Appropriations for FY2000: Military Construction
Congressional research reportAug 23, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL30210
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2000:
Military Construction
Updated August 23, 1999
(name redacted)
Analyst in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Military Construction Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Appropriations for FY2000: 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; and (4) most base realignment and closure costs.
This paper reviews the appropriations and authorization process for military
construction. The congressional debate perennially centers on the adequacy of the
President's budget for military construction needs and the necessity for congressional
add-ons, especially for Guard and Reserve projects. In recent years, Congress has
pointed out that the Pentagon has not funded nor planned adequately for military
construction.
The Administration has asked the Congress to approve an unusual funding
mechanism for the FY2000 military construction program, in order to fit its defense
budget request within the caps set on total discretionary spending in the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997. For FY2000, the Administration has requested budget
authority of $5.4 billion, which is only part of the funding necessary to carry out the
proposed projects. The rest of the FY2000 military construction program would be
funded by advance appropriations of $3.1 billion in FY2001. (In this advance
appropriations proposal, Congress would approve the $3.1 billion now for the
FY2000 program, which would be spent and scored in FY2001.) Adding the split
FY2000 request with the advance appropriations request brings the total value of the
proposed FY2000 military construction program to $8.5 billion. This total continues
a downward trend from the FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8
billion, the FY1998 level of $9.3 billion and the FY1999 level of $8.7 billion.
Appropriations and authorization hearings on the FY2000 military construction
budget have highlighted the following issues:
! split funding and advance appropriations proposal for the FY2000 military
construction budget request,
! long-term planning for the military construction program, and
! implementation of privatization of the military family housing initiative.
The conference committee for military construction appropriations printed its
conference report (H.Rept. 106-266) on July 27, 1999. The conference report agreed
to a total $8.4 billion military construction appropriation, which is $776 million less
than current FY1999 funding. The conference split the difference between the
Senate- approved $8.3 billion and House-approved $8.5 billion amounts. The House
passed the conference report on July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8. The Senate passed
the conference report on August 3, 1999, by voice vote. The bill became law (P.L.
106-52) on August 17, 1999.
Key Policy Staff
CRS
Division
Tel.
David Lockwood
FDT
7-....
Defense Acquisition
Valerie Grasso
FDT
7-....
Defense Budget, Mil. Con.
Mary Tyszkiewicz
FDT
7-....
Defense Budget
(name redacted)
FDT
7-....
Defense Reform
Gary Pagliano
FDT
7-....
Guard and Reserve Issues
Robert Goldich
FDT
7-....
Area of Expertise
Name
Base Closure
Division abbreviations: FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background: Content of Military Construction Appropriations and
Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Military Construction Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authorization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ongoing Congressional Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Split Funding and Advance Appropriations Proposal for the
FY2000 Military Construction Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Long-term Planning for Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Implementation of the Privatization of Military Family
Housing Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
History and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Funding Pattern for Military Construction Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Debate Over Added Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Military Construction Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1996-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY1998-2000 . . . 13
Table 4: Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account - Congressional Action . . . . . . 14
Table 5: Congressional Additions to Annual Department of Defense
Budget Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military
Construction, FY1985-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appropriations for FY2000:
Military Construction
Most Recent Developments
The conference committee for military construction appropriations printed its
conference report (H.Rept. 106-266) on July 27, 1999. The conference report
agreed to a total $8.4 billion military construction appropriation, which is $776
million less than current FY1999 funding. The conference split the difference
between the Senate-approved $8.3 billion and House-approved $8.5 billion amounts.
The House passed the conference report on July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8. The
Senate passed the conference report on August 3, 1999, by voice vote. The bill
became law (P.L. 106-52) on August 17, 1999.
Background: Content of Military Construction
Appropriations and Defense Authorization Bills
The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world's largest dedicated
infrastructure, covering over 40,000 square miles of land and a physical plant worth
over $500 billion. The military construction appropriations bill provides a large part
of the funding to maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds construction projects and
real property maintenance of the active Army, Navy & Marine Corps, 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 (BRAC) account, which
finances most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of new
facilities for transferred personnel and functions, and environmental cleanup at closing
sites.
The military construction appropriations bill is only one of several annual pieces
of legislation that provide 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; (2) the
national defense authorization bill, that authorizes appropriations for national
defense1, and (3) the energy and water development appropriations bill, that provides
funding for atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. Two other
appropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State,
1
See Appropriations for FY2000: Defense, by (name redacted), CRS Report RL30205, for
details on the defense authorization and appropriation process.
