[House Report 104-137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 104-137
_______________________________________________________________________
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996
_______
June 13, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Vucanovich, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1817]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and
base realignments and closures for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Committee Recommendation.............................. 2
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.................................. 3
Conformance with Authorization Bill.............................. 3
Quality of Life in the Military:
Troop Housing................................................ 3
Barracks Standards........................................... 6
Child Development Centers.................................... 7
Child Care Services--Outsourcing Initiative.................. 8
Hospital and Medical Facilities.............................. 8
Environmental Compliance Projects................................ 9
Potential Canceled Projects Due to the Base Realignment and 10
Closure Process.
European Construction Program.................................... 10
Modular Construction............................................. 11
Parametric Cost Estimating....................................... 11
Hearing Transcripts.............................................. 11
Foreign Currency Exchange Rates.................................. 11
Annual Report on Design and Construction Progress................ 12
Establishment of Audit Trail Documents........................... 12
Program, Project and Activity.................................... 12
Military Construction:
Army......................................................... 12
Navy......................................................... 15
Air Force.................................................... 18
Defense-Wide................................................. 18
Reserve Components........................................... 21
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 22
Family Housing Overview.......................................... 23
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund Overview... 26
Family Housing:
Army......................................................... 29
Navy and Marine Corps........................................ 30
Air Force.................................................... 31
Defense-Wide................................................. 33
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............ 33
Homeowners Assistance Fund....................................... 33
Base Realignment and Closure:
Overview..................................................... 34
Part I....................................................... 42
Part II...................................................... 42
Part III..................................................... 43
Part IV...................................................... 43
General Provisions............................................... 44
Changes in Application of Existing Law........................... 44
Compliance with Rule XIII--Clause 3.............................. 47
Appropriations Not Authorized By Law............................. 47
Transfer of Funds................................................ 48
Rescission of Funds.............................................. 48
Inflationary Impact Statement.................................... 48
Comparisons with Budget Resolution............................... 48
Advance Spending Authority....................................... 48
Five-Year Projection of Outlays.................................. 48
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments.............. 49
State List....................................................... 49
Summary of Committee Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended compared
with
Fiscal year Fiscal Fiscal year ------------------------
1995 year 1996 Fiscal
appropriation 1996 recommended Fiscal year year
request 1995 1996
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military construction............................ $2,531 $2,496 $2,806 $275 $310
Family housing................................... 3,520 4,125 4,333 813 208
Base realignment and closure..................... 2,676 3,898 3,898 1,222 0
NATO Security Investment Program................. 119 179 161 42 (18)
Procurement reform............................... (10) 0 0 10 0
Fiscal year 1995 rescission...................... (101) 0 0 101 0
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 8,735 10,698 11,198 2,463 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Housing accounts represent $4.3 billion and account
for 40 percent of the total appropriations included in this
bill. Funding for these programs include such items as:
$1.0 billion for construction and construction
improvements;
$3.3 billion for operations and maintenance of
existing inventory;
$76 million for the Homeowners Assistance Fund;
$22 million for start-up costs for a private sector
pilot project.
Base Realignment and Closure accounts represent $3.9
billion and account for 35 percent of the total appropriations
included in this bill. The Committee notes that this is an
increase of $1.2 billion over fiscal year 1995 and includes
$785 million for implementation of the 1995 round of closures.
Funding for these programs include such items as:
$1.1 billion for military construction and family
housing;
$457 million for environmental cleanup;
$2.3 billion for operations and maintenance.
Military Construction Accounts represent $2.8 billion and
account for 25 percent of the total appropriations included in
this bill. Funding for these programs include such items as:
$636 million for barracks construction;
$207 million for environmental compliance;
$178 million for medical related facilities;
$108 million for chemical demilitarizaton;
$57 million for child development centers.
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request
The Committee notes that the Administration's fiscal year
1996 budget request of $10,697,995,000 represents an increase
of $1,962,595,000 over the fiscal year 1995 appropriation of
$8,735,400,000. The majority of the increase results from
quality of life requirements for family housing, $604,777,000,
or 31 percent, as well as requirements for the implementation
of base realignments and closures, $1,221,734,000, or 63
percent. The Committee commends the Department of Defense for
following the Committee's guidance in last year's report and
seeking increased appropriations for family housing due to the
contributions this program makes to readiness and retention.
The Committee feels strongly that the increased emphasis on
base realignment and closures, consuming over one third of the
funding in this bill, has reduced the availability of funding
for needed projects. While the Committee supports base
realignment and closure funding, it is imperative the severe
backlog in readiness, revitalization and quality of life
projects be addressed. The Committee has added an additional
$500,000,000 over the Administration's fiscal year 1996 budget
request to fund the planning and construction of several
barracks, family housing and child development center projects.
The Department of Defense is urged to maintain this level of
funding and to give priority consideration to these types of
projects in its fiscal year 1997 budget request.
Conformance With Authorization Bill
The House National Security Committee has reported H.R.
1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, which contains authorization for the military
construction, family housing and base realignment and closure
accounts included in this bill. Because Senate and conference
action on the authorization had not been completed at the time
this bill was prepared, the Committee is considering only
projects recommended for authorization in H.R. 1530. All
projects included in this bill are approved subject to
authorization.
Quality of Life in the Military
troop housing
The Department of Defense has over 600,000 men and women
living in troop housing. Approximately one half of DOD's
barracks were built 30 or more years ago, with an average age
of over 40 years. Of this inventory, over one fourth are
considered substandard facilities and continuous maintenance is
necessary to deal with such problems as asbestos, corroded
pipes, inadequate ventilation, faulty heating and cooling
systems, and peeling lead-based paint.
Based on the ``2 plus 2'' standard, and a definition of
deficit as ``characterizing adequacy of the existing
inventory'', there is a total DOD barrack space deficit of
160,000. The Army estimates a deficit of 75,600 barrack spaces;
the Air Force 30,200; and the Navy/Marine Corps 54,300. The
Department of Defense estimates it will cost approximately $8.5
billion at the proposed new standard and take 10 years for the
Air Force, 60 years for the Navy, 23 years for the Army and 32
years for the Marine Corps to eliminate this deficit.
The Department of Defense has requested $433,330,000 for
9,916 barrack spaces in fiscal year 1996. The Committee has
approved this request in full. In addition, to help alleviate
the deficit an additional $202,332,000 has been provided. The
locations were determined by component priorities and all
projects are capable for construction during fiscal year 1996.
The total appropriation for troop housing included in this bill
is $635,662,000.
The Committee understands that improving troop housing does
not lie solely in constructing new barrack spaces. Renovation
plays an important role in this process. The Committee notes
that not included in this bill, and under the jurisdiction of
the National Security Subcommittee, is a total request of $672
million to renovate 4,931 barrack spaces under the Real
Property Maintenance Account.
In addition, the Quality of Life Task Force, chaired by the
Honorable John O. Marsh, Jr., is in the process of reviewing
other innovative strategies, assignment policy changes, and
possibly diverting a larger share of troops off-base. The
Committee looks forward to the results of the task force and
encourages it to look at private sector initiatives similar to
the proposed Family Housing Revitalization Act.
The following troop housing construction projects are
provided for fiscal year 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Fort Huachuca, Arizona........ $16,000,000 $16,000,000
Fort Carson, Colorado......... 0 20,000,000
Fort Lesley J. McNair,
District of Columbia......... 5,500,000 5,500,000
Fort Benning, Georgia......... 33,000,000 33,000,000
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.... 0 15,000,000
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.... 18,500,000 18,500,000
Fort Sill, Oklahoma........... 0 8,000,000
Fort Jackson, South Carolina.. 32,000,000 32,000,000
Fort Bliss, Texas............. 48,000,000 48,000,000
Fort Hood, Texas.............. 17,500,000 17,500,000
Fort Hood, Texas.............. 0 15,000,000
Fort Eustis, Virginia......... 0 11,000,000
Camp Stanley, Korea........... 6,800,000 6,800,000
Camp Hovey, Korea............. 6,200,000 6,200,000
Camp Hovey, Korea............. 7,300,000 7,300,000
Camp Pelham, Korea............ 5,600,000 5,600,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Army................. 196,400,000 265,400,000
=====================================
Navy:
Port Hueneme, California...... 0 16,700,000
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base, California............. 11,940,000 11,940,000
Annapolis Naval Station,
Maryland..................... 3,600,000 3,600,000
Camp LeJeune Marine Corps
Base, North Carolina......... 8,300,000 8,300,000
New River Marine Corps Air
Station, North Carolina...... 14,650,000 14,650,000
Beaufort, South Carolina...... 0 15,000,000
Corpus Christi, Texas......... 0 4,400,000
Portsmouth Naval Hospital,
Virginia..................... 9,500,000 9,500,000
Williamsburg Fleet and
Industrial Supply Center,
Virginia..................... 6,140,000 6,140,000
Norfolk, Virginia............. 0 18,000,000
Naval Computer and Telcom Area
Mastersta WPAC, Guam......... 2,250,000 2,250,000
Naples Naval Support Activity,
Italy........................ 7,300,000 7,300,000
Sigonella Naval Air Station,
Italy........................ 11,300,000 11,300,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Navy................. 74,980,000 129,080,000
=====================================
Air Force:
Eielson AFB, Alaska........... 3,850,000 3,850,000
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska......... 7,350,000 7,350,000
Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.... 3,800,000 3,800,000
Luke AFB, Arizona............. 5,200,000 5,200,000
Edwards AFB, California....... 10,600,000 10,600,000
Travis AFB, California........ 10,500,000 10,500,000
Travis AFB, California........ 6,400,000 6,400,000
Buckley ANG Base, Colorado.... 5,500,000 5,500,000
Peterson AFB, Colorado........ 3,000,000 3,000,000
Bolling AFB, District of
Columbia..................... 6,500,000 6,500,000
Bolling AFB, District of
Columbia..................... 5,600,000 5,600,000
Eglin AFB, Florida............ 0 7,300,000
Moody AFB, Georgia............ 0 2,500,000
Hickam AFB, Hawaii............ 3,100,000 3,100,000
Hickam AFB, Hawaii............ 3,050,000 3,050,000
Scott AFB, Illinois........... 8,000,000 8,000,000
Scott AFB, Illinois........... 4,700,000 4,700,000
McConnell AFB, Kansas......... 2,200,000 2,200,000
McConnell AFB, Kansas......... 0 6,500,000
Andrews AFB, Maryland......... 6,000,000 6,000,000
Keesler AFB, Mississippi...... 6,500,000 6,500,000
Keesler AFB, Mississippi...... 0 8,300,000
Nellis AFB, Nevada............ 9,900,000 9,900,000
McGuire AFB, New Jersey....... 0 7,300,000
Cannon AFB, New Mexico........ 0 3,000,000
Seymour-Johnson AFB, North
Carolina..................... 0 2,000,000
Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota. 8,500,000 8,500,000
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.......... 5,100,000 5,100,000
Charleston AFB, South Carolina 5,600,000 5,600,000
Dyess AFB, Texas.............. 0 5,400,000
Fairchild AFB, Washington..... 7,500,000 7,500,000
Fairchild AFB, Washington..... 0 8,200,000
McChord AFB, Washington....... 4,300,000 4,300,000
F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming...... 5,500,000 5,500,000
Spangdahlem AB, Germany....... 5,900,000 5,900,000
Araxos, Greece................ 1,950,000 1,950,000
Ghedi Airfield, Italy......... 1,450,000 1,450,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Air Force............ 157,550,000 208,050,000
=====================================
Defense-Wide:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.... 0 8,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Defense-Wide......... 0 8,000,000
=====================================
Army National Guard:
Rickenbacker ANGB, Ohio....... 0 1,750,000
Camp Rapid, South Dakota...... 0 2,650,000
Camp Williams, Utah........... 0 5,197,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Army National Guard.. 0 9,597,000
=====================================
Air National Guard:
McGhee-Tyson Airport,
Tennessee.................... 4,400,000 4,400,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Air National Guard... 4,400,000 4,400,000
=====================================
Naval Reserve:
New Orleans, Louisiana........ 0 5,035,000
New Orleans, Louisiana........ 0 6,100,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Naval Reserve........ 0 11,135,000
=====================================
Grand total................. 433,330,000 635,662,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
barracks standards
The Committee understands the Department is attempting to
develop a new standard for barracks construction and has
tentatively developed a notional standard referred to as ``1
plus 1''. However, this standard has yet to be accepted by the
Department or formally approved. While the budget submission is
described as being consistent with this standard, large
discrepancies exist in the cost and amenities provided by each
of the Services.
The current barrack standard referred to as ``2 plus 2''
consists of two E1's through E4's to a room, each person having
90 net square feet (NSF) of space, with two rooms or, 4
individuals, sharing a bath. E5's and E6's receive a 180 NSF
room and share a bath. E7's through E9's receive two 180 NSF
rooms with a private bath. The estimated cost for this standard
is $28,000 to $30,000 per module, or approximately $16,000 per
junior enlisted.
