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