattanooga................... 1,604,000 1,602,000
1995, TN, Johnson City.................. 6,019,000 6,019,000
1995, TN, Linden........................ 1,097,000 1,097,000
1995, PA, Westmoreland County........... 3,594,000 3,548,000
1995, OH, Ravenna....................... 4,500,000 4,500,000
1995, PA, Armstrong County.............. 1,982,000 1,982,000
1995, NV, Washoe County................. 5,520,000 5,520,000
1995, ME, Augusta....................... 3,900,000 3,900,000
1995, MA, Taunton....................... 2,900,000 2,900,000
1995, CO, Denver........................ 5,000,000 4,772,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 74,065,000 73,401,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
Fiscal year 1996:
Appropriation....................................... $161,000,000
Supplemental Appropriation.......................... +37,500,000
Net............................................. 198,500,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 197,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 177,000,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 net appropriation.................. -21,500,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... -20,000,000
The Committee recommends a total of $177,000,000 for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program.
This is a decrease of $20,000,000 below the budget request for
fiscal year 1997 and a decrease of $21,500,000 below the net
appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
For 1997, 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 $177,000,000,
approximately $11,000,000 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 Committee reiterates the directive contained in House
Report 104-137. The Department of Defense is directed 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.
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. This
problem has recently been brought to the forefront with several
articles in the press and an increased focus by the Department
of Defense. 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, or 614,928
families, 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 350,799 on-base
housing units in its inventory, with an average age of 33
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 184,295 units, is in need of major
improvements or replacement at a total cost of $16,591,388,000.
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 $4,565,000,000. 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 48,428
units at a cost of $6,126,032,000. 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 $27,000,000,000 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 thousand of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferre
New maintenance
---------------- construction Replace Improve and repair end Grand total
FY 96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Number of Units............. 4,415 31,200 46,800 .............. 82,415
Costs-...................... $596,602-- $4,212,000- $3,042,000-- $621,000- $8,471,602
Navy:
Number of Units-............ 14,700- 6,400-- 26,400- -- 47,500
Costs....................... $1,930,000- $953,200- $1,812,400- $2,400,000-- $7,095,000
Air Force:
Number of Units-............ 18,000- 20,600- 44,000- .............. 82,600
Costs--..................... $2,160,000- $2,472,000- $3,520,000-- $944,000-- $9,096,000-
Marine Corps:
Number of Units-............ 11,313- 697-- 8,198-- -- 20,208
Costs--..................... $1,439,430- $164,821- $414,967-- $600,000-- $2,619,218
Total:
Number of Units-............ 48,428- 58,897- 125,398-- -- 232,723
Costs-...................... $6,126,032- $7,802,021- $8,789,367- $4,565,000- $27,282,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction overview
The Committee is concerned over the fiscal year 1997 budget
request for family housing new construction, construction
improvements and planning of $714,346,000. The Secretary of
Defense has made housing one of his main priorities, yet the
Department's budget represents a reduction of $228,878,000, or
24%, from the fiscal year 1996 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
$1,017,498,000 for family housing construction for fiscal year
1997. This represents an increase of $74,274,000 over the
fiscal year 1996 appropriation and an increase of $303,152,000
over the budget request.
new housing construction
The fiscal year 1997 request is $369,087,000 to build 2,297
units of new family housing for all Services. This is
$97,927,000 or 21 percent, under the fiscal year 1996 enacted
level. The Committee has approved all requested projects for
new housing construction. In addition, the Committee has
recommended an additional $159,702,000 to build 1,426 units of
new family housing. The total appropriation for new
construction is $528,789,000 and will provide 3,723 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.
The Committee will consider reprogramming requests for any
authorized new construction project for which funds have not
been appropriated in prior years.
construction improvements
A total of $309,654,000 has been requested for post-
acquisition construction for all services to improve 4,075
housing units. This is a decrease of $131,177,000, or 30
percent, from the fiscal year 1996 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 $143,450,000 for construction
improvement projects which are listed in this report under the
individual component accounts, to improve an additional 2,251
units. The total appropriation for post-acquisition
construction is $453,104,000 and will improve 6,326 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 1997 request for operation and maintenance
expenses totals $3,087,144,000, a decrease of $176,461,000,
from the fiscal year 1996 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, $1,463,752,000 is
for maintenance and repair of existing housing, a reduction of
$112,331,000 from fiscal year 1996 levels.
