[House Report 108-173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 108-173
======================================================================
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
_______
June 23, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Knollenberg, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2559]
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, 2004.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 2
Conformance With Authorization Bill.............................. 2
Summary of Committee Recommendation.............................. 2
Items of Special Interest........................................ 5
Amended Budget Submission........................................ 5
Amended Budget Submission Tables and Accompanying Explanations... 6
Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction.......... 9
Utility Privatization............................................ 9
Environmentally Preferable Product Goals......................... 10
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization....................... 10
Military Construction:
Army......................................................... 11
Navy......................................................... 13
Air Force.................................................... 14
Defense-wide................................................. 15
Army National Guard.......................................... 16
Air National Guard........................................... 17
Army Reserve................................................. 19
Naval Reserve................................................ 19
Air Force Reserve............................................ 19
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 20
Family Housing Overview.......................................... 20
Family Housing:
Army......................................................... 22
Navy......................................................... 23
Air Force.................................................... 24
Defense-wide................................................. 25
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............ 25
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.............................. 26
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 26
General Provisions............................................... 27
Changes in Application of Existing Law........................... 30
Definition of Program, Project and Activity...................... 30
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law............................. 31
Transfer of Funds................................................ 31
Rescission of Funds.............................................. 31
Constitutional Authority......................................... 32
Comparisons With Budget Resolution............................... 32
Five-Year Projection of Outlays.................................. 32
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments.............. 33
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 33
Full Committee Votes............................................. 33
State List....................................................... 34
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority.................... 54
Purpose of the Bill
The Military Construction Appropriations Bill provides
funding for planning, design, construction, alteration, and
improvement of facilities and family housing located on reserve
and active duty military installations around the world.
Additionally, the bill provides funds for the U.S. share of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment
Program (NSIP). Finally, the bill provides funds to execute
projects required under the base realignment and closure (BRAC)
authorities.
Conformance With Authorization Bill
On May 22, 2003, the House passed the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2004 (H.R. 1588) by a vote of 361 to 68.
At this time, conference action on the legislation has not
concluded; therefore, projects in this bill are approved
subject to authorization.
Summary of Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $9,196,000,000 in new budget
authority for the Department of Defense (DOD), Military
Construction Appropriations bill. This recommendation is
$41,096,000 below the President's request and $1,502,800,000
below the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The following table
compares the amounts proposed in the bill to amounts
appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
Items of Special Interest
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request of
$9,237,096,000 represents a decrease of $1,461,704,000, or 14
percent, from the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of
$10,698,800,000. The request includes $4,852,505,000 for
military construction, $3,959,164,000 for family housing,
$370,427,000 for base realignment and closure, and $55,000,000
for foreign currency fluctuations.
The Administration's original budget submission for this
bill totaled $9,036,781,000. The request increased as a result
of three items: (1) the transfer of $25,500,000 from the
Defense Appropriations Bill to this appropriations measure by
an amended budget submission for the purpose of constructing a
Special Operations Forces facility; (2) the transfer of
$119,815,000 for Chemical Demilitarization construction
activities from the Defense Appropriations measure to this
bill; and (3) the estimate by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) of the Administration's request for a general provision
related to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Construction,
Defense'' account, which results in a re-appropriation of
$55,000,000. Each action is explained in further detail at the
appropriate places in this report.
Amended Budget Submission
In March 2003, the Secretary of Defense asked the Combatant
Commanders to review whether fiscal year 2003 enacted and
fiscal year 2004 requested military construction projects
support changing military objectives overseas. More
specifically, the Combatant Commanders were asked to assess the
strategic environment of their areas of responsibility (AOR)
and to establish a basing plan that enhanced their abilities to
project power, to support operations, and to conduct engagement
activities. Based on each Commander's recommendations, the
President submitted a budget amendment to the Administration's
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
The Committee agrees with the merits of reviewing the
existing basing structure and relocating troops if appropriate.
Currently, 110,000 American service men and women serve in
Europe. The majority of them are stationed in Germany where the
United States has historic ties. Furthermore, the most robust
and secure power projection infrastructure is located in
Germany. Nevertheless, most would agree that much of the
existing basing structure supports a containment posture that
is no longer applicable to today's military threats.
Similarly, 37,000 troops live and work in 41 small
installations scattered along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in
Korea. Most facilities are at least 50 years old, are in
dilapidated condition, and cannot support 21st century
technologies. Like bases in Germany, the Korea installations
support a containment strategy that has been overtaken by
today's technologically advanced military capabilities.
The Committee understands that developing comprehensive
basing strategies is far more complicated than simply reducing
the footprint in order to bring the troops ``back home.''
Decisions of this magnitude deserve deliberate, thoughtful, and
strategic thinking. For these reasons, the Committee agreed in
April 2002, to the Department's request to delay by several
months the submission of a comprehensive overseas basing
strategy that was due April 1, 2002. At this time, that report
is more than a year overdue.
DOD's amended budget submission purports to execute the
initial stages of a re-basing strategy by reducing military
construction requirements in Germany and Iceland, reallocating
funding requirements in Korea, and increasing funding for
installations in the United States. Unfortunately, the
submission neither explains the re-basing strategy nor
justifies all the changes, making it difficult to analyze its
efficacy. For example, what should the Committee imply from the
amended submission? Have new threats and missions been
identified? What size force is required to meet those threats
and missions? What facilities are needed to maintain and train
the force? Has a cost-benefit analysis been completed in each
AOR that compares the costs of maintaining existing
installations with the costs of constructing similar facilities
in new locations? Are existing installations effectively and
successfully carrying out their mission requirements?
With reservations, the Committee recommends funding the
majority of projects proposed in the amended budget submission,
but retains the prerogative to eliminate these projects in
conference should the questions asked above not be answered by
the Department.
Amended Budget Submission Tables and Accompanying Explanations
The budget amendment proposes to realign previously
appropriated projects from various places in South Korea to
Camp Humphreys. Though the scope and amount of the proposed
projects do not change, as a technical matter the Committee
believes new authority and new appropriations are required
because the term ``realignment'' is not recognized in the
Budget Act. Therefore, the Committee recommends rescinding
$107,833,000 from prior year appropriations and re-
appropriating the funds to the proposed projects at Camp
Humphreys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Realign from Realign to Project title Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Army...... Camp Bonifas........ Camp Humphreys...... Physical Fitness 4,350,000
Center.
Military Construction, Army...... Camp Castle......... Camp Humphreys...... Physical Fitness 6,800,000
Center.
Military Construction, Army...... Camp Hovey.......... Camp Humphreys...... Barracks Complex.... 25,000,000
Military Construction, Army...... Yongsan............. Camp Humphreys...... Barracks Complex.... 40,000,000
Military Construction, Def-wide.. Seoul............... Camp Humphreys...... Middle School....... 31,683,000
------------
Total...................... .................... .................... .................... 107,833,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the amended budget submission requests
$448,120,000 for 26 new construction projects. The Committee,
however, recommends appropriating $515,935,000 for the new
requirements, of which $107,833,000 is for the five
``realigned'' projects at Camp Humphreys, Korea, discussed
above. The new requirements are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/location Project title Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Army:
Georgia: Fort Stewart................... Command & Control Facility.... $25,050,000 $25,050,000
Georgia: Fort Stewart................... Barracks (Phase I)............ $17,000,000 17,000,000
Kansas: Fort Leavenworth................ Lewis & Clark Instructional 28,000,000 0
Facility.
New York: Fort Drum..................... Mountain Ramp Expansion....... 11,000,000 11,000,000
Oklahoma: Fort Sill..................... Consolidated Maintenance 13,000,000 13,000,000
Complex.
Texas: Fort Hood........................ Urban Assault Course.......... 2,800,000 2,800,000
Germany: Vilseck........................ Barracks Complex (Phase I).... 12,100,000 12,100,000
Italy: Aviano AB........................ Joint Deployment Facility 13,000,000 13,000,000
(Phase II).
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Barracks Complex.............. 41,000,000 41,000,000
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Barracks Complex.............. 35,000,000 35,000,000
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Barracks Complex.............. 29,000,000 29,000,000
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Physical Fitness Training 0 4,350,000
Center.
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Physical Fitness Training 0 6,800,000
Center.
