Appropriations for FY2002: Military Construction
Congressional research reportApr 23, 2002
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL31010
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2002:
Military Construction
Updated April 23, 2002
(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
bound 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
Defense Appropriations Subcommittees. 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.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2002: Military Construction
Summary
The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill provides funding for (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) the bulk of base realignment and closure (BRAC) costs.
Funding for rebuilding parts of the Pentagon destroyed in the terrorist attack of
September 11, 2001, is likely to be included in military construction appropriations.
Preliminary estimates of the total cost vary from $100 million to $1 billion. Part of
the emergency funding legislation, H.R. 2888 (P.L. 107-38), passed by Congress
Friday, September 14, will be allocated for this rebuilding. To date, $173.4 million in
contracts have been awarded for emergency structural assessment, repair, and
restoration to the Pentagon, with provision for additional awards at 60-day intervals.
On June 27, the Administration submitted a $343.5 billion amended FY2002
defense budget request. $10.0 billion of this is intended for military construction. Of
that amount, $4.6 billion is intended for the active services and DOD; $0.6 billion for
the National Guard and Reserves; $4.1 billion for construction and operation of
military family housing; $0.2 billion for the NATO Security Investment Program, and
$0.5 billion for BRAC. Separate versions of appropriations bills (both granting $10.5
billion in new budget authority) have been passed by Congress (H.R. 2904 and
S. 1460).
A key issue in Congress is funding for quality of life construction. Military work
facilities, particularly those overseas and those by the National Guard and Reserves,
are perceived by many as being deteriorated and underfunded. Recently, Congress has
often appropriated more in construction funds than the Administration has requested.
Congress has similarly augmented budget requests for military family housing
appropriations. The FY2002 military construction bill exceeds the requested amount
by 5.3%.
An additional key issue is the future of the Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI).
DOD recommended legislation on August 3 to initiate a worldwide assessment of
military installation requirements, based on the results of the current Quadrennial
Defense Review, and a subsequent round of base closures and realignments. The
legislation as submitted would permanently authorize the service secretaries to convey
base property to local or state government or private enterprise and lease back what
is necessary for military use. This is modeled on a demonstration project begun during
FY2000 at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. If enacted, the EFI is likely to affect the
future need for military construction and operations and maintenance funding.
Other issues include the provision of construction contingency funds in budget
requests (to enable uninterrupted construction), an understanding of the total costs
of DOD real property (spread across several budget accounts), and recent conflicts
between Administration and congressional construction priorities and funding.
Conference action on the bill is pending.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Division
Tel.
Base Closure
David Lockwood
FDT*
7-....
Defense Acquisition
Valerie Grasso
FDT
7-....
Def. Budget, Mil. Con./Defense Industry
(name redacted)
FDT
7-....
Defense Budget
(name redacted)
FDT
7-....
Defense Reform
Gary Pagliano
FDT
7-....
Guard and Reserve Issues
(name redacted)
FDT
7-....
* FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background: Content of Military Construction Appropriations and
Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
House Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Senate Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Elective Quality of Life Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Requested Congressional Additions to the Military Construction
Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Real Property Costs, the Broader Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Conflicting Priorities and Construction Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Military Construction Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:
FY2001-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4. Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations by Account Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 5. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for
National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1985-2002 . . . . . . 17
Appropriations for FY2002:
Military Construction
Most Recent Developments
The House Appropriations Committee marked up the Military Construction
Appropriations bill for FY2002 (H.R. 2904) on September 20, 2001, with House
passage the next day on a 401-0 vote (vote no. 344). The Senate Appropriations
Committee marked up its version of the bill (S. 1460) on September 25 and passed
it the next day on a unanimous vote of 97-0 (vote no. 288). Although both bills
appropriated $10.5 billion, falling within adjusted 302(b) budget allocations, they
differed in how the funding was allocated. Conferees met on October 16, 2001, and
issued the conference report (H.Rept. 107-246) on H.R. 2904. The House approved
the report on October 17 with a vote of 409-1 (vote no. 394). The Senate approved
the report on October 18 with a vote of 96-1 (vote no. 305), clearing the measure for
the President. The President signed the bill on November 5, 2001, enacting it as P.L.
107-64 (115 Stat. 474).