While the Committee agrees with the reduction of
$64,130,000 to the majority of the accounts, it has serious
reservations over the requested reduction of $112,331,000 to
the maintenance of real property accounts. Testimony from
representatives of the Department verifies that this request is
driven by budget constraints, not by actual need. Therefore,
the Committee has recommended an additional $100,000,000 for
the maintenance real property accounts, distributed as follows:
Army: $45,000,000; Navy $44,000,000; and Air Force $11,000,000.
The total recommended appropriation for operation and
maintenance is $3,187,144,000. This represents an increase of
$100,000,000 above the budget request and a reduction of
$76,461,000 from the fiscal year 1996 enacted level.
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 lease-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 1996 appropriation.......................... $1,452,252,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 1,287,479,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,434,069,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... -18,183,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +146,590,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,434,069,000 for
Family Housing, Army for fiscal year 1997. This is an increase
of $146,590,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 1997,
and a decrease of $18,183,000 below the appropriation for
fiscal year 1996.
construction
The Committee recommends $59,190,000 for new construction,
instead of $38,300,000, as requested, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project--- Requested- Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Redstone Arsenal (70
units)........................... 0 $8,000,000
Hawaii: Schofield Barracks (54
units)........................... $10,000,000 10,000,000
North Carolina: Fort Bragg (88
units)........................... 9,800,000 9,800,000
Pennsylvania: Tobyhanna AD (200
units)........................... 0 890,000
Texas:
Fort Bliss, Phase I (70 units) 0 12,000,000
Fort Hood (140 units)......... 18,500,000 18,500,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 38,300,000 59,190,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama--Fort Rucker...................... 256- $18,000,000
Kentucky--Fort Campbell................... 200 18,700,000
Louisiana--Fort Polk...................... 250-- 7,200,000
Oklahoma--Fort Sill....................... 328 14,400,000
Pennsylvania--Tobyhanna AD................ 42-- 2,300,000
Germany--Kefurt and Craig, Stuttgart...... 120- 7,300,000
Germany--Baumholder Family Village........ 64-- 4,600,000
Germany--Ben Franklin Village, Mannheim... 136-- 8,200,000
-----------------------------
Total............................... 1,396 80,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of real property
The budget request includes $525,893,000 for maintenance of
real property, a reduction of $106,399,000 from the fiscal year
1996 appropriation. The Committee recommends an increase of
$45,000,000 providing a total of $579,893,000.
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $1,573,387,000
Fiscal Year 1997 estimate............................... 1,417,967,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,590,697,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... +17,310,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +172,730,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,590,697,000 for
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 1997.
This is an increase of $172,730,000 above the budget request
for fiscal year 1997, and an increase of $17,310,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996.
Construction
The Committee recommends $300,730,000 for new construction,
instead of $197,700,000, as requested, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested- Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: MCAS Yuma (Community
Center).......................... $709,000- $709,000
California:
Camp Pendleton (202 units).... 19,483,000 29,483,000
Lemoore NAS (276 units)....... 39,837,000 39,837,000
San Diego PWC (466 units)..... 48,719,000 63,429,000
Twenty-Nine Palms (Community
Center)...................... 1,982,000 1,982,000
Twenty-Nine Palms (Housing
Office)...................... 956,000 956,000
Florida: Mayport NS (100 units)... 0 10,000,000
Hawaii:
Kaneohe Bay (54 units)........ 11,676,000 11,676,000
PWC Pearl Harbor (264 units).. 52,586,000 52,586,000
Maine; Brunswick NAS Phase I (72
units)........................... 0 10,925,000
Maryland: Patuxent River
(Community Center)............... 1,233,000 1,233,000
North Carolina:
Camp Lejeune (Community
Center)...................... 845,000 845,000
Camp Lejeune MCB (125 units).. 0 13,360,000
South Carolina: Beaufort MCAS (200
units)........................... 0 19,110,000
Texas:
Corpus Christi Naval Complex
(156 units).................. 0 17,425,000
Kingsville NAS Phase I (32
units)....................... 0 7,550,000
Virginia:
Wallops Island (20 units)..... 2,975,000 2,975,000
Northwest (Community Center).. 741,000 741,000
Washington: Puget Sound (100
units)........................... 15,015,000 15,015,000
Washington: Bangor (Housing
Office).......................... 934,000 934,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 197,691,000 300,771,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii--Pearl Harbor PWC.................. 54 $6,650,000
Mississippi--Meridian NAS................. 160- 6,600,000
Texas--Fort Worth JRB..................... 55 2,400,000
Washington--Whidbey Island NAS............ 150 10,000,000
-----------------------------
Total............................... 419 25,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of real property
The budget request includes $508,632,000 for maintenance of
real property, a reduction of $25,391,000 from the fiscal year
1996 appropriation. The Committee recommends an increase of
$44,000,000, providing a total of $552,632,000.