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Barracks Complex.............. 0 25,000,000
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Barracks Complex.............. 0 40,000,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. 226,950,000 275,100,000
===================================
Military Construction, Navy:
Italy: Sigonella NAS.................... Base Operations Support 14,679,000 14,679,000
Facility (Ph II).
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. 14,679,000 14,679,000
===================================
Military Construction, Air Force:
California: Vandenberg AFB.............. Consolidated Fitness Center... 16,500,000 16,500,000
Florida: Hurlburt Field................. AFC2TIG System/Warrior School 19,400,000 19,400,000
Complex.
Washington: McChord AFB................. Upgrade Mission Support Center 19,000,000 19,000,000
Germany: Ramstein AB.................... Civil Engineer Midfield 6,250,000 0
Complex.
United Kingdom, RAF Lakenheath.......... Mobility Cargo Processing 11,900,000 11,900,000
Center.
Worldwide Unspecified................... Planning and Design........... 4,771,000 0
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. 77,821,000 66,800,000
===================================
Military Construction, Defense-wide:
Florida: MacDill AFB.................... Special Operations Forces 25,500,000 25,500,000
Facility.
Korea: Camp Humphreys................... Middle School................. 0 31,683,000
Worldwide Unspecified................... Planning and Design........... 997,000 0
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. 26,497,000 57,183,000
===================================
Family Housing Construction, Army:
Alaska: Fort Wainwright................. Replace 40 units.............. 20,000,000 20,000,000
Arizona: Fort Huachuca.................. Replace 60 units.............. 14,000,000 14,000,000
Kansas: Fort Riley...................... Replace 32 units.............. 8,300,000 8,300,000
Kansas: Fort Riley...................... Replace 30 units.............. 8,400,000 8,400,000
Oklahoma: Fort Sill..................... Replace 50 units.............. 10,000,000 10,000,000
Oklahoma: Fort Sill..................... Replace 70 units.............. 15,373,000 15,373,000
Utah: Dugway Proving Ground............. Improve 162 units............. 8,100,000 8,100,000
Virginia: Fort Lee...................... Replace 90 units.............. 18,000,000 18,000,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. 102,173,000 102,173,000
===================================
Total................................. .............................. 448,120,000 515,935,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To finance the new requirements identified in the amended
budget, the Administration proposes deleting 16 projects in the
amount of $269,247,000 from the original fiscal year 2004
request because they no longer support the Defense Department's
overseas basing strategy. The project deletions are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/location Project title Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Army:
Germany: Bamberg............. Barracks--Warner $8,000,000
7083.
Germany: Bamberg............. Barracks--Warner 9,900,000
7004.
Germany: Darmstadt........... Barracks--Cambrai 7,700,000
Fritsch 4029.
Germany: Mannheim............ Barracks--Sullivan 4,300,000
205.
Germany: Schweinfurt......... Modified Record Fire 7,500,000
Range.
Germany: Wuerzberg........... Barracks--Leighton.. 18,500,000
Korea: Camp Casey............ Barracks Complex-- 41,000,000
Engineer Drive.
Korea: Camp Casey............ Barracks Complex-- 35,000,000
Ace Boulevard.
Korea: Camp Hovey............ Barracks Complex.... 29,000,000
----------------
Subtotal................... .................... 160,900,000
================
Military Construction, Air Force:
Germany: Spangdahlem AB...... Fitness Center...... 17,117,000
Germany: Spangdahlem AB...... Southgate/Contractor 2,800,000
Inspection Station.
----------------
Subtotal................... .................... 19,917,000
================
Family Housing Construction,
Army:
Germany: Ansbach............. Improve 108 units... 18,973,000
Germany: Mannheim............ Improve 96 units.... 16,500,000
Germany: Wiesbaden........... Improve 96 units.... 14,400,000
----------------
Subtotal................... .................... 49,873,000
================
Family Housing Construction, Air
Force:
Germany: Spangdahlem AB...... Improve 55 units.... 21,019,000
Turkey: Incirlik AB.......... Replace 100 units... 17,538,000
----------------
Subtotal................... .................... 38,557,000
================
Total...................... .................... 269,247,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, pursuant to the budget amendment the Committee
recommends rescinding $153,373,000 from funds made available
for 17 construction projects in the fiscal year 2003 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 107-249).
Additionally, the Committee rescinds $107,833,000 from funds
made available for five projects in Korea requested as
``realignments'' in the budget amendment. Total project
rescissions are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/location Project title Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Army:
Germany: Bamberg........................ Child Development Center...... -$7,000,000 -$7,000,000
Germany: Bamberg........................ Barracks Complex--Warner...... -10,200,000 -10,200,000
Germany: Coleman Barracks............... Upgrade Access Control Points. -1,350,000 -1,350,000
Germany: Darmstadt...................... Modified Record Fire Range.... -3,500,000 -3,500,000
Germany: Mannheim....................... Barracks Complex--Coleman..... -42,000,000 -42,000,000
Germany: Schweinfurt.................... Central Vehicle Wash Facility. -2,000,000 -2,000,000
Korea: Camp Bonifas..................... Physical Fitness Training 0 -4,350,000
Center.
Korea: Camp Castle...................... Physical Fitness Training 0 -6,800,000
Center.
Korea: Camp Hovey....................... Barracks Complex.............. 0 -25,000,000
Korea: K-16 Airfield.................... Barracks Complex.............. 0 -40,000,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. -66,050,000 -142,200,000
===================================
Military Construction, Navy:
Iceland: Keflavik NAS................... Combined Dining Facility...... -14,679,000 -14,679,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. -14,679,000 -14,679,000
===================================
Military Construction, Defense-wide:
Germany: Spangdahlem AB................. Elementary School Classroom -997,000 -997,000
Addition.
Korea: Seoul............................ Middle School Replacement..... 0 -31,683,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. -997,000 -32,680,000
===================================
Family Housing Construction, Army:
Germany: Darmstadt...................... Improve 48 units.............. -4,200,000 -4,200,000
Germany: Mannheim....................... Improve 72 units.............. -10,400,000 -10,400,000
Germany: Mannheim....................... Improve 60 units.............. -10,000,000 -10,000,000
Germany: Schweinfurt.................... Improve 234 units............. -7,600,000 -7,600,000
Germany: Vilseck........................ Improve 36 units.............. -3,900,000 -3,900,000
Germany: Wuerzburg...................... Improve 136 units............. -11,200,000 -11,200,000
Korea: Yongsan.......................... Improve 8 units............... -1,900,000 -1,900,000
Korea: Yongsan.......................... Replace 10 units.............. -3,100,000 -3,100,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. -52,300,000 -52,300,000
===================================
Family Housing Construction, Air Force:
Germany: Spangdahlem AB................. Improve 192 units............. -19,347,000 -19,347,000
-----------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. .............................. -19,347,000 -19,347,000
===================================
Total................................. .............................. -153,373,000 -261,206,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction
To prepare for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the
Department of Defense (DOD) spent at least $750,000,000 of
operation and maintenance (O&M) funds on construction projects,
some of which were military construction projects. To justify
these expenditures, DOD followed a Memorandum issued by the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) on February 27, 2003.
This memorandum purported to establish a practice of expending
O&M funds for military construction projects by changing, in
effect, the definition of military construction without
amending the underlying law. Despite repeated Congressional
inquiries about this procedure, DOD continued the practice
without keeping Congress informed.
In the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 108-11), the conferees included legislation
prohibiting this practice through the end of the fiscal year.
To prohibit DOD from resurrecting this practice when the
Wartime Supplemental expires, the House Armed Services
Committee (HASC) included a proposal in the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2004 that limits the
scope of the Department's unbridled use of O&M funds.
Additionally, the HASC proposed report language directing DOD
to report to Congress quarterly on its use of operation and
maintenance funds for construction until the NDAA for fiscal
year 2004 is enacted.
The Committee endorses the action of the HASC, and looks
forward to reviewing final legislation curtailing this action
given its direct impact on the appropriations process.
Utility Privatization
Recently, the Committee reviewed several proposed water and
wastewater utility privatization projects recommended for
approval. Experience demonstrates that projects that apply
common commercial business practices associated with long term
capital intense projects--amortization, depreciation based on
IRS guidelines, and the use of reversion provisions--have the
greatest potential for success and significantly reduce long-
term costs to the government.
