[House Report 107-207] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] 107th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107-207 ====================================================================== MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002 _______ September 20, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______ Mr. Hobson, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T [To accompany H.R. 2904] 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, 2002. CONTENTS Page Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 2 Conformance With Authorization Bill.............................. 2 Summary of Committee Recommendation.............................. 3 Items of Special Interest........................................ 6 Military Housing................................................. 6 Historic Properties.............................................. 7 Overseas Military Construction................................... 7 Building to Private Sector Standards............................. 8 Contingency Funding.............................................. 9 Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization....................... 9 Fiscal Year 2002 Barracks Request................................ 9 Child Development Centers........................................ 11 Hospital and Medical Facilities.................................. 12 Military Construction: Army......................................................... 13 Navy......................................................... 13 Air Force.................................................... 14 Defense-wide................................................. 14 Army National Guard.......................................... 15 Air National Guard........................................... 16 Army Reserve................................................. 16 Naval Reserve................................................ 17 Air Force Reserve............................................ 17 NATO Security Investment Program................................. 17 Family Housing Overview.......................................... 18 Family Housing: Army......................................................... 20 Navy......................................................... 21 Air Force.................................................... 22 Defense-wide................................................. 22 Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............ 23 Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.............................. 23 Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 24 General Provisions............................................... 25 Changes in Application of Existing Law........................... 27 Definition of Program, Project and Activity...................... 28 Appropriations Not Authorized by Law............................. 28 Transfer of Funds................................................ 29 Rescission of Funds.............................................. 29 Constitutional Authority......................................... 29 Comparisons With Budget Resolution............................... 29 Five-Year Projection of Outlays.................................. 30 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments.............. 30 Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 30 Full Committee Votes............................................. 30 State List....................................................... 30 Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority.................... 4, 54 Purpose of the Bill The Military Construction Appropriation Bill provides funding for planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of military facilities worldwide, both for active and reserve forces. Additionally, the bill appropriates amounts for construction, alteration, improvement, operation, and maintenance of military family housing, and for payments against past housing mortgage indebtedness. The bill provides funds for the U.S. share of the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP). Finally, the bill provides funds to implement base realignments and closures (BRAC) and impact assistance in communities where BRACs cause property values to decrease. Conformance With Authorization Bill On August 1, 2001, the House Armed Services Committee marked up H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. At this time, conference action on the legislation has not occurred; therefore, projects in this bill are approved subject to authorization. Summary of Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends $10,500,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority for the Department of Defense, Military Construction Appropriation Bill. This recommendation is $528,688,000 above the President's request and $1,563,502,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in the bill compared to amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2001.Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 The Committee fully supports the President, Departments, and agencies in all their efforts to recover from and respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the United States. The Committee is committed to working with the Defense Department to ensure necessary resources are available for reconstructing the Pentagon and improving the anti-terrorism and force protection measures of defense facilities at home and abroad. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST For the most part, the President's budget request is a great improvement over past requests. The request increases the military construction budget by $1,034,814,000, or 11 percent, above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level of $8,936,498,000; decreases the current facility replacement rate of 192 years to 101 years, and maintains the goals of improving barracks and base housing by 2008 and 2010 respectively. However, military installations face other challenges not addressed by the request. For example, according to the Installations Readiness Report (IRR), 69% of Department of Defense (DoD) facilities continue to be rated C-3 (deficiencies that prevent performing some missions) or C-4 (major facility deficiencies that preclude accomplishing the mission satisfactorily). Likewise, while the new replacement rate is better under this budget, it falls short of the Department's goal of 67 years, and even further than commercially-acceptable rates. Finally, the budget fails to implement a consistent, comprehensive strategy for maintaining and recapitalizing facilities so that mission performance and quality of life for troops and their families are not compromised. To ameliorate these problems, DoD should consider the pros and cons of implementing an aggressive asset management program that provides for effective and routine maintenance, as well as for adequate recapitalization of facilities, and determine whether it could be effectively implemented on military installations. Military Housing The Committee is pleased with the Administration's commitment to execute the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. However, once again, this budget fails to address several issues associated with the initiative. First, budget scoring of the alternative authorities is inconsistent and is not always based on sound financial principles. DoD is directed to work with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to compare the current scoring methodology with similar federal housing programs, and to report the findings to the appropriate Congressional committees by March 15, 2002. This exercise should be helpful to OMB when it reexamines the scoring matrix for this program. Second, because most privatization contracts are fifty years in length, the Committee believes that monitoring and enforcing contractual obligations will be paramount to program success. Each service should begin to develop capacity in this area. Similarly, because the initiative involves complex and complicated real estate transactions dissimilar to the traditional military housing program, each service should develop expertise in this area. Finally, in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill, the Committee directed each service to submit a Family Housing Master Plan no later than July 1, 2001. Currently, only the Army's plan has been received by the Committee. The information contained in these plans is vital because it enables the Committee to understand how each service intends to meet the goal of eliminating all inadequate housing by fiscal year 2010. Therefore, the Committee urges the Navy and Air Force to submit their plans on time in the future. Historic Properties As noted in the past, the Committee is concerned with the inordinate expenditures associated with improving and maintaining historically significant properties. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires the Department to manage those units listed on the National Historic Register, as well as any units that meet the criteria of being potentially eligible for listing, in a way that preserves their historic significance and integrity. In the future, these costs will grow as the number of properties eligible for listing on the Register grows. In the next five years alone, the Department will have approximately 38,000 structures that reach 50 years of age. To reduce the costs associated with maintaining historic properties, the Department should pursue innovative funding sources and operating methods. Several examples were discussed during the Historic Properties hearing on March 15, 2001, such as expanded gift acceptance authority, leasing to third parties like the Park Service, and demolition where appropriate. During the hearing, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that inventory control systems available to the services are inaccurate. The Committee recommends the services work with the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) to develop better inventory controls and a plan that addresses the increasing number of aging structures. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Department to conduct a seminar on working with State Historic Preservation Offices. Finally, the Committee directs the Department to pursue a cooperative agreement with the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Cold War era housing, such as Capehart, Wherry and Lustron homes, that is similar to the 1986 programmatic memorandum of agreement on World War II wooden buildings. Overseas Military Construction This year, the Committee held several hearings about the condition of overseas military installations and facilities. The Commanders-in-Chief of the European, Pacific, and Korean Commands provided testimony. General Joseph Ralston, Admiral Dennis Blair, and General Thomas Schwartz testified their top two spending priorities were military construction and real property maintenance, and the Committee commends them for their leadership. Despite being unable to include a substantial increase in overseas construction projects, the Committee would like to highlight several items of interest. First, the European Command priorities of better housing and vehicle maintenance facilities are duly warranted. Further, the Committee commends General Ralston and his staff for their efforts to close and consolidate bases scattered throughout Europe and to find alternative funding sources. The Committee believes the Command would benefit from a consolidated European master plan, and encourages DoD and General Ralston to consider the feasibility of developing a master plan and report the findings to the Committee. Admiral Blair testified that as the Pacific Command becomes more strategically important, its installations would require substantial upgrades, particularly in the area of technology. In addition, he emphasized the need to improve the living conditions throughout the Command, particularly in Korea, in order to retain highly trained troops and staff. General Schwartz concurred with Admiral Blair, testifying that some of the worst housing and working conditions in the Pacific Command are in Korea. To ameliorate the conditions, General Schwartz has developed a Land Partnership Plan that consolidates many existing camps and relocates troops to more suitable areas. The Committee commends him for his efforts and will review the plan when the Quadrenniel Defense Review (QDR), which will discuss force structure requirements in Korea, is submitted to Congress. Finally, the Committee notes that the Korean Special Measures Agreement (SMA) will be re-negotiated in the near future. DoD is encouraged to aggressively pursue additional host nation funding consistent with the overall congressional goal of seventy-five percent contained in the 1998 Defense Authorization bill. Energy Efficiencies The Committee encourages energy efficiency and the maximum use of energy produced from noncarbon and renewable sources at military installations. The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense is mandated to comply with Executive Order 13123 (``Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management'') to meet energy management requirements, reduce greenhouse gases, and expand the use of renewable sources. To assist DOD in complying with the Executive Order, and to build upon the effort to expand the use of noncarbon and renewable sources, the Committee directs that not later than January 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a plan to achieve at military installations the goals specified in sections 201, 202, and 203 of Executive Order 13123 (64 Fed. Reg. 30851; 42 U.S.C. 8251 note), relating to greenhouse gases reduction goals and energy efficiency improvement goals, by maximizing the use of (1) energy efficiency products and services and (2) energy produced from noncarbon and renewable sources. Building to Private Sector Standards Section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-398) repealed the military family housing square footage limitations included in Section 2826 of title 10, United States Code. These limitations were in place for many years and were inconsistent with housing constructed in the private sector. Waiving these limitations should create incentives for the military departments to replace large, inefficient housing units with more energy efficient and appropriately sized homes to meet the needs of military families. For instance, some General and Flag Officer Quarters (GFOQs) exceed 5,000 square feet because they were built for other purposes many decades ago. Because many of these homes are approaching 50 years of age, the minimum age for inclusion on the National Historic Preservation list, they would require special handling for maintenance and repair requirements. As a result, the costs to maintain and improve these homes generally exceed the costs for new homes built in the private sector. The Committee directs the Department to replace larger, inefficient housing units with housing built to private sector standards wherever feasible. Building to local private sector standards could save the Department the added cost and burden of maintaining historic homes. Furthermore, when executing projects included in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, the Committee expects the Department to construct housing to community standards rather than to the standards previously included in Section 2826 of title 10, United States Code. Contingency Funding Most construction projects include a five percent reserve account to offset any unexpected project costs, called contingency costs. Last year, the Department did not include contingency costs in their budget request in an attempt to reduce the overall budget request. This year, however, the Department has requested funds sufficient to cover these costs for every project, and the Committee commends them for taking this action. Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization The Department is directed to continue describing on form 1390, the backlog of Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization needs at installations with future construction projects. For troop housing requests, the form 1391 should describe any Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization conducted in the past two years, and future requirements for unaccompanied housing at that installation. Additionally, the forms should include English equivalent measurements for projects presented in metric measurement. Finally, the rules for funding repairs of facilities under the Operation and Maintenance account are described below:
Components of the facility may be repaired by replacement, and such replacement can be up to current standards or codes. Interior arrangements and restorations may be included as repair, but additions, new facilities, and functional conversions must be performed as military construction projects. Such projects may be done concurrently with repair projects, as long as the final conjunctively funded project is a complete and usable facility. The appropriate service secretary shall notify the appropriate Committees 21 days prior to carrying out any repair project with an estimated cost in excess of $7,500,000. Fiscal Year 2002 Barracks Request The Committee recommends appropriating $1,200,525,000 to construct or modernize 15,466 barracks spaces in fiscal year 2002. This recommendation is $35,090,000 above the request, and $391,325,000 above the amount enacted in fiscal year 2001. This recommendation also constructs or renovates an additional 1,854 barracks spaces, and maintains the departmental goal of eliminating all inadequate barracks by 2008. The following troop housing construction projects are recommended for fiscal year 2002: FISCAL YEAR 2002 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Location Request Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Army: Alaska-Fort Richardson.......... $45,000,000 $45,000,000 California-Defense Language 0 5,900,000 Institute...................... Colorado-Fort Carson............ 25,000,000 25,000,000 Hawaii-Schofield Barracks....... 23,000,000 23,000,000 Hawaii-Wheeler Army Airfield.... 50,000,000 50,000,000 Kentucky-Fort Campbell.......... 47,000,000 47,000,000 New Jersey-Fort Monmouth........ 20,000,000 20,000,000 North Carolina-Fort Bragg....... 49,000,000 49,000,000 North Carolina-Fort Bragg....... 27,000,000 27,000,000 North Carolina-Fort Bragg....... 17,500,000 17,500,000 Texas-Fort Hood................. 41,000,000 41,000,000 Washington-Fort Lewis........... 48,000,000 48,000,000 Germany-Bamberg................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 Germany-Darmstadt............... 6,700,000 6,700,000 Germany-Darmstadt............... 6,800,000 6,800,000 Germany-Hanau................... 7,200,000 7,200,000 Germany-Heidelberg.............. 6,800,000 6,800,000 Germany-Heidelberg.............. 8,500,000 8,500,000 Korea-Camp Hovey................ 33,000,000 33,000,000 Korea-Camp Humphreys............ 14,500,000 14,500,000 Korea-Camp Stanley.............. 28,000,000 28,000,000 Korea-Yongsan Garrison.......... 