Appropriations for FY2003: Military Construction

Congressional research reportFeb 12, 2003

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL31310

Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2003:

Military Construction

Updated February 12, 2003

nae 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 FY2003: 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.

On February 4, 2002, the Administration submitted a $379 billion FY2003

defense budget request. Of this, $9.0 billion was designated for accounts falling

within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committees’ subcommittees on military

construction. This request was approximately $1.7 billion less than that appropriated

for FY2002. The decrease resulted from a $2.1 billion reduction in domestic military

construction that was offset somewhat by increases for family housing and for

building at military installations overseas. The Department of Defense stated that

some projects were withheld anticipating the FY2005 base realignments and closures

(BRAC) round. To offset the decrease, DOD increased its request to maintain and

rehabilitate existing defense property (funded from other appropriations) by

approximately $677 million above the amount enacted in FY2002. $4.2 billion of

this year’s request is devoted to military construction projects. According to the

President’s current national defense budget estimate, requests for these same

accounts are expected to rise to $12.7 billion by FY2007. Amendments to the

FY2003 military construction appropriation are included in H.J.Res. 2 of the 108th

Congress.

In a separate action for the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), the

Administration requested an additional $594 million (subsequently raised to $717

million) in military construction budget authority. This report contains information

on how this has been apportioned between the services. For the current status of

DERF legislation, see CRS Report RL31305, Authorization and Appropriations for

FY2003: Defense, by (name redacte d) and (name redacted).

Authorization of military construction is included within the defense

authorization bill. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 4546) on May 10.

The Senate Armed Services Committee marked its authorization bill (S. 2514) and

reported it on May 15. The Senate substituted the text of S. 2514 for that of H.R.

4546, passed the amended bill, and appointed conferees on June 27, 2002. The House

further amended the bill and appointed conferees on July 26. Conferees began

meeting on September 5, 2002, reporting the bill on November 12 (H.Rept. 107-772).

The President enacted the bill as P.L. 107-314 on December 2.

Military construction appropriations markup by the House Appropriations

Committee occurred on June 24. The bill (H.R. 5011) was introduced on June 25 and

passed on June 26. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked its version of the

bill (S. 2709) on June 27. On July 17, the Senate substituted the language of S. 2709

for that of H.R. 5011, passed the amended bill on July 18, and appointed conferees.

The House rejected the Senate amendment on September 10. The House and Senate

adopted the conference report (H.Rept. 107-731) on October 10 and 11, respectively,

and the bill was enacted by the President on October 23 as P.L. 107-249. This report

will be updated as necessary.

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

CRS

Division

Telephone

and E-Mail

Base Closure

David Lockwood

FDT*

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Defense Acquisition

Valerie Grasso

FDT

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Def. Budget, Mil. Con./

Defense Industry

(name redacted)

FDT

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Defense Budget

(name redacted)

FDT

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Defense Reform

Gary Pagliano

Guard and Reserve Issues (name redacted)

FDT

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

* FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research

Service.

Contents

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Content of Annual Military Construction Appropriations and

Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Status of Ongoing Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Elective Quality of Life Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Efficient Facilities Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

House Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Senate Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Changes in Project Funding during the Legislative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Overall and Specific Account Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Military Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Defense Emergency Response Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Additional Omnibus Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Supplemental Legislation for FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Military Construction Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Omnibus Appropriation Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

List of Figures

Figure 1. Guard and Reserve Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2. Military Construction Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2. Budget Authority by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3. Domestic Military Construction, Active Duty and Reserves . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 4. Sustainment Funding Trend, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 5. DERF Military Construction Allocation by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 6. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1999-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 7. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2002-FY2003 . . 22

Table 8. Military Construction FY2003 Appropriations by Account;

Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 9. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for

National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1993-FY2003 . . . . 24

Table 10. Changes in Project Funding, Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 11. Changes in Project Funding, Military Family Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appropriations for FY2003:

Military Construction

Most Recent Developments

The President submitted his fiscal year 2003 budget request to Congress on

February 4, 2002. The House Subcommittee on Military Construction forwarded its

markup to the full Appropriations Committee on June 12, which completed its mark

on June 24. The bill (H.R. 5011, H.Rept. 107-533) was introduced to the House on

June 25, considered on June 27, and passed 426-1 (Roll No. 277). The Senate

received the bill on June 28. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked its

version (S. 2709, S.Rept. 107-202) on June 27 and reported on July 3. The Senate

substituted the text of S. 2709 and passed the amended H.R. 5011 on July 18 (96-3),

appointed conferees, and informed the House of its action. The House rejected the

Senate amendment on September 10, 2002, and appointed conferees. Conferees met

on October 8. The House accepted the conference report (H.Rept. 107-731) 419-0 on

October 10 (Roll No. 458). The Senate adopted the conference report by unanimous

consent on October 11. The bill was sent to the President on October 18 and enacted

on October 23 as P.L. 107-249, one of the two appropriations bills enacted during the

second session of the 107th Congress.

Defense authorization legislation (H.R. 4546) cleared the House Committee on

Armed Services and passed by recorded vote (359-58) on May 10.1 It was received

by the Senate on May 14. Equivalent authorization legislation (S. 2514) was marked

up by the Senate Committee on the Armed Services on May 9 and reported with

additional and minority views on May 15 (S.Rept. 107-151). S. 2514 was debated

and amended in the Senate between June 19 and June 27, when it passed with

amendments 97-2 (Record Vote No. 165). Its text was incorporated into H.R. 4546

and passed by unanimous consent. On July 25, the House amended the Senate

amendment and appointed conferees. The Senate disagreed to the amendment and

appointed conferees. Conferees met on September 5 and reported the bill to the

House on November 12 (H.Rept. 107-772), where it was agreed to by voice vote. The

Defense Authorization Bill was enacted into law (P.L. 107-314) by the President on

December 2, 2002.

Text relating to military construction was added by the Senate to H.J.Res. 2

(Omnibus Appropriation, introduced at the opening of the 108th Congress). Conferees

began meeting on February 10, 2003 (see below).

A companion bill, H.R. 4547, authorizing the $10.0 billion incremental funding for

ongoing operations in the war on terrorism (the “war reserve fund”) specified in H.Con.Res.

353 was introduced on April 26, referred to committee on July 24, and incorporated into

H.R. 4546 on July 25.

CRS-2

Background

Content of Annual 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 some of the facility sustainment, restoration and

modernization of the active Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and their

reserve components;2 additional defense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to the

NATO Security Investment Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure

Program);3 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.4

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

Facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) 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 convert existing

facilities. A large part of the funding dedicated to the SRM function is requested not as part

of the military construction appropriation, but rather as part of the Operations and

Maintenance account within the annual defense appropriation.

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. The U.S. contributes

approximately 25% of the total annual NSIP assessment, with the rest coming from the other

members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Virtually all costs associated with the latest completed BRAC round (that of FY1995) have

been funded. The bulk of current BRAC appropriations (before the next round commences

in FY2005) will be dedicated to environmental remediation of closed military installations.

CRS-3

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

defense.5

No funds may be expended by any agency of the federal government before they

are appropriated.6 In addition, for nearly half a century Congress has forbidden the

Department of Defense to obligate funds for any project or program until specific

authorization is granted.7 This explains why, for defense funds, both authorization

and appropriations bills are required. Two separate defense appropriations bills are

written annually, a “Military Construction Appropriations Act” dedicated to military

construction, and a “National Defense Appropriations Act” covering all other defense

appropriations.8 Normally only one “National Defense Authorization Act” is passed

each year to authorize both of these appropriations.9 Therefore, major debates over

defense policy and funding issues, including military construction, can be associated

with any of these bills. Because 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.

Traditionally, military construction was funded through annual defense or

supplemental appropriations bills. However, the Korean War prompted a surge of

military construction, followed by a steady increase in military construction

appropriations. Given the strong and enduring security threat posed by the Soviet

Union, a relatively high level of spending on military infrastructure appeared likely

to continue. The appropriations committees established military construction

subcommittees and created a separate military construction bill. The first stand-alone

military construction bill was written for FY1959 (P.L. 85-852).

Military construction appropriations are not the sole source of funds available

to defense agencies for facility investment. The defense appropriations bill funds socalled minor construction and property maintenance within its operations and

maintenance accounts. In addition, construction and maintenance of Morale, Welfare,

and Recreation-related facilities are partially funded through proceeds of

commissaries, recreation user fees, and other non-appropriated income.

See CRS Report RL31005, Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense, by

(name redacted), Mary Tyszkiewicz, and (name redacted), for details on the defense

authorization and appropriation process.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

See 10 USC 114.

The relevant subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are

Military Construction (for the military construction appropriation) and Defense (for the

national defense appropriation).

The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities in the House Armed Services

Committee and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support in the Senate

Armed Services Committee draft legislation to authorize military construction

appropriations.

CRS-4

Several special accounts are included within the military construction

appropriation. Among these are the Homeowners Assistance Fund (Defense),10 and

the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund,11 both of which

perform functions ancillary to the direct building of military infrastructure.

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.

Consideration of the military construction budget begins when the President’s

budget is delivered to Congress each year, usually in early February. This year, the

President submitted his budget request on February 4, 2002.

Status of Ongoing Initiatives

Elective Quality of Life Construction. In recent years, attention has been

focused on funding improvements to military housing, workplaces, and installation

infrastructure (such as roads, utility services, and the like). Subcommittee hearings

during previous congressional sessions contained lengthy discussions of the

leveraging of appropriated funds through the privatization of utility services at

military installations and of some military family housing.12 Subcommittees have also

addressed the allocation of sufficient budget authority to support improved housing

and workplace quality at overseas bases.