The Army currently has a temporary OSD waiver to construct
to the ``1 plus 1'' standard. This is referred to as the
``waiver standard'' and provides a 220 NSF room with a bath.
Two E1's through E4's are to be assigned to this room--or one
E5 through E9. The estimated cost for this standard is $57,000
per module, or approximately $28,000 per junior enlisted.
The proposed ``improved 1 plus 1'' standard would provide a
module consisting of two 118 NSF rooms, a bath and a
kitchenette. Two E1's through E4's would be assigned to the
module (each having a private 118 NSF room) and share the bath
and kitchenette. One E5 through E9 would be assigned to the
module which would provide a private bath, kitchenette and a
living room. The estimated cost for this standard is $70,000
per module, or $35,000 per junior enlisted.
The Committee is disappointed that the Department has not
been able to agree on a Department-wide standard for barracks
construction. It is imperative that a common barrack standard
be developed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in order
to begin construction of all fiscal year 1996 barracks projects
in a uniform manner and as quickly as possible. The Committee,
in consideration of the increased priority on quality of life,
approves the funding levels proposed. However, prior to award
of any fiscal year 1996 barracks project, the Department is
required to provide a report describing the accepted standard,
the exceptions where that standard will not apply, the long-
term plan to achieve the standard, and the cost implications of
doing so. The long-term plan should identify the eligible
population by location, number of spaces requiring upgrade, and
the current barracks situation at that location (i.e. the
reason why the barracks are considered substandard). Further,
if the current ``2 plus 2'' standard is revised, the Committee
directs that the report contain a cost comparison between the
``2 plus 2'' and the revised standard.
child development centers
The Committee has added an additional $34,300,000 above the
budget estimate of $22,915,000 for a total appropriation of
$57,215,000 for new construction, or improvements, for child
development centers. The Committee recognizes the increased
importance of these centers due to the rising number of single
military parents, dual military couples and military personnel
with a civilian employed spouse.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense established a goal
of providing quality child care to 65% of the potential need in
1992. Currently the Navy is meeting 39% of the potential need,
the Marine Corps 60%, the Army 51% and the Air Force 53%,
through either Child Development Centers or the Family Home
Care program. In order to meet the 65% goal, approximately
93,402 additional spaces are necessary, broken out by component
as follows: the Navy's deficit is 55,000 spaces, the Marine
Corps deficit is 18,000 spaces, the Army's deficit is 15,824
spaces and the Air Force's deficit is 4,578 spaces. The
Committee understands the DOD goal of 65% to meet the need for
child care is in the process of being changed to 80%.
Therefore, the deficit cited will be understated at the time of
the change.
In order to reduce this deficit the Committee has added an
additional $34,300,000 for child development centers. The
locations were determined by component priorities and all
projects are capable for construction during fiscal year 1996.
The following Child Development Center projects are
provided for fiscal year 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama--Maxwell AFB.................. $3,700,000 $3,700,000
Arizona--Fort Huachuca................ 0 2,550,000
California--Camp Pendleton............ 3,000,000 3,000,000
California--Pt. Mugu Naval Air Warfare
Center............................... 1,300,000 1,300,000
Colorado--U.S. Air Force Academy...... 4,200,000 4,200,000
Florida--Pensacola Naval Technical
Training Center...................... 2,565,000 2,565,000
Georgia--Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Albany............................... 0 1,300,000
Georgia--Moody AFB.................... 0 3,800,000
Missouri--Fort Leonard Wood........... 0 3,900,000
New Jersey--Lakehurst Naval Air
Warfare Center....................... 1,700,000 1,700,000
New York--U.S. Military Academy, West
Point................................ 0 8,300,000
Oklahoma--Altus AFB................... 0 4,000,000
Texas--Fort Bliss..................... 0 4,000,000
Texas--Goodfellow AFB................. 0 1,000,000
Wyoming--F.E. Warren AFB.............. 0 4,000,000
Germany--Vogelweh..................... 2,600,000 2,600,000
Korea--Yongsan Garrison, Seoul........ 0 1,450,000
Turkey--Incirlik AB................... 1,600,000 1,600,000
United Kingdom--RAF Mildenhall........ 2,250,000 2,250,000
---------------------------------
Total........................... 22,915,000 57,215,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
child care services--outsourcing initiative
The Department is conducting demonstration projects to
contract for spaces in off-base civilian child care centers.
The Navy has been selected as the Executive Agent for these
demonstration projects. Plans to contract spaces in Norfolk,
Virginia and Barber's Point, Hawaii during 1995 and to expand
to three additional locations in 1996 (San Diego, California;
Jacksonville, Florida; and Tacoma, Washington) are underway.
The Navy estimates that outsourcing will provide up to an
additional 4,900 spaces in fiscal year 1996. The Department is
to report to the Committee on the status and success of these
demonstration projects and any other efforts underway for third
party contracting for child care services by February 1, 1996.
hospital and medical facilities
The budget request includes $280,250,000 for 17 projects to
provide hospital and medical facilities, including both
treatment facilities and medical research and development
facilities. As explained elsewhere in this report, the amounts
requested for projects at Forest Glen, Maryland, and at
Portsmouth, Virginia exceed the amounts that can be executed
during fiscal year 1996, and the Committee recommends reducing
these two projects accordingly. Therefore, the Committee
recommends a total of $164,250,000 for the 17 requested
projects. The Committee recommends two projects in addition to
those requested. The following hospital and medical projects
are provided for fiscal year 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska--Elmendorf AFB............. $28,100,000 $28,100,000
Arizona--Luke AFB................. 8,100,000 8,100,000
Arizona--Papago Military
Reservation...................... 0 1,084,000
California--Camp Pendleton........ 1,700,000 1,700,000
California--Fort Irwin............ 6,900,000 6,900,000
California--Vandenberg AFB........ 5,700,000 5,700,000
Delaware--Dover AFB............... 4,400,000 4,400,000
Georgia--Fort Benning............. 5,600,000 5,600,000
Louisiana--Barksdale AFB.......... 4,100,000 4,100,000
Maryland--Bethesda NH............. 1,300,000 1,300,000
Maryland--Forest Glen AFIP........ 1,550,000 1,550,000
Maryland--Forest Glen WRAIR....... 119,000,000 27,000,000
North Carolina--Fort Bragg........ 0 13,200,000
Texas--Fort Hood.................. 5,500,000 5,500,000
Texas--Lackland AFB............... 6,100,000 6,100,000
Texas--Reese AFB.................. 1,000,000 1,000,000
Virginia--Chesapeake NNSC......... 4,300,000 4,300,000
Virginia--Portsmouth NH........... 71,900,000 47,900,000
Italy--Naples (Capodichino) NSA... 5,000,000 5,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 280,250,000 178,534,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Compliance Projects
The total budget request and appropriation for 44 projects
needed to meet environmental compliance is $206,576,000. The
Federal Facilities Compliance Act requires all federal
facilities to meet both federal and State standards. These
projects are considered Class I violations and are out of
compliance; have received an enforcement action from the
Environmental Protection Agency, the State, or local authority;
and/or a compliance agreement has been signed or consent order
received. Environmental projects that are Class I violations
are required to be funded, and therefore are placed at the top
of the priority list.
The Army has requested a total of $21,230,000, or 5% of its
total military construction request, for five projects. The
Navy and Marine Corps have requested $115,000,000, or 24% of
the total military construction request, for eight projects.
The Air Force has requested $68,000,000, or 14% of its total
military construction request, for 28 projects. In addition,
the Air Force Reserve has requested one project at $1,000,000,
and the Air National Guard has requested two projects for a
total of $1,050,000.
Following is a listing of all environmental compliance
projects funded in this bill:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or Project
Class location title Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Fort Carson, CO.... Sanitary Sewer Line.... $1,750
Fort Carson, CO.... Sewer Treatment Plant 9,100
Upgrade.
Fort Lewis, WA..... Consolidated Fuel 3,400
Station.
Watervliet Arsenal, Oil Runoff Containment 680
NY. Facility.
Fort Sill, OK...... Central Vechicle Wash 6,300
Facility.
Navy:
Navy Public Works Wastewater Treatment 16,180
Ctr, GU. Plant Upgrades.
Naval Station,I Sanitary Landfill...... 11,500
Roosevelt Roads,
Puerto Rico.
Marine Corps Base, Wastewater Treatment 45,500
Camp Lejeune, NC. Plant (Phase II).
Naval Station, San Oily Waste Collection 19,960
Diego, CA. and Treatment Fac.
Naval Station,I Oily Waste Collection 10,580
Norfolk, VA. System (Phase I).
NAWC, China Lake, Industrial Wastewater 3,700
CA. Col/Treatment Fac.
NUWC, Keyport, WA.. Metal Treatment 5,300
Facility.
Naval Shipyard, Metal Preparation 2,600
Bremerton, WA. Facility Improvements.
Air Force:
Tin City Long Range Aboveground Fuel 2,500
Radar Site, AK. Storage Tanks.
Davis-Monthan AFB, Alter Aircraft 1,000
AZ. Corrosion Control
Facility.
Tyndall AFB, FL.... Fire Training Facility. 1,200
Reese AFB, TX...... Fire Training Facility. 1,200
Laughlin AFB, TX... Fire Training Facility. 1,400
Columbus AFB, MS... Fire Training Facility. 1,150
Cape Canaveral AFS, Fire Training Facility. 1,600
FL.
Altus AFB, OK...... Fire Training Facility. 1,200
Kirtland AFB, NM... Upgrade Storm Drainage 1,500
System.
Minot AFB, ND...... Underground Fuel 1,550
Storage Tanks.
Nellis AFB, NV..... Upgrade Storm Drainage 600
System.
Arnold AFB, TN..... Upgrade Engine Test 2,300
Facilities.
Andrews AFB, MD.... Underground Fuel 6,886
Storage Tanks.
Langley AFB, VA.... Upgrade Storm Drainage 1,000
System.
Mountain Home AFB, Upgrade Storm Drainage 800
ID. System.
Mountain Home AFB, Wastewater Treatment 9,850
ID. and Disposal Plant.
Pope AFB, NC....... Underground Fuel 2,150
Storage Tanks.
McGuire AFB, NJ.... Fire Training Facility. 1,600
McConnell AFB, KS.. Deicing Pad............ 1,150
Moody AFB, GA...... Upgrade Storm Drainage 690
System.
Randolph AFB, TX... Fire Training Facility. 1,200
Cannon AFB, NM..... Upgrade Storm Drainage 620
System.
Little Rock AFB, AR Upgrade Sanitary Sewer 2,500
System.
Seymour Johnson Upgrade Storm Drainage 830
AFB, NC. System.
Shaw AFB, SC....... Upgrade Storm Drainage 1,300
System.
Beale AFB, CA...... Landfill Closure....... 7,500
Cannon AFB, NM..... Wastewater Treatment 9,800
and Disposal Plant.
Incirlik AB, Turkey Upgrade Sewage 2,900
Treatment Plant.
Air Force Reserve:
Youngstown ARS, OH. Upgrade Base Water 1,000
Distribution System.
Air National Guard:
Atlantic City I Upgrade Sanitary and 650
Airport, NJ. Water Systems.
Niagara Falls I Upgrade Storm/Sanitary 400
International Sewer System.
Airport, NY.
------------
Total............ ..................... 206,576
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Canceled Projects Due to the Base Realignment and Closure
Process
The Committee notes that the pending base realignment and
closure process will obviate the need for projects previously
funded, as well as projects included in the fiscal year 1996
budget submission. In anticipation of savings due to 1995 base
realignment and closure actions, the fiscal year 1995 Military
Construction Appropriations Act contained general reductions
totalling $136,671,000.
Until a final decision is made on the 1995 base realignment
and closure recommendations, it is not appropriate to rescind
or eliminate any additional funding for specific projects that
may be impacted. A list of those projects no longer required,
along with reductions in funding, will be reflected in the
fiscal year 1996 Military Construction Conference Report.
The Committee notes that bill language was included in the
Department of Defense Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
104-6) which prohibits the obligation of funds, for any fiscal
year, to initiate military construction or family housing
projects on an installation proposed for closure or realignment
that was included in the Secretary's recommendations, unless
removed by the Commission, or is included in the
recommendations submitted to Congress in 1995 in accordance
with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as
amended (P.L. 101-510). Projects related to realignments are
defined as projects which are affected by the function or
activity being realigned. The prohibition on obligation of
funds is in effect unless the Congress enacts a Joint
Resolution of Disapproval in accordance with the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended.
