[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4879-H4891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 178 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2016.
{time} 1813
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2016) making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read for the first time.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
{time} 1815
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me proceed by informing all the Members that the rules require a
record vote on final passage of this bill. Some have inquired.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying what a pleasure it has been
for me to work with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner]. We
have crafted this bill, I think, to be very attractive to all the
Members of the Congress.
This is a military construction bill, and our primary concern in this
bill was that we address this very serious problem with quality-of-life
issues, family housing, barracks, hospitals, day-care centers, and the
like. This bill includes $9,183,000,000. This is within the 602(b)
allocations. It represents a $610 million reduction from last year's
appropriated levels. This is a 6 percent reduction. So we want Members
of the House to know that this bill is cutting, not raising, the cost
of Government.
The Members recognize that this addresses, as I have mentioned, the
quality-of-life issues. We recommend that an additional $800 million
above and beyond the request in the President's budget be devoted to
improving the troop housing, family housing, child day-care centers.
This adds up to $752 million in barracks, troop housing; $28 million in
child day-care centers; $146 million in hospital and medical
facilities; $104 million in environmental compliance on our bases; $1
billion for new housing and improvement of existing housing; and over
$3 billion of the bill is in operation and maintenance of existing
inventory. Twenty-three percent of the bill, or $2.1 billion, is for
downsizing DOD's infrastructure, in other words, the base realignment
and closure program.
Again, I want to express my deep appreciation to the staff, to the
members
[[Page H4880]]
of my subcommittee, certainly to the ranking member, for the
cooperation we have had in crafting this bipartisan bill. In
conclusion, I want to express the fact that we have worked closely with
the authorizing committee.
As a matter of fact, all individual items in this bill are included
in the authorization bill. So we worked very closely with the
authorizing committee and they have been very, very cooperative. This
$9.2 billion is roughly 4 percent of the total defense budget and $610
million below last year's level.
We strongly urge the Members of Congress to support the bill and move
it forward. We fully expect that this will move without a great deal of
controversy; and, hopefully, we will be able to have our final passage
vote within the hour.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
[[Page H4881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY97.000
[[Page H4882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY97.001
[[Page H4883]]
Mr. PACKARD.Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would be remiss if I did
not congratulate the chairman of the committee, who is one of the
finest gentleman I have ever worked with in this House, and this is one
of the best committees, I guess, in the entire House of
Representatives. And I would like to congratulate the staff, because
they have done a tremendous job, both on the minority side and the
majority side, they have done a tremendous job in putting together this
bill, and it merits the support of everyone in this House.
This bill contains, as the chairman has said, some $9.2 billion in
total funding. This is $600 million below last year. I would like to
remind some of the critics of the bill that we have been taken to task
that we are over the President's mark. But I would like to remind the
Members of the House that we have a committee that in the past 2 years,
under both Democrat and Republican administrations, we have had to
fight very hard to get money for quality of life for our troops. We
have concentrated on doing the best that we can for quality of life for
our troops, and we think we have done a good job with limited funds.
We have got 50 new barracks projects, and all of our barracks are
over 40 years old. We need another 250,000 units. And I might add that
everything in this package has been authorized and was voted on and
passed in this House. So I think we have a very good bill, and I want
to thank the chairman for all of his courtesy to work with us through
the years and for the staff.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I want the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] to know that it is a joy to
serve on his subcommittee and under his chairmanship.
As I said at the markup, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]
could give us all lessons in how to mark up a bill in an efficient way
and to get the job done. The gentleman from California has done an
outstanding job in crafting this bill that addresses the quality of
life and needs of our armed services.
The men and women who serve this country deserve the very best that
we can provide, and this bill includes increased funding for billets,
for new family housing units, and for private family homes. Each of
these are essential to the readiness of our Armed Forces.
I am particularly pleased that the chairman funded several projects
at the Great Lakes Naval Base in my district. The Great Lakes Naval
Training Center serves as the Navy's only primary training base and the
principle location for early training skills. This bill includes new
enlisted barracks at the Great Lakes Naval Hospital at a cost of $5.2
million in new barracks, two new fire stations, and a combat pool at
the Great Lakes Naval Training Center at a cost of $26.7 million.
Under the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard],
this bill takes very strong steps in improving the quality of life for
our armed services. He has done a masterful job in crafting the bill,
and I applaud him and urge support of all Members.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], who is a member of the committee.
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction, I rise to support this bill, but particularly to
commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard for his very
effective leadership, and then also to commend both Chairman Packard
and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hefner, the ranking member,
for their very bipartisan working relationship which was indeed, as the
previous speaker said, a joy to work with.
The fiscal 1998 MILCON appropriations bill continues to focus on the
quality of life for servicemen and women. Improving quality of life for
those who serve in the Armed Forces and for their families is critical
if we are going to retain our best personnel beyond their minimum
service requirements. We are spending billions on new weapons, and we
ought to spend enough to ensure that the servicemen and women who
operate those sophisticated weapons are not left in substandard and in
some cases deplorable living conditions.
To that end, this bill provides funding, in some cases above the
Pentagon's request, for new child development centers; new hospital and
medical facilities, including treatment centers and medical research
facilities; and for cleanup at military bases where contamination sites
that are in violation of either Federal or State environmental
protection laws do exist.