Family Housing, Air Force
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $1,146,951,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 1,060,710,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,144,542,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... -2,409,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +83,832,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,144,542,000 for
Family Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 1997. This is an
increase of $83,832,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1997, and a decrease of $2,409,000 below the appropriation
for fiscal year 1996.
Construction
The Committee recommends $168,828,000 for new construction,
instead of $133,096,000, as requested, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project--- Requested- Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska:
Eielson AFB (Fire Station).... $2,950,000 $2,950,000
Eielson AFB (72 units)........ 21,127,000 21,127,000
California:
Beale AFB (56 units).......... 8,893,000- 8,893,000
Los Angeles AFB (25 units).... 0- 6,425,000
Travis AFB (70 units)......... 8,631,000- 8,631,000
Vandenberg AFB (112 units).... 20,891,000 20,891,000
District of Columbia: Bolling AFB
(40 units)....................... 5,000,000- 5,000,000
Florida:
Eglin AFB (Hurlbert Field).... 249,000 249,000
MacDill AFB (56 units)........ 8,822,000 8,822,000
Patrick AFB (Housing
Maintenance Facility)........ 853,000- 853,000
Patrick AFB (Housing
Warehouse)................... 756,000 756,000
Patrick AFB (Replace Housing
Office)...................... 821,000- 821,000
Tyndall AFB (42 units)........ 0- 6,000,000
Georgia: Robins AFB (46 units).... 0 - 5,252,000
Louisiana: Barksdale AFB (80
Units)........................... 9,570,000- 9,570,000
Massachusetts: Hanscom AFB Phase
III (32 units)................... 0- 5,100,000
Missouri: Whiteman AFB (68 units). 9,600,000- 9,600,000
Nevada: Nellis AFB Phase III (50
units)........................... 0- 7,955,000
New Mexico: Kirtland AFB (50
units)........................... 5,450,000- 5,450,000
North Dakota:
Grand Forks AFB (66 units).... 7,784,000- 7,784,000
Minot AFB (46 units).......... 8,740,000- 8,740,000
Texas:
Lackland AFB (82 units)....... 6,500,000- 11,500,000
Lackland AFB (Replace Housing
Office)...................... 450,000- 450,000
Lackland AFB (Replace
Maintenance Facility)........ 350,000- 350,000
Washington: McChord AFB (40 units) 5,659,000- 5,659,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 133,096,000 168,828,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the request for construction
improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida--Eglin AFB........................ 112 $8,600,000
Ohio--Wright-Patterson AFB................ 52- 6,000,000
Texas--Laughlin AFB....................... 180- 15,000,000
Utah--Hill AFB............................ 92- 7,500,000
-----------------------------
Total............................... 436 37,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of real property
The budget request includes $428,087,000 for maintenance of
real property, an increase of $19,116,000 from the fiscal year
1996 appropriation. The Committee recommends an increase of
$11,000,000, providing a total of $439,087,000.
Family Housing, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $34,239,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 35,334,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 35,334,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... +1,095,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $35,334,000 for Family
Housing, Defense-wide for fiscal year 1997. This is equal to
the budget request for fiscal year 1997, and an increase of
$1,095,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $22,000,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 35,000,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... +13,000,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... +15,000,000
The Committee recommends a total of $35,000,000 for the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for
fiscal year 1997. This is an increase of $15,000,000 above the
budget request for fiscal year 1997, and an increase of
$13,000,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 1996.