Background: Content of Military Construction
Appropriations and Defense Authorization Bills
The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world’s largest dedicated
infrastructure, covering more than 40,000 square miles of land and a physical plant
worth more than $500 billion. The military construction appropriations bill provides
a large part of the funding to enhance and maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds
construction projects and real property maintenance of the active Army, Navy and
Marine Corps, Air Force, and their reserve components; additional defense-wide
construction; U.S. contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program (formerly
known as the NATO Infrastructure Program); and military family housing operations
and construction.1 The bill also provides funding for the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) account, which finances most base realignment and closure costs,
1
Real property maintenance includes the repair and maintenance of buildings, structures,
warehouses, roadways, runways, aprons, railway tracks, utility plants, and their associated
distribution systems, plus minor construction (cost not to exceed $500 thousand) to create new
facilities or expand, alter, or covert existing facilities. The NATO Security Investment
program is the U.S. contribution to Alliance funds for the construction of facilities and the
procurement of equipment essential to the wartime support of operational forces in the
common defense of the NATO area. Facilities funded by this program include airfields, naval
bases, signal and telecom installations, pipelines, war headquarters, as well as early warning
radar and missile installations.
CRS-2
including construction of new facilities for transferred personnel and functions and
environmental cleanup at closing sites.
The military construction appropriations bill is one of several annual pieces of
legislation that provide funding for national defense. Other major appropriation
legislation includes the defense appropriations bill, which provides funds for all nonconstruction military activities of the Department of Defense and constitutes more
than 90% of national security-related spending, and the energy and water
development appropriations bill, which provides funding for atomic energy defense
activities of the Department of Energy and for civil projects carried out by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Two other appropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent
Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State, also include small amounts for national
defense.2
The annual defense authorization bill authorizes all of 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 includes salient parts of the authorization bill in its discussion
of the military construction appropriation process.
The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s and
early 1960s when Congress funded a large defense infrastructure build-up precipitated
by the heightened security threat posed by the Soviet Union. Defense construction
spending soared as facilities were hardened against potential nuclear attack, missile
silos were constructed, and other infrastructure was built. The appropriations
committees established military construction subcommittees to deal with this new
level of activity, and the separate military construction bill was created. The first
stand-alone military construction bill was written for 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 and minor construction 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
non-appropriated income.
Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal
year. Military construction appropriations, though, are an exception. Because of the
long-term nature of construction projects, these funds can generally be obligated for
up to five fiscal years, reflecting the long-term nature of capital building programs.
2
See CRS Report RL31005, Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense, by
(na me redacted),
Mary Tyszkiewicz, and (name r e d acted), for details on the defense
authorization and appropriation process.
CRS-3
Consideration of the military construction budget starts when the President’s
budget is delivered to Congress each year, usually in early February. This year is
unusual, though, because the President did not submit his amended DOD FY2002
budget request until June 27, 2001.
Status
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the
FY2002 military construction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation
process moves forward.
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2002
Committee
Markup
Conference
House House Senate Senate Conf. Report Approval Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report
Law
House Senate
House Senate
9/20/01 9/25/01
S.Rept.
H.Rept.
P.L.
H.Rept.
9/21/01
9/26/01
10/17/01 10/18/01
107-207
107-68
107-246
107-64
Appropriations Action
House Appropriations Action. The House passed the FY2002 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (H.R. 2904, H.Rept. 107-207, CR H5868-5875)
without amendment on September 21, 2001, by a 401-0 vote. As passed by the
House, the $10.500 billion bill increased the military construction budget by $1.035
billion, or 11%, above the FY2001 enactment. It decreased the current “facility
replacement rate” of 192 years to 101 years and kept the Department of Defense on
track to bring barracks and family housing up to acceptable habitability standards by
2008 and 2010, respectively.3 This bill exceeded the president’s request by $528.7
million, allocating $5.6 billion to military construction, $163 million to the NATO
Security Investment Program, $4.1 billion to family housing, and $552 million to Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC). It also required an upward adjustment of 302(b)
budget allocation from $10.2 billion to $10.5 billion.
Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate passed the FY2002 Military
Construction Appropriations Act (S. 1460, S.Rept. 107-68, CR S9828-9833) with
amendment in the nature of a substitute of the House bill on September 26, 2001, by
a 97-0 vote. As passed by the Senate, the $10.500 billion bill exceeded the
president’s request by $528.7 million, allocating $5.5 billion to military construction,
$163 million to the NATO Security Investment Program, $4.1 billion to family
housing, and $682 million to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The bill was
3
The facility replacement rate measures the time required to replace all existing DOD
facilities if spending is maintained at the rate set in the bill.
CRS-4
within the 302(b) allocation (see Table 4 for side-by-side comparisons by
appropriation account of the budget request, House and Senate bills).
Conference Action. Senate conferees were appointed on September 26.
