Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-614

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



 
            MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

                                _______
                                

  May 11, 2000.--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. 4425]

    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, 2001.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Summary of Committee Recommendation..............................     2
Conformance With Authorization Bill..............................     3
Advance Appropriations...........................................     3
Proposed Financing of Current Year Programs via Prior Year 
  Savings........................................................     4
Quadrennial Defense Review.......................................     5
Foreign Currency Fluctuations....................................     5
Reprogramming Criteria...........................................     6
Historic Preservation............................................     6
Joint Use Facilities.............................................     7
Transfer Authority...............................................     7
Paint............................................................     7
Recycled Foundry Sand............................................     7
Real Property Maintenance........................................     8
Program, Project and Activity....................................     8
Planning and Budgeting...........................................     8
Metric Conversion................................................     9
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing..................     9
Fiscal Year 2001 Barracks Request................................     9
Child Development Centers........................................    10
Hospital and Medical Facilities..................................    11
Environmental Compliance Projects................................    12
Military Construction:
    Army.........................................................    13
    Navy.........................................................    14
    Air Force....................................................    16
    Defense-wide.................................................    17
Reserve Components...............................................    20
NATO Security Investment Program.................................    23
Family Housing Overview..........................................    24
Family Housing:
    Army.........................................................    29
    Navy.........................................................    31
    Air Force....................................................    32
    Defense-wide.................................................    33
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund............    33
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense..............................    36
Base Realignment and Closure:
    Overview.....................................................    37
    Part I.......................................................    40
    Part II......................................................    40
    Part III.....................................................    40
    Part IV......................................................    40
Changes in Application of Existing Law...........................    40
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law.............................    43
Transfer of Funds................................................    43
Rescission of Funds..............................................    43
Constitutional Authority.........................................    44
Comparisons With Budget Resolution...............................    44
Advance Spending Authority.......................................    44
Five-Year Projection of Outlays..................................    44
Financial Assistance.............................................    45
State List.......................................................    45
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority....................    64

                  Summary of Committee Recommendation

    The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request of 
$8,033,908,000 represents a decrease of $306,682,000 from the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $8,340,590,000. The request 
only includes $3,379,058,000 for military construction, 
$3,480,481,000 for family housing and $1,174,369,000 for 
activities associated with base closure and realignment.
    While there are aspects of the budget request that help to 
solve the long-term infrastructure problems faced by the 
Department of Defense, the Committee has some concerns over the 
request. For example, excluding base closure and realignment, 
the military construction and family housing accounts decrease 
$951,150,000, or 12 percent, from the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level. Family housing construction and operation and 
maintenance accounts are reduced by $109,749,000. The budget 
request would provide $748,411,000 for family housing 
construction, a reduction of $18,878,000 from current levels. 
Of this amount, $287,968,000 is requested for construction of 
new family housing units, a reduction of $91,117,000, or 24 
percent, from current spending. And, the request for operation 
and maintenance of existing family housing units is reduced by 
$90,871,000 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 $600,092,000 above the 
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    The total recommended appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is 
$8,634,000,000, an increase of $293,410,000, or 4 percent, from 
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and an increase of 
$600,092,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The 
appropriation includes $3,901,441,000 for military 
construction, $3,558,190,000 for family housing, and 
$1,174,369,000 for activities associated with base realignment 
and closure. The following table provides a breakout of the 
highlights of the bill:




FY 2000:
    Enacted.........................................       $8.37 billion
    Consolidated Appropriation (P.L. 106-113).......         -33 million
        Net Appropriation...........................        8.34 billion
President's FY 2001 Request.........................        8.03 billion
Subcommittee Recommendation.........................        8.63 billion
Increase over FY 2000 Appropriation.................         293 million
Increase over President's Request...................         600 million


    Military Construction: $3.9 billion (45% of total bill), 
including:
          $759 million for barracks
          $43 million for child development centers
          $141 million for hospital and medical facilities
          $26 million for environmental compliance
          $175 million for the chemical weapons 
        demilitarization
                program
          $178 million for NATO Security Investment Program
          $83 million for National Missile Defense
          $458 million for Guard and Reserve components
    Family Housing: $3.5 billion (41% of total bill), 
including:
          $859 million for new family housing units, and for
                improvements to existing units
          $2.699 billion for operation and maintenance of 
        existing
                units
  Base Realignment and Closure: $1.2 billion (14% of total 
        bill),
        including:
          $13 million for military construction and family 
        housing
          $865 million for environmental cleanup
          $294 million for operations and maintenance

                  Conformance With Authorization Bill

    The Subcommittee on Military Installations of the House 
Armed Services Committee conducted its mark up on May 2, 2000 
of the authorization for 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 
in this bill are approved subject to authorization.

                         Advance Appropriations

    The Department has requested advance appropriations in the 
amount of $820,704,000, spread over four fiscal years, for 
eight projects. It is the Committee's view that there is no 
precedence for advance funding military construction projects. 
Following is a breakout of the individual projects, by account 
and fiscal year, which total the $820,704,000 advance 
appropriation request. The Committee denies all of the advance 
appropriations and directs the Department to request these 
funds in the appropriate fiscal year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Account and fiscal year         Amount         Location/project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milcon, Army:
    2002........................   $80,500,000  Pueblo, CO: Ammunition
                                                 Demilitarization
                                                 Facility, Phase III.
    2002........................    78,000,000  Newport, IN: Ammunition
                                                 Demilitarization
                                                 Facility, Phase IV.
    2002........................    51,750,000  Aberdeen, MD: Ammunition
                                                 Demilitarization
                                                 Facility, Phase IV.
                                 --------------
      Subtotal..................   210,250,000
                                 ==============
Milcon, Army:
    2003........................    83,400,000  Pueblo, CO: Ammunition
                                                 Demilitarization
                                                 Facility, Phase IV.
                                 ==============
Milcon, Army:
    2004........................    10,890,000  Pueblo, CO: Ammunition
                                                 Demilitarization
                                                 Facility, Phase V.
                                 ==============
Milcon, Navy:
    2002........................    14,813,000  San Diego, CA: Berthing
                                                 Pier.
    2002........................    30,664,000  Camp Smith, HI: CINCPAC
                                                 Headquarters.
    2002........................    23,587,000  Puget Sound, WA: Pier
                                                 Replacement.
                                 --------------
      Subtotal..................    69,064,000
                                 ==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
    2002........................    38,000,000  Fort Wainwright, AK:
                                                 Hospital Replacement,
                                                 Phase III.
    2002........................   192,800,000  Unspecified Worldwide:
                                                 National Missile
                                                 Defense.
                                 --------------
      Subtotal..................   230,800,000
                                 ==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
    2003........................    20,000,000  Fort Wainwright, AK:
                                                 Hospital Replacement,
                                                 Phase IV.
    2003........................   127,400,000  Unspecified Worldwide:
                                                 National Missile
                                                 Defense.
                                 --------------
      Subtotal..................   147,400,000
                                 ==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
    2004........................    10,000,000  Fort Wainwright, AK:
                                                 Hospital Replacement,
                                                 Phase V.
    2004........................    40,000,000  Unspecified Worldwide:
                                                 National Missile
                                                 Defense.
                                 --------------
      Subtotal..................    50,000,000
                                 ==============
Milcon, Defense-Wide:
    2005........................    18,900,000  Unspecified Worldwide:
                                                 National Missile
                                                 Defense.
                                 ==============
      Grand Total...............   820,704,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Proposed Financing of Current Year Programs Via Prior Year Savings

    The budget request for fiscal year 2001 proposed partial 
financing of current year programs via prior year savings, as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Account/location                        Project description         Authorization   Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Navy:
    District of Columbia: Naval Research Lab..  Nano-Science Research Facility..     $12,390,000               0
    Texas: Kingsville Naval Air Station.......  Aircraft Parking Apron..........       2,670,000               0
    North Carolina: Camp Lejeune MCB..........  Armories........................      14,000,000     $10,000,000
    Italy: Sigonella Naval Air Station........  Community Facilities............      32,969,000      32,029,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total...................................  ................................      62,029,000      42,029,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If program execution has resulted in identifiable prior 
year savings within individual projects, the correct financing 
method is to detail such savings and to request rescissions of 
funds by account and by fiscal year. The Committee directs the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to follow the 
conventional rescission procedure in future budget submissions.

Financial Management/Elimination of Contingency for Individual Projects

    The Committee agrees that the amount requested in prior 
fiscal years for construction contingencies, 5 percent for new 
construction and 10 percent for alterations or additions, is 
excessive. The budget submission has eliminated all contingency 
funds for all military construction and family housing 
construction programs in fiscal year 2001 and beyond. The 
Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
to closely monitor the impacts of this reduction to ensure that 
this action will provide an incentive for the services to 
improve their cost estimating and monitoring procedures. It is 
further directed, that no project for which funds were 
previously appropriated, or for which funds are appropriated in 
this bill, may be canceled as a result of this reduction.

                       Quadrennial Defense Review

    The Committee is concerned with the Defense Department's 
declining investments in the construction, replacement, and 
revitalization of facilities. The cost of operating an aged 
inventory is significantly higher than the cost of operating a 
more modern inventory, so the savings realized by not making 
construction investments are lost to higher operating costs. 
Additionally, the Committee is concerned that this aged 
inventory will not be ready and structured to support effective 
military operations in the future.
    The Department's recent budgets have conveyed an emphasis 
on procurement of new, modern weapons systems. These same 
budgets have not placed the same priority on housing these new 
systems and the people that operate them in modern facilities. 
The Committee believes that the Department must program and 
budget sufficient funds to control the aging of the facilities 
inventory and eventually reduce the average age to a level 
consistent with a modern, effective, and efficient military 
organization. The Committee also believes facility 
modernization is connected to new ways of doing business, 
future force levels, weapon system modernization and mission 
requirements. Therefore, the Committee expects the Department 
to include a thorough review of its basing capacity, 
outsourcing strategy, and military construction requirements 
and related facilities restoration and modernization programs 
as part of the Congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense 
Review.

                     Foreign Currency Fluctuations

    The U.S dollar has significantly improved against most 
foreign currencies than the Department of Defense predicted 
when it submitted its fiscal year 2001 budget. Accordingly, the 
Committee recommends reductions to the following appropriations 
due to these favorable fluctuations in exchange rates:




Military Construction, Army...........................         -$635,000
Military Construction, Navy...........................        -2,889,000
Military Construction, Defense-Wide...................        -7,115,000
Family Housing, Army..................................       -19,911,000
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps.................        -1,071,000
Family Housing, Air Force.............................       -12,231,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................      -$43,852,000


                         Reprogramming Criteria

    The Committee believes that there is a need to clarify the 
rules for military construction and family housing 
reprogrammings. A project or account (including the sub-
elements of an account) which has been specifically reduced by 
the Congress in acting on the appropriation request is 
considered to be a congressional interest item. A prior 
approval reprogramming is required for any increase to an item 
that has been specifically reduced by the Congress. 
Consequently, there can be no below threshold reprogrammings to 
an item specifically reduced by the Congress.
    Furthermore, in instances where a prior approval 
reprogramming request for a project or account has been 
approved by the Committee, the amount approved becomes the new 
base for any future increase or decrease via below threshold 
reprogrammings (provided that the project or account is not a 
congressional interest item).

                         historic preservation

    The Committee is concerned the inordinate expenditures 
associated with improving and maintaining historically 
significant properties will eventually overburden the Defense 
Department's housing and maintenance accounts. As required by 
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Department 
must manage those units listed on the National Historic 
Register, as well as any units that meet the criteria of being 
potentially eligible for listing, in a way that preserves their 
historic significance and integrity. As a result, operation and 
maintenance costs of historic properties are, on average, two 
to three times the cost of a non-historic property.
    In the future, the costs associated with maintaining 
historic properties will escalate as the number of properties 
eligible for placement on the National Historic Register 
continues to grow. For instance, the Army and Navy have 203,817 
buildings and structures in their current inventory, which will 
become eligible for the National Historic Register over the 
next 20 to 30 years. The Air Force is unable to provide this 
data.
    The Committee believes that innovative funding and 
operating methods should be pursued by the Department in order 
to reduce costs and improve care of historic properties. 
Alternative funding sources and methods that may be explored 
include establishing a trust fund, expanding gift acceptance 
authority, seeking sponsors, and leasing to third parties for 
the maintenance of these properties. The Committee directs the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations to submit a 
report no later than March 30, 2001 on the development of 
innovative initiatives and future plans that can help reduce 
costs and improve maintenance of historic properties.

                          Joint Use Facilities

    The Committee supports joint use of facilities between the 
various components of the Defense Department. Joint use 
facilities can optimize military construction and operation and 
maintenance funds while enhancing joint training and the total 
force concept. However, only the Reserve Components currently 
have a formal process for reviewing military construction 
projects for joint use potential and that process is not 
rigorously applied. As such, it appears opportunities for the 
benefits of joint use facilities may be missed. To ensure joint 
use construction is considered when the Department assesses 
facilities needs, the Committee directs that any Form 1390/1391 
which is presented as justification include a certification by 
the Secretary concerned that the proposed project has been 
considered for joint use potential, a recommendation for either 
joint use or unilateral construction, and the reason(s) for 
that recommendation if joint use is not recommended. The 
certification may be delegated not lower than the Assistant 
Secretary responsible for the project. This review/
certification is to be reviewed by the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller) during the budget review to ensure 
impartial review.

                           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.

                                 Paint

    The Committee is aware that innovations in paint are 
occurring on an almost daily basis. The Committee is concerned 
that the Services might not be taking advantage of such 
innovations which have the ability to prolong the useful life 
of buildings, promote energy conservation, and even reduce the 
impact of fires by utilizing fire resistant paint. Therefore, 
the Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Installations to review current military specifications and 
costs for paint to determine if the use of higher quality 
paints can, in fact, be more economical over the life cycle of 
the activity. In addition, this review should include an 
examination of the attributes of fire resistant paint in regard 
to its potential use as a life saving material and the costs in 
comparison to current materials specified in federal standards. 
The Committee expects a report on the findings no later than 
March 30, 2001.

                         recycled foundry sand

    The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers and the 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) to utilize 
recycled foundry sand in military construction projects where 
economically feasible. It is the Committee's understanding that 
foundry sand meets the Federal Specifications for construction. 
Further, the Committee directs the Corps and NAVFAC to report 
back to the Committee on the prior and potential use of foundry 
sand in military construction no later than March 30, 2001.

                       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.

            permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing

    The Department of Defense estimates that 42 percent of the 
enlisted force and 27 percent of the officers are single or 
unaccompanied personnel. Although 30 percent live in private 
off-base housing, the Department has over 416,463 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 30 years. And, over 
46,500 spaces are still serviced by gang latrines and 
approximately 60,900 additional spaces 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 114,000 single service members. 
The Department of Defense estimates current total costs to 
achieve desired end states at $7,643,000,000, 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 2001 barracks request

    The Department of Defense has requested $668,025,000 to 
construct or modernize 38 barracks in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee has approved the request of $668,025,000 in full. In 
order to help alleviate the unaccompanied housing deficit, an 
additional $90,615,000 is recommended. The total recommended 
appropriation for unaccompanied housing in this bill is 
$758,640,000.
    The following troop housing construction projects are 
recommended for fiscal year 2001:

                 FISCAL YEAR 2001 TROOP HOUSING PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Location                      Request       Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    California-Fort Irwin...............     $31,000,000     $31,000,000
    California-Presidio of Monterey.....               0       2,600,000
    Georgia-Fort Benning................      24,000,000      24,000,000
    Georgia-Fort Stewart................      26,000,000      26,000,000
    Hawaii-Schofield Barracks...........      46,400,000      46,400,000
    Hawaii-Wheeler Army Air Field.......      43,800,000      43,800,000
    Kansas-Fort Riley...................      15,000,000      15,000,000
    Kentucky-Fort Campbell..............       9,400,000       9,400,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg...........      26,000,000      26,000,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg...........      45,600,000      45,600,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg...........      38,600,000      38,600,000
    Germany-Bamberg.....................       7,800,000       7,800,000
    Germany-Bamberg.....................       3,850,000       3,850,000
    Germany-Darmstadt...................       5,700,000       5,700,000
    Germany-Darmstadt...................       5,600,000       5,600,000
    Germany-Mannheim....................       4,050,000       4,050,000
    Korea-Camp Carroll..................               0      10,000,000
    Korea-Camp Hovey....................               0      26,000,000
    Korea-Camp Hovey....................               0       9,950,000
    Korea-Camp Humphreys................      14,200,000      14,200,000
    Korea-Camp Page.....................      19,500,000      19,500,000
    Kwajalein-Kwajalein Atoll...........      18,000,000      18,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Army....................     384,500,000     433,050,000
                                         ===============================
Navy/Marine Corps:
    California-Lemoore Naval Air Station       8,260,000       8,260,000
    California-Twentynine Palms.........               0      21,770,000
    District of Columbia-Washington           17,197,000      17,197,000
     Marine Barracks....................
    Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Base      18,400,000      18,400,000
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Station...      16,500,000      16,500,000
    Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training       37,000,000      37,000,000
     Center.............................
    Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training       37,700,000      37,700,000
     Center.............................
    North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine        14,300,000      14,300,000
     Corps Base.........................
    Virginia-Norfolk Naval Shipyard.....      16,100,000      16,100,000
    CONUS Various.......................      11,500,000      11,500,000
    Italy-Naples Naval Support Activity.      15,000,000      15,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy....................     191,957,000     213,727,000
                                         ===============================
Air Force:
    Alaska-Eielson AFB..................      14,540,000      14,540,000
    Alaska-Elmendorf AFB................      15,920,000      15,920,000
    Colorado-Peterson AFB...............      11,000,000      11,000,000
    Florida-Eglin AFB...................       5,600,000       5,600,000
    Louisiana-Barksdale AFB.............       6,390,000       6,390,000
    Oklahoma-Tinker AFB.................       5,800,000       5,800,000
    Oklahoma-Tinker AFB.................               0       8,745,000
    Texas-Lackland AFB..................       5,500,000       5,500,000
    Utah-Hill AFB.......................               0      11,550,000
    Virginia-Langley AFB................       7,470,000       7,470,000
    Italy-Aviano AB.....................       8,000,000       8,000,000
    Korea-Osan AB.......................      11,348,000      11,348,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force...............      91,568,000     111,863,000
                                         ===============================
      Total.............................     668,025,000     758,640,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Child Development Centers

    The Committee has recommended an additional $25,830,000 
above the budget estimate of $17,040,000 for a total 
appropriation of $42,870,000 for new construction, or 
improvements, for child development centers. The Committee 
notes that there are currently around 800 child development 
centers run by DoD on military bases. These centers have the 
capacity to care for about 60,000 children. According to DoD 
estimates, an additional 256,000 child care spaces (either in 
centers or in family day care) are necessary to meet the needs 
of military families. The demand for additional spaces in the 
child development centers is severe and the majority of parents 
face long waiting lists. The Committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a plan to the Committee for the creation of 
an additional 25,000 child care spaces through constructing 
child development centers over the next five years. This report 
should be submitted to the Committee no later than February 15, 
2001.
    The following child development center projects are 
provided for fiscal year 2001:

               FISCAL YEAR 2001 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Location                      Request       Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Arizona-Fort Huachuca...............               0      $3,350,000
    Arkansas-Pine Bluff Arsenal.........               0       2,750,000
    Kansas-Fort Riley...................               0       5,600,000
    Germany-Kaiserslautern..............      $3,400,000       3,400,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Army....................       3,400,000      15,100,000
                                         ===============================
Navy:
    California-Lemoore Naval Air Station               0       2,500,000
    Florida-Jacksonville Naval Air                     0       1,400,000
     Station............................
    Florida-Panama City Naval Coastal                  0       1,000,000
     Systems Center.....................
    Illinois-Great Lakes Naval Training                0       3,400,000
     Center.............................
    North Carolina-Camp Lejeune Marine         4,420,000       4,420,000
     Corps Base.........................
    Guam-Guam Naval Activities..........               0       1,000,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy....................       4,420,000      13,720,000
                                         ===============================
Air Force:
    District of Columbia-Bolling AFB....       4,520,000       4,520,000
    Texas-Lackland AFB..................               0       4,830,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force...............       4,520,000       9,350,000
                                         ===============================
Defense-Wide:
    Pennsylvania-Susquehanna Defense           4,700,000       4,700,000
     Distribution Depot.................
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense-Wide............       4,700,000       4,700,000
                                         ===============================
      Total.............................      17,040,000      42,870,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Hospital and Medical Facilities

    The budget request includes $180,887,000 for 13 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 a 
total appropriation of $141,237,000 for hospital and medical 
facilities in this bill. This is $39,650,000 below the budget 
estimate. The Committee notes the deferral of the Medical/
Dental Facility Replacement at the Naples Naval Support 
Activity in Italy due to the uncertainty of the legality of the 
land acquisition, zoning, and building permits.
    The following hospital and medical facilities are 
recommended for fiscal year 2001:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Location                               Project title               Request       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska--Fort Wainwright.......................  Hospital Replacement (Phase II).     $44,000,000     $44,000,000
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base..  Fleet Hospital Ops/Training            2,900,000       2,900,000
                                                 Command Support Fac.
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base..  Medical/Dental Clinic                  3,950,000       3,950,000
                                                 Replacement (Horno).
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base..  Medical/Dental Clinic                  3,550,000       3,550,000
                                                 Replacement (Las Flores).
California--Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base..  Medical/Dental Clinic                  3,750,000       3,750,000
                                                 Replacement (Las Pulgas).
California--Edwards AFB.......................  Medical Clinic Addition/Dental        17,900,000      17,900,000
                                                 Clinic Alteration.
Florida--Eglin AFB............................  Add/Alter Hospital/Life Safety        37,600,000      37,600,000
                                                 Upgrade.
Florida--Patrick AFB..........................  Medical Clinic..................       2,700,000       2,700,000
Florida--Tyndall AFB..........................  Add/Alter Medical Clinic........       7,700,000       7,700,000
New York--Fort Drum...........................  Veterinary Treatment Facility...       1,400,000       1,400,000
Texas--Fort Bliss.............................  Laboratory Renovation...........               0       4,200,000
Germany--Kitzingen............................  Health/Dental Clinic Life Safety       1,400,000       1,400,000
                                                 Upgrade.
Germany--Wiesbaden AB.........................  Add/Alter Health/Dental Clinic..       7,187,000       7,187,000
Italy--Naples Naval Support Activity..........  Medical/Dental Facility               43,850,000               0
                                                 Replacement.
Various.......................................  Unspecified Minor Construction..       3,000,000       3,000,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total...................................  ................................     180,887,000     141,237,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Environmental Compliance Projects

    The total budget request and appropriation for 8 projects 
needed to meet environmental compliance is $25,660,000. 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 budget 
request in full. The total appropriation for environmental 
compliance projects in this bill is $25,660,000.
    Following is a listing of all environmental compliance 
projects funded in this bill:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Installation                             Project title               Request       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
    Washington: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard....  Oily Wastewater Collection......      $6,600,000      $6,600,000
Air Force:
    Alaska: Cape Romanzof.....................  Generator Fuel Storgae..........       3,900,000       3,900,000
    Alaska: Eielson AFB.......................  Hazardous Material Storage......       1,450,000       1,450,000
    California: Beale AFB.....................  Water Treatment Plant...........       3,800,000       3,800,000
    California: Vandenberg AFB................  Upgrade Water Distribution             4,650,000       4,650,000
                                                 System.
    Georgia: Moody AFB........................  Water Treatment Plant...........       2,500,000       2,500,000
    Turkey: Incirlik Air Base.................  Fire Training Facility..........       1,000,000       1,000,000
Air National Guard
    Arkansas: Fort Smith......................  Fire Training Facility..........       1,760,000       1,760,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total...................................  ................................      25,660,000      25,660,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Military Construction, Army





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    $1,042,033,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       897,938,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       869,950,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................      -172,083,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................       -27,988,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $869,950,000 for 
Military Construction, Army for fiscal year 2001. This is a 
decrease of $27,988,000 below the budget request for fiscal 
year 2001, and a decrease of $172,083,000 below the 
appropriation for fiscal year 2000. Absent the transfer of 
$175,400,000 for the Chemical Demilitarization Program from the 
``Military Construction, Army'' account to the ``Military 
Construction, Defense-wide'' account, the Committee recommends 
an increase of $147,412,000 above the Military Construction, 
Army budget request.

                   chemical demilitarization program

    The budget request proposes that a total of $175,400,000 
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.

  alabama-anniston army depot: powertrain/flexible maintenance center

    Within the additional funds provided for planning and 
design, the Army is directed to complete design of the 
Powertrain/Flexible Maintenance Center at Anniston Army Depot 
in Alabama and include the required construction funding in its 
fiscal year 2002 budget request.

      kentucky-bluegrass army depot: consolidated shipping center

    The Army is directed to accelerate the design of the 
Consolidated Shipping Center at the Bluegrass Army Depot, and 
to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 
2002 budget request.

      new york: u.s. military academy: multimedia learning centers

    Within funds provided for unspecified minor construction, 
the Committee directs the Army to execute a project in the 
amount of $500,000 to provide Multimedia Learning Centers at 
the United States Military Academy in New York. This project is 
a pilot test of technologically modern study environments for 
use at the military academies. These centers will substantially 
facilitate student learning, research, and academic project 
development through direct connection to all Academy network 
services, the Internet, and the National Digital Library being 
developed by the Library of Congress.

                   virginia-fort belvoir: army museum

    Within ninety days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of the Army is directed to report to the Committee as to 
whether Fort Belvoir in Virginia is an appropriate site for the 
National Museum of the United States Army.

               washington-fort lewis: vancouver barracks

    Within the additional funds provided for unspecified minor 
construction, the Army is directed to provide no less than 
$1,500,000 for the stabilization and layaway work of the 
Vancouver Barracks at Fort Lewis in Washington.

                           belgium: barracks

    The Committee is aware there is a deficit of barracks 
spaces for U.S. personnel assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium 
and the Chievres Air Base in Belgium. In order to provide 
sufficient space to accommodate unaccompanied soldiers assigned 
to these installations, the Army is directed to accelerate the 
design of barracks projects and include the required 
construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.

                      Military Construction, Navy





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................      $901,531,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       753,422,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       891,380,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................       -10,151,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................      +137,958,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $891,380,000 for 
Military Construction, Navy for fiscal year 2001. This is an 
increase of $137,958,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2001, and a decrease of $10,151,000 below the 
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

                      navy homeport ashore program

    The Committee commends the Navy for its Homeport Ashore 
Program to provide unaccompanied E-1 through E-4s, who 
currently live aboard ship when in homeport, decent 
accommodations, either in a BEQ or in the community. Conditions 
aboard ship are the worst throughout the Department of Defense, 
sleeping in bunk beds in cramped spaces with dozens of 
shipmates, and only a small locker to store their personal 
belongings. When these ships return to homeport, sailors 
continue to sleep aboard. The Committee looks forward to 
reviewing the implementation plan and to working with the Navy 
to accomplish this very needed quality of life initiative.

 california-lemoore naval air station: quality of life and work space 
                               conditions

    Earlier this year, the Navy provided a report to the 
Committee regarding its efforts to enhance and improve the 
quality of life and living conditions at the Lemoore Naval Air 
Station (NAS) in California. The Committee appreciates the 
efforts the Navy has made regarding the development of an 
Infrastructure Improvement Plan, which provides for a 
significant investment in Lemoore's aviation, housing, and 
recreation facilities while serving as a road map for future 
improvements. While the Navy has made significant strides to 
improve all aspects of quality of life at the Lemoore NAS, the 
Committee is still concerned and interested in the quality of 
life projects, the working conditions, and the pilot retention 
rates at the base. Considering the costs of training these 
pilots and maintaining the best quality of life for our sailors 
and their families at Lemoore NAS, the Secretary of the Navy is 
directed to report to the Committee by March 15, 2001 regarding 
execution of the Infrastructure Improvement Plan for Lemoore 
NAS. This report should also include any changes or 
modifications that have been made to the plan and the reasons 
therefor.

       california-north island naval air station: transportation 
                             infrastructure

    The North Island Naval Air Station has expanded rapidly 
over the past 20 years. As the Naval presence has increased, so 
have the number of people traveling to and from the base. 
However, the Committee is aware the transportation 
infrastructure has not kept pace with the growth of military 
activity or personnel at the site. The Committee directs the 
Navy to begin design of a project to alleviate traffic flow 
problems at North Island NAS within the additional amount 
provided for planning and design. In addition, the Secretary of 
the Navy is directed to report to the Committee no later than 
September 15, 2000 on the Navy's plan to address this issue.

          virginia-quantico mccdc: infrastructure development

    The Military Construction Appropriations Act for 1997 
(Public Law 104-196) provided $8,930,000 for a sanitary 
landfill at the Quantico Marine Corps Combat Development 
Command (MCCDC) in Virginia. The sanitary landfill project is 
no longer a Marine Corps requirement. The Committee supports 
the efforts of the House Armed Services Committee for the 
extension of authorization and modification of authorization to 
ensure these funds are expended on infrastructure improvements 
at Quantico MCCDC. The Committee believes this project is 
needed for continued growth and development of the 
installation.

               puerto rico-roosevelt roads naval station

    More than 40 years ago, the Navy acquired land abutting 
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station within the Municipality of Ceiba, 
Puerto Rico. Concerned that this land has never been utilized 
and aware of detailed proposals by the Municipality 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 fiscal year 1998. Because the actions taken 
by the Navy were unresponsive to this directive, in fiscal year 
2000, the Committee directed the Navy to report by January 15, 
2000, on a plan and development schedule agreeable to both the 
Navy and the Municipality of Ceiba to resolve this issue.
    In a letter dated January 27, 2000, the Navy claimed that 
the Mayor of Ceiba had not presented formal proposals for joint 
utilization of the land. The Committee recognizes that the 
Mayor has presented several detailed proposals and has made 
continuous efforts to work with the Navy to find a mutually 
acceptable solution. On the other hand, developments have 
arisen in Puerto Rico which may have impact on the future 
mission of the Naval Station, and the Navy is reluctant to go 
forward with the land issue until these matters are resolved. 
The Committee is also aware of a meeting between the Mayor of 
Ceiba and representatives from Roosevelt Roads Naval Station 
subsequent to the January 27, 2000 letter, during which steps 
were taken toward realization of a mutually acceptable 
utilization plan.
    To augment this progress, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to present within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act a report outlining (1) the options available for 
development of the land abutting Roosevelt Roads, taking into 
consideration the impact of any possible change in mission at 
the base, (2) a timetable, which the Navy should develop in 
conjunction with the Municipality of Ceiba, for the disposition 
of the land at issue under the presumption that the mission of 
the base will not change, and (3) actions to be taken by the 
Department to work closely and cooperatively with the 
Municipality of Ceiba to resolve this issue.

                    Military Construction, Air Force





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................      $777,238,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       530,969,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       703,903,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................       -73,335,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................      +172,934,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $703,903,000 for 
Military Construction, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. This is 
an increase of 172,934,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2001, and a decrease of $73,335,000 below the 
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

  maryland-andrews air force base: add/alter electrical distribution 
                                 system

    The Committee is aware there is a serious need to replace 
the deteriorated lines and add additional power to the east 
side of Andrews AFB. The existing substation is 38 years old 
and the circuit breakers are obsolete and no longer 
manufactured. There is no additional electrical capacity 
available, resulting in unreliable power and limiting 
development or improvements to important quality of life and 
operational facilities. As recent as November 1999, a partial 
power failure on the existing feeder for the entire airfield 
was experienced. This emergency was corrected with O&M; funding 
at a cost of $631,000, which affected only a small portion of 
the distribution system. Although emergency repairs were made, 
it did not provide a redundant source for the airfield feeder. 
Due to the dire need of replacement, the Committee urges the 
Air Force to seek emergency construction funding for this 
project.

                  Military Construction, Defense-wide





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................      $593,615,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       784,753,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       800,314,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................      +206,699,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................       +15,561,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $800,314,000 for 
Military Construction, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2001. This 
is an increase of $15,561,000 above the budget request for 
fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $206,699,000 above the 
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

                  Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

    The Committee remains concerned that the Armed Forces 
Institute of Pathology (AFIP) continues to fail health safety 
codes and requires renovation. Pursuant to the conference 
report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), the Secretary of Defense was to 
submit with the fiscal year 2001 budget submission a report on 
alternative methods for improving AFIP, including private 
funding and lease-back. To date, this report has not been 
submitted. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to 
accelerate the design of this project and include the required 
construction funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

                      Forward Operating Locations

    Funding for planning and design, and construction related 
to the establishment of forward operating locations in Ecuador, 
Curacao and Aruba is contained in the Fiscal Year 2000 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 3908, as passed 
by the House on March 30, 2000.

                     dodea-shape school facilities

    The Committee is concerned about the overcrowding and 
substandard conditions of SHAPE American High School and 
Elementary School in Mons, Belgium. These schools have been 
identified by a recent Department of Defense Education Activity 
study as among the worst facility conditions throughout the 
Department of Defense Dependents school system. The SHAPE 
school facilities are in need of expansion and modernization to 
reach the defense-wide goal of an 18 to 1 student-ratio. The 
unique blend of American and international students at the 
SHAPE schools presents a challenge in funding the upgrades to 
these facilities. The Committee recommends that the SHAPE 
schools be placed on a priority list to expedite the 
modernization and expansion of these facilities.

     Italy-Naples Naval Support Activity: Medical/Dental Facility 
                              Replacement

    The Committee denies the request of $43,850,000 for the 
purchase of a replacement hospital in Naples, Italy without 
prejudice. The Italian court issued a sequestration order on 
all construction at the Gricignano Support Site in February. 
Due to the uncertainty of the legality of the land acquisition, 
zoning, and building permits, it does not seem prudent to 
appropriate funds for the purchase of the hospital at this 
time. The Committee notes that this action does not impact the 
current lease arrangement for this facility.

                 BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

    The Department has requested a total of $103,581,000 to 
provide facilities needed for the development and deployment of 
ballistic missile defense systems. This includes $14,729,000 
for planning and design, $3,694,000 for unspecified minor 
construction, and $85,095,000 for major construction. The 
Committee notes that this is the first phase of a $488,590,000 
construction program for the initial deployment facilities. The 
Committee is concerned about the major construction request of 
$85,095,000 due to the fact that a decision to go forward with 
this program has not been made, a site has not been selected, 
and specific project justification is not available. This 
creates serious concerns about the Department's ability to 
execute the full amount of the request during fiscal year 2001. 
Therefore, the Committee has reduced the major construction 
request by $20,000,000 without prejudice. The ``Military 
Construction, Defense-wide'' account is carrying approximately 
$334,000,000 in unobligated balances. Should this additional 
$20,000,000 be necessary, the Committee will entertain a 
reprogramming request for the funds. Further, to address the 
Committee's concerns over a ``System-Level'' justification, 
with one single DD Form 1391, the Director of the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization is to notify the Committee of 
specific projects with detailed justification thirty days prior 
to obligation of the funds.

               CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

    The budget request includes a total of $175,400,000 for the 
following funding increments of the chemical weapons 
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2001:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                     Installation               Project              Request     Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas..........................  Pine Bluff Arsenal...  Ammunition                  $43,600,000   $43,600,000
                                                            Demilitarization
                                                            Facility, Phase V.
Colorado..........................  Pueblo Depot Activity  Ammunition                   10,700,000    10,700,000
                                                            Demilitarization
                                                            Facility, Phase II.
Indiana...........................  Newport Army           Ammunition                   54,400,000    54,400,000
                                     Ammunition Plant.      Demilitarization
                                                            Facility, Phase III.
Kentucky..........................  Bluegrass Army Depot.  Ammunition                    8,500,000     8,500,000
                                                            Demilitarization
                                                            Facility, Phase II.
Maryland..........................  Aberdeen Proving       Ammunition                   45,700,000    45,700,000
                                     Ground.                Demilitarization
                                                            Facility, Phase II.
Maryland..........................  Aberdeen Proving       Munitions Assessment/         3,100,000     3,100,000
                                     Ground.                Processing Systems Fac.
Oregon............................  Umatilla Depot         Ammunition                    9,400,000     9,400,000
                                     Activity.              Demilitarization
                                                            Facility, Phase VI.
                                                                                     ---------------------------
      Total.......................  .....................  .........................   175,400,000   175,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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                   1999                                                           Total
                                          and      2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
                                         prior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-Chem Demil Training Facility.......    16.10  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      16.10
Tooele, UT Facility...................   198.00  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     198.00
Anniston, AL Facility.................   174.20     7.00  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     181.20
Umatilla, OR Facility.................   168.60    25.90     9.40  .......  .......  .......  .......     203.90
Pine Bluff, AR Facility...............    68.00    49.80    43.60  .......  .......  .......  .......     161.40
Pueblo, CO Facility...................     6.30  .......    10.70    80.50    83.40    10.90  .......     191.80
Blue Grass, KY Facility...............  .......     2.00     8.50    20.00    78.00    87.00    10.00     205.50
Aberdeen, MD Facility.................    28.40    53.50    45.70    51.60  .......  .......  .......     179.20
Newport, IN Facility..................    13.50    35.90    54.40    78.00  .......  .......  .......     181.80
MAPS Facility.........................  .......  .......     3.10  .......  .......  .......  .......       3.10
Planning & Design.....................   114.50  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     114.50
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................   787.60   174.10   175.40   230.10   161.40    97.90    10.00   1,636.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
              Location                 Start of construction              \4\                   Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston Atoll \1\..................  .......................  .........................  3QFY90-2QFY01
Tooele, UT..........................  .......................  4QFY93...................  4QFY96-4QFY03
Anniston, AL........................  3QFY97.................  1QFY01...................  2QFY02-1QFY06
Umatilla, OR........................  3QFY97.................  1QFY01...................  2QFY02-3QFY05
Pine Bluff, AR......................  2QFY99.................  1QFY02...................  4QFY03-1QFY07
Pueblo, CO \2\......................  .......................  .........................  ......................
Blue Grass, KY \2\..................  .......................  .........................  ......................
Aberdeen, MD \3\....................  3QFY00.................  3QFY02...................  3QFY05-3QFY06
Newport, IN \3\.....................  3QFY00.................  4QFY02...................  3QFY04-1QFY05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full scale operations began 2QFY94.
\2\ Schedule on hold pending technology selection.
\3\ Schedule represents employment of neutralization based technologies. This data represents construction of
  main building (Chem Demil Building). Administrative buildings have been completed.
\4\ Some systemization activities overlap with the construction phase. This date is when construction is
  substantially complete.

                 Energy Conservation Investment Program

    The Committee denies the budget request of $33,570,000 for 
the Energy Conservation Investment Program and notes that there 
is $39,500,000 in unobligated balances in this account.

                   Pentagon Building Control Systems

    The Committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Installations to ensure that the ongoing renovation of the 
Pentagon includes the most up to date technology to best 
automate its building control systems. These systems monitor 
and control functions such as heating, ventilation, air 
conditioning, lighting, fire alarms and power monitoring and 
will result in reduced maintenance and operation costs in the 
future. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 
is encouraged to use unobligated funds in the Energy 
Conservation Improvement Program for this purpose.

               Military Construction, Reserve Components





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................      $695.381,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       221,976,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       458,394,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................      -236,987,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................      +236,418,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $458,394,000 for 
Military Construction, Reserve Components for fiscal year 2001. 
This is an increase of $236,418,000 above the budget request 
for fiscal year 2001, and a decrease of $236,987,000 below the 
total appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
    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.....................     $59,130,000    $137,603,000
Air National Guard......................      50,179,000     110,585,000
Army Reserve............................      81,713,000     115,854,000
Naval Reserve...........................      16,103,000      50,604,000
Air Force Reserve.......................      14,851,000      43,748,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................     221,976,000     458,394,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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, 2001 on the status of armory infrastructure.

                       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.

                california-ridgecrest: readiness center

    The Army National Guard is directed to complete design of 
the Readiness Center in Ridgecrest, California and to include 
the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 
budget request.

                    California-Camp San Luis Obispo

    The Committee directs the Army National Guard to begin 
planning and design of the Consolidated Dining Facility and 
Organizational Maintenance Shop at Camp San Luis Obispo, 
California, and to include the necessary funding for these 
facilities in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.

                 California-Woodland: Readiness Center

    Within the funds provided for planning and design, the Army 
National Guard is directed to complete design of the Readiness 
Center in Woodland, California and include the required 
construction funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.

                 California-Sacramento Readiness Center

    The Army National Guard is directed to accelerate the 
design of the readiness center in Sacramento, California and to 
include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 
2002 budget request.

                   iowa-estherville: readiness center

    The Committee directs the Army National Guard to begin 
planning and design of the Readiness Center at Estherville, 
Iowa, and to include the necessary funding for this project in 
the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.

               Iowa-Fairfield: Readiness Center Addition

    Within the additional funds provided for unspecified minor 
construction, the Army National Guard is directed to provide no 
less than $1,066,000 for an addition to the readiness center at 
Fairfield, Iowa.

          michigan-calumet: readiness center ada improvements

    The Committee is concerned over the lack of compliance with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act at the Calumet, Michigan 
Readiness Center. The existing armory was built in 1918 and 
does not have ADA accessibility. Therefore, the Army National 
Guard is directed to begin planning and design of these 
improvements, and to include the necessary funding for this 
project in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.

           Michigan: Midland: Organizational Maintenance Shop

    The budget proposed the construction of an organizational 
maintenance shop in Midland, Michigan. Due to an unexpected 
unit activation in Augusta, Michigan, the Army National Guard 
has requested the project be changed to that location. The 
activation was announced after the budget was submitted. The 
Committee has recommended the location change. The original 
project cost of $3,600,000 remains the same.

  Minnesota-Camp Ripley: Combined Support Maintenance Shop (Phase II)

    Authorization in the amount of $10,368,000 for second phase 
of the Combined Support Maintenance Shop at Camp Ripley in 
Minnesota is contained in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for 2000 (Public Law 106-65).

                              Army Reserve


          California-Los Alamitos: Joint Headquarters Building

    The Army Reserve is directed to accelerate the design of 
the Joint Headquarters Building in Los Alamitos, California and 
to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 
2002 budget request.

  Louisiana-New Orleans: USAR Center/Organizational Maintenance Shop/
                            Unheated Storage

    The Committee denies funding for the Army Reserve Center in 
New Orleans, Louisiana in the amount of $10,375,000 and instead 
re-directs this amount for the first phase of a Joint Reserve 
Center to be located at the New Orleans Naval Air Station which 
will include the Army Reserve. This is in line with the 
Department's and Committee's emphasis on joint use of 
facilities. A multi-service reserve center can dramatically 
increase deployment, mobilization and training capabilities by: 
(1) offering immediate access to a major military airfield that 
already houses joint reserve forces and can accommodate any 
aircraft in the current military and commercial inventory; (2) 
providing access to a current major rail line and Mississippi 
River port facilities as well as joint air and base training 
capabilities; and, (3) providing the capability to consolidate, 
on a major military airbase, the majority of guard and reserve 
forces in the area.

   Utah: S.A. Douglas Armed Forces Reserve Center: Parking and Site 
                              Improvements

    The Committee directs the Army Reserve to execute a project 
to provide parking and site improvements at the S. A. Douglas 
Armed Forces Reserve Center in Utah using funds available for 
unspecified minor construction. The estimated cost of this 
project is $700,000.

                             Naval Reserve


     Massachusetts-Westover AFRB: Marine Reserve Training Facility

    The Military Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 1998 (Public Law 105-45) provided funding for the 
renovation of Building 1900 at the Westover Air Force Reserve 
Base in Massachusetts. The project was to provide the Marine 
Corps Reserve with a training facility at that location. After 
renovation on Building 1900 started, asbestos and many other 
environmental problems with the building were uncovered. Due to 
the escalating costs, the Marine Corps Reserve halted the 
renovation project and believes it is now more cost efficient 
to build a new facility. The Committee recommends funding for a 
new facility in this bill. Additionally, the Committee rescinds 
$2,400,000 from the ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve'' 
account. These are the funds which remain unobligated and 
available for rescission from the original renovation project.

                           Air Force Reserve


             Florida-Homestead ARS: Add/Alter Fire Station

    The Committee has recommended an additional $2,000,000 for 
the completion of this project. The Military Construction 
Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-52) contained 
$2,950,000 for the first phase of this project and 
authorization is contained in the National Defense 
Authorization Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-65).

       New York-Niagara Falls IAP ARS: Visiting Officer Quarters

    The Air Force Reserves is directed to accelerate the 
planning and design of the Visiting Officers Quarters at the 
Niagara Falls International Airport and to include the required 
construction funding in its fiscal year 2002 budget request.

     North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       $81,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       190,000,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................       177,500,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................       +96,500,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................       -12,500,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $177,500,000 for the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program 
(NSIP). This is a decrease of $12,500,000 below the budget 
request for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $96,500,000 
above the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee notes that the actual fiscal year 2000 
requirement for the NATO Security Investment Program was 
$172,000,000. Of this amount, $91,000,000 was provided by the 
Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
(Public Law 106-31).
    For fiscal year 2001, the NATO nations have agreed to a 
funding level of about $730,000,000. The U.S. requirement is 
based on a cost share, which is approximately 24.7 percent. In 
addition to the recommended appropriation of $177,500,000, 
approximately $11,000,000 is anticipated to be available from 
recoupments, deobligations, and unobligated balances brought 
forward.
    The Committee continues to support full U.S. participation 
in the NSIP program. The foreign currency fluctuation has 
increased the value of the U.S. dollar against most other NATO 
nation's currencies. These savings have been realized 
throughout other accounts in the bill and the NSIP program 
should be of no exception. Therefore, the Committee has reduced 
the budget request by $12,500,000 and notes that this is an 
increase of $5,500,000 above the current fiscal year. This 
funding should be sufficient to satisfy the Secretary's 
commitments to NATO.
    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 Committee continues to carry a General Provision, 
Section 124, which prohibits the use of NSIP funds for any 
aspect of the Partnership for Peace Program in the New 
Independent States of the fortmer Soviet Union.
    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 Department of Defense has approximately 300,000 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 155,889 units, is in need of major 
improvements or replacement at a total cost of $14,718,359,000.
    The quality of housing for Service members and their 
families is a critical 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. The Committee commends the 
Department for making housing one of its top priorities this 
year and establishing a three-pronged initiative to improve 
military family housing, which includes the following 
components:
          --increasing housing allowances to eliminate the out-
        of-pocket costs paid by Service members for off-base 
        housing in the United States;
          --increasing reliance upon the private sector through 
        privatization; and
          --maintaining military construction funding.
    The Department's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) plan is 
to completely eliminate out-of-pocket costs paid by Service 
members for off-base housing by 2005. The funding to achieve 
this initiative exceeds $3,000,000,000 over the next five 
years. The Committee notes that increasing the BAH will reduce 
the demand for on-base housing and eliminate some of the 
Department's older, high-cost units and make better use of 
housing funds. The Committee directs the Department to closely 
monitor the impact of this initiative on the on-base housing 
requirements and ensure the Services' family housing master 
plans reflect the impact of the initiative.
    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.............................           7,400          20,000          41,000          68,400
    Costs.......................................         965,000       3,000,000       3,000,000       6,965,000
Navy:
    Number of Units.............................          15,600           4,200          13,600          33,400
    Costs.......................................       2,294,300         693,000       1,088,000       4,075,300
Marine Corps:
    Number of Units.............................          10,731           5,611           6,278          22,620
    Costs.......................................       1,622,464         960,135         370,717       2,953,316
Air Force:
    Number of Units.............................           6,000          26,700          38,500          71,200
    Costs.......................................         417,845       2,575,395       3,031,112       6,024,352
Total DOD:
    Number of Units.............................          39,731          56,511          99,378         195,620
    Costs.......................................       5,299,609       7,228,530       7,489,829      20,017,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         construction overview

    The Committee is concerned over the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request for family housing new construction and construction 
improvements of $709,151,000. The Department has made housing 
one of its top priorities for fiscal year 2001, and one 
component of its three-pronged approach to improve military 
family housing is to maintain military construction funding. 
Yet, the budget request represents a reduction of $24,968,000 
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level for new construction 
and construction improvements. The Committee strongly believes 
it is imperative that construction funding levels must be 
maintained, along with any privatization or basic allowance for 
housing efforts, to help resolve the serious family housing 
deficits. The Committee recommends total funding of 
$820,213,000 for family housing construction and improvements 
for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $111,062,000 above the 
budget request.

                        new housing construction

    The fiscal year 2001 request is $287,968,000 to build 1,656 
units of new family housing for all Services. This is 
$91,117,000 or 24 percent, under the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level. The Committee has approved all requested projects for 
new construction. In addition, the Committee has recommended an 
additional $103,143,000 to construct 775 units of new family 
housing. The total appropriation for new construction is 
$391,111,000. Details of the Committee's recommendations for 
new construction are provided in this report under the 
individual component accounts. The Committee expects that none 
of the approved projects will be reduced in scope.
    It is the understanding of the Committee, that upon a 30-
day notification from the Secretary of Defense, and approval of 
the Committee, funds appropriated for a new construction 
project may be transferred to the Defense Family Housing 
Improvement Fund for the purpose of a private sector pilot 
project at the same location.

                       construction improvements

    A total of $421,183,000 has been requested for post-
acquisition construction for all services to improve 4,291 
housing units. Post-acquisition construction is focused on 
modernizing existing units that are uneconomical to repair. In 
addition, the Committee has provided an additional $14,350,000 
for construction improvement projects which are listed in this 
report under the individual component accounts, to improve an 
additional 111 units. The total appropriation for post-
acquisition construction is $429,102,000 and will improve 4,402 
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 2001 request for operation and maintenance 
expenses totals $2,732,070,000, a decrease of $105,544,000 from 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $2,698,717,000 for fiscal year 2001. 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, $1,221,047,000 is 
for maintenance and repair of existing housing, a decrease of 
$62,234,000 from fiscal year 2000 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, 
2000.
    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 $20,000 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 128 of the bill directs that the Army, Navy, Marine 
Corps and Air Force submit to the appropriate committees of 
Congress by June 1, 2001, 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

    Last year, the Committee learned that the Navy and Air 
Force had in recent years supplemented family housing funds 
with the Services regular operations and maintenance funds on 
general and flag officer quarters. As a result, the Committee 
had no recourse but to include a provision which statutorily 
prohibited the mixing of operations and maintenance and family 
housing funds on general and flag officer quarters. To assure 
there are no future occurrences of this misappropriation of 
funds, the Committee continues to statutorily prohibit the 
mixing of these funds by including a provision (Section 127) in 
this bill.
    In order to control expenditures for high cost quarters, 
the existing reporting requirements for general and flag 
officer quarters continue in full force and effect. No more 
than $25,000 per unit can be spent annually for the maintenance 
and repair of any general and flag officer quarters without 
prior notification of the appropriate committees of Congress. 
Out of cycle notifications are prohibited unless justified as 
emergencies or safety related. Additionally, the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is required to submit an 
annual report detailing the total amount spent on operation and 
maintenance of individual general and flag officer quarters for 
the past fiscal year to the appropriate committees of Congress. 
Finally, 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.

        General and Flag Officer Quarters: Budget Justification

    Despite the existing expense thresholds and reporting 
requirements, the Committee is concerned the Department's 
expenditures associated with maintaining general and flag 
officer quarters continue to rise beyond reason. The budget 
proposal included numerous maintenance and repair requests in 
excess of $50,000 per unit for general and flag officer 
quarters. Of great concern to the Committee is the lack of 
justification material provided with these requests. Therefore, 
the Services' are prohibited from executing any general and 
flag officer quarters project in excess of $50,000 per unit 
until further justification is provided to the Committee. This 
requirement applies to both maintenance and repair projects and 
construction projects.

                     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 
$20,000 for a military family housing unit, or $25,000 for a 
General or Flag Officer Quarters, to be exceeded. The 
notification shall include work, scope, cost break-out and 
other details pertinent to asbestos and/or lead-based paint 
removal work and shall be reported on a semi-annual basis.

                         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 2000 appropriation........................    $1,167,012,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................     1,140,381,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,152,249,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................       -14,763,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................       +11,868,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,152,249,000 for 
Family Housing, Army for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase 
of $11,868,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2001, 
and a decrease of $14,763,000 below the appropriation for 
fiscal year 2000.

                              construction

    The Committee recommends $115,974,000 for new construction, 
instead of $91,974,000, as requested, as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                        Location/project                               units         Requested      Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
    Arizona-Fort Huachuca.......................................             110     $16,224,000     $16,224,000
    Hawaii-Schofield Barracks...................................              72      15,500,000      15,500,000
    Kentucky-Fort Campbell......................................              56       7,800,000       7,800,000
    Kentucky-Fort Campbell......................................              58               0       8,000,000
    Maryland-Fort Detrick.......................................              48       5,600,000       5,600,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg...................................             112      14,600,000      14,600,000
    North Carolina-Fort Bragg...................................              64               0       7,400,000
    South Carolina-Fort Jackson.................................               1         250,000         250,000
    Texas-Fort Bliss............................................              64      10,200,000      10,200,000
    Virginia-Fort Lee...........................................              51               0       8,600,000
    Korea-Camp Humphreys........................................              60      21,800,000      21,800,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Army............................................             696      91,974,000     115,974,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       construction improvements

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                        Location/project                               units         Requested      Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska-Fort Wainwright..........................................              28      $7,200,000      $7,200,000
California-Fort Irwin...........................................              28               0       4,700,000
District of Columbia-Fort McNair................................               8       1,300,000       1,300,000
Missouri-Fort Leonard Wood......................................              56               0       4,150,000
New York-United States Military Academy.........................              59       9,100,000       9,100,000
Virginia-Fort Belvoir...........................................             148      14,000,000      14,000,000
Virginia-Fort Belvoir...........................................              27               0       5,500,000
Germany-Ansbach.................................................              42       4,200,000       4,200,000
Germany-Wiesbaden AB............................................             144      13,200,000      13,200,000
Germany-Wuerzburg...............................................              64       6,300,000       6,300,000
Germany-Heidelberg..............................................             276       8,200,000       8,200,000
Korea-Yongsan...................................................               1          90,000          90,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Army...............................................             881      63,590,000      77,940,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            fire suppression

    The Committee is concerned over the response of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and 
Environment to questions raised about the fire safety in the 
stairwell apartments in Germany. It is not acceptable to wait 
for future renovations to install additional smoke detectors, 
alarms and fire extinguishers in the common areas of 
stairwells. In addition, the Committee sees no reason to wait 
until fiscal year 2002 to include fire suppression sprinkler 
systems in apartment renovations in Germany. The Committee 
considers this fire safety issue of utmost importance and 
therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that 
smoke detectors, alarms and fire extinguishers are installed in 
all common areas of stairwell apartments in Germany within 
sixty days of enactment of this Act. And, all construction 
improvement projects in Germany which have previously been 
appropriated and under construction and those included in the 
fiscal year 2001 program shall be equipped with fire 
suppression sprinkler systems. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to report to the Committee on Appropriations the 
actions taken to correct these deficiencies within thirty days 
after enactment of this Act.

                  family housing office--mons, belgium

    The Committee is concerned over the availability of housing 
for U.S. personnel assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium. In 
addition, there is no U.S. housing office to assist personnel 
in locating housing on the economy. U.S. personnel must go 
through a highly inefficient allied office that is extremely 
complicated and not very helpful. Therefore, the Secretary of 
the Army is directed to establish a housing office at SHAPE 
which finds suitable homes, makes arrangements with owners, and 
facilitates the process for U.S. personnel. In addition, this 
office would serve as the liaison with the SHAPE housing office 
on behalf of U.S. personnel.

                       operations and maintenance

    The request of $978,275,000 has been reduced by $6,571,000. 
It is the Committee's intent that the appropriation of 
$397,792,000 for the maintenance of real property not be 
reduced. If the need arises for additional funding within the 
account, the Committee encourages the Army to submit a prior 
approval reprogramming request.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    $1,232,541,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................     1,245,460,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,298,792,000
Comparison with:
Fiscal year 2000 total appropriation..................       +66,251,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................       +53,332,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,298,792,000 for 
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. 
This is an increase of $53,332,000 above the budget request for 
fiscal year 2001, and an increase of $66,251,000 above the 
total appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

                              construction

    The Committee recommends $213,720,000 for new construction, 
instead of $159,317,000, as requested, as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                        Location/project                               units          Request       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
    California-Camp Pendleton...................................              98               0      $8,600,000
    California-Lemoore Naval Air Station........................             160      27,768,000      27,768,000
    California-Lemoore Naval Air Station........................             100               0      20,103,000
    California-Twentynine Palms.................................              79      13,923,000      13,923,000
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex...........................              98      22,230,000      22,230,000
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex...........................              62      14,237,000      14,237,000
    Hawaii-Pearl Harbor Naval Complex...........................             112      23,654,000      23,654,000
    Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay Marines Corps Base.......................              84      21,910,000      21,910,000
    Louisiana-New Orleans Naval Complex.........................             100               0       5,000,000
    Maine-Brunswick Naval Air Station...........................             168      18,722,000      18,722,000
    Mississippi-Gulfport Naval Constr Battalion Center..........             157               0      20,700,000
    Washington-Whidbey Island Naval Air Station.................              98      16,873,000      16,873,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Navy............................................           1,316     159,317,000     213,720,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Construction Improvements

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
            Location/Project                   Units        Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California-San Diego CNB................             347     $27,123,000
California-Camp Pendleton MCB...........             332      24,969,000
Connecticut-New London NSB..............             111      10,429,000
Connecticut-New London NSB..............             184      18,694,000
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks,                  1         223,000
 8th & I................................
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks,                  1         178,000
 8th & I................................
District of Columbia-Marine Barracks,                  1         190,000
 8th & I................................
Hawaii-Pearl Harbor CNB.................              12       2,729,000
Illinois-Great Lakes PWC................             180      23,293,000
Maryland-US Naval Academy...............               7       2,654,000
Maryland-Patuxent River NAS.............              17         822,000
New Jersey-Lakehurst NAES...............              72       7,759,000
Tennessee-Memphis NSA...................             250      10,892,000
Virginia-Norfolk CNB....................             125       9,318,000
Virginia-Norfolk CNB....................             308      18,617,000
Washington-Whidbey Island NAS...........              28       1,851,000
Iceland-Keflavik NAS....................              44       9,016,000
Japan-Yokosuka..........................              96      11,884,000
Japan-Iwakuni MCAS......................             132         873,000
Japan-Iwakuni MCAS......................              44       2,033,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Navy.......................           2,292     183,547,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Foreign Currency Fluctuations

    Due to the unfavorable fluctuations in exchange rates of 
some foreign currencies, the Committee has provided an 
additional $2,359,000 for Navy construction improvements.

                WASHINGTON, D.C.--MARINE CORPS BARRACKS

    A general provision, Section 130, is included which 
authorizes the use of private funds for the construction, 
improvement, repair, and maintenance of the historic residences 
located at Marine Corps Barracks, 8th and I Street, Washington, 
D.C. The Secretary of the Navy is to notify the appropriate 
committees of Congress thirty days in advance of the intended 
use of such funds.

                       Family Housing, Air Force





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................    $1,167,848,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................     1,049,754,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,062,263,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................      -105,585,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................       +12,509,000


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,062,263,000 for 
Family Housing, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. This is an 
increase of $12,509,000 above the budget request for fiscal 
year 2001, and a decrease of $105,585,000 above the total 
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

                              Construction

    The Committee recommends $61,417,000 for new construction, 
instead of $36,677,000 as requested, as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                        Location/Project                               Units          Request       Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force:
    California-Edwards AFB......................................              57               0      $9,870,000
    California-Travis AFB.......................................              64               0       9,870,000
    District of Columbia-Bolling AFB............................             136     $17,137,000      17,137,000
    Nevada-Nellis AFB...........................................              26               0       5,000,000
    North Dakota-Cavalier.......................................               2         443,000         443,000
    North Dakota-Minot AFB......................................             134      19,097,000      19,097,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force.......................................             419      36,677,000      61,417,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Construction improvements

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
            Location/Project                   Units        Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska-Elmendorf AFB \1\................  ..............      $1,127,000
Arizona-Luke AFB \1\....................  ..............       1,109,000
Arkansas-Little Rock AFB \2\............           1,535       2,000,000
California-Vandenberg AFB \2\...........             506       7,013,000
Colorado-Peterson AFB \1\...............  ..............         721,000
District of Columbia-Bolling AFB........               3         216,000
Georgia-Moody AFB \2\...................             696       8,401,000
Louisiana-Barksdale AFB \1\.............  ..............         513,000
Massachusetts-Hanscom AFB...............             100         711,000
Missouri-Whiteman AFB \1\...............  ..............         470,000
Nebraska-Offutt AFB \2\.................           2,580      14,982,000
North Carolina-Pope AFB \1\.............  ..............         919,000
North Dakota-Cavalier AS................              12         426,000
Oklahoma-Tinker AFB.....................             144       7,741,000
South Carolina-Charleston AFB \2\.......             488       2,000,000
Tennessee-Arnold AFB....................              40       1,007,000
Utah-Hill AFB \2\.......................           1,116      11,271,000
Utah-Hill AFB...........................               8       1,011,000
Germany-Ramstein AB.....................             434      45,813,000
Germany-Spangdahlem AB..................             162      15,342,000
Japan-Kadena AB.........................              52       9,074,000
Korea-Osan AB...........................              10       2,169,000
United Kingdom-RAF Fairford.............             106      10,923,000
United Kingdom-RAF Lakenheath...........             158      15,910,000
United Kingdom-RAF Molesworth...........             130      13,177,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Air Force...............           8,280    174,046,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Site improvements.
\2\ Privatization request.

                 Air Force Family Housing Privatization

    The budget request recommends six additional privatization 
projects affecting 6,921 units with a total appropriation of 
$45,667,000 at six locations: Charleston AFB, South Carolina; 
Hill AFB, Utah; Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; Moody AFB, Georgia; 
Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Vandenberg AFB, California. The 
Committee's recommendation of appropriations for these projects 
in no way constitutes approval of privatization projects at 
these locations. The Air Force is reminded that the existing 
notification and approval process still applies for these six 
projects.

                      Family Housing, Defense-wide





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................       $41,490,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................        44,886,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................        44,886,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................        +3,396,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends a total of $44,886,000 for Family 
Housing, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2001. This is equal to 
the budget request for fiscal year 2001, and an increase of 
$3,396,000 above the appropriation for fiscal year 2000.

         Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................        $2,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................                 0
Committee recommendation in the bill..................                 0
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................        -2,000,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends no appropriation for the 
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for 
fiscal year 2001. This is equal to the budget request for 
fiscal year 2001, and $2,000,000 below the appropriation for 
fiscal year 2000.

                                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 in February 2001. The Committee supports the 
requested statutory change to extend the initiative for an 
additional five years.
    The Department of Defense intends to privatize 
approximately 40,000 housing units by December 2001. While the 
Committee supports the extension of the authority for this 
program it continues to believe this is a pilot program. It is 
the Committee's intent that several projects need to be 
completed to review the success of this program prior to 
privatizing additional housing units. Following is the latest 
quarterly report on the status of these projects.

               MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE--HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REPORT TO CONGRESS
                                          [April 2000 quarterly report]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Notify Congress  Notify Congress   Deal closing/
             Installation                      Scope*            solicitation      selection      contract award
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ARMY FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Ft Carson............................  2,663.................          Sep--96          Sep--99          Sep--99

                                          CDMP Subject to OSD Approval

Ft Hood..............................  6,631**...............          Dec--98          Jan--00          Nov--00
Ft Lewis.............................  3,955**...............          Nov--99          May--00          Nov--00
Ft Meade.............................  3,170**...............          Mar--00          Oct--00          Apr--00

                                     AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Lackland AFB.........................  420...................          Sep--96          May--98          Aug--98
Robins AFB...........................  670...................          Oct--98          Jun--00          Jul--00
Patrick AFB..........................  960...................          Jul--00          Dec--00          Jan--01
Dyess AFB............................  402...................          Jun--99          Jul--00          Sep--00
Elmendorf AFB........................  828...................          Dec--98          Jun--00          Jul--00
Kirtland AFB.........................  1,890.................          May--00          Oct--00          Nov--00
Dover AFB............................  450...................          Aug--00          Dec--00          Jan--01

                                             Subject to OSD Approval

Wright-Patterson AFB.................  1,536.................          Jun--00          Dec--00          Jan--01
McGuire AFB Ft Dix...................  900...................          On Hold          On Hold          On Hold
Tinker AFB...........................  730...................          On Hold          On Hold          On Hold
Goodfellow AFB.......................  198...................          Jun--00          Nov--00          Jan--01
Little Rock AFB......................  1,535.................          Sep--00          Feb--01          Mar--01
Vandenberg AFB.......................  506...................          Sep--00          Mar--01          Apr--01
Moody AFB............................  696...................          Sep--00          Feb--01          Mar--01
Offutt AFB...........................  2,580.................          Oct--00          May--01          Jun--01
Charleston AFB.......................  488...................          Nov--00          Jun--01          Jul--01
Hill AFB.............................  1,116.................          Dec--00          Jul--01          Aug--01

                                        NAVY FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Corpus Christi.......................  404...................  ...............          May--96          Jul--96
Everett..............................  185...................  ...............          Oct--96          Mar--97
Everett II...........................  300...................          Oct--98          Jun--00          Aug--00
Kingsville II........................  150...................          Oct--98          Jun--00          Jul--00
San Diego............................  3,248.................          Nov--98          Jan--01          Mar--01
South Texas..........................  812...................          Nov--98          Feb--01          Apr--01
NAS New Orleans......................  763...................          Dec--98          Jan--01          Mar--01

                                             Subject to OSD Approval

Hampton Roads........................  80....................              TBD              TBD              TBD

                                    MARINE CORPS FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

MCLB Albany..........................  114...................          Jan--98          Nov--00          Dec--00
Camp Pendleton.......................  712...................          Oct--98          Aug--00          Sep--00
Stewart Army Subpost.................  200...................          Feb--00          Sep--01          Oct--01

                                             Subject to OSD Approval

MCAS Beaufort/Parris Isle............  684...................          Jun--00          Nov--01         Dec--01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Total estimated project units at project award.
**Maximum possible project units (current inventory plus deficit).

          contractor support for family housing privatization

    The Committee is concerned about the Army spending 
excessive amounts on contractor support to evaluate and develop 
family housing privatization proposals. Therefore, the 
Committee is directing the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense 
(Installations) to quarterly review, and report to the 
appropriate Committees of Congress, the expenses of each 
Component to ensure excessive amounts are not being spent on 
contractor support.
    To clarify the Committee's position with respect to these 
costs in the future, amounts appropriated into the Family 
Housing Improvement Fund will be the sole source of funds to 
finance the operation of the former Housing Revitalization 
Support Office. Family Housing Operations and Maintenance will 
be the sole source of funds to develop, evaluate, and oversee 
privatization deals; however, these funds will be separately 
identified and justified as a sub-element of the Family Housing 
Operation account similar to management. Further this sub-
element is considered a congressional interest item and may not 
be increased from the amount enacted without the prior approval 
of the Committees on Appropriations.

                         Reporting requirements

    The Committee is concerned that the 21-day period of review 
prior to entering a privatization contract is too limited, and 
is extending this review period to a 45-day period. The Service 
Secretary concerned may not enter into any contract until after 
the end of the 45-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 45-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 45-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.
    The Department is to continue its quarterly reports on the 
status of privatization projects.

                  Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense





Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................                 0
Committee recommendation in the bill..................                 0
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................                 0
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends no appropriation for the 
Homeowners Assistance Fund. This is equal to the budget request 
for fiscal year 2001, and equal to the appropriation for fiscal 
year 2000. Requirements for fiscal year 2000 were financed by a 
prior year carryover, 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 2001 are 
estimated at $29,323,000 and will be funded with transfers from 
the Base Realignment and Closure account, revenue from sales of 
acquired property, and prior year unobligated balances.

                      Base Realignment and Closure


                                Overview

    The Congress has appropriated, to date, a net total of 
$20,110,739,000 for the Base Realignment and Closure program 
for fiscal years 1990 through 2000. In the bill for fiscal year 
2001, the Committee is recommending total funding of 
$1,174,369,000 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 2001:

                                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
                           [Total funding, fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year 1990
                                           through fiscal   Fiscal year 2000  Fiscal year 2001        Total
                                              year 1999          enacted         recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I..................................    $2,672,830,000               N/A               N/A    $2,672,830,000
Part II.................................     5,274,316,000               N/A               N/A     5,274,316,000
Part III................................     7,167,799,000               N/A               N/A     7,167,799,000
Part IV.................................     4,323,483,000       672,311,000     1,174,369,000     6,170,163,000
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................    19,438,428,000       672,311,000     1,174,369,000    21,285,108,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Environmental restoration

    Since the start of the current process for Base Realignment 
and Closure, Military Construction Appropriations Acts have 
appropriated a net total of $20,110,739,000 for the entire 
program for fiscal years 1990 through 2000. Within this total, 
the Department has allocated $5,994,179,000 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 2001.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Ceiling on
                                                             environ-
                Account                  Total program        mental
                                                           restoration
                                                            year costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC IV...............................    1,174,369,000      865,318,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: east fort baker

    The Army shall select and perform cleanup activities at 
East Fort Baker in accordance with appropriate state and 
federal laws, and provide a timetable for such activities. In 
accordance with CERCLA, the Army shall consider National Park 
Service reuse plans for the site. The Army shall also provide 
adequate funding for the cleanup process in order to ensure a 
timely transfer of the site to the National Park Service.

                california--hunters point naval shipyard

    The Committee remains seriously concerned over the lack of 
progress made by the Navy in proceeding with remediation of 
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, which was closed by the Navy in 
1991. Since that time, the Navy has failed to fully implement 
all response actions necessary for the clean-up of this 
Superfund site, leaving revitalization plans adopted by the 
Bayview-Hunters Point community and the City from proceeding in 
a timely manner.
    The Committee directs the Navy, in conveying parcels of 
Hunters Point to the City, to take all necessary steps, funding 
and otherwise, to ensure the timely remediation of hazardous 
materials on these parcels to a level that permits the full 
range of uses designated in the City's adopted redevelopment 
plan.
    Until such time as agreement with the City over conveyance 
are complete, the Department of the Navy shall continue to 
provide adequate public protection services to the property, 
including police and fire services. The Secretary of the Navy 
is directed to report to the Committee no later than January 
15, 2001 on the status of the conveyance and remediation of the 
property.

   california-rio vista reserve center: cleanup efforts and asbestos 
                              remediation

    The Rio Vista Reserve Center consists of approximately 28.8 
acres and includes 22 wood frame buildings. The majority of 
these buildings contain asbestos. The Rio Vista Reuse Plan 
envisions removal/demolition of all currently existing 
structures on the property. The Secretary of the Army is 
directed to report to the Committee no later than September 15, 
2000 on the plans for building demolition at the installation, 
including the required funding, funding source, and estimated 
dates for completion of such activities.

            texas--reese air force base: building demolition

    The Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000 
Military Construction Appropriations Bill (Public Law 106-52) 
directed the Air Force to submit a report to Congress on plans 
for demolition at Reese AFB in Texas, including funding and 
estimated dates for completion. The report submitted to 
Congress states, it would be acceptable to the Air Force to 
fund the demolition of identified buildings over a four-year 
period. The Committee directs the Air Force to complete this 
work using any unexpired funds appropriated under the ``Base 
Realignment and Closure'' account.

               Defense Environmental Response Task Force

    The Defense Environmental Response Task Force (DERTF) was 
established in fiscal year 1991 to report on ways to improve 
interagency coordination and to improve and streamline policies 
and procedures relating to environmental response actions at 
closing installations. Since all closures resulting from 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission decisions will 
be completed by July 13, 2001, the Committee believes that the 
mission of the DERTF will be completed by that time and that no 
further meetings of the DERTF are necessary.

                             reprogramming

    The Committee agrees that any transfer of funds which 
exceeds reprogramming thresholds for any construction project 
financed by any Base Realignment and Closure Account shall be 
subject to a 21-day notification to the Committees, and shall 
not be subject to reprogramming procedure.
    In order to avoid additional interest payments and delays, 
cost increases that are solely the result of a negotiated or an 
adjudicated settlement of any contractor claim shall be subject 
to an after the fact notification.

                         construction projects

    The Department of Defense has requested a total of 
$12,800,000 within the fiscal year 2001 budget request for one 
Air Force construction project funded under the Base 
Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV. The Committee 
recommends full funding for the Defense Reutilization and 
Marketing Office Complex at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

                       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 2000 appropriation........................      $672,311,000
Fiscal year 2001 estimate.............................     1,174,369,000
Committee recommendation in the bill..................     1,174,369,000
Comparison with:
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriation....................      +502,058,000
    Fiscal year 2001 estimate.........................                 0


    The Committee recommends a total of $1,174,369,000 for Base 
Realignment and Closure, Part IV for fiscal year 2001. This is 
equal to the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and an 
increase of $502,058,000 above the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 2000. Below is the recommended distribution of 
funds:

Military Construction...................................     $12,800,000
Family Housing..........................................               0
Environmental...........................................     865,318,000
Operations and Maintenance..............................     293,723,000
Military Personnel (PCS)................................       5,419,000
Other...................................................         862,000
Revenues................................................     (7,817,000)
Homeowner's Assistance Program..........................       4,064,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
  Total.................................................  $1,174,369,000

                 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, Naval Reserve'' 
account which rescinds $2,400,000 from Public Law 106-52.
    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 $865,318,000 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 prohibits the 
obligation of funds for Partnership for Peace Programs in the 
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
    Section 125 of the General Provisions requires the 
Secretary of Defense to notify congressional defense committees 
of all family housing privatization solicitations and agreement 
which contain any clause providing consideration for base 
realignment and closure, force reductions, and extended 
deployments.
    Section 126 of the General Provisions provides transfer 
authority to the Homeowners Assistance Program.
    Section 127 of the General Provisions requires that all 
Military Construction 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 $25,000 per year.
    Section 128 of the General Provisions directs that the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force submit to the 
appropriate committees of Congress by June 1, 2001, a Family 
Housing Master Plan.
    Section 129 of the General Provisions allows the transfer 
of funds appropriated in Public Law 106-52 under the heading 
``Military Construction, Naval Reserve'' to ``Military 
Construction, Navy''.
    Section 130 of the General Provisions allows the use of 
private funds for the construction, improvement, repair, and 
maintenance of the historic residences located at the Marine 
Corps Barracks, 8th and I Streets, Washington, D.C.
    The Committee recommends deleting the following General 
Provisions which were included in the fiscal year 2000 Military 
Construction Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-52), because 
these provisions are no longer required [section numbers refer 
to sections contained in Public Law 105-237]:
    Section 127 requiring a report on the adequacy of special 
education facilities for DoD family members. Section 129 which 
amends the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act to 
allow the transfer of funds to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Security Investment Program. Section 131 which 
restricts construction of chemical demilitarization facilities 
at the Bluegrass Army Depot, KY, until reporting requirements 
are met.

                  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
  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, 126, and 129 of the General Provisions, and 
language included under ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' 
provide certain transfer authority.

                          Rescission of Funds

    In compliance with clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it 
recommends a rescission of $2,400,000, from Public Law 106-52, 
under ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve''.

                        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                          Budget
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...................................           8,634           8,684           8,634           8,625
Mandatory.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       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 2001....................        $8,634,000
Outlays:
    2001..............................................         2,524,000
    2002..............................................         3,144,000
    2003..............................................         1,744,000
    2004..............................................           688,000
    2005 and beyond...................................           501,000


    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: