Appropriations for FY1996 : Military Construction One of a series of CRS Reports on FY1996 appropriations

95-621 F

Appropriations for FY1996 :

Military Construction

One of a series of CRS Reports on FY1996 appropriations

George H . Siehl

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division

N

Updated October 5, 1995

a

mom

cRti

I

HI 111,11

Appropriations For FY1996 :

Military Construction

Summary

The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill finances (1) military

construction projects in the United States and overseas ; (2) military family

housing operations and construction ; (3) U .S . contributions to the NATO

Security Investment Program (formerly called the NATO Infrastructure

Program) ; and (3) most base realignment and closure costs, including

construction of new facilities for functions being transferred and environmental

cleanup at closing sites . The Administration has requested $10,698 million in

budget authority for military construction in FY1996, an increase over the

$8,868 million appropriated for FY1996 .

Congressional action on the annual MilCon appropriations bill normally

follows action in each house on the annual national defense authorization bill .

The authorization bill typically reviews funding for military construction

activities at the same level of detail as the MilCon appropriations bill, and most

differences are reconciled in conference action on each measure . This year,

House action on the defense authorization bill is expected in late May or early

June, and the MilCon appropriations bill may come up very shortly thereafter .

Last year, debate over the MilCon appropriations bill, especially in the

Senate, focused on the issue of congressional additions to the Administration

request . This year, that issue is less likely to arise because the Administration's

budget request does not represent a decline from usual levels of funding, so the

key congressional committees may not elect to boost funding . The major

interest this year is in an Administration plan to improve military family

housing . Long-standing issues include domestic versus overseas expenditures

and contributions to the NATO construction fund .

Contributors

Name

Area of Expertise

CRS Division

Telephone

George H . Siehl

Base closures ; natural resources . FAND

7-7284

Stephen Daggett

Defense budget .

7-7642

FAND

Contents

Status

2

Key Policy Issues

5

Major Funding Trends

9

For Additional Reading

CRS Products

13

13

This CRS report is one of a series

on FY1996 appropriations .

These reports are available from CRS

by calling 7-7132.

CRS Appropriations Series

Order Code

Report Subject

95-620 C

Appropriations Overview

95-624 ENR

Agriculture

95-632 E

Commerce, Justice, State,

and the Judiciary

95-622 F

Defense

95-628 GOV

District of Columbia

95-625 ENR

Energy and Water

95-623 F

Foreign Operations

95-629 ENR

Interior

95-633 EPW

Labor, Health & Human

Services, and Education

95-626 GOV

Legislative Branch

95-621 F

Military Construction

95-627 E

Transportation

95-630 E

Treasury, Postal Service,

Executive Office

95-631 A

VA, HUD, and

Independent Agenc es

Appropriations for FY1996 :

Military Construction

The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill funds construction

projects and real property maintenance of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and their

reserve components ; defense-wide construction ; U .S . contributions to the NATO

Security Investment Program (formerly called the NATO Infrastructure

Program) ; and military family housing operations and construction . The bill

also provides funding for the Base Realignment and Closure Account, which

finances most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of new

facilities for functions being transferred and environmental cleanup at closing

sites . The FY1996 budget requests $10,697,995,000 of budget authority for

military construction, up from $8,868,200,000 in FY1995 .

Typically, the

appropriated construction funds are made available for obligation for a period

of five fiscal years .

The military construction appropriations bill ($8 .9 billion for FY1995) is

only one of several annual pieces of legislation that concern funding for national

defense . Other major legislation includes (1) the defense appropriations bill,

that provides funds for all military activities of the Department of Defense

except for military construction ($243 .5 billion for FY1995), see, CRS Report95622 F ; (2) the energy and water development appropriations bill, that provides

funding for atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy ($10 .3

billion for defense-related activities in FY1995), see, CRS Report 95-625 ENR ;

and (3) the national defense authorization bill, which authorizes appropriations

for national defense . Two other appropriations bills -- VA-HUD-Independent

Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State -- also include small amounts for national

defense . In addition, the energy and water development appropriations bill

provides funds for civil projects carried out by the U .S . Army Corps of

Engineers -- this funding is not included in the National Defense Budget

Function (Function 050) .

MilCon appropriations are the major, but not the only, source of funds for

facility investments by the military services and defense agencies . The defense

appropriations bill provides some funds for real property maintenance in

operation and maintenance accounts . In addition, funds for construction and

maintenance of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation-related facilities are provided

in part through proceeds of commissaries, recreational user fees, and other

income .

CRS- 2

Status

Status of Appropriations Legislation :

Military Construction

Subconumttee

Markup

ouse

Sena

06/07/95 07/17/95

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Conference

Senate Conference Report Approval

Passage Report

House Senate

H . Rcpt .

104-137

104-116

06/21/95

07/21/95 104-247

06/13/95

07/19/95

09/14/95

Public

Law

P.L .

09/20/95 09/22/95 104-32

Congressional action on the annual MilCon appropriations bill normally

follows action in each house on the annual national defense authorization . The

authorization bill typically reviews funding for military construction activities

at the same level of detail as the MilCon appropriations bill, and most

differences are reconciled in conference action on each measure .

The MilCon bill is the first FY1996 appropriations bill sent to the White

House . It was signed into law by President Clinton on Oct . 3, 1995 as P .L . 10432 . The Senate had approved the conference report, H . Rept . 104-247, on

September 22, 1995, after the House voted approval on September 20 . Some

had speculated that President Clinton might veto the bill because it is $479

million over the amount he requested, and because the increases are at odds

with pending cuts in domestic programs in other appropriations bills being

finalized in Congress . This was not the case, however .

House action: The House Committee on National Security reported out

the FY1996 Defense Authorization bill, H . R . 1530, on June 1, 1995 (H . Rept .

104-131) . The military construction section of the bill -- Division B -- was $500

million higher than the Administration request ($10 .698 billion) . The total

authorization in the bill as reported, $11,197,995,000 stipulated $6,878,840,000

for military construction, BRAC closure operations, and NATO infrastructure .

Family housing construction and support were set at $4,319,155,000 . Table 2

shows funding levels for the various MilCon accounts at key points throughout

the appropriations process .

On June 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Military Construction approved a

bill for consideration by the full Appropriations Committee . On June 13, the

full committee ordered the FY1996 Military Construction bill, H .R . 1817,

reported .

Funding levels and specific projects are the same as in the

Authorization bill, H .R . 1530 .

House floor consideration of H .R . 1817 began June 16, 1995, and was

completed with passage on the third day of debate, June 21, 1995, by a vote of

319 to 105 . Several amendments made minor cuts from the amounts reported

from the Appropriations Committee . Specifically :

CRS- 3

-$14 million in land acquis o

for an Army Museum adjoining

Washington, D .C . was eliminated on a vote of 261-137 .

The Military

Construction subcommittee had previously cut the request from $17 million ;

-- $6 .9 million for construction of Air Force housing was cut by a vote of

266-160 . The amendment targeted units costing more than $200,000 ;

Six amendments that would have cut projects or accounts by a total of

$184 .5 million were rejected, as was an amendment to cut the military

construction and NATO infrastructure accounts by 5% . Advocates of these cuts

noted that the FY1996 proposal was 28% higher than FY1995 appropriation .

Supporters of H .R . 1817 said the increase was necessary because so little had

been done to improve military housing in the past decade .

The House approved a total of $11 .177 billion in the MilCon Appropriations

bill it sent to the Senate .

Senate action : The MilCon Appropriations subcommittee marked-up H .R .

1817 on July 17th . On July 19 the full committee marked-up and ordered the

bill reported at a funding level of $11,158,995,000 . This is $336 million above

the reported Senate authorization mark and $18 million below the House

approved MilCon appropriation level . The amount reported from the Senate

Appropriations Committee exceeded the Administra on budget request by $461

million .

The MilCon Appropriations bill, H.R . 1817, was brought to the Senate floor

and approved by a vote of 84 to 10 on July 21 . 1995 . The bill was approved

with the amendments reported from the Appropriations Committee (see Table

2 for dollar changes from the House bill) . The Senate passed appropriation bill

makes rescissions of over $55 .7 million from prior year appropriations ; the

House passed measure contained no rescissions . The Senate bill contains $228

million in military construction projects that had not been authorized . These

projects are in ten accounts within the MilCon appropriation as listed in section

126 of the bill .