During the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense evaluated more than half of

its existing family housing as being substandard. In 1996, then-Secretary of Defense

William Cohen set FY2010 as the target date for the elimination of all substandard

military housing. Private development was seen as a way to speed refurbishment or

The Homeowners Assistance Fund (Defense) was established by the Demonstration Cities

and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 USC 3374). It authorizes the Secretary of

Defense to acquire the title to, or to reimburse for certain losses upon the sale of, one- and

two-family homes owned by federal employees located at or near military installations

ordered closed in whole or in part.

10 USC 2883 (Department of Defense Housing Funds) is part of subchapter IV

(Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing) of the basic

law governing the armed forces. It establishes two independent funds: the Department of

Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund and the Department of Defense Military

Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund (unaccompanied members of the military are

either unmarried or are married but separated geographically from their families). The funds

are sustained by direct appropriation, fund transfers made by the Secretary of Defense or the

Secretary of the Navy from other accounts, proceeds from certain title conveyances or the

lease of federal military family housing property, or other financial activity associated with

either military family or unaccompanied housing. These funds may be used for the

planning, construction, or improvement of military housing as provided for under this

particular subchapter of Title 10.

CRS Report RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues

for Congress, by (name redacted), provides a background to the military’s housing

privatization program.

CRS-5

replacement while concurrently reducing the burden on appropriated funds, and

Congress authorized DOD to use a set of “alternative” business practices in its

negotiations with private contractors, to include the creation of long-term publicprivate joint ventures at locations where they might prove beneficial.

Since 1996, when the first agreement was concluded at Naval Air Station

Corpus Christi/Naval Air Station Kingsville, Texas, contracts for sixteen separate

projects have been awarded under this “Military Housing Privatization Initiative.”

These range in size from 150 housing units in Phase II of the venture at Naval Air

Station Kingsville, Texas, to 5,912 units at Fort Hood, Texas. Projects covering

24,518 housing units are now underway at installations operated by all four military

services. An additional 41,503 units in 26 projects are currently pending solicitation,

and another 32 projects with 54,193 units are being planned.13 DOD is exploring

ways to extend the privatization program to include the improvement of some

unaccompanied housing.14

In 1996, DOD set a target of FY2010 for the elimination of all substandard

military housing. With recent increases in budget authority appropriated by Congress,

DOD has revised this target date to bring it forward to FY2007. The FY2003 budget

authority request of $4.25 billion for military family housing exceeds the FY2002

enactment by $151 million.

DOD also created a Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) during the 1990s in order

remove itself from ownership, management, and responsibility for the operation of

the public utilities at as many military bases as feasible.15 Congress authorized the

service secretaries to do this by conveying these utilities to private ownership by a

local utility company or other entity.16 The award of privatization contracts is

expected to be completed by September 30, 2003.17

Integrated with quality of life construction is the consolidation of overseas

military facilities. By reducing the number of small installations and combining

personnel onto fewer large bases, DOD expects to improve living and working

conditions for those stationed overseas through more efficient utilization of its funds.

Consolidation agreements have been concluded with both the Federal Republic of

Germany and the Republic of Korea. The commander of U.S. forces in Europe has

Information on the privatization of military housing is found on the World Wide Web at

[http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/installation/hrso/].

Unaccompanied housing is also referred to as bachelor officer or enlisted quarters,

barracks, etc. It lodges unmarried or geographically separated military personnel who live

on military installations.

These include electric, water, waste water, and natural gas, as well as steam, hot and

chilled water, and telecommunications systems at active duty, reserve, and National Guard

installations. Privatization is not contemplated for locations where it is economically

infeasible or where privatization may create a risk to security.

See 10 USC 2688.

More information on the privatization of utilities at U.S. military installations is available

on the Internet at [http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/utilities/privatization.htm].

CRS-6

requested funds for three construction projects to increase the capacity of the U.S.

installation at Grafenwoehr, Germany. “Graf” is expected to accept personnel from

13 separate smaller facilities that will be closed as part of the command’s “Efficient

Basing East” plan. A similar program, called the “Land Partnership Plan,” has been

negotiated between the commander of U.S. forces in Korea and the government of

the Republic of Korea.18 This 10-year plan will close approximately half of the U.S.

facilities currently located in South Korea and consolidate U.S. military personnel

onto the remaining installations, which will be upgraded to accept them.

Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases. Through

legislation passed during its first session, the 107th Congress authorized a new round

of military base realignments and closures (BRAC). Criteria to select bases for

inclusion in the new BRAC will be created and members will be appointed to a

BRAC review commission during FY2003, with realignment and closure action

scheduled to begin during FY2005.19

A significant portion of the federal property at closed installations during the

1995 BRAC round has been cleaned under the Defense Environmental Restoration

Program (DERP) and title has been transferred, but the process is not yet complete.

For example, the 1995 BRAC round tasked the Department of the Army with closing

and conveying title to approximately 248,800 acres of Army property. As of

February, 2002, the Army had disposed of 115,000 acres, or 46% of its total.

Department of the Army has cited environmental remediation requirements as the

principal reason that more property had not been conveyed.20 DOD maintains as its

goal the transfer of all 1995 BRAC property before beginning the 2005 round and has

requested $545 million in FY2003 BRAC funds.21

The President requested $545.1 million in BRAC funding for FY2003, which

the House passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended that an

additional $100.0 million be appropriated in a BRAC Environmental Cleanup

Acceleration Initiative in order to speed the transfer of ownership of former military

property to local authorities. Of this additional funding, $20 million is to be allocated

to the Army, $55 million to the Navy, and $25 million to the Air Force for their use

at the most pressing unfunded environmental cleanup sites.

See Franklin Fisher, “With Accord Signed, Planners Get To Work On Details Of S. Korea

Land Return,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, April 16, 2002.

See CRS Report RL30051, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by (name

redacted), and CRS Report RL30440,

Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand?,

by (name redacted), for more information on the FY2005 BRAC round.

See the testimony of Gen. Robert van Antwerp, Assistant Chief of Staff of the Army for

Fort Installation Management before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee

on Military Construction of February 17, 2002.

For more information on defense-related environmental programs, see CRS Report

RL31198, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and

Appropriations for FY2002, by (name redacted). DOD maintains a web site with

extensive additional information on its environmental cleanup efforts at

[http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/COffice/CleanupO.htm].

CRS-7

Efficient Facilities Initiative. On August 3, 2001, the General Counsel of

Department of Defense submitted legislative language to Congress for a program

termed the “Efficient Facilities Initiative,” or EFI. The EFI included DOD’s plan for

a round of base realignments and closures during FY2003 and the permanent

authorization and expansion to all services of the Brooks Air Force Base

Development Demonstration Project.22 This language would have granted the service

secretaries the authority to convey title to some or all of the federal property on a

military installation to a non-federal entity (such as a local economic development

authority) with the intention of leasing back only those facilities needed to support

the base’s military mission.

Congress incorporated the authority for both base realignment and closure and

the EFI in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (S.1438, P.L. 107107). Title XXX of the Act established the procedure for carrying out a FY2005 (vice

FY2003) BRAC round. Section 2813, instead of granting the requested permanent

authority for conveyance and lease-back, permitted the three service secretaries to

nominate two military installations in each military department for a 4-year pilot

project aimed at determining its potential for increasing the efficiency and

effectiveness of operations. To date, no facilities have been nominated for the pilot

project.

Bill Status

Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the

FY2003 military construction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation

process moves forward.

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2003

Committee Markup

House

Senate

06/24/02 06/27/02

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

H.Rept.

S.Rept.

06/27/02

07/18/02

107-533

107-202

H.Rept.

107-731

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

10/10/02 10/11/02

Public

Law

P.L.

107-249

Dashes indicate no action yet taken.

Appropriations Action

House Appropriations Action. The House Subcommittee on Military

Appropriations held a series of hearings on the budget request dealing with the

construction and family housing requirements of the individual services, both active

and reserve components, and the European and Pacific commands between February

A fuller description of the Brooks Demonstration Project is given in CRS Report

RL31010, Appropriations for FY2002: Military Construction, by (name redacted).

CRS-8

6 and April 17, 2002. The Subcommittee marked its bill June 12, and the full

Committee followed on June 24. The bill (H.R. 5011, H.Rept 107-533) was

introduced on June 25, and the Rules Committee introduced a rule (H.Res. 462) on

June 26. H.R. 5011 was considered, amended, and passed on a vote of 426-1 (Roll

No. 277) on June 27, 2002. The bill was received in the Senate on June 28.The

House rejected the Senate amendment on September 10, 2002, and appointed

conferees.

Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Military Construction held hearings during March. Committee

markup on its version of the bill was completed on June 27, 2002. The bill (S. 2709,

S.Rept. 107-202) was reported on July 3 and placed on the Legislative Calendar

under General Orders (Order No. 479). The bill was read twice in the Senate and

placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders on July 8, 2002 (Calendar

No. 486). On July 17, the Senate substituted the language of S. 2709 for that of H.R.

5011. The Senate passed the amended H.R. 5011 (96-3, Roll No. 181) in lieu of S.

2709 and appointed conferees on July 18, 2002.

Conference Action. Conferees met on October 8. The House accepted the

conference report (H.Rept. 107-731) on October 10 on a 419-0 vote (Roll No. 458).

The Senate adopted the conference report by unanimous consent on October 11,

2002. The completed bill was sent to the President on October 18. Its companion

authorization bill, H.R. 4546, had not been passed as of that date. The President

signed the bill on October 23 as P.L. 107-249.

Changes in Project Funding during the Legislative Process

The Military Construction Appropriation Act and the National Defense

Authorization Act for FY2003 each contain more than 700 line items, individual

construction projects for which new budget authority has been granted by Congress.