CRS-2
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.
The annual defense authorization bill authorizes all the activities in the defense
appropriation measures described above. Therefore, major debates over defense
policy and funding issues, including military construction can be also found in the
authorization bill. Since issues in the defense authorization and appropriations bills
intertwine, this report highlights salient parts of the authorization bill, along with the
military construction appropriation process.
The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s
when a large defense build-up occurred in response to intercontinental ballistic missile
threats and the Soviet launch of Sputnik. Defense construction spending soared, as
facilities were hardened, missile silos were constructed, and other infrastructure was
built. The appropriations committees established military construction subcommittees
to deal with this new level of activity. Consequently, the separate military
construction bill was created. The first stand-alone military construction bill was in
FY1959, P.L. 85-852. Previously, military construction funding was provided
through annual defense appropriations or supplemental appropriations bills.
Military construction appropriations are the major, but not the sole, 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 partially
provided through proceeds of commissaries, recreation user fees, and other income.
Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal
year. Military construction appropriations are an exception, since these funds are
made available for obligation for five fiscal years.
Consideration of the military construction budget starts when the President's
budget is delivered to the Congress in February. For FY2000, the President requested
$5.4 billion in funding for the military construction program and advance
appropriations2 request of $3.1 billion to be scored in FY2001.
2
From Congressional Quarterly’s “Glossary of Congressional Terms”, an Advance
Appropriation is defined as in an appropriation act for a particular fiscal year, an
appropriation that does not become available for spending or obligation until a subsequent
fiscal year. The amount of the advance appropriation is counted as part of the budget for the
fiscal year in which it becomes available for obligation. The Glossary can be found at
[http://lcweb.loc.gov/crs/legproc/newformat/Glossary/].
CRS-3
Status
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the
FY2000 military construction appropriation.
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2000
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
7/2/99
6/10/99
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conference
Report
H.Rept.
106-221
7/13/99
S.Rept.
106-74
6/16/99
H.Rept.
106-266
Conference Report
Approval
House
Senate
7/29/99
8/2/99
Public Law
P.L. 106-52
Military Construction Appropriations
Conference Action. On July 27, 1999, the conference committee released its
military construction appropriations report, H.Rept. 106-266. The conference report
agreed to a total $8.4 billion military construction appropriation, which is $776 million
less than current FY1999 funding. The conference split the difference between the
Senate- approved $8.3 billion and House-approved $8.5 billion amounts.
The House passed the conference report on July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8.
The Senate passed the conference report on August 3, 1999, by voice vote. The bill
became law (P.L. 106-52) on August 17, 1999.
Senate Action. On June 10, 1999, the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC)
finished marking up its version of the FY2000 military construction bill, S. 1205
(S.Rept. 106-74). The Senate passed the bill with no amendments on June 16, 1999,
by a vote of 97-2.
The SAC decided, as written in its report (S.Rept 106-74) to:
! fully fund the President’s budget request,
! reject the advance appropriations proposal,
! direct DOD to fully fund future military construction projects in the future,
! cut “excess” funding for construction contingencies (S.1205, Sec. 125),
! create a new Family Housing Revitalization Transfer Fund to fund family
housing improvement projects, and
! recommend only $25 million for the Family Housing Improvement Fund, based
on adjusted estimates of number of housing privatization projects.
The SAC report also highlighted the Committee’s concern over the Pentagon’s
acquisition and planning for forward operating locations for drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities. The proposal was to construct three bases in Costa Rica,
Ecuador, and Curacao using funds from the “Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug
Activities, Defense” appropriations. The SAC believes that it is premature to
appropriate funds for these bases until Congress has been provided a long-range
CRS-4
master plan for each location. The Committee directed the Pentagon to submit future
requests for specific military construction projects in support of drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities as a part of the budget request for military construction.
Therefore, the Committee only recommended $5.0 million of planning and design
funds, instead of the $42.8 million that the Pentagon requested.
House Action. On July 2, 1999, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC)
finished marking up its version of the FY2000 military construction bill, H.R. 2465
(H.Rept. 106-221). The House passed the bill with no amendments on July 13, 1999,
by a vote of 418-4. The HAC decided, like the SAC, to:
! fully fund the President’s budget request,
! reject the advance appropriations proposal,
! direct DOD to fully fund future military construction projects in the future, and
! cut “excess” funding for construction contingencies (H.R. 2465, Sec. 128).