Overview
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(P.L. 104-106) addresses 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. New authority is 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 new authority to
enter into contracts and partnerships and to make investments
shall expire on September 30, 2000.
Reporting Requirements
In the future, budget justification documents are to
display project and administrative costs.
The Committee reiterates the reporting requirements
contained in the enabling legislation. 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.
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.
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $75,586,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 36,181,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 36,181,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... -39,405,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends the budget request of $36,181,000
for the Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense, a decrease of
$39,405,000 from the fiscal year 1996 appropriation.
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 1997 are $163,400,000. Funding for
this requirement will come from the following sources:
appropriations in the amount of $36,181,000; estimated revenue
of $127,219,000; and prior year carryover of $21,060,000.
Base Realignment and Closure
Overview
The Congress has appropriated, to date, $13,373,198,000 for
the Base Realignment and Closure program since fiscal year
1990. In the bill for fiscal year 1997, the Committee is
recommending total funding of $2,507,474,000 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 1997:
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1990
through fiscal Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Total
year 1995 enacted recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I-............................. $2,672,830,000 NA NA $2,672,830,000
Part II \1\......................... 3,875,310,000- $964,843,000- $352,800,000 5,192,953,000
Part III \2\........................ 2,927,166,000 2,148,480,000 971,925,000 6,047,571,000
Part IV............................. NA 784,569,000- 1,182,749,000- 1,967,318,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 9,475,306,000 3,897,892,000 2,507,474,000 15,880,672,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
environmental restoration
Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment
and Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have
appropriated a total of $13,373,198,000 for the entire program
for fiscal years 1990 through 1996. Within this total, the
Department has allocated $3,307,800,000 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 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling on
Account- Total program environmental
restoration costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC II-.......................... $352,800,000- $223,789,000-
BRAC III-......................... 971,925,000- 351,967,000
BRAC IV-.......................... 1,182,749,000- 200,841,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,507,474,000 776,597,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$861,956,000 within the fiscal year 1997 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 finds it important that the
Congress be advised of any programmatic changes and therefore
continues the requirement that any change in a project shall be
considered a change in a specifically authorized and
appropriated project and all limitations and notification
procedures shall apply to these construction projects in the
same manner as within the ``Active and Reserve Component''
accounts. The Committee provides approval and appropriated
funds for the following construction projects as contained in
Executive Summary of Justification Data submitted to Congress
March 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC Amount
Component/State/project description round (thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army BRAC III construction, fiscal year 1997:
Texas:
Fort Bliss:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar (46592) III $4,700
------------
Subtotal Army Texas............... ....... 4,700
============
Total for Army BRAC III
construction, fiscal year 1997: ....... 4,700
============
Army BRAC IV construction, fiscal year 1997:
Alabama:
Anniston Army Depot:
EOD Operations Facility (34665)....... IV 1,700
------------
Subtotal Army Alabama............. ....... 1,700
============
Arizona:
Fort Huachuca:
Building 61801 Renovation (46212)..... IV 400
Warehouse (46235)..................... IV 800
------------
Subtotal Army Arizona............. ....... 1,200
============
District of Columbia:
Walter Reed Army Medical Center:
Nurse Training Facility (46342)....... IV 1,500
------------
Subtotal Army District of Columbia ....... 1,500
============
Maryland:
Fort Detrick:
Administrative Facility (46197)....... IV 6,800
General Purpose Storage (46204)....... IV 1,150
============
Subtotal Army Maryland............ ....... 7,950
Missouri:
Fort Leonard Wood:
Chemical Defense Training Facility
(45893).............................. IV 28,000
General Instruction Facility (46090).. IV 58,000
Applied Instruction Facility (46091).. IV 32,000
Unaccompanied Enlisted Housing (46092) IV 58,000
------------
Subtotal Army Missouri............ ....... 176,000
