Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF (1MB)   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-221

======================================================================



 
            MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

  July 2, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


    Mr. Hobson, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2465]

    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, 2000.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Summary of Committee Recommendation..............................     2
Conformance With Authorization Bill..............................     4
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing..................     4
Fiscal Year 2000 Barracks Request................................     5
Child Development Centers........................................     6
Hospital and Medical Facilities..................................     7
Environmental Compliance Projects................................     8
Transfer Authority...............................................     8
Annualization of Supervision, Inspection, and Overhead...........     8
Privatization of Utility Systems.................................     9
Contingency Funding..............................................     9
Support for Deployed Troops......................................    10
European Construction............................................    10
Forward Operating Locations......................................    10
Gas Valves in Federal Facilities.................................    11
Alkali Silica Reactivity.........................................    11
Real Property Maintenance........................................    11
Program, Project and Activity....................................    12
Planning and Budgeting...........................................    12
Metric Conversion................................................    12
Military Construction:
    Army.........................................................    12
    Navy.........................................................    14
    Air Force....................................................    16
    Defense-wide.................................................    17
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement 
  Fund...........................................................    19
Reserve Components...............................................    19
NATO Security Investment Program.................................    22
Family Housing Overview..........................................    22
Family Housing:
    Army.........................................................    28
    Navy.........................................................    29
    Air Force....................................................    30
    Defense-wide.................................................    31
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............    32
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense..............................    35
Base Realignment and Closure:
    Overview.....................................................    36
    Part I.......................................................    41
    Part II......................................................    41
    Part III.....................................................    41
    Part IV......................................................    41
Changes in Application of Existing Law...........................    41
Compliance with Rule XIII--Clause 3..............................    44
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law.............................    45
Transfer of Funds................................................    45
Rescission of Funds..............................................    45
Constitutional Authority.........................................    45
Comparisons With Budget Resolution...............................    46
Advance Spending Authority.......................................    46
Five-Year Projection of Outlays..................................    46
Financial Assistance.............................................    46
State List.......................................................    47
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority....................    76

                  Summary of Committee Recommendation

    The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request of 
$5,438,443,000 represents a decrease of $3,695,791,000, or 40 
percent, from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of 
$9,134,234,000. This year's request is the lowest nominal 
request since fiscal year 1981. It's also lower than any 
enacted level, in nominal dollars since fiscal year 1981. The 
request only includes $1,616,845,000 for military construction, 
$3,115,687,000 for family housing and $705,911,000 for 
activities associated with base closure and realignment.
    The proposal to significantly reduce funding for military 
facilities and infrastructure does not help solve the long-
standing infrastructure problems faced by the Department of 
Defense. The Committee is deeply concerned over the two 
budgetary approaches implemented in the budget request to defer 
funding to future fiscal years. These approaches were utilized 
in an effort to realign military construction and family 
housing funding to readiness and modernization needs for fiscal 
year 2000.
    The most noteworthy funding mechanism proposed by the 
Administration is an ``incremental funding'' concept. The 
Administration chose to build an $8,587,352,000 military 
construction program and spread its funding over two fiscal 
years. Instead of requesting fully executable projects in 
fiscal year 2000, the Department requests only 10-25% of 
individual project costs. To support the completion of the 
proposed projects, the Administration requests an advance 
appropriation of $3,060,800,000 to become available in fiscal 
year 2001.
    Just last year, the Administration proposed a different and 
more limited version of this budgeting approach. In the fiscal 
year 1999 budget request, the Department requested advance 
appropriations of $568,550,000, spread over three fiscal years, 
for 15 major projects. The Committee rejected that proposal. 
This year, the Department requests advance appropriations of 
$3,060,800,000, spread over two fiscal years, for 328 projects, 
nearly every construction project regardless of its size or 
scope.
    It remains the Committee's view that there is no precedence 
for incrementally funding military construction projects; 
especially, the broad-based approach proposed by the 
Administration for fiscal year 2000. Of concern to the 
Committee is the Department of Defense's optimism as to whether 
all projects will be executed within the fiscal year. 
Additionally, the Department is unable to provide any 
assurances to the Committee that they will be able to meet 
operating schedules under the Administration's proposal. 
Lastly, the Department notes the proposal will require 
additional engineering and oversight management. Therefore, the 
Committee concludes these uncertainties will lead to increased 
project costs and delay the delivery of needed facilities.
    The second unprecedented budgeting approach proposed by the 
Administration is an initiative to annualize the cost for 
supervision, inspection and overhead (SIOH) of construction 
projects. The proposal would spread this funding over several 
fiscal years. The Committee concludes that annualization merely 
defers obligation authority to later fiscal years and does not 
save SIOH funds. Additionally, the Committee is concerned that 
annualization would make budgeting and management of these 
funds more costly.
    The new budgeting approaches proposed by the Administration 
and the continued downward trend in military construction 
funding has raised the concerns of the Committee over several 
aspects of the request. For example, the Administration has 
committed itself to a serious barracks revitalization program. 
Yet, the request for barracks construction is $549,059,000 
below last year's appropriation. And, family housing 
construction and operation and maintenance accounts are reduced 
by $423,596,000. The budget request would provide $141,341,000 
for family housing construction, a reduction of $558,085,000 
from current levels. Of this amount, $70,000,000 is requested 
for construction of new family housing units, a reduction of 
$248,703,000, or 78 percent, from current spending. And, the 
request for improvements to existing family housing units is 
reduced by $309,382,000, or 81 percent, from the current 
program.
    The Committee believes it is imperative to address these 
serious shortfalls and the severe backlog in readiness, 
revitalization and quality of life projects. Therefore, the 
Committee has recommended an additional $3,011,299,000 above 
the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request to fully 
fund the planning, supervision, and construction of proposed 
projects and several other barracks, family housing and 
operational facilities.
    The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is 
$8,449,742,000, a decrease of $684,492,000, or 7 percent, from 
the net fiscal year 1999 appropriation and an increase of 
$3,011,299,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The 
appropriation includes $4,196,989,000 for military construction 
and $3,378,019,000 for family housing. The Committee recommends 
a total of $705,911,000 for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
for fiscal year 2000. This is equal to the appropriations 
request for fiscal year 2000. The Committee notes assurances 
from the Department that the requested amount is adequate to 
fully execute the requirements for the program in the coming 
fiscal year with no impact on meeting the targeted BRAC 
completion date of July 13, 2001. In addition, the Committee 
has recommended reductions to the budget request totaling 
$131,177,000. The following table provides a breakout of the 
highlights of the bill:

FY 1999:
    Enacted.............................................   $8.45 billion
    Emergency Appropriation (P.L. 105-277)..............    0.20 billion
    Emergency Appropriation (P.L. 106-31)...............    0.48 billion
        Net Appropriation...............................    9.13 billion
President's FY 2000 Request.............................    5.44 billion
Subcommittee Recommendation.............................    8.45 billion
Increase/Decrease Below FY 1999 Enacted.................               0
Decrease Below FY 1999 Net Appropriation................    0.68 billion
Increase Over President's Request.......................    3.01 billion

Military Construction: $4.1 billion (49% of total bill), 
including:
    $800 million for barracks
    $21 million for child development centers
    $165 million for hospital and medical facilities
    $69 million for environmental compliance
    $267 million for the chemical weapons demilitarization 
program
    $81 million for NATO Security Investment Program
    $497 million for Guard and Reserve components
Family Housing: $3.6 billion (43% of total bill), including:
    $747 million for new family housing units, and for 
improvements to existing units
    $2.8 billion for operation and maintenance of existing 
units
Base Realignment and Closure: $0.7 billion (8% of total bill), 
including:
    $61 million for military construction and family housing
    $360 million for environmental cleanup
    $264 million for operations and maintenance

                  Conformance With Authorization Bill

    The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 
2000 (H.R. 1401) on June 10, 1999 by a vote of 365-58, which 
contains authorization for the military construction, family 
housing and base realignment and closure accounts included in 
this bill. Because conference action on the authorization had 
not been completed at the time this bill was prepared all 
projects included in this bill are approved subject to 
authorization.

            Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

    The Department of Defense estimates that 47 percent of the 
enlisted force and 28 percent of the officers are single or 
unaccompanied personnel. Although 31 percent live in private 
off-base housing, the Department has over 397,900 men and women 
living in permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing. 
Approximately one-half of the barracks were built 30 or more 
years ago, with an average age of over 40 years. And, over 
48,300 spaces are still serviced by gang latrines. Of the total 
inventory approximately 36% are considered substandard and 
continuous maintenance is necessary to deal with such problems 
as asbestos, corroded pipes, inadequate ventilation, faulty 
heating and cooling systems, and peeling lead-based paint.
    In fiscal year 1997, the respective Services deficit count 
due to the lack of barracks spaces to house single service 
members or the need to replace or improve current spaces was 
238,000. As a result of the Congressional initiative to 
accelerate the barracks revitalization effort, current deficit 
estimates have been reduced to 124,974 single service members. 
The Department of Defense estimates current total costs to 
achieve desired end states at $10,100,000,000, as compared to 
$14,280,000,000 in fiscal year 1997. And, the timetable to 
accomplish the revitalization has decreased from over twenty 
years to thirteen years.
    The Committee understands that improving troop housing does 
not lie solely in new construction and renovations. Retiring 
the backlog of maintenance and repair, which is under the 
jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee, and an adequate 
funding commitment to prevent future backlogs plays an 
important role in this process. It is necessary to use many 
different approaches to help meet the unaccompanied housing 
need. The challenge is for a sustained overall commitment, at 
funding levels that will reduce the backlog of substandard 
spaces, reduce the housing deficits, and increase the quality 
of living conditions in a reasonable period of time.

                   fiscal year 2000 barracks request

    The Department of Defense has requested $163,833,000 to 
construct or modernize 33 barracks in fiscal year 2000. This is 
a reduction of $549,059,000, or 77 percent, from the enacted 
fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    The Committee has approved the request of $163,833,000 in 
full. In order to help alleviate the deficit, an additional 
$636,217,000 is recommended. The total appropriation for 
unaccompanied housing recommended in this bill is $800,050,000.
    The following troop housing construction projects are 
recommended for fiscal year 2000:

                 FISCAL YEAR 2000 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Location                     Request         Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Alaska-Fort Richardson..........         2,200,000        14,600,000
    Georgia-Fort Hunter Stewart.....         7,000,000        46,000,000
    Georgia-Fort Benning............         7,100,000        47,000,000
    Hawaii-Schofield Barracks.......        14,200,000        49,000,000
    Kansas-Fort Leavenworth.........         3,900,000        26,000,000
    Kentucky-Fort Campbell..........         4,800,000        32,000,000
    Maryland-Fort Meade.............         2,700,000        18,000,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg.......        16,508,000        52,000,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg.......                 0        14,400,000
    Pennsylvania-Carlisle Barracks..           750,000         5,000,000
    Texas-Fort Hood.................         4,350,000        29,000,000
    Virginia-Fort Eustis............         5,800,000        39,000,000
    Germany-Ansbach.................         3,150,000        21,000,000
    Germany-Bamberg.................           860,000         5,700,000
    Germany-Bamberg.................         1,400,000         9,300,000
    Germany-Bamberg.................         1,230,000         8,200,000
    Germany-Mannheim................           675,000         4,500,000
    Korea-Camp Casey................         4,650,000        31,000,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, Army................        81,273,000       451,700,000
                                     ===================================
Navy/Marine Corps:
    California-Camp Pendleton MCB...         2,390,000         9,740,000
    California-Twentynine Palms.....         4,840,000        19,130,000
    California-San Diego CA NH......         5,470,000        21,590,000
    California-Naval Hospital                1,930,000         7,640,000
     Twentynine Palms...............
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval                4,720,000        18,600,000
     Station........................
    Illinois-Great Lakes Naval               7,700,000        31,410,000
     Training Center................
    Maine-Brunswick NAS.............         4,270,000        16,890,000
    Mississippi-Gulfport............         1,600,000         6,310,000
    Mississippi-Gulfport............         3,260,000        12,860,000
    Texas-Fort Worth Naval Air                       0         6,000,000
     Station........................
    Virginia-Quantico...............         5,270,000        20,820,000
    Virginia-Dam Neck...............         2,610,000        10,310,000
    Virginia-Norfolk NSY............         4,460,000        17,630,000
    Bahrain Island-SW Asia..........         6,230,000        24,550,000
    Bahrain Island-SW Asia..........         5,840,000        23,770,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy................        60,590,000       247,250,000
                                     ===================================
Air Force:
    Alabama-Maxwell AFB.............                 0        10,600,000
    Alaska-Elmendorf AFB............         3,727,000        15,800,000
    Florida-Eglin Auxiliary Field 9.         2,161,000         9,100,000
    Florida-Eglin AFB...............         1,635,000         7,000,000
    Mississippi-Keesler AFB.........         4,679,000        19,900,000
    Nebraska-Offutt AFB.............         1,941,000         8,300,000
    Oklahoma-Tinker AFB.............         1,602,000         6,800,000
    Texas-Lackland AFB..............         1,257,000         5,300,000
    Virginia-Langley AFB............         1,486,000         6,300,000
    Korea-Osan AB...................         3,482,000        12,000,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force...........        21,970,000       101,100,000
                                     ===================================
      Total.........................       163,833,000       800,050,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Child Development Centers

    The Committee has recommended an additional $18,361,000 
above the budget estimate of $2,159,000 for a total 
appropriation of $20,520,000 for new construction, or 
improvements, for child development centers. The Committee 
recognizes the increased importance of these centers due to the 
rising number of single military parents, dual military couples 
and military personnel with a civilian employed spouse. The 
Department is encouraged to maintain all efforts possible to 
meet 80 percent of the child care need.
    The following child development center projects are 
provided for fiscal year 2000:

               FISCAL YEAR 2000 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Location                     Request         Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
    Arizona-Yuma Marine Corps Air              640,000         2,620,000
     Station........................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy................           640,000         2,620,000
                                     ===================================
Air Force:
    Colorado-Schriever AFB..........                 0         6,700,000
    Texas-Dyess AFB.................                 0         5,400,000
    United Kingdom-Royal Air Force           1,519,000         5,800,000
     Lakenheath.....................
                                     -----------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force...........         1,519,000        17,900,000
                                     ===================================
      Total.........................         2,159,000        20,520,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Hospital and Medical Facilities

    The budget request includes $63,967,000 for 24 projects and 
for unspecified minor construction to provide hospital and 
medical support facilities, including both treatment facilities 
and medical support facilities. The Committee has recommended 
an additional $101,370,000 above the budget estimate of 
$63,967,000 for a total appropriation of $165,337,000 for 
hospital and medical facilities.
    The following hospital and medical facilities are 
recommended for fiscal year 2000:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Location                                 Project title               Request     Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska-Fort Wainwright..........................  Hospital Replacement, Phase I.....    18,000,000    18,000,000
Arizona-Davis Monthan AFB.......................  Ambulatory Health Care Center Add/     2,400,000    10,000,000
                                                   Alter.
California-Los Angeles AFB......................  Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement.     2,400,000    13,600,000
California-Travis AFB...........................  WRM Warehouse/Engineering Support      2,000,000     7,500,000
                                                   Facility.
Florida-Jacksonville Naval Air Station..........  Branch Medical/Dental Clinic Add/        780,000     3,780,000
                                                   Alter.
Florida-Patrick AFB.............................  Medical Logistics Facility               200,000     1,750,000
                                                   Replacement.
Florida-Pensacola Naval Air Station.............  Aircrew Water Survival Training        1,300,000     4,300,000
                                                   Facility.
Georgia-Moody AFB...............................  WRM Warehouse/BEE Facility........       200,000     1,250,000
Kansas-Fort Riley...............................  Consolidated Troop Medical Clinic.     1,060,000     6,000,000
Maryland-Andrews AFB............................  Medical Logistics Facility Add/        2,000,000     3,000,000
                                                   Alter.
Maryland-Patuxent River Naval Air Station.......  Aircrew Water Survival Training        1,200,000     4,150,000
                                                   Facility.
North Carolina-Cherry Point MCAS................  Aircrew Water Survival Training        1,000,000     3,500,000
                                                   Facility.
Ohio-Wright Patterson AFB.......................  Occupational Health Clinic/BEE         2,800,000     3,900,000
                                                   Replacement.
Texas-Fort Sam Houston..........................  Veterinary Instructional Facility.       600,000     5,800,000
Virginia-Cheatham Annex.........................  FHSO Container Holding Yard.......       500,000     1,650,000
Virginia-Norfolk Naval Air Station..............  Aircrew Water Survival Training        1,150,000     4,050,000
                                                   Facility.
Washington-Fort Lewis...........................  North Fort Lewis Dental Clinic         4,950,000     5,500,000
                                                   Replacement.
Washington-Whidbey Island Naval Air Station.....  Aircrew Water Survival Training        1,300,000     4,700,000
                                                   Facility.
Germany-Ramstein Air Base.......................  Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration.     2,550,000     7,100,000
Korea-Yongsan...................................  Hospital Addition/Replacement.....     9,570,000    38,570,000
Korea-Yongsan...................................  Medical Supply/Equip Storage           2,300,000     2,550,000
                                                   Warehouse Repl.
Puerto Rico-Sabana Seca Naval Security Group Act  Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement.     1,120,000     4,000,000
United Kingdom-Royal Air Force Lakenheath.......  Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration.     1,000,000     7,100,000
Worldwide-Various Locations.....................  Unspecified Minor Construction....     3,587,000     3,587,000
                                                                                     ---------------------------
      Total.....................................    ................................    63,967,000   165,337,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Environmental Compliance Projects

    The total budget request and appropriation for 14 projects 
needed to meet environmental compliance is $16,728,000. The 
Federal Facilities Compliance Act requires all federal 
facilities to meet both federal and State standards. These 
projects are considered Class I violations and are out of 
compliance; have received an enforcement action from the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the State, or local authority; 
and/or a compliance agreement has been signed or consent order 
received. Environmental projects that are Class I violations 
are required to be funded, and therefore are placed at the top 
of the priority list. The Committee has approved the request of 
$17,728,000 in full. In order to help address these Class I 
violations, an additional $50,782,000 is recommended. The total 
appropriation for environmental compliance projects in this 
bill is $68,510,000.
    Following is a listing of all environmental compliance 
projects funded in this bill:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Installation                               Project title               Request     Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Fort Wainwright, AK.........................  Emissions Reduction Facility......     2,300,000    15,500,000
    Fort Lewis, WA..............................  Tank Trail Erosion Mitigation,         2,000,000     2,000,000
                                                   Yakima Range Ph V.
Navy:
    NSY Pearl Harbor, HI........................  Abrasive Blast and Paint Shop.....     2,690,000    10,610,000
    NSWC Div, Indian Head, MD...................  Sewage Treatment Plant............     2,550,000    10,070,000
Air Force:
    Falcon AFS, CO..............................  Sanitary Sewer Line...............     1,296,000     5,500,000
    Andersen AFB, GU............................  Landfill Closure..................     2,097,000     8,900,000
    Hickam AFB, HI..............................  Fire Training Facility............       785,000     3,300,000
    RAF Feltwell, UK............................  Wastewater Treatment Facility.....       786,000     3,000,000
    RAF Mildenhall, UK..........................  Hazardous Materials Storage              267,000     1,000,000
                                                   Facility.
    RAF Molesworth, UK..........................  Wastewater Treatment Facility.....       445,000     1,700,000
Defense Logistics Agency:
    Various Locations...........................  Conforming Storage Facility.......     1,300,000     1,300,000
Air National Guard:
    Savannah IAP, GA............................  Regional Fire Training Facility...       368,000     1,700,000
Navy Reserve:
    NAS Willow Grove, PA........................  Hazardous Materials Storage              320,000     1,930,000
                                                   Facility.
Air Force Reserve:
    Homestead AFB, FL...........................  Fire Fighting Training Facility...       524,000     2,000,000
                                                                                     ---------------------------
      Total.....................................  ..................................    17,728,000    68,510,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Transfer Authority

    The budget request proposed a general provision which would 
allow the transfer of up to $67,000,000 between any accounts in 
the bill, and this could be accomplished at the determination 
of the Secretary of Defense and upon the approval of OMB. 
Congress would be given an ``after the fact'' notification. The 
Committee believes that the existing reprogramming procedures 
are sufficient in solving urgent, high priority funding 
problems within available resources and denies this request.

         Annualization of Supervision, Inspection, and Overhead

    The Department has requested that funding for supervision, 
inspection and overhead (SIOH) of military construction 
projects be annualized over several fiscal years, as opposed to 
the long-standing practice of fully funding these costs with 
the projects in the initial budget year. The Committee 
recognizes the SIOH as required by 10 U.S.C. 2851 and 10 U.S.C. 
18233 is necessary for the efficient, expeditious and cost-
effective completion of military construction projects. Without 
adequate and timely funding, SIOH cannot keep pace with 
construction placement, and this would pose an unacceptable 
risk of work suspension and delay costs to the government. 
Annualization would make budgeting and management of these 
funds more difficult and potentially more costly since SIOH 
funding for each project must be appropriated and accounted for 
across several fiscal years. Since annualization merely defers 
obligation authority and does not save SIOH funds, the 
Committee concludes that fully funding SIOH in the initial 
budget year of a construction project is the most cost 
effective and efficient method for ensuring continuity of these 
critical activities and completion of the project. Thus, the 
Committee does not approve the annualized method of financing 
SIOH and, in providing appropriations for fiscal year 2000 
military construction projects, has provided funds in fiscal 
year 2000 to cover the full cost of SIOH. Further, the 
Committee directs the Department to include full SIOH funding 
in the initial budget year when requesting construction funds 
for future year projects.

                    Privatization of Utility Systems

    Section 2688 of Title 10, United States Code, provides 
authority to convey to the private sector all Defense utility 
systems, including electric, water, waste water, and natural 
gas, as well as steam, hot and chilled water, and 
telecommunications systems. The Defense Reform Initiative 
directed all utility systems be privatized unless uneconomical 
or exempt for security reasons by 2003. The objective of the 
Department is to get out of the business of owning, managing 
and operating utility systems through privatization.
    While supporting the privatization of military utility 
systems, the Committee is concerned that sale of these systems 
may result in a substantial increase in long-term utility costs 
to the Government and a concomitant increase in O&M 
requirements. For instance, Committee investigators determined 
at Fort Lewis, Washington, that privatization of on-base 
utilities and subsequent capitalization and improvement of 
utilities infrastructure will double utilities cost to the 
Government. Although it is too early to determine the cost to 
the Government of utilities privatization, the Committee urges 
the Department to study carefully the economic consequences of 
privatization before divesting the Government's interest in any 
military utility system. Additionally, the Committee encourages 
the Department to assure the military services are coordinating 
their utility privatization efforts in co-located areas.

                          Contingency Funding

    The Committee believes that the amount requested for 
construction contingencies, 5 percent for new construction and 
10 percent for alterations or additions, is excessive. The 
Committee supports the requirement established for unforeseen 
needs, such as environmental and regulatory requirements, 
unanticipated subsurface requirements conditions and changes in 
the bid climate. However, the Committee has learned that this 
contingency funding is being used to fund upgrades on projects, 
which have already been awarded and satisfy the basic 
requirement. Therefore, the Committee has included a provision 
(Section 128) which reduces the funding available for 
contingency within the Department. The Committee believes this 
funding will be sufficient to satisfy the Department of Defense 
contingency requirement.

                      Support For Deployed Troops

    The Committee has been made aware of the Department's 
intent to construct two base camps that will house the troops 
deployed with the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo. The 
Committee has a long history of supporting quality of life 
issues for deployed troops. However, the Committee has not been 
notified by the Department of Defense of the exact intent, 
details, schedule, cost, and source of funds for this effort. 
In particular, the Committee is concerned over the use of 
operation and maintenance funds for camps which may be 
permanent in nature. The Department is reminded of Section 110 
contained in Public Law 105-237 which prohibits construction of 
new bases overseas without prior notification to this 
Committee.

                         European Construction

    For the past seven years, as we have quadrupled our 
military operations in Europe, we have spent less than $100 
million per year for European Construction, compared to $650 
million per year in the 1980's. Yet, less than one percent of 
the fiscal year 2000 budget request is for mission critical 
facilities in Europe. The United States European Command is 
faced with a $4.7 billion backlog in maintenance and repair. 
This lack of funding and the numerous deployments and 
contingency operations over the past few years has put an 
enormous amount of stress on the infrastructure in the region. 
Through the inclusion of $475,000,000 in the 1999 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, the Congress has recognized 
the severe need for facility upgrades in the European theatre. 
The Department is directed to appropriately budget to correct 
these deficiencies.

                      Forward Operating Locations

    The fiscal year 2000 budget request included $42,800,000 
for three forward deployment sites using funds from the ``Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' 
appropriation. Due to the presentation of the budget request, 
it is the Committee's intent to deal with this matter in the 
Defense Appropriations bill. In the future, the Committee 
directs that future needs for military construction be 
requested under the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' 
account.

                    Gas Valves in Federal Facilities

    The current standard of gas valves in government facilities 
may pose a significant danger to federal facilities. The 
Committee is concerned about fires or explosions which could be 
caused by breaks in natural and propane gas lines in Federal 
facilities as a result of seismic activity, floods, tornadoes, 
and other natural and man-made disasters. The Committee directs 
the Department to ensure that appropriate gas valves are in 
place that will protect personnel and facilities from all types 
of disasters due to gas explosions or fires. The Committee 
believes that a safety cut-off valve that halts the flow of gas 
whenever there is a break in the line and keeps gas shut off 
until repairs are made could save lives and prevent millions of 
dollars in property loss. The Committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to report on the progress being made to ensure that 
appropriate gas valves are in place by January 15, 2000.

                        Alkali Silica Reactivity

    The Corps of Engineers has selected Fort Campbell, Kentucky 
as the initial defense installation to mitigate/prevent the 
deletrious effects of alkali silica reactivity (ASR) associated 
with concrete aprons, taxiways, and tarmacs. However, the 
Committee recommends that the Corps, in conjunction with the 
Department of Defense, undertake a broader investigation of ASR 
problems at all domestic defense installations. Further, the 
Committee understands the Corps has already developed a list of 
high priority sites where ASR problems exist. The investigation 
should continue the prioritization of sites and include the 
development of specifications to prevent and mitigate ASR in 
new and existing concrete structures as well as associated cost 
estimates per installation. The Committee directs the 
Department to report to congressional defense committees on its 
strategy to deal with ASR no later than March 15, 2000.

                       Real Property Maintenance

    The Department is directed to continue to provide the real 
property maintenance backlog at all installations for which 
there is a requested construction project in future budget 
submissions. This information is to be provided on Form 1390. 
In addition, for all troop housing requests, the Form 1391 is 
to continue to show all real property maintenance conducted in 
the past two years and all future requirements for 
unaccompanied housing at that installation.

            Real Property Maintenance: Reporting Requirement

    The Committee continues to expect the general rules for 
repairing a facility under Operation and Maintenance account 
funding will be as follows:
    Components of the facility may be repaired by replacement, 
and such replacement can be up to current standards or codes.
    Interior arrangements and restorations may be included as 
repair, but additions, new facilities, and functional 
conversions must be performed as military construction 
projects.
    Such projects may be done concurrent with repair projects, 
as long as the final conjunctively funded project is a complete 
and usable facility.
    The appropriate Service Secretary shall submit a 21-day 
notification prior to carrying out any repair project with an 
estimated cost in excess of $10,000,000.

                     Program, Project and Activity

    For the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation 
Act of 1987, (Public Law 100-119), the term ``Program, Project 
and Activity'' will continue to be defined as the appropriation 
account.

                         Planning and Budgeting

    The Committee relies on officials in the Department of 
Defense to provide the most honest assessment of competing 
facilities needs, based on the most informed judgment of 
military requirements. The Committee understands and supports 
the process the Department employs to identify requirements, to 
prioritize those requirements, and to live within budgetary 
constraints. It is the view of the Committee that the best way 
to accomplish this task is to have a disciplined long-range 
planning process, with annual adjustments to meet changing 
circumstances. The Committee supports efforts within the 
Services and within the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to formulate and present a coherent Future Years 
Defense Plan at the project level of detail, and encourages 
efforts to reconcile annual adjustments in this plan.

                           Metric Conversion

    The Committee directs the Comptroller of the Department of 
Defense to assure that any Form 1390/1391 which is presented as 
justification in metric measurement shall include 
parenthetically the English measurement.

                      Military Construction, Army





Fiscal year 1999:
  Appropriation.......................................      $865,726,000
  Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 105-277).............       118,000,000
      Total...........................................       983,726,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       656,003,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,223,405,000
Comparison with:
  Fiscal year 1999 appropriation......................      +239,679,000
  Fiscal year 2000 estimate...........................      +567,402,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,223,405,000 for 
Military Construction, Army for fiscal year 2000. This is an 
increase of $567,402,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2000, and an increase of $239,679,000 above the 
appropriation for 1999.

                   chemical demilitarization program

    The budget request proposes that a total of $267,100,000 
should be appropriated under the ``Military Construction, 
Army'' account for chemical demilitarization facilities. As in 
prior years, the Committee recommends that these amounts be 
appropriated under the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' 
account, in order to facilitate the tracking of expenses for 
the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and to avoid distorting 
the size of the Army's military construction program. It is the 
Committee's view that this is an accounting decision, and that 
it will have no impact on the operation of the program or on 
administrative overhead expenses within the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense.

             Kentucky-Fort Knox: Basic Training Facilities

    The Committee is aware that the number of recruits being 
assigned to Fort Knox for basic training is increasing. As 
those levels continue increasing, the need for adequate 
accommodations to support trainees will become a priority. The 
Committee is encouraged to learn that the Army is developing 
plans to establish trainee barracks complexes that will provide 
a full range of support needs for trainees. However, it is 
unclear to the Committee how or when the Army will implement 
these plans. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army is directed 
to report by January 15, 2000 on (1) the future of basic 
training at Fort Knox, and; (2) the status and plans for 
implementation of any basic training complex proposals at Fort 
Knox.

   New York-U.S. Military Academy: Cadet Physical Development Center

    The Department of the Army estimates its current backlog of 
physical fitness centers to be $219,300,000. This backlog 
consists of 30 different projects at an average cost of 
$7,310,000. In spite of this backlog, the Army is in the midst 
of a three phase, multi-year project to revitalize, by partial 
replacement, the Arvin Cadet Physical Development Center at the 
U.S. Military Academy, New York. The total cost of this project 
is estimated at $85,000,000, more than 10 times the average 
cost for a physical fitness center. In fiscal year 1999, 
Congress appropriated $12,000,000 for the first phase of this 
project. Phase II and III are currently under design and plan 
to be awarded as an incrementally funded contract for 
$73,000,000.
    The Committee recommends deferring $28,500,000 budgeted for 
phase II of this project in fiscal year 2000. In order for the 
Department to the Army to address its backlog of physical 
fitness centers, the Committee believes the Army needs to 
explore the possibility of funding at least 50% of the contract 
for Phases II and III utilizing a non-appropriated fund account 
and/or alumni contributions. Funds made available by this 
funding approach should be reprogrammed to reduce the physical 
fitness center backlog. The Secretary of the Army is directed 
to report to the Committee by January 15, 2000 on the 
feasibility of using a non-appropriated fund account or alumni 
contributions to partially fund this project and the plan for 
addressing the Army's current backlog of physical fitness 
centers.
    In addition, the Committee has redirected $12,000,000 of 
this request to two physical fitness centers for the Army in 
Korea.

          Germany-Landstuhl Hospital: Child Development Center

    The Committee is very concerned over the poor ventilation, 
insufficient day light, flooding in the basement pre-school and 
Kindergarten rooms, and various other safety and health hazards 
at the Landstuhl Child Development Center. The Committee 
understands $2,950,000 is necessary for a replacement child 
development center and directs the Army to use design build and 
to program this facility in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request.

                      Military Construction, Navy





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................      $602,593,000
    Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 105-277)...........         5,860,000
      Total...........................................       608,453,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       319,786,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       968,862,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................      +360,409,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      +649,076,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $968,862,000 for 
Military Construction, Navy for fiscal year 2000. This is an 
increase of $649,076,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2000, and an increase of $360,409,000 above the 
appropriation for fiscal year 1999.

                california-concord naval weapons station

    Earlier this year, the Navy announced that the Army would 
take over the main operations at the Concord Naval Weapons 
Station. The Committee is aware the Army and Navy have 
confirmed that they are planning a dramatic reduction of force 
at the station. The significant downsizing at the station 
raised the issue of potential use of the property by the 
surrounding community. The Committee directs the Secretary of 
the Navy to conduct a study examining the potential for joint 
use and outgrants of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, by 
civilian and military entities that is consistent with the 
missions of the Navy and Army and the needs of the surrounding 
community. The study shall be conducted by the Navy in 
conjunction with the Army and the cities of Concord, Martinez, 
and Pittsburgh, Contra Costa County, the communities of Clyde 
and Bay Point, and the East Bay Regional Parks District. The 
report is to be submitted to the Committee no later that 
January 15, 2000.

    California-Lemoore Naval Air Station: Quality of Life Conditions

    The Committee is concerned that living conditions at 
Lemoore Naval Air Station have become a serious impediment to 
the base's growth and are incompatible with the increased 
flight activity and personnel associated with the establishment 
of five squadrons of the new F/A-18E Super Hornet Fighter 
aircraft at the installation. Lemoore NAS currently supports 
27,000 military, civilian, dependent, and retired personnel. It 
is estimated this number will grow to 33,000 over the next five 
years. Because of its increasing population, secluded location 
and deteriorating facilities, quality of life projects and 
pilot retention rates have become critically important to the 
future of the base. The Committee has been informed that a 
recent survey at Lemoore confirmed that the living conditions 
diminish morale and threaten pilot retention rates if they are 
not addressed. Considering the cost of training these pilots, 
as well as the critical importance of the F/A-18's to the 
Navy's future, the Navy is directed to accelerate the design of 
quality of life projects at Lemoore NAS, and to include the 
required construction funding in its fiscal year 2001 budget 
request. Additionally, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to 
report to the Committee by January 15, 2000 on the plan and 
schedule for addressing the critical quality of life conditions 
at Lemoore NAS.

        California-Port Hueneme: Combat Systems Integration Lab

    The Navy is directed to accelerate the design of the Combat 
Systems Integration Lab at the Port Hueneme Division of the 
Naval Surface Warfare Center, and to include funding for this 
project in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.

   Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Station: CINCPAC Headquarters (Phase I)

    The Committee denies $15,870,000 for the budgeted 
Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet (CINCPACFLT) Headquarters. 
This amount would provide the first phase of an $86,050,000 
project to construct a headquarters in support of CINCPACFLT 
and associated command elements at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii. The 
Committee recommendation is based on authority recommended in 
section 2802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2000 to further the development of Ford Island, 
Hawaii. The Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to the 
Committee by January 15, 2000 on the feasibility of using 
authorities granted for the development of Ford Island in 
relocating the CINCPACFLT headquarters to that site.

             New Jersey-Earle Naval Weapons Station: Pier 2

    Pier and Trestle 2 located at Naval Weapons Station Earle, 
New Jersey was built in 1944. The Committee has learned that 
structural testing and engineering analyses of the pier have 
found major areas of deterioration. Accordingly, the Committee 
has concerns about the safety of conducting operations at Pier 
2. Therefore, the Navy is directed to accelerate the design of 
this project, and to include the required construction funding 
in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.

               Puerto Rico-Roosevelt Roads Naval Station

    More than 40 years ago, the Navy acquired land abutting 
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station from the Municipality of Ceiba, 
Puerto Rico. Concerned about reports that this land had never 
been utilized and aware of proposals by the City of Ceiba to 
utilize the unused land, the Committee directed the Navy to 
report on plans for taking appropriate cooperative actions for 
land utilization in the fiscal year 1998 Military Construction 
Appropriations Bill. In the report submitted to the Committee, 
the Navy stated they would work with the City of Ceiba 
regarding increased use of the land. The Committee continues to 
be concerned with reports that this land dispute has not been 
resolved. Furthermore, the Committee is aware the City of Ceiba 
has developed several cooperative use proposals and would like 
to reach an agreement with the Navy on a mutually beneficial 
plan for this land. The Secretary of the Navy is directed to 
report to the Committee by January 15, 2000 on plans and 
schedule for developing, in cooperation with the Municipality 
of Ceiba, a plan agreeable to both the Navy and City of Ceiba 
to resolve this land dispute.

                    Military Construction, Air Force





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................      $612,809,000
    Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 105-277)...........        29,200,000
      Total...........................................       642,009,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       179,479,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       752,367,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................      +110,358,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      +572,888,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $752,367,000 for 
Military Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 2000. This is 
an increase of $572,888,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2000, and an increase of $110,358,000 above the 
appropriation for fiscal year 1999.

             kansas-mcconnell: base civil engineer complex

    The Air Force is directed to accelerate the design of the 
Base Civil Engineer Complex at McConnell AFB, and to include 
the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2001 
budget request.

                  Oklahoma-Tinker AFB: Primary Runway

    The primary runway at Tinker AFB was installed in 1942 and 
has reached the end of its useful life. The Committee is 
concerned this runway will no longer be able to serve the needs 
of the base if it is not replaced. Additionally, increased use 
of an alternative runway would not only diminish the base's 
operational capabilities, but would require use of a flight 
path that would greatly increase noise and safety concerns in 
local communities. Therefore, the Air Force is directed to 
accelerate the design of this project, and to include the 
required construction funding in its fiscal year 2001 budget 
request.

              germany-ramstein ab: physical fitness center

    The Committee is aware of the severe need for a new 
physical fitness center at Ramstein AB and understands this is 
very high on USAFE's priority list. Current facilities are over 
45 years of age, overcrowded, and require constant repair and 
maintenance. Lack of offbase facilities further complicates the 
need for maintaining physical fitness levels. The Secretay of 
the Air Force is directed to seek funding for this facility 
with the funds provided in the 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act.

                  Military Construction, Defense-wide





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $551,114,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       193,005,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       755,718,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................      +204,604,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      +562,713,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $755,718,000 for
Military Construction, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2000. This 
is an increase of $562,713,000 above the budget request for 
fiscal year 2000 and an increase of $204,604,000 above the 
appropriation for fiscal year 1999.

               CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

    The budget request includes a total of $267,100,000 for the 
following funding increments for the chemical weapons 
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2000:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State                      Installation               Project            Request     Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................  Anniston AD...........  Ammunition                 7,000,000     7,000,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase VII).
Arkansas............................  Pine Bluff Arsenal....  Ammunition                61,800,000    61,800,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase IV).
Colorado............................  Pueblo AD.............  Ammunition                11,800,000    11,800,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase I).
Indiana.............................  Newport AAP...........  Ammunition                61,200,000    61,200,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase II).
Kentucky............................  Blue Grass AD.........  Ammunition                11,800,000    11,800,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase I).
Kentucky............................  Blue Grass AD.........  Ammunition                11,000,000    11,000,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               support.
Maryland............................  Aberdeen Proving        Ammunition                66,600,000    66,600,000
                                       Ground.                 demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase II).
Oregon..............................  Umatilla AD...........  Ammunition                35,900,000    35,900,000
                                                               demilitarization
                                                               facility (Phase V).
                                                                                     ---------------------------
      Total.........................  ......................  ......................   267,100,000   267,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The budget request proposes that these amounts should be 
appropriated under the ``Military Construction, Army'' account.
As in prior years, the Committee recommends that these amounts 
be appropriated under the ``Military Construction, Defense-
wide'' account, in order to facilitate the tracking of expenses 
for the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and to avoid 
distorting the size of the Army's military construction 
program.
    The following chart displays the scope of the military 
construction investment in the overall chemical 
demilitarization program:

                          CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM MILITARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
                                 [Current year dollars in millions/fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal years--
                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                Project                   1998                                                           Total
                                          and      1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
                                         prior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-Chem Demil Training Facility.......     16.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      16.10
Tooele, UT Facility...................    198.0  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     198.00
Anniston, AL Facility.................    174.2  .......      7.0  .......  .......  .......  .......     181.20
Umatilla, OR Facility.................   144.63    23.95     35.9  .......  .......  .......  .......     204.48
Pine Bluff, AR Facility...............     59.0      9.0     61.8     34.4  .......  .......  .......     164.20
Pueblo, CO \1\ Facility...............      6.3  .......     11.8     51.0     96.2     33.9      9.0     208.20
Blue Grass, KY \1\ Facility...........  .......  .......     22.8     51.0     91.1     30.7      9.0     204.60
Aberdeen, MD Facility.................  .......    28.35     66.6     78.3     11.4  .......  .......     184.65
Newport, IN Facility..................  .......     13.5     61.2     75.3     39.9  .......  .......     189.90
Planning & Design.....................    114.5  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     114.50
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................   712.73     74.8    267.1    290.0    238.6     64.6     18.0   1,665.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding requirement may change pending assessment of Assembled Chemical Weapon Assessment Program in
  consonance with Public Law 104-208.

    The following chart displays the timetable and the 
milestones for completion of the chemical demilitarization 
program:

                           CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM TIMETABLE AND MILESTONES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Start of systemization
             Locaiton                Start of construction               \4\                   Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston Atoll \1\...............  .........................  ........................  3QFY90-4QFY00
Tooele, UT.......................  .........................  ........................  4QFY96-4QFY03
Anniston, AL.....................  3QFY97...................  2QFY00..................  2QFY02-1QFY06
Umatilla, OR.....................  3QFY97...................  3QFY00..................  2QFY02-3QFY05
Pine Bluff, AR...................  2QFY99...................  4QFY01..................  4QFY03-1QFY07
Pueblo, CO \2\...................  On Hold..................  ........................  ........................
Blue Grass, KY \2\...............  On Hold..................  ........................  ........................
Aberdeen, MD \3\.................  1QFY00...................  3QFY02..................  2QFY04-1QFY05
Newport, IN \3\..................  1QFY00...................  4QFY02..................  3QFY04-1QFY05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full-scale operations began 2QFY94.
\2\ Schedule on-hold as directed by Public Law 104-208 pending technology evaluation by Program Manager for
  Assembled Chemical Weapon Assessment.
\3\ Schedule represents employment of neutralization-based technology.
\4\ Some systemization activities are started in the construction phase.

                 energy conservation investment program

    In future budget submissions, the Committee will expect 
project-level information on the Energy Conservation Investment 
Program (ECIP) to be presented in tabular form, rather than in 
Form 1391 level of detail.

   Maryland-Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS)

    The Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences had 
been precluded from participating in the Military Construction 
Program from September 1993 until December 1997, when the 
Secretary of Defense determined that the University should 
remain open. The Committee is aware that on April 4, 1997 the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs validated the 
need for the construction of a fifth building at USUHS in 
fiscal year 2001. The fifth building would eliminate leasing 
costs and consolidate Graduate School of Nursing/Conference 
Center functions on the campus, thereby increasing staffing 
efficiency, the use of distance learning, and the effectiveness 
of the educational environment. The Tricare Management Agency 
is directed to accelerate the design of this project, and to 
include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 
2001 budget request.

 Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund


            military unaccompanied housing improvement fund

    The budget request proposed a general provision, which 
would allow the transfer of funds from the military 
construction accounts to the Military Unaccompanied Housing 
Improvement Fund. The Committee has always supported 
privatization and encourages the Department to continue to 
explore the feasibility of this initiative. However, due to the 
absence of any programmed or anticipated projects under this 
fund, the Committee denies the Department's request for 
transfer authority and encourages the Department to properly 
budget for any future unaccompanied housing privatization 
efforts.

               Military Construction, Reserve Components





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................      $486,715,000
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 105-           18,400,000
 277).................................................
      Total...........................................       505,115,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................        77,572,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       496,637,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 total appropriation..............        -8,478,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      +419,065,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $496,637,000 for 
Military Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 2000. 
This is an increase of $419,065,000 above the budget request 
for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $8,478,000 below the 
total appropriation for fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee's recommended action on each Reserve 
Component is reflected in the State list at the end of this 
report.
    The Committee recommends approval of Military Construction, 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Component                    Request         Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.................       $16,045,000      $135,129,000
Air National Guard..................        21,319,000       180,870,000
Army Reserve........................        23,120,000        92,515,000
Naval Reserve.......................         4,933,000        21,574,000
Air Force Reserve...................        12,155,000        66,549,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        77,572,000       496,637,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Army National Guard


                 annual reporting requirement--backlog

    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the 
Director of the Army National Guard to continue to make a joint 
report annually on the current backlog of facilities 
requirements of the Army National Guard to be submitted 
concurrently with the annual budget request.

          annual reporting requirement--armory infrastructure

    The Secretary of the Army, the Director of the National 
Guard Bureau, and the Director of the Army National Guard are 
directed to continue to report jointly to the Committee by 
January 1, 2000 on the status of armory infrastructure.

     arizona-peoria and yuma: readiness centers and organizational 
                            maintenance shop

    The Committee directs the National Guard Bureau to prepare 
itemized costs for design, construction and land for community-
based Readiness Centers in the Arizona cities of Yuma and 
Peoria. The Peoria center plan should also include an 
Organization Maintenance Shop and the Yuma center plan should 
incorporate the proposed partnership between the community and 
the Guard. Both the Peoria and Yuma facilities are urgently 
needed in order that the Arizona Army National Guard can be 
prepared for activation and deployment; whereas existing 
facilities do not promote the mission.

                   georgia-fort stewart: storm damage

    The Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act for 
fiscal year 1998 dated May 1, 1998 (P.L. 105-574) appropriated 
$3,700,000 for the Army National Guard to demolish and replace 
buildings destroyed by storm damage at Fort Stewart, Georgia. 
These funds were designated as an emergency and were only 
available for obligation during fiscal year 1998. The Army 
National Guard failed to obligate the money in fiscal year 1998 
and the funds expired. The Committee has learned there is still 
a requirement to replace these buildings at Fort Stewart, 
Georgia. If this project is a requirement to the Army National 
Guard, the Committee directs the Army National Guard to use the 
normal reprogramming procedures to meet the requirement or 
include the required funding in its fiscal year 2001 budget 
request.

          oklahoma-sand springs: armed services reserve center

    The Army National Guard is directed to accelerate the 
design of the Armed Services Reserve Center project at Sand 
Springs, Oklahoma, and to include the required construction 
funding in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.

           new york-hancock field: readiness center addition

    The Army National Guard is directed to accelerate the 
design of the Readiness Center Addition at Hancock Field, New 
York, and to include the required construction funding in its 
fiscal year 2001 budget request.

     massachusetts-barnes air national guard base: support facility

    The Army National Guard is currently relocating a UH-1 
helicopter unit to the Barnes Air National Guard Base in 
Massachusetts. The Committee has learned space is required to 
support the UH-1 helicopter unit in the base's Army Aviation 
Support Facility (AASF). Therefore, within funds provided for 
Unspecified Minor Construction, the Committee directs the Army 
National Guard to execute a project in the amount of $1,233,000 
to provide a support facility for the unit at the Barnes Air 
National Guard Base.

                 washington-bremerton: readiness center

    The Army National Guard is directed to accelerate the 
design of the Readiness Center at Bremerton, Washington, and to 
include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 
2001 budget request.

                           Air National Guard


  wisconsin-general mitchell international airport: aircraft parking 
                                 apron

    Currently, the 128th Air Refueling Wing stationed at 
General Mitchell International Airport in Wisconsin has ten 
aircraft, with one more scheduled for delivery this year. The 
existing aircraft parking apron has parking spots for eight 
aircraft. As a result, within funds provided for Unspecified 
Minor Construction, theCommittee directs the Air National Guard 
to execute a project in the amount of $1,500,000 to provide an addition 
to the aircraft parking apron at the General Mitchell International 
Airport.

            wisconsin-volk field: air traffic control tower

    The current air traffic control tower located at Volk 
Field, Wisconsin does not provide ample space for equipment or 
an adequate line-of-sight. Additionally, the facility is in a 
serious state of deterioration in spite of previous efforts to 
maintain, repair and improve it. Therefore, the Air National 
Guard is directed to accelerate the design of this project and 
include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 
2001 budget request.

                             Naval Reserve


                     unspecified minor construction

    Within funds provided for Unspecified Minor Construction, 
the Committee directs the Naval Reserve to execute a project in 
the amount of $720,000 to provide a fire training facility at 
the Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base in Texas.

                       future years defense plan

    It is the Committee's view that section 123 of Public Law 
104-196 constitutes a continuing permanent requirement for the 
Army National Guard and the Air National Guard to present the 
Future Years Defense Plan to Congress concurrent with the 
President's budget submission for each fiscal year. The 
Committee will expect subsequent submissions of the Future 
Years Defense Plan to include explanatory notes justifying any 
modification of prior year plans.

     North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................      $155,000,000
    Revised Economic Assumption.......................        -1,000,000
      Total...........................................       154,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       191,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................        81,000,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................       -73,000,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      -110,000,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $81,000,000 for the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program 
(NSIP). This is a decrease of $110,000,000 below the budget 
request for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $73,000,000 
below the appropriation for fiscal year 1999. The Committee 
notes that the actual requirement for the NATO Security 
Investment Program has been reduced to $172,000,000 since the 
budget request was provided to the committee. Therefore, the 
Committee expects the Department to use funds that were 
appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31) to provide adequate 
funding for this account in accordance with the amount 
authorized for fiscal year 2000.
    The Department of Defense is directed to continue to report 
to the Committees on Appropriations, on a quarterly basis, the 
following information:
          (1) NATO nations share of construction costs based on 
        fund authorizations;
          (2) NATO nations shares of procurement costs based on 
        fund authorizations; and
          (3) A listing of all obligations incurred that 
        quarter broken out by infrastructure category and 
        procurement category. This listing should show the 
        total project costs, the U.S. cost share and all other 
        NATO nations cost shares.

                             NATO Expansion

    The Committee continues the requirement that no funds will 
be used for projects (including planning and design) related to 
the enlargement of NATO and the Partnership for Peace, unless 
Congress is notified 21 days in advance of the obligation of 
funds. In addition, the Committee's intent is that Section 110 
of the General Provisions shall apply to this program.
    The Department of Defense is directed to identify 
separately the level of effort anticipated for NATO enlargement 
and for Partnership for Peace for that fiscal year in future 
budget justifications.

                             Family Housing


                                overview

    The need for military family housing has changed with the 
all-volunteer structure of the force. In the mid-1950s forty-
two percent of the force was married, compared to sixty-one 
percent today. The percentage of service members with families 
will continue to grow, and the nature of an all-volunteer force 
implies greater expectations for the availability, size and 
amenities of family housing. At the same time, the Department 
is faced with a changing military environment due to overseas 
reductions, domestic base closures, major force reductions, and 
increased deployments.
    Today, the family housing program is even more important 
because it provides a quality of life incentive which attracts 
and retains dedicated individuals to serve in the military. 
However, the housing deficiencies are a severe disincentive to 
reenlistment. Testimony before the Committee states that it 
costs over $34,200 to recruit, enlist, and train a member of 
the Army for the first assignment. This investment is lost each 
time a soldier must be replaced. The Committee has no question 
that housing is directly linked to readiness, morale and 
retention.
    While this Committee has focused on the need for adequate 
family housing over the years, resources have been scarce. The 
family housing crisis exists today due to the majority of 
housing in the Department's inventory being substandard; high 
cost areas where housing deficits exist; and problems young 
families are facing who cannot afford to live in local 
communities.
    DOD policy is that married couples will live off-base when 
the economy can support them, and about two-thirds of all 
military families do reside off-base. Where there is sufficient 
affordable housing in the community and commuting distances are 
not over one hour, most of these families are doing well. 
However, 12 percent of military families living in civilian 
communities are in substandard housing. This is often the case 
when rents are excessive or a family can only afford to live in 
distant, isolated, and sometimes unsafe neighborhoods. This is 
occurring more often because housing allowances are covering 
only 80 percent of the cost of civilian housing, on average. 
Many younger families only have one car and are faced with 
driving distances of over an hour to the installation. In some 
instances, families are choosing to remain separated simply 
because suitable, affordable housing is not available at a new 
assignment.
    The Department of Defense has a total of 313,000 on-base 
housing units in its inventory, with an average age of 35 
years. Two-thirds of the inventory is over 30 years old and 
requires a substantial annual investment to meet maintenance 
requirements. Over the years, the majority of these homes have 
gone without adequate maintenance and repair. And over fifty 
percent of the inventory, or 184,715 units, is in need of major 
improvements or replacement at a total cost of $15,195,634,000.
    Unsuitable units require a major investment in maintenance 
and repair to correct deteriorated infrastructure, provide 
basic living standards and meet contemporary code requirements 
for electrical and mechanical systems, and for energy 
efficiency. Examples provided to the Committee of a typical 
scenario military families face include: severe health and 
safety deficiencies such as electrical systems and water pipes 
needing replacement; non-working or inefficient heating and 
cooling systems; nails coming through the ceilings and floors; 
kitchen cabinets water-logged and sinking; ceiling and wall 
paint chipped and peeling; screens with holes in them; doors 
coming apart; malfunctioning smoke detectors; light fixtures 
broken, and stoves and ovens with elements not working. When 
housing units are not adequately maintained, eventually they 
must be closed and abandoned or demolished. Families who could 
have been housed in these units must then live off-base. In 
turn, this creates an additional expense for payment of housing 
allowances.
    Aside from the problems confronting the current inventory, 
the Department estimates a new construction deficit of 52,715 
units at a cost of $5,619,850,000. It will be necessary to use 
many different approaches to help meet the current family 
housing need. The challenge is for a sustained overall 
commitment, at funding levels that will reduce the backlog of 
inadequate houses, reduce the housing deficits, and increase 
the quality of living conditions in a reasonable period of 
time. The Department estimates it will take over 
$20,815,484,000 to correct the existing problem.
    The following chart provides a Service breakout of the 
current family housing deficit, both in units and in cost of 
new construction, replacement, improvements and deferred 
maintenance and repair:

                                         DEFICITS (CURRENT PROJECTIONS)
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    New
                                                construction     Replacement      Improvement      Grand total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Number of Units \1\.....................           10,442           36,244           52,612           99,298
    Costs \2\...............................       $1,350,000       $3,440,000       $2,500,000       $7,290,000
Navy:
    Number of Units.........................           15,900            4,450           21,200           41,550
    Costs \3\...............................         $731,400         $689,750       $1,144,750       $2,565,900
Marine Corps:
    Number of Units.........................           10,373            3,724           30,000           44,097
    Costs...................................       $1,490,450         $706,222       $2,430,000       $4,626,672
Air Force:
    Number of Units.........................           16,000           29,000            7,485           52,485
    Costs...................................       $2,048,000       $3,712,000         $572,912       $6,332,912
Total DoD:
    Number of Units.........................           52,715           73,418          111,297          237,430
    Costs...................................       $5,619,850       $8,547,972       $6,647,662     $20,815,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on end of fiscal year 1998 inventory of 116,916 on-post houses.
\2\ Based on traditional military construction estimates. Actual costs for units in the U.S. to be built/
  revitalized under privatization are expected to be lower.
\3\ The Navy's new construction deficit reflects the total family housing shortage. The Navy plans to rely on an
  overall strategy that includes public/private venture initiatives, leasing, aggressive housing referral
  programs, and the improved Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to address the total deficit. The cost identified
  here reflects estimated costs to build out the military construction portion of the total Navy deficit.

                         construction overview

    The Committee is concerned over the fiscal year 2000 budget 
request for family housing new construction and construction 
improvements of $141,341,000. Housing continues to be a top 
priority, yet the Department's budget represents a reduction of 
$558,085,000 or 80%, from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
for new construction and construction improvements. The 
Committee strongly believes it is imperative that construction 
funding levels must be maintained, along with any privatization 
efforts, to help resolve the serious family housing deficits. 
The Committee recommends total funding of $707,697,000 for 
family housing construction and improvements for fiscal year 
2000, an increase of $566,356,000 above the budget request.

                        new housing construction

    The fiscal year 2000 request is $70,000,000 to build 1545 
units of new family housing for all Services. This is 
$248,703,000 or 78 percent, under the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level. The Committee has approved all requested projects for 
new construction. In addition, the Committee has recommended an 
additional $84,887,000 to construct 558 units of new family 
housing. The total appropriation for new construction is 
$371,085,000. Details of the Committee's recommendations for 
new construction are provided in this report under the 
individual component accounts and the Department of Defense 
Family Housing Improvement Fund. The Committee expects that 
none of the approved projects will be reduced in scope.
    It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-
day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of 
the Committee, funds appropriated for a new construction 
project may be transferred to the Defense Family Housing 
Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector pilot 
project at the same location.

                       construction improvements

    A total of $71,341,000 has been requested for post-
acquisition construction for all services to improve 3889 
housing units. This is a decrease of $309,382,000, or 81 
percent, from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Post-
acquisition construction is focused on modernizing existing 
units that are uneconomical to repair. In addition, the 
Committee has provided an additional $265,271,000 for 
construction improvement projects which are listed in this 
report under the individual component accounts, to improve an 
additional 294 units. The total appropriation for post-
acquisition construction is $336,612,000 and will improve 4,119 
units of family housing.
    It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-
day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of 
the Committee, funds appropriated for a construction 
improvement project may be transferred to the Defense Family 
Housing Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector 
pilot project at the same location.
    The Committee continues the restriction on the amount 
invested in improving foreign source housing units. The three-
year limitation on overseas units is $35,000. If the components 
intend to program improvements to specific units which exceed 
$35,000 over a period of three years, total funding should be 
requested in one year. The justification for each unit should 
identify all improvements and major maintenance work done in 
the past three years, and all improvements and major 
maintenance planned in the following three years.

                       operation and maintenance

    The fiscal year 2000 request for operation and maintenance 
expenses totals $2,856,482,000, an increase of $29,389,000 from 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $2,848,214,000 for fiscal year 2000. These 
accounts provide for annual expenditures for maintenance and 
repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, leasing, 
interest, mortgage insurance and miscellaneous expenses. Of the 
total request for operation and maintenance, $1,283,281,000 is 
for maintenance and repair of existing housing, an increase of 
$10,714,000 from fiscal year 1999 levels.
    The Committee directs that any savings from foreign 
currency re-estimations in the family housing operation and 
maintenance accounts be applied for maintenance of existing 
family housing units. The Comptroller is directed to report to 
the Committee on the allocation of this savings by December 1, 
1999.
    Expenditures from this account for general and flag officer 
quarters are to be reported in accordance with the guidelines 
previously established and reiterated later in this report. The 
Committee also continues the direction that the details of all 
other expenditures from this account which exceed $15,000 per 
unit, per year for major maintenance and repair of non-general 
and flag officer quarters be included as part of the 
justification material. The general provision limiting 
obligations from this account to no more than 20 percent of the 
total in the last two months of the fiscal year is included in 
this year's bill.
    The Committee continues the restriction on the transfer of 
funds between the operation and maintenance accounts. The 
limitation is ten percent to all primary accounts and 
subaccounts. Such transfers are to be reported to the Committee 
within thirty days of such action.

                      Family Housing Master Plans

    Section 129 of the bill directs that the Army, Navy, Marine 
Corps and Air Force to submit to the appropriate committees of 
Congress by June 1, 2000, a Family Housing Master Plan 
demonstrating how they plan to meet the Department's goal to 
eliminate all inadequate housing by 2010 with traditional 
construction, demolition, operation and maintenance support, as 
well as privatization initiative proposals. Each plan shall 
include projected life cycle costs for family housing 
construction, basic allowance for housing, operation and 
maintenance, demolition, other associated costs, and a time 
line for housing completions each year. The Committee commends 
the Air Force for recently completing its two year effort which 
involved installation visits to document the existing 
conditions of base housing units, initially assess the 
feasibility of housing privatization and to produce an 
installation plan. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps are directed 
to mirror the Air Force's efforts.

      General and Flag Officer Quarters: Misappropriation of Funds

    In previous reports, the Committee has sought to encourage 
the Department to control the inordinate expenditures 
associated with maintaining general and flag officer quarters 
through expense thresholds, reporting requirements and 
notifications. In spite of these restrictions, the Department's 
expenditures on general and flag quarters have continued to 
rise beyond reason. In fact, the Committee has learned that the 
Navy and Air Force have in recent years supplemented family 
housing funds with the Services regular operations and 
maintenance funds on the so-called historic homes.
    The Committee is concerned that previously established 
expense thresholds, reporting requirements and notifications 
have not controlled the inordinate expenditures associated with 
maintaining general and flag officer quarters. Therefore, the 
Committee has no recourse but to include a provision (Section 
126) which statutorily prohibits the mixing of operations and 
maintenance and family housing funds on general and flag 
officer quarters. Furthermore, not more than $15,000 per unit 
can be spent annually for the maintenance and repair of any 
general or flag officer quarters without the prior notification 
of the appropriate committees of Congress. Out of cycle 
notifications are prohibited unless justified as emergencies or 
safety related. Finally, the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) is required to submit a quarterly report 
detailing the total amount spent on operation and maintenance 
of individual general and flag officer quarters to the 
appropriate committees of Congress.
    Additionally, each Service Secretary is directed to submit 
a detailed report to the Committee no later than September 15, 
1999 that identifies the total costs associated with 
maintenance of general and flag officer living quarters for the 
past five fiscal years. Each report should provide a 
determination as to whether recent funding practices for 
maintaining general officer quarters have been in violation of 
current law and what, if any, corrective actions against the 
responsible parties have been taken by the Service to preclude 
future occurrences of these violations.

      General and Flag Officer Quarters: Change in Occupancy Work

    The Committee continues the notification requirement when 
maintenance and repair costs for change in occupancy work for a 
unit will exceed the amount submitted in the budget 
justification by 25 percent or $5,000, whichever is less.

                     leasing reporting requirement

    The Committee continues the reporting requirement for both 
domestic and foreign leases. For domestic leases (not funded by 
the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund), the Department is 
directed to report quarterly on the details of all new or 
renewal domestic leases entered into during the previous 
quarter which exceed $12,000 per unit per year, including 
certification that less expensive housing was not available for 
lease. For foreign leases, the Department is directed to: 
perform an economic analysis on all new leases or lease/
contract agreements where more than 25 units are involved; 
report the details of any new or renewal lease exceeding 
$20,000 per year (as adjusted for foreign currency fluctuation 
from October 1, 1987, but not adjusted for inflation), 21 days 
prior to entering into such an agreement; and base leasing 
decisions on the economic analysis.

exclusion of asbestos and lead-based paint removal from maintenance and 
                             repair limits

    The Committee continues the requirement of an after-the-
fact notification where asbestos and/or lead-based paint 
removal costs cause the maintenance and repair thresholds of 
$15,000 for a military family housing unit, or $15,000 for a 
General or Flag Officer Quarters, to be exceeded. The 
notification shall include work, scope, cost break-out and 
other details pertinent to asbestos and/or lead-based paint 
removal work and shall be reported on a semi-annual basis.

                         reprogramming criteria

    The reprogramming criteria that apply to military 
construction projects (25 percent of the funded amount or 
$2,000,000, whichever is less) also apply to new housing 
construction projects and to improvement projects over 
$2,000,000.

                          Family Housing, Army





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................    $1,246,987,000
    Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 105-277)...........         5,200,000
      Total...........................................     1,252,187,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................     1,112,083,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,179,012,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................       -73,175,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................       +66,929,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,179,012,000 for 
Family Housing, Army for fiscal year 2000. This is an increase 
of $66,929,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2000, 
and a decrease of $73,175,000 below the appropriation for 
fiscal year 1999.

                              construction

    The Committee recommends $49,500,000 for new construction, 
instead of $4,400,000, as requested, as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                        Number of units     Requested       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Virginia-Fort Lee........................................               97                0           16,500
    Washington-Fort Lewis....................................               48                0            9,000
    Korea-Camp Humphreys.....................................               60            4,400           24,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Army.........................................              205            4,400           49,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       construction improvements

    The following projects are to be accomplished within the 
additional amount provided for construction improvements:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                        Number of units     Requested        Recommeded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky-Fort Campbell.......................................               26                0        2,800,000
Germany-Hanau................................................               64        1,150,000        7,000,000
Germany-Wiesbaden............................................              198        1,303,000        8,100,000
Germany-Baumholder...........................................              162        2,850,000       17,500,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Army............................................              450        5,303,000       35,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Operations and Maintenance

    The request of $1,098,080,000 has been reduced by 
$8,268,000, as contained in the House-passed authorization 
bill. It is the Committee's intent that the appropriations of 
$469,211,000 for the maintenance of real property not be 
reduced.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................    $1,204,883,000
    Emergency appropriations (P.L. 105-277)...........        10,599,000
      Total...........................................     1,215,482,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       959,675,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,207,629,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 total appropriation..............        -7,853,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      +247,954,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,207,629,000 for 
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 2000. 
This is an increase of $247,954,000 above the budget request 
for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $7,853,000 below the 
total appropriation for fiscal year 1999.

                              Construction

    The Committee recommends $118,174,000 for new construction, 
instead of $15,182,000, as requested, as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                        Number of units     Requested       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
    California-Lemoore Naval Air Station.....................              116                0           20,188
    Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay MCAS..................................              100            5,320           26,615
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex........................               96            3,831           19,167
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex........................              133            6,031           30,168
    North Carolina-Cherry Point MCAS.........................              180                0           22,036
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy.........................................              625           15,182          118,174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Construction Improvements

    The following projects are to be accomplished within the 
additional amount provided for construction improvements:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                        Number of units     Requested       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona-MCAS Yuma............................................              113        2,724,000       14,364,000
California-CNB San Diego.....................................                8          632,000                0
California-MCB Camp Pendleton................................              100          842,000        4,441,000
California-NAWC China Lake...................................            (\1\)          822,000        4,139,000
California-Twentynine Palms MCAGCC...........................              692                0        5,100,000
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks 8th & I.................                1           36,000          181,000
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks 8th & I.................                1           31,000          158,000
Hawaii-CNB Pearl Harbor (Hospital Point).....................               19          822,000        4,156,000
Hawaii-CNB Pearl Harbor (Hospital Point).....................              112        3,572,000       18,055,000
Hawaii-CNB Pearl Harbor (Makalapa)...........................               25          906,000                0
Hawaii-CNB Pearl Harbor (NCTAMS Pacific).....................               28          737,000        3,730,000
Hawaii-MCB Kaneohe Bay.......................................                1           37,000          191,000
Illinois-Great Lakes NTC.....................................              127                0       14,400,000
North Carolina-Camp Lejeune..................................               91                0        9,100,000
North Carolina-MCAS Cherry Point.............................              103          397,000        2,024,000
Pennsylvania-Philadelphia NICP...............................                2                0          200,000
South Carolina-Parris Island MCRD............................               48                0        4,932,000
Iceland-NAS Keflavik.........................................              101        3,158,000       15,977,000
Japan-NAF Atsugi.............................................                7          272,000                0
Japan-NAF Atsugi.............................................               96        2,568,000       10,520,000
Japan-NAF Atsugi.............................................               36          721,000        2,955,000
Japan-MCAS Iwakuni...........................................               44           66,000          310,000
Japan-MCAS Iwakuni...........................................               44          397,000        1,882,000
Japan-CFA Saesbo.............................................               88          169,000          692,000
Japan-CFA Saesbo.............................................            (\2\)          110,000          447,000
Japan-CNFJ Yokosuka..........................................              104        2,776,000       11,374,000
Japan-CNFJ Yokosuka..........................................               46        1,120,000        4,588,000
Japan-CNFJ Yokosuka..........................................                7          348,000                0
Puerto Rico-NS Roosevelt Roads...............................              294        5,813,000       29,440,000
Marianas Island-PWC Guam.....................................               72        2,632,000       13,314,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Navy............................................             2410       31,708,000      176,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demolish 120 units.
\2\ Site improvements.

                          navy officer housing

    The Navy has requested funding for 47 units of senior 
officer housing in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission. The 
Committee recommends deferring $10,312,000 budgeted for these 
units. The projects are as follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                             Number of units            Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California-San Diego CNB-Point Loma...........................                        8               -3,185,000
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor CNB-Makalapa..............................                       25               -4,582,000
Japan-Atsuga NAF..............................................                        7               -1,117,000
Japan-Yokosuka CNFJ...........................................                        7               -1,428,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
        Total.................................................                       47              -10,312,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Family Housing, Air Force





Fiscal year 1999:
    Appropriation.....................................    $1,060,169,000
    Emergency appropriations (P.L. 105-277)...........        22,233,000
  Total...............................................     1,082,402,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       923,683,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,166,888,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 total appropriation..............       +84,486,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................      +243,205,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,166,888,000 for 
Family Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 2000. This is an 
increase of $243,205,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2000, and an increase of $84,486,000 above the total 
appropriation for fiscal year 1999.

                              Construction

    The Committee recommends $203,411,000 for new construction, 
instead of $50,418,000 as requested, as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                        Number of units     Requested       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force:
    Arizona-Davis-Monthan AFB................................               64            2,707           10,000
    California-Beale AFB.....................................               60            2,301            8,500
    California-Edwards AFB...................................               98            4,404           16,270
    California-Edwards AFB...................................               90            4,472           16,520
    California-Vandenberg AFB................................               91            4,548           16,800
    District of Columbia-Bolling AFB.........................               48            2,537            9,375
    Florida-Eglin AFB........................................              130            3,812           14,080
    Florida-MacDill AFB......................................               54            2,446            9,034
    Kansas-McConnell AFB.....................................            (\1\)                0            1,363
    Mississippi-Columbus AFB.................................              100            3,327           12,290
    Montana-Malmstrom AFB....................................               34            2,050            7,570
    Nebraska-Offutt AFB......................................               72            3,343           12,352
    New Mexico-Hollomon AFB..................................               76                0            9,800
    North Carolina-Seymour Johnson AFB.......................               78            3,300           12,187
    North Dakota-Grand Forks AFB.............................               42            2,720           10,050
    North Dakota-Minot AFB...................................               72            2,912           10,756
    Oklahoma-Tinker AFB......................................               41                0            6,000
    Texas-Lackland AFB.......................................               48            2,030            7,500
    Portugal-Lajes AFB.......................................               75            3,509           12,964
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force....................................            1,273           50,418          203,411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Improve area safety.

                       construction improvements

    The following projects are to be accomplished within the 
additional amount provided for construction improvements:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Location/Project                        Number of units     Requested       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska--Elmendorf AFB........................................               76        2,902,000       10,536,000
Arkansas--Little Rock AFB....................................               83        1,156,000        4,196,000
Colorado--USAF Academy.......................................            (\1\)          179,000          650,000
District of Columbia--Bolling AFB............................                6          125,000          455,000
Florida--Eglin Auxilliary Field 9............................            (\2\)          179,000          650,000
Hawaii--Hickam AFB...........................................               87        4,655,000       16,900,000
Hawaii--Hickam AFB...........................................               62        3,429,000       12,450,000
Maryland--Andrews AFB........................................               80        2,379,000        8,635,000
Maryland--Andrews AFB........................................               54        1,595,000        5,791,000
Montana--Malmstrom AFB.......................................               46        1,600,000        5,810,000
Nebraska--Offutt AFB.........................................              352          425,000        1,541,000
New Jersey--McGuire AFB......................................               34        1,129,000        4,100,000
Virginia--Langley AFB........................................               23        1,102,000        4,000,000
Germany--Ramstein AB (Landstuhl).............................               65        2,454,000        8,910,000
Germany--Ramstein AB (Vogelweh)..............................               96        3,209,000       11,650,000
Germany--Ramstein AB (Vogelweh)..............................               62        2,341,000        8,500,000
Germany--Ramstein AB.........................................            (\3\)        1,406,000        5,100,000
Germany--Spangdahlem AB......................................               20          863,000        3,134,000
Germany--Spangdahlem AB......................................               20          866,000        3,144,000
United Kingdom--RAF Lakenheath...............................               42        1,267,000        4,600,000
United Kingdom--RAF Mildenhall...............................               24        1,019,000        3,700,000
Worldwide--Unspecified.......................................                0                0           40,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Air Force.......................................            1,232       34,280,000      124,492,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Community improvement.
\2\ Improve neighborhood.
\3\ Bath/Laundry additions.

                      Family Housing, Defense-wide





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       $37,244,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................        41,490,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................        41,490,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................        +4,246,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends a total of $41,490,000 for Family 
Housing, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2000. This is equal to 
the budget request for fiscal year 2000, and an increase of 
$4,246,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 1999.

         Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        $2,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................        78,756,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................         2,000,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................                 0
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................       -76,756,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $2,000,000 for the 
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for 
fiscal year 2000. This is a decrease of $76,756,000 below the 
budget request for fiscal year 2000, and equal to the 
appropriation for fiscal year 1999. In order for the Department 
to address its current and anticipated housing requirements, 
the Committee believes the Department should include necessary 
funding in the traditional family housing financing accounts 
until further progress has been made with the Military Housing 
Privatization Initiative. As a result, the Committee has 
reallocated $76,756,000 from the Family Housing Improvement 
Fund to the military services family housing construction 
accounts. Further, at locations where housing privatization is 
not economically feasible nor in the long-term interest of the 
Department of Defense, the Committee directs that the services 
execute those projects for which funds are being withheld. The 
funds reallocated are as follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Location                    Account             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Washington--Fort Lewis.......  New Construction..          9,000,000
Navy:
    California--Lemoore Naval Air  New Construction..         20,188,000
     Station.
    Illinois--Great Lakes Naval    Construction               14,400,000
     Training Center.               Improvements.
    North Carolina--Cherry Point   New Construction..         22,036,000
     Marine Corps Air Station.
    Pennsylvania--Philadelphia     Construction                  200,000
     Naval Inventory Control        Improvements.
     Point.
    South Carolina--Parris Island  Construction                4,932,000
     Marine Corps Recruit Depot.    Improvements.
Air Force:
    Oklahoma--Tinker AFB.........  New Construction..          6,000,000
                                                      ------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                overview

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(P.L. 104-106) addressed the family housing crisis by 
authorizing a five year private sector pilot project to replace 
or renovate approximately 200,000 units of family housing 
within the United States, its territories and possessions, and 
in Puerto Rico, but not overseas. The Privatization Initiative 
provides the military services with several authorities 
designed to leverage appropriated housing construction funds 
and government-owned assets to attract private investment in 
military family housing. Authority was granted to: guarantee 
mortgage payments and rental contracts to developers as 
incentives to build family housing; authorize commercial-style 
lease agreements for family housing; and engage in joint 
ventures with developers to construct family housing on 
government property.
    The Family Housing Improvement Fund is used to build or 
renovate family housing, mixing or matching various authorities 
in the authorization, and utilizing private capital and 
expertise to the maximum extent possible. The Fund is to 
contain appropriated and transferred funds from family housing 
construction accounts, and the total value in budget authority 
of all contracts and investments undertaken may not exceed 
$850,000,000. Proceeds from investments, leases, and 
conveyances are to be deposited into this Fund, and any use of 
the Fund is subject to annual appropriations. The Family 
Housing Improvement Fund is to be administered as a single 
account without fiscal year limitations. This authority to 
enter into contracts and partnerships and to make investments 
shall expire on September 30, 2000.

                          congressional intent

    The Congress intended that the Department test the military 
housing privatization authorities as a supplement to, not a 
replacement for, traditional family housing financing. Yet, for 
fiscal year 2000, the Army has requested no funds whatever for 
conventional military family housing construction and 
improvements in the United States, and the Navy's request would 
fail to construct a single new family housing unit in the 
continental United States. In view of the sluggish 
implementation of the Privatization Initiative to date, the 
Committee believes abandonment of traditional family housing 
construction, as a means of improving the quality of life of 
military families, is an inappropriate strategy for the 
military services to pursue.
    Further, the Committee is concerned that Office of 
Management and Budget scoring requirements are driving 
privatization transactions rather than good business practices. 
The Committee is also concerned that the Department is 
permitting the military services, in an apparent breach of 
fiduciary responsibility, to give away valuable Federal land 
and facilities without adequate consideration in order to 
facilitate privatization deals with developers. To acquire new 
housing in the short term, the military services appear to 
understate basic allowance for housing (BAH) costs over the 
lives of the privatization projects creating the illusion the 
projects are cost efficient. In all likelihood, inflated BAH 
costs will obligate the Government to even greater funding 
commitments in future years. The Committee is concerned about 
other vexing Privatization Initiative questions including soft 
estimates of housing requirements, un-addressed post-award 
costs, the potential for retained Operations and Maintenance 
obligations, and legal and taxation issues consistent with the 
intent of Congress. In this regard, the Committee believes a 
``pilot project'' approach is the best method to warrant 
success for each of the military services, and urges the 
Department to reflect this approach in future budget requests.

             life cycle costs including valuation of assets

    The committee is concerned that the Department has embarked 
on a course of action that fails to completely address the 
total life cycle cost of individual privatization projects. 
Such a failure could commit the Department, and ultimately the 
taxpayers, to significant unintended future expenses which 
would impact on the ability to effectively fund future defense 
requirements. To alleviate this concern, the Committee directs 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to exert the oversight 
necessary to assure consistency is achieved in the definition 
of housing requirements, the true cost of housing allowances 
over the life of a project, and what is considered inadequate.
    Procedures and standards are to be established for 
valuation of assets transferred as part of all housing 
privatization projects. When computing government 
participation, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 
should prescribe that the Military Departments use the same 
established and consistent methodologies, to arrive at all 
valuations of all assets. This consistency should take into 
account assets whose use is restricted (housing units) as well 
as other property and facilities used to increase the 
government's contribution to the project.

                              programming

    The Committee is concerned that both the Department of the 
Navy and the Department of the Army failed to request funding 
for a single new family housing unit in the Continental United 
States (CONUS). Additionally, the Army did not request any 
funding for improvement of an existing unit in the United 
States. Once again, given the scope of the housing crisis and 
the slow pace of the housing privatization initiative, the 
Committee does not believe that this disinvestment in family 
housing construction funding is appropriate. The original 
intent of the privatization initiative was to provide for the 
expedited reduction of inadequate housing and to provide for 
the reduction of family housing backlog in a balanced manner, 
incorporating traditional family housing financing and these 
new authorities. Therefore, the Committee reiterates its desire 
to see the services properly budget for family housing in 
future budget requests to ensure that our military servicemen 
and women live in quality housing.

                          administrative costs

    The Committee continues its intent that the sole source of 
funds available for planning, administrative, and oversight 
costs relating to military family housing privatization 
initiatives be provided from the appropriations contained in 
this account. Administrative costs have been limited to 
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

                         reporting requirements

    Budget justification documents are to continue to display 
project and administrative costs. In addition, projects slated 
for Public-Private Ventures are to be requested under the 
Family Housing Improvement Fund instead of the Family Housing, 
Construction accounts.
    The Committee notes Section 124 of the General Provisions 
of this bill which requires the Service Secretaries to notify 
Congressional Committees sixty days prior to issuing a 
solicitation for a contract with the private sector for 
military family housing.
    The Service Secretary concerned may not enter into any 
contract until after the end of the 21-day period beginning on 
the date the Secretary concerned submits written notice of the 
nature and terms of the contract to the appropriate committees 
of Congress.
    To clarify existing reporting requirements, this 21-day 
notification requirement applies to any project, regardless of 
whether it is financed entirely by transfer of funds into the 
Family Housing Improvement Fund, or it is fully financed within 
funds available in the Family Housing Improvement Fund, or it 
is funded by combining transferred funds with funds available 
in the Family Housing Improvement Fund.
    In addition, no transfer of appropriated funds into the 
account may take place until after the end of the 30-day period 
beginning on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written 
notice and justification for the transfer to the appropriate 
committees of Congress. The Appropriations Committee expects to 
receive prior notification of all such transfers of funds.

                           Transfer Authority

    The budget request proposed a general provision which would 
allow the transfer of funds from the family housing operation 
and maintenance accounts to the military personnel 
appropriations in Title I of the Defense Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2000 in amounts not greater than those necessary to 
offset the additional housing allowance costs that result from 
the privatization of military housing. In addition, the 
provision proposes an ``after the fact'' notification of the 
transfer. The Committee has consistently voiced its concern 
that housing privatization would only shift the costs from one 
account to another. The original intent of the initiative was 
to provide a balance between privatized housing and traditional 
family housing construction allowing the remaining operations 
and maintenance dollars to help address the backlog of 
maintenance and repair more quickly. Therefore, the Committee 
denies the Department's request for transfer authority and 
encourages the Department to properly budget for any future 
privatization effort.

                  Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................                $0
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................                 0
Committee recommendation in the bill..................                 0
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................                 0
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends no appropriation for the 
Homeowners Assistance Fund. This is equal to the budget request 
for fiscal year 2000, and equal to the appropriation for fiscal 
year 1999. Requirements for fiscal year 1999 were financed by 
revenue and transfers from other accounts.
    The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a non-expiring revolving 
fund which finances a program for providing assistance to 
homeowners by reducing their losses incident to the disposal of 
their homes when military installations at or near where they 
are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope 
of operations is reduced. The Fund was established in 
recognition of the fact that base closure and reduction actions 
can have serious economic effects on local communities. The 
Fund receives funding from several sources: appropriations, 
borrowing authority, reimbursable authority, prior fiscal year 
unobligated balances, revenue from sale of acquired properties, 
and recovery of prior year obligations.
    The total estimated requirements for fiscal year 2000 are 
estimated at $62,687,000 and will be funded with transfers from 
the Base Realignment and Closure account and revenue from sales 
of acquired property.

                      Base Realignment and Closure


                                overview

    The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of 
$19,438,428,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure program 
for fiscal years 1990 through 1999. In the bill for fiscal year 
2000, the Committee is recommending total funding of 
$705,911,000 under one account, as requested. These funds are 
necessary to ensure closure schedules can be met and 
anticipated savings will be realized. In addition, funding is 
essential for accelerated cleanup which is necessary for reuse 
of surplus properties and future job creation.
    The Committee, in appropriating such funds, has provided 
the Department with the flexibility to allocate funds by 
Service, by function and by base. The Committee, in recognizing 
the complexities of realigning and closing bases and providing 
for environmental restoration, has provided such flexibility to 
allow the Office of the Secretary of Defense to monitor the 
program execution of the Services and to redistribute 
unobligated balances as appropriate to avoid delays and to 
effect timely execution of realignment and closures along with 
environmental restoration.
    The following table displays the total amount appropriated 
for each round of base closure including amounts recommended 
for fiscal year 2000:

                                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
                           [Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year 1990
                                           through fiscal   Fiscal year 1999  Fiscal year 2000        Total
                                            year 1998 \3\        enacted         recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I..................................    $2,672,830,000               N/A               N/A     2,672,830,000
Part II \1\.............................     5,274,316,000               N/A               N/A     5,274,316,000
Part III \2\............................     6,740,635,000       427,164,000               N/A     7,167,799,000
Part IV.................................     3,119,745,000     1,203,738,000       705,911,000     5,029,394,000
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................    17,807,526,000     1,630,902,000       705,911,000    20,144,339,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transfer of $133,000,000 from ``Homeowners Assistance fund, Defense.''
\2\ Includes: Rescission of $507,692,000 (P.L. 103-211); rescission of $32,000,000 (P.L. 104-6).
\3\ Includes rescissions enacted inPublic Law 105-18, as follows: Part II--$35,391,000; Part III--$75.638,000
  and Part IV--$22,971,000.

                        environmental restoration

    Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment 
and Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have 
appropriated a net total of $19,438,428,000 for the entire 
program for fiscal years 1990 through 1999. Within this total, 
the Department has allocated $5,631,158,000 for activities 
associated with environmental restoration.
    The Committee is concerned that the design and cost of 
environmental restoration efforts should be tailored to match 
the proposed re-use of an installation in order to assure that 
costs are reasonable and affordable. Therefore, the Committee 
continues to recommend statutory language to establish a 
ceiling on the level of funding for environmental restoration, 
unless the Secretary of Defense determines additional 
obligations are necessary and notifies the Committees on 
Appropriations of his determination and the necessary reasons 
for the increase.
    The following table displays the statutory ceiling 
established by the Committee and is equal to the Department's 
execution plan for fiscal year 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Ceiling on
                                                          environmental
               Account                  Total program   restoration year
                                                              costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC IV.............................       705,911,000       360,073,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee directs the Department of Defense to devote 
the maximum amount of resources to actual cleanup and, to the 
greatest extent possible, to limit resources expended on 
administration, support, studies, and investigations.

                   california--castle air force base

    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
report by September 15, 1999 on the current status of the 
environmental remediation at Castle Air Force Base, including 
the estimated dates for completion of such activities.

                California--Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

    The Committee recognizes the important progress that is 
being made to complete final transfer of Hunters Point Naval 
Shipyard to the City of San Francisco. It is the belief of the 
Committee that the necessary funding to achieve the 
environmental cleanup goals at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard 
should be allocated by the Navy to coincide with the 
implementation of the City's land re-use and redevelopment 
plans. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
report to the Committee no later than January 15, 2000, on the 
progress being made to complete the timely transfer and 
redevelopment of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, in conjunction 
with the local government revitalization plans.

   California-Norco Naval Warfare Assessment Station: Excess Federal 
                                Property

    The Committee is aware the Army Reserve unit occupying 
excess land formerly part of the Norco Naval Warfare Assessment 
Station (NWAS) is currently in the process of transferring to a 
new facilitylocated at March Air Reserve Base in Riverside, 
California. Under current law, the State has first priority over excess 
federal property. However, in an ongoing effort to revitalize the 
economic impact of the personnel and resource reductions at the NWAS, 
the City of Norco hopes to utilize this land to spurn economic growth 
in the area. The Committee directs the Army to report by September 15, 
1999 on the Army's plan for this excess federal property. The report 
should address the option of transferring or leasing the land to the 
City of Norco.

               kentucky-louisville naval ordnance station

    The Louisville Naval Ordnance Station was privatized-in-
place in August 1996, at the direction of the 1995 Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission. Due to continued discussion 
between the State of Kentucky Department of Natural Resources 
and the Department of the Navy over the extent of the cleanup 
for external environmental remediation, the property has not 
been conveyed to the Louisville/Jefferson County Redevelopment 
Authority (LJCRA). Yet, the LJCRA is currently paying for the 
day-to-day expenses of the Station, including insurance, fire 
protection, security, and utilities, and they continue to have 
difficulty attracting new lessors to offset these costs until 
substantial upgrades are made to the property.
    The LJCRA should not be expected to make the necessary 
upgrades and then pay an enhanced price for a facility they 
revitalized. Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to 
immediately begin Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) 
negotiations with the LJCRA. The Committee believes the EDC 
should provide an early transfer of the land and facilities, at 
no cost, to the LJCRA. In addition, the conveyance should be 
subject to the following conditions, the Navy will continue to 
address the cost of groundwater remediation and continue to be 
responsible for, and defend and indemnify the LJCRA against, 
any and all environmental concerns created by the Navy, as 
specified under the current lease, state, and federal 
regulations; and the LJCRA will assume responsibility for all 
remaining necessary repairs, code violations, and 
infrastructure modifications unrelated to environmental 
investigations or remediation at the Station. The Committee 
believes this to be the most beneficial solution to the parties 
involved. The Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to 
the Committee no later than September 15, 1999, on the status 
of negotiations and the estimated date for the early conveyance 
of the Station.

                     texas-dallas naval air station

    The Dallas Naval Air Station was slated for closure by the 
1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The Secretary of 
the Navy is directed to report to the Committee by January 15, 
2000 on the current status of ongoing efforts at the Dallas 
Naval Air Station, with an emphasis on the following 
activities:
          Building demolition;
          Building fireproofing; and
          Drinking water remediation
    This report is to include the estimated dates for 
completion of all remediation activities.

                            colorado-denver

    The Committee is encouraged by the Department's progress in 
remediating the environmental contamination at the both the 
former Lowry Air Force Base and Fitzsimons Army Medical Center 
sites near Denver, Colorado, and by their progress in 
facilitating the successful conversion and reuse of the 
properties. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to 
continue to prioritize cleanup and conversion projects at these 
sites.

 future costs of operations, maintenance and environmental restoration

    Since the first appropriations were enacted for the Base 
Realignment and Closure Program in fiscal year 1990, the 
Committee has been concerned that the full cost of this effort 
should be clearly defined and displayed. In hearings before the 
Committee this year, the Department has testified that, upon 
completion of the Base Realignment and Closure Program, it 
intends to program and budget for all further costs of 
environmental restoration at base realignment and closure sites 
in the Operations and Maintenance accounts. The Committee 
strongly objects to this approach, based on the Department's 
estimate that such requirements will total $686,900,000 in 
fiscal year 2001 and approximately $500,000,000 annually 
thereafter until completion.
    In order to continue the consolidation of all expenses 
related to base realignment and closure, the Department is 
directed to submit a legislative proposal for the establishment 
of a Treasury account entitled ``Base Realignment and Closure 
Operations, Maintenance and Environmental Restoration''. 
Further, the Department is directed to program and budget for 
operations, maintenance and environmental restoration efforts 
related to the four rounds of Base Realignment and Closure 
performed from 1988 through 1995 under such account for all 
such expenses.

                         construction projects

    The Department of Defense has requested a total of 
$46,242,000 within the fiscal year 2000 budget request for base 
realignment and closure for construction projects funded under 
the Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV. The 
Committee recommends full funding for these important projects. 
The Committee provides approval and appropriated funds for the 
following construction projects as contained in Executive 
Summary of Justification Data submitted to Congress February, 
1998, as subsequently revised and as modified by reprogramming 
actions requested through May 26, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
 Component/State/Project description     BRAC  round       (thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army BRAC IV Construction, Fiscal
 Year 2000:
    Alabama:
        Fort McClellan:
            Alabama ARNG Enclave....  IV                          11,000
            Ammunition Transfer       IV                           1,600
             Point Holding Area.
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Army Alabama.                              12,600
                                                       =================
    Colorado:
        Fitzsimons Army Medical
         Center:
            Reserve Center..........  IV                           2,250
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Army Colorado                               2,250
                                                       =================
    Missouri:
        Fort Leonard Wood:
            Expand Dining Facility..  IV                           3,250
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Army Missouri                               3,250
                                                       =================
    New Jersey:
        Camp Pedricktown:
            Sewage Treatment Plant    IV                           1,100
             Bypass.
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Army New                                    1,100
               Jersey.
                                                       =================
    Pennsylvania:
        Tobyhanna Army Depot:
            Guided Missile            IV                           6,700
             Maintenance Facility.
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Army                                        6,700
               Pennsylvania.
                                                       =================
              Total for Army BRAC IV                              25,900
               Construction, Fiscal
               Year 2000.
                                                       =================
Navy BRAC IV Construction, Fiscal
 Year 2000:
    California:
        Marine Corps Air Station,
         Camp Pendleton:
            Warehouse and Special     IV                           5,994
             Storage Facilities.
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Navy                                        5,994
               California.
                                                       =================
Virginia:
    Naval Station, Norfolk:
        Building Renovations and      IV                           1,523
         Alterations.
    Naval Air Station, Oceana:
        Hanger Renovation...........  IV                          21,313
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Navy Virginia                              22,836
                                                       =================
              Total for Navy BRAC IV                              28,830
               Construction, Fiscal
               Year 2000.
                                                       =================
Air Force BRAC IV Construction,
 Fiscal Year 2000:
    Texas:
        Kelly AFB:
            Alter Base Maintenance    IV                             820
             Shop.
            Alter Communications      IV                             750
             Facility.
        Lackland AFB:
            Add/Alter Base Engineer   IV                           3,100
             Facility.
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Air Force                                   4,670
               Texas.
                                                       =================
              Total Air Force BRAC                                 4,900
               IV Construction,
               Fiscal Year 2000.
                                                       =================
Defense Logistics Agency BRAC IV
 Construction, Fiscal Year 2000:
    Utah:
        Defense Distribution Region
         West, Depot Hill AFB:
            Construct Hardstand.....  IV                           1,100
                                                       -----------------
              Subtotal Defense        IV                           1,100
               Logistics Agency Utah.
                                                       =================
              Total DLA BRAC IV                                    1,100
               Construction, Fiscal
               Year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Department of Defense is required to notify the 
appropriate Committees of Congress 21 days prior to the 
initiation of any new project which has not been included in 
the Department's budget request for the current (or any 
previous) fiscal year. If the Department wishes to finance a 
previously approved prior year project in the current fiscal 
year, no notification is required.

                  Base Realignment and Closure, Part I

    The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 was the last year 
for appropriations into this account.

                 Base Realignment and Closure, Part II

    The Committee notes that fiscal year 1998 was the last year 
for appropriations into this account.

                 Base Realignment and Closure, Part III

    The Committee notes that fiscal year 1999 was the last year 
for appropriations into this account.

                 Base Realignment and Closure, Part IV





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,203,738,000
Fiscal year 2000 estimate.............................       705,911,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       705,911,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................      -497,827,000
    Fiscal year 2000 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends a total of $705,911,000 for Base 
Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 2000. This is 
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease 
of $497,827,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 
1999. The Committee notes assurances from the Department that 
the requested amount is adequate to fully execute the 
requirements for the program in the coming fiscal year with no 
impact on meeting the targeted BRAC completion date of July 13, 
2001. Below is the recommended distribution of funds:


                         Activity                            Amount

Military Construction................................       $60,512,000
Family Housing.......................................                 0
Environmental........................................       360,073,000
Operations and Maintenance...........................       263,819,000
Military Personnel (PCS).............................         1,507,000
Other................................................         3,282,000
Revenues.............................................        (7,820,000)
Homeowner's Assistance Program.......................        24,538,000
      Total..........................................      $705,911,000


                 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 which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization 
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for some programs for which 
the basic authority legislation does not presently authorize 
such extended availability.
    A provision of the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' 
account which permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer 
funds to other accounts for military construction or family 
housing.
    A provision of the ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, 
Part IV'' states that not more than $XXXX of the 
funds appropriated shall be available solely for environmental 
restoration.
    Section 101 of the General Provisions states that none of 
the funds appropriated in Military Construction Appropriations 
Acts shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-
fee contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed 
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except 
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the 
Secretary of Defense.
    Section 102 of the General Provisions permits use of funds 
for hire of passenger motor vehicles.
    Section 103 of the General Provisions permits use of funds 
for Defense Access Roads.
    Section 104 of the General Provisions prohibits 
construction of new bases inside the continental United States 
for which specific appropriations have not been made.
    Section 105 of the General Provisions limits the use of 
funds for purchase of land or land easements.
    Section 106 of the General Provisions prohibits the use of 
funds to acquire land, prepare a site, or install utilities for 
any family housing except housing for which funds have been 
made available.
    Section 107 of the General Provisions limits the use of 
minor construction funds to transfer or relocate activities 
among installations.
    Section 108 of the General Provisions prohibits the 
procurement of steel unless American producers, fabricators, 
and manufacturers have been allowed to compete.
    Section 109 of the General Provisions prohibits payment of 
real property taxes in foreign nations.
    Section 110 of the General Provisions prohibits 
construction of new bases overseas without prior notification.
    Section 111 of the General Provisions establishes a 
threshold for American preference of $500,000 relating to 
architect and engineer services in Japan, in any NATO member 
country, and in the Arabian Gulf.
    Section 112 of the General Provisions establishes 
preference for American contractors for military construction 
in the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific 
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in the Arabian Gulf, 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 involving construction in excess of 
$100,000.
    Section 114 of the General Provisions limits obligations 
during the last two months of the fiscal year.
    Section 115 of the General Provisions permits funds 
appropriated in prior years to be available for construction 
authorized during the current session of Congress.
    Section 116 of the General Provisions permits the use of 
expired or lapsed funds to pay the cost of supervision for any 
project being completed with lapsed funds.
    Section 117 of the General Provisions permits obligation of 
funds from more than one fiscal year to execute a construction 
project, provided that the total obligation for such project is 
consistent with the total amount appropriated for the project.
    Section 118 of the General Provisions allows expired funds 
to be transferred to the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, 
Construction, Defense'' account.
    Section 119 of the General Provisions directs the Secretary 
of Defense to report annually regarding the specific actions to 
be taken during the current fiscal year to encourage other 
member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
Japan, Korea, and United States allies in the Arabian Gulf to 
assume a greater share of the common defense burden.
    Section 120 of the General Provisions allows transfer of 
proceeds from ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part I'' 
to the continuing Base Realignment and Closure accounts.
    Section 121 of the General Provisions prohibits expenditure 
of funds except in compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 122 of the General Provisions states the Sense of 
the Congress notifying recipients of equipment or products 
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
in this Act to purchase American-made equipment and products.
    Section 123 of the General Provisions permits the transfer 
of funds from Family Housing, Construction accounts to the DOD 
Family Housing Improvement Fund.
    Section 124 of the General Provisions requires the 
Secretary of Defense to notify Congressional Committees sixty 
days prior to issuing a solicitation for a contract with the 
private sector for military family housing or military 
unaccompanied housing.
    Section 125 of the general provisions provides transfer 
authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
    Section 126 of the general provisions requires that all 
Military Construction Appropriation Acts be the sole source of 
all operation and maintenance for flag and general officer 
quarter houses and limits the repair on these quarters of 
$15,000 per year without prior notifications to the committees 
of Congress. Out of cycle notifications are prohibited. And, a 
quarterly report is required on all operations and maintenance 
expenditures for each individual quarters.
    Section 127 of the general provisions amends the 1999 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to allow the 
Department of Defense to transfer military construction funding 
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program.
    Section 128 of the general provisions reduces various 
accounts in the bill which include excess contingency funding.
    Section 129 of the general provisions directs that the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force submit to the 
appropriate committees of Congress by June 1, 2000, a Family 
Housing Master Plan.
    The Committee recommends deleting the following General 
Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 1999 Military 
Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-237), because 
these provisions are no longer required [section numbers refer 
to sections contained in Public Law 105-237]:
    Section 124 regarding the use of NATO funds for the 
Partnership for Peace program. Section 125 regarding the use of 
proceeds from the sale of land and family housing units at 
Paine Field, Washington. Section 128 stating the sense of the 
Congress on the naming of a road at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

                  Compliance With Rule XIII--Clause 3

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE II OF THE 1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
                                  ACT


                               CHAPTER 6


                  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION TRANSFER FUND


                     (including transfer of funds)

    For emergency expenses incurred by United States military 
forces in support of overseas operations; $475,000,000, to 
remain available for transfer until September 30, 2003: 
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer these 
funds only to military construction accounts and to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program as 
provided in section 2806 of title 10, United States Code: 
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this 
paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
contained in this or any other Act: Provided further, That 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds may be 
obligated or expended to carry out military construction 
projects not otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, 
That the entire amount made available under this heading is 
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That 
this amount shall be available only to the extent that the 
President transmits to the Congress an official budget request 
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  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:
  Military Construction, Army
  Military Construction, Navy
  Military Construction, Air Force
  Military Construction, Defense-wide
  Military Construction, Army National Guard
  Military Construction, Air National Guard
  Military Construction, Army Reserve
  Military Construction, Naval Reserve
  Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
  North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
        Program
  Family Housing, Construction, Army
  Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Army
  Family Housing, Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
  Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine 
        Corps
  Family Housing, Construction, Air Force
  Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
  Family Housing, Construction, Defense-wide
  Family Housing, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
  Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
  Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, a statement is required describing the 
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. Sections 
115, 118, 120, 123, and 125 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 reports 
that it recommends no rescissions in the bill, as reported.

                        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.......................             $8,450             $8,807             $8,450             $8,789
Mandatory...........................                  0                  0                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Advance Spending Authority

    This bill provides no advance spending authority.

                    Five-Year Projection of Outlays

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(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 2000....................        $8,450,000
Outlays:
    2000..............................................         2,473,000
    2001..............................................         3,133,000
    2002..............................................         1,667,000
    2003..............................................           623,000
    2004 and beyond...................................           512,000


    The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax 
expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan 
guarantee commitments under existing law.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to 
State and local governments is as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]



New budget authority..................................                 0
Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom..........                 0


                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of the rule XIII 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:
    There were no recorded votes.

                               State List

    The following is a complete listing, by State and country, 
of the Committee's recommendations for military construction 
and family housing projects: