Report text available as:

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