In executing water and wastewater utility privatization
projects, the Department is encouraged strongly to exercise
such flexibility consistent with the principles of the
Competition In Contracting Act and to allow competitors to
offer their most competitive proposals for these very long-term
non-traditional contracts. It is particularly important that
requests for proposals be flexible to preclude limiting
competition or inadvertently excluding the most advantageous
offers.
Thus, the Committee encourages the use of the
aforementioned common commercial business practices that
improve the viability of the overall program by encouraging
competition and offer proven potential to reduce long-term
utility service costs. The Committee directs the Department to
report to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment
of this bill regarding the water and wastewater utility
privatization program and efforts to fully implement these
program elements.
Environmentally Preferable Product Goals
The Committee recognizes the importance of using
Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP) goals in government
contracts and acquisitions. The Committee emphasizes, however,
that Office of Management and Budget-mandated life cycle
assessment procedures should be taken into consideration to
develop EPP goals that are both realistic and achievable. An
appropriate EPP goal strives for the best value combination of
the lowest cost and the least environmental impact.
Department of Defense contracts containing the goal of ``No
materials or building components that were manufactured with,
or that contain, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or other chlorine-
based compounds'' serves as a primary example of an unrealistic
and unachievable EPP goal.
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
The Department is directed to continue describing on form
1390 the backlog of Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
(SRM) requirements at installations with future construction
projects. For troop housing requests, form 1391 should describe
any SRM conducted in the past two years. Likewise, future
requirements for unaccompanied housing at the corresponding
installation should be included. Additionally, the forms should
include English equivalent measurements for projects presented
in metric measurement. Rules for funding repairs of facilities
under the Operation and Maintenance account are described
below:
Components of the facility may be repaired by
replacement. Such replacement can be up to current standards or
codes.
Interior arrangements and restorations may be
included as repair.
Additions, new facilities, and functional
conversions must be performed as military construction
projects. Such projects may be done concurrently with repair
projects as long as the final conjunctively funded project is a
complete and usable facility.
The appropriate service secretary shall notify the
appropriate committees 21 days prior to carrying out any repair
project with an estimated cost in excess of $7,500,000.
Military Construction, Army
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $1,683,710,000
Rescission........................................ -49,376,000
Emergency appropriation (P.L. 108-11)............. 2,000,000
Total........................................... 1,636,334,000
Fiscal year 2004:
Appropriation estimate............................ 1,602,060,000
Rescission........................................ -66,050,000
Total........................................... 1,536,010,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation..................................... 1,533,660,000
Rescissions....................................... -183,615,000
Total........................................... 1,350,045,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -286,289,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... -185,965,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $1,350,045,000 for
Military Construction, Army, for fiscal year 2004. This is a
decrease of $185,965,000 below the budget request and a
decrease of $286,289,000 below the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
Alabama--Anniston Army Depot: General Instruction
Building.--Of the amount provided for unspecified minor
construction in this account, the Committee directs that not
less than $1,050,000 be made available to execute this project.
Alabama--Anniston Army Depot: Powertrain Maintenance
Facility.--The Committee is aware this project is required at
Anniston Army Depot. The facility is critical to maintaining
the material stored at the installation. The Committee
encourages the Army to move this project forward from the
fiscal year 2007 Future Years Defense Program.
Alabama--Redstone Arsenal: Munitions Training Facility.--Of
the amount provided for planning and design in this account,
the Committee directs that not less than $158,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
California--Fort Irwin: Explosives Ordnance Disposal
Operations Facility.--Of the amount provided for unspecified
minor construction in this account, the Committee directs that
not less than $1,500,000 be made available to execute this
project.
Colorado--Fort Carson: Barracks Complex--Hospital Area.--Of
the amount provided for planning and design in this account,
the Committee directs that not less than $500,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
Georgia--Fort Gordon: Training Aids Center.--The Committee
is aware that the training aid support function at Fort Gordon
is currently being carried out in substandard wooden
structures, constructed during World War II. Clearly, a new
training support center is needed to improve efficiency and
safety at a facility that supports the training needs of the
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force in the continental
United States and in operational theaters around the globe. The
Committee, therefore, is encouraged that the Senate's version
of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2004 (S. 1050)
includes $4,350,000 for this important project.
Maryland--Fort Detrick: Defense Satellite Communications
System Facility.--Of the amount provided for planning and
design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $740,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Texas--Corpus Christi Army Depot: Aircraft Corrosion
Control Facility.--Of the amount provided for planning and
design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $720,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Virginia--Fort Belvoir: Transportation Infrastructure.--The
Committee notes with some distress that the Fort Belvoir Master
Plan, presently being updated, neglects to incorporate a full
review of all existing, and presently planned, transportation
infrastructure and transit, on and surrounding the
installation. This oversight, given the current expansion
plans, force protection alterations, and homeland defense
obligations, needs to be corrected. The Committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to issue a directive that the Master Plan
identify transportation infrastructure improvements necessary
to ensure optimum access and mobility are maintained.
In a related matter, the Committee is also aware of the
serious transportation disruptions caused by the closure of two
main roadways, Woodlawn Road and Beulah Street, through Fort
Belvoir. While these closures may be necessary, the Committee
believes the Army is obligated to develop and budget for a
mitigation plan that addresses immediate, as well as near and
long term solutions to the adverse impacts caused by these road
closures. The original master plan lacked a plan for mass
transit via transit or rail or bus. Access restrictions are a
detriment to public carriers and must be mitigated to ensure
the installation is provided with viable transit service.
Korea--Camp Humphreys: Barracks Projects.--The
Administration's budget amendment proposes: (1) constructing
three new barracks projects at Camp Humphreys at a cost of
$115,000,000; and (2) eliminating three similar projects at
Camps Casey and Hovey. At this time, however, the headquarters
of United States Forces Korea (USFK) does not control the land
on which the new barracks are to be located. Consequently, the
projects are not executable.
The Committee's practice of funding executable projects is
well established. However, given the extraordinary
circumstances associated with accelerating the consolidation of
troops in South Korea, the Committee agrees to provide funds
conditionally for these barracks projects. Specifically, the
Secretary of Defense must certify that the ROK has acquired the
necessary land and has conveyed it to USFK by September 30,
2004. If the deadline is not met, the funds expire.
Most likely, these projects will move forward prior to the
end of the 2004 fiscal year. DOD and USFK have demonstrated
that the Republic of Korea (ROK) is committed to acquiring the
necessary land and conveying it to USFK prior to the end of the
2004 fiscal year. Likewise, an international agreement ratified
by the Korean National Assembly--the Land Partnership Plan--
supports the relocation of troops and the required acquisition
of land. Furthermore, the 34th Security Consultative Meeting
outlining the Future of the Alliance Policy Initiative included
specific guidance requiring the acquisition of this land.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that accelerating
the relocation of U.S. forces to Camp Humphreys makes sense
from a military and foreign policy perspective. Troops will be
safer. Operation and maintenance funds will go further.
Management will improve. Living and working conditions in
facilities and housing will improve.
Korea--Camp Hovey and Camp Stanley: Barracks Complex.--The
Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-
64) provided $61,000,000 for barracks complexes at Camp Hovey
and Camp Stanley. Due to a competitive bidding climate and the
use of standard designs, the Department of the Army realized
significant savings during project execution. As a result, the
Committee rescinds $24,000,000 from funds previously
appropriated for these projects.
Korea--Camp Page: Barracks Complex.--The Military
Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-246)
provided funding for this facility. The project is no longer
needed due to the current repositioning efforts in Korea. As a
result, the Committee rescinds $17,415,000 from amounts made
available under the ``Military Construction, Army'' account in
Public Law 106-246.
Installation Management Agency.--The Committee commends the
Army's Installation Management Agency (IMA), which was
activated this year. The goals of IMA are to transform
installation management by: (1) providing operations and
maintenance funds directly to the installations rather than to
the major commands, and (2) applying standards to facilities
that are common to all Army installations. In other words, the
IMA is committed to providing equitable, effective, and
efficient management at Army installations. The Committee
believes the working relationship between the IMA and senior
mission and operations commanders is vital to meeting these
goals, to ensuring quality installations, and maintaining
mission readiness.
Military Construction, Navy
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $1,305,128,000
Rescission........................................ -1,340,000
Emergency appropriation (P.L. 108-11)............. 48,100,000
Total........................................... 1,351,888,000
Fiscal year 2004:
Appropriation estimate............................ 1,147,537,000
Rescission........................................ -14,679,000
Total........................................... 1,132,858,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation..................................... 1,211,077,000
Rescissions....................................... -39,322,000
Total........................................... 1,171,755,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -180,133,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +38,897,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $1,171,755,000 for
Military Construction, Navy, for fiscal year 2004. This is an
increase of $38,897,000 above the budget request and a decrease
of $180,133,000 below the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Florida--Whiting Field Naval Air Station: Aviation
Maintenance Officer School Modifications.--Of the amount
provided for unspecified minor construction in this account,
the Committee directs that not less than $1,290,000 be made
available to execute this project.
North Carolina--Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station: T-56
Jet Engine Test Cell.--The Military Construction Appropriations
Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-249) provided funding to construct
this facility. The project is no longer needed. As a result,
the Committee rescinds $5,942,000 from funds previously
appropriated for this project.
Pennsylvania--Philadelphia Naval Surface Warfare Center:
Full Scale Electric Drive Test Facility.--Of the amount
provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee
directs that not less than $970,000 be made available for
design of this facility.
Greece--Larissa: NATO Joint Command Headquarters.--The
Department of the Navy, as executive agent, is responsible for
providing U.S. military personnel with support facilities at
the NATO Joint Command Headquarters in Larissa. Over the past
two fiscal years, the Navy received funding to construct
bachelor enlisted quarters at the site. The Navy, however, has
not executed these projects as NATO is reorganizing its command
structure. Because this funding is not required at this time,
the Committee rescinds $12,109,000 from amounts made available
for ``Military Construction, Navy'' in Public Law 107-64, and
rescinds $6,592,000 from amounts made available for ``Military
Construction, Navy'' in Public Law 107-249.
Military Construction, Air Force
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $1,080,247,000
Rescission........................................ -13,281,000
Rescission (P.L. 108-7)........................... -18,600,000
Emergency appropriation (P.L. 108-11)............. 152,900,000
Total........................................... 1,201,266,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 830,671,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 896,136,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -305,130,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +65,465,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $896,136,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force, for fiscal year 2004. This is
an increase of $65,465,000 above the budget request and a
decrease of $305,130,000 below the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
Arizona--Luke AFB: Land Acquisition--Southern Departure
Corridor.--The Committee believes that the acquisition of land
in the Live Ordnance Departure Area southwest of the runway at
Luke AFB is necessary to prevent encroachment. This land
acquisition would increase the margin of safety for live
ordnance flight operations, while preserving critical access to
the Barry M. Goldwater Range. The Committee, therefore,
strongly encourages the Air Force to make this project an
immediate fiscal priority.
California--Travis AFB: Air Mobility Operations Group
Global Reach Deployment Center.--Of the amount provided for
planning and design in this account, the Committee directs that
not less than $1,350,000 be made available for design of this
facility.
Colorado--Buckley AFB: Leadership Development Center.--Of
the amount provided for planning and design in this account,
the Committee directs that not less than $486,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
Florida--Patrick AFB: Child Development Center.--Of the
amount provided for planning and design in this account, the
Committee directs that not less than $603,000 be made available
for design of this facility.
Florida--Patrick AFB: Security Forces Operations
Facility.--Of the amount provided for planning and design in
this account, the Committee directs that not less than $792,000
be made available for design of this facility.
Illinois--Scott AFB: Tanker Airlift Control Center.--Of the
amount provided for planning and design in this account, the
Committee directs that not less than $2,520,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
New Mexico--Holloman AFB: Fire/Crash Rescue Stations.--Of
the amount provided for planning and design in this account,
the Committee directs that not less than $1,350,000 be made
available for design of these facilities.
Ohio--Wright Patterson AFB: Consolidated Fire/Crash Rescue
Station.--Of the amount provided for planning and design in
this account, the Committee directs that not less than $990,000
be made available for design of this facility.
Texas--Brooks AFB: Tri-Service Research Facility.--Of the
amount provided for planning and design in this account, the
Committee directs that not less than $580,000 be made available
for design of this facility.
Texas--Dyess AFB: Fire/Crash Rescue Station.--Of the amount
provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee
directs that not less than $990,000 be made available for
design of this facility.
Utah--Hill AFB: Air Expeditionary Force Deployment
Center.--Of the amount provided for planning and design in this
account, the Committee directs that not less than $531,000 be
made available for design of this facility.
Washington--Fairchild AFB: Mission Support Complex.--Of the
amount provided for planning and design in this account, the
Committee directs that not less than $1,200,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
Military Construction, Defense-wide
(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $869,645,000
Rescission........................................ -2,976,000
Total........................................... 866,669,000
Fiscal year 2004:
Appropriation estimate............................ 815,113,000
Rescission........................................ -997,000
Total........................................... 814,116,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation..................................... 813,613,000
Rescission........................................ -32,680,000
Total........................................... 780,933,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -85,736,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... -33,183,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $780,933,000 for
Military Construction, Defense-wide, for fiscal year 2004. This
is a decrease of $33,183,000 below the budget request and a
decrease of $85,736,000 below the fiscal year 2003 level.
Chemical Demilitarization.--The budget request proposed
consolidating the military construction component of the
Chemical Demilitarization program in the ``Chemical Agents
Munitions Defense'' account funded in the Defense
Appropriations Bill. As in prior years, the Committee
recommends that these requirements be appropriated in this bill
under the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' account. It
is the Committee's view that this does not impact the program
and allows for proper congressional oversight. In the future,
the Department is directed to request military construction
requirements for the program under the ``Military Construction,
Defense-wide'' account.
The following chart displays the fiscal year 2004
increments included in this bill:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/installation Project Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado: Pueblo Depot Activity............... Ammunition Demilitarization $88,388,000 $88,388,000
Facility (Ph. V).
Indiana: Newport Army Ammun. Plant............ Ammunition Demilitarization 15,207,000 15,207,000
Facility (Ph. VI).
Kentucky: Bluegrass Army Depot................ Ammunition Demilitarization 16,220,000 16,220,000
Facility (Ph. IV).
-------------------------------
Total................................... ................................ 119,815,000 119,815,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California--North Island Naval Air Station: Boat Launch
Facility.--Of the amount provided to the Special Operations
Command for planning and design in this account, the Committee
directs that not less than $470,000 be made available for
design of this facility.
Colorado--Buckley AFB: DOD/VA Hospital.--Of the additional
amount provided to the Tri-care Management Agency for planning
and design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $4,000,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $241,377,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 168,298,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 208,033,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -33,344,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +39,735,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $208,033,000 for
Military Construction, Army National Guard, for fiscal year
2004. This is an increase of $39,735,000 above the budget
request and a decrease of $33,344,000 below the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
Arizona--Papago Park Military Reservation: One Stop
Personnel Center.--Of the amount provided for unspecified minor
construction in this account, the Committee directs that not
less than $1,498,000 be made available to execute this project.
Georgia--Hunter Army Airfield: Army Aviation Support
Facility.--The Committee is aware that the aviation maintenance
facilities utilized by the Army National Guard at Hunter Army
Airfield are inadequate and temporary. If a new facility is not
provided, the overall readiness of the Georgia National Guard
and the active duty units they support will be adversely
impacted. The Committee, therefore, encourages the Army
National Guard to include this project in the fiscal year 2005
budget request.
Indiana--Lawrence: Armed Forces Reserve Center.--Of the
amount provided for planning and design in this account, the
Committee directs that not less than $1,772,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
Indiana--Gary: Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center.--Of the
amount provided for planning and design in this account, the
Committee directs that not less than $844,000 be made available
for design of this facility.
Maine--Bangor International Airport: Army Aviation Support
Facility (Phase II).--Of the amount provided for planning and
design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $726,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Michigan--Calumet: Readiness Center.--The Committee
realizes that the current readiness center in Calumet was
constructed in 1918, and cannot be easily modified to meet
current or future military needs. New facilities could provide
functionally designed, energy efficient structures that will
provide a 57-person center to serve the peacetime missions of
the mechanized combat engineer company and the Michigan
National Guard. The Committee, therefore, strongly encourages
the Army National Guard to make this project a high priority.
Michigan--Pontiac: Readiness Center Addition/Alteration.--
Of the amount provided for unspecified minor construction in
this account, the Committee directs that not less than
$1,114,000 be made available to execute this project.
Missouri--Springfield: Aviation Classification and Repair
Activity Depot.--Of the amount provided for planning and design
in this account, the Committee directs that not less than
$7,849,000 be made available for design of this facility.
North Carolina--Raleigh: Readiness Center.--The existing
readiness center is 38 years old and serves as the command
center for the entire North Carolina Army National Guard. The
Committee is concerned the current facility does not contain
the required space to function efficiently and effectively as
the command center. The Committee, therefore, encourages the
Army National Guard to make a new readiness center a priority
within the Future Years Defense Program.
Pennsylvania--Waynesburg: Readiness Center.--Of the amount
provided for planning and design in this account, the Committee
directs that not less than $480,000 be made available for
design of this facility.
South Carolina--Fort Jackson: Armed Forces Reserve
Center.--Of the amount provided for planning and design in this
account, the Committee directs that not less than $767,000 be
made available for design of this facility.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $203,813,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 60,430,000
Committee recommendation in the bill,................. 77,105,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -126,708,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +16,675,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $77,105,000 for
Military Construction, Air National Guard, for fiscal year
2004. This is an increase of $16,675,000 above the budget
request and a decrease of $126,708,000 below the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
Georgia--Savannah International Airport: Operations and
Training Complex.--Of the amount provided for planning and
design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $954,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Illinois--Greater Peoria Regional Airport: Composite Air
Support Operations Center/Air Support Operations Squadron
Training Facility.--Of the amount provided for planning and
design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $754,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Kansas--McConnell AFB: Air Intelligence Exploitation
Facility.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
constructing an intelligence exploitation facility for the new
161st Intelligence Squadron at McConnell AFB and strongly
encourages the Department to include funding for this facility
in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. Without this facility,
the 161st Intelligence Squadron will be unable to meet the Air
Force's critical demand for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) support. This is a new mission for the Air
Force, and this is the first unit within the Air National
Guard. There are no existing facilities at McConnell AFB that
can accommodate the unit and allow for full exploitation of its
capabilities.
New Hampshire--Pease International Tradeport: Fire
Station.--Of the amount provided for planning and design in
this account, the Committee directs that not less than $468,000
be made available for design of this facility.
New York--Stewart International Airport: Fire Station.--Of
the amount provided for planning and design in this account,
the Committee directs that not less than $602,000 be made
available for design of this facility.
Tennessee--Memphis International Airport: C-5 Upgrade
Shops.--The Committee is aware that the 164th Airlift Wing of
the Tennessee Air National Guard has an urgent requirement to
alter an existing aircraft fuel systems maintenance hangar into
various maintenance shops to support the C-5 mission conversion
at the Memphis International Airport. The Committee recognizes
that the two existing C-141 maintenance hangars are
inadequately sized and cannot support C-5 maintenance
activities. The C-141 aircraft at the installation are
scheduled for retirement in fiscal year 2004, which is the same
time four C-5 replacements are delivered. The Committee is
encouraged that the House and Senate versions of the National
Defense Authorization Act, 2004 (H.R. 1588 and S. 1050),
include funds for this important project.
Tennessee--Nashville International Airport: Composite
Support Maintenance Complex (Phase II).--The Committee is aware
that a majority of the aircraft maintenance shops at Nashville
International Airport are located in a converted hangar
constructed in 1950 and two other antiquated facilities. An
adequately sized and configured maintenance facility is clearly
needed for the 118th Airlift Wing to carry out its assigned
Operation Noble Eagle mission as well as its ongoing national
security mission. The Committee, therefore, is encouraged that
the Senate's version of the National Defense Authorization Act,
2004 (S. 1050) includes funds for the second phase of this
important project.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $100,554,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 68,478,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 84,569,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -15,985,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +16,091,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $84,569,000 for
Military Construction, Army Reserve, for fiscal year 2004. This
is an increase of $16,091,000 above the budget request and a
decrease of $15,985,000 below the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
California--March Air Reserve Base: Reserve Center/
Organizational Maintenance Shop/Area Maintenance Support
Activity/Unheated Storage.--Of the amount provided for planning
and design in this account, the Committee directs that not less
than $2,500,000 be made available for design of this facility.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $74,921,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 28,032,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 38,992,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -35,929,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +10,960,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $38,992,000 for
Military Construction, Naval Reserve, for fiscal year 2004.
This is an increase of $10,960,000 above the budget request and
a decrease of $35,929,000 below the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $67,226,000
Miscellaneous appropriation (P.L. 108-7).......... 18,600,000
Total........................................... 85,826,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 44,312,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 56,212,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -29,614,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... +11,900,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $56,212,000 for
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve, for fiscal year 2004.
This is an increase of $11,900,000 above the budget request and
a decrease of $29,614,000 below the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
Florida--Homestead Air Reserve Station: Visitors Quarters
(Phase I).--Of the amount provided for planning and design in
this account, the Committee directs that not less than $220,000
be made available for design of this facility.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $167,200,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 169,300,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 169,300,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... +2,100,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) consists of
annual contributions by NATO member countries. The program
finances the costs of construction needed to support the roles
of the major NATO commands. The investments cover facilities
such as airfields, fuel pipelines and storage, harbors,
communications and information systems, radar and navigational
aids, and military headquarters. The U.S. share of the NSIP for
fiscal year 2004 is $183,700,000, or roughly 24.7 percent of
the total NSIP program amount of $743,700,000.
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
recommends $169,300,000 for the NSIP, which is an increase of
$2,100,000 above the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. To offset
the total U.S. share of the program, $2,800,000 is from
recoupments of prior year work and $11,600,000 is available
from unobligated balances.
Occasionally, the U.S. has been forced to delay temporarily
the authorization of projects due to shortfalls in U.S.
obligation authority. The Committee directs DOD to notify the
Committee 30 days prior to taking such action.
Family Housing Overview
Historically, housing for military personnel and their
families has been a low priority for DOD. Consequently, the
inventory is old and in most cases is substandard. DOD
estimates that 180,000 of the 300,000 military family housing
units it owns and operates are substandard and that it would
cost more than $16 billion to improve or replace them.
To ameliorate the costs associated with providing decent
housing, Congress authorized the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative. The initiative's intent is to create more housing
quickly, to attract private capital, and to make the private
sector responsible for providing routine maintenance.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends appropriating $3,937,423,000 for
the family housing construction and operation and maintenance
accounts for fiscal year 2004, which is a decrease of
$21,321,000 below the budget request and $270,671,000 below the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The operation and maintenance accounts provide funds to pay
for maintenance and repair, furnishings, management, services,
utilities, leasing, interest, mortgage insurance, and
miscellaneous expenses.
Military Housing Privatization Initiative
The Committee notes the number of developers and the
similarity of development structures participating in the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). For example,
awarded projects tend to utilize a limited number of the MHPI
authorizations thereby failing to fully leverage the
flexibility provided by the program. The Committee is
encouraged by projects initiated within the last year that
promote greater competition, make better use of MHPI
authorizations, include incentives for receiving the developers
management, maintenance and services fees, provide a reasonable
return on equity based on private sector benchmarks, and
utilize innovative, commerical financial instruments to enhance
project value. The Committee encourages the service components
to continue the use of these innovations and to seek additional
opportunities within the bounds of the program to ensure the
best possible return on investment for the American taxpayers.
Substandard Housing
Military families deserve to live in homes of which they
are proud. The Committee agrees with this proposition and is
concerned there is no uniform definition of what constitutes an
``inadequate'' house. It is not unusual for homes on individual
military installations to vary in condition, creating ``haves''
and ``have nots''. Similarly, homes managed by the same service
component vary by location. Even more troubling is the
situation where housing conditions vary by service component,
resulting in diverse housing conditions across the Department.
This situation is unacceptable to the Committee. DOD ought to
apply significant effort to transform and eliminate these
disparate conditions. Therefore, the Committee directs DOD to
establish a uniform procedure for identifying substandard
housing by October 1, 2003. This process must be applicable to
each service component, must be based on public and/or private
sector real estate standards, and must be measurable.
Family Housing Maintenance Sub-Account
Over the last five years, the Services have transferred at
least $144,616,000 from the Family Housing Maintenance sub-
account to other Family Housing sub-accounts. The Committee is
extremely concerned about the impact these transfers have on
the Department's goal of eliminating ``inadequate housing'' by
2007. Likewise, the Committee is concerned that the methodology
used to predict operational requirements is flawed, thereby
forcing scarce maintenance funds to be diverted from their
intended purpose.
The Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense, Installations and Environment to submit a report by
August 1, 2003, which includes: (1) all transfers within the
housing sub-accounts (fiscal years 99-03), including those
transfers under 10 percent, with an accounting of the sub-
account from which and to which the funds were transferred; (2)
the maintenance backlog (in total number of outstanding work
orders) for housing units at all installations (fiscal years
99-03); (3) the percent increase or decrease of that backlog
over the last five years; and (4) the methodology used in
formulating budget requests for each of the housing sub-
accounts.
Foreign Currency Savings
The Committee directs that savings from foreign currency
re-estimates be used to maintain existing family housing units.
The Comptroller is directed to report to the Committee on how
these savings are allocated by December 1, 2004. Likewise, only
10 percent of funds made available to the construction and
operation and maintenance sub-accounts may be transferred
between the sub-accounts. Such transfers must be reported to
the Committee within thirty days of such action.
Leasing Reporting Requirement
As in prior years, the Department is directed to report
quarterly on the details of all new or renewal domestic leases
entered into during the previous quarter that exceed $15,000
per unit per year, including certification that less expensive
housing was not available for lease. For foreign leases, the
Department is directed to: perform an economic analysis on all
new leases or lease/contract agreements where more than 25
units are involved; report the details of new or renewal lease
that exceeds $20,000 per year (as adjusted for foreign currency
fluctuation from October 1, 1987, but not adjusted for
inflation) 21 days prior to entering into such an agreement;
and base leasing decisions on the economic analysis.
Reprogramming Criteria
The reprogramming criteria that apply to military
construction projects (25 percent of the funded amount or
$2,000,000, whichever is less) apply to new housing
construction projects and improvement projects over $2,000,000
as well.
Family Housing Construction, Army
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $280,356,000
Rescission........................................ -4,920,000
Total........................................... 275,436,000
Fiscal year 2004:
Appropriation estimate............................ 409,191,000
Rescission........................................ -52,300,000
Total........................................... 356,891,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation..................................... 409,191,000
Rescission........................................ -52,300,000
Total........................................... 356,891,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... +81,455,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends appropriating $356,891,000 for
Family Housing Construction, Army, for fiscal year 2004. This
is equal to the budget request and an increase of $81,455,000
above the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The appropriation
includes $220,673,000 to construct new family housing units,
$156,030,000 to improve existing units, and $32,488,000 for
planning and design. In addition, the Committee recommendation
rescinds $52,300,000 from previously appropriated funds.
Kentucky--Fort Knox: Rose Terrace Housing Area.--The
Committee is aware that the Rose Terrace neighborhood at Fort
Knox suffers from significant infrastructure problems including
water main breaks, failed subfloors, and sewer back-ups. These
homes, which were built under the Wherry Housing Program in the
early 1950's, constitute half of the enlisted four-bedroom
inventory needed at Fort Knox. Improving them is a priority for
the Committee. As a result, the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment) is directed to submit a report
to the Committee no later than September 15, 2003, on plans to
address the Rose Terrace housing problems in the immediate
future as well as plans for the site in the upcoming
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) process.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $1,106,007,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 1,043,026,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 1,043,026,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -62,981,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends appropriating $1,043,026,000 for
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army, for fiscal year
2004. This is equal to the budget request and is a decrease of
$62,981,000 below the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $376,468,000
Rescission........................................ -2,652,000
Total........................................... 373,816,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 184,193,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation..................................... 184,193,000
Rescission........................................ -3,585,000
Total........................................... 180,608,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -193,208,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... -3,585,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $180,608,000 for
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps, for fiscal
year 2004. This is a decrease of $3,585,000 below the budget
request and a decrease of $193,208,000 below the fiscal year
2003 appropriation. The appropriation includes $155,366,000 to
construct new family housing units, $20,446,000 to improve
existing units, and $8,381,000 for planning and design. In
addition, the Committee recommendation rescinds $3,585,000 from
previously appropriated funds.
Georgia--Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB): Boyette
Village.--The Committee is concerned about the sale and/or
disposal of Boyette Village, located at Albany MCLB and
encourages the Department to keep the Committee advised with
respect to any action to sell or dispose of this property.
Hawaii--Pearl Harbor: Housing Privatization Project.--The
Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-
249) provided $33,382,000 to privatize family housing at Pearl
Harbor. The Navy currently estimates the government
contribution required to complete this project to be
$25,000,000--a savings of $8,382,000. Earlier this year, the
Committee agreed to reprogram $4,797,000 from this source, and
recommends rescinding the remaining $3,585,000.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $861,788,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 852,778,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 852,778,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -9,010,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends appropriating $852,778,000 for
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine
Corps, for fiscal year 2004. This is equal to the budget
request and is a decrease of $9,010,000 below the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $684,824,000
Rescission........................................ -8,782,000
Total........................................... 676,042,000
Fiscal year 2004:
Appropriation estimate............................ 657,065,000
Rescission........................................ -19,347,000
Total........................................... 637,718,000
Committee recommendation in the bill:
Appropriation..................................... 657,065,000
Rescission........................................ -29,039,000
Total........................................... 628,026,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -48,016,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... -9,692,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $628,026,000 for
Family Housing Construction, Air Force, for fiscal year 2004.
This recommendation is a decrease of $9,692,000 below the
budget request and is a decrease of $48,016,000 below the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The appropriation includes
$399,598,000 to construct new family housing units,
$223,979,000 to improve existing units, and $33,488,000 for
planning and design. In addition, the Committee recommendation
rescinds $29,039,000 from previously appropriated funds.
Florida--Patrick AFB: Housing Privatization Project.--The
Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-
237) provided $9,692,000 for a privatization initiative at
Patrick AFB. The transaction, however, required no cash
contribution because the Air Force conveyed real property
instead. Consequently, the Committee recommends rescinding
$9,692,000 previously appropriated for this project.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Fiscal year 2003:
Appropriation..................................... $863,050,000
Supplemental appropriation (P.L. 108-11).......... 1,800,000
Total........................................... 864,850,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 834,468,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 826,074,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -38,776,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... -8,394,000
The Committee recommends appropriating $826,074,000 for
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, for fiscal
year 2004. This is a decrease of $8,394,000 below the budget
request and is a decrease of $38,776,000 below the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
Family Housing Leasing.--The Committee recommends
appropriating $111,514,000 for Family Housing Leasing, Air
Force, which is $8,394,000 below the request and $7,824,000
above the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The reduction
reflects a five-year historical trend analysis that the average
execution rate of this subaccount is 93 percent of the total
amount appropriated.
Family Housing Construction, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $5,480,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 350,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 350,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -5,130,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends appropriating $350,000 for Family
Housing Construction, Defense-wide, for fiscal year 2004. This
is equal to the budget request and is a decrease of $5,130,000
below the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The appropriation
includes $50,000 to improve existing units and $300,000 for
planning and design.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $42,395,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 49,440,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 49,440,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... +7,045,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The Committee recommends appropriating $49,440,000 for
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
fiscal year 2004. The recommendation is equal to the budget
request and is an increase of $7,045,000 above the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $2,000,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 300,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 300,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -1,700,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate......................... 0
The Family Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) is authorized by
section 2883, title 10, United States Code, and provides the
Department of Defense with authority to finance joint ventures
with the private sector to revitalize and to manage the
Department's housing inventory. The statute authorizes the
Department to use limited partnerships, make direct and
guaranteed loans, and convey Department-owned property to
stimulate the private sector to increase the availability of
affordable, quality housing for military personnel.
The FHIF is used to build or renovate family housing by
mixing or matching various legal authorities, and by utilizing
private capital and expertise to the maximum extent possible.
The Fund is administered as a single account without fiscal
year limitations and contains appropriated and transferred
funds from family housing construction accounts.
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
recommends $300,000 for the Department of Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2004, which is
$1,700,000 below the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The
Department is directed to continue providing quarterly status
reports on each privatization project.
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving
fund that provides assistance to homeowners. The fund was
established to ameliorate adverse impacts on the economies of
local communities caused by base realignments and closures
(BRAC). Service members may access the fund if the value of
their home decreases because of a BRAC. The account receives
funds 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.
The total estimated requirements for fiscal year 2004 are
$17,674,000. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
recommends no appropriation for the Homeowners Assistance Fund
because it is financed by revenue from the sales of acquired
properties and prior year unobligated balances.
Base Realignment and Closure Account
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation........................ $561,138,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate............................. 370,427,000
Committee recommendation in the bill.................. 370,427,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2003 appropriation.................... -190,711,000
Fiscal year 2004 estimate.........................
The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-526) and the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510)
authorized four base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds
between 1988 and 1995 to reduce excess military bases and
infrastructure. Ninety-seven major domestic installations were
closed and several facilities were realigned. The four BRAC
rounds netted savings of approximately $15,500,000,000 through
fiscal year 2001. The Department estimates the costs avoided
from fiscal year 2002 and beyond are approximately
$6,000,000,000 per year.
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
recommends $370,427,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure
account for fiscal year 2004. This amount is a decrease of
$190,711,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 2003.
Total BRAC requirements for fiscal year 2004 are estimated to
be $459,727,000. In addition to the provided appropriation, the
account is financed with $21,300,000 from prior year
unobligated balances and $68,000,000 from land sale revenue.
To date, the Congress has appropriated a net total of
$22,335,705,000 for the BRAC program from fiscal years 1990
through 2003. Within this amount, the Department has allocated
$7,993,112,000 for activities associated with environmental
restoration.
The Committee has provided the Department with the
flexibility to allocate funds by service component, by
functions, and by base. Recognizing the complexities of
providing for environmental restoration of properties, the
Committee has provided flexibility to allow the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to monitor program execution to
redistribute unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid
delays and to effect timely execution of environmental cleanup
responsibilities.
Kentucky--Louisville Naval Ordnance Station: Environmental
Remediation.--If the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Secretary of
Environmental Protection identifies legal requirements for
additional environmental remediation at this site, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves it, the
Committee directs the Department of the Navy to take action
through the BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) process to resolve any
outstanding issues.
General Provisions
The Administration proposed eliminating several general
provisions enacted in P.L. 107-249: sections 111, 113, 119,
121, 122, 124, 125, and 128-131. The Committee recommends
retaining every provision except for sections 121, 122, 125 and
128-131. The Committee recommends eliminating sections 121 and
122 as they are redundant with the Buy American Act.
The Administration proposed five new general provisions for
inclusion in the bill, as follows:
Section 121 allows amounts made available for family
housing in this bill to be transferred to military personnel
accounts in the Defense Appropriations Bill. The Department
seeks this authority to offset the additional housing allowance
costs that result from the privatization of military housing.
The Committee denies the request for transfer authority and
encourages the Department to properly budget for housing
allowances in the personnel accounts. This allows family
housing dollars remaining in this bill to be used for the
maintenance and repair of existing units.
Section 122 authorizes the transfer of funds to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of acquiring
land at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. This authority was
provided in section 105, Division M of Public Law 108-7. The
Committee, therefore, does not include the provision in this
bill.
Section 123 transfers amounts made available for a physical
fitness center at Camp Bonifas, Korea (section 130, Public Law
107-249) to a similar project at Camp Humphreys, Korea. The
Committee recommends following the conventional rescission and
re-appropriation procedures and does not include the provision
in the bill.
Section 124 transfers amounts made available for four
military construction projects at Camp Castle, Camp Hovey,
Yongsan, and Seoul, relating to a physical fitness center, two
barracks, and a middle school, respectively, to similar
projects at Camp Humphreys. The Committee recommends following
the conventional rescission and re-appropriation procedures and
does not include the provision in the bill.
Section 125 requires the Secretary of Defense to certify
and report to Congress that the United States and the Republic
of Korea have entered into an agreement on the availability of
land before obligating or expending funds made available in
this bill for construction projects at Camp Humphreys, Korea.
The Committee includes the provision and adds language, which
cancels the funds if the land is not available before the end
of the fiscal year.
General Provisions included in the bill are as follows:
Section 101 of the General Provisions limits DOD from
spending funds appropriated in this Act for payments under a
cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for construction where cost
estimates exceed $25,000. An exception for Alaska is provided.
Section 102 of the General Provisions permits the hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
Section 103 of the General Provisions permits funds to be
expended on the construction of defense access roads under
certain circumstances.
Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases inside the continental United States
without a specific appropriation.
Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of
funds for the purchase of land or land easements that exceed
100% of value.
Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of
funds to acquire land, prepare sites, or install utilities for
family housing except housing for which funds have been
appropriated.
Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of
minor construction funds to be transferred or relocated from
one installation to another.
Section 108 of the General Provisions prohibits the
procurement of steel unless American producers, fabricators,
and manufacturers have been allowed to compete.
Section 109 of the General Provisions limits appropriations
from being used to pay real property taxes in foreign nations.
Section 110 of the General Provisions prohibits
construction of new bases overseas without prior notification
to the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 111 of the General Provisions establishes a
preference for American architectural and engineering services
where the services are in Japan, NATO member countries, and the
Arabian Gulf.
Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes a
preference for American contractors for military construction
in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, except bids by
Marshallese contractors for military construction on Kwajalein
Atoll.
Section 113 of the General Provisions requires the
Secretary of Defense to give prior notice to Congress of
military exercises where construction costs exceed $100,000.
Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations to
no more than 20 percent during the last two months of the
fiscal year.
Section 115 of the General Provisions permits DOD to make
available funds appropriated in prior years for new projects
authorized during the current session of Congress.
Section 116 of the General Provisions permits the use of
expired or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any
project being completed with lapsed funds.
Section 117 of the General Provisions permits obligation of
funds from more than one fiscal year to execute a construction
project, provided that the total obligation for such project is
consistent with the total amount appropriated for the project.
Section 118 of the General Provisions allows the transfer
of expired funds to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations,
Construction, Defense'' account. This provision has been
included in every Military Construction Appropriations Act
since 1992. Once transferred these funds become available for
obligation until expended. Scorekeeping rule 6 requires that
extending expired balances be scored as new appropriations in
the year that they become available.
In prior years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
accepted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) estimate
that the amount re-appropriated would be zero (OMB continues to
assume a zero in the fiscal year 2004 request). The actuals
tell a different story. From 1998 to 2002 the amount recorded
as a re-appropriation averaged $61,400,000, including
$54,000,000 in 2002--the most recent year available. Based on
this information CBO has estimated a cost for this provision
consistent with the actual data. CBO estimates the provision
will make $55,000,000 available in fiscal year 2004. As a
result, the President's request and bill total increase by this
amount.
Section 119 of the General Provisions requires the
Secretary of Defense to report annually on actions taken during
the current fiscal year to encourage other member nations of
the NATO, Japan, Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian
Gulf to assume a greater share of defense costs.
Section 120 of the General Provisions authorizes the
transfer of proceeds from ``Base Realignment and Closure
Account, Part I'' to the continuing Base Realignment and
Closure accounts.
Section 121 of the General Provisions permits the transfer
of funds from Family Housing, Construction accounts to the DOD
Family Housing Improvement Fund.
Section 122 of the General Provisions limits the obligation
of funds for Partnership for Peace Programs.
Section 123 of the General Provisions provides transfer
authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
Section 124 of the General Provisions requires that
appropriations from this Act be the sole source of all
operation and maintenance for flag and general officer quarter
houses and limits the repair on these quarters to $35,000 per
year without notification. Language proposed by the
Administration is not included due to a lack of justification.
The Committee will consider including the language if proper
justification is provided prior to finalizing the conference
agreement.
Section 125 limits funds from being transferred from this
appropriations measure to any instrumentality of the United
States Government without authority from an appropriation Act.
Section 126 requires the Secretary of Defense to certify
and report to Congress that the United States and the Republic
of Korea have entered into an agreement on the availability of
land before obligating or expending funds made available in
this bill for construction projects at Camp Humphreys, Korea.
If the land is not available before the end of the fiscal year,
the funds are canceled.
House of Representatives Report Requirements
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the rules of the House of Representatives.
Changes in Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue on-going activities that require annual authorization
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law.
Language is included that enables various appropriations to
remain available for more than one year for some programs for
which the basic authority legislation does not presently
authorize such extended availability.
Language is included under Military Construction, Defense-
wide, which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds
to other accounts for military construction or family housing.
Definition of Program, Project and Activity
For the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), and by the Budget Enforcement
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information
provides the definitions of the terms ``program, project and
activity'' for appropriations contained in the Military
Construction Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project,
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items, identified in the Military Construction Appropriations
Act, 2003, the accompanying House and Senate reports, and the
conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the
managers of the committee of conference.
In carrying out any sequestrations, the Department of
Defense (DOD) and related agencies shall carry forth the
sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect
or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for
the DOD and the related agencies, and no program, project, and
activity should be eliminated or reduced to a level of funding
that would adversely affect DOD's ability to effectively
continue any program, project, and activity.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations in
Agency/program Last year of Authorization last year of Appropriations in
authorization level authorization this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Army......... 2003 $1,685,710 $1,685,710 $1,533,660
Military Construction, Navy......... 2003 1,353,228 1,353,228 1,211,077
Military Construction, Air Force.... 2003 1,233,147 1,233,147 896,136
Military Construction, Defense-wide. 2003 869,645 869,645 813,613
Military Construction, Army National 2003 241,377 241,377 208,033
Guard..............................
Military Construction, Air National 2003 203,813 203,813 77,105
Guard..............................
Military Construction, Army Reserve. 2003 100,554 100,554 84,569
Military Construction, Naval Reserve 2003 74,921 74,921 38,992
Military Construction, Air Force 2003 85,826 85,826 56,212
Reserve............................
North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2003 167,200 167,200 169,300
Security Investment Program........
Family Housing Construction, Army... 2003 280,356 280,356 409,191
Family Housing Operation and 2003 1,106,007 1,106,007 1,043,026
Maintenance, Army..................
Family Housing Construction, Navy 2003 376,468 376,468 184,193
and Marine Corps...................
Family Housing Operation and 2003 861,788 861,788 852,778
Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps.
Family Housing Construction, Air 2003 684,824 684,824 657,065
Force..............................
Family Housing Operation and 2003 864,850 864,850 826,074
Maintenance, Air Force.............
Family Housing Construction, Defense- 2003 5,480 5,480 350
wide...............................
Family Housing Operation and 2003 42,395 42,395 49,440
Maintenance, Defense-wide..........
Department of Defense Family 2003 2,000 2,000 300
Improvement Fund...................
Base Realignment and Closure........ 2003 561,138 561,138 370,427
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, a statement is required describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
Sections 118, 120, 123, 125, and 129 of the General Provisions,
and language included under ``Military Construction, Defense-
wide'' provide certain transfer authority.
Rescission of Funds
In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee recommends
rescissions of:
Military Construction, Army--$183,615,000
Military Construction, Navy--$39,322,000
Military Construction, Defense-wide--$32,680,000
Family Housing Construction, Army--$52,300,000
Family Housing Construction, Navy--$3,585,000
Family Housing Construction, Air Force--$29,039,000
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this bill are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Comparisons With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section of 302(a) allocation.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary........................... 9,196 10,282 9,196 10,282
Mandatory............................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five-Year Projection of Outlays
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget authority, fiscal year 2004............................$9,196,000
Outlays:
2004...................................................... 2,602,000
2005...................................................... 3,302,000
2006...................................................... 1,856,000
2007...................................................... 772,000
2008 and beyond........................................... 663,000
The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax
expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan
guarantee commitments under existing law.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
State and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
New budget authority.......................................... 0
Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom.................. 0
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
ROLLCALL NO. 1
Date: June 17, 2003.
Measure: Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY
2004.
Motion by: Mr. Obey.
Description of motion: To increase funding for various
military construction and family housing accounts; increases
are offset by a reduction to tax cuts for certain income
groups.
Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 34 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Bishop Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Boyd Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Cramer Mr. Culberson
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Edwards Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Fattah Mr. Goode
Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kirk
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Moran Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor Mrs. Northrup
Mr. Price Mr. Peterson
Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Rogers
Mr. Sabo Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Serrano Mr. Simpson
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Weldon
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
State List
The following is a complete listing, by State and country,
of the Committee's recommendations for military construction
and family housing projects:
ROLLCALL NO. 1
Date: June 17, 2003.
Measure: Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY
2004.
Motion by: Mr. Obey.
Description of motion: To increase funding for various
military construction and family housing accounts; increases
are offset by a reduction to tax cuts for certain income
groups.
Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 34 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Bishop Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Boyd Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Cramer Mr. Culberson
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Edwards Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Fattah Mr. Goode
Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kirk
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Moran Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey Mr. Latham
Mr. Oliver Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor Mrs. Northrup
Mr. Price Mr. Peterson
Mr. Rothman Mr. Regula
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Rogers
Mr. Sabo Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Serrano Mr. Simpson
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Weldon
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID R. OBEY AND CHET EDWARDS
Over 1.4 million people serve our country on active duty in
the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. The Military
Construction appropriations bill provides funding for the house
and workplaces for these service members and their families.
Congress has long recognized that a substantial number of
our military live and work in substandard conditions. Over the
years this committee has worked in many ways to address this
problem, consistently increasing funding in this bill well
beyond the requests of the last several administrations.
Regardless, our troops are facing an uphill battle: the
Pentagon itself rates the readiness of most military facilities
as marginal or worse, and over 225,000 service members and
their families don't have decent housing.
As the tables in this report show, a total of $10,698
billion was appropriated for Military Construction for FY 2003,
but for FY 2004 the administration requested only $9.196
billion. The committee, driven by a low allocation that
followed from the unrealistic budget resolution, was forced to
mark this bill $41 million below the Presidents request,
resulting in funding more than $1.5 billion below last year's
enacted level.
On March 21, 2003 the House voted to thank and support the
men and women serving our country in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom. We gave our ``unequivocal support and appreciation''
to the members of the United States Armed Forces and their
families.
Words are one thing, deeds another. Appropriating $1.5
billion less than last year is no way to show support for
service members.
This bill is not up to the job. Ill-advised tax cuts forced
by unrealistic spending targets that cause reductions in many
areas. The quality of life of our armed forces is clearly among
them.
Military construction is not the only casualty of the
majority's tax cuts:
It will force cuts in veteran's benefits.
There will be $200 million in cuts to impact aid
to the very same school districts that educate the children of
military families.
As many as 230,000 military families have been cut
out of the low-income child tax credit provision currently on
the books.
It's easy to pass resolutions of support and appreciation.
A realistic budget resolution, on the other hand, seems to be
beyond the reach of this Congress, and the inadequate military
construction funding--and its impact on military families--is
one of the results.
The committee considered an amendment by Mr. Obey that
would have worked toward correcting this problem by adding $958
million, a little more than 10%, to the bottom line. The
amendment was an opportunity for the committee to keep its
promise to the troops by restoring the President's full
request, and helping about 8,000 service members and their
families get decent housing:
Reinstating the $160 million in cuts from the
President's budget for like hangars, maintenance shops, office
space, and physical fitness facilities.
Adding $480 million for family housing. That
should help at least 2500 military families, a positive step
toward replacing the 134,000 inadequate units that service
members and their families are forced to live in today.
Providing another $318 million for new barracks.
That will help get 5,300 single service members into decent
housing. The Pentagon says the total need is over 83,000 units.
The Obey amendment proposed offsetting the increases by
making a one-time, one-year modification to the Jobs and Growth
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This act provides huge
tax cuts for the very wealthy. People with an Adjusted Gross
Income of more than $1 million are scheduled to enjoy a $88,326
tax cut in 2004.
These are not just millionaires--these are people with
annual incomes of more than $1 million. There are about 200,000
people in this category. They are one-tenth of one percent of
all taxpayers, but their huge tax cut costs the rest of us
$17.7 billion in just 2004 alone.
To provide more funding for military construction, the
amendment would trim just 5% of the tax cut for these fortunate
individuals for only one year. The average tax cut for persons
with more than $1 million in income would go from $88,326 to
$83,546.
The amendment was defeated in full committee on a party
line vote that is listed in this report. We regret that many of
our Republican friends felt compelled to reject the amendment.
It provided an opportunity to improve military housing and
workplaces and keep our promise of ``unequivocal support'' to
our service members and their families.
Dave Obey.
Chet Edwards.