European Construction Program
The Committee has recommended the requested $119,443,000
for 25 projects in Europe. This includes 12 quality of life
projects, 12 operational projects and one environmental
project. The draw-down to a 100,000 troop permanent force
structure is virtually complete, and the U.S. has reduced its
European base structure by 62% from the pre-1990 inventory.
While overall infrastructure requirements have been reduced,
the European Command is faced with increased demands on quality
of life facilities and the need for changing, modernizing, or
increasing operational facility requirements. Safety and
environmental concerns exist at older facilities that are in
need of revitalization and modernization. In recent years,
support for construction during the draw-down was minimal due
to the uncertainty of permanent locations. Now that a stable
European force structure is in place, and facing frequent
deployments, it is imperative we reinvest in our quality of
life and operational facilities, both essential components of
readiness, in Europe.
The funding for facility improvements in Europe has been
made in order not to deprive our service members and their
families of decent living and working conditions. Additional
issues concerning the European Construction program are
addressed in the NATO Security Investment Program section,
later in this report.
Modular Construction
The Committee believes that modular construction offers
opportunity to reduce construction, design and administration
costs as well as to provide for earlier construction completion
of facilities. One area where modular construction may offer
opportunities is with the standard designed barracks.
Therefore, the Department is directed to report to the
Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 1996 on steps taken
to utilize modular construction in the military construction
and family housing program.
Parametric Cost Estimating
Parametric cost estimating uses actual historical costs,
based on the size and type of a total facility or a compilation
of its parts, to project the cost of a new facility. This
technique is used in lieu of an engineered estimate which is
based upon unit costs of labor and materials calculated to be
included in the design. The Committee recognizes the Navy and
the Air Force are using parametric cost estimating to reach the
35% design level for the majority of projects requested. The
Army, however, continues to use the traditional engineered
estimate. The Department is urged to provide unanimity in the
design process used for the budget submission.
Hearing Transcripts
The Committee reiterates its policy on time allotted for
editing of hearing transcripts by the Department. Three weeks
is more than adequate for grammatical editing, and transcripts
are expected to be returned by the Department within that time.
The Committee strongly believes that nearly eleven weeks, as
was the case with the Overview Hearing, is not acceptable.
Foreign Currency Exchange Rates
The Department of Defense is directed in the future to
include in its annual justification material all foreign
currency exchange rates, including the NATO Security Investment
Program average Infrastructure Accounting Unit (IAU), used in
the formulation of its budget request.
In addition, the Department is to provide in its annual
budget justification material a breakout of all prior year
funds transferred into the Foreign Currency Centrally Managed
Allotment to cover additional costs of overseas construction
due to the dollar's devaluation against foreign currencies.
This material should identify the fiscal year and the account
from which funds have been transferred.
Annual Report on Design and Construction Progress
The Department is instructed to reinstate the annual report
on Design and Construction Progress (RCS DD-M(A) 1630). It is
the intent of the Committee that this report be structured
exactly the same as in the past and contain the following
parts: (1) Performance Goals and Accomplishments; (2) Breakage
and Lost Design; (3) Architect-Engineer Contract Activity and
Design Accomplishment; (4) Project Status; (5) Supervision of
Military Construction Programs; (6) Contingency Construction;
(7) Unspecified Minor Construction; (8) NATO Security
Investment Program; (9) Contracts Awarded on a Noncompetitive
Basis; and (10) Cost Variations. Section numbers to the
individual parts shall remain the same. The report is to
include all projects funded under the Military Construction
Accounts, the Family Housing Accounts, and the Base Realignment
and Closure Accounts. This report shall be submitted to the
Committee by February 1, 1996 and shall cover funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1991 and thereafter.
Establishment of Audit Trail Documents
The Department is directed to reinstate the initial and
semi-annual submission of audit trail documents as directed in
House Report 99-275. These reports will include line item
detail on projects as budgeted in the Construction Annex and
also include line item detail on projects funded under Minor
Construction and Family Housing Improvements. The semi-annual
reports shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) project amount (appropriation); (b) changes due to formal
and below threshold reprogrammings; and (c) the current working
estimate for each project. The audit trail documents are to
reflect fiscal year 1996 and all active years.
To ensure the Services comply with this directive, the
Comptroller of the Department is to forward to the Committee
copies of regulations implementing these procedures within
sixty days following passage of the Military Construction
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996.
Program, Project and Activity
For the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation
Act of 1987, (Public Law 100-119), the term ``Program, Project
and Activity'' will continue to be defined as the appropriation
account.
Military Construction, Army
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................\1\ $550,476,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 472,724,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 625,608,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +75,132,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +152,884,000
\1\ Excludes rescission of $3,500,000 enacted in P.L. 104-6.
The Committee recommends a total of $625,608,000 for
Military Construction, Army for fiscal year 1996. This is an
increase of $152,884,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1996, and an increase of $75,132,000 above the amount
appropriated for 1995.
california--fort irwin (barstow-daggett): national training center
airfield (phase ii)
The Committee recommends continuation of the project
initiated in fiscal year 1995 to provide an airfield for troop
rotations at the National Training Center at Barstow-Daggett,
California and recommends $10,000,000 for this purpose. Until
this airfield is operational, the Committee strongly supports
the use of the former George Air Force Base as an interim
airfield for the National Training Center. The Committee
recommends a new General Provision [Section 124] directing this
airfield usage.
california--presidio of san francisco: regional sewer system
The budget request includes $3,000,000 to pay for a
negotiated settlement with the City of San Francisco involving
sewage treatment at the Presidio of San Francisco since the
late 1970s. This project was requested because the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has canceled a portion of
an EPA construction grant to the City of San Francisco that
would have paid this bill. The Committee recommends denying
this requested project as an Army military construction item,
in light of the impacts of base realignment and closure at the
Presidio of San Francisco. The Committee encourages the Army to
review this matter with the EPA.
New Mexico--White Sands Missile Range: National Range Control Center
The Committee is concerned that the existing National Range
Control Center at the White Sands Missile Range is located in a
potentially hazardous building, and closure of the facility
would result in closure of all Real Time operations at the
range for an extended period. A four-phase construction program
has been developed for replacement of this facility. The
Committee supports this project and directs the Army to include
the appropriate amount for Phase I of this effort in the fiscal
year 1997 budget request.
virginia--fort myer: army museum land acquisition
The budget request includes $17,000,000 to acquire a site
for the National Museum of the United States Army. The
Committee recommends $14,000,000 for this project.
virginia--fort belvoir: engineer proving ground
For several years, the Army has been exploring the possible
third-party development of the Engineer Proving Ground at Fort
Belvoir, Virginia. The concept was for a very large project,
similar in scope to the development of Tysons Corner or Reston,
Virginia. It was planned in five phases and would take 25 to 30
years to complete. The original plan was to exchange Army-owned
land for approximately three million square feet of office
space, which would allow Army personnel to move out of high-
cost leased space in the National Capital Region.
Last year, the Auditor General of the Army was asked to
review this project and to validate its justification, and the
Chief of Engineers was asked to conduct an independent
assessment from an engineering perspective, including a market
analysis. A draft Request for Proposal is being reviewed by the
Army's leadership, and the Committee is awaiting further
developments. However, it appears that the original economic
assumptions have been overtaken by events, and that the project
may no longer be economically viable. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Army to report on the current status of this
project no later than September 1, 1995. If final decisions
have not been reached by that date, the Army will be expected
to notify the appropriate Committees of Congress prior to the
publication of any Request for Proposal.
KOREA--YONGSAN GARRISON (SEOUL): CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
The South Post Child Development Center in Yongsan, Korea
was located in a structurally unsound facility constructed of
highly combustible materials. The facility was not originally
designed for child care, was inefficiently configured, and did
not meet standards. These deficiencies required staffing in
excess of what would normally be required for the capacity of
the facility. The Committee fully concurs with the Army's
decision to close this center due to documented safety concerns
and staffing difficulties. However, this has necessitated the
placement of children in outlying child care facilities, which
in turn has overburdened those facilities and has greatly
inconvenienced families in need of child care. Therefore the
Committee recommends $1,450,000 for a replacement child
development center, in order to relieve this situation
immediately rather than endure the years required to program a
military construction project.
PANAMA--RELOCATION OF THE SOUTHERN COMMAND
The Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 requires the withdrawal of
United States military forces from Panama by December 31, 1999,
including the relocation of the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
The current plan to relocate SOUTHCOM headquarters has a target
date of June of 1998, but no construction funds have been
requested for fiscal year 1996.
The Southern Command's area of responsibility encompasses
19 countries, covering 7,000 miles from the Mexican-Guatemalan
border to the southern tip of South America. The mission of
SOUTHCOM is predominantly political rather than warfighting,
involving face-to-face planning and coordination with key
officials, as well as military-to-military contacts. The
current focus of SOUTHCOM's efforts in Central and South
America is counterdrug action, security cooperation, and
support for democratic institutions.
The joint-service SOUTHCOM headquarters consists of about
700 Department of Defense civilians and military personnel, and
approximately 1,500 family members. It is estimated that the
establishment and construction of headquarters facilities will
involve spending of approximately $60 million in all categories
of expenditure, including a requirement for an administrative
facility of about 140,000 square feet.
On March 29, 1995, the Department of Defense announced its
selection of South Dade County, Miami, as the future location
for the headquarters of the United States Southern Command.
Given the size and significance of this relocation, and the
treaty obligation to complete this relocation in a timely
fashion, the Committee directs the Army to report by September
1, 1995 on all planning and design expenditures, all projected
military construction and family housing expenditures, and all
other expenses related to the relocation of SOUTHCOM. This
report should include identification of the exact site
preferred by the Army, and should also include a detailed
description of consideration given to the disestablishment of
SOUTHCOM.
MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
The Army has undertaken a number of management initiatives
to develop more efficient and innovative methods for managing
Army installations. Two items of particular interest to the
Committee are the Installation Status Report and a task force
established by the Secretary of the Army which is known as the
Base Efficiency Study Team. In order to follow the developments
of these initiatives, the Committee requests that the budget
request for fiscal year 1997 will be accompanied by a report on
these and other initiatives undertaken by the Army for improved
management of Army installations.
firefighter training systems
The Committee supports the need to provide training for
firefighters that is both safe and effective. The Army
currently trains its firefighters using techniques that have
not only proven hazardous to trainees, but also have come under
criticism due to possible violations of environmental
regulations. Such regulations have closed all but 12 of the
training centers. The Committee is aware of computer-
controlled, natural gas/propane systems currently in the Navy's
inventory which safely replicate the required training
environment and which also satisfy all environmental
requirements. It is the Committee's opinion that the Army
should develop a program to establish regional training centers
where multiple commands can take advantage of a single site.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to identify the
appropriate locations for such sites, as well as the required
military construction funds to support the sites over a four-
year period, and to report its findings to the Committee by
October 1, 1995.
Military Construction, Navy
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................\1\ $385,110,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 488,086,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 588,243,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +203,133,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +100,157,000
\1\ Excludes rescission of $3,500,000 enacted in P.L. 104-6.
The Committee recommends a total of $588,243,000 for
Military Construction, Navy for fiscal year 1996. This is an
increase of $100,157,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1996, and an increase of $203,133,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
arizona--marine corps air station yuma: safe ordnance storage
Last year, the Committee expressed its concern about safety
issues related to the storage of ordnance at Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona. At the Committee's direction, the
Secretary of the Navy studied these issues and prepared a
report which identified specific remedial actions. The Navy
study also recommended specific actions to modify on-base
facilities and the purchase of sufficient property to move
ordnance operations away from congested areas of the station.
The Committee puts a high priority on providing for the
safe ordnance storage needs at MCAS Yuma, and instructs the
Secretary to prepare a plan to fully implement the Department
of the Navy study. This plan should be delivered to the
Committee no later than February 15, 1996.
california--naval air station, north island: berthing wharf and
controlled industrial facility
The budget request includes $56,650,000 for a berthing
wharf and $42,500,000 for a controlled industrial facility at
North Island. These projects represent the first phase of
required construction to berth three nuclear aircraft carriers
in San Diego at an estimated cost by the Navy of $267.8
million.
The Committee understands that the General Accounting
Office is in the process of reviewing the projected costs of
berthing the three nuclear aircraft carriers at North Island
and that discrepancies on the total cost of construction may
exist. In addition, the GAO is evaluating the feasibility and
costs associated with berthing the carriers at alternative
locations. The GAO is directed to report to the Committee its
findings on the accuracy of the construction estimates and
alternative locations by the earliest possible date. The
Committee is including the $99,150,000 requested for North
Island and anticipates that this matter will be addressed in
final conference action on the fiscal year 1996 bill.
florida--mayport naval station: wharf improvements design
The Navy is directed to complete additional design for
wharf improvements at Mayport Naval Station within the
increased amount provided for planning and design. This design
should include shore power and utility upgrades, mooring
improvements and other mechanical improvements at Wharfs C-2
and F; the demolition of several small storage buildings for a
retention pond site near Wharf F; construction of a heavy-duty
concrete hardstand area and driveways/roadways near Wharf F;
the construction of a stormwater collection system and
retention ponds at Wharf F, and related work at Wharfs C-2 and
F.
georgia--marine corps logistics base, albany: separate gas main and
railroad
The natural gas line that supplies gas to the Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia is located only a few feet away
from the main railroad track into the base. In some places the
cover over the gas line is only two feet deep. The potential
for damage to the gas line and the surrounding community in the
event of a derailment is very high. The Marine Corps is
directed to fund this project, which is estimated at $590,000,
under Unspecified Minor Construction.
georgia--marine corps logistics base, albany: alternate railroad
The primary railroad track at the Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Albany, Georgia was built 44 years ago. It serves 19
warehouses, the vehicle loading ramp, the open loading area,
the truck scale and the Marine Corps Multi-Commodity
Maintenance Center. This track continuously needs repair and
improvement, effecting the rail service for shipment of
equipment and weapons systems. Should the primary track fail
during a national crisis requiring mobilization of supplies,
equipment, and weapons, then efforts to mobilize would be
impeded. The Marine Corps is directed to construct an alternate
railroad track, estimated at $950,000, using Unspecified Minor
Construction.
new jersey--naval weapons station earle: pier 4 extension
The Committee understands that the Department of the Navy
has programmed for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 a
total of $70,790,000 for the construction of a pier extension
at the Naval Weapons Station, Earle, New Jersey. The Committee
directs the Navy to ensure this project is requested at the
earliest possible time.
rhode island--naval war college, newport:
strategic maritime research center
It is the intent of the Committee for the Navy to proceed
with the Strategic Maritime Research Center at the Naval War
College, Newport, Rhode Island based upon the initial
appropriation of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1995. The Committee
understands the total amount necessary for this project is
$28,000,000. In the event the Navy's design for this project
does not lend itself to providing a complete and usable
$10,000,000 segment, the Navy is directed to adjust the design
to accomplish the same, and include provisions to complete the
remaining portion when funds are available.
cuba--guantanamo bay: landfill
The budget request includes a fiscal year 1995 emergency
supplemental request for $18,000,000 to ``support peacekeeping,
peace enforcement and humanitarian assistance operations in and
around Cuba''. The $18,000,000 is for construction of a new
landfill facility at Guantanamo Bay. The Committee did not
address this issue in the Department of Defense Supplemental
Appropriations, P.L. 104-6. This project was based on
population projections that will not be realized due to the
Administration's change in policy on refugees. Therefore, the
Committee denies funding for this project.
Military Construction, Air Force
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................\1\ $516,813,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 495,655,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 578,841,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +62,028,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +83,186,000
\1\ Excludes rescission of $3,500,000 enacted in P.L. 104-6.
The Committee recommends a total of $578,841,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 1996. This is
an increase of $83,186,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1996, and an increase of $62,028,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
idaho--mountain home air force base: idaho training range (north site)
The Air Force budget request includes $8,000,000 for the
first phase of the construction of a training range in
southwestern Idaho. On May 23, 1995 the Air Force announced
that this project would no longer be pursued and terminated
work on the supplemental environmental impact statement.
Therefore, the Committee has denied funding for this project.
The Committee understands that the Secretary of the Air
Force is committed to working with all interested parties to
identify other opportunities in Idaho for expanded wing
tactical training. The Air Force is expected to keep the
Committee apprised of all developments related to the expansion
of the training range and should an agreement be reached
construction funding should be requested in the fiscal year
1997 budget request.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $504,118,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 857,405,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 728,332,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +224,214,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... -129,073,000
The Committee recommends a total of $728,332,000 for
Military Construction, Defense-Wide for fiscal year 1996. This
is a decrease of $129,073,000 below the budget request for
fiscal year 1996, and an increase of $224,214,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
chemical weapons demilitarization program
The budget request includes a total of $108,000,000 for the
following funding increments for the chemical weapons
demilitarization program for fiscal year 1996:
$40,000,000 Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas
$55,000,000 Umatilla Depot Activity, Oregon
$13,000,000 Planning and Design
The approved military construction programs for prior
fiscal years include an unobligated balance of $110,900,000 for
facilities at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. The award date for
this contract is dependent upon issuance of environmental
permits by the State of Alabama.
Planned award/obligation dates for these three locations
are as follows:
August, 1995 Anniston Army Depot, Alabama
March, 1996 Umatilla Depot Activity, Oregon
June, 1996 Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas
The Committee is concerned about continuing slippage in
this program due to contracting, fiscal, programmatic, and
other considerations. The Committee will expect to be notified
in a timely fashion of any change in the planned award/
obligation dates listed above. In particular, if the Anniston
contract is not awarded during August of 1995, the Department
is directed to report on the reasons for slippage, and the
revised award date. This report is to be submitted to the
appropriate Committees of Congress not later than September 15,
1995.
On December 26, 1994, the Chemical Weapons Demilitarization
Program was designated an Acquisition Category identification
under the Major Defense Acquisition list. As a result of this
designation, an Independent Cost Estimate must be developed for
the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. The Committee will
expect to be kept fully advised of the progress of this
Independent Cost Estimate.
The Army and the National Research Council have evaluated
potential alternatives to incineration technology, and the Army
has selected two low-temperature and low-pressure approaches
for research and development: chemical neutralization as a
stand-alone technology, and chemical neutralization followed by
biodegradation. These efforts focus on bulk-only storage
locations (Aberdeen, Maryland and Newport, Indiana). The
Committee will expect to be kept fully advised of the progress
of this research effort, as it relates to future military
construction requirements at these locations.
energy conservation investment program (ECIP)
The Energy Conservation Investment Program provides
financing for individual projects that are evaluated,
prioritized on the basis of technical merit and return on
investment, and presented individually to Congress for
approval. The budget request includes $50,000,000 as the level
of effort for this program for fiscal year 1996. The primary
benefits of the program include improved facility conditions,
reduced environmental pollution, and utility and maintenance
cost reduction. The Department spends about $3 billion each
year to heat, cool, light and provide direct mission support
energy to installations. As currently programmed, in
coordination with the Defense-wide Operations and Maintenance
funded Federal Energy Management Program, the Department of
Defense expects to accomplish a 20 percent reduction in
building and facilities energy by the year 2000. It is the view
of the Department that the savings from this program are
comparable to the recent round of base closures.
In addition, the Department of Defense stands as the
largest builder and facility operator in the country,
contributing about five percent of the Nation's construction.
Therefore, the Department's adoption of new, energy-efficient
technology creates enough market pull to stimulate its
manufacture and common acceptance throughout the country.
For fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995, the payback period
of executed projects averaged approximately four years. The
Committee believes this is a sound return on investment, and
recommends full funding of the requested level of $50,000,000
for this program. The Committee will expect that each
individual project will continue to be supported with an
economic analysis to show the savings-to-investment ratio and
the simple payback, and that life-cycle cost analyses will
continue to be performed as projects are modified by additional
information and design detail. Most importantly, the Committee
will expect the Department to give great consideration to
further reduction in the payback period, especially in such
areas as renewable energy, water conservation, emerging
technologies, and contribution to environmental pollution
prevention.
The Committee is aware of the Department's efforts to
develop a multi-media energy manager's training program in
partnership with a larger private consortium. The Committee
supports the use of appropriated funds to improve the level of
technical and programmatic knowledge of Defense energy
managers, as well as design engineers and architects, and the
leveraging of Federal funds through participation in public/
private partnership such as this. Therefore, the Committee will
expect the Department to continue to contribute such sums as
may be required for the on-going multimedia software project.
phase-funded projects
The Committee supports incremental funding of large
projects in such a manner that annual funding increments will
not exceed the amount of construction that can be executed in a
single fiscal year. The Committee notes that the budget request
for the Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program conforms with
this view by proposing phase-funding for projects at Pine Bluff
Arsenal, Arkansas and at Umatilla Depot Activity, Oregon.
Three other projects requested in the budget do not conform
with this view. Therefore, the Committee has reduced the amount
provided for these three projects to the level that can be
executed during fiscal year 1996, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/project Budget request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Glen, Maryland: Army
Institute of Research (phase III)
(WRAIR).......................... $119,000,000 $27,000,000
Columbus, Ohio: DFAS Operations
Facility (phase I)............... 72,403,000 37,400,000
Portsmouth, Virginia: Hospital
replacement (phase VII).......... 71,900,000 47,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
administrative provision
Statutory language included under this account provides
that the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds from this
account to the military construction and family housing
accounts. The Committee directs that any exercise of this
authority must fall under the Committee's standing procedures
for approval of reprogramming requests.
ohio--columbus: dfas operations facility (phase i)
Upon completion of the DFAS Operations Facility in
Columbus, Ohio, the General Services Administration (GSA)
intends to sell Air Force Plant #85 (which currently houses
DFAS operations) at public auction. The Department of Defense
will use the proceeds from this sale to pay GSA costs for
administering the sale, and the remainder of the proceeds will
be returned to the Air Force for industrial plant environmental
cleanup projects. The Committee will expect to be kept advised
of the timetable for this auction, the proceeds from this sale,
and the projects financed with the proceeds.
The Committee commends the Department for savings of
approximately $3,600,000 in planning and design costs that will
be realized based on a decision to use a ``mirror image'' of
the Defense Construction Supply Center building which was
recently constructed at the same location.
The budget request for this project provided full funding
of $72,403,000 to complete construction, which will require
approximately three years to execute. The Committee recommends
funding of $37,400,000, the level that can be executed during
fiscal year 1996.
texas--dyess air force base: clinic facilities
The Committee is concerned that radiology, pharmacy, and
other clinic facilities at Dyess Air Force Base are badly
undersized and outdated. The Committee directs that the design
of a project to correct this problem proceed in order to enable
the project to be funded in fiscal year 1997.
belgium--brussels: expand and renovate health/dental clinic
Within funds provided for Unspecified Minor Construction,
the Committee directs the Department to expand and renovate the
Army health/dental clinic in Brussels, Belgium at an estimated
cost of $850,000.
Military Construction, Reserve Components
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $574,302,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 182,012,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 284,924,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... -289,378,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +102,912,000
The Committee recommends a total of $284,924,000 for
Military Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 1996.
This is an increase of $102,912,000 above the budget request
for fiscal year 1996, and a decrease of $289,378,000 below the
amount appropriated for 1995.
The Committee's recommended action on each Reserve
Component project is reflected in the State list at the end of
this report.
The Committee recommends approval of Military Construction,
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............... $18,480,000 $72,537,000
Air National Guard................ 85,647,000 118,267,000
Army Reserve...................... 42,963,000 42,963,000
Naval Reserve..................... 7,920,000 19,655,000
Air Force Reserve................. 27,002,000 31,502,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 182,012,000 284,924,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
The Committee is very concerned over the execution rates
for the military construction programs of the Reserve
Components. According to the budget request for fiscal year
1996, the following amounts will remain unobligated at the end
of each fiscal year:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
Component 1994 actual estimate estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard. $366.1 $281.8 $143.5 $59.1
Air National Guard.. 237.6 250.0 186.2 143.8
Army Reserve........ 121.3 62.5 41.9 30.2
Naval Reserve....... 59.7 25.1 7.1 5.6
Air Force Reserve... 42.8 35.5 25.7 23.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee understands that these amounts remain
available for completion of prior year approved budget plans,
that funds remain available for five years, and that the
Reserve Components face a number of difficult challenges in
program execution. However, the Committee will expect to see
increased attention given to assure that contracts are awarded
during the fiscal year in which funds are provided. The
Committee intends to follow closely the reinstated Annual
Report on Design and Construction Progress and the reinstated
semi-annual submission of Audit Trail Documents in order to
track improvement in program execution.
NEVADA--RENO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The Committee is aware that the mission of the Nevada Air
National Guard will change in the near future. It is the
expectation of the Committee that the Air National Guard will
work closely with the Nevada National Guard to develop and
design a workable and cost effective plan for the construction
of a modified Guard facility at the Reno-Tahoe airport. The Air
National Guard is to include the appropriate projects for this
effort in the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
(FORMERLY NATO INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM)
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................\1\ $119,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 179,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 161,000,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +42,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... -18,000,000
\1\ Excludes rescission of $33,000,000 enacted in P.L. 104-6.
The Committee recommends a total of $161,000,000 for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program.