0 12,800,000 ----------------------------------- Subtotal, Army................ 524,000,000 542,700,000 =================================== Navy/Marine Corps: California-Camp Pendleton Marine 21,200,000 21,200,000 Corps Base..................... California-Camp Pendleton Marine 21,600,000 21,600,000 Corps Base..................... California-El Centro Naval Air 23,520,000 23,520,000 Facility....................... California-Lemoore Naval Air 10,010,000 10,010,000 Station........................ California-San Diego Naval 47,240,000 47,240,000 Station........................ California-Twentynine Palms..... 29,675,000 29,675,000 District of Columbia-Anacostia.. 9,810,000 9,810,000 Florida-Mayport Naval Station... 16,420,000 16,420,000 Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps 24,920,000 24,920,000 Base........................... Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval 17,300,000 17,300,000 Complex........................ Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval 23,300,000 23,300,000 Complex........................ Illinois-Great Lakes Naval 41,130,000 41,130,000 Training Center................ Illinois-Great Lakes Naval 41,130,000 41,130,000 Training Center................ Maine-Brunswick Naval Air 22,630,000 22,630,000 Station........................ Mississippi-Gulfport Naval 14,300,000 14,300,000 Construction Battalion Center.. Missouri-Kansas City Marine 9,010,000 9,010,000 Corps Support Activity......... North Carolina-Camp Lejeune 16,530,000 16,530,000 Marine Corps Base.............. North Carolina-Camp Lejeune 13,550,000 13,550,000 Marine Corps Base.............. South Carolina-Beaufort Naval 0 7,330,000 Hospital....................... Virginia-Norfolk Naval Station.. 14,730,000 14,730,000 Virginia-Quantico Marine Corps 9,390,000 9,390,000 Combat Development Command..... Greece-Larissa Naval Support 12,240,000 12,240,000 Activity....................... Guam-Guam Naval Support Activity 9,300,000 9,300,000 ----------------------------------- Subtotal, Navy................ 448,935,000 456,265,000 =================================== Air Force: Alabama-Maxwell AFB............. 11,800,000 11,800,000 Alabama-Maxwell AFB............. 13,600,000 13,600,000 Alaska-Elmendorf AFB............ 20,000,000 20,000,000 Arizona-Davis-Monthan AFB....... 8,700,000 8,700,000 Colorado-Buckley AFB............ 11,200,000 11,200,000 Oklahoma-Tinker AFB............. 10,200,000 10,200,000 Texas-Lackland AFB.............. 8,600,000 8,600,000 Texas-Sheppard AFB.............. 16,000,000 16,000,000 Texas-Sheppard AFB.............. 21,000,000 21,000,000 Virginia-Langley AFB............ 8,300,000 8,300,000 Germany-Ramstein AB............. 11,000,000 11,000,000 Italy-Aviano AB................. 8,200,000 8,200,000 Korea-Osan AB................... 14,400,000 14,400,000 Korea-Osan AB................... 15,800,000 15,800,000 Korea-Osan AB................... 9,700,000 9,700,000 Turkey-Eskisehir................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 ----------------------------------- Subtotal, Air Force........... 192,500,000 192,500,000 =================================== Navy Reserve: Texas-Fort Worth Joint Reserve 0 9,060,000 Base........................... ----------------------------------- Subtotal, Navy Reserve........ 0 9,060,000 =================================== Total......................... 1,165,435,000 1,200,525,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Child Development Centers The Committee recommends $42,660,000 for child development centers. This is $17,200,000 above the budget request, and $466,000 below last year's enacted level. Child Development Centers (CDCs) remain critically important for military families, especially single parents, dual-income families, and spouses left behind during deployments, and the Committee commends the individual services on the quality of care CDCs provide. However, the Committee remains concerned with the limited number of spaces and hours available at these centers, and encourages the service components to expand service and increase hours where demand warrants it, and to provide acceptable alternatives where it does not. The following child development center projects are provided for fiscal year 2002: FISCAL YEAR 2002 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Location Request Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Army: Kansas-Fort Riley................. $6,800,000 $6,800,000 Maryland-Fort Meade............... 5,800,000 5,800,000 Germany-Bamberg................... 0 6,500,000 Germany-Weisbaden................. 6,800,000 6,800,000 --------------------------------- Subtotal, Army.................. 19,400,000 25,900,000 ================================= Navy/Marine Corps: South Carolina-Beaufort Marine 6,060,000 6,060,000 Corps Air Station................ --------------------------------- Subtotal, Navy.................. 6,060,000 6,060,000 ================================= Air Force: Arizona-Davis-Monthan AFB......... 0 6,200,000 Arizona-Luke AFB.................. 0 4,500,000 --------------------------------- Subtotal, Air Force............. 0 10,700,000 ================================= Total........................... 25,460,000 42,660,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hospital and Medical Facilities Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends appropriating $198,826,000 for hospitals and medical facilities. The request includes $193,300,000 for 22 projects, and $5,526,000 for unspecified minor construction. The recommended appropriation is $57,589,000 above last year's enacted level. The Committee recognizes and commends the Army's application of population-based planning and industry-based facility assessments in their development of medical and other facility infrastructure repair and recapitalization requirements. The Committee is interested in how DoD interprets and further develops requirements into rational, life-cycle based investments to support the Defense Health Program. Using the GAO findings in Report NS/IAD-99-100 that outline the needs of DoD infrastructure, the Department is directed to provide to the appropriate Committees a strategy for medical facility and installation asset management and funding by May 15, 2002. The following hospital and medical facilities are recommended for fiscal year 2002: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Location Project Title Request Recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alaska-Fort Wainwright........................ Hospital Replacement (Phase III) $18,500,000 $18,500,000 California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base... Fleet Hospital Support 3,150,000 3,150,000 Facilities. California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base... Replace Medical/Dental Clinic 4,300,000 4,300,000 (Horno). California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base... Replace Medical/Dental Clinic 3,800,000 3,800,000 (Las Flores). California-Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base... Replace Medical/Dental Clinic 4,050,000 4,050,000 (Las Pulgas). California-Twentynine Palms................... Hospital LDRP Conversion........ 1,600,000 1,600,000 Colorado-Schriever AFB........................ Medical/Dental Clinic........... 4,000,000 4,000,000 Florida-Hurlburt Field........................ Add/Alter Medical/Dental Clinic. 8,800,000 8,800,000 Florida-Mayport Naval Station................. Replace Medical/Dental Clinic... 24,000,000 24,000,000 Georgia-Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base.... Replace Medical/Dental Clinic... 5,800,000 5,800,000 Georgia-Fort Stewart.......................... Consolidated Troop Medical 11,000,000 11,000,000 Clinic. Maryland-Andrews AFB.......................... Add/Alter Medical/Dental Clinic. 7,300,000 7,300,000 Maryland-Andrews AFB.......................... Branch Medical/Dental Clinic 2,950,000 2,950,000 Relocation. New Mexico-Holloman AFB....................... Medical Clinic Alteration....... 5,700,000 5,700,000 Texas-Dyess AFB............................... Medical Treatment Facility 3,300,000 3,300,000 Alteration. Texas-Fort Hood............................... Add/Alter Hospital.............. 12,200,000 12,200,000 Virginia-Norfolk.............................. Add/Alter Branch Medical Clinic. 21,000,000 21,000,000 Washington-Whidbey Island Naval Air Station... Water Survival Facility......... 6,600,000 6,600,000 Wyoming-F. E. Warren AFB...................... Medical Clinic Alteration....... 2,700,000 2,700,000 Germany-Heidelberg............................ Hospital Addition/Clinic 28,000,000 28,000,000 Alteration. Greenland-Thule AB............................ Composite Medical Facility 10,800,000 10,800,000 Replacement. Portugal-Lajes Field.......................... Dental Clinic Replacement....... 3,750,000 3,750,000 Various....................................... Unspecified Minor Construction.. 5,526,000 5,526,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Total................................... ................................ 198,826,000 198,826,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Construction, Army Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $907,243,000 Miscellaneous Appropriation (P.L. 106-554)........ 26,941,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 9,144,000 Total........................................... 943,328,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 1,760,541,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,702,934,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +759,606,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... -57,607,000 The Committee recommends a total of $1,702,934,000 for Military Construction, Army, for fiscal year 2002. This is a decrease of $57,607,000 below the budget request and an increase of $759,606,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The budget request proposes, as it has for several years, that chemical demilitarization projects be appropriated in this account. However, the Committee recommends that the request of $172,500,000 be appropriated in the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' account, in order to better track expenses, and to avoid distorting the size of the Army's military construction program. Pennsylvania-Tobyhanna Army Depot: Training and Conference Center.--Of the additional amount provided for planning and design within this account, the Committee directs that not less than $225,000 be made available to design this facility. Worldwide Classified-Classified Location: Classified Project.--The Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-52) appropriated $36,400,0000 for a classified project at a classified location. This project has been cancelled. As a result, the Committee rescinds $36,400,000 from the ``Military Construction, Army'' account. Military Construction, Navy Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $926,224,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 3,187,000 Total........................................... 929,411,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 1,071,408,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,134,660,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +205,249,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +63,252,000 The Committee recommends a total of $1,134,660,000 for Military Construction, Navy, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $63,252,000 above the budget request and an increase of $205,249,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee rescinds $19,588,000 of unobligated planning and design funds from this account. These funds will be used to offset unfunded Navy BRAC requirements. California-Monterey Naval Postgraduate School: Replacement of Spanagel Hall.--The Committee is aware that a new academic facility is needed at the Naval Postgraduate School. Spanagel Hall is almost 50 years old and is costly to maintain. Furthermore, the facility suffers from substandard classrooms and laboratories incapable of supporting today's advanced technologies. A new facility is critical to the continued success of graduate education for the Navy. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Navy to make this project a priority and program the requirement within the Future Years Defense Plan. Mississippi-Meridian NAS: Airfield Lighting.--The Committee is aware that the existing airfield electrical distribution system at the Meridian Naval Air Station (NAS) is 40 years old and impedes flight operations. In addition, the current lighting system in place at Meridian NAS does not meet Naval Air Systems Command criteria. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Navy to make this project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan. Washington-Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Center.--The Committee understands that a Center for Integrated Undersea Warfare (USW) Systems Dependability is needed at the Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Center to integrate all range communications and worldwide communication links for the Northwest Range Complex and ensure access to the Complex for all fleet and Navy customers. Consequently, the Committee encourages the Navy to make this project a priority within the Future Years Defense Program. Japan-Camp Schwab: 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force Training Facility.--With the additional funds provided for Unspecified Minor Construction, the Committee directs the Navy to execute a project in the amount of $1,490,000 to provide this facility. Military Construction, Air Force Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $868,294,000 Miscellaneous Appropriation (P.L. 106-554)........ 11,974,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 5,065,000 Total........................................... 885,333,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 1,068,250,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,185,220,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +299,887,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +116,970,000 The Committee recommends a total of $1,185,220,000 for Military Construction, Air Force, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $116,970,000 above the budget request and an increase of $299,887,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Delaware-Dover Air Force Base.--The Committee recognizes that an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliant fire station and a modern control tower at Dover Air Force Base are vital to the mission capability of our armed services. Funding for these projects will increase safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of Dover Air Force Base. The Committee considers these projects as top priorities, and encourages the Air Force to include this project in the Future Years Defense Plan. Military Construction, Defense-wide Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $812,839,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... -14,376,000 Total........................................... 798,463,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 694,558,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 852,808,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +54,345,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +158,250,000 The Committee recommends a total of $852,808,000 for Military Construction, Defense-wide, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $158,250,000 above the budget request and an increase of $54,345,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. Aruba-Forward Operating Location.--Division B, Title III, Chapter 3 of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-246) appropriated a total of $10,250,000 to construct a Forward Operating Location in Aruba. This requirement is no longer needed. Therefore, the Committee rescinds $10,250,000 from the ``Military Construction, Defense- wide'' account. Chemical Demilitarization.--The 1986 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 99-145) authorized the Chemical Demilitarization program for the purpose of destroying all U.S. stockpiled chemical agents and weapons by April 29, 2007. In 1991, Congress expanded the law to include the destruction of chemical warfare material not part of the stockpile, such as buried munitions and former weapons production facilities. The Department of the Army is the agent responsible for program management and oversight. As requested by the President, the Committee recommends appropriating $172,500,000 for chemical demilitarization projects, which is $2,900,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The following chart displays the fiscal year 2002 funding increments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Installation Project Request Recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas............... Pine Bluff Arsenal......... Ammunition $26,000,000 $26,000,000 Demilitarization Facility (Phase VI). Colorado............... Pueblo Depot............... Ammunition 11,000,000 11,000,000 Demilitarization Facility (Phase III). Indiana................ Newport Army Ammunition Ammunition 66,000,000 66,000,000 Plant. Demilitarization Facility (Phase IV). Kentucky............... Blue Grass Army Depot...... Ammunition 3,000,000 3,000,000 Demilitarization Facility (Phase II). Maryland............... Aberdeen Proving Ground.... Ammunition 66,500,000 66,500,000 Demilitarization Facility (Phase IV). ------------------------------- Total............ ........................... .......................... 172,500,000 172,500,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Construction, Army National Guard Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $281,097,000 Miscellaneous Appropriation (P.L. 106-554)........ 4,490,000 Total........................................... 285,587,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 267,389,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 313,348,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +27,761,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +45,959,000 The Committee recommends a total of $313,348,000 for Military Construction, Army National Guard, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $45,959,000 above the budget request and an increase of $27,761,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Arkansas-Warren: Readiness Center.--The Committee is aware that a new armory is needed to accommodate various classrooms, offices and utility-related rooms for the 3rd Battalion 153 Infantry in Warren, Arkansas. The Committee encourages the Army National Guard to make this project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan. Michigan-Shiawassee County: Readiness Center.--The Committee understands that a readiness center in Shiawassee County, Michigan would alleviate the problems currently associated with soldiers assigned to an overcrowded, substandard, and aged facility in nearby Owosso. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Army National Guard to make this project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan. Military Construction, Air National Guard Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $203,381,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 6,700,000 Total........................................... 