============
New Jersey:
Fort Monmouth:
Administrative Facility (45981)....... IV 2,200
------------
Subtotal Army New Jersey.......... ....... 2,200
============
New York:
Fort Totten:
Storage Facility (46258).............. IV 1,900
------------
Subtotal Army New York............ ....... 1,900
============
Oklahoma:
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant:
Universal Functional Test Range
(45911).............................. IV 1,950
General and Applied Instruction
Facility (45956)..................... IV 6,100
Administrative Facility (45955)....... IV 14,200
------------
Subtotal Army Oklahoma............ ....... 22,250
============
South Carolina:
Fort Jackson:
DOD Polygraph Institute (45839)....... IV 4,600
------------
Subtotal Army South Carolina...... ....... 4,600
============
Virginia:
Fort Belvoir:
Administrative Facility (45858)....... IV 7,500
------------
Subtotal Army Virginia............ ....... 7,500
============
Washington:
Fort Lewis:
Center for Health Promotion (46056)... IV 3,050
------------
Subtotal Army Washington.......... ....... 3,050
============
Various Locations:
Planning and Design....................... IV 9,790
============
Total for Army BRAC IV construction,
fiscal year 1997..................... ....... 239,640
============
Army BRAC IV family housing, fiscal year 1997:
Missouri:
Fort Leonard Wood:
General Officer Quarters (38174)...... ....... 430
------------
Total for Army BRAC IV family
housing, fiscal year 1997........ ....... 430
============
Navy BRAC III construction, fiscal year 1997:
California:
Fleet ASW Training Center, San Diego:
Gymnasium (387T)...................... III 3,400
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton:
Warehouse and Special Storage
Facilities (029T).................... III 6,080
Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar:
Storage Facilities (007T)............. III 9,820
Tactical Van Pad Facility (012T)...... III 15,500
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (013T)..... III 59,883
Naval Air Station Lemoore:
Administrative Office (186T).......... III 1,500
------------
Subtotal Navy California.......... ....... 96,183
============
District of Columbia:
Commandant Naval District, Washington:
Headquarters Building Renovation
(001T)............................... III 2,000
Strategic Systems Programs Office,
Washington:
Building Renovation (001T)............ III 14,580
------------
Subtotal Navy District of Columbia ....... 16,580
============
Florida:
Army Reserve Center, Orlando:
Facility Modifications (001T)......... III 2,683
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville:
Aviation Physiology Training (831T)... III 2,270
------------
Subtotal Navy Florida............. ....... 4,953
============
Georgia:
Naval Air Station, Atlanta:
Marine Reserve Training Facility
(906T)............................... III 9,100
------------
Subtotal Navy Georgia............. ....... 9,100
============
Hawaii:
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay:
Aircraft Parking Apron (268T)......... III 14,562
Maintenance Hangar Alterations (270T). III 31,400
Building Renovations (271T)........... III 2,500
Building Additions and Renovations
(272T)............................... III 1,300
Aviation Supply Facilities (274T)..... III 2,700
Training Facility (276T).............. III 8,600
Bachelor Quarters (286T).............. III 26,900
Helicopter Landing Pad (287T)......... III 400
Hazardous Storehouse and Waste
Transfer Facility (288T)............. III 5,100
Ordnance Facilities (297T)............ III 1,400
Tactical Support Facility (297T)...... III 10,500
Utilities Upgrade (504T).............. III 5,100
Ordnance Facilities (508T)............ III 2,100
------------
Subtotal Navy Hawaii.............. ....... 112,562
Nevada:
Naval Air Station, Fallon:
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (Phase II)
(308T)............................... III 9,830
------------
Subtotal Navy Nevada.............. ....... 9,830
============
South Carolina:
Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort:
Hangar Renovation (396T).............. III 1,900
------------
Subtotal Navy South Carolina...... ....... 1,900
============
Tennessee:
Naval Air Station, Memphis:
Building Alterations (326T)........... III 17,510
Building Alterations (325T)........... III 7,100
------------
Subtotal Navy Tennessee........... ....... 24,610
============
Texas:
Naval Air Station, Fort Worth:
Child Development Center (121T)....... III 2,010
------------
Subtotal Navy Texas............... ....... 2,010
============
Virginia:
Naval Station, Norfolk:
Administrative Facility (360T)........ III 1,000
Naval Air Station, Oceana:
Engine Maintenance Shop Addition
(457T)............................... III 480
------------
Subtotal Navy Virginia............ ....... 1,480
============
Washington:
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island:
Ground Support Equipment Shop (600T).. III 2,700
Sonobuoy Storage Facility (615T)...... III 600
------------
Subtotal Navy Washington.......... ....... 3,300
============
Midway Island:
Naval Air Facility:
Demolition (402T)..................... III 3,000
------------
Subtotal Navy Midway Island....... ....... 3,000
============
Total for Navy BRAC III
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 285,508
============
Navy BRAC III family housing, fiscal year 1997:
Florida:
Naval Air Station, Pensacola:
Family Housing (406T)................. III 9,845
------------
Subtotal Navy Florida............. ....... 9,845
============
Washington:
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor:
Family Housing (404T)................. III 4,672
Family Housing (405T)................. III 6,454
------------
Subtotal Navy Washington.......... ....... 11,126
============
Total for Navy BRAC III family
housing, fiscal year 1997........ ....... 20,971
============
Navy BRAC IV Construction, fiscal year 1997:
California:
Naval Air Station, North Island:
Maintenance Training Facility (829U).. IV 3,780
Naval Aviation Depot, North Island:
Engineering Support Office
Modifications (832U)................. IV 844
Engineering Support Offices (830U).... IV 721
Naval Weapon Station, Concord:
Secure Warehouse (999U)............... IV 15,400
------------
Subtotal Navy California.......... ....... 20,745
============
District of Columbia:
Commandant, Naval District Washington:
Parking Garage (104U)................. IV 8,900
Logistics Support Facility (101U)..... IV 2,400
Public Works Facility (102U).......... IV 1,900
------------
Subtotal Navy District of Columbia ....... 13,200
============
Florida:
Naval Explosive Diving Unit, Panama City:
Manned Diving Physiology (366U)....... IV 1,870
------------
Subtotal Navy Florida............. ....... 1,870
============
Maryland:
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock:
Materials Processing Facility (181U).. IV 1,450
Magnetic Fields Facility (182U)....... IV 6,400
------------
Subtotal Navy Maryland............ ....... 7,850
============
Pennsylvania:
Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Philadelphia:
Advance Machine R&D Facility (184U)... IV 5,400
------------
Subtotal Navy Pennsylvania........ ....... 5,400
============
South Carolina:
Naval Weapon Station, Charleston:
Medical/Dental Clinic Expansion (019U) IV 3,464
------------
Subtotal Navy South Carolina...... ....... 3,464
============
Tennessee:
Naval Air Station, Memphis:
Building Modifications (328U)......... IV 4,744
------------
Subtotal Navy Tennessee........... ....... 4,744
============
Virginia:
Naval Air Station, Oceana:
Flight Simulator Building Addition
(160U)............................... IV 9,044
Corrosion Control Hangar (576U)....... IV 4,800
F/A 18 Aviation Maintenance Additions
(164U)............................... IV 2,700
Renovate/Addition Training Facility
(161U)............................... IV 5,700
------------
Subtotal Navy Virginia............ ....... 22,244
============
Washington:
Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound:
Ship Maintenance Facilities (334U).... IV 1,840
------------
Subtotal Navy Washington.......... ....... 1,840
============
Various Locations:
Planning and design....................... ....... 9,700
============
Total for Navy BRAC IV
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 91,057
============
Air Force BRAC II construction, fiscal year 1997:
California:
Beale AFB:
Add/Alter Civil Engineering Facilities
(BAEY950204R1)....................... II 900
Add/Alter Operations Facility
(BAEY950200R1)....................... II 460
Alter Logistics Facilities
(BAEY950201R1)....................... II 520
Add/Alter Support Facility
(BAEY939108)......................... II 300
Vandenberg AFB:
Campus Utilities (XUMU963007)......... II 2,900
------------
Subtotal Air Force California..... ....... 5,080
============
Colorado:
Buckley Air National Guard Base:
Enlisted Dormitory (CRWU953050)....... II 8,150
------------
Subtotal Air Force Colorado....... II 8,150
============
Indiana:
Grissom ARB:
Munitions Storage (CTGC959019)........ II 1,500
------------
Subtotal Air Force Indiana........ ....... 1,500
============
Mississippi:
Keesler AFB:
Physical Fitness Center (MAHG913034).. II 690
------------
Subtotal Air Force Mississippi.... II 690
============
Ohio:
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base:
Alter Base Maintenance Shops
(NLZG939686)......................... II 1,950
Alter Support Shops (NLZG939687)...... II 2,000
Alter Fuel System Maintenance Dock
(NLZG939700)......................... II 1,200
Jet Fuel Storage/Distribution
(NLZG939729)......................... II 9,000
Wright-Patterson AFB:
National Airborne Operations Center
Complex (ZHTV943204)................. II 5,100
------------
Subtotal Air Force Ohio........... ....... 19,250
============
Texas:
Lackland AFB:
Add/Alter Physical Fitness Center
(MPLS913337)......................... II 1,600
Alter Technical Training Facility
(MPYJ953260)......................... II 2,250
Sheppard AFB:
Add to Chapel (VNVP933025)............ II 700
------------
Subtotal Air Force Texas.......... ....... 4,550
============
Various Locations:
Planning and Design (BCL97RD4)............ ....... 580
============
Total for Air Force BRAC II
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 39,800
============
Air Force BRAC II family housing, fiscal year
1997:
Oklahoma:
Altus AFB:
Family Housing (AGGN954015)........... II 22,973
------------
Total for Air Force BRAC II family
housing, fiscal year 1997........ ....... 22,973
============
Air Force BRAC III construction, fiscal year 1997:
California:
March AFB:
Alter Combat Camera (PCZP960606)...... III 1,200
Travis AFB:
Upgrade Roads (XDAT953320)............ III 2,400
------------
Subtotal Air Force California..... ....... 3,600
============
Idaho:
Mountain Home AFB:
Air Control Squad Complex (QYZH973020) III 3,500
------------
Subtotal Air Force Idaho.......... ....... 3,500
============
New Jersey:
McGuire AFB:
Public Health Facility (PTFL943174)... III 4,000
Upgrade Roads (PTFL943167)............ III 3,000
------------
Subtotal Air Force New Jersey..... ....... 7,000
============
New York:
Griffiss AFB:
Alter Support Facilities (JREZ940056). III 750
Alter Consolidated Logistics Facility
(JREZ940055)......................... III 2,550
------------
Subtotal Air Force New York....... ....... 3,300
============
Total for Air Force BRAC III
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 17,400
============
Air Force BRAC III family housing, fiscal year
1997:
New Jersey:
McGuire AFB:
Improve Family Housing (PTFL954000X).. III 15,884
------------
Total for Air Force BRAC III
Family Housing, fiscal year 1997. ....... 15,884
============
Air Force BRAC IV construction, fiscal year 1997:
California:
Edwards AFB:
Add/Alter Avionics Research Laboratory
(FSPM973506)......................... IV 890
March AFB:
Add/Alter Communication/Electronic
Training Complex (PCZP959603)........ IV 640
------------
Subtotal Air Force California..... ....... 1,530
============
Florida:
MacDill AFB:
Add/Alter Fuel Maintenance Facility
(NVZR973722)......................... IV 2,900
Alter Squadron Operations Facility
(NVZR973718)......................... IV 2,500
Alter Corrosion Control (NVZR973721).. IV 5,000
Alter Maintenance Facilities
(NVZR973723)......................... IV 800
Patrick AFB:
Pararescue Training Facility
(SXHT959002)......................... IV 2,650
Maintenance Facilities (SXHT959011)... IV 500
Add/Alter Corrosion Control Facility
(SXHT959004)......................... IV 2,750
------------
Subtotal Air Force Florida........ ....... 17,100
============
Mississippi:
Columbus AFB:
T-37 Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
(EEPZ973006)......................... IV 1,100
------------
Subtotal Air Force Mississippi.... ....... 1,100
============
New York:
Fort Drum:
Runway/Apron/Instrument Landing System
(WOXG959609)......................... IV 46,000
------------
Subtotal Air Force New York....... ....... 46,000
============
Texas:
Carswell Naval Air Station/Fort Worth
Joint Reserve Base:
Numbered Air Force Headquarters
(DDPF959004)......................... IV 4,300
Security Police Training Facility
(DDPF959006)......................... IV 720
Laughlin AFB:
Add to Child Development Center
(MXDP973003R1)....................... IV 350
------------
Subtotal Air Force Texas.......... ....... 5,370
============
Various Locations:
Planning and Design (BCL97RD4)............ ....... 5,543
============
Total for Air Force BRAC IV
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 76,643
============
Defense Logistics Agency BRAC III construction,
fiscal year 1997:
California:
Defense Contract Management District West,
El Segundo:
Administrative Building............... III 5,200
------------
Subtotal DLA California........... ....... 5,200
============
Pennsylvania:
Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia:
Convert Facilities for Defense
Personnel Support Center............. III 31,950
------------
Subtotal DLA Pennsylvania......... ....... 31,950
============
Various Locations:
Planning and Design....................... ....... 500
============
Total for DLA BRAC III
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 37,650
============
Defense Logistics Agency BRAC IV Construction,
fiscal year 1997:
California:
Defense Distribution Region West, Tracy:
Hazardous Material Storage Addition to
Warehouse 28......................... IV 9,300
------------
Total for DLA BRAC IV
construction, fiscal year 1997... ....... 9,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1996 appropriation.......................... $964,843,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 352,800,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 352,800,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... -612,043,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $352,800,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part II for fiscal year 1997. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1997 and a decrease
of $612,043,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year
1996. Below is the recommended distribution of funds as
requested:
Activity Amount
Military Construction................................... $39,800,000
Family Housing.......................................... 22,973,000
Environmental........................................... 223,789,000
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 65,684,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 0
Other................................................... 554,000
Revenues................................................ 0
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 352,800,000
Base Realignment and Closure, Part III
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $2,148,480,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 971,925,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 971,925,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... -1,176,555,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $971,925,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part III for fiscal year 1997. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1997 and a decrease
of $1,176,555,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year
1996. Below is the recommended distribution of funds as
requested:
Activity Amount
Military Construction................................... $345,258,000
Family Housing.......................................... 36,855,000
Environmental........................................... 351,967,000
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 425,350,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 27,524,000
Other................................................... 28,918,000
Revenues................................................ (243,947,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 971,925,000
Base Realignment and Closure, Part IV
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $784,569,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................... 1,182,749,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,182,749,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation...................... +398,180,000
Fiscal year 1997 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $1,182,749,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 1997. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1997 and an
increase of $398,180,000 above the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1996. Below is the recommended distribution of
funds as requested:
Activity Amount
Military Construction................................... $416,640,000
Family Housing.......................................... 1,624,000
Environmental........................................... 200,841,000
Operations and Maintenance.............................. 541,079,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 3,581,000
Other................................................... 18,984,000
Revenues................................................ 0
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 1,182,749,000
General Provisions
The bill carries a number of routine General Provisions
that have been included for several years.
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 new account has been established, ``Department of Defense
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund'', for
arrangements with private developers to provide affordable,
timely housing for unaccompanied service members. A provision
is included which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer
funds from other construction accounts.
A provision of the ``Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund'', which permits the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds from other family housing accounts.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part II'' states that not more than $223,789,000 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 $351,967,000 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 $200,841,000 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.
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.''
The Committee recommends deleting the following General
Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 1996 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-32):
Section 124, regarding the Army's use of George AFB as the
interim airhead for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin
until Barstow-Daggett reaches Initial Operational Capability as
the permanent airhead.
Section 125, regarding the Army's conveyance of remaining
surplus property at the former Fort Sheridan to the Fort
Sheridan Joint Planning Committee or its successor, for fair
market value.
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
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund
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
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
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. 3230, which passed the House
on May 15, 1996. 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'' and
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund'' and
``Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund'' 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
rescissions in the amount of $12,000,000 under ``Military
Construction, Navy.''
Inflationary Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of
Representatives, the Committee estimates that enactment of this
bill would have no overall inflationary impact on prices and
costs in the operation of the national economy.
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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602(b) Allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary....................... $10,033 $10,430 $10,032 $10,429
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 1997...................... $10,032,000
Outlays:
1997................................................ 3,225,000
1998................................................ 3,209,000
1999................................................ 1,933,000
2000................................................ 980,000
2001 and beyond..................................... 685,000
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 1997 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:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