Of these, more than 300 were adjusted (increased or decreased) during the period

between budget submission in February until enactment in October and December,

respectively. In the Appendix, Tables 10 and 11 list the line items that were

adjusted during the legislative process, indicating the amount of new budget authority

requested by the President, appropriated in the House, the Senate, and the final

conference versions of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, and authorized

by the National Defense Authorization Act. It is possible to follow the changes in

proposed legislation by consulting these tables, ascertaining where each product was

introduced, adjusted, or eliminated as the Congress exercised its oversight and

funding responsibilities.

A couple of examples may serve to illustrate how these tables can be used.

1. Table 10 shows a presidential budget request of $38 million to fund Phase IV in

the construction of an ammunition demilitarization facility at Pueblo Depot,

Colorado, an installation intended to disassemble and destroy munitions stockpiles.

Congress assigned responsibility for this program to the Department of Defense, and

DOD has, in turn, passed executive responsibility for the program to the Department

of the Army. The presidential submission placed this construction funding in the

Army budget, but Congress neither appropriated nor authorized the funding (zeroing

CRS-9

out the request). Instead, Table 10 indicates funding for Pueblo Depot under the

Defense-Wide (DOD) budget, with the House granting the full $38 million, the

Senate passing a slightly reduced $36.1 million, and both appropriators and

authorizers agreeing on the requested amount of $38 million. The effect was to

remove the project from the Army’s budget and place it under the Department of

Defense.

2. A second example is the Air Force alteration of the Graduate Education Facility

at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. No funds were requested by the President,

but both chambers added $13 million in appropriations and authorization for the

project.

Table 11 can be similarly used for examining the military family housing

portion of military construction appropriations. The first Army project listed is a

single housing unit in Stuttgart, Germany. The budget submission requested $990

thousand for the work. The House passed an appropriation for the full amount, while

the Senate reduced the project to $500 thousand. Neither the appropriations

conference nor the authorization included any funding (zeroing out the request).

Key Policy Issues

Several issues regarding military construction have gained visibility during the

legislative deliberations of the current session of Congress. Among these are: overall

and specific account funding levels requested by the Administration; congressional

additions to the military construction budget request; military housing (including the

encouragement of private sector financing of housing construction and maintenance);

and funding requested through the Defense Emergency Response Fund.

Overall and Specific Account Funding Levels. The FY2003 budget

submitted by the President on February 4, 2002, requested $8.987 billion in new

budget authority, an amount $1.62 billion below the 2002 enactment. Subsequent

additional requests included in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF)

raised the total request to $9.578 billion in time for House consideration of its bill.

An additional $122.5 million in Army DERF requests was later received by Congress

and will be considered by the Senate. This raises the total Presidential budget request

for FY2003 to $9.66 billion. The Senate is also expected to consider a $200 million

Army and Air Force Transformation Initiative intended to appropriate a funding pool

to accelerate the creation of infrastructure to support the Army’s Interim Brigade

Combat Team and Air Force C-17 aircraft mobility programs. This and the upward

adjustment of BRAC environmental cleanup funding was not reckoned with by the

House. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended a total of $10.62

billion in new military construction budget authority for FY2003.

Within the overall military construction appropriation, there was a substantial

change in how budget authority was allocated between the FY2002 enactment, the

FY2003 request, and the bills as passed by the House and the Senate as reflected in

Table 2.

CRS-10

Increases in budget authority are evident in the construction and renovation of

military family housing both within the United States and at overseas installations,

offset somewhat by a reduction in the unspecified location accounts devoted to

maintenance, management, provision of utilities, etc. There is also an increase in

funding requested for general military construction overseas, reflecting a DOD effort

to increase the quality of life in the workplace for military personnel stationed there.

Table 2. Budget Authority by Location

($000)

FY2002

Enacted

FY2003

Request a

House

Passed a

Senate

Passed a

Enacted a

Military Construction,

Domestic

4,700,849

3,189,151

3,555,398

3,742,568

4,048,115

Military Construction,

Overseas

692,480

988,390

955,568

970,700

916,368

Military Construction,

Location Unspecified a

556,377

611,204

569,261

904,147

562,554

Total Military

Construction

5,949,706

4,788,745

5,080,227

5,617,415

5,527,037

Family Housing,

Domestic

321,202

603,639

622,569

603,639

616,339

Family Housing,

Overseas

28,112

71,122

69,890

69,400

68,900

Family Housing,

Location Unspecified a

3,682,713

3,578,433

3,516,075

Total Family

Housing

4,032,027

4,253,194

4,270,892

4,251,472

4,201,314

Total, Domestic

5,022,051

3,792,790

4,177,967

4,346,207

4,664,454

Total, Overseas

720,592

1,059,512

1,025,458

1,040,100

985,268

Total, Location

Unspecified b

4,239,090

4,189,637

4,147,694

4,482,580

4,078,629

807,295

715,338

815,338

729,338

10,789,028

9,757,277

10,066,457

10,684,225

10,457,689

Defense-Wide Special

Accounts c

Grand Total

Sources: Calculated by project from DOD Comptroller, Construction Programs (C-1), Department

of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, February 2002, H.Rept. 107-323, S.Rept. 107-202, and H.Rept.

107-731.

a. These figures include the additional requests of the FY2003 DERF as considered by the House and

Senate, respectively.

b. Examples of location unspecified projects are energy conservation funding, some major and minor

construction projects, and classified projects for military construction; and maintenance,

furnishings and utilities accounts for family housing, among others.

c. Special accounts include BRAC, the NATO Security Investment Fund, the Homeowners Assistance

Fund (zeroed out this year), and the DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund.

CRS-11

The most noticeable reduction in budget authority is seen in domestic military

construction. Table 3 compares military construction budget authority between

FY2002 and FY2003 for military construction projects located within the United

States, divided between the active duty and reserve (National Guard and federal

reserves) components.

Table 3. Domestic Military Construction,

Active Duty and Reserves

($000)

FY2002

Enacted

Military Construction, Active Duty

Military Construction, National Guard and

Reserve

Total, Active and Reserve

FY2003

Request a

Change

3,878,692

2,372,175

-1,506,517

822,157

231,154

-591,003

4,700,849

2,603,329

-2,097,520

Source: DOD Comptroller, Construction Programs (C-1), Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal

Year 2003, February 2002.

a. These figures do not include the additional funds requested for the FY2003 DERF.

These figures represent decreases of 38.8% in active duty and 71.9% in reserve

construction funding between FY2002 and FY2003. Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld and DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim stated in a press briefing on February

4, 2002, that they expected a 20 to 25% reduction in military bases during the

FY2005 BRAC round and anticipated this with a reduced construction request.23 This

decrease in construction was to be offset by an increase in sustainment funds.24

Table 4 compares the DOD sustainment funds requested for FY2003 with those

actually expended in FY2001 and appropriated for FY2002.25

See Political Transcripts, “Secretary Rumsfeld and Comptroller Zakheim Hold a Briefing

on the FY2003 Defense Budget.” Federal Document Clearing House, February 4, 2002, or

at [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/t02042002_t0204sd.html]. The additional

force protection and anti-terrorism funding requested for the DERF raised the total military

construction request for active duty components to $4.262 billion and for the reserves to

$319 million.

Sustainment includes the maintenance, restoration, and modernization of existing

structures and is part of the operations and maintenance budget activity of the defense

budget. It therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committees’

Subcommittees on Defense, not Military Construction.

Operations & Maintenance funds are tracked as “total obligational authority” (TOA).

TOA is an accounting term unique to DOD and equals appropriated budget authority

adjusted to include credits (transfers) from other accounts and funds left unused from prior

years. See CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted), for a more comprehensive explanation of defense budget terms.

CRS-12

Table 4. Sustainment Funding Trend, FY2001-FY2003

(Current $000)

Total Sustainment

FY2001

Actual

FY2002

Estimate

5,543,955

5,810,492

6,487,642

266,537

677,150

Change from previous year

FY2003

Request*

Source: DOD Comptroller, Operation and Maintenance Programs (O-1): Department

of Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, February 2002.

Note: Total Obligational Authority (TOA). Sustainment includes all DOD facilities

sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM) accounts.

* These figures do not include additional funds requested for the FY2003 DERF.

The table shows that sustainment funding rose $267 million between FY2001

and FY2002. If the same rate of increase (4.8%) occurred between FY2002 and

FY2003, DOD would have been expected to request $6.089 billion. Instead, DOD

requested $6.488 billion, or approximately $398 million beyond the normal

expectation. This increase may be considered to constitute the substantive additional

funds devoted to maintaining existing property.

In addition, some Members have deemed DOD funding requests for the Army

National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the federal reserves particularly

inadequate.26 Until the late 1980s, the amount of military construction funding

appropriated by Congress for the Guard and Reserve rose steadily, closely matching

the amounts requested by DOD. For FY1989, though, the Administration began to

decrease its requests for Guard and Reserve construction. Congress responded by

appropriating funds in excess of the request (see Figure 1). Senator Christopher

Bond commented during floor debate on FY1996 military construction

appropriations that “National Guard forces traditionally have been underfunded” in

construction requests submitted by the Pentagon.27 Since FY1989, Congress has

consistently appropriated more than the Administration request, and the gap between

request and enactment has grown considerably. The House, after including the DERF

request, passed an appropriation for Guard and Reserve construction $210 million

above that asked for by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committee

recommended adding $290 million to the Administration’s Guard and Reserve

construction request.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, in questioning the Deputy Director of the Army National Guard

at a military construction hearing, remarked, “Many people believe that [deliberate

underfunding is] the game that is played in this institution with this particular budget, that

they really look at the Congress to kind of plus it up after it’s been requested.” See the

Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction hearing of

March 5, 2002. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserves are permanently

under the control of the Department of Defense. The Army and Air National Guards are

state-controlled organizations until such time as they are called into federal service.

Congressional Record, July 21, 1995, S10454.

CRS-13

Figure 1. Guard and Reserve Funding

Military Housing. Military housing for both families and unaccompanied has

been a highly visible military construction issue for several years. In the mid 1990s,

then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced a goal of the elimination of

substandard military housing by 2010. He proposed to do this using an increase in

traditional DOD-funded construction and renovation, plus less orthodox methods

such as partnering with private enterprise to build and maintain housing and

increasing the military Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to cover the cost of offbase housing.28 At the present time, approximately one-third of military families live

in government-owned housing.

At the outset of the effort, DOD estimated that more than half of existing

military family housing did not meet its own minimum housing standards with

respect to living space, amenities, etc. In addition, BAH compensation covered only

85% of the cost (accommodation and utilities) of living off-base. DOD and Congress

then initiated several programs to encourage private investment and to increase

funding of traditional housing construction for both families and unaccompanied

members, and to increase the percentage of off-base housing costs covered by

military allowances. DOD now estimates that substandard housing will disappear for

all military members and their families by 2007 and that out-of-pocket expenses

associated with living on the local economy will be eliminated by 2005.29

For a description of the privatization of military family housing, see CRS Report

RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues, by (name red

acted). The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is money added to a military member’s base

pay when he or she is authorized to live outside of government-furnished quarters, or “offbase.” The domicile is usually established in a privately-owned apartment or house rented

or purchased on the local economy.

The calculated BAH shortfall is being reduced incrementally in annual budget requests

in order to eliminate service members’ out-of-pocket housing and utility costs by 2005.

CRS-14

Because improvement and expansion of adequate housing on military

installations may encourage the movement of significant numbers of military families

onto bases, some members have expressed concern that local school districts serving

large military communities may find their facility and personnel plans unexpectedly

disrupted. Language included in the House report for the Bob Stump National

Defense Authorization Act (H.Rept. 107-436 accompanying H.R. 4546) directs DOD

to report by March 1, 2003, on the situations at three Army and Air Force

installations (Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, Ft. Hood, Texas, and Lackland Air Force

Base, Texas) where large housing privatization projects are underway.30

Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Administration defense budget

request for operations and maintenance (considered part of the defense appropriation,

not the military construction appropriation) contained a single new entry for

$20.1 billion entitled the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF).31 This is

intended for use by DOD to respond to or protect against acts of terrorism. The

request contained detailed justification for $10.1 billion, or about half of the total

request, of which DOD identified approximately $594 million as appropriate for

consideration as military construction to enhance physical security at military

installations.32 The DERF is a transfer fund, which is used to shift appropriations

between accounts without adherence to normal congressional reprogramming or

notification requirements. The House Appropriations Committee considered

$594 million of the DERF to be part of the Administration’s military construction

appropriation request and added it to the suitable appropriations accounts. The

Administration forwarded an additional DERF request too late for House

consideration but in time for Senate and conference action. DERF funding, as

requested by the President and recommended by the conference committee, is shown

in Table 5.

Additional Omnibus Appropriations. Additional defense and military

construction appropriations language was included in Division M (Other Matters),

Title I (Defense Related Technical Corrections) of the Senate amendment to H.J.Res.

2 of the 108th Congress (the Omnibus Appropriations Act) (January 15, CR S988-

See Title XXXVIII–General Provisions, Items of Special Interest, p. 383.

Like facility sustainment, renovation, and modernization accounts, the DERF is part of

the defense appropriation. The $20.1 billion requested for the DERF is not included in the

budgetary analyses in this report. The DERF itself was created as a “transfer fund,” which

means its function is to act as an accounting vehicle for redistributing sums from one

account to another. Therefore, it normally does not receive its own appropriation. See CRS

Report RL31187, Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental

Allocations, by (name redacted) and Larry Q. Nowels, and CRS Report RL31305,

Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by (name redacted) and (na

me redacted).

The remaining $10.0 billion of the request was not accompanied by detailed justification.

This was funding designated by the Budget Resolution for FY2003 (H.Con.Res. 353) as a

“war reserve fund” to support ongoing military operations in and around Afghanistan. A

second defense authorization bill (H.R. 4547, see below under Legislation, Defense

Authorization) has been created to accommodate an anticipated detailed budget request for

this $10.0 billion war reserve.

CRS-15

S909). Several provisions of the bill amend P.L. 107-249 (the Military Construction

Act for FY2003).

Section 103 of the bill amends Section 124 of the original legislation, which had

stated that “None of the funds appropriated or made available by this Act may be

obligated for Partnership for Peace Programs in the New Independent States of the

former Soviet Union,” to read “Not more than $2,000,000 of the funds appropriated

or made available by this Act may be obligated for Partnership for Peace Programs.”

Section 104 reduces the overall appropriation for Air Force military construction

by $18,600,000 and transfers it to Air Force Reserve military construction, a 28%

increase in the latter account (see Table 7).

Section 105 permits the $15,000,000 appropriated for land acquisition at Nellis

Air Force Base to be transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fulfill

obligations under the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999.33 The USFWS is then

permitted to grant these funds to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to

replace public lands withdrawn from public use under the 1999 Act.

The bill also amended P.L. 107-248, the National Defense Appropriations Act

for Fiscal Year 2003. Included under those provisions were changes in various

reprogramming thresholds, a raise in the limit placed on expense/investment value

for items purchased with Operation and Maintenance funds from $100,000 to

$250,000, various transfers of defense appropriations between accounts, and an

additional appropriation of $3.89 billion.34

Additional discussion of H.J.Res. 2 can be found in CRS Report RL30343,

Continuing Appropriations Acts: Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by (name

redacted).

The Act formed part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-).

Section 3011 (b) of the Act withdrew a portion of the Nellis Air Force Range from all forms

of appropriations under public land laws, reserving approximately 2.9 million acres of land

in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, Nevada, for use as a weapons and training range. This

appropriation is to be used for the replacement of National Wildlife Refuge System lands

included in that withdrawal.

See also CR S839. Reprogramming refers to the transfer of funds between appropriations

accounts. Congress has set thresholds for DOD increases in accounts below which the

Department does not have to request congressional authorization. This bill raises these limits

at $20 million in military personnel (up from $10 million), $20 million in operation and

maintenance (up from the $15 million set by the 105th Congress), $20 million in

procurement (up from the $10 million or 20% of appropriation set by the 100th Congress),

and $10 million in research, development, test, and evaluation (up from $4 million set by

the 100th Congress). The bill makes no change in the current $2.5 million reprogramming

threshold in military construction accounts.

In the omnibus measure, the Senate approved an across-the-board rescission of 1.6%

(§601, Division N). This cut is augmented by §309 of Division G, which requires an

increase in the cut to offset $5 billion in additional education spending. According to CBO,

this amount generates an additional 1.252% reduction. Thus, the total across-the-board

(continued...)

CRS-16

Table 5. DERF Military Construction Allocation by Account

($000)

Account

Request

Enacted

Army

222,465

211,688

Navy

220,730

209,430

Air Force

190,597

188,597

Defense-Wide

31,300

33,300

Air National Guard

8,933

Naval Reserve

7,117

Air Force Reserve

6,076

3,576

Family Housing O&M, Air Force

29,631

TOTAL

716,849

692,272

Sources: S.Rept. 107-202, H.Rept. 107-731.

Major Funding Trends

Between FY1985 and FY1998, funding devoted to military construction

declined steadily as DOD and Congress struggled with a changing strategic

environment, a shrinking military force, and the uncertainties associated with several

rounds of base realignments and closures. Appropriations began to rise with FY1998

as Congress sought to replace outdated facilities and improve the quality of life for

military personnel at home and in the workplace. Administration requests for military

construction funding (not including BRAC and family housing) continued to decline

until FY2000, but have risen forFY2001 and 2002. The request for FY2003 dips, but

DOD projects that its annual construction requests will approximately triple between

FY2003 and FY2007 (see Figure 2).

(...continued)

reduction is currently estimated at 2.852%, which has been calculated by CBO as $11

billion, 392 million. Figures in this report do not reflect the across-the-board cuts in the

omnibus measure, as it is unclear how they would be calculated for the Military

Construction Appropriations Act overall and for particular departments, agencies, and

programs in that bill.

CRS-17

Figure 2. Military Construction Funding

Prior to FY1994, Congress considered Administration requests to exceed real

construction requirements, typically appropriating less new budget authority than

requested. This pattern reversed with the FY1995 budget. Every year since then,

Congress has added to Administration requests, countering what Members have

termed “inadequate” funding for military construction. The DOD request for

construction funds for FY2003 fell relative to both its FY2002 request and the

subsequent enactment, anticipating the FY2005 round of base realignments and

closures, according to statements made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

and DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim. DOD projects that future requests for military

construction will rise steadily and rapidly.

Table 6 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1999

(including BRAC and Family Housing). Table 7 breaks down the FY2003 request

by appropriations account and compares it to FY2002 levels. Table 8 shows

congressional action on current military construction appropriations by account.

Table 9 compares Administration military construction requests and enactments for

Guard and Reserve projects from FY1993-2003.

CRS-18

Legislation

Supplemental Legislation for FY2002

H.R. 4775 (Young). Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. This bill does not contain

significant military construction funding. Introduced as an original bill on May 20,

2002, by the House Committee on Appropriations with H.Rept. 107-480 and placed

on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 289). Passed in the House on May 24, 2002,

280-138 (Roll No. 206), and laid before the Senate on June 3. The Senate struck all

after the Enacting Clause and substituted the text of S. 2551 in its place. It was then

placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 405). Debate

and amendment of the bill began on June 4, 2002, and continued through June 6. On

June 7, the Senate passed the bill with an amendment, substituting the text of its own

version of the bill (S. 2551), by a vote of 71-22 (Record Vote No. 145), insisted on

its amendment, and appointed conferees. The House disagreed with the amendment

and appointed its own conferees on June 12 (CR H3459-H3461). A conference report

was filed on July 19 (H.Rept. 107-593, CR H4935-H4985). The House took up the

conference report as unfinished business on July 23 (CR H5201-H5229, H5289) and

agreed with it on a roll call vote (397-32, Roll no. 328). The Senate considered the

conference report on July 24 (S7263-S7282) and agreed with a 92-7 vote (Record

Vote Number 188). The action was reported to the House and the bill was cleared for

the President. The bill was enacted by the President on August 2, 2002 (P.L. 107206).

Military Construction Appropriations

H.R. 5011 (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, 2003, and for other purposes. The House

Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction held a series

of hearings between February 6 and April 17, 2002. The Subcommittee markup was

forwarded to the full Committee on June 12. The full Committee mark took place on

June 24. The bill was reported on June 25 (H.Rept. 107-533, CR H3914, H3927). A

rule was reported (H.Res. 462) on the bill on June 26 (CR H4039, H4064, H4067).

H.R. 5011 was considered and passed on a 426-1 vote (Roll No. 277). The bill was

read twice in the Senate and placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders

on July 8, 2002 (Calendar No. 486). On July 17, the Senate substituted the language

of S. 2709 for that of H.R. 5011 (CR S6931-S6934). The Senate passed the amended

H.R. 5011 (96-3, Roll No. 181) and appointed conferees on July 18, 2002 (CR

S6972-S6976). The House rejected the Senate amendment and appointed its

conferees on September 10, 2002. Conferees met on October 8. The House accepted

the conference report (H.Rept. 107-731) on October 10 on a 419-0 vote (Roll No.

458). The Senate adopted the conference report by unanimous consent on October 11.

The completed bill was sent to the President on October 18, though without the

companion authorization bill (H.R. 4546), which had not been passed as of that date.

The President signed the bill on October 23 as P.L. 107-249.

CRS-19

S. 2709 (Feinstein). The Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee

on Military Construction held hearings during March. The Senate received the House

Military Construction Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5011) on June 28 (CR S6317). The

Senate Appropriations Committee marked its version of the bill, recommending

$10.62 billion in new budget authority, on June 27. The bill was reported on July 3

(S.Rept. 107-202, CR July 8, 2002, S6361) and placed on the Legislative Calendar

under General Orders (Calendar No. 479). The Senate amended H.R. 5011 by

substituting the language of S. 2709 on July 18, 2002, and passed the amended H.R.

5011 in lieu of S. 2709 (see paragraph above).

Defense Authorization

H.R. 4546 (Stump, by request).36 To authorize appropriations for FY2003 for

military activities of the Department of Defense, and for military construction, to

prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2003, and for other purposes. Introduced

on April 23, 2002, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, it was further

referred to the Subcommittees on Military Personnel, Military Installations and

Facilities, and Military Readiness (amendment added) on April 25 and returned to the

full Committee on the same day. The Subcommittee on Military Installations and

Facilities, which exercises jurisdiction over the military construction portion of the

authorization bill, defeated (3-13-2) an amendment that would have repealed existing

authority to conduct an FY2005 round of base realignments and closures (BRAC).

The bill was referred to the Subcommittees on Military Procurement and Military

Research and Development on April 30 and returned to the full Committee the same

day. The full Committee considered the bill on May 1, 2002, and ordered it reported,

rejecting an identical BRAC-stopping amendment (19-38). The bill was reported on

May 3, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-436, CR H2104-2105), and placed on the Union Calendar

(Calendar No. 258). A supplemental report (a dissenting opinion, H.Rept 107-436,

Part II, CR H2108) was filed on May 6. Brought to the floor on May 9, 2002, subject

to a rule (H.Res.415, H.Rept.107-450). H.R. 4546 was debated, amended, and passed

by recorded vote (359-58, Roll no 158) on May 10. The bill was received in the

Senate on May 14, 2002, and on May 16 was placed on the Legislative Calendar

under General Orders (Calendar No. 379). The bill was amended in the Senate on

June 27 by the substitution of the text of S. 2514 (see below) after the enabling clause

CR S6225). The bill was passed by unanimous consent and the Senate appointed

conferees. A message on the Senate action was sent to the House on July 8. On

July 25, the Rules Committee reported to the House (H.Res. 500) the rule for

consideration of the amended bill. The House amended the Senate amendment and

appointed conferees and voted to instruct them (419-2, Roll no. 349). The Senate

disagreed by Unanimous Consent to the House amendment on July 26 and appointed

conferees. The conferees began meeting on September 5, 2002. On October 10, the

House voted 391-0 to instruct its conferees (Roll No. 463). The Military Construction

Appropriations bill (H.R. 5011) was sent to the President on October 18 and enacted

as P.L. 107-249. Conferees reported the authorization bill to the House on

S. 2225 corresponds to the Administration’s budget request and was introduced by

request. H.R. 4546 and S. 2514 are the defense authorization bills from the House and

Senate Armed Services Committees respectively.

CRS-20

November 12 (H.Rept. 107-772), where it was agreed to by voice vote. The President

enacted the bill as P.L. 107-314 on December 2, 2002.

H.R. 4547 (Stump, by request). To authorize appropriations for FY2003 for

military activities of the Department of Defense and to prescribe military personnel

strengths for FY2003. Companion bill to H.R. 4546, introduced on April 23, to

authorize the $10.0 billion designated as incremental funding for ongoing operations

in the war on terrorism (the “war reserve fund”), as specified in the Budget

Resolution for FY2003 (H.Con.Res. 353). Also known as the Costs of

War/Substitute Amendment, the original bill was amended on May 1 to authorize the

war reserve fund. Of this, $3.7 billion would be used to replace equipment destroyed

in the war in Afghanistan, upgrade equipment and defray other war-related costs, and

offer war-related pay to military personnel. House Armed Services Committee held

its markup on July 18, 2002, and reported the bill (H.Rept. 107-603) on July 23

(Union Calendar, Calendar No. 365). On a motion to suspend the rules and pass the

bill (2/3 required), the bill was passed (413-3, Roll no. 335) early on July 24. The bill

was received in the Senate on July 24 and referred to the Committee on Armed

Services.

S. 2514 (Levin).37 An original bill to authorize appropriations for FY2003 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 as an

original measure by the Senate Committee on Armed Forces on May 15, 2002

(S.Rept. 107-151, CR S4387). Placed on the Legislative Calendar under General

Orders (Calendar No. 370). Debate on the defense authorization bill began in the

Senate on June 19 (CR beginning S5727). S. 2514 was passed on June 27 with

amendments on a vote of 97-2 (Record Vote No. 165). It was then incorporated into

H.R. 4546 and passed by unanimous consent (CR S6178-80, S6182).

Omnibus Appropriation Bill

H.J.Res. 2 (Young). The 107th Congress passed only two (defense and military

construction) of the usual 13 appropriations bills for FY2003. At the convening of

the 108th Congress on January 7, 2003, the chairman of the House Appropriations

Committee introduced a bill making further appropriations for FY2003. The bill was

passed on January 8 (CR H121) and received in the Senate on January 9. It was

placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 1) and laid

before the Senate be unanimous consent on January 15 (CR S340-S839). Senator

Stevens offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Numerous additional

S. 2515, S. 2516, and S. 2517 originated with the Senate Armed Services Committee and

correspond to S. 2514 Division A (Department of Defense authorization), S. 2514 Division

B (Military Construction authorization), and S. 2514 Division C (Department of Energy and

other national security authorizations) respectively. When S. 2514 was considered by the

Senate on June 27, Divisions A, B, and C were separated and substituted for the original

language in S. 2515, S. 2516, and S. 2517, respectively. These three bills were then passed

by unanimous consent. See CR S6225 for June 27, 2002. They were sent to the House on

July 8, where they were held at the desk and eventually incorporated into H.R. 4546.

CRS-21

amendments were offered between January 15 and January 23, when the Senate

passed the amended bill by a Yea-Nay vote of 69-29 (Record Vote Number 28, CR

S1379-S1419). The Senate insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees. On

January 29, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment and agreed without

objection to a conference (CR H224-9). Mr. Obey moved that the conferees be

instructed, but the House defeated the motion 200-209 (Roll no. 17). The Speaker

then appointed conferees. The conferees began meeting on February 10, 2003.

Table 6. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1999-FY2003

(new budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY1999

Actual

FY2000

Actual

FY2001

Actual

FY2002

Estimate

FY2003

Request*

FY2003

Enacted*

Military

Construction

5,405

4,793

5,423

6,745

5,249

5,565

Family

Housing

3,592

3,597

3,683

4,050

4,246

4,206

Total

8,997

8,390

9,106

10,795

9,495

9,771

Source: Actual FY1999-2001 data, Estimate FY2002 and Request FY2003 from Department of

Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables, February 2002 and previous years’ reports, H.Rept. 107731.

Notes: “Actual” and “Estimated” budget authority differs from “Enacted” amounts by funds

reprogrammed (transferred) by the Department of Defense between appropriations accounts. Military

Construction in this table includes BRAC funding, but not NSIP.

* Includes $612 million in DERF, as considered by the conference committee.

CRS-22

Table 7. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:

FY2002-FY2003

(new budget authority in thousands of dollars)

FY2002

Enacted

FY2003

Request*

MilCon, Army

1,742,512

1,672,903

1,634,334

MilCon, Navy

MilCon, Air Force

1,113,736

1,224,112

1,105,391

834,687

1,303,788

1,066,966

MilCon, Defense-wide

MilCon, Army National Guard

796,804

400,994

771,835

101,595

871,669

241,377

MilCon, Air National Guard

MilCon, Army Reserve

250,530

165,136

62,406

58,779

203,813

100,554

MilCon, Navy Reserve

MilCon, Air Force Reserve

BRAC Acct., Total

NATO Security Investment Program

Foreign Curr. Fluct., Constr., Def.

51,676

74,013

632,713

162,600

(60,000)

58,671

37,976

545,138

168,200

74,921

67,226

561,138

167,200

)

Total: Military Construction

Family Housing Const., Army

Family Housing Operation & Debt,

Army

Family Housing Const., Navy & Marine

Corps

Family Housing Operation & Debt,

Navy & Marine Corps

Family Housing Const., AF

Family Housing Operation & Debt, AF

Family Housing Const., Def-wide

6,554,826

309,217

5,417,581

283,346

6,292,986

275,436

1,077,292

1,119,007

1,106,007

328,040

375,700

373,816

899,837

867,788

861,788

544,496

835,194

247

676,694

874,050

5,480

676,042

863,050

5,480

43,269

42,395

1,977

2,000

4,039,569

10,594,395

4,246,460

9,664,041

4,206,014

10,499,000

Account

Family Housing Operation & Debt, Defwide

DOD Family Housing Improvement

Fund

Total: Family Housing

GRAND TOTAL

FY2003

Enacted*

Source: Data for FY2002 Enacted from FY2003 Budget Request, Conference Report from H.Rept.

107-731.

Note: FY2002 Enacted includes P.L. 107-64 Sec. 130 (here listed as “Foreign Curr. Fluct.”) and

Sec. 132 rescissions.

* Includes $692 million in DERF, as considered by the conference committee, does not include

additional appropriations included in H.J.Res 2 of the 108th Congress.

CRS-23

Table 8. Military Construction FY2003 Appropriations by

Account; Congressional Action

(in thousands of dollars)

FY2003

Request*

House

Bill

Senate

Bill*

Enacted*

MilCon, Army

1,672,903

1,495,881

1,665,536

1,634,334

MilCon, Navy

1,105,391

1,244,425

1,215,303

1,303,788

MilCon, Air Force

834,687

954,021

1,165,336

1,066,966

MilCon, Defense-wide

771,835

898,090

924,266

871,669

MilCon, Army Nat’l. Guard

101,595

159,672

208,482

241,377

MilCon, Air National Guard

62,406

119,613

217,988

203,813

MilCon, Army Reserve

58,779

99,059

66,487

100,554

MilCon, Navy Reserve

58,671

75,821

51,554

74,921

MilCon, Air Force Reserve

37,976

75,276

58,209

67,226

BRAC Acct.

545,138

645,138

561,138

NATO Security Investment

Program

168,200

167,200

5,417,581

5,835,196

6,386,499

6,292,986

Family Housing Const., Army

283,346

Family Housing Ops & Debt,

1,119,007

Army

Family Housing Const.,

375,700

Navy and Marine Corps

Family Housing Ops & Debt,

867,788

Navy and Marine Corps

Family Housing Const.,

676,694

Air Force

Family Housing Ops & Debt,

874,050

Air Force

Family Housing Const,

5,480

Defense-wide

Family Housing Ops & Debt,

42,395

Defense-wide

DOD Family Housing

2,000

Improvement Fund

278,426

277,936

275,436

1,119,007

1,106,007

377,616

371,816

373,816

867,788

861,788

681,042

667,912

676,042

874,050

863,050

5,480

42,395

2,000

Account

Total: Military

Construction

Total: Family Housing

4,246,460

4,247,804

4,228,384

4,206,014

GRAND TOTAL

9,664,041

10,083,000

10,614,883

10,499,000

Sources: H.Rept. 107-533, S.Rept. 107-202, H.Rept. 107-731.

* Includes $712 million in DERF, as considered by the Senate, and $692 million as considered by the

conference committee, does not include additional appropriations included in H.J.Res 2 of the 108th

Congress.

CRS-24

Table 9. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget

Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,

FY1993-FY2003

(current year dollars in thousands)

Fiscal

Year

Army

National

Guard

Air

National

Guard

Army

Reserve

1993 Req.

46,700

173,270

1993

Enacted

214,989

1994 Req.

Total

Change

from

Request

Naval

Reserve

Air

Force

Reserve

Total

31,500

37,772

52,880

342,122

305,759

42,150

15,400

29,900

608,198 +266,076

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

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

2003 Req.*

101,595

62,406

58,779

58,671

37,976

319,427

2003

Enacted*

241,377

203,813

100,554

74,921

67,226

687,891 +210,014

–

+473,932

–

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

* Includes DERF requests of $594 million (House) and $717 million (Request and Senate), does not

include additional appropriations included in H.J.Res 2 of the 108th Congress.

CRS-25

For Additional Information

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31010. Appropriations for FY2002: Military Construction, by

Daniel Else.

CRS Report RL31305. Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by

(name redacted) a nd (name redacted).

CRS Report RL31349. Defense Budget for FY2003: Data Summary, by (name r

edacted) and (name redacted).

CRS Report RL31187. Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency

Supplemental Allocations, by (name redacted) and Larry Q. Nowels,

CRS Report RL31005. Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense,

coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL30440. Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand, by (name re

dacted).

CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by (name

redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues,

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.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]

Congressional Budget Office

[http://www.cbo.gov/]

General Accounting Office

[http://www.gao.gov/]

CRS-26

U.S. Department of Defense Sites

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),

FY2003 Budget Materials

[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/]

U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page

[http://www.acq.osd.mil/installation/]

White House Sites

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget

Materials

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/]

Office of Management & Budget

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]

CRS-27

Appendix

These tables include only those projects and other line items that were either

requested by the President or appropriated or authorized by Congress. Table 10

shows changes to military construction projects and line items, while Table 11 does

the same for family housing. Many DERF items show presidential requests and no

House-recommended appropriations. This was caused by the late submission by the

President of much of the DERF request.

Table 10. Changes in Project Funding, Military Construction

Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations and Authorization ($000)

Location Name

Army

Fort Richardson

Fort Greely

Fort Wainwright

Fort Richardson

Fort Wainwright

Fort Rucker

Redstone Arsenal

Pine Bluff Arsenal

Fort Huachuca

Yuma Proving Ground

Monterey Defense

Language Institute

Fort Irwin

Fort Carson

Project

Perimeter Fencing (DERF)

Fencing (DERF)

Fencing Installation Boundary

(DERF)

Community Center

Vehicle Maintenance Shop

Phase II

UH-60 Parking Apron

Cantonment Fencing (DERF)

Physical Fitness Center

Cafeteria Addition

Non-stockpile Ammunition

Demolition Shop

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Training Facilities

Aircraft Armament

Test/Maintenance Facilities

Water Diversion

Fencing (DERF)

Ammunition Demilitarization

Pueblo Depot

Facility Phase IV

Fort Carson

Fire Station

Walter Reed Army Medical Physical Security, Main

Center

Section (DERF)

Fort Benning

Chapel

Fort Benning

Cantonment Fencing (DERF)

Access Road (Saddle Road)

Pohakuloa Training Area

Ph I

Newport Army Ammunition Ammunition Demilitarization

Plant

Facility-Ph V

Fort Leavenworth

Cantonment Fencing (DERF)

Deployment Facility, Ramp

Fort Riley

Expansion

Fort Riley

Cantonment Fencing (DERF)

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

5,011

2,700

5,011

2,700

5,011

2,700

5,011

2,700

6,896

15,000

6,896

15,000

6,896

15,000

9,258

3,050

1,950

3,050

9,258

3,500

3,050

9,258

3,500

1,950

22,000

3,050

9,258

3,500

1,950

18,937

10,400

4,500

2,522

4,348

1,500

2,522

4,348

2,522

4,348

2,522

4,348

38,000

4,250

3,844

11,986

6,500

3,844

11,986

3,844

6,500

5,500

3,844

6,500

5,500

13,000

61,494

4,829

7,095

4,950

7,095

CRS-28

Location Name

Fort Riley

Blue Grass Army Depot

Fort Knox

Fort Campbell

Fort Polk

Nantic Soldier Support

Center

Project

Loca Request House Senate

Combined Arms Collective

Training Facility, Ph I

0 13,800

Ammunition Demilitarization

Facility Ph III

10,300

Ammunition Demilitarization

Support Ph III

8,300

Access Control (DERF)

2,529

Cantonment Fencing (DERF) KY

3,344

Child Development Center

6,800

Purchase Restrictive

Easements

7,300

Fencing (DERF)

6,620

Food Engineering Lab

Ammunition Demilitarization

Aberdeen Proving Ground Fac Ph V

Fort Detrick

Add/Alter Fire Station

Access Control Points 4

Fort Leonard Wood

Locations (DERF)

Fort Bragg

Fencing

Fort Bragg

Soldier Support Center

High Energy Propellant

Picatinny Arsenal

Formulation Fac (Ph II)

Launcher Complex

White Sands Missile Range Revitalization (Ph II-A)

Fencing West Point Proper

West Point

(DERF)

Fort Drum

Barracks Expansion

Fort Drum

Taxiway Construction

Fort Sill

Cantonment Fencing (DERF) OK

Logistics Maintenance Facility

Fort Sill

(Ph I)

Fort Jackson

Cantonment Fencing (DERF) SC

Fort Bliss

Cantonment Fencing (DERF) TX

Brigade Command and

Fort Hood

Control Facilities

Fort Hood

Fencing (DERF)

Fort Bliss

Upgrade Water Systems

Fencing and Access Roads

Fort Eustis

(Serf)

Fort Lee

Cantonment Fencing (DERF) VA

Fire and Emergency Services

Fort Lee

Center (Ph I)

Fort Lewis

Fencing (DERF)

Yakima Training Center

Shoot House

Yakima Training Center

Urban Assault Course

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design (DERF) ZU

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Recision

Conf

Auth

13,800

2,529

3,344

2,529

3,344

7,300

6,620

7,300

6,620

4,100

30,600

2,800

9,493

4,732

9,400

9,493

4,732

9,493

4,732

9,400

9,493

4,732

9,400

7,500

4,500

4,991

4,652

8,000

8,800

4,991

4,652

4,991

8,000

8,800

4,652

4,991

8,000

8,800

4,652

3,051

4,291

10,000

3,051

4,291

10,000

3,051

10,000

3,051

16,000

10,200

11,600

2,461

10,200

11,600

2,461

5,200

4,133

1,903

4,133

1,903

4,133

1,903

4,133

1,903

2,395

5,200

2,395

5,200

2,395

5,200

2,395

1,500

9,381

0 -35,700

CRS-29

Location Name

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Project

Loca Request House Senate

Sbct Transformation, Various

Facilities

0 100,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Civilian Personnel Accural

Accounting Adjustment

0 -26,083 -26,083

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Recision (Foreign Currency

Fluctuation)

0 -13,676 -13,676

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Construction)

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

119,824 119,824 122,114 124,714 121,892

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Unspecified Minor

Construction

20,500

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Supervision, Inspection and

Overhead Reduction

Combat Aircraft Loading

Apron, Phase II

3,000

Camp Pendleton

Child Development Center

8,230

Barstow Marine Corps

Logistics Base

Combat Vehicle Welding

Shop

4,450

China Lake Naval Air

Warfare Center

Propellants and Explosives

Lab (Ph II)

10,100

Miramar

Refueling Vehicle Shop

3,510

Monterey Naval

Postgraduate School

Educational Facility

Replacement (Ph I)

7,000

Twentynine Palms

Aircraft Surveillance Radar

15,100

13,700

Port Hueneme

Seabee Training Facility

10,170

Whiting Field Naval Air

Station

Aircraft Maintenance Officer

School

1,780

Jacksonville Naval Air

Station

Aviation Support Equip Maint

Training Facility

6,572

Conf

Auth

25,000

-8,000

26,975

-8,000

21,550

0 -16,740

Navy

Yuma

Panama City Naval Surface

Warfare Center

Special Operations Facility

10,700

Larissa

BEQ and Support Facility

14,800

6,800

Ford Island

Site Improvements (Utility

Systems)

19,400

Marine Corps Base/Oahu

Religious Ministry Facility

(Chapel)

9,500

Pearl Harbor

Waterfront/Mechanical Shop

(Bravo Pier)

18,500

Great Lakes Naval Training

Center

Recruit Barracks

41,740

36,740

Great Lakes Naval Training

Center

Recruit Barracks

43,360

38,360

Crane Naval Surface

Warfare Center

Electrochemistry Engineering

Facility

11,610

Sigonella

Off Base Access Road

Improvements (DERF)

11,300

CRS-30

Location Name

U.S. Naval Academy

Project

Ethical Center Classroom

Loca Request House Senate

1,800

Conf

1,800

Auth

1,800

Carderock (NSWC)

National Maritime Technical

Information Center

12,900

Brunswick Naval Air

Station

Control Tower Upgrade

9,830

Gulfport Naval

Construction Battalion

Center

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters

(Ph I)

12,000

Control Tower and Beacon

Meridian Naval Air Station Facility

2,850

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters

(100 Units)

10,500

Cherry Point Marine Corps

Air Station

High Explosives Magazines

4,430

Camp Lejeune

Land Acquisition

4,200

Lakehurst Naval Air

Warfare Center

Combined Structural/Aircraft

Fire Rescue Station

5,200

Fallon Naval Air Station

High Explosives Magazines

4,010

Newport Naval Station

Consolidated

Police/Fire/Security Facility

9,030

Newport Naval Station

Child Development Center

6,870

Torrejon AB

NEX/MWR Facility

2,890

Fort Worth Naval Air

Aircraft Engine Maintenance

Station/Joint Reserve Base Shop

8,850

Corpus Christi Naval Air

Station

Public Safety Facility

7,150

Ingleside

Mine Warfare Training Center TX

5,480

5,000

Dam Neck

Special Operations Building

3,900

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Ship Component Service

Facility

16,810

Quantico Marine Corps

Base

Candidate Instruction Facility VA

5,310

Puget Sound

AT/FP Improvements

21,670

24,670

21,670

Bangor

Small Arms Collective

Training Facility (DERF)

29,800

16,410

Keyport Naval Undersea

Warfare Center

Undersea Water System

Dependability Center

10,500

7,500

Puget Sound

AT/FP Parking

3,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Unspecified Minor

Construction

23,262

26,187

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Civilian Personnel Accural

Accounting Adjustment

0 -10,470 -10,470

Various Worldwide

Locations

Recision (Foreign Currency

Fluctuation)

-1,340

Various Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Construction)

-5,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

68,573

73,990

69,423

77,940

Pascagoula Naval Station

CRS-31

Location Name

Various Worldwide

Locations

Project

Supervision, Inspection and

Overhead Reductions

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

0 -15,017

Air Force

Eielson AFB

Blair Lakes Range

Maintenance Complex

19,500

Maxwell AFB

Physical Fitness

Center-Gunter Annex

8,000

Davis-Monthan AFB

HH-60 Maintenance Hangar

6,440

Davis-Monthan AFB

HH-60 Apron/Taxiway D

Shoulders

3,720

Davis-Monthan AFB

Dormitory (120 Rm)

9,110

Luke AFB

Land Acquisition

13,000

Travis AFB

C-17 Flight Simulator

4,600

4,596

4,600

Travis AFB

C-17 Parts Store

8,000

7,998

8,000

Travis AFB

Electrical/Utilities and

Supporting Infrastructure

11,269

11,297

11,269

Travis AFB

Squadron Operation/Aircraft

Maintenance Unit

9,600

Peterson AFB

AT/FP Site Improvements for

HQ Complex (DERF)

2,000

Peterson AFB

NORAD Battle Management

Center (DERF)

3,500

Schriever AFB

Visitors Center/Entry Control

Gates (DERF)

5,700

U S Air Force Academy

Perimeter Fence-Cadet Area

(Ph I) (DERF)

4,200

Bolling AFB

Perimeter Wall, North Gate to

Navy Line (DERF)

1,500

Bolling AFB

Security Forces Operations

Facility (DERF)

3,500

Tyndall AFB

Physical Fitness Center

8,100

Defense Access Road,

Avon Park Air Force Range Arbuckle Creek Bridge

2,000

MacDill AFB

Control Tower/Fire Crash

Rescue Station

13,000

Robins AFB

Corrosion Paint/Depaint

Facility

24,000

Aviano AB

Consolidate Area A-1/Area

A-2 for Force PRT (DERF)

5,000

Aviano AB

Large Vehicle Security

Inspection Station (DERF)

1,600

McConnell AFB

Corrosion Control Facilities

(Ph I)

7,500

Barksdale AFB

Parking Apron

12,000

Fourth Cliff Recreation

Area

Erosion Control/Retaining

Wall

9,476

Seymour Johnson

Fire/Crash Rescue Station

10,600

Minot AFB

Cruise Missile Storage

Facility

18,000

CRS-32

Location Name

Minot AFB

Project

Munitions Storage Igloos

Loca Request House Senate

Conf

5,000

Auth

5,000

Offutt AFB

Fire/Crash Rescue Station

11,000

Pease Air Base

Fire Station

4,450

Mcguire AFB

C-17 Add/Alter 3-bay Hangar

5,200

Holloman AFB

Survival Equipment Shop

4,650

Kirtland AFB

Visiting Quarters

8,450

8,400

Nellis AFB

Land Acquisition

19,500

Wright-Patterson AFB

Alter Graduate Education

Facility

13,000

Wright-Patterson AFB

Dormitory (144 Rm)

10,400

Wright-Patterson AFB

Consolidate Materials

Computations Research Fac

15,200

Wright-Patterson AFB

Dormitory (144 Rm)

12,000

Wright-Patterson AFB

Fully Contained Small Arms

Range Complex (DERF)

12,000

9,700

12,000

Tinker AFB

Consolidated Integrated

Support Facility

7,500

Altus AFB

Consolidate Base Engineer

Complex (Ph I)

7,700

Vance AFB

Road Repair (Elam Road)

4,800

Shaw AFB

Fighter Squadron

Maintenance Facilities

6,800

Ellsworth AFB

Operations Facility

13,200

Sheppard AFB

Airfield Operations Complex

(Ph I)

8,000

Camp Bullis

MOUT Training Facility

(DERF)

6,000

Camp Bullis

Visiting Quarters (DERF)

4,000

Goodfellow AFB

Wing Support Complex

10,600

Lackland AFB

Physical Fitness Center

5,800

Laughlin AFB

Consolidated Wing Support

Facility

8,000

Camp Bullis

Visiting Quarters

4,000

Hill Air Force Base

Consolidated Software

Support Facility

16,500

Hill Air Force Base

Depot Maintenance Hangar

(Ph Ib)

14,500

Langley AFB

Air Combat Command

Operations Support Ctr

(DERF)

24,000

23,000

Warren AFB

Stormwater Drainage System

10,000

Classified Location

Classified Milcon Project

1,993

Classified Location

C-17 Various Facilities

30,569

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Air Mobility Modernization,

Various Facilities

25,000

Various Worldwide

Locations

C-17 Transformation, Various

Facilities

0 100,000

CRS-33

Location Name

Various Worldwide

Locations

Project

Recision (Foreign Currency

Fluctuation)

Various Worldwide

Locations

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

0 -10,281

Unspecified Minor

Construction

11,500

12,620

11,500

Various Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Construction)

-5,000

Various Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

41,496

65,758

51,486

62,023

Various Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design (DERF)

21,797

20,797

Various Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

15,797

Various Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design (Predator

Beddown)

5,000

Various Worldwide

Locations

Recision

-3,000 -10,281

Various Worldwide

Locations

Supervision, Inspection and

Overhead Reductions

0 -15,306

Fort Wainwright

Hospital Replacement (Phase

IV)

53,000

Pine Bluff Arsenal

Non-stockpile Ammunition

Demolition Shop

18,937

17,990

18,937

Pueblo Depot

Ammunition Demilitarization

Facility Phase IV

38,000

36,100

38,000

Peterson AFB

Fac Refurbishment Homeland

Security Cinc (DERF)

25,000

23,000

25,000

District of Columbia

Parking Garage

2,500

Bolling AFB

DIA Analysis Center

Defense-wide

121,958 121,958 121,958 111,958 111,958

Newport Army Ammunition Ammunition Demilitarization

Plant

Facility-Ph V

61,494

58,420

61,494

Blue Grass Army Depot

Ammunition Demilitarization

Facility Ph III

10,300

9,758

10,300

Blue Grass Army Depot

Ammunition Demilitarization

Support Ph III

8,300

7,885

8,300

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Ammunition Demilitarization

Fac Ph V

30,600

29,070

20,600

Stennis Space Center (Bay

St Louis)

Land/Water Ranges

5,000

Columbus

Physical Fitness Facility

5,021

Def Fuel Support Point

Lajes Field Azores

Replace Hydrant Fuel System

19,000

Arlington

Land Acquisition

18,000

Dam Neck

Special Operations Building

3,900

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design (Tricare

Management Facility)

14,200

17,200

18,500

14,200

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design (DERF)

2,000

CRS-34

Location Name

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Project

Energy Conservation

Improvement Program

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

49,531

34,531

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design (Soc)

4,932

5,032

4,932

5,032

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Recision (Foreign Currency

Fluctuation)

-2,976

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations, OSD

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Construction)

-3,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

(Undistributed)

20,000

28,557

20,000

21,300

Revised Economic

Supervision, Inspection, & Assumptions (Mid-session

Overhead Reduction, OSD Review)

-7,414

Army National Guard

Gadsen

Readiness Center, Add/Alt

1,781

2,261

1,781

2,261

Camp Blanding

Combined Support

Maintenance Shop (Ph I)

5,000

Barrigada

Readiness Center

6,968

Boone

Readiness Center

4,252

Gowan Field/Boise

Readiness Center

1,500

Camp Atterbury

Battle Simulation Center

8,327

Patuxent River

Readiness Center

6,740

Shiawasse County Owosso Readiness Center

4,700

Lansing

Joint/Multi-Unit Readiness

Center

16,928

Fort Leonard Wood

Aviation Support Facility

14,767

Kosciusko

Readiness Center

2,300

Johnstown

Runway Improvements

12,270

Connelsville

Readiness Center (Ph II)

1,750

1,700

Camp Rapid

Barracks/Dining/Admin &

Parking (Ph I)

10,593

Fort Pickett

Maneuver & Equipment

Training Site

8,957

South Burlington

Readiness Center (Ph I)

11,241

Spokane

Readiness Center (Ph I)

8,800

11,598

8,800

Madison

United States Property and

Fiscal Office

5,245

Madison

United States Property and

Fiscal Office

5,245

Lewisburg

Readiness Center

5,715

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Unspecified Minor

Construction

4,930

13,399

13,985

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Construction)

-1,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

14,724

29,543

32,183

27,042

CRS-35

Location Name

Project

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

Air National Guard

Little Rock AFB

Operations and Training

Facility

5,100

Fort Smith Map

Operations and Training

Facility

6,000

Sepulveda

Communications and

Electronics Training Facility

7,000

Buckley Air Force Base

Control Tower

5,900

New Castle County Airport Parking Apron

10,800

Homestead ARB

Services Complex

2,500

Des Moines

Airfield Facilities Upgrade

9,200

6,000

Gowan Field/Boise

Air Support Squadron

(Beddown)

6,700

Greater Peoria Regional

Airport

Composite Support Training

Facility

8,800

Springfield (Capitol

Airport)

Composite Support Facility

10,000

New Orleans Joint Reserve Vehicle Maintenance Support

Base Belle Chasse

Equipment Shop

5,500

Selfridge ANGB

Joint Dining Facility

8,500

W K Kellogg Airport

Vehicle Maintenance Shop

3,800

15,000

6,100

Aircraft Maintenance Hangar

Duluth International Airport & Shop (Ph II)

St Louis/Lambert Field

Base Relocation/Facilities

Upgrade

4,000

Gore Hills/Great Falls

Munitions Load Crew

Training Facility

3,500

Hancock Field

Upgrade Base Force

Protection and Infrastructure

8,600

Toledo Express Airport

Replace Logistics Complex

6,900

Mansfield Lahm Airport

Vehicle Maintenance

Complex

3,500

Springfield-Beckley

Municipal Airport

Fire Station

6,100

Rickenbacker ANGB

Fire Station

6,000

Pittsburgh

Squadron Operations &

Support Facility

7,700

McEntire Air National

Guard Base

Replace Operations &

Training Facility

10,200

Fort Bliss

Base Defense Training Center TX

8,700

8,000

Martinsburg Airbase

Site Improvement and Utilities WV

12,200

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Unspecified Minor

Construction

4,400

5,400

5,900

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

8,273

22,405

16,680

17,082

CRS-36

Location Name

Project

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

Army Reserve

Fort Dix

Add/Alter Parking

Apron/Taxiway

10,000

Fort Dix

Vehicle/Pallet Facility

4,012

North Canton

Reserve

Center/OMS/AMSA/Storage

11,998

Johnstown

Upgrade Aircraft

Parking/Ramp

12,270

Fort McCoy

Battle Simulation Center

3,863

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

6,965

10,810

10,460

9,305

Naval Reserve

New Orleans

Joint Reserve Center (Ph III)

7,400

Fort Worth Naval Air

Aircraft Engine Maintenance

Station/Joint Reserve Base Shop

8,850

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

2,509

3,389

Air Force Reserve

March AFB

Taxiway Repair

4,350

March AFB

C-17 Alter Squadron

Operations Facility

1,700

1,696

1,700

March AFB

C-17 Alter Co-located Life

Support Building

3,000

3,026

3,000

March AFB

C-17 Alter General

Maintenance Shops

2,000

2,004

2,000

March AFB

Runway Repair

2,550

March AFB

C-17 Multifunctional Hangar

15,100

March AFB

Add/Alter C-17 Simulator

Facility

1,900

Schriever AFB

Consolidated Space Group

Operations Facility

6,900

Grissom Air Reserve Base

Addition/Alteration Aircraft

Maintenance Hangar

6,000

Westover ARB

Security Forces Operations

Complex

3,850

Minneapolis-St Paul ARS

Consolidated Lodging Facility

(Ph IV)

6,300

Niagra Falls Air Reserve

Station

Visiting Airmen Quarters

(Ph I)

9,000

Youngstown ARS

Visitors Center (DERF)

2,500

Charleston AFB

Medical Training Facility

2,150

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Unspecified Minor

Construction

5,160

5,960

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Planning and Design

3,656

3,863

3,656

5,079

Sources: FY2003 Budget Request, H.Rept. 107-533, S.Rept. 107-202, H.Rept. 107-731, H.Rept. 107-772.

a. Standard postal abbreviations for states are used. GR=Greece; IT=Italy; ZC=Unspecified Location, Classified Project;

ZU=Unspecified Location, Unclassified Project.

CRS-37

Table 11. Changes in Project Funding, Military Family Housing

Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations and Authorization ($000)

Location Name

Project

Loca Request

House

Senate

990

500

Conf

Auth

Army

Stuttgart

Stuttgart, Germany (1)

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Construction Improvements

239,751 239,751 239,751 239,751 239,721

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Privatization Support Costs

25,926

20,926

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Rescission (Foreign Currency

Fluctuation)

-4,920

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Operations & Debt)

-2,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Civilian Personnel Accrual

Accounting Adjustment

-3,267

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Operations & Debt)

-8,000

Navy & Marine Corps

Larissa

Greece - Larissa

1,232

Brunswick NAS

26 Units

5,800

5,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Rescission (Foreign Currency

Fluctuation)

-2,652

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Construction

Improvements)

-3,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Operating Expenses)

-6,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Privatization Support Costs

7,071

11,398

7,071

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Maintenance of Real Property ZU

Air Force

Whiteman AFB

75 Units

13,130

Whiteman AFB

Replace Family Housing Ph 3

(22 Units)

3,977

17,107

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Privatization Support Costs

20,482

15,482

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Rescission (Foreign Currency

Fluctuations)

-8,782

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Operations & Debt)

-5,000

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Revised Economic

Assumptions (Mid-session

Review, Operations & Debt)

-6,000

990

381,388 381,388 381,388 377,061 381,388

CRS-38

Location Name

Project

Loca Request

House

Senate

Conf

Auth

Defense-wide

Def Distribution Depot

New Cumberland

Whole House Revitalization

5,430

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Civilian Personnel Accural

Accounting Adjustment

-37

Unspecified Worldwide

Locations

Construction Improvements

5,480

Sources: FY2003 Budget Request, H.Rept. 107-533, S.Rept. 107-202, H.Rept. 107-731, H.Rept. 107-772.

a. Standard postal abbreviations for states are used. GY= Federal Republic of Germany; GR=Greece; ZU=Unspecified

Location, Unclassified Project.

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

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.