This is a decrease of $18,000,000, or 10 percent, below the
budget request for fiscal year 1996, and an increase of
$42,000,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
For 1996, the NATO nations have agreed on a funding level
of approximately $765,000,000. Of this amount, the U.S.
requirement totals $199,000,000 and is based on a previously
agreed cost share that averages about 26%. The Committee notes
that this program is becoming predominately geared toward
projects other than construction. Larger percentages are being
spent on procurement costs, largely for communications and
other command and control equipment and software. It is not the
intent of the Committee to disrupt communication plans;
however, the Committee is concerned that perhaps U.S.
construction needs are taking a lower priority to procurement
costs. The Committee directs the Department to review the mix
of construction versus procurement costs under this program and
the possibility of seeking alternative funding for procurement
costs. Findings are to be included in the justification
documentation accompanying the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
The Committee is also concerned about the budgetary
implications to the construction program connected with the
expansion of NATO and the Partnership for Peace program. The
Department of Defense is directed to report to the Committee by
February 1, 1996 on the expected impacts these programs will
have on U.S. contributions to the Security Investment Program.
Beginning with fiscal year 1996, the Department of Defense
is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations, on a
quarterly basis, the following information:
(1) NATO Nations shares of construction costs based
on fund authorizations;
(2) NATO Nations shares of procurement costs based on
fund authorizations; and
(3) A listing of all obligations incurred that
quarter broken out by infrastructure category and
procurement category. This listing should show the
total project cost, the U.S. cost share and all other
NATO Nations cost shares.
Family Housing
overview
The need for military family housing has changed with the
all-volunteer structure of the force. In the mid-1950s forty-
two percent of the force was married, compared to sixty-one
percent today. The percentage of service members with families
will continue to grow, and the nature of an all-volunteer force
implies greater expectations for the availability, size and
amenities of family housing. At the same time, we are faced
with a changing military environment due to overseas
reductions, domestic base closures, major force reductions, and
increased deployments.
Today, the family housing program is even more important
because it provides a quality of life incentive which attracts
and retains dedicated individuals to serve in the military.
However, the housing deficiencies are a severe disincentive to
reenlistment. Testimony before the Committee states that it
costs over $29,000 to recruit and train an enlisted soldier for
the first assignment. This investment is lost each time a
soldier must be replaced. The Committee has no question that
housing is directly linked to readiness, morale, and retention.
While this Committee has focused on the need for adequate
family housing over the years, resources have been scarce. This
problem has recently been brought to the forefront with several
articles in the press and an increased focus by the Department
of Defense. The family housing crisis exists today due to the
majority of housing in the Department's inventory being
substandard; high cost areas where housing deficits exist; and
problems young families are facing who cannot afford to live in
local communities.
DOD policy is that married couples will live off-base when
the economy can support them, and about two-thirds, or 614,928
families, reside off-base. Where there is sufficient affordable
housing in the community and commuting distances are not over
one hour, most of these families are doing well. However, 12
percent of military families living in civilian communities are
in substandard housing. This is often the case when rents are
excessive or a family can only afford to live in distant,
isolated, and sometimes unsafe neighborhoods. This is occurring
more often because housing allowances are covering only 75
percent of the cost of civilian housing, on average. Many
younger families only have one car and are faced with driving
distances of over an hour to the installation. In some
instances, families are choosing to remain separated simply
because suitable, affordable housing is not available at a new
assignment.
The Department of Defense has a total of 350,799 on-base
housing units in its inventory, with an average age of 32
years. Two-thirds of the inventory is over 30 years old and
requires a substantial annual investment to meet maintenance
requirements. Over the years, the majority of these homes have
gone without adequate maintenance and repair. And over two-
thirds of the inventory, or 218,551 units, is considered
unsuitable. Unsuitable units require a major investment to
correct deteriorated infrastructure, provide basic living
standards and meet contemporary code requirements for
electrical and mechanical systems, and for energy efficiency.
Examples provided to the Committee of a typical scenario
military families are facing include: severe health and safety
deficiencies such as electrical systems and water pipes needing
replacement; non-working or inefficient heating and cooling
systems; nails coming through the ceilings and floors; kitchen
cabinets water-logged and sinking; ceiling and wall paint
chipped and peeling; screens with holes in them; doors coming
apart; malfunctioning smoke detectors; light fixtures broken,
and stoves and ovens with elements not working.
The current backlog of deferred maintenance and repair
totals in excess of $2,000,000,000. When housing units are not
adequately maintained, eventually they must be closed and
abandoned or demolished. Families who could have been housed in
these units must then live off-base. In turn, this creates an
additional expense for payment of housing allowances.
It will be necessary to use many different approaches to
help meet the current family housing need. The challenge is for
a sustained overall commitment, at funding levels that will
reduce the backlog of inadequate houses, reduce the housing
deficits, and increase the quality of living conditions in a
reasonable period of time. The Department estimates it will
take $3,000,000,000 and over thirty years to correct the
existing problem.
The Secretary of Defense has proposed to Congress a plan
for a private sector initiative which is discussed later in
this report. The Committee is hopeful this initiative will be
successful and help to resolve the problem in a more timely
fashion. In the meantime, this bill provides a total of
$4,235,569,000, and an increase of $715,125,000 over last year,
for family housing related items. This includes the
construction of new homes, the replacement of older homes,
improvements to existing inventory, and operation and
maintenance funds to properly manage and improve the current
inventory. An additional $22,000,000 is also provided for
startup costs for the private sector initiative, which fully
funds the authorized level for this program.
new housing construction
The fiscal year 1996 request is $355,088,000 to build 2,633
units of new family housing. This is an increase of 15 percent
over the fiscal year 1995 enacted level and reflects a specific
initiative by the Department to improve family housing. The
Committee is in total agreement with the Department's
initiative and has approved all requested projects for new
housing construction. In addition, the Committee has provided
an additional $110,180,000 to build 790 units of new family
housing. The total appropriation for new construction is
$465,268,000 and will provide 3,423 new units. Details of the
Committee's recommendations for new construction are provided
in this report under the individual component accounts. The
Committee expects that none of the approved projects will be
reduced in scope. It is the understanding of the Committee,
that upon a 30-day notification from the Secretary of Defense,
and approval of the Committee, funds appropriated for a new
construction project may be transferred to the Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector
pilot project at the same location.
construction improvements
A total of $350,508,000 has been requested for post-
acquisition construction for all Services to improve 4,725
housing units. Post-acquisition construction is focused on
modernizing existing units that are uneconomical to repair. The
Committee recommends full funding of the request. In addition,
the Committee has provided an additional $83,754,000 for eight
construction improvement projects which are listed in this
report under the individual component accounts, to improve an
additional 1,250 units. The total appropriation for post-
acquisition construction is $434,262,000 and will improve 5,975
units of family housing.
It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-
day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of
the Committee, funds appropriated for a construction
improvement project may be transferred to the Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector
pilot project at the same location.
The Committee continues the restriction on the amount
invested in improving foreign source housing units. The three-
year limitation on overseas units is $35,000. If the components
intend to program improvements to specific units which exceed
$35,000 over a period of three years, total funding should be
requested in one year. The justification for each unit should
identify all improvements and major maintenance work done in
the past three years, and all improvements and major
maintenance planned in the following three years.
operation and maintenance
The request for operation and maintenance expenses totals
$3,265,605,000, an increase of $460,422,000, or 16 percent,
above the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. The Committee
recommends full funding of the request. These accounts provide
for annual expenditures for maintenance and repair,
furnishings, management, services, utilities, leasing,
interest, mortgage insurance and miscellaneous expenses. Of the
total appropriations provided for operation and maintenance,
$1,578,083,000 is for maintenance and repair of existing
housing. This is an increase of $405,792,000, or 35 percent,
over fiscal year 1995 levels and is due to an effort on behalf
of the Services to concentrate on taking better care of the
current housing inventory. In addition, the Committee has
provided an additional $14,000,000 for maintenance of Air Force
family housing units.
Expenditures from this account for general and flag officer
quarters are to be reported in accordance with the guidelines
previously established and reiterated later in this report. The
Committee also continues the direction that the details of all
other expenditures from this account which exceed $15,000 per
unit, per year for major maintenance and repair of non-general
and flag officer quarters be included as part of the
justification material. The general provision limiting
obligations from this account to no more than 20 percent of the
total in the last two months of the fiscal year is included in
this year's bill.
The Committee continues the restriction on the transfer of
funds between the operation and maintenance accounts. The
limitation is ten percent to all primary accounts and
subaccounts. Such transfers are to be reported to the Committee
within thirty days of such action.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
overview
The Secretary of Defense has proposed legislation which
addresses the housing crisis by authorizing a five year,
$1,000,000,000 private sector pilot project to replace or
renovate approximately 200,000 units of family housing within
the United States, its territories and possessions, and in
Puerto Rico, but not overseas. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, H.R. 1530, as reported,
contains the authorization for this program. New authority is
granted to: guarantee mortgage payments and rental contracts to
developers as incentives to build family housing; authorize
commercial-style lease agreements for family housing; and
engage in joint ventures with developers to construct family
housing on government property.
The legislation combines existing build/lease, rental
guarantee, and limited partnership authority with new authority
to guarantee loans and mortgages. It authorizes the Service
Secretaries to enter into contracts providing for direct loans,
guarantees, insurance and other payments to owners or
mortgagors of military family housing and supporting
facilities, e.g., child development centers. The Service
Secretaries are also authorized to lease or sell land, family
housing and supporting facilities for the purposes of providing
additional family housing, or to improve existing family
housing. However, this authority may not be exercised at any
installation approved for closure. As part of the consideration
for the sale or lease of property, an ancillary agreement under
which the person receiving the property agrees to give priority
to military members and their dependents in the leasing of
existing or new housing units is required. Leases and sales are
not subject to the provisions of the Military Leasing Act, the
Federal Property and the Administrative Services Act, or the
Economy Act. The authority to outlease or sell land and
improvements will bypass the General Services Administration
and is expected to reduce project costs substantially.
Further, the legislation authorizes the establishment of a
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for
alternative means of financing military family housing and
ancillary supporting facilities. Funds in this account will be
used to build or renovate family housing, mixing or matching
various authorities in the authorization, and utilizing private
capital and expertise to the maximum extent possible. The Fund
is to contain appropriated and transferred funds from family
housing construction accounts, and the total value in budget
authority of all contracts and investments undertaken may not
exceed $1,000,000,000. Transfers are authorized contingent upon
a 30-day notification by the Secretary of Defense to the
appropriate committees of Congress. Proceeds from investments,
leases, and conveyances are to be deposited into this Fund, and
any use of the Fund is subject to annual appropriations. The
Family Housing Improvement Fund is to be administered as a
single account without fiscal year limitations.
This new authority to enter into contracts and partnerships
and to make investments shall expire on September 30, 2000.
fiscal year 1996 appropriations
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, H.R. 1530, as reported, contains authorization in the
amount of $22,000,000 for the Department of Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 1996. The President
submitted a budget amendment on June 2, 1995, to reflect a
request of $22,000,000 for the fund. The Committee supports
this level of funding and has recommended it in the bill.
reporting requirements
The Committee reiterates the reporting requirements
contained in the enabling legislation. The Service Secretary
concerned may not enter into any contract until after the end
of the 21-day period beginning on the date the Secretary
concerned submits written notice of the nature and terms of the
contract to the appropriate committees of Congress.
In addition, no transfer of appropriated funds into the
account may take place until after the end of the 30-day period
beginning on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written
notice and justification for the transfer to the appropriate
committees of Congress. The Appropriations Committee expects to
receive prior notification of all such transfers of funds.
general and flag officer quarters
The existing reporting requirements for general and flag
officer quarters continue in full force and effect, in order to
control expenditures for high cost quarters. The purpose of
these requirements is to ensure that the total amount of all
obligations for maintenance and repair (excluding operations)
on each general or flag officer quarters is limited to $25,000
per year, unless specifically included in the annual budget
justification material. This continues the policy initiated in
1984 and developed and elaborated over several years, to ensure
that separate controls are established for orderly planning and
programming to accomplish this work.
Recognizing the uncertainties involved in accurately
forecasting ``change in occupancy'' work, the Committee
continues the following previously established notification
requirement. The Committee must be notified when maintenance
and repair costs for a unit will exceed the amount submitted in
the budget justification by 25 percent or $5,000, whichever is
less. The Committee must also be notified when maintenance and
repair costs will exceed $25,000 for a unit not requested in
the budget justification.
Notifications of each proposed expenditure must be
submitted over the signature of the Service Secretary for case-
by-case review and approval. Each Service is directed to
continue to limit out-of-cycle submissions to one per year,
except for situations which are justified as emergencies or
safety-related.
leasing reporting requirement
The Committee continues the reporting requirement for both
domestic and foreign leases. For domestic leases (not funded by
the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund), the Department is
directed to report quarterly on the details of all new or
renewal domestic leases entered into during the previous
quarter which exceed $12,000 per unit per year, including
certification that less expensive housing was not available for
lease. For foreign leases, the Department is directed to:
perform an economic analysis on all new leases or lease/
contract agreements where more than 25 units are involved;
report the details of any new or renewal lease exceeding
$20,000 per year (as adjusted for foreign currency fluctuation
from October 1, 1987, but not adjusted for inflation), 21 days
prior to entering into such an agreement; and base leasing
decisions on the economic analysis.
exclusion of asbestos and lead-based paint removal from maintenance and
repair limits
The Committee continues the requirement of an after-the-
fact notification where asbestos and/or lead-based paint
removal costs cause the maintenance and repair thresholds of
$15,000 for a military family housing unit, or $25,000 for a
General or Flag Officer Quarters to be exceeded. The
notification shall include work scope, cost break-out and other
details pertinent to asbestos and/or lead-based paint removal
work and shall be reported on a semi-annual basis.
execution rates
The Committee notes that the average percentage obligation
for conventionally constructed new family housing over the last
five years is only 33 percent. The result is very few family
housing construction projects are executed in the first year.
The Department is directed to review the turn-key method to
determine if this design process is indeed slowing program
execution. In addition, the Department is to review the
benefits of requiring the Services to modify the process to
assure conventional family housing new construction projects
are ready for award when the funds become available. This
review should also take into account the possibility of using
site-adapted standardized designs which have undergone value
engineering studies to speed the process.
It is also noted that family housing construction
improvement projects average obligation rates in the first year
are only 43%. The Department is to report to the Committee on
what actions are being taken to increase this execution rate to
a more acceptable rate.
The Department should report its findings and actions being
taken to improve the execution rates to the Committee no later
than March 1, 1996.
reprogramming criteria
The reprogramming criteria that apply to military
construction projects (25 percent of the funded amount or
$2,000,000, whichever is less) also apply to new housing
construction projects and to improvement projects over
$2,000,000.
Family Housing, Army
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,183,710,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 1,381,096,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,463,996,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +280,286,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +82,900,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,463,996,000 for
Family Housing, Army for fiscal year 1996. This is an increase
of $82,900,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 1996,
and an increase of $280,286,000 above the amount appropriated
for fiscal year 1995.
Construction
The Committee has approved $126,400,000 for new
construction, instead of the $43,500,000 requested, as shown
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Redstone Arsenal (118
units)........................... ................. $12,000,000
Kentucky: Fort Knox (150 units)... ................. 19,000,000
New York: U.S. Military Academy
(119 units)...................... $16,500,000 16,500,000
Virginia: Fort Lee (135 units).... ................. 19,500,000
Washington: Fort Lewis (84 units). 10,800,000 10,800,000
Construction improvements......... 14,200,000 46,600,000
Planning.......................... 2,000,000 2,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 43,500,000 126,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the budget request for
construction improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Number of units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky--Fort Campbell........... 262 $19,000,000
New Mexico--White Sands........... 36 3,400,000
North Carolina--Fort Bragg........ 96 10,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 394 32,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
operation and maintenance
The budget request includes $1,445,283 for 27 projects
where anticipated maintenance and repair obligations will
exceed $25,000 per dwelling unit for General Officer Quarters.
In the face of all of the Army's unmet requirements for
barracks, child development centers, family housing, and other
quality of life facilities, the Committee questions the need
for such a level of effort for maintenance and repair of
General Officer Quarters. The Committee has not reduced the
amount available for operation and maintenance of family
housing. However, the Committee directs the Army to cancel the
27 proposed projects for General Officer Quarters, and to apply
these funds to reduction of the backlog of maintenance and
repair of enlisted family housing units.
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,205,064,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 1,514,084,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,579,618,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +374,554,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +65,534,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,579,618,000 for
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 1996.
This is an increase of $65,534,000 above the budget request for
fiscal year 1996, and an increase of $374,554,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
construction
The Committee has approved $531,289,000 for new
construction, instead of the $465,755,000 requested, as shown
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:
Lemoore Naval Air Station (240
units)....................... $34,900,000 $34,900,000
Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton (community center). 1,438,000 1,438,000
Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton (housing office)... 707,000 707,000
Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton (69 units)......... 10,000,000 10,000,000
Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton (136 units)........ ................. 20,080,000
Pacific Missile Test Center
Point Mugu (housing office/
self help center)............ 1,020,000 1,020,000
Public Works Center San Diego
(346 units).................. 49,310,000 49,310,000
Hawaii: Public Works Center, Pearl
Harbor (252 units)............... 48,400,000 48,400,000
Maryland:
Naval Air Test Center Patuxent
River (housing warehouse/self
help center)................. 890,000 890,000
USNA Annapolis (housing office/
self help center)............ 800,000 800,000
North Carolina: Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point (community
center).......................... 1,003,000 1,003,000
Pennsylvania: NSCC Mechanicsburg
(housing office)................. 300,000 300,000
Virginia:
Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare
Center (housing office/self
help center)................. 520,000 520,000
Public Works Center Norfolk
(housing office/housing
warehouse)................... 1,390,000 1,390,000
Public Works Center Norfolk
(320 units).................. 42,500,000 42,500,000
Puerto Rico: NS Roosevelt Roads
(housing office)................. 710,000 710,000
Construction improvements......... 247,477,000 292,931,000
Planning.......................... 24,390,000 24,390,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 465,755,000 531,289,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction improvements
The following projects are to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the budget request for
construction improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Number of units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida--Mayport.................. 400 $14,575,000
Illinois--Great Lakes............. 150 15,300,000
Rhode Island--Newport............. 64 8,795,000
South Carolina--Beaufort.......... 176 6,784,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 790 45,454,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Housing, Air Force
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,102,289,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 1,098,216,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 1,157,716,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +55,427,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... +59,500,000
The Committee recommends a total of $1,157,716,000 for
Family Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 1996. This is an
increase of $59,500,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 1996, and an increase of $55,427,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
construction
The Committee has approved $294,503,000 for new
construction, instead of the $249,003,000 requested, as shown
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/Project Requested Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska: Elmendorf AFB (housing
office/maintenance facility)..... $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Arizona: Davis-Monthan AFB (80
units)........................... 9,498,000 9,498,000
Arkansas: Little Rock AFB (1 unit) 210,000 210,000
California:
Beale AFB (housing office).... 842,000 842,000
Edwards AFB (67 units)........ 11,350,000 11,350,000
Edwards AFB (60 units)........ -- 9,400,000
Vandenberg AFB (housing
office)...................... 900,000 900,000
Vandenberg AFB (143 units).... 20,200,000 20,200,000
Colorado: Peterson AFB (housing
office).......................... 570,000 570,000
District of Columbia: Bolling AFB
(32 units)....................... 4,100,000 4,100,000
Florida:
Eglin AFB (housing office).... 500,000 500,000
Eglin AFB Hurlburt Field
(housing service center)..... 880,000 880,000
MacDill AFB (housing office).. 646,000 646,000
Patrick AFB (70 units)........ 7,947,000 7,947,000
Tyndall AFB (52 units)........ 5,500,000 5,500,000
Tyndall AFB (30 units)........ -- 4,300,000
Georgia: Moody AFB (3 units)...... 513,000 513,000
Idaho: Mountain Home AFB (housing
office).......................... 844,000 844,000
Kansas: McConnell AFB (39 units).. 5,193,000 5,193,000
Louisiana: Barksdale AFB (62
units)........................... 10,299,000 10,299,000
Massachusetts: Hanscom AFB (24
units)........................... -- 4,900,000
Mississippi: Keelser AFB (98
units)........................... 9,300,000 9,300,000
Missouri: Whiteman AFB (72 units). 9,948,000 9,948,000
Nevada:
Nellis AFB (6 units).......... 1,357,000 1,357,000
Nellis AFB (137 units)........ -- 21,000,000
New Mexico:
Holloman AFB (1 unit)......... 225,000 225,000
Kirtland AFB (105 units)...... 11,000,000 11,000,000
North Carolina:
Pope AFB (104 units).......... 9,984,000 9,984,000
Seymour Johnson AFB (1 unit).. 204,000 204,000
South Carolina: Shaw AFB
(maintenance facility)........... 715,000 715,000
Texas:
Dyess AFB (maintenance
facility).................... 580,000 580,000
Lackland AFB (67 units)....... 6,200,000 6,200,000
Sheppard AFB (housing office). 500,000 500,000
Sheppard AFB (maintenance
facility).................... 600,000 600,000
Washington: McChord AFB (50 units) 9,504,000 9,504,000
Guam: Andersen AFB (housing
office).......................... 1,700,000 1,700,000
Turkey: Incirlick AB (150 units).. 10,146,000 10,146,000
Construction improvements......... 85,059,000 90,959,000
Planning.......................... 8,989,000 8,989,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 249,003,000 294,503,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction improvements
The following project is to be accomplished within the
additional amount provided above the request for construction
improvements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Number of units Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio--Wright-Patterson AFB........ 66 $5,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
operation and maintenance
The budget request includes $408,971,000 for maintenance of
real property. The Committee recommends an increase of
$14,000,000, providing a total of $422,971,000 for this
purpose.
Family Housing, Defense-Wide
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $29,381,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 34,239,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 34,239,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +4,858,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $34,239,000 for Family
Housing, Defense-Wide for fiscal year 1996. This is equal to
the budget request for fiscal year 1996, and an increase of
$4,858,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $0
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 22,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 22,000,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +22,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $22,000,000 for the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for
fiscal year 1996. This is equal to the budget request for
fiscal year 1996, and an increase of $22,000,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
Homeowners Assistance Fund
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $0
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 75,586,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 75,586,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +75,586,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends the budget request of $75,586,000
for the Homeowners Assistance Fund. The Committee notes that no
funding was provided for fiscal year 1995 since unobligated
balances were to be carried over from prior years and revenue
was expected from the resale of homes during fiscal year 1995.
The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving
fund which finances a program for providing assistance to
homeowners by reducing their losses incident to the disposal of
their homes when military installations at or near where they
are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope
of operations is reduced. The Fund was established in
recognition of the fact that base closure and reduction actions
can have serious economic effects on local communities. The
Fund receives funding from several sources: appropriations,
borrowing authority, reimbursable authority, prior fiscal year
unobligated balances, revenue from sale of acquired properties,
and recovery of prior year obligations.
Recent base closure and realignment actions have had a
significant impact on this account. The total estimated
requirements for fiscal year 1996 are $238,478,000. Funding for
this requirement will come from the following sources:
appropriations in the amount of $75,586,000; estimated revenue
of $122,307,000; and prior year carryover of $40,585,000.
The budget request included a new General Provision to
provide transfer authority among the Homeowners Assistance Fund
and the Base Realignment and Closure Accounts. The Committee
recommends including this provision as Section 123 of the bill.
However, the Committee directs that any exercise of this
authority must fall under the Committee's standing procedures
for approval of reprogramming requests.
Base Realignment and Closure
overview
The Congress has appropriated to date, $9,500,000,000 for
realignment and closure since fiscal year 1990. In the bill for
fiscal year 1996, the Committee is recommending total funding
of $3.9 billion under three accounts, as requested. The request
represents a $1,221,734,000 increase, or 44 percent, over
fiscal year 1995 appropriations. These funds are necessary to
ensure closure schedules can be met and anticipated savings
will be realized. In addition, funding is essential for
accelerated cleanup which is necessary for reuse of surplus
properties and future job creation.
The Committee, in appropriating such funds, has provided
the Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by
Service, by function and by base. The Committee, in recognizing
the complexities of realigning and closing bases and providing
for environmental restoration, has provided such flexibility to
allow the Office of the Secretary of Defense to monitor the
program execution of the Services and to redistribute
unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid delays and to
effect timely execution of realignment and closures along with
environmental restoration.
The following table displays the total amount appropriated
for each round of base closure including amounts recommended
for fiscal year 1996:
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
[Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1990
through fiscal Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 Total
year 1994 enacted recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I.............................. $2,585,230,000 $87,600,000 NA $2,672,830,000
Part II............................. 3,476,610,000 \2\ 398,700,000 $964,843,000 4,840,153,000
Part III............................ \1\ 636,308,000 \3\ 2,290,858,000 2,148,480,000 5,075,646,000
Part IV............................. NA NA 784,569,000 784,569,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 6,698,148,000 2,777,158,000 3,897,892,000 13,373,198,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes rescission of $507,692,000 (P.L. 103-211).
\2\ Includes transfer of $133,000,000 from ``Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.''
\3\ Includes rescission of $32,000,000 (P.L. 104-6).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment
and Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have
appropriated a total of $9,475,306,000 for the entire program
for fiscal years 1990 through 1995. Within this total,
statutory language has provided that not less than
$1,965,700,000 has been available for activities associated
with environmental restoration. Against this ``floor,'' the
Department has allocated $2,330,000,000 for environmental
restoration.
The Committee is concerned that the design and cost of
environmental restoration efforts should be tailored to match
the proposed re-use of an installation in order to assure that
costs are reasonable and affordable. Therefore, for funds
provided for fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends
statutory language to establish a ceiling on the level of
funding for environmental restoration, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling on
Account Total program environmental
restoration costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC I............................ NA NA
BRAC II........................... $964,843,000 $224,800,000
BRAC III.......................... 2,148,480,000 232,300,000
BRAC IV........................... 784,569,000 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statutory ceiling established by the Committee is equal
to the Department's execution plan for fiscal year 1996.
construction projects
The Department of Defense has requested a total of
$1,100,000,000 within the fiscal year 1996 budget request for
base realignment and closure for construction projects funded
under the Base Realignment and Closure Accounts, Parts II and
III. The Committee recommends full funding for these important
projects. The Committee finds it important that the Congress be
advised of any programmatic changes. Therefore, any change in a
project shall be considered a change in a specifically
authorized and appropriated project and all limitations and
notification procedures shall apply to these construction
projects in the same manner as within the ``Active and Reserve
Component'' accounts. The Committee provides approval and
appropriated funds for the following construction projects:
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
[Fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, Base Realignment and Closure, fiscal
year 1996 BRAC military construction projects]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended
Component/State/project description BRAC round (thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army 91 BRAC construction, fiscal year 1996: .......... ..............
Arizona: .......... ..............
Fort Huachuca: .......... ..............
Hospital/Dental Clinic (38300).. II $2,250
---------------
Subtotal, Army, Arizona....... .......... 2,250
California: .......... ..............
Sacramento Army Depot: .......... ..............
Reserve Center Renovation
(45589)........................ II 2,000
---------------
Subtotal, Army, California.... .......... 2,000
===============
Colorado: .......... ..............
Fort Carson: .......... ..............
Prime Care Clinic (38437)....... II 4,300
---------------
Subtotal, Army, Colorado...... .......... 4,300
===============
Maryland: .......... ..............
Adelphi Research Laboratory: .......... ..............
Scale Model Facility (27365).... II 1,500
---------------
Subtotal, Army, Maryland...... .......... 1,500
===============
Massachusetts: .......... ..............
Fort Devens: .......... ..............
Ammo Supply Point (41792)....... II 2,750
---------------
Subtotal, Army, Massachusetts. .......... 2,750
===============
South Carolina: .......... ..............
Fort Jackson: .......... ..............
Hospital Addition/Clinic (38310) II 5,400
Bachelor Officers Quarters
(38289)........................ II 10,400
---------------
Subtotal, Army, South Carolina .......... 15,800
===============
Planning and design............. II 215
===============
Total for Army 91 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 28,815
===============
Army 93 BRAC construction, fiscal year 1996: .......... ..............
Michigan: .......... ..............
Detroit Arsenal: .......... ..............
Mobility Center Laboratory
(42673)........................ III 5,141
---------------
Subtotal, Army, Michigan...... .......... 5,141
===============
Virginia: .......... ..............
Fort Belvoir: .......... ..............
Operations and Training Facility
(42678)........................ III 4,950
---------------
Subtotal, Army, Virginia...... .......... 4,950
===============
Total for Army 93 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 10,091
===============
Navy 91 BRAC construction, fiscal year 1996: .......... ..............
California: .......... ..............
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp
Pendleton: .......... ..............
Aircraft Maintenance Facilities
(518T)......................... II 38,230
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, California.... .......... 38,230
===============
Pennsylvania: .......... ..............
Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia: .......... ..............
Utilities Reconfiguration (597S) II 13,000
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Pennsylvania.. .......... 13,000
===============
Planning and design............. II 16,950
===============
Total for Navy 91 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 68,180
===============
Navy 93 BRAC construction, fiscal year 1996: .......... ..............
California: .......... ..............
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
Center: .......... ..............
Reserve Center Addition, Alameda
(149T)......................... III 7,900
Marine Corps Air Station Camp
Pendleton: .......... ..............
Aircraft Parking Apron (026T)... III 14,320
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters and
Physical Fitness Center (028T). III 10,750
Maintenance Facility (031T)..... III 18,210
Training and Administrative
Facility (027T)................ III 3,160
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
Aircraft Maintenance Complex
(006T)......................... III 61,193
Airfield Parking and Pads (001T) III 47,552
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters
(002T)......................... III 38,654
Admin and Training Facilities
(003T)......................... III 16,300
Operational Support Complex
(008T)......................... III 14,420
Utilities Improvement (009T).... III 19,750
Maintenance Facilities (010T)... III 22,940
Naval Exchange Laundry and Dry
Cleaning (389T)................ III 2,440
Building Conversion (720T)...... III 1,700
Fleet Combat Training Center,
Pacific, San Diego
Medical Research Laboratory
(384T)......................... III 685
Fleet Training Center, San Diego
Applied Instruction Building
(023T)......................... III 8,403
Navy Public Works Center, San Diego
Public Works Shop (175T)........ III 2,920
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, California.... .......... 291,297
===============
DIstrict of Columbia:
Strategic Systems Program,
Washington:
Building Renovation (003T)...... III 4,500
Washington Navy Yard:
Building Renovation (002T)...... III 18,354
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, District of
Columbia..................... .......... 22,854
===============
Florida:
Navy Air Station, Pensacola:
Consolidate Training Building
(686T)......................... III 27,100
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters
(687T)......................... III 39,700
Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville:
Administrative Building (220T).. II 11,000
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Florida....... .......... 77,800
===============
Hawaii:
Navy Public Works Center, Pearl
Harbor:
Utility System Modification
(539T)......................... III 2,800
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe
Bay:
Helicopter Landing Pad (287T)... III 1,250
Maintenance Hangar Alterations
(0270T)........................ III 13,400
Ordnance Facilities (508T)...... III 2,800
Aircraft Rinse Facility
Modification (269T)............ III 1,850
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Hawaii........ .......... 22,100
===============
Illinois:
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes:
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters
(619T)......................... III 23,700
Brig (579T)..................... III 420
Child Development Center (583T). III 1,700
Elevator Trainer School (601T).. III 2,650
Medical Clinic Addition (584T).. III 6,090
Training Building Renovations
(581T)......................... III 3,250
Fire Station (164T)............. III 2,560
Recruit Training Command, Great
Lakes:
Dental Clinic Alterations (604T) III 9,595
Medical Clinic Alterations
(590T)......................... III 3,218
Medical Clinic Addition (586T).. III 4,047
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Illinois...... .......... 57,230
===============
Maryland:
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian
Head:
Explosive Test Facility (146T).. III 10,300
Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent
River:
Administrative Facilities (960T) III 29,400
Propulsion System Evaluation
Facility (953T)................ III 25,750
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Maryland...... .......... 65,450
===============
Nevada:
Naval Air Station, Fallon:
Battalion Unit Equipment Shop
(316T)......................... III 1,050
Domestic Water Storage (319T)... III 2,230
Waste Water System Improvement
(320T)......................... III 1,300
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Nevada........ .......... 4,580
===============
Tennessee:
Engineering Development Center,
Arnold AFB, Tullahoma:
Propulstion System Laboratory
(159T)......................... III 51,405
Naval Air Station, Memphis:
Building Conversion (323T)...... III 1,300
Building Conversion (324T)...... III 7,400
Installation of Telephone Switch
(322T)......................... III 5,010
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Tennessee..... .......... 65,115
===============
Texas:
Naval Air Station, Fort Worth:
Aircraft Support Facilities
(102T)......................... III 19,886
Administrative and Supply
Building (140T)................ III 860
Administrative/Supply Building
Alterations (106T)............. III 4,730
Building Alterations and
Additions (101T)............... III 9,523
Child Development Center (121T). III 2,010
Jet Engine Test Cell (104T)..... III 13,840
Medical and Dental Clinic (103T) III 4,510
Reserve Training Building (108T) III 17,300
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Texas........ .......... 72,659
===============
Virginia:
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek:
Underway Replenishment Operator
Training Facility (390T)....... III 4,300
Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, Quantico:
Marine Corps Manpower Center
(465T)......................... III 17,406
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Virginia..... .......... 21,706
===============
Washington:
Naval Weapons Station Detachment,
Port Hadlock:
High Explosive Magazines (298T). III 5,100
Pudget Sound Naval Shipyard,
Bremerton:
Parking Garage (300T)........... III 14,400
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island:
Aircraft Parking Apron
Alterations (603T)............. III 4,500
Engine Maintenance Shop Addition
(612T)......................... III 4,300
Flight Simulator Building
Addition (605T)................ III 4,090
Ground Support Equipment Shop
(600T)......................... III 3,660
Hangar Alteration (608T)........ III 4,690
Sonobuoy Storage Facility (615T) III 2,200
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Washington.... .......... 42,940
===============
Midway Island:
Naval Air Facility:
Demolition (401T)............... III 3,000
---------------
Subtotal, Navy, Midway Island. .......... 3,000
===============
Total Navy 93 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 746,731
===============
Navy 93 BRAC family housing, fiscal year
1996:
California:
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp
Pendleton:
Family Housing (Community
Center) (506T)................. III 1,332
---------------
Subtotal, family housing,
Navy, California............. .......... 1,332
===============
Florida:
Naval Air Station, Pensacola:
Family Housing--116 units (406T) III 10,790
---------------
Subtotal, family housing,
Navy, Florida................ .......... 10,790
===============
Illinois:
Naval Public Works Center, Great
Lakes:
Family Housing--100 units (401T) III 13,580
---------------
Subtotal, family housing,
Navy, Illinois............... .......... 13,580
===============
Rhode Island:
Naval Engineering Training Center,
Newport:
Demolish Family Housing--400
units (500T)................... III 2,000
---------------
Subtotal, family housing,
Navy, Rhode Island........... .......... 2,000
===============
Washington:
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor:
Family Housing--34 units (404T) III 4,840
---------------
Subtotal, family housing,
Navy, Washington............. .......... 4,840
===============
Total 93 BRAC family housing,
Navy, fiscal year 1996....... .......... 32,542
===============
Air Force 91 BRAC construction, fiscal year
1996:
California:
Vandenberg AFB:
Site Utilities (XUMU963007)..... II 2,900
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force,
California................... .......... 2,900
===============
Colorado:
Buckley ANGB:
Enlisted Dormitory (CRWU953050). II 5,600
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Colorado. .......... 5,600
===============
Maryland:
Fort Meade:
AFIS Audio Visual School (41524) II 14,000
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Maryland. .......... 14,000
===============
North Carolina:
Pope AFB:
Munitions Storage Complex
(TMKH933621)................... II 4,450
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, North
Carolina..................... .......... 4,450
===============
Ohio:
Rickenbacker ANGB:
Alter Base Maintenance Shops
(NL26939686)................... II 1,050
Alter Support Shops (NLZ6939687) II 1,250
Alter Fencing and Utilities
(NLZ26939690).................. II 620
Alter Fuel System Maintenance
Dock (NLZ26939700)............. II 600
Jet Fuel Storage/Distribution
(NLZ26939729).................. II 9,100
Wright-Patterson AFB:
NECAP Complex (NHTV943204)...... II 8,500
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force,.......... .......... 21,120
===============
Oklahoma:
Altus AFB:
Flight Simulator/Academic
Facility (AGGN953006).......... II 10,000
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Oklahoma. .......... 10,000
===============
Texas:
Bergstrom Air Reserve Base:
Conventional Munitions Complex
(BJHZ949003R).................. II 2,100
Add/Alter BCE Complex
(BJHZ949005R).................. II 2,000
Add/Alter Maintenance Shop
(BJHZ949006R).................. II 2,900
Isolate Utilities/Fence
(BJHZ949004R).................. II 680
Alter Vehicle Maintenance
Complex (BJHZ949010)........... II 500
Airmen Dining Hall (BJHZ949009). II 2,400
Base Supply Warehouse
(BJHZ949001R).................. II 2,900
Goodfellow AFB:
Base Pavements (JCGU953002)..... II 1,000
Lackland AFB:
Alter Technical Training
(MPLS913333)................... II 2,250
Randolph AFB:
Base Streets (TYMX953003)....... II 1,700
Sheppard AFB:
Base Roads (VNV9530015)......... II 1,800
Central Preparation Kitchen/
Bakery (VNV953004)............. II 1,800
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Texas.... .......... 22,030
===============
Total Air Force 91 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 80,100
===============
Air Force BRAC 91 family housing, fiscal
year 1996:
Oklahoma:
Altus AFB:
Family Housing--180 units
(AGGN954015)................... II 18,500
---------------
Subtotal, family housing, Air
Force, Oklahoma.............. .......... 18,500
===============
Total Air Force BRAC 91 family
housing, fiscal year 1996.... .......... 18,500
===============
Air Force BRAC 93 construction, fiscal year
1996:
California:
March AF Reserve Base:
Alter Wing HQ Admin (PCZ959001). III 1,350
Alter Medical Training
Facilities (PCZ959003)......... III 1,550
Alter Weapons Storage
(PCZ959008).................... III 1,850
BCE Maintenance Shop/Storage
(PCZ959002).................... III 970
Alter Dining Hall (PCZ959005)... III 1,100
Isolate Utilities/Perimeter
Fence PCZ959004)............... III 2,250
Alter Support Facilities
(PCZ959007).................... III 300
Travis AFB:
Upgrade Roads (XOAT953320)...... III 300
Combat Camera Squadron
Facilities (XDAT963100)........ III 9,900
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force,
California................... .......... 19,570
===============
Florida:
MacDill AFB:
Isolate Utilities (NVZR940081).. III 400
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Florida.. .......... 400
===============
Louisiana:
Barksdale AFB:
HAVE NAP Missile Complex
(AWUB962401)................... III 2,600
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Louisiana .......... 2,600
===============
Massachusetts:
Westover AF Reserve Base:
Alter Aero-Medical Training
(YTPM950047)................... III 480
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force,
Massachusetts................ .......... 480
===============
New Jesey:
McGuire AFB:
Upgrade Roads (PTFL943167)...... III 1,400
Add/Alter Aero-Med Services
Clinic (PTFL943174)............ III 1,950
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, New
Jersey....................... .......... 3,350
===============
New York:
Griffiss AFB:
Northeast Air Defense Sector
Support Facility (JREZ959501).. III 1,900
10th Mountain Complex ANG
(JREZ9449512).................. III 3,150
Alter Consolidated Logistical
Facility (JREZ940055).......... III 3,750
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, New York. .......... 8,800
===============
North Dakota:
Minot AFB:
Aircraft Ground Equipment
Corrosion Control (QJVF952104). III 600
---------------
Subtotal, North Dakota........ .......... 600
===============
South Carolina:
Shaw AFB:
Special Operations Facility
(VLSB943013)................... III 8,400
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, South
Carolina..................... .......... 8,400
===============
Texas:
Lackland AFB:
IAAFA Student Officers Quarters
(MPLS963240)................... III 4,250
IAAFA Tech Training Classroom
(MPLS963241)................... III 4,250
IAAFA Enlisted Dormitory
(MPLS963244)................... III 8,100
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, Texas.... .......... 16,600
===============
Total Air Force 93 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 60,800
===============
Air Force 93 BRAC family housing, fiscal
year 1996:
New Jersey:
McGuire AFB:
Family Housing Improvements (142
Units) (PTFL95400X)............ III 15,900
---------------
Subtotal, Air Force, family
housing, New Jersey.......... .......... 15,900
===============
Total Air Force 93 BRAC family
housing, fiscal year 1996.... .......... 15,900
===============
Defense Logistics Agency 93 BRAC
construction fiscal year 1996:
Ohio:
Defense Electronic Supply Center,
Dayton:
Renovate Operations Space....... III 10,654
---------------
Subtotal, Defense Logistics
Agency, Ohio................. .......... 10,654
===============
Total DLA 93 BRAC
construction, fiscal year
1996......................... .......... 10,654
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Realignment and Closure, Part I
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $87,600,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 0
Committee recommendation in the bill................ 0
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... -87,600,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 was the last year
for appropriations into this account.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part II
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $265,700,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 964,843,000
Committee recommendation in the bill................ 964,843,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +699,143,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends a total of $964,843,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part II for fiscal year 1996. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1996 and an
increase of $699,143,000 above the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1995. Below is the recommended distribution of
funds as requested:
Activity Recommended
Military Construction................................... $177,100,000
Family Housing.......................................... 18,800,000
Environmental........................................... 224,800,000
Operation and Maintenance............................... 554,200,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 200,000
Other................................................... 69,843,000
Revenues................................................ -79,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 964,843,000
fort benjamin harrison, indiana
The Committee understands that the Secretary of the Army is
considering using the existing medical clinic building at Fort
Benjamin Harrison for a VA-run clinic, to include a family
practice clinic, a laboratory, a pharmacy and other facilities
to support all active duty soldiers, military retirees and
their families. The Committee directs the Secretary to follow
through with this proposal and report back to the Committee
within thirty days after enactment of this Act with the status
of this directive.
Base Realignment and Closure, Part III
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation........................\1\ $2,322,858,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... 2,148,480,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 2,148,480,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... -174,378,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
\1\ Excludes rescission of $32,000,000 enacted in P.L. 104-6, and
excludes transfer of $133,000,000 from ``Homeowners Assistance Fund,
Defense''.
The Committee recommends a total of $2,148,480,000 for Base
Realignment and Closure, Part III for fiscal year 1996. This is
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 1996 and a decrease
of $174,378,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year
1995. Below is the recommended distribution of funds as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
requested:
Activity Recommended
Military Construction................................... $828,200,000
Family Housing.......................................... 48,700,000
Environmental........................................... 232,300,000
Operation and Maintenance............................... 921,000,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................ 24,900,000
Other................................................... 93,380,000
Revenues................................................ 0
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 2,148,480,000
Base Realignment and Closure, Part IV
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... 0
Fiscal year 1996 estimate............................... $784,569,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................... 784,569,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 1995 appropriation...................... +784,569,000
Fiscal year 1996 estimate........................... 0
The Committee recommends the budget request of $784,569,000
for Base Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 1996
provided that such funds will be available for construction
only to the extent an official budget justification is
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations, and that such
funds are available solely for approved 1995 base realignments
and closures.
The Committee notes that the budget estimate was derived in
a notional manner. To date, the Department has not indicated
how these funds will be distributed except that a portion of
the funds will be used for site surveys and for planning and
design. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds be
obligated except for site surveys and for planning and design
until the Committees on Appropriations have been provided with
a five year program for executing the 1995 base realignment and
closure plan with justifications (Form 1391) for fiscal year
1996 funds. This five year program shall include planned fiscal
year 1996 expenditures for environmental restoration.
General Provisions
The bill carries a number of routine General Provisions
that have been included for several years.
The Committee recommends three General Provisions which
have not been included heretofore as follows:
Section 123. This section provides transfer authority among
the Homeowners Assistance Fund and the Base Realignment and
Closure Accounts. The Committee directs that any exercise of
this authority must fall under the Committee's standing
procedures for approval of reprogramming requests.
Section 124. This section requires the Army to use George
Air Force Base as the interim airhead for the National Training
Center at Fort Irwin until Barstow-Daggett reaches Initial
Operational Capability as the permanent airhead.
Section 125. This section requires the Army to convey a
portion of the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois to the Lake
County Forest Preserve District, in consideration for which the
District shall provide maintenance and care to the remaining
Fort Sheridan cemetery. This section also permits the Army to
convey remaining surplus property at the former Fort Sheridan
to the Fort Sheridan Joint Planning Committee or its successor,
for fair market value.
Changes in Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted
describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill
which directly or indirectly change the application of existing
law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain
available for more than one year for some programs for which
the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize
such extended availability.
A provision of the ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide''
account which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer
funds to other accounts for military construction or family
housing.
A new account has been established, ``Department of Defense
Family Housing Improvement Fund'', for limited partnership
arrangements with private developers to provide affordable
timely housing for service members.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part II'' states that not more than $224,800,000 of the funds
appropriated shall be available solely for environmental
restoration.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part III'' states that not more than $232,300,000 of the funds
appropriated shall be available solely for environmental
restoration.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part IV'' states that funds will be available for construction
only to the extent detailed budget justification is transmitted
to the Committees on Appropriations.
A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account,
Part IV'' states that funds are available solely for the
approved 1995 base realignments and closures.
Section 101 of the General Provisions states that none of
the funds appropriated in Military Construction Appropriations
Acts shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-
fee contract for work, where cost estimates exceed $25,000, to
be performed within the United States, except Alaska, without
the specific approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense,
except in the case of contracts for environmental restoration
at base closure sites.
Section 102 of the General Provisions permits use of funds
for hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 103 of the General Provisions permits use of funds
for Defense Access Roads.
Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases inside the continental United States
for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of
funds for purchase of land or land easements.
Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of
funds to acquire land, prepare a site, or install utilities for
any family housing except housing for which funds have been
made available.
Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of
minor construction funds to transfer or relocate activities
among installations.
Section 108 of the General Provisions prohibits the
procurement of steel unless American producers, fabricators,
and manufacturers have been allowed to compete.
Section 109 of the General Provisions prohibits payment of
real property taxes in foreign nations.
Section 110 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases overseas without prior notification.
Section 111 of the General Provisions establishes a
threshold for American preference of $500,000 relating to
architect and engineer services in Japan, in any NATO member
country, and in the Arabian Gulf.
Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes
preference for American contractors for military construction
in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf.
Section 113 of the General Provisions requires the
Secretary of Defense to give prior notice to Congress of
military exercises involving construction in excess of
$100,000.
Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations
during the last two months of the fiscal year.
Section 115 of the General Provisions permits funds
appropriated in prior years to be available for construction
authorized during the current session of Congress.
Section 116 of the General Provisions permits the use of
expired or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any
project being completed with lapsed funds.
Section 117 of the General Provisions permits obligation of
funds from more than one fiscal year to execute a construction
project, provided that the total obligation for such project is
consistent with the total amount appropriated for the project.
Section 118 of the General Provisions allows expired funds
to be transferred to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations,
Construction, Defense'' account.
Section 119 of the General Provisions directs the Secretary
of Defense to report annually regarding the specific actions to
be taken during the current fiscal year to encourage other
member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Japan, Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to
assume a greater share of the common defense burden.
Section 120 of the General Provisions allows transfer of
proceeds from ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I''
to the continuing Base Realignment and Closure accounts.
Section 121 of the General Provisions prohibits expenditure
of funds except in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 122 of the General Provisions states the Sense of
the Congress notifying recipients of equipment or products
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
in this Act to purchase American-made equipment and products.
Section 123 of the General Provisions permits the transfer
of funds among the ``Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense'' and
the Base Realignment and Closure accounts.
Section 124 of the General Provisions directs the Army to
use George AFB as the interim airhead for the National Training
Center at Fort Irwin until Barstow-Daggett reaches Initial
Operational Capability as the permanent airhead.
Section 125 of the General Provisions requires the Army to
convey a portion of the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois to the
Lake County Forest Preserve District, in consideration for
which the District shall provide maintenance and care to the
remaining Fort Sheridan cemetery. This section also permits the
Army to convey remaining surplus property at the former Fort
Sheridan to the Fort Sheridan Joint Planning Committee or its
successor, for fair market value.
The Committee recommends deleting the following General
Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 1995 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-307), because these
provisions are no longer required [section numbers refer to
P.L. 103-307]:
Section 114, regarding Family Housing Management Account
transfers.
Section 122, regarding supplemental appropriations act
provisions for Guam earthquake.
Section 123, regarding cancellation of budgetary resources
based on procurement reform.
Section 126, regarding fraudulent use of ``made in
America'' labels.
Section 127, regarding Naval Reserve Center land
conveyance.
Section 128, regarding Army research facility land
conveyance.
Compliance With Rule XIII--Clause 3
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends no
changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations
in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
Military Construction, Army
Military Construction, Navy
Military Construction, Air Force
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
Military Construction, Army National Guard
Military Construction, Air National Guard
Military Construction, Army Reserve
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program
Family Housing, Construction, Army
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Army
Family Housing, Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine
Corps
Family Housing, Construction, Air Force
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Family Housing, Construction, Defense-Wide
Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV
The Committee notes that authorization for appropriations
in this bill is contained in H.R. 1530, reported by the
National Security Committee on May 24, 1995. It is anticipated
the authorization will be enacted into law later this year.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, a statement is required describing the
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. Sections
115, 118, 120, and 123 of the General Provisions, and language
included under ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'' and
``Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund''
provide certain transfer authority.
Rescission of Funds
In compliance with clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends no
rescissions in the bill, as reported.
Inflationary Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of
Representatives, the Committee estimates that enactment of this
bill would have no overall inflationary impact on prices and
costs in the operation of the national economy.
Comparisons With Budget Resolution
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that
authority compares with the reports submitted under section
602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602(b) Allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary....................... $11,198 $9,613 $11,198 $9,613
Mandatory........................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Spending Authority
This bill provides no advance spending authority.
Five-Year Projection of Outlays
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget authority, fiscal year 1996...................... $11,197,995
Outlays:
1996................................................ 3,126,178
1997................................................ 3,287,378
1998................................................ 2,157,623
1999................................................ 1,404,004
2000 and beyond..................................... 1,222,812
The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax
expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan
guarantee commitments under existing law.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the new budget authority and outlays provided by the
accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local
governments are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
New budget authority.................................... 0
Fiscal year 1996 outlays resulting therefrom............ 0
State List
The following is a complete listing, by State and country,
of the Committee's recommendations for military construction
and family housing projects: