[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.

                          ____________________