Authorization Process
On May 14, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC) FY2000 defense
authorization bill (S. 1059) rejected the Administration’s advanced appropriations
request and instead approved the entire $8.5 billion request and added $250 million.
The SASC included $200 million in high-priority projects submitted by the military
services that were not funded in the President's request and more than $140 in quality
of life projects such as barracks, family housing, and child development centers. On
May 27, 1999, the Senate approved its version of the FY2000 defense authorization
bill, S. 1059, by a vote of 92-3. S. 1059 passed the House, in lieu of H.R. 1401, on
June 14, 1999. The conference report was filed in the House, H.Rept. 106-301, on
August 5, 1999.
On May 19, the House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC) FY2000 defense
authorization bill (H.R. 1401) rejected the Administration’s advanced appropriations
request and instead approved the entire $8.5 billion request and added $100 million.
The HASC added nearly $1.1 billion to the President’s military housing request for
military family housing, which the committee sees as a priority. On June 10, 1999,
the House passed its version H.R. 1401, on a vote of 365 - 58.
On July 1, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Installations and
Facilities had a hearing on economic development conveyances. The hearing was
based on a Pentagon proposal to amend the statutory framework governing the
economic development conveyance process for real property affected by the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The proposal would give no-cost
conveyances to local authorities to spur job creation and facility reuse. One downside
is that the Pentagon will recoup less money from the BRAC process, and this could
lead to the need for direct appropriations to help transition the no-cost conveyance
properties. The Senate went ahead and added the Pentagon’s proposal in its version
of the defense authorization bill.
The conference report of the defense authorization bill was completed on August
5, 1999.
CRS-5
Key Policy Issues
Ongoing Congressional Concerns
Split Funding and Advance Appropriations Proposal for the FY2000
Military Construction Budget Request.3 The Defense Department's FY2000
military construction budget plan includes $8.5 billion worth of projects, but the
Administration is requesting only $5.4 billion in appropriations. The remaining $3.1
billion is requested as advance appropriations to be scored as new budget authority
in FY2001. This $3.1 billion is money that normally would not be necessary for the
approved projects until after the initial year of availability. Typically, military
construction funds are available for obligation for five years, and only part of the
money is obligated in the initial year of availability.
The Defense Department's normal practice -- known as the "full funding" policy4
-- has been to request all of the funding needed for each military construction project
in a single annual appropriation, though some projects have occasionally been funded
incrementally. The request to provide "split funding" for FY2000 projects is not a
change in policy, but a one-time exercise done only because of budget rules -- the
intent is to reduce requested budget authority in FY2000, when caps on discretionary
funding will remain in place, and restore the funding in FY2001, when, presumably,
the caps will be adjusted upward.
The Administration took this unusual step to help the DOD fund $12.6 billion
in additions to the FY2000 budget, compared to last year’s plan for FY2000. The
$12.6 billion in added defense programs for readiness and modernization lead to an
increase of only $4.1 billion in the defense budget “topline.” The remaining $8.5
billion in added programs is offset by (1) $3.8 billion in inflation and fuel price
savings, (2) $1.6 billion in proposed rescissions of prior year funds and (3) $3.1 billion
from FY2000 military construction program’s split funding proposal.
Some observers believe that the House and Senate will look for alternatives to
the Administration’s proposal in order to fully fund the FY2000 military construction
program. Because advance appropriations commits future funding, it also limits
congressional discretion on those budget items in the future. In the FY1999 military
construction budget debate, the defense appropriations and authorization committees
rejected an Army proposal for advance appropriations to fund several large military
construction projects.
During the hearings on the FY2000 military construction plan, members of the
House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC)
3
For information about how the Administration’s FY2000 defense budget increases are
financed within budget caps created by Budget Enforcement Act of 1997, see CRS Report
RL30205, Appropriations for FY2000: Defense, by (name redacted).
4
DOD's official "full funding" policy, however, technically applies only to procurement
accounts -- see Department of Defense Comptroller, Financial Management Regulations,
Volume 2A, Budget Formulation and Presentation, June 1993, p. 1-18.
CRS-6
expressed skepticism that this will be only time they will be asked to defer funding for
the military construction program. On March 23, Senator Burns, chairman of the
SAC Subcommittee on Military Construction stated that fiscal challenges that led to
the FY2000 military construction proposal will be present in years to come. He stated
that this short-term fix could cost the American taxpayer more money as
contractors may assume more risk associated with building military facilities for DOD,
potentially increasing construction costs over the longer term.