The report which accompanies this bill contains initiatives that
should be supported by all Members. These initiatives are aimed at
saving costs and bringing common sense to construction planning by the
service branches.
There are instructions in the report for each military department to
develop a unified design guidance program to stop wasteful, duplicative
spending on the engineering and design of like projects, including
duplicative spending on computer programs used in the engineering,
design, and construction of standard military facilities.
A second cost-saving measure in the subcommittee's report is the
forwarding of Bold Venture, the Pentagon's program to move military
entrance processing stations from private, commercial buildings to
military installations in order to reduce office rent expenditures and
the cost associated with housing recruits in hotels rather than in
barracks.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for including this language
in the subcommittee's report, and I look forward to reviewing the
Defense Logistics Agency's report on the budgeting timetable for Bold
Venture, which is due to the Appropriations Committee no later than
January 1998.
But perhaps the best feature of this package is the specific
instruction included by the chairman to the Army, the Army National
Guard, and the National Guard Bureau on the need for a concerted system
of planning and prioritizing the hundreds and hundreds of unbudgeted
Army National Guard construction projects.
The subcommittee report before the House today points out that the
Army Guard has no comprehensive approach whatsoever to armory
construction--as well as no understandable, consistent method for
prioritizing competing armory and readiness center construction
projects.
I commend the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Packard], the chairman, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Hefner] in taking steps to improve this extremely poor budgeting
process, both for the next fiscal year and for the long run.
For those reasons and more, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support the fiscal 1998 military construction bill.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly echo the sentiments of other speakers
who already talked tonight in commendation of our subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], as well as the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member, for the
bipartisan nature in which they have approached this issue, taking care
of quality-of-life and readiness issues, all within our budget
allocation.
Mr. Chairman, I think it might surprise many American people to hear
that over 25 percent of our military barracks are in substandard
condition at the present time and over 66 percent of onbase housing is
considered substandard. And that is what this bill is principally
about.
I was glad to see my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter], talk
[[Page H4884]]
about quality of life as it affects readiness. It would take 32 years
and $30 billion in order to correct all of the problems presently
associated with our military housing.
Forty-two percent of this bill goes toward family housing needs, $1
billion toward new family housing, and another $3 billion toward
operation and maintenance of existing facilities. There are also many
other needs that are met by the bill: $28 million for child development
centers, $146 million for hospital and medical facilities, $752 million
for barracks facilities.
So I just want to echo the comments of other speakers already and
congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. Because of the rule,
we will have a recorded vote; and I certainly would expect an
overwhelming vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of the authorizing Subcommittee on
Military Installations and Facilities of the Committee on National
Security.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2016, the
Military Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] have described the principal features of
this legislation, and I do not want to repeat what they already have
said. But as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and
Facilities, I would like to elaborate on a couple of points that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Hefner] have made.
This House has been concerned for some time about the serious
shortfalls in basic infrastructure, military housing, and other
facilities that affect the readiness of our Armed Forces and the
quality of life for military personnel and their families, and Congress
has taken action to attempt to address those shortfalls.
Both the authorization and appropriations committees of jurisdiction
were disappointed that the budget requested by the administration for
fiscal year 1998 continued a pattern of significant deterioration in
the funding programmed by the Department of Defense for military
construction, in spite of the very clear and obvious facilities problem
that the services confront. This legislation will not solve all those
problems, but, if it passes, it will be a further demonstration of the
commitment of the House to correct the severe deficiencies that exist
at our military installations.
I am gratified that the authorization and appropriations
subcommittees have continued their close working relationship. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] is correct that all projects
recommended for appropriation in the bill have been represented for
authorization in H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1998, which passed the House prior to the recess by a vote
of 304 to 120.
{time} 1830
This House has always responded to the clear and compelling need of
the military services. H.R. 2016 reflects a bipartisan consensus on
military construction that has already been ratified by the House. I
urge Members to keep faith with the men and women in uniform and
continue our effort to improve their living and working conditions. I
ask for my colleagues' support for this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me take just a moment to associate
myself with the gentleman's remarks and compliment him as the
subcommittee chairman on the authorizing committee, to compliment the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the chairman, and the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member who has
labored so long and so well in his previous chairmanship on this. This
is an excellent bill, and I think it should pass, as the gentleman
says, overwhelmingly. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Menendez]) for a colloquy with the chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, what I am trying to accomplish in lieu of an
amendment that I intended to offer in this colloquy with the chairman
is based on an issue that arises from my district where the Military
Ocean Terminal in Bayonne, NJ is going to close. That is a foregone
conclusion. We understand that. But as part of this process, the BRAC
Commissioners voted to take the Military Sealift Command that was there
and have them relocate to a base X, an undisclosed base. My
understanding is that there would be a financial feasibility as to what
would be the most appropriate place to have the Military Sealift
Command be relocated to.
The Navy has gone off unreined to determine that they want to go to a
location that does not in fact substantiate itself with any study as to
what is the financial cost and whether it is the most financially
feasible cost. Consequently we have learned that they intend to go to
Camp Pendleton, VA.