The committee report notes that the bill is $2 .4 billion more than the 1995

appropriation and $461 million more than the Administration budget request,

but $18 million under the level approved by the House . Table 2 shows the

funding differences in each account between the House and Senate passed

versions of H .R . 1817 . This will be the basis of a conference on the bill in

September .

Senator Bingaman offered an amendment on the floor to reduce the funding

for military construction and family housing by $300 million, but it was rejected

in a 77-18 vote .

During debate, Senator McCain, a cosponsor of the

amendment, noted that all the projects in the bill met the criteria that he

suggested and the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted last year (see

discussion under key policy issues, below) . Nonetheless, he argued that military

construction projects were not the highest priority needs of the services . The

CRS- 4

money added to the MilCon bill, he said, "would be better used for higher

priority requirements . . . or to meet the must-pay bills for ongoing contingency

operations" .

Senator McCain noted the "good news" that the military

construction add-ons for FY1996 would be significantly less than less than the

$1 billion added last year . Senator Reid, ranking member of the MilCon

subcommittee, subsequently noted, "there are lots of other places these moneys

could be spent, but this is a Military Construction Subcommittee budget and

that is where we are obligated to spend the money," not on training, contingency

operations or other higher priority requirements .

Other than the Bingaman amendment, two issues were debated at length

by the Senate : the funding level for construction of National Guard and Reserve

unit facilities, and the costs of environmental cleanup at closing bases . Senator

Bond, cochair of the National Guard caucus, stated that the administration

requested on $18 million for all Army Guard units in the 50 States, and that the

$85 million allocated to the Air National Guard was only half the amount

needed for required projects . Senator Burns, chair of the MilCon subcommittee,

said that because so much money was needed for cleanup, it was necessary to

add the funds requested for Guard and Reserve projects . These items are

discussed further under the following Key Policy Issues section .

The Senate Armed Services Committee reported S . 1026, the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, on July 12, 1995 (Senate Report

104-112) . The report recommended a total of $10 .82 billion for the MilCon

portion of the authorization bill, with over $6 .6 billion for military construction

and nearly $4 .2 billion for military housing and support for FY1996 . The

Senate authorization recommendation was about $120 million more than the

Administration request for $10 .704 billion . S . 1026 would authorize the plan to

promote private financing and development of military housing, and

recommends full funding for the Base Closure and Realignment accounts .

The Senate Defense Authorization bill, S . 1124 was passed on Sept . 6, 1995,

following debate on August 3, 4, and 5 . Prior to final passage, the Senate

approved an amendment by Senator Thurmond to authorize an additional $228

million for 46 military construction projects . These projects were funded in the

MilCon Appropriations bill passed by the Senate on July 21, so the Thurmond

amendment would bring the authorization and appropriation bills into

conformance .

Conference action: Conferees met and reported H .R . 1817, the MilCon

Appropriations bill for FY1996, on Sept . 14, 1995 (H . Rept . 104-247) . The

reported bill appropriates a total of $11,177,009,000 . The amount is $479 more

than requested by the administration, and $2 .4 billion above FY1995

appropriations . Table 2 provides a break out and a comparison with the budget

request and funding levels earlier approved by the two chambers .

The House approved the conference report by a vote of 326 yeas to 98 nays

on Sept . 20, 1995 . The Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 86

yeas to 14 nays on Sept . 22, 1995 .

CRS- 5

Key Policy Issues

Issues associated with military construction funding include the following :

Family housing initiatives :

The National Secu y Committee has

agreed with an Administration proposal to establish incentives for the private

sector to build new family housing on, or near, military facilities . To deal with

the nagging problem of low-quality housing, H .Rept . 104-131 states, "The

committee proposes to address these shortfalls with both short-term

improvements and legislative changes to the military construction program to

enhance public-private partnerships in the development of military family

housing" . The proposal calls for carrying out several pilot projects over the next

few years . Section 2801 of H .R . 1530 authorizes several alternatives whereby

the secretary could acquire and improve family housing, including the ability to

contract and lease family housing . DOD would be authorized to contribute up

to 35% of the cost of the projects, with the investment being in the form of cash,

current housing, and/or real property . Property at closing bases is one possible

source of real property that could be exchanged for the development of housing

needed at other facilities . A Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund is

established as the sole source of funding for the program .

The Military Construction Appropriations bill, H .R . 1817 provides the $22

mi ion requested by the Administration and authorized by the National Security

Committee for pilot projects under the Defense Family Housing initiative .

Senate Committees have also approved this initiative . Section 2811 of the

Senate Authorization bill, S . 1026, supports use of the private sector to improve

housing opportunities for military personnel and would establish a Department

of Defense Housing Improvement Fund through Sept . 30, 2000 . The Senate

MilCon bill as reported from Committee provides $22 million for operation of

the fund, the amount requested by the Administration and approved by the

House .

Most agree that steps to correct inadequacies in military housing are

needed . Last year Congress added funds above those DOD requested for

barracks renovation . This year, Secretary of Defense Perry made plans to

improve family housing a centerpiece of his congressional testimony on the

FY1996 defense budget . The secretary pointed out that military housing needs

have changed dramatically in recent years as the all-volunteer force has evolved .

A much larger share of the force is now comprised of older personnel with

families . Moreover, military service members, like the rest of the population,

have come to expect modern conveniences and design in their housing -including closet space, air conditioning, space for washers and dryers, etc .

Secretary Perry has stressed that the lack of these quality of life features can

adversely affect troop morale and retention .

These losses, in turn, can

undermine military readiness .

Congressional additions to the Administration request : The House

Defense Authorization bill approves $500 million more for military construction

CRS- 6

than the Administration requested . All of the added projects were priorities of

the services for which funding was not otherwise available . The Military

Construction Appropriations bill provides this additional funding for projects

included in the Authorizing measure .

Last year, a major focus of debate over the MilCon appropriations bill,

especially in the Senate, concerned the issue of congressional additions to the

Administration request . Senator McCain, in particular, objected to the provision

of substantial amounts for projects that the Administration had not requested,

arguing that such projects largely represent "pork barrel" spending and come at

the expense of higher priority defense programs . In Senate floor consideration

of the MilCon bill, the managers accepted a McCain amendment that called for

certain criteria to be applied to any projects proposed to be added -- including

a provision that any project to be added should be included in military service

lists of needed projects . The amendment was not incorporated into the final

conference version of the bill, however, and the conference agreement provided

over $900 million for unrequested construction . From FY1990 through FY1994,

according to Senator McCain, Congress added an average of $880 million per

year in unrequested military construction projects . The MilCon bill reported

from the Senate Appropriations Committee for FY1996 exceeds the

Administration request by $461 million .

Senator McCain has raised similar questions about congressional ad itions

to Administration defense budget requests in other areas besides military

construction . The whole matter is, to say the least, extremely contentious .

Within the MilCon budget, the debate over congressional additions involves

several overlapping issues . MilCon proponents, including facility advocates in

the military services, argue that military facilities have been systematically

underfunded for many years -- even, some say, in the midst of the buildup of the

early- to mid-1980s . Indeed, this same line of argument took place during the

House Appropriations Committee mark-up on the FY1996 MilCon bill . Some

noted that the funding level was up 28% from last year, while others defended

the increase as simply making good previous shortfalls in funding for new

construction or maintenance of existing facilities . The current DOD backlog of

deferred maintenance and repair for family housing alone totals over $2 billion

dollars .

A goal of DOD facility managers has been to allocate about 3% of the plant

replacement value of DOD facilities to construction and maintenance each year - a figure somewhat below the average for public facilities nationwide . Actual

funding, however, has typically run at 1 to 2% of plant replacement value, which

represents a replacement cycle of 50 to 100 years for defense facilities . Facility

proponents, therefore, commonly feel that congressional additions are to be

welcomed . (For a discussion of this and related issues, see Martin Cohen and

Stephen Daggett, Military Construction : Current Controversies and Long-Term

Issues, CRS Report 91-669 F, Sept . 8, 1991 .)

A related issue is that, in the FY1993 budget request and again in the

FY1995 request, senior officials in the Defense Department imposed a freeze on

CRS- 7

all but essential military construction projects -- i .e ., projects needed to comply

with environmental regulations or other mandates . The official rationale in

each year was that the military base closure process made it impossible to

determine which projects should go ahead and which should not . In both cases,

however, the key congressional committees were skeptical of this reasoning . In

the FY1995 cycle, in each house, the appropriations allocations to the military

construction subcommittees reflected a substantial increase over the

Administration request to keep total MilCon funding in line with the prior year

level . This necessarily entailed a substantial number of congressional additions

to the request .

Finally, congressional MilCon subcommittees -- including authorization as

well as appropriation subcommittees -- have frequently taken issue with

Administration military construction priorities . In the early 1990s, for example,

the committees frequently reduced amounts requested for construction

overseas -- on the ground that troop levels abroad should be reduced and that

allied burden sharing contributions should increase -- and reallocated the funds

to domestic projects . In addition, congressional committees have, at various

times, added unrequested funds for quality of life improvements such as day care

centers and barracks renovation, arguing that the military services have tended

to neglect these areas in favor of "warfighting" investments . There is also the

issue of funding National Guard and Reserve component construction projects .

National Guard and Reserve expenditures : Congress traditionally has

added funds for National Guard and Reserve construction projects . Supporters

of these additions contend, as did Senator Bond during the floor debate on

FY1996 MilCon Appropriations, that the DOD depends upon Congress to

adequately fund these programs after active duty personnel in the Pentagon see

to it that their own needs are met in the budget request . Critics see Guard and

Reserve projects as largely pork barrel spending, or as lesser contributions to

the readiness of American arms . In the mid to late 1980's, Congress varied from

the administration budget requests for Guard and Reserve projects by cutting

as much as $38 .9 million or adding $28 .7 million . In 1989, however, the

additions topped $132 million and grew to over $400 million in FY1995 . This

funding history is shown in Table 3.

Overseas expenditures : Recent MilCon budget requests have included

only very small amounts for construction at U .S . military bases abroad, with the

largest amounts for the NATO Infrastructure Program, which was renamed the

NATO Security Investment Program in December 1994 . Both the FY1996

Defense Authorization and MilCon Appropriations bills reported from

committees cut $18 million from the $179 million the Administration requested

for NATO infrastructure . The MilCon subcommittees have traditionally

scrutinized overseas funding requests very closely, and Congress has reduced

NATO Infrastructure funding from the level requested in almost every budget .

For the most part, however, defense burden sharing issues have been addressed,

not in MilCon appropriations bills, but in congressional action on the annual

defense authorization and defense appropriations measures .

CRS- 8

Environment, historic preservation, oversight, and other issues : In

the past, Congress has encouraged the Defense Department to take a leadership

role in ensuring environmentally sound operating practices, preserving historic

buildings, and protecting important natural habitats on military facilities . The

costs of compliance with legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and

other environmental legislation may also come under review . It remains to be

seen if the 104th Congress continues to support funds in the defense budget for

these purposes .

Finally, MilCon subcommittees exercise oversight over

potentially contentious issues such as land acquisition, land use, and property

disposal at military facilities throughout the world .

The cost of environmental cleanup at closingbases, roughly one-third of the

MilCon appropriation, raises concerns . The House MilCon Appropriations

Report notes that from FY 1990 through 1995, not less than $1

.965 billion was

made available for BRAC environmental costs, and that $2 .330 billion was

allocated by DOD for this purpose . The House placed a cap on future BRAC

environmental allocations, rather than a floor, and noted a concern that cleanup

efforts should be tailored to the proposed re-use of an area, "to assure that costs

are reasonable and affordable ."

As noted above, Senate floor debate on MilCon Appropriations identified

the high cost of environmental restoration in the Base Realignment and Closure

process as a barrier to shifting funds to National Guard and Reserve

construction projects ; funding those projects required additions to the budget

request . The Senate MilCon Appropriations Report states that GAO is to

submit a report by March 1, 1999 reviewing and making recommendations on

the DOD environmental compliance program .

H .R . 1530 addresses a land use issue, directing the Secretary to submit by

May 1, 1996 a report on the feasibility of conveying excess lands at closing

military bases to the States for wildlife management, sporting, and outdoor

recreation purposes .

These would be lands with little value for local

development .

H .R. 1817 provides full, $50 million funding for the DOD Energy

Conservation Investment Program which aims to accomplish a 20% reduction

in building and facility energy requirements by the year 2000 . DOD estimates

that the savings from this program are comparable to the savings in the recent

round of base closures .

The Army Museum : The Army Chief of Staff revised the idea of a

national Army museum in 1983 . The Army reviewed over 60 possible sites for

the facility, and eventually recommended the former Marriott Motel site near

the 14th Street Bridge in northern Virginia . This seven acre location was

favored because it is close to Mall tourist flow, easily accessible to the Pentagon

and Ft . Meyer enabling staff coordination and support from the ceremonial 3rd

Infantry (Old Guard) . Proximity to the Smithsonian Institution, Library of

Congress, and National Archives would facilitate research, proponents noted .

CRS- 9

The Army indicated that the facility would serve several purposes : to honor

those who had served in the U .S . Army, educate and inspire soldiers and the

public, protect military art and artifacts, and contribute to military historical

research and scholarship . The museum would also provide office space for the

Center of Military History which now uses leased space in Washington, D . C .

The budget requested $17 million for land acquisition ; funding for

construction of the museum itself is to raised from private sources . Backers

feared that the land would be sold or developed before the money for purchase

could be raised privately, so Congressional appropriation of this amount was

sought . The House Military Construction subcommittee limited its approval to

$14 million .

Opponents of the measure voiced several concerns : there are already a

number (figures ranged from 28 to 48) of Army museums around the country,

the museum could be built on other Army or Federal lands already owned in the

Washington, D .C . area, and improved military housing is a more important use

of the $14 million (although the amendment to eliminate the land acquisition

funds did not redirect the money to military housing, it only reduced the

appropriation level for the MilCon bill) .

e Senate, the requested $17 million funding for museum land

acquisition was deleted from the defense authorization and appropriations bills

as reported from the Committees . Thus, 1995 legislation provides neither

authority nor funding for the Army to acquire the Marriott site for an Army

Museum .

Major Funding Trends

Funding for military family housing has been fairly stable in recent years,

in large part because totals are driven by annual operating costs which are not

very variable . Funding for military construction has varied more from year to

year, however, especially with the FY1993 freeze on non-essential projects .

Table 1 shows overall military construction funding since FY1993, including

family housing and Figure 1 displays the trend in military construction

funding, excluding family housing, in constant, inflation adjusted prices, since

the peak of the Reagan-era military buildup in FY1985 . Table 2 breaks down

the FY1996 request by appropriations account .

CRS- 10

Table 1 : Military Construction Appropriations,

FY1993 to FY1997

(budget authority, current year dollars in millions)

1

a

sing

Military Construction

Total

Actual

FY1993

Actual

FY1994

. ated

FY1995

Request

FY1996

Request

FY1997

3,941

3,501

3,387

4 554

6,009

5,481

6,573

4,488

8,495

9,510

8,868

10,698

8,823

4,335

Figure 1 : Military Construction Budget Authority, FY1985-96

(Excluding Family Housing)

Constant FY96$ in Billions

8

6

Def-wide

mA.F .

Navy

Army

4

2

0

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

Fiscal Year

Sources : Department of Defense Comptroller, "National Defense Budget

Estimates for FY1995," March 1994 ; Department of Defense, "Financial

Summary Tables," Feb . 1995 ; deflators from Department of Defense Comptroller .

CRS-11

Table 2 : Military Construction Appropriations by Account

(in thousands of dollars)

Account

on, Army

M 1Con, Navy

ilCon, Air Force

Con, Defense-wide

on, Army National Guard

ilCon, Air National Guard

MilCon, Army Reserve

4ilCon, Naval Reserve

o Ai Fo e Re e e

Base Realign . Pad Closure

(BRAC) Acct . Part I

FY1995

Enacted

FY1996

Request

House

Bill

Senate

Bill

548,791

415,098

472,724

488,086

611,608

588,243

516,664

552,586

633,814

554,636

513,784

502,467

189,000

495,655

857,405

18,4 0

578,841

728,332

72,537

569,616

828,07

156,357

587,234

640,357

137,110

248,591

55,693

85,647

42,963

118,267

42,963

168,972

83,423

171,272

72,728

22,7 8

56,958

87,600

7,920

27,002

19,655

31,502

7,920

32,297

19,055

36, 82

®®

BRAC Acct . Part IIIN

1,438,469 ~®

1,573,258

Family Housing Operation &

Debt, AF

Famil

o

Co t . De 'de

824,845

850,059

F

29,031

ily Housing Operation &

e t, Def-wide

a ily Housing Improvement

Fund

omeo ers Assist . Fund, Def.

Conf.

Report

350

-133,000

®®

25 772

3 72

3 772

3 772

30,467

30,467

42,367

30,467

22,000

22,000

22,000

22,000

75,586

75,586

75,586

75,586

Sources : Department of Defense, "Financial Summary Tables," Feb . 1995 . H .R . 1817 as passed by House

on June 21, 1995, as passed by Senate on July 21, 1995, and as agreed to in conference on Sept . 14, 1995 .

CRS-12

TABLE 3 . Congressional Additions to Annual Department of Defense Budget Requests

For National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1985-96

(current year dollars in thousands)

Request

Enacted

Fiscal

a

Army

National

Guard

Air

National

Guard

Army

Reserve

Naval

Reserve

Air

Force

Reserve

Total

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1.996

88,900

102,100

121,100

170,400

138,300

125,000

66,678

50,400

46,700

50,865

9,929

18,480

102,900

137,200

140,000

160,800

147,500

164,600

66,500

131,800

173,270

142,353

122,770

85,647

70,400

70,700

86,700

95,100

79,900

76,900

59,300

57,500

31,500

82,233

7,910

42,963

60,800

51,800

44,500

73,737

48,400

50,900

50,200

20,900

37,772

20,591

2,355

7,920

67,800

66,800

58,900

79,300

58,800

46,200

37,700

20,800

52,880

55,727

28,190

27,002

390,800

428,600

451,200

579,337

472,900

463,600

280,378

281,400

342,122

351,769

171,154

182,012

Source : Department of Defense, "Financial Summary Tables," successive years .

Army

National

Guard

Air

National

Guard

Army

Reserve

98,603

102,205

140,879

184,405

229,158

223,490

313,224

231,117

214,989

302,719

187,500

111,200

121,250

148,925

151,291

158,508

235,867

180,560

217,566

305,759

247,491

248,591

69,306

61,346

86,700

95,100

85,958

96,124

77,426

110,389

42,150

102,040

57,193

Naval

Reserve

Air

Force

Reserve

Total

Total

Change

from

Re us

60,800

41,800

44,500

73,737

60,900

56,600

80,307

59,900

15,400

25,029

22,748

67,800

63,030

58,900

79,300

70,600

46,200

38,600

9,700

29,900

74,486

56,958

407,709

389,631

479,904

583,833

605,124

658,281

690,117

628,672

608,198

751,765

572,990

+16,909

-38,969

+28,704

+4,496

132,224

194,681

409,739

+347,272

+266,076

+399,996

01,836

For Additional Reading

CRS Products

Defense Budget for F'Y1996 : Major Issues and Congressional Action, by Stephen

Daggett, CRS Issue Brief 95049, updated regularly .

Defense Burdensharing: Is Japan's Host Nation Support a Model for Other

Allies?, by Stephen Daggett, CRS Report 94-515 F, June 20, 1994 .

Military Construction : Current Controversies and Long-Term Issues, by Martin

Cohen and Stephen Daggett, CRS Report 91-669 F, Sep . 3, 1991 .

Natural Resource Issues in National Defense Programs, by George H. Siehl, CRS

Report 91-781 ENR, October 31, 1991 .