Although the DOD states that the advance procurement is a one-time budget fix,
the committees are wary that partial funding could become a regular pattern in future
military construction budgets. Partial funding, the committees fear, could compound
what they see as the problem of chronic underfunding of the military construction
program.
Long-term Planning for Military Construction. Throughout the 1990s, the
Congress and Administration have debated about whether military construction
funding and long-term planning are adequate. Members of Congress have complained
that poor planning and insufficient funding on the Pentagon's part has made it difficult
for the Congress to insure that added military construction projects meet pressing
priorities.
The Department of Defense uses a formal process called the Planning,
Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) to create its budget for Congress.5 The
PPBS process is also used to prepare DOD's internal, long-term financial plan. The
long-term plan extends over a six-year period and is known as the Future Years
Defense Plan (FYDP). In the 1990s, Congress has criticized the Pentagon's long-term
planning for military construction.
In hearings on the FY2000 military construction request, legislators expressed
continuing concern over military construction planning and the sufficiency of funding.
Rep. Joel Hefley, Chair of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the
House Armed Services Committee argued at a hearing on March 16, 1999 that the
FY2000 budget request -- like the previous FY1997-99 requests -- continues the poor
planning and downward trend for military construction budgets. For the FY19972000 military construction requests, the Administration requested fewer funds than
it had programmed in its budget assumptions in the previous years’ FYDP. This
mismatch between plans and funding was cited in the congressional criticism of the
Pentagon’s military construction planning. Since FYDP and requested amount
decreases each year for military construction, Mr. Hefley states that he is finding it
difficult to take Pentagon future plans for military construction seriously. That
sentiment was echoed by the Senate Appropriations Military Construction
Subcommittee chair -- Sen. Conrad Burns -- who expressed dismay at the lack of
long-term planning seen in the FY2000 military construction proposal.
Implementation of the Privatization of Military Family Housing Initiative.
In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on March 9, 1999, Randall
5
For a discussion of the formulation of the defense budget proposal by the DOD, see CRS
Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS-7
Yim — Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations) described the
continuing problem of military family housing. He stated that approximately
two-thirds of DOD's nearly 300,000 family housing units need extensive renovation
or replacement. Yim also testified that fixing this problem using only traditional
military construction methods would take 30 years and cost as much as $16 billion.
Recognizing the severity of this problem four years ago, Congress passed the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative in the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 104-106). This gave the Pentagon new authorities to obtain private sector
financing and expertise for military housing. The authorities are:
!
!
!
!
!
guarantees, both loan and rental;
conveyance or lease of existing property and facilities;
differential lease payments;
investments, both limited partnerships and stock/bond ownership; and
direct loans.
The legislation enables the new authorities to be used individually, or in combination.6
The Department of Defense's Housing Revitalization Support Office (HRSO) is
coordinating the implementation of the new authorities for each of the Services7.
HRSO is staffed with 16 full-time housing and real estate experts from each of the
Services and the Office of Secretary of Defense, along with consultant support. The
Pentagon estimates that with these authorities, defense dollars can be leveraged to
build three times the amount of housing units financed the traditional way.
New policies and procedures in the Services and DOD were needed to
implement the privatization initiative. A new mind-set of how to work with
commercial real-estate practices and practitioners had to be formed. For example,
Office of Management and Budget had to determine rules (approved in June 1997)
to account for government obligations with each of the authorities. Also, the
Pentagon needed to develop loan and loan guarantee concepts into actual documents
that the private financial community would trust for investment grade financing, which
took some time.
Progress with the privatization initiative has been slow. Rep. Joel Hefley, Chair
of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee stated in a March 9, 1999 hearing that the Congress has been disappointed
in the pace of privatization implementation, especially as the expiration date of
February 10, 2001 (for the five-year test period of these authorities) approaches.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighted some concerns with the
privatization initiative when it reviewed DOD’s military housing situation in July
6
For more detailed information on the authorities; see the DOD's Privatization of Military
Housing website, [http://www.acq.osd.mil/iai/hrso/welcome.htm]
7
Each Service has its own program name for housing privatization: Army - Residential
Communities Initiative (formerly known as the Capital Venture Initiative (CVI)); Navy Public-Private Venture (PPV); and Air Force - Housing Privatization Program.