In January of this year, I asked for a GAO report simply to find out
whether or not they have done a study and if not what is the most
appropriate place in terms of the consequences of the financial impact
of moving this and is this the most financially feasible both for the
Navy and for the U.S. taxpayers. We are expecting the design phase of
that, to have it within the next 2 weeks, but it will take a little
more time to have a final report.
What I am trying to accomplish, Mr. Chairman, in this colloquy is,
first of all, I understand that there is no money in this bill for such
a transfer of the Military Sealift Command. Am I correct in that
statement?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Second, Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman will
work with us to seek a resolution with the Navy on this matter in order
to ensure that the taxpayers' money is well spent and we are going to
the most appropriate place.
Mr. PACKARD. Of course we will work with the gentleman in every way
we can to resolve the problem.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his concerns
regarding the lack of funding for many Army National Guard projects in
H.R. 2016. This deficiency, I am told, in funding is apparently the
result of a lack of communications by the Army National Guard Bureau
with the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee as to the
priorities of the various projects requested by each State's Army
National Guard. Reference to that matter was previously made a few
minutes ago by the gentleman from Massachusetts. There is certainly a
lesson to be learned by the Army National Guard Bureau from this
process. I believe the Army National Guard Bureau must learn that it
can no longer rely on the political connections of the past with
respect to both the Congress and the Pentagon. It must also make more
energetic efforts to directly communicate its needs and its priorities
to the Appropriations Subcommittee.
This member recognizes the great difficulty the members of the
subcommittee faced in formulating this appropriation bill. It is clear
that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the
subcommittee much more difficult, especially when coupled with this
lack of adequate communications by the Army National Guard Bureau.
It is my understanding that this unfortunate situation has resulted
in the lack of appropriations for many worthy projects for the Army
National Guard, including projects in the districts of the subcommittee
members. I strongly regret that circumstance. This member, for example,
requested the subcommittee's consideration of two military construction
projects for the Nebraska National Guard. They should
[[Page H4885]]
have received strong consideration and bureau support, and I will
expect that this deficiency will be corrected in the short-range
future.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this member would like to express his
hope that this unfortunate situation is rectified by the Army National
Guard Bureau and that a similar predicament is not encountered in the
future by members of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the
Committee on Appropriations.
This criticism of the bureau has to be made, it seems to me, but it
is offered by this member for constructive reasons. Therefore, I would
hope that the bureau does not have any future sense of retribution for
bringing this deficiency to the attention of the body.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of
the subcommittee for the outstanding job they have done on the bill
they bring before us.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], a member of the full committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I
appreciate my colleague from California for the good work that he and
the ranking member have executed on the bill. But I come to the
committee with a concern. For the first time I visited West Point this
year, just a couple of weeks ago. We have a facility built in the
1920's, and they put through 4,000 cadets a day in these facilities. My
colleagues say, ``What does a Navy guy want to help the Army for?''
Because we train our men and women to go to war and they are hurting
bad. The facilities are cracked, they are falling down in some cases,
and this is what we have to offer the best of the best that go through?
These rascals even had ``Beat Navy'' signs on their houses, on their
bleachers, on their cars, and in their dormitories, but that does not
overshadow the fact that I would like to appeal to the gentleman from
California next year to go forward and take a trip there and he will
see just how decimated West Point is in relation to our other
academies.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes in response to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. For many, many years I have
been on this Subcommittee on Military Construction. It has been our
number one initiative to try to do what we can for quality of life and
to help for retention for what we believe is the finest young men and
women in the world in our Armed Forces. We have tried very, very hard
to put the focus on quality of life, both in the authorizing committee
and in the appropriations committee. But I must say, it has been very
difficult over the years in both Democrat and Republican
administrations, it always makes the request short of what is needed
for quality of life for our military people. We have had some criticism
in this particular bill that we are pork-barreling. But I do not think
it is pork-barreling when we are doing the very best that we can with
limited dollars for our men and women in the Armed Forces. The people
who are so critical of us do not realize that we have had pauses, one
year we did not have any money particular at all, we did no
improvements in barracks and quality of life, and then we have had the
only budget in this House that has been stagnant at best. We have
actually lost ground over the last few budget sessions. We have done a
good job, and the chairman has done a good job in putting together
along with the staff what I consider a very, very good budget. I agree
with my friend from California, it is absolutely terrible when we go to
these bases, in some of them these young men and women are operating
the most sophisticated weapons that man has ever devised and they are
walking across unpaved parking lots and standing in showers up to their
ankles to get a bath. This is absolutely not right. This should be a
higher priority. This should be a real priority for any administration
to do whatever is needed for quality of life for our men and women who
lay it on the line, who make the sacrifice for their families. They
certainly do not make a lot of money. If we are going to have a
volunteer force, if we are going to count on retention and these young
men signing up to stay and to serve their country, we are going to have
to put more focus on quality of life for our troops. That is what we
have tried to do in this bill. I think it is a bill that certainly,
certainly merits the support of all the Members of this House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond and
certainly agree totally and wholeheartedly with the ranking member that
just spoke. Certainly we need to retain the trained men and women that
we have. We spend billions of dollars to train our men and women only
to lose them because we do not have adequate housing, we do not have
adequate facilities for them. That is atrocious. I also agree with the
gentleman from California in regard to the need to improve our
academies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Packard] for yielding me this time.
I certainly want to express my support for this military construction
funding bill and certainly want to commend not only the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard] but the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Hefner] for their good work on this bill. I know the Subcommittee on
Military Construction had less money to work with this year and they
have done an admirable job of crafting a bill which increases the
quality of life for American military personnel and makes important
investments in our defense facilities.
As I heard the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] comment
about what is good and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] talk
about what is good for our young men and women in the service, I want
to give an example of this committee's work that relates to the Air
Force Base and the Air National Guard unit at Fairchild Air Force Base
in my district in Spokane, WA. Fairchild Air Force Base began in 1942
as an airplane maintenance depot, and then it became a B-29 bomber base
after World War II. In 1976, it became the 141st Air Refueling Wing, it
moved to Fairchild as a tenant unit, and it houses the KC-135s for the
Air National Guard in hangars which were meant for World War II.
These hangars are large enough to cover most of the airplane, but not
the tail and the fuselage. So for 20 years the rear end of these
airplanes has stuck out in the open air. Whenever an Air National Guard
mechanic had to go out and work on this airplane, he had to stand out
in the cold, and it gets very cold in my part of the country in the
wintertime.
I just want these two distinguished gentlemen to understand, and the
rest of my colleagues to understand, too, that this has a very
practical implication in my district because it is correcting a problem
that has existed for years, and it really is a readiness issue and it
is a service issue for these young men and women who work on these
airplanes. So by modifying this Air National Guard hangar in my
district, the whole plane is going to be under cover during the winter
months and they are going to have maintenance be able to occur. That is
just one example of some very important measures in this bill that
improve the quality of life of our American men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend support for this bill.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the
Military Construction Appropriations Act. This bill aptly balances
budgetary concerns with military concerns. In the process, quality of
life issues are considered and addressed by this bill. I commend
Chairman Packard and Congressman Hefner for their efforts on this bill.
They have done a superb job. This bill is the appropriations for
military construction projects. But, I think it is important to
understand that this bill is really appropriations for the
infrastructure that supports our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines. This Bill also supports quality of life issues that are
important to our men and women in service.
Like many Members with their own districts, I have remained aware of
military construction projects for bases in my district. I am
encouraged by the planned projects and recognize that these were
planned by DOD and contributed to the military environment on Guam
positively. The projects followed the normal budgetary cycle and now
are close to final approval. However, DOD has also attempted to
[[Page H4886]]
request funding outside the normal budgetary process. This funding
would be for construction of a DOD Dependent School on Guam. To
characterize this properly, DOD first took actions in November 1996
regarding an education contract between DOD and the Government of Guam.
They stopped payment. This clearly indicates DOD had the time to
include appropriations requests for school construction during the
normal budget cycle. In February of this year, DOD Comptroller
Secretary Hamre testified before the Subcommittee on Military
Construction that there were no current plans to establish DOD schools
on Guam. However, there have been indications that DOD is seeking a
congressional add for the project. This sends the wrong message. Local
elected leaders in Guam have worked hard to open discussions with DOD
regarding education issues, but have had little cooperation. Now DOD
wants to change its own self proscribed timeline and establish DOD
schools this year vice next year. I say let's keep the school year 1998
timeline. This will allow time for local education officials and DOD to
discuss issues and will preserve the appropriations process.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as having been read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2016
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure functions
administered by the Department of Defense, and for other
purposes, namely:
Military Construction, Army
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $721,027,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2002: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $71,577,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy as currently
authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services
necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$685,306,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $46,659,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $662,305,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $45,880,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, as
authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines
that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes
and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-wide
(including transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $613,333,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as he may designate,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes,
and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated, not to exceed $34,350,000 shall be available
for study, planning, design, architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United
States Code, and military construction authorization Acts,
$45,098,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United
States Code, and military construction authorization Acts,
$137,275,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
133 of title 10, United States Code, and military
construction authorization Acts, $77,731,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2002.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United
States Code, and military construction authorization Acts,
$40,561,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code, and military
construction authorization Acts, $27,143,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2002.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized in military
construction authorization Acts and section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, $166,300,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and
maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction,
$202,131,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002;
for Operation and Maintenance, and for debt payment,
$1,148,937,000; in all $1,351,068,000.
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension and alteration and for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for
Construction, $409,178,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2002; for Operation and Maintenance, and for
debt payment, $976,504,000; in all $1,385,682,000.
Family Housing, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and
[[Page H4887]]
maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction,
$341,409,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002;
for Operation and Maintenance, and for debt payment,
$830,234,000; in all $1,171,643,000.
Family Housing, Defense-wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for construction, including
acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension and
alteration, and for operation and maintenance, leasing, and
minor construction, as authorized by law, as follows: for
Construction, $4,950,000, to remain available until September
30, 2002; for Operation and Maintenance, $32,724,000; in all
$37,674,000.
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $116,754,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $105,224,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available solely for
environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $768,702,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $398,499,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available solely for
environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $1,175,398,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $353,604,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available solely for
environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. 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 setting forth
the reasons therefor: Provided, That the foregoing shall not
apply in the case of contracts for environmental restoration
at an installation that is being closed or realigned where
payments are made from a Base Realignment and Closure
Account.
Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction shall be available for hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction may be used for advances to the Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to begin construction of new bases inside the
continental United States for which specific appropriations
have not been made.
Sec. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used for purchase
of land or land easements in excess of 100 per centum of the
value as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers or the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, except (a) where there
is a determination of value by a Federal court, or (b)
purchases negotiated by the Attorney General or his designee,
or (c) where the estimated value is less than $25,000, or (d)
as otherwise determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in
the public interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used to (1) acquire
land, (2) provide for site preparation, or (3) install
utilities for any family housing, except housing for which
funds have been made available in annual Military
Construction Appropriations Acts.
Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts for minor construction may
be used to transfer or relocate any activity from one base or
installation to another, without prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be used for the
procurement of steel for any construction project or activity
for which American steel producers, fabricators, and
manufacturers have been denied the opportunity to compete for
such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a
new installation overseas without prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be obligated for
architect and engineer contracts estimated by the Government
to exceed $500,000 for projects to be accomplished in Japan,
in any NATO member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Gulf, unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint venture with
host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts for military construction in
the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in countries bordering the Arabian
Gulf, may be used to award any contract estimated by the
Government to exceed $1,000,000 to a foreign contractor:
Provided, That this section shall not be applicable to
contract awards for which the lowest responsive and
responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the
lowest responsive and responsible bid of a foreign contractor
by greater than 20 per centum: Provided further, That this
section shall not apply to contract awards for military
construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a Marshallese
contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate Committees of Congress, including the Committees
on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of any proposed
military exercise involving United States personnel thirty
days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for
construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated
to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 per centum of the appropriations
in Military Construction Appropriations Acts which are
limited for obligation during the current fiscal year shall
be obligated during the last two months of the fiscal year.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency
for the construction of military projects may be obligated
for a military construction project or contract, or for any
portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the
end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which
funds for such project were appropriated if the funds
obligated for such project (1) are obligated from funds
available for military construction projects, and (2) do not
exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any
amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 118. During the five-year period after appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military
construction and family housing operation and maintenance and
construction have expired for obligation, upon a
determination that such appropriations will not be necessary
for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized
adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred
during the period of availability of such appropriations,
unobligated balances of such appropriations may be
transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 119. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives with an annual report by February 15,
containing details of the specific actions proposed to be
taken by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal
year to encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, Japan, Korea, and United States allies
bordering the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share of the
common defense burden of such nations and the United States.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 120. During the current fiscal year, in addition to
any other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense, proceeds deposited to the Department of Defense Base
Closure Account established by
[[Page H4888]]
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to be
merged with, and to be available for the same purposes and
the same time period as that account.
Sec. 121. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be
expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c,
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
Sec. 122. (a) In the case of any equipment or products that
may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance
provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that
entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the
assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and
products.
(b) In providing financial assistance under this Act, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to each recipient of
the assistance a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 123. During the current fiscal year, in addition to
any other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense, amounts may be transferred from the account
established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to the fund established by
section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to pay for expenses
associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program. Any
amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available for
the same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to
which transferred.
Sec. 124. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
appropriations made available to the Department of Defense
Family Housing Improvement Fund shall be the sole source of
funds available for planning, administrative, and oversight
costs incurred by the Department of Defense relating to
military family housing initiatives and military
unaccompanied housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to the
provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 169, title 10, United
States Code, pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and
improving military family housing, military unaccompanied
housing, and supporting facilities.
{time} 1845
Mr. PACKARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 17, line 21, be considered as read,
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mc Collum
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum:
Page 17, after line 21, insert the following new section:
Sec. 125. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or any
other Act for any fiscal year may be used for military
construction for the Naval Nuclear Power Propulsion Training
Center in Charleston, South Carolina.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment tonight out of a
great deal of frustration because of what has gone on over the past
several years regarding a small portion of the Navy's training center
in Orlando, FL that was ordered closed in a base closure decision in
1995. That small portion is the Navy's Nuclear Power Propulsion
Training Center. That center was directed in 1995 to be relocated to
New London, CT to go along with the Navy's submarine and other nuclear
facilities there. But in the process of the 1995 closure commission
decision, a decision was made to keep open the submarine base in New
London, CT, and as a result of that there was no place for the nuclear
power school facilities that are now in Orlando to go there. The cost
to go to New London, to build new buildings, to buy new land, to dig
under the granite there was too great, and the Navy came back--and I
said 1995, it was 1993--came back in 1995 and requested a redirect from
New London to Charleston of this particular facility. And in 1995 I
argued rather vehemently before that commission that the school should
be kept in Orlando, not moved to Charleston; that it was not a cost-
effective move and that the payback period, which is the way we measure
these sorts of things, was going to be way too long.
But the rules of the game that the Base Closure Commission used at
that time said, hey, we are going to look at this as though the nuclear
power facilities have already been moved to New London, and then we are
going to compare a move from New London to Charleston to a move from
New London to Orlando; and the reality was it was a lot cheaper to move
to Charleston from New London. But that was a total fiction. The
reality is that the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Training Center schools
and so forth are still in Orlando this day.
So last year along the way with appropriated moneys that were put
forward subsequent to that base closure realignment decision, they
began to construct in Charleston earlier than anticipated on these new
schools, and I asked the General Accounting Office for a report. The
General Accounting Office came back. They have done, as far as I know,
no other reports on base closure work. They have got some comprehensive
work undergoing. But they were willing to do this on this one occasion
because it did not seem right to them either; and in November of 1996,
last year, they issued a report on this matter in which they described
the fact that in reality, having looked at this matter, I was right all
along; that the payback period was going to be 20 years in order to pay
back the cost of the upfront maneuvering to make this move to
Charleston. And the net bottom line is that 20 years is far in excess
of any payback period for any base closure that I am aware of in 1991,
1993, or 1995.
Mr. Chairman, at any rate I am left with no recourse but to comment
on this today and to seek redress to pull that funding back. We are
otherwise going to waste a whole lot of money. It is $151 million to
make this move to Charleston, unnecessarily being spent by the Navy
right now. I am told that if we stop this process today, we could still
save $80 or $90 million of that amount of money. There is no reason to
have this new school being built there. There is no reason that it
could not stay in Orlando in a containment facility, which was an
alternative that was proposed and is considered, and in fact it is the
logical thing to do in light of this General Accounting Office report
which, as I say, corroborates what I am saying.
The Navy's excuse for not doing this, and I have talked to the
Secretary of the Navy, is that we do have long-term recurring savings
by making the move, and of course we do. Every base closure proposal
has long-term recurring savings. The point is, though, that it takes
more than 20 years in this move to pay back the upfront costs by those
recurring savings, and anything greater than 8, 9, 10, 11 years is
unheard of in base closures as far as payback period times are
concerned.
Twenty years is way out of line, totally wrong. Unfortunately when
the base closure laws were passed, there were no remedies for errors
like this built into law. Once we got through the process, once an
error is made, that seems to be finality. The authorizing committee did
not have an open rule out here for me to bring this up to my colleagues
under, and consequently I am here today having asked the Secretary of
Defense to stop the money flowing, asked the Secretary of Navy to no
avail, on more than one occasion, written letters, banged on the door
of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] in the authorizing
subcommittee, and find myself totally frustrated by the absence of an
equitable and fair process to resolve this matter in the best interests
of the taxpayers.
And while somebody can say, ``Well, you are arguing for your own
district here,'' actually we got a great base reuse plan undergoing,
and the Navy just yesterday concluded negotiations with the city of
Orlando that I think will wind up being approved, so the issue is not
that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. The issue is not a question of what is best for
Orlando. The issue is what is wrong with a base
[[Page H4889]]
move that should never have taken place, what is wrong with the fact
that our laws do not provide a remedy for an error like this, and once
one reads this General Accounting Office report that I will put in the
Record at the appropriate time in the House of the Whole, it seems to
me that the only reasonable remedy is for us to proceed with pulling
back the money that was appropriated previously.
And so I would urge my chairman, though his point of order may be
technically correct, to allow this amendment to proceed. It is the only
remedy I know to stop this loss, unnecessary loss of money, and to
remedy a base closure problem that really otherwise has no remedy that
I know of that we can address.
The Navy's nuclear power facilities should remain in Orlando; the
savings of money should be there. The move to Charleston makes
absolutely no sense. A 20-year payback period is absurdly wrong, and
the General Accounting Office report confirms the fact that we are
wasting the taxpayers' money to make this move to some extraordinary
measure that may be indicative of other problems, but I am only here to
address the one tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and
International Affairs Division,
Washington, DC, November 22, 1996.
Hon. Bill McCollum,
House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. McCollum: In response to your June 18, 1996,
request, we compared the overall cost of moving the Navy's
Nuclear Power Propulsion Training Center (NNPTC) to
Charleston, South Carolina, with the cost of retaining the
Center in Orlando, Florida. On September 25, 1996, we briefed
you on the results of our work; this letter summarizes that
briefing.
background
In 1993 the Department of Defense (DOD) recommended to the
1993 Base Closure and Realignment Commission that the Navy's
Training Center in Orlando, Florida, which housed the NNPTC,
be closed. Most of the Center's basic and advanced training
activities would then be relocated to the Navy's Great Lakes
Training Center in Illinois. DOD recommended that the NNPTC
be relocated to the submarine base at New London,
Connecticut, and that the submarines at New London be
relocated to Kings Bay, Georgia. The Commission approved the
recommendation on the Navy Training Center but did not
approve the submarine relocation. As a result, costly new
construction was required for the NNPTC at New London.
During development of its 1995 base closure
recommendations, the Navy looked for a less costly location
for the NNPTC and ultimately recommended the Naval Weapons
Station in Charleston, South Carolina. The 1995 Base Closure
and Realignment Commission approved the relocation. To date,
the NNPTC has not been relocated. Retaining NNPTC at the Navy
Training Center in Orlando was not considered because it had
been approved for closure in the previous Base Closure and
Realignment round.
results in brief
Our analysis of Navy cost data shows that moving the NNPTC
to Charleston will require more in up-front investment costs
than remaining in Orlando. This cost will take about 20 years
to recover through reduced annual operating expenses. Keeping
the NNPTC in Orlando would not require such a large up-front
cost, but operating the Center would cost more per year in
Orlando than in Charleston.
estimated costs of relocation and operation
Our analysis of Navy cost data shows that moving the NNPTC
to Charleston would require $115.4 million more in up-front
costs than keeping the Center in Orlando. It also shows that
the annual operating cost at Charleston would be about $8.8
million less than at Orlando. Table 1 shows the estimated
one-time and annual recurring costs of relocating the NNPTC
to Charleston and the costs of keeping it in Orlando.
TABLE 1: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTIMATED COSTS OF RELOCATING THE NNPTC TO
CHARLESTON AND LEAVING IT IN ORLANDO
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost category Charleston Orlando Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------a-----
One-time:
Construction and/or renovation.... $125.6 $25.7 $99.9
Contract cancellation............. .......... 10.0 (10.0)
Relocation b...................... 25.5 ......... 25.5
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 151.1 35.7 115.4
===================================
Annual recurring:
Support........................... 15.7 20.3 (4.6)
Housing........................... 4.0 6.3 (2.3)
PCS c to follow on training....... .......... 1.9 (1.9)
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 19.7 28.5 (8.8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This column shows the difference between the costs in Charleston and
Orlando (numbers in brackets are savings).
b Costs of relocating personnel and equipment and separating civilian
personnel.
c Permanent change of station.
We based the cost estimates in table 1 on Navy data. These
estimates came largely from current budget data or data
developed during the 1995 base closure and realignment
process. The budget data has not yet been finalized and is
subject to change. The data developed during the 1995 base
closure and realignment process was certified by the Navy as
complete and accurate when it was submitted. We believe that
this data is the best available for estimating the relative
cost differences between the two locations. Following is a
brief explanation of each of the cost categories in table 1.
One-Time Costs. The major one-time cost of relocating the
NNPTC to Charleston is for the construction of classrooms,
bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ), a galley, and an addition
to the existing medical/dental clinic. A contract for
construction of all these facilities except for the clinic
was signed on August 13, 1996. We took the one-time costs
from contract data and the Chief, Naval Education and
Training (CNET), fiscal year 1998 budget submission to Navy
headquarters. Relocation costs are those generally associated
with any base closure. We took the relocation cost estimate
from the fiscal year 1998 CNET budget submission.
The one-time costs for Orlando reflect actions that may
have to be taken if the NNPTC remains in Orlando, that is,
construction and renovation of existing BEQs to meet current
DOD enlisted housing standards and cancellation of the
Charleston construction contract. The estimated cost to
construct and renovate Orlando BEQs came from Navy data
developed during the 1995 base closure and realignment
process. However, when the Navy will actually budget the
$25.7 million to construct and renovate the Orlando BEQs is
uncertain. We included the Charleston construction contract
cancellation cost in one-time costs because the construction
contract was awarded on August 13, 1996. Navy officials from
the Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
estimated that if the Navy cancelled the contract by December
31, 1996, the termination cost would be about $10 million.
Annual Recurring Costs. The estimated $15.7 million annual
Charleston support cost is taken from the fiscal year 1998
CNET budget submission. The budget submission contains an
estimate of the cost to support the training center once it
relocates to Charleston. According to Navy officials, the
budget review process is not complete, and the estimates are
therefore subject to change. The estimate does not include
housing costs for training center staff and married students.
According to Charleston officials, on-base family housing
will be available for all those that need it. Charleston
officials estimated the cost of operating this housing to
be $4 million annually.
We took the estimated Orlando annual support cost of $20.3
million from data the Navy developed at the request of the
1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission. This estimate
also does not include housing costs for training center staff
and married students. According to Navy officials, no on-base
housing would be available at Orlando, so housing would have
to be obtained on the local economy. Navy data developed
during the 1995 base closure and realignment process showed
that the annual basic allowance for quarters and variable
housing allowance cost at Orlando would be $6.3 million.
Additionally, about half the students graduating from the
Orlando training center would attend follow-on training at
Charleston and incur permanent change of station costs. Again
using Navy data, we estimated this cost to be $1.9 million.
payback period
Payback is the time in years before money spent on an
action is recovered. Given the $115.4 million difference in
the one-time cost of moving to Charleston versus the cost of
remaining in Orlando, and the annual operating cost reduction
of $8.8 million, it would take about 20 years to payback the
difference in one-time costs. The Navy maintained that it
would have to upgrade the BEQ at Orlando if they were to
remain at that location. Therefore, we included this cost in
our payback period estimate. You expressed concern about
whether these renovations would actually occur and requested
that we provide a separate payback calculation that deletes
the renovation cost. That payback period would be about 27
years. To determine the payback period, we assumed that all
one-time costs would be incurred in the first year and
savings would begin to accrue in the second year. We also
discounted costs to take into account the future value of
money. We used a discount rate of 3.8 percent.
scope and methodology
We based our review on documents obtained during meetings
with officials from the Department of the Navy; NNPTC,
Orlando; and the Naval Weapon Station, Charleston. We also
reviewed documents on Navy and Base Closure and Realignment
Commission work regarding the decisions in both 1993 and 1995
to relocate the Naval Training Center and NNPTC. We did not
verify the Navy's data. We also visited the Naval Training
Center in Orlando, Florida; the Navy's Center for Education
and Training in Pensacola, Florida; and the Navy Weapons
Station in Charleston, South Carolina.
We conducted our review between July and September 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[[Page H4890]]
agency comments and our evaluation
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed that
moving the Navy's Nuclear Power Propulsion School [NNPTC] to
Charleston will require up front costs and result in lower
annual operating costs. DOD noted that the cost analysis
prepared by the Navy for the 1995 Base Closure and
Realignment Commission identified the costs for redirecting a
move from New London to Charleston whereas our analysis
focused on a direct cost comparison between Orlando and
Charleston. DOD stated that without a mechanism to change the
Commission's recommendation, the Department must implement it
as directed. DOD also noted that both of our analyses showed
that it is more cost effective to operate the NNPTC in
Charleston. Our analysis showed Charleston had a lower annual
operating cost but that it would take 20 years for this lower
cost to payback the one-time up-front cost of moving to
Charleston. DOD's comments are in enclosure I.
We are providing copies of this letter to the Chairmen and
Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on National Security; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and the
Secretaries of Defense and the Navy. We will also make copies
available to others on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff
have any questions about this letter. Major contributors to
this letter were John Klotz, Assistant Director; Raymond C.
Cooksey, Senior Evaluator; and Stephen DeSart, Senior
Evaluator.
Sincrely yours,
David R. Warren,
Director, Defense Management Issues.
Enclosure I
Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, November 20, 1996.
Mr. David R. Warren,
Director, Defense Management Issues, National Security and
International Affairs Division, U.S. General Accounting
Office, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Warren: This is in response to your draft report:
``MILITARY BASES: Information Relating to The Movement Of A
Navy Training Center'', Dated October 15, 1996, (GAO Code
709223/OSD case 1241).
The Department agrees that implementing the Commission's
recommendation to redirect the transfer of the Navy's Nuclear
Power Propulsion School (NPPS) from the Naval Submarine Base
New London to Naval Weapons Station Charleston requires up
front costs and will result in lower annual operating costs.
The Department also agrees that the different methodologies
used by the GAO and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission to calculate implementation costs and savings
result in different estimates of how long it may take to
recover these costs.
The Navy prepared a separate Cost of Base Realignment
Actions (COBRA) analysis for the BRAC 95 Commission to
identify the costs for a redirect of the NPPS from New London
to Charleston. This analysis included BRAC 93 funds cost
avoidances due to the BRAC 95 recommendation to redirect the
NPPS to Charleston instead of New London. The GAO analysis
focused on the direct comparison of costs between Orlando and
Charleston and did not include the cost avoidances identified
by the Navy.
Regardless of the methodologies used or the differences in
calculated costs and savings, both the GAO and the Department
agree that it is more cost effective to operate the Nuclear
Power Propulsion School in Charleston. Furthermore, without a
mechanism to change the recommendation the Department must
implement it as the Commission directed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's
comments on the draft report.
Robert E. Bayer,
Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary (Industrial
Affairs & and Installations).
____
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order made
out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA
and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box
6915, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015, or visit: Room 1100, 700
4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW), U.S. General
Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by
using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or
any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000
using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the
INTERNET, send an e-mail message with ``info'' in the body
to: www.gao.gov">info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page
at: hhtp://www.gao.gov.
Point of Order
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly sympathize with the
gentleman's concerns, but I must insist on my point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill. Therefore it
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If I might, Mr. Chairman.
The reality is that this amendment deals with appropriations. It
discusses that no funds appropriated in this act or any other act for
any fiscal year may be used for military construction for a particular
purpose. It does not deal with authorization. It deals with
appropriations, and it deals with cutting off the funding sources that
this Committee on Appropriations put forward and the House approved
both in the past and in this Congress.
And so I would urge that it be germane. I believe that it is. I do
not understand the anomalies that I am advised about this rule if it is
ruled out of order. I think it should be in order.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I request a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Because the amendment does not confine its limitation to the funds in
the pending bill, but instead applies it to other acts and other fiscal
years as well, it must be held to constitute legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
Are there other amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 1998''.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, under the rule the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Chambliss] having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2016) making appropriations for military construction, family housing,
and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes pursuant
to House Resolution 178, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395,
nays 14, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 250]
YEAS--395
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
[[Page H4891]]
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--14
Barrett (WI)
Campbell
Conyers
Frank (MA)
Markey
Minge
Oberstar
Paul
Rahall
Ramstad
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Upton
NOT VOTING--25
Baesler
Becerra
Brown (OH)
Dellums
Edwards
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Frost
Gejdenson
Gilman
Kanjorski
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lowey
Murtha
Riggs
Schiff
Shadegg
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Taylor (NC)
Yates
{time} 1918
Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________