House conferees were appointed on October 2. The conferees met on October 16 and
issued the conference report (H.Rept. 107-246). Their report was forwarded to the
House floor on October 17, where it was approved with a vote of 409-1. The report
was sent to the Senate floor, where it was approved with a vote of 96-1, clearing the
bill for the President.
Key Policy Issues
Elective Quality of Life Construction. Budget actions affect service
member perceptions of the quality of military life through its impact on matters such
as pay and benefits, health care, deployment schedules, and the like. In recent years,
quality of life, including the use of military construction funds, has been a focus of the
defense debate.
Recent committee attention has focused on improvements to housing,
workplaces, and installation infrastructure (such as water, sewer, and electricity
systems), through both new construction and improved operations and maintenance
of existing facilities. Subcommittee hearings have discussed at length the application
of military construction funds to housing and workplace improvements at bases
overseas and within the continental United States. Efforts to leverage appropriated
funds through the partial privatization of military housing and installation utility
services have also been subjected to protracted dialogue in committee hearings. For
an in-depth discussion of the privatization of housing see CRS Report RL31039,
Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).
Requested Congressional Additions to the Military Construction
Budget. In recent years, some analysts have criticized the military construction
appropriations process for being prone to the insertion of unwanted and unnecessary
undertakings. Others, though, have supported the addition of construction projects
not requested by the Department of Defense as being necessary for military viability.
An historical comparison shows that the divergence between DOD budget requests
and congressional appropriation enactments originated relatively recently and has
mainly affected the less than 20 % of military construction funding dedicated to the
National Guard and Reserves (see Table 5 at the end of this report).
Military construction funding since the mid 1980s can be broken into three
distinct periods: prior to fiscal year 1989; fiscal years 1989 – 1994; and fiscal year
1995 to the present. Before FY1989, the relationship between funding requested by
the Administration and budget authority enacted by Congress appeared stable.
Congress typically appropriated approximately 80 % of DOD requests for military
construction funds. Beginning with FY1989, Regular (i.e., active duty) component
funding continued in the established pattern, but Reserve component requests (which
include the federal reserves and the Army and Air National Guard) took a sudden and
sharp downturn (see Figures 1 and 2). Congress responded by adding more than
CRS-5
35% to that year’s budget Reserve component submission. This gap between reserve
construction requests and appropriations has remained and widened. Finally, with
FY1995, the pattern of funding for the Regular forces inverted. Although presidential
requests reversed their downward direction and began to rise, Congress began to
appropriate more than was requested and has continued to do so to the present.
Figure 1
Regular Component Funding
FY1985-2001
7,000,000
6,000,000
Current Dollars (000)
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
Enacted
2,000,000
1,000,000
Requested
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Fiscal Year
Source: Department of Defense,Financial Summary Tables, successive years
Figure 2
Guard and Reserve Funding
FY1985-2001
800,000
Current Dollars (000)
600,000
Enacted
400,000
Requested
200,000
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Fiscal Year
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years
Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases. The continuing
costs associated with the four completed BRAC rounds, funded through the military
construction appropriation, are now reduced to covering environmental and other
CRS-6
caretaker efforts. Funding requested and appropriated for BRAC fell sharply from a
high of $3,898 million for FY1996 to a low of $664 million for FY2000 as closure
and realignment wound down.4 The cost of environmental remediation contributed
to a $1,024 million FY2001 BRAC appropriation, of which $865 million was
dedicated to base environmental cleanup.
Members of the Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees, in
hearings held a few days after the submission of the President’s amended FY2002
budget request, noted that Department of Defense had requested only $532 million
in BRAC funds at a time when the Navy and Air Force had announced a combined
shortfall of between $140 million and $150 million in immediate BRAC cleanup
needs.5 DOD witnesses responded by indicating that the request would be sufficient
for upcoming requirements, explaining that the shortfall estimates had been based on
a set of assumptions that were no longer thought to be accurate.
The upturn in expenditures had come about through recent legal requirements
and agreements between the services and local communities. DOD expected the
insufficiency to be satisfied through transfers of unused funds from other accounts and
by adjustments in the end-use of some property that would significantly reduce the
cost of needed remediation. The passed bill added more than $100 million in BRAC
funds to the request, primarily for remediation of the environmental impact of the
1995 round of base realignments and closures.
The Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI). The Efficient Facilities Initiative
(EFI) was announced by the Department of Defense on August 2, and the
Department’s General Counsel submitted proposed legislation to Congress on August
3. The EFI includes three major actions: the potential realignment and closure of U.S.
military installations overseas; the potential realignment and closure of installations
within the United States; and the permanent authorization of the Brooks Air Force
Base Development Demonstration Project, expanded to include all military services.
In support of the first action, the Secretary of Defense has instructed the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to undertake a thorough assessment of all
overseas military installations based on the results of the upcoming Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR). His recommendations on the retention, realignment or
closing of bases are due to the Secretary six months after the completion of the QDR.
In support of the second action, the Secretary will likewise use the results of the
QDR to generate a list of recommended actions regarding the future of military
installations within the United States and its territories. The proposed legislation
suggests the establishment of a review commission and a process for endorsing the
4
Current dollars. Taken from Department of Defense Financial Summary Tables, successive
years.
5
Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction hearing, July 30,
2001, and Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Readiness and Management
Support hearing, August 2, 2001.
CRS-7
Secretary’s recommendations for submission to the President and Congress. Both of
these differ somewhat from the BRAC process of the 1990s.6
For an understanding of the third action, one must look to recent activity at
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. The Brooks Air Force Base Development
Demonstration Project (also known as the “Base Efficiency Project,” or the “Brooks
City-Base Project”) is a partnership between the Secretary of the Air Force and the
City of San Antonio, Texas, and represents an alternative to traditional base closings
or realignments. Congress has authorized the Secretary to “convert any military or
civil service appropriated or non-appropriated fund activity at Brooks Air Force Base,
Texas, into a contracted activity or an exchange of services compensated for by the
lease, sale, conveyance, or transfer of real or private property.”7 This has empowered
the Secretary to convey, in exchange for appropriate compensation, the whole of
Federal real property at Brooks to the city and to lease back for military use those
parts which directly support the base’s military mission.8 The cost of maintaining and
operating the facility’s physical plant, including fire and police protection, upkeep, and
the like, is effectively transferred along with ownership from the Department of
Defense to the local community. Funds generated from the lease or sale of property,
reimbursements, and so on, is placed in a special Project Fund, which the Secretary
of the Air Force may employ for operations, leaseback, maintenance and repair of
Department facilities, and other uses at Brooks.9
EFI proponents have maintained that conducting a single definitive round of base
closures and realignments could relieve communities of uncertainty about their future.
Proponents further contend that a review commission with restricted ability to change
the Secretary of Defense’s recommendations might reduce the potential for politics
to influence its outcome; and that joining the military departments with local and state
governments and private enterprise could significantly reduce the need for military
construction and defense appropriations. Critics, though, have suggested that the
selection of the commission’s members and the method used for creating the list of
recommendations may actually repoliticize the BRAC process, and have asserted that
benefits to the defense budget accrued to date from the Brooks project are
hypothetical.
Real Property Costs, the Broader Picture. With military construction
comes maintenance. Plant maintenance, adequately funded and conscientiously
carried out, prevents deterioration and reduces the need for replacement. As a facility
ages, though, it tends to demand greater effort and expense to maintain it in usable
6
For an explanation of the BRAC history, process, and current status, see CRS Report
RL30051, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, and CRS Report RL30440,
Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand?, by (name redacted).
7
Defense Appropriation Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-79) and Military Construction
Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-246).
8
9
This is often referred to as “sell and lease back.”
Brooks AFB is primarily devoted to medical research related to flight. More information on
Brooks, the 311th Human Systems Wing, and the Brooks City-Base Projects may be found at
[https://libra.brooks.af.mil/brooks/baseinfo_in.html] (sic).
CRS-8
condition. Inadequate maintenance accelerates facility deterioration, requiring early
demolition and replacement. Construction and maintenance, therefore, are closely
related, and the effort expended on one will have a direct effect on the other.
Much of the funding for”real property maintenance” (RPM) is contained within
the Operations and Maintenance function of the Defense budget, which falls within
the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees.10
Figure 3 gives a graphic representation of the relative sizes of the Military
Construction and RPM appropriations for FY2001.
Figure 3
Construction & Maintenance Funds
FY 2001
Other Quality of Life (1.11%)
RPM (36.44%)
Military Construction (62.44%)
Total Appropriation: $14,246,416,000
Does not include $183,000,000 in DoD-wide recissions
Source: H.Rept. 106-710,
RPM funding includes not only repairs and maintenance for existing structures,
but also “minor construction” (projects whose costs do not exceed $500,000). The
FY2001 Defense budget request included $5,325.6 million for real property
maintenance and repair and $251.1 million for minor construction. Even that total
does not capture the full cost incurred in maintaining DOD real property. To gain a
more complete picture, one should add items not easily broken out from the general
budget submission, such as the pay and benefits of military personnel assigned to
RPM activities (installation maintenance, for example), projects financed through
DOD Working Capital Funds, and construction supported through DOD Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations.11 Therefore, the final
cost to the Department of Defense of building, maintaining, and operating its holdings
in real property is extremely difficult to capture in its entirety.
10
“Real Property Maintenance” (RPM) is being replaced as a term of art with “Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization” (SRM) in appropriations-related documents.
11
A broader discussion of the defense budget can be found in CRS Report RL30002, A
Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS-9
Conflicting Priorities and Construction Funding. Overall Administration
proposals for military construction funding have fallen in nearly every year since the
mid-1980s. Nevertheless, until the mid-1990s, Congress consistently granted
significantly less budget authority to the Department of Defense than had been
requested by the Administration (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Total Military Construction Funding
FY1985-2001
8,000,000
Requeste
Current Dollars (000)
6,000,000
Enacted
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Fiscal Year
Note: Does not include BRAC or Family Housing funding
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables , successive years
This pattern of partial funding reversed with the FY1995 budget. The
Administration’s FY1994 Military Construction budget request was $4,007 million,
while Congress authorized $3,787.9 million.12 The FY1995 request fell to $2,240.2
million, to which Congress added $431.9 million.13 Every year since then, Congress
has added significant amounts to the Administration requests, countering what
Members have termed “inadequate” funding for military construction.
Three related explanations have been given for recent congressional actions.
First, some Members of the military construction subcommittees have argued that
military construction has been chronically underfunded. This viewpoint was reiterated
in hearings on the FY2001 and 2002 budgets and the reports from the House
12
These and subsequent quotations for military construction exclude appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC), because this is a temporary category where funds
requested and enacted have matched each other closely, and Family Housing, as this is a
separate budget account. Tables where these have been included are so marked.
13
This includes military construction requests for regular and reserve components of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Army and Air National Guard, and Department of Defensewide projects.
CRS-10
Appropriations Committee and the defense authorizing committees on bills for
FY1998-2000.
Second, Congress often has different priorities than the Administration, as
reflected in frequent congressional cuts to overseas construction requests and
contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program and its predecessor, the
NATO Infrastructure Program (see Figure 5).14
Figure 5
NATO Infrastructure / NSIP
FY1985-2001
600,000
500,000
Current Dollars (000)
Requested
400,000
300,000
200,000
Enacted
100,000
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Fiscal Year
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years
Third, although Congress has found the President’s overall requests for military
construction insufficient, Members have deemed DOD treatment of the Army and Air
National Guard and the federal reserves particularly so.15 Until the late 1980s, the
amount of military construction funds appropriated by Congress for the Guard and
Reserve rose steadily, closely matching the amounts requested by DOD. For FY1989,
though, the Administration requested $472.9 million in military construction for the
Guard and Reserve, a decrease of $106.4 million from the previous year. Congress
responded by appropriating $605.1 million. Senator Bond commented during floor
14
The NATO Security Investment Program is a common fund to which all NATO members
contribute for the construction of facilities and the procurement of equipment essential to the
wartime support of operational forces in the common defense of the NATO area. Facilities
covered include airfields, naval bases, signal and telecom installations, pipelines, war
headquarters, and early warning radar and missile installations.
15
The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserves are permanently under the control
of their respective services and the Department of Defense. The Army and Air National
Guards are state-controlled organizations until such time as they are called into federal
service.
CRS-11
debate on FY1996 military construction appropriations that Members believed that
the Pentagon artificially lowered the amount of budget authority requested, counting
on Congress to add money to Guard and Reserve programs. Since FY1989,
Congress has consistently appropriated more than the Administration request, and the
gap between request and enactment has grown considerably. (See Figure 1 and Table
5.)
Major Funding Trends
Requested military construction funds declined steadily from a high of $7.2
billion for FY1985 to a low of $1.6 billion for FY2000. Enacted funding similarly
declined, though at a slower rate, from a level of $5.5 billion to a low of $2.7 billion
for FY1995. Since then, though, enactments have risen steadily, reflecting the
divergence from presidential requests, reaching $5.4 billion for FY2001, well above
the Administration request of $4.6 billion. The amended Administration request for
FY2002 of $5.4 billion was increased by Congress to $5.9 billion.16
Table 2 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1998.
Table 3 breaks down the FY2002 request by appropriations account and compares
it to FY2000 and FY2001 levels. Table 4 shows congressional action on military
construction appropriations by account. Table 5 compares Administration military
construction requests and enactments for Guard and Reserve projects from FY19852002.
Legislation
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
P.L. 107-38, H.R. 2888. Making emergency supplemental appropriations for
fiscal year 2001 for additional disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism initiatives, and for
assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, and
for other purposes. Mr. Young introduced an original bill on September 14, 2001,
which was referred to the Committees on Appropriations and Budget and reported
to the floor on the same day. Passed House 422-0 (Roll No. 341, text: CR H56195631). The bill was received in the Senate and passed without amendment by
Unanimous Consent (text: CR S9430). Presented to the President on September 14,
2001, and signed into law on September 18, 2001. The Act provides $40 billion in an
emergency response fund.
16
These figures do not include BRAC or Family Housing funds. BRAC funding began with
$0.5 billion for FY1990 and peaked at $3.9 billion for FY1996. The enactment for FY2000
was $0.6 billion. Family Housing funding, listed separately from Military Construction but
often included in overall totals of military construction funding, stood at $2.9 billion for
FY1985 and peaked at $4.3 billion for FY1995. Congress enacted $3.4 billion for family
housing for FY2001.
CRS-12
Military Construction Appropriations
P.L. 107-64. Making appropriations for military construction, family housing,
and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The Senate appointed conferees
on September 26, 2001 (CR S9833). On October 2, 2001, the House appointed
conferees and instructed the managers on the part of the House to insist on the House
position regarding all items included in the House-passed bill for overseas military
construction CR H6099, H6101-6102). The motion to instruct passed 417-1 (Roll
No. 362). The conference committee filed its report (H.Rept. 107-246) on October
16, 2001. The House agreed to the conference report on October 17, 2001 (CR
H7110-7111) 409-1 (Roll no. 394). The Senate considered the conference report (CR
S10807-10810) on October 18, 2001, and agreed 96-1 (Record Vote No. 305). The
bill was presented to the President on October 25, 2001, and signed into law on
November 5, 2001.
H.R. 2904 (Hobson). Making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The House Committee
on Appropriations reported an original measure , H.Rept. 107-207, on September 21,
2001. Passed House 401-0 (Roll No. 344, text: CR H5868-5875) on September 21,
2001.
S. 1460 (Fenstein). Making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations reported an original measure, S.Rept. 107-68, on
September 25, 2001. Passed Senate 97-0 (Record Vote No. 288, text: CR S98289833) on September 26, 2001. The text of S. 1460 was inserted in H.R. 2904 as an
amendment in the form of a substitution and submitted to the conference committee.
Defense Authorization
P.L. 107-107, S. 1438. An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Introduced in the Senate on September 19, 2001, and was laid before the Senate on
September 21, 2001 (CR S9565-9580). A cloture motion was presented on
September 26, 2001 (CR 9937), cloture was invoked 100-0 (CR S10027-10055,
Record Vote No. 289), and the bill passed with amendments 99-0 (Record Vote No.
290) on October 2, 2001.
The message on Senate action was forwarded to the House on October 4, 2001.
It was received there on the same day and held at the desk until October 17, 2001,
when the text of H.R. 2586 was inserted after the enabling clause. The House insisted
on its amendment and requested a conference by voice vote (CR H7096). The House
appointed conferees and instructed them to agree to the provisions contained in
Section 652 of the Senate bill, relating to Survivor Benefit Plan eligibility of survivors
CRS-13
of retirement-ineligible members of the uniformed services who die on active duty
(CR 7096-7097). The House passed a motion to close portions of the conference
420-0 (CR H7098, Roll No. 391) and sent a message on its action to the Senate. The
Senate disagreed to the House amendment, agreed to the request for a conference,
and appointed conferees on October 17, 2001.
Conferences were held on October 31 and November 1, 2001. On December 11,
the conferees agreed to file a conference report. The conference report was filed on
December 12, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-333, text at CR H9333-9751). The House
considered the conference report on December 13, 2001 (CR H10073-10080), and
it was agreed to 96-2 (Roll No. 496). The Senate agreed to the conference report 962 on the same day (CR S13113, S13118-13138, Record Vote No. 369).
The bill was presented to the President on December 20, 2001, and was signed
on December 28, 2001.
H.R. 2586 (Stump). To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes. Reported (amended) by the
Committee on Armed Services (H.Rept. 107-194), September 4, 2001. Considered
by the House, with the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
rising leaving H.R. 2586 as unfinished business. The House inserted the provisions
of H.R. 2586 into S. 1438 on October 17, 2001.
CRS-14
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1998-2002
(new budget authority in millions of dollars)
Actual Actual Estimate Request Enacted Request
FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2001 FY2002
Passed
HR2904
Military
Construction
5,466
5,405
4,793
4,549
5,411
5,905
6,510
Family Housing
3,828
3,592
3,597
3,485
3,422
4,066
4,050
Total
9,849
8,997
8,390
8,034
8,833
9,971
10,560
Source: Actual FY1996-1999 data, Estimate FY2000 and Request 2001 from Department
of Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables, February 2000 and previous years’ reports.
Enacted FY2001 data from H.Rept. 106-710. Requested FY2002 data from DOD FY2002
Amended Budget Request. Passed H.R. 2904 data from H.Rept. 107-246 does not reflect the
$60 million Sec. 132 general recission.
CRS-15
Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:
FY2001-2002
(new budget authority in thousands of dollars)
Account
FY2001
Enacted
FY2002
Request
FY2002
H.R. 2904
MilCon, Army
934,184
1,760,541
1,721,812
MilCon, Navy
926,224
1,071,408
1,111,736
MilCon, Air Force
880,268
1,068,250
1,177,412
MilCon, Defense-wide
812,839
694,558
761,804
MilCon, Army National Guard
285,587
267,389
400,994
MilCon, Air National Guard
203,381
149,072
250,530
MilCon, Army Reserve
108,499
111,404
165,136
MilCon, Navy Reserve
61,931
33,641
51,676
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
36,510
53,732
74,013
1,022,115
532,200
632,713
NATO Security Investment Program
171,622
162,600
162,600
Foreign Curr. Fluct., Constr., Def.
(83,000)
–
–
Total: Military Construction
Family Housing Const., Army
5,360,160
235,437
5,904,795
291,542
6,510,426
309,217
Family Housing Operation & Maint., Army
949,655
1,108,991
1,077,292
Family Housing Const., Navy & Marine
Corps
417,235
304,400
328,040
Family Housing Operation & Maint., Navy
& Marine Corps
879,625
918,095
899,837
Family Housing Const., AF
251,413
518,237
544,496
Family Housing Operation & Maint., AF
819,061
869,121
835,194
–
250
247
44,787
43,762
43,269
Homeowners Assist. Fund, Def.
–
10,119
10,005
DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund
–
2,000
1,977
Total: Family Housing
Sec. 130 General Recission
3,597,213
–
4,066,517
–
4,049,574
60,000
GRAND TOTAL
8,957,373
9,971,312
10,500,000
BRAC Acct., Total
Family Housing Const., Def-wide
Family Housing Operation & Maint., Defwide
Source: Data for FY2001-FY2002 from Amended FY2002 Budget Request. Data for H.R. 2904
from H.Rept. 107-246, as amended by Sec. 130 and 132 of the bill.
CRS-16
Table 4. Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations by
Account - Congressional Action
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2002
Request
House
Bill
Senate
Bill
Conf.
Report
MilCon, Army
1,760,541
1,702,934
1,642,557
1,721,812
MilCon, Navy
1,071,408
1,134,660
1,129,045
1,111,736
MilCon, Air Force
1,068,250
1,185,220
1,144,269
1,177,412
MilCon, Defense-wide
694,558
852,808
811,778
761,804
MilCon, Army National
Guard
267,389
313,348
378,549
400,994
MilCon, Air National Guard
149,072
198,803
222,767
250,530
MilCon, Army Reserve
111,404
167,769
111,404
165,136
MilCon, Navy Reserve
33,641
61,426
32,716
51,676
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
53,732
81,882
53,732
74,013
BRAC Acct.
532,200
552,713
682,200
632,713
NATO Security Investment
Program
162,600
162,600
162,600
162,600
Total: Military Construction 5,904,795
6,414,163
6,371,617
6,510,426
Account
Family Housing Const., Army
291,542
294,042
312,742
309,217
Family Housing O&M, Army
1,108,991
1,096,431
1,108,991
1,077,292
Family Housing Const.,
Navy and Marine Corps
304,400
334,780
312,600
328,040
Family Housing O&M,
Navy and Marine Corps
918,095
910,095
918,095
899,837
Family Housing Const.,
Air Force
518,237
536,237
550,703
544,496
Family Housing O&M,
Air Force
869,121
858,121
869,121
835,194
Family Housing Const,
Defense-wide
250
250
250
247
Family Housing O&M,
Defense-wide
43,762
43,762
43,762
43,269
Homeowners Assist. Fund,
Def.
10,119
10,119
10,119
10,005
DOD Family Housing
Improvement Fund
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,977
Total: Family Housing
4,066,517
4,085,837
4,128,383
4,049,574
–
–
–
60,000
9,971,312
10,500,000
10,500,000
10,500,000
Sec. 130 General Recission
GRAND TOTAL
Source: H.Rept. 107-207, S.Rept. 107-68, H.Rept. 107-246.
CRS-17
Table 5. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget
Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,
FY1985-2002
(current year dollars in thousands)
Fiscal
Year
Army
National
Guard
Air
National
Guard
Army
Reserve
1985 Req.
88,900
102,900
1985
Enacted
98,603
1986 Req.
Total
Change
from
Request
Naval
Reserve
Air
Force
Reserve
Total
70,400
60,800
67,800
390,800
–
111,200
69,306
60,800
67,800
407,709
+16,909
102,100
137,200
70,700
51,800
66,800
428,600
–
1986
Enacted
102,205
121,250
61,346
41,800
63,030
389,631
-38,969
1987 Req.
121,100
140,000
86,700
44,500
58,900
451,200
–
1987
Enacted
140,879
148,925
86,700
44,500
58,900
479,904
+28,704
1988 Req.
170,400
160,800
95,100
73,737
79,300
579,337
–
1988
Enacted
184,405
151,291
95,100
73,737
79,300
583,833
+4,496
1989 Req.
138,300
147,500
79,900
48,400
58,800
472,900
–
1989
Enacted
229,158
158,508
85,958
60,900
70,600
605,124 +132,224
1990 Req.
125,000
164,600
76,900
50,900
46,200
463,600
1990
Enacted
223,490
235,867
96,124
56,600
46,200
658,281 +194,681
1991 Req.
66,678
66,500
59,300
50,200
37,700
280,378
1991
Enacted
313,224
180,560
77,426
80,307
38,600
690,117 +409,739
1992 Req.
50,400
131,800
57,500
20,900
20,800
281,400
1992
Enacted
231,117
217,556
110,389
59,900
9,700
628,672 +347,272
1993 Req.
46,700
173,270
31,500
37,772
52,880
342,122
1993
Enacted
214,989
305,759
42,150
15,400
29,900
608,198 +266,076
1994 Req.
50,865
142,353
82,233
20,591
55,727
351,769
1994
Enacted
302,719
247,491
102,040
25,029
74,486
751,765 +399,996
1995 Req.
9,929
122,770
7,910
2,355
28,190
171,154
1995
Enacted
187,500
248,591
57,193
22,748
56,958
572,990 +401,836
1996 Req.
18,480
85,647
42,963
7,920
27,002
182,012
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
CRS-18
Total
Change
from
Request
Army
National
Guard
Air
National
Guard
Army
Reserve
Naval
Reserve
Air
Force
Reserve
1996
Enacted
137,110
171,272
72,728
19,055
36,482
436,647 +254,635
1997 Req.
7,600
75,394
48,459
10,983
51,655
194,091
1997
Enacted
78,086
189,855
55,543
37,579
52,805
413,868 +219,777
1998 Req.
45,098
60,225
39,112
13,921
14,530
172,886
1998
Enacted
102,499
190,444
55,453
26,659
15,030
390,085 +217,199
1999 Req.
47,675
34,761
71,287
15,271
10,535
179,529
1999
Enacted
144,903
185,701
102,119
31,621
34,371
498,715 +319,186
2000 Req.
57,402
73,300
77,626
14,953
27,320
250,601
2000
Enacted
236,228
262,360
110,764
28,310
64,071
701,733 +451,132
2001 Req.
59,130
50,179
81,713
16,103
14,851
221,976
2001
Enacted
285,587
203,381
108,499
61,931
36,510
695,908
2002 Req.
267,389
149,072
111,404
33,641
53,732
615,238
2002
Enacted
400,994
250,530
165,136
51,676
74,013
942,349 +327,112
Fiscal
Year
Total
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years.
–
–
–
–
–
+473,932
–
CRS-19
For Additional Information
CRS Products
CRS Report RL31005. Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense, by
(name redacted), Mary Tyszkiewicz, and (name redacted).
CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues,
by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL30447. Defense Budget for FY2001: Data Summary, by (name r
edacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30995. Supplemental Appropriations for FY2001: Defense Readiness
and Other Programs by (name redacted)
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Legislative Branch Sites
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]
U.S. Department of Defense Sites
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
FY2001 Budget Materials
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/]
U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page
[http://www.acq.osd.mil/installation]
CRS-20
White House Sites
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, FY2002
Budget Materials
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/index.html]
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.