210,081,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 149,072,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 198,803,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... -11,278,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +49,731,000 The Committee recommends a total of $198,803,000 for Military Construction, Air National Guard, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $49,731,000 above the budget request and a decrease of $11,278,000 below the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Montana-Malmstrom AFB: Training and Mobility Storage Facility.--The Committee understands that a training and mobility storage facility is needed for the Montana Air National Guard's 219th Red Horse team for storage of mobility equipment, cargo preparation and processing, equipment maintenance, and an indoor team training area. Consequently, the Committee encourages the Air National Guard to make this project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan. South Carolina-McEntire Air National Guard Station: Joint Headquarters.--Of the additional amount provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that not less than $1,331,000 be made available to design this facility. Delaware-New Castle County Airport.--The Committee recognizes that an upgraded parking apron/taxiway for the Air National Guard at New Castle County Airport is vital to the mission capability of our armed services. Funding for this project will increase safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Air National Guard at New Castle County Airport. The Committee considers this project a top priority, and encourages the Air National Guard to include the project in the Future Years Defense Plan. Military Construction, Army Reserve Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $108,499,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 111,404,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 167,769,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +59,270,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +56,365,000 The Committee recommends a total of $167,769,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $56,365,000 above the budget request and an increase of $59,270,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Pennsylvania-Johnstown: Security Improvements.--With the additional funds provided for Unspecified Minor Construction, the Committee directs the Army Reserve to execute a project in the amount of $500,000 to improve security at this location. Military Construction, Naval Reserve Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $61,931,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 33,641,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 61,426,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... -505,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +27,785,000 The Committee recommends a total of $61,426,000 for Military Construction, Naval Reserve, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $27,785,000 above the budget request and a decrease of $505,000 below the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee rescinds $925,000 of unobligated planning and design funds from this account. These funds will be used to offset unfunded Navy BRAC requirements. Louisiana-New Orleans Joint Reserve Base: Joint Reserve Center and Runway Extension.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the second phase of the Joint Reserve Center at the New Orleans Joint Reserve Base (JRB). This joint use center will include the Army Reserve and other reserve components. As stated in the House Report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Bill (Report 106-614), this multi-service center can dramatically increase deployment, mobilization, and training capabilities. In addition to this project, the Department of the Navy is encouraged to complete design of the 4,000-foot runway extension project at the New Orleans JRB and make the project a priority within the Future Years Defense Plan. Military Construction, Air Force Reserve Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $36,510,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 53,732,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 81,882,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +45,372,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +28,150,000 The Committee recommends a total of $81,882,000 for Military Construction, Air Force Reserve, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $28,150,000 above the budget request and an increase of $45,372,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. C-17 Facilities.--Of the additional amount provided for planning and design within this account, the Committee directs that no less than $3,000,000 be made available for planning and site assessments of March AFB and Wright-Patterson AFB in order to provide long-term support for C-17 aircraft within Air Force Reserve Command operations. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $171,622,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 162,600,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 162,600,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... -9,022,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... 0 The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) is paid for with annual contributions by NATO member countries. The program finances the costs of construction needed to support the roles of the major NATO commands. The investments cover facilities such as airfields, fuel pipelines and storage, harbors, communications and information systems, radar and navigational aids, and military headquarters. The U.S. share of the NSIP for fiscal year 2002 is $199,000,000, or roughly 25% of the total NSIP program amount of $802,000,000. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends $162,600,000 for the NSIP, which is a decrease of $9,022,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 2001. To offset the total U.S. share of the program, $11,000,000 from projected savings from recoupments of pre-financed projects, and $25,000,000 from prior year obligations, are available for expenditure. In each year since 1997, the U.S. has been forced to temporarily block authorization of projects due to shortfalls in U.S. obligation authority. The Committee is concerned that the U.S. has been placed in this position, and has been assured by DoD that the total U.S. program share of $199,000,000 is sufficient to preclude similar action in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee intends to monitor the program, and directs DoD to notify the Committee within 30 days after taking such action. Family Housing Overview Historically, housing for military personnel and their families has been a low priority for DoD. Consequently, the inventory is old and in most cases is substandard. Currently, DoD estimates that 180,000 of the 300,000 military family housing units it owns and operates are substandard, and that it would cost more than $16 billion to improve or replace them. In testimony before this subcommittee on March 8, 2001, senior enlisted service members stated that housing was one of the most important factors soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines consider when deciding whether to remain on active duty or to leave the service. Military spouses who testified before the subcommittee echoed these statements. To ameliorate the costs associated with providing decent housing, Congress authorized the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. The initiative's intent is to create more housing quickly, to attract private capital, and to make the private sector responsible for providing routine maintenance for the term of the contract. Whether the initiative has been successful is still unclear. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends funding of $1,165,309,000 for family housing construction for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $50,880,000 above the budget request, and $261,224,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The following chart provides a service component breakout of the current family housing deficit, both in units and in cost of new construction, replacement, and improvements: DEFICITS (CURRENT PROJECTIONS) [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New construction Replacement Improvement Grand total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army: Number of Units..................... 1,368 3,724 26,769 31,861 Costs............................... $410,400 $604,404 $2,003,240 $3,018,044 Navy: Number of Units..................... 15,600 5,569 18,801 39,970 Costs............................... 2,294,300 1,162,000 1,737,200 5,193,500 Marine Corps: Number of Units..................... 9,449 8,501 7,805 25,755 Costs............................... 1,457,200 1,696,900 454,500 3,608,600 Air Force: Number of Units..................... 6,000 26,300 32,900 65,200 Costs............................... 780,845 3,421,860 2,959,110 7,161,815 Total DOD: Number of Units..................... 32,417 44,094 86,275 162,786 Costs............................... 4,942,745 6,885,164 7,154,050 18,981,959 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fiscal year 2002 request for operation and maintenance totals $2,939,969,000. The operations and maintenance accounts provide for annual family housing expenditures for maintenance and repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, leasing, interest, mortgage insurance, and miscellaneous expenses. The Committee recommends a total of $2,908,409,000 for fiscal year 2002 which is $31,560,000 below the President's request and $154,876,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Utility Estimates The Committee includes a total reduction of $30,000,000 to the following appropriations because current utility rates are more favorable than the Department predicted when it submitted its fiscal year 2002 budget request: Account Amount Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Army....... -$11,000,000 Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Navy and -8,000,000 Marine Corps......................................... Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Air Force.. -11,000,000 ----------------- Total........................................... -$30,000,000 Foreign Currency Savings Once again, the Committee directs that savings from foreign currency re-estimates be used to maintain existing family housing units. The Comptroller is directed to report to the Committee on how these savings are allocated by December 1, 2002. Likewise, only 10% of funds made available to the construction account and operation and maintenance accounts may be transferred between the accounts. Such transfers must be reported to the Committee within thirty days of such action. 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 new or renewal lease that exceeds $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. 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 improvement projects over $2,000,000. Family Housing Construction, Army Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $235,437,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 291,542,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 294,042,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +58,605,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +2,500,000 The Committee recommends a total of $294,042,000 for Family Housing Construction, Army, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is an increase of $2,500,000 above the budget request, and an increase of $58,605,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The appropriation includes $61,700,000 to construct new family housing units, $220,750,000 to improve existing units, and $11,592,000 for planning and design. California-Presidio of Monterey: Residential Communities Initiative.--The military family housing at the Presidio of Monterey is scheduled for privatization under the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) program in fiscal year 2002. The scope of the planned project is 1,675 housing units. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) included a provision, which expanded the types of entities eligible to participate in the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) to include a State or local government, or a housing authority of a State or local government. Therefore, the Committee expects that governmental entities, specifically local housing authorities, shall have standing to submit proposals and compete fairly for the privatization of military family housing at the Presidio of Monterey in California. Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Army Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $949,655,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 26,480,000 Total........................................... 976,135,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 1,108,991,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,096,431,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation.............. +120,296,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... -12,560,000 The Committee recommends a total of $1,096,431,000 for Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Army, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is a decrease of $12,560,000 below the budget request, and an increase of $120,296,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Maintenance and Repair: General Quarters.--The Committee defers $1,560,000 from the maintenance and repair account until further justification is provided for two general officer quarters projects. Specifically, the Committee defers $1,200,000 for the maintenance and repair of Quarters 3 at Fort McNair in Washington, DC; and $360,000 for the maintenance and repair of Quarters 1000 at Camp Zama in Japan. Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $417,235,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 304,400,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 334,780,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation.............. -82,455,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +30,380,000 The Committee recommends a total of $334,780,000 for Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps, for fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $30,380,000 above the budget request, and a decrease of $82,455,000 below the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The appropriation includes $124,847,000 to construct new family housing units, $203,434,000 to improve existing units, and $6,499,000 for planning and design. Construction Improvements.--Of the amount provided for construction improvements, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to execute the following projects: $11,840,000 for whole-site revitalization (69 units) at Barking Sands Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii, $6,940,000 for whole house revitalization (124 units) at Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts, and $1,600,000 to renovate Quarters 1 and Quarters 3 at 8th and I Marine Barracks in Washington, DC. Washington, DC--8th and I Marine Barracks: Historic Residences.--The Committee notes the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to use funds received pursuant to section 2601 of title 10, United States Code, for the construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of historic residences located at the 8th and I Marine barracks. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to use funds received pursuant to this authority to offset the total cost of all construction improvement projects at 8th and I Marine Barracks included in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $879,625,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 20,300,000 Total........................................... 899,925,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 918,095,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 910,095,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation.............. +10,170,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... -8,000,000 The Committee recommends a total of $910,095,000 for Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is a decrease of $8,000,000 below the budget request, and an increase of $10,170,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Family Housing Construction, Air Force Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $251,413,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 518,237,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 536,237,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +284,824,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... +18,000,000 The Committee recommends a total of $536,237,000 for Family Housing Construction, Air Force, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is an increase of $18,000,000 above the budget request, and an increase of $284,824,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The appropriation includes $140,800,000 to construct new family housing units, $370,879,000 to improve existing units, and $24,558,000 for planning and design. Construction Improvements.--Of the amount provided for construction improvements, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to execute the following project: $18,000,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (164 units) at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Air Force Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $819,061,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 13,625,000 Total........................................... 832,686,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 869,121,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 858,121,000 Comparison with:...................................... Fiscal year 2001 total appropriation.............. +25,435,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... -11,000,000 The Committee recommends a total of $858,121,000 for Family Housing Operations and Maintenance, Air Force, for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is a decrease of $11,000,000 below the budget request, and an increase of $25,435,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Family Housing, Defense-wide Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ $44,787,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. 44,012,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 44,012,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... -775,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... 0 Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends $44,012,000 for Family Housing, Defense-wide, for fiscal year 2002. This amount is a decrease of $775,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 2001. Of this amount $250,000 is for construction, $43,762,000 is for operations and maintenance. Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ 0 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. $2,000,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 2,000,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +2,000,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... 0 The Family Housing Improvement Fund is used to build or renovate family housing by mixing or matching various authorities in the authorization, and by utilizing private capital and expertise to the maximum extent possible. The fund, administered as a single account without fiscal year limitations, contains appropriated and transferred funds from family housing construction accounts. 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 deposited into this fund, and any use of the fund is subject to annual appropriations. The authority to utilize the alternative authorities is due to expire on December 31, 2004; however, the Committee supports the House Armed Services Committee proposal to make the authorities permanent. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2002, which is $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Department is directed to continue providing quarterly status reports on each privatization project. Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense Fiscal year 2001 appropriation........................ 0 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. $10,119,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 10,119,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... +10,119,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... 0 The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving fund which provides assistance to homeowners. The fund was established in recognition that base closure and reduction actions cause adverse economic impacts on local communities. Service members may access the fund when military installations are closed or operations are reduced, and the value of their home diminishes accordingly. 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. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee appropriates $10,119,000 for the Homeowners Assistance Fund for fiscal year 2002, which is $10,119,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 2001. Total Fund requirements for fiscal year 2002 are estimated to be $31,615,000. Additional amounts will be derived from transfers from the Base Realignment and Closure account, revenue from sales of acquired property, and prior year unobligated balances. Base Realignment and Closure Account Fiscal year 2001: Appropriation..................................... $1,022,115,000 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-20).......... 9,000,000 Total........................................... 1,031,115,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate............................. $532,200,000 Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 552,713,000 Comparison with: Fiscal year 2001 appropriation.................... -478,402,000 Fiscal year 2002 estimate......................... 20,513,000 The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-526) and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) enacted legislation that instituted four base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds between 1988 and 1995 for the purposes of reducing excess military bases and infrastructure. The BRAC rounds closed 97 of 495 major domestic installations, realigned several other facilities, and are estimated to save $15.5 billion through fiscal year 2001. BRAC legislation requires DoD to fund the environmental restoration and caretaker costs for facilities closed in previous BRAC rounds. The Committee is recommending $552,713,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure Account for fiscal year 2002, which is $478,402,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001, and $20,513,000 above the President's request. The additional amount is for previously unfunded cleanup requirements at Navy BRAC sites. Of the total amount provided, $544,983,000 is for environmental restoration and caretaker costs of facilities closed under previous rounds of BRAC. Also included in the appropriation is $7,730,000 that will be transferred during execution to the Homeowner's Assistance Program to provide assistance to military personnel and civilian homeowners affected by base closures. The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of $21,141,854,000 for the BRAC program from fiscal years 1990 through 2001. Within this total, the Department has allocated $6,868,497,000 for activities associated with environmental restoration. The Committee, in appropriating such funds, has provided the Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by service component, by functions and by base. Recognizing the complexities of providing for environmental restoration of properties, the Committee has provided flexibility to allow the Office of the Secretary of Defense to monitor program execution to redistribute unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid delays, and to effect timely execution of environmental cleanup responsibilities. California-Fort Ord: Affordable Housing.--There are circumstances under which local reuse authorities stand to generate substantial revenues from the conveyance of closed or realigned bases and the facilities on the installation. In those instances, it is appropriate for the authority to work cooperatively with the services, and state and local governments, to ensure that those revenues are directed towards public purposes. For example, in Monterey County, California, the local base reuse authority stands to generate substantial revenues from the conveyance of Fort Ord by developing new homes on open land as well as retrofitting existing homes on the base, for which the authority paid nothing, and selling this housing at prices that reflect the market rates in the area. Though the plan of the reuse authority is well-intentioned, the area suffers from a serious shortage of housing that is affordable for lower and middle-income families. The median home price in the area is $400,000, which is simply unaffordable to working families making 60 or 80 percent of area median income. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the local reuse authority and government to find ways to make affordable homes available for hard working families, particularly when the property is being conveyed at no cost to the community. There are many housing programs--private and public--that undertake multi-income projects with little effort and minimal effects on profit margins. The reuse authority in Monterey County is urged to consider including such a program in its overall reuse plan. In addition, the authority is urged to increase the amount of affordable housing at the former Fort Ord. California-Fort Ord: Hazardous Waste from Building Removal.--The Committee is concerned about the environmental challenges associated with the base closure re-use issues at the former Fort Ord in California and the disposal of lead- based paint (LBP), asbestos, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) that will be generated during building removal. Accordingly, the Army shall develop, demonstrate, and validate innovative technologies to specifically address the remediation of LBP, asbestos, and PCBs generated from the 12th Street Corridor building removal at Fort Ord. These technologies may include, but are not necessarily limited to, thermochemical conversion processes. A successful technology solution from this effort will also be beneficial for other closed or realigned defense installations facing similar challenges. The Department of the Army shall work with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority in its efforts to advance the 12th Street Corridor Project and report on the progress of these technology efforts as part of the mandated Environmental Quality Technology Report to Congress until this project is completed, at which time a final report specifically focused on this initiative will be provided to Congress which should make suggestions for further building removal activities. General Provisions The Administration proposed eliminating several general provisions enacted in P.L. 106-246: sections 111, 113, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, and 128-139. The Committee recommends retaining every provision except for sections 128-139. Additionally, the Administration proposed a new provision that allowed the transfer of up to $67,000,000 among any accounts in the bill. The Committee did not include this provision. General Provisions included in the bill are as follows: Section 101 of the General Provisions limits DoD from spending funds appropriated in this Act for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for construction where cost estimates exceed $25,000. An exception for Alaska is provided. Section 102 of the General Provisions permits the hire of passenger motor vehicles. Section 103 of the General Provisions permits funds to be expended on the construction of defense access roads under certain circumstances. Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits construction of new bases inside the continental United States without a specific appropriation. Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of funds for purchase of land or land easements that exceed 100% of value. Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of funds to acquire land, prepare sites, or install utilities for family housing except housing for which funds have been appropriated. Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of minor construction funds to be transferred or relocated from one installation to another. 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 limits appropriations from being used to pay 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 preference for American architectural and engineering services where the services are in Japan, NATO member countries, and the Arabian Gulf. Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes a preference for American contractors for military construction in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, except bids by Marshallese contractors for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll. Section 113 of the General Provisions requires the Secretary of Defense to give prior notice to Congress of military exercises where construction costs exceed $100,000. Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations to no more than 20% during the last two months of the fiscal year. Section 115 of the General Provisions permits DoD to make available funds appropriated in prior years for new projects 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 requires the Secretary of Defense to report annually on actions taken during the current fiscal year to encourage other member nations of the NATO, Japan, Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share of defense costs. Section 120 of the General Provisions authorizes the 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 the availability of funds to any entity that violates the Buy American Act. Section 122 of the General Provisions states the Sense of the Congress notifying recipients of equipment or products authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided in this Act to purchase American-made equipment and products. Section 123 of the General Provisions permits the transfer of funds from Family Housing, Construction accounts to the DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund. Section 124 of the General Provisions limits the obligation of funds for Partnership for Peace Programs. Section 125 of the General Provisions requires the Secretary of Defense to notify congressional defense committees of all family housing privatization solicitations and agreement which contain any clause providing consideration for base realignment and closure, force reductions, and extended deployments. Section 126 of the General Provisions provides transfer authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program. Section 127 of the General Provisions requires that appropriations from this Act be the sole source of all operation and maintenance for flag and general officer quarter houses and limits the repair on these quarters to $25,000 per year. Section 128 of the General Provisions requires the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to submit a Family Housing Master Plan to the appropriate committees of Congress by July 1, 2002. Section 129 of the General Provisions authorizes additional funds for a project at Masirah Island Airfield in Oman. House of Representatives Report Requirements The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the rules of the House of Representatives. Changes in Application of Existing Law Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue on-going activities that 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. Language is included that enables various appropriations to remain available for more than one year for some programs for which the basic authority legislation does not presently authorize such extended availability. Language is included under Military Construction, Defense- wide, which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to other accounts for military construction or family housing. Language is included under Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV, limiting the amount of funds that shall be available solely for environmental restoration. Language is included under the General Provisions authorizing additional funds for a project at Masirah Island Airfield in Oman. Definition of 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), and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information provides the definitions of the terms ``program, project and activity'' for appropriations contained in the Military Construction Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget items, identified in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2002, the accompanying House and Senate reports, and the conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the managers of the committee of conference. In carrying out any sequestrations, the Department of Defense (DoD) and related agencies shall carry forth the sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the DoD and the related agencies, and no program, project, and activity should be eliminated or reduced to a level of funding that would adversely affect DoD ability to effectively continue any program, project, and activity. Appropriations Not Authorized by Law Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: [Dollars in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations Last year of Authorization in last year Appropriations Agency/Program authorization level of in this bill authorization ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Construction, Army....................... 2001 $943,328 $943,328 $1,702,934 Military Construction, Navy....................... 2001 929,411 929,411 1,134,660 Military Construction, Air Force.................. 2001 885,333 885,333 1,185,220 Military Construction, Defense-wide............... 2001 798,463 798,463 852,808 Military Construction, Army National Guard........ 2001 285,587 285,587 313,348 Military Construction, Air National Guard......... 2001 210,081 210,081 198,803 Military Construction, Army Reserve............... 2001 108,499 108,499 167,769 Military Construction, Naval Reserve.............. 2001 61,931 61,931 61,426 Military Construction, Air Force Reserve.......... 2001 36,510 36,510 81,882 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 2001 171,622 171,622 162,600 Investment Program............................... Family Housing, Construction, Army................ 2001 235,437 235,437 294,042 Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Army... 2001 976,135 976,135 1,096,431 Family Housing, Construction, Navy and Marine 2001 417,235 417,235 334,780 Corps............................................ Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy 2001 899,925 899,925 910,095 and Marine Corps................................. Family Housing, Construction, Air Force........... 2001 251,413 251,413 536,237 Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air 2001 832,686 832,686 858,121 Force............................................ Family Housing, Defense-wide...................... 2001 44,787 44,787 44,012 Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 2001 0 0 2,000 Fund............................................. Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense............... 2001 0 0 10,119 Base Realignment and Closure...................... 2001 1,031,115 1,031,115 552,713 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Transfer of Funds Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a statement is required describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. Sections 115, 118, 120, 123, 126, and 129 of the General Provisions, and language included under ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' provide certain transfer authority. Rescission of Funds In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee recommends rescissions of: Military Construction, Army--$36,400,000 Military Construction, Navy--$19,588,000 Military Construction, Naval Reserve--$925,000 Military Construction, Defense-Wide--$10,250,000 Constitutional Authority Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * * Appropriations contained in this bill are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution. Comparisons With Budget Resolution Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from the Committee's section of 302(a) allocation. [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 302(b) allocation This bill ------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget Budget authority Outlays authority Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary............................... $10,500 $9,203 $10,500 $9,202 Mandatory................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Five-Year Projection of Outlays In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: [In thousands of dollars] Budget authority, fiscal year 2002...................... $10,500,000 Outlays: 2002................................................ 2,690,000 2003................................................ 4,042,000 2004................................................ 2,337,000 2005................................................ 785,000 2006 and beyond..................................... 598,000 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)(C) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: [In millions of dollars] New budget authority.................................... 0 Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom............ 0 Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program's success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. Full Committee Votes Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: There were no recorded votes. State List The following is a complete listing, by State and country, of the Committee's recommendations for military construction and family housing projects: ![]()