CRS-8
1998.8 Initial evaluation of life-cycle costs of privatized housing versus traditional
military housing showed a potential savings of only about 10% or less. The proposed
long-term time horizons for some privatization projects of 50 years or more brought
up concerns that the housing might be not needed in the that far into future. Also, the
GAO pointed out the continuing weakness in the Pentagon planning for military
housing. GAO stated that housing requirements are not integrated with particular
facilities and community needs, that the plans underutilize the use of local housing and
that there is poor communication between offices responsible for housing allowances
and military housing construction. GAO recommended that comprehensive, better
integrated plans could help maximize the privatization initiative while minimizing total
housing costs.
Rep. Hefley also raised a serious policy issue in the Pentagon’s current approach
to the implementation of its military family housing privatization program. He
expressed concern that the military departments -- particularly in the Army and the
Navy -- were placing virtually all of their hopes for improving military family housing
on privatization without being certain that it would work in all locations. Rep. Hefley
pointed out that privatization was only one tool, along with regular military
construction funds, which could ameliorate family housing problems.
History and Context
The Funding Pattern for Military Construction Budgets. In recent years,
the Congress has added significant amounts to annual Administration military
construction budget requests. This has been a recurring pattern in the 1990s. The
President proposes what the Congress calls an inadequate military construction
budget, especially for Guard and Reserve needs. The Congress then adds funding for
military construction, with some attention to Guard and Reserve projects. For
example, Congress added $479 million in FY1996, $850 million in FY1997, $800
million in FY1998 and $875 million in FY1999 to the military construction accounts.
Congressional additions to the military construction budget have been common
and controversial throughout the 1990s. Three themes explain the pattern of
recurring congressional additions. First, some members of the military construction
subcommittees have believed that military construction has been chronically
underfunded. This theme was echoed in recent hearings on the FY2000 budget and
the FY1999 and FY1998 reports from the House Appropriations Committee and the
defense authorizing committees. Second, often Congress has different priorities than
the Administration, as reflected in frequent congressional cuts to overseas
construction requests and contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program.
Third, other Members of Congress, as Senator Bond commented during the floor
debate on FY1996 military construction appropriations, believe that the Pentagon
counts on Congress to add money to Guard and Reserve programs. In recent years,
Congress has added large amounts for National Guard and Reserve construction
projects, including a peak amount of $401.8 million in FY1995. (See Table 4.)
8
U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Housing: Privatization Off to a Slow Start and
Continued Management Attention Needed, GAO Report Number NSIAD-98-178, July 1998.
CRS-9
Debate over congressional additions to the military construction budget involves
several overlapping issues. Military construction 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. This line of argument was prominent during
House Appropriations Committee mark-up of the FY1996 military construction bill.
Some complained that the funding level was up 28% from the prior year, while others
defended the increase as necessary to make up for previous shortfalls in funding for
new construction and maintenance. The FY1996 enacted amount for military
construction peaked that year at $11.2 billion. The House report on the FY1997 bill
(H.Rept. 104-591) cited a DOD backlog of deferred maintenance and repair for family
housing alone that totaled over $4.5 billion dollars.
DOD facility managers have not met their goal to allocate 3% of the plant
replacement value of DOD facilities for annual construction and maintenance (called
real property maintenance at the Pentagon). Although this 3% goal is below the
average for public facilities nationwide, actual DOD funding has typically run at 1 to
2% of plant replacement value. For example, the Air Force testified on March 16,
1999 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee for Military Installations and
Facilities that the Air Force could budget only 1% for real property maintenance.
This is why facility proponents welcome any congressional additions.
Finally, congressional military construction subcommittees -- authorization as
well as appropriations 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
grounds 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 added unrequested funds for quality of life
improvements, such as day care centers and barracks renovation. The Congress has
argued that the military services have tended to neglect these areas in favor of
warfighting investments.
The Debate Over Added Projects. Since the Congress has added significant
amounts to military construction budgets over the last 10 years, congressional debate
has centered on how to prioritize worthy additional projects.
In 1994, the Senate debate on the military construction appropriations bill
focused the amount of congressional additions to the request despite constraints on
overall defense spending. Senator McCain, in particular, objected to the provision of
substantial amounts for projects that the Administration had not requested. He
argued that such projects largely represented "pork barrel" spending, and came at the
expense of higher priority defense programs. In Senate floor consideration of the
military construction bill that year, the managers accepted a McCain amendment that
called for criteria to be applied to additional projects. His amendment included a
provision that any added project should be on the military lists of critical yet
unbudgeted projects. The McCain amendment was not incorporated into the final
conference version of the bill, however, and the conference agreement provided over
$900 million for unrequested construction projects.
CRS-10
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1995 (P.L. 103-337), however,
incorporated Senator McCain's criteria as a “Sense of the Senate” provision,9
providing that the unrequested projects should be:
1. essential to the DOD's national security mission,
2. not inconsistent with the Base Realignment and Closure Act,
3. in the services' Future Years Defense Plan (see above),
4. executable in the year they are authorized and appropriated, and
5. offset by reductions in other defense accounts, through advice from the
Secretary of Defense.
Since the 104th Congress, the House military construction authorizing and
appropriations committees have also used similar criteria, in collaboration with the
Pentagon, to add projects to the military construction budget. Each potential project
needs to pass the following criteria, similar to the McCain criteria: Is the project
essential to the DOD mission, consistent with BRAC plans, in the Future Years
Defense Plan and “executable” in the coming fiscal year? If the project can meet
those criteria, the military construction authorizing and appropriations committees
may add the project.
Debate over congressionally-added projects continues. In debate on the FY1999
military construction appropriations conference report, Senator McCain continued to
discuss projects added by Congress. He noted that the Congress added 148 domestic
projects in all, at a cost of nearly $977 million. Senator McCain presented his list of
questionable projects in the Congressional Record, in a letter to the President and on
his web page [http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/milcnf99.htm].
Major Funding Trends
The Administration has proposed to split funding for FY2000 military
construction projects between the FY2000 and the FY2001 budgets. The budget
request for FY2000 is $5.4 billion, with an additional $3.1 billion in an advance
appropriations for future costs in FY2001. Adding the FY2000 request with the
advance appropriations request brings the total value of the proposed FY2000
military construction program to $8.5 billion. This total continues a downward trend
from the FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998
level of $9.3 billion and the FY1999 level of $8.7 billion. The FY2000 conference
report recommends $8.4 billion.
Table 2 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1996.
Table 3 breaks down the FY2000 request and FY2000 program value by
appropriations account and compares it to FY1998 and FY1999 levels. Table 4
9
A “Sense of the Senate” provision is a provision that requires approval by the Senate, but
is not formally part of the bill and therefore does not have the force of law. This type of
provision expresses the sense of the Senate on policy issues. There can also be similar Sense
of the House and Sense of the Congress provisions.
CRS-11
shows congressional military construction add-ons for Guard and Reserve projects
from FY1985-1999.
Legislation
Military Construction Appropriations
H.R. 2465 (Hobson, D.)
Makes appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base
realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported to House
(H.Rept. 106-221), July 2, 1999. The House passed the bill with no amendments on
July 13, 1999, by a vote of 418-4. Conference report (H.Rept. 106-266) passed
House July 29, 1999, by a vote of 412-8. Passed Senate August 3, 1999, by voice
vote. The bill became law (P.L. 106-52) on August 17, 1999.
S. 1205 (Burns, C.)
Makes appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base
realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported to Senate
(S.Rept. 106-74), June 10, 1999. Passed Senate without amendment, (97-2), June
16, 1999.
Defense Authorization
H.R. 1401 (Spence)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the House
Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 106-162), May 19, 1999. Rules Committee
Resolution, H.Res. 195, reported to the House but then withdrawn, May 27, 1999.
Considered by House, June 9 and 10, 1999. Passed House, amended (365-58), June
10, 1999. On June 14, 1999, bill was laid on table in House (see S. 1059 for further
action).
S. 1059 (Warner)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and for other purposes. Ordered to be reported by the Senate
Armed Services Committee, May 13, 1999. Report filed (S.Rept.106-50), May 17,
1999. Considered by Senate, May 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1999. Passed Senate, amended
(92-3), May 27, 1999. Passed House, in lieu of H.R. 1401, June 14, 1999.
Conference report filed in House, H.Rept. 106-301, August 5, 1999.
CRS-12
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1996-2000
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Requesta Enacted
FY2000 FY2000
Actual
FY1996
Actual
FY1997
Actual
FY1998
Estimate
FY1999
Military
Construction
6,893
5,718
5,466
5,079
2,298
4,763
Family
Housing
4,260
4,131
3,828
3,580
3,140
3,611
Total
11,153
9,849
9,294
8,659
5,438
8,374
Source: Actual FY1996-98 data and Request FY 2000 from Department of Defense (DOD),
Financial Summary Tables, February 1999 and previous years' reports. Enacted FY2000
data from H.Rept. 106-266.
Notes:
a. This is only part of the Administration’s “split funding” request for FY2000. The rest of
the proposed FY2000 military construction program would be funded by an advance
appropriations of $3.1 billion in FY2001.
NA = not available yet
CRS-13
Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:
FY1998-2000
(in thousands of dollars)
FY1998
Actual
FY1999
Est.
FY2000
Requesta
FY2000
Program
Valueb
Milcon, Army
706,477
986,726
656,003
1,315,539
MilCon, Navy
678,066
610,453
319,786
822,598
MilCon, Air Force
694,255
645,009
179,479
559,346
MilCon, Defense-wide
639,942
553,114
193,005
530,905
MilCon, Army National Guard
122,050
144,903
16,045
57,402
MilCon, Air National Guard
190,444
185,701
21,319
73,300
MilCon, Army Reserve
74,167
102,119
23,120
77,626
MilCon, Navy Reserve
47,329
31,621
4,933
14,953
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
30,243
34,371
12,155
27,320
2,045,874
1,630,902
681,373
1,283,217
NATO Security Investment Program
151,600
154,000
191,000
191,000
Foreign Curr. Fluct., Constr., Def.
85,763
-
-
Total: Military Construction
5,466,210
5,078,919
2,298,218
4,953,206
Family Housing Const., Army
Account
BRAC Acct., Total
-
196,300
139,290
14,003
1,156,074
Family Housing Operation & Debt,
Army
1,104,868
1,095,897
1,098,080
-
Family Housing Const., Navy &
Marine Corps
391,832
301,590
64,605
1,130,842
Family Housing Operation & Debt,
Navy and Marine Corps
983,504
922,892
895,070
-
Family Housing Const. AF
294,009
298,665
101,791
1,138,905
Family Housing Operation & Debt,
AF
819,934
787,737
821,892
-
Family Housing Const., Def-wide
4,950
345
50
Family Housing Operation & Debt,
Def-wide
32,624
36,899
41,440
-
Homeowners Assist. Fund, Def.
-
-
24,538
-
DOD Family Housing Improvement
Fund
-
2,000
78,756
78,756
DOD Unacccompd. Housing
Improvement Fund
-
(5,000)
-
-
Rossmoor Settlement Account (for
Navy use in San Diego, CA via
Section 2208 in PL 104-106)
3
-
-
-
Total: Family Housing
3,828,024
3,580,315
3,140,225
3,546,067
GRAND TOTAL
9,294,234
8,659,234
5,438,443
8,499,273
41,490
Source: FY1997-FY2000 Request from DOD, Financial Summary Tables, February 1999. FY2000
Program Value from DOD, Military Construction, Family Housing, BRAC, FY2000 Program Profile
by State/Location, February 1999.
CRS-14
Notes:
a. This is only part of the Administration’s “split funding” request for FY2000. The rest of the
proposed FY2000 military construction program would be funded by an advance appropriations of
$3.1 billion in FY2001.
b. The FY2000 Program Value is total value of military construction program, which includes
program costs for FY2000, FY2001 and beyond. The FY2000 Program Value combines Family
Housing Const. and Operation and Debt into single accounts for the Services and Defense-wide.
Table 4: Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account - Congressional Action
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2000
Request
House
Bill
Senate
Bill
Conf.
Report
Milcon, Army
1,315,539
1,223,405
1,067,422
1,042,033
MilCon, Navy
822,598
968,862
884,883
901,531
MilCon, Air Force
559,346
752,367
783,710
777,238
MilCon, Defense-wide
530,905
755,718
770,690
593,615
MilCon, Army National Guard
57,402
135,129
226,734
227,456
MilCon, Air National Guard
73,300
180,870
238,545
263,724
MilCon, Army Reserve
77,626
92,515
105,817
111,340
MilCon, Navy Reserve
14,953
21,574
31,475
28,457
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
27,320
66,549
35,864
64,404
1,283,217
705,911
705,911
672,311
191,000
81,000
100,000
81,000
Total: Military Construction
4,953,206
4,983,900
4,951,051
4,763,109
Family Housing, Army
1,156,074
1,179,012
1,158,980
1,167,012
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
1,130,842
1,207,629
1,193,424
1,232,541
Family Housing, Air Force
1,138,905
1,166,888
1,156,926
1,167,848
Family Housing, Defense-wide
41,490
41,490
41,490
41,490
Family Housing Improvement Fund
78,756
2,000
25,000
2,000
0
25,000
0
3,597,019
3,600,820
3,610,891
(131,177)
(278,051)
8,449,742
8,273,820
Account
BRAC Acct., Part IV
NATO Security Investment Program
Family Housing Revitalization (S. 1205)
Total: Family Housing
3,546,067
Contingency reduction
GRAND TOTAL
8,499,273
Sources: H.Rept. 106-221, S.Rept. 106-74 and H.Rept. 106-266.
8,374,000
CRS-15
Table 5: Congressional Additions to Annual Department of Defense Budget
Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1985-99
(current year dollars in thousands)
Fiscal Year
Army
National
Guard
Air
National
Guard
Army
Reserve
Naval Air Force
Reserve
Reserve
1985 Req.
1985 Enact.
1986 Req.
1986 Enact.
1987 Req.
1987 Enact.
1988 Req.
1988 Enact.
1989 Req.
1989 Enact.
1990 Req.
1990 Enact.
1991 Req.
1991 Enact.
1992 Req.
1992 Enact.
1993 Req.
1993 Enact.
1994 Req.
1994 Enact.
1995 Req.
1995 Enact.
1996 Req.
1996 Enact.
1997 Req.
1997 Enact.
1998 Req.
1998 Enact.
1999 Req.
1999 Enact.
88,900
98,603
102,100
102,205
121,100
140,879
170,400
184,405
138,300
229,158
125,000
223,490
66,678
313,224
50,400
231,117
46,700
214,989
50,865
302,719
9,929
187,500
18,480
137,110
7,600
78,086
45,098
102,499
47,675
144,903
102,900
111,200
137,200
121,250
140,000
148,925
160,800
151,291
147,500
158,508
164,600
235,867
66,500
180,560
131,800
217,556
173,270
305,759
142,353
247,491
122,770
248,591
85,647
171,272
75,394
189,855
60,225
190,444
34,761
185,701
70,400
69,306
70,700
61,346
86,700
86,700
95,100
95,100
79,900
85,958
76,900
96,124
59,300
77,426
57,500
110,389
31,500
42,150
82,233
102,040
7,910
57,193
42,963
72,728
48,459
55,543
39,112
55,453
71,287
102,119
60,800
60,800
51,800
41,800
44,500
44,500
73,737
73,737
48,400
60,900
50,900
56,600
50,200
80,307
20,900
59,900
37,772
15,400
20,591
25,029
2,355
22,748
7,920
19,055
10,983
37,579
13,921
26,659
15,271
31,621
67,800
67,800
66,800
63,030
58,900
58,900
79,300
79,300
58,800
70,600
46,200
46,200
37,700
38,600
20,800
9,700
52,880
29,900
55,727
74,486
28,190
56,958
27,002
36,482
51,655
52,805
14,530
15,030
10,535
34,371
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years.
Total
390,800
407,709
428,600
389,631
451,200
479,904
579,337
583,833
472,900
605,124
463,600
658,281
280,378
690,117
281,400
628,672
342,122
608,198
351,769
751,765
171,154
572,990
182,012
436,647
194,091
413,868
172,886
390,085
179,529
498,715
Total
Change
from
Request
+16,909
-38,969
+28,704
+4,496
+132,224
+194,681
+409,739
+347,272
+266,076
+399,996
+401,836
+254,635
+219,777
+217,199
+319,186
CRS-16
For Additional Information
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues, by
(name redacted).
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) an
(name redacted).
d
CRS Report RL30205. Appropriations for FY2000: Defense, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30061. Defense Budget for FY2000: Data Summary, by (name r
edacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report 91-669. Military Construction: Current Controversies and Long-Term
Issues, by Martin Cohen and (name redacted).
Selected World Wide Web Sites
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
FY 2000 Budget Materials
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/FY2000budget/]
U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page
[http://www.acq.osd.mil/iai]
House Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la]
Congressional Budget Office
[http://www.cbo.gov]
General Accounting Office
[http://www.gao.gov]
Office of Management & Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/]
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.