Appropriations for FY2004: Military Construction

Congressional research reportNov 6, 2003

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL31810

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2004:

Military Construction

Updated November 6, 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 FY2004:

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.

The President forwarded his fiscal year 2004 budget request to the Congress on

February 3, 2003. The original military construction request of $9.0 billion was later

increased to $9.2 billion due to reprogramming from the defense appropriations bill

(H.R. 2658) and an Administration request related to foreign currency fluctuations

as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office.

On June 17, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee reported a bill (H.R.

2559) that recommends $9.2 billion in military construction appropriations. This is

$41 million below the President’s revised request and $1.5 billion below the FY2003

appropriation. The House passed the bill on June 26. The Senate Appropriations

Committee marked up an original version of the bill (S. 1357) and reported it to the

Senate on June 26. On July 10, the Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559,

substituting the text of S. 1357, and passed the amended bill on July 11. The

conference committee reported its bill on November 4, 2003.

Authorization of military construction is included within the defense

authorization bill. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 1588) on May 22.

The Senate substituted the text of S. 1050 for that of H.R. 1588 and passed the

amended bill on June 4, 2003. The conference committee began meeting on July 22

and had not reported its bill as of this writing. For a comprehensive report on

defense authorization legislation, see CRS Report RL31805, Authorization and

Appropriations for FY2004: Defense, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted).

In late September, the President submitted to Congress an emergency

supplemental appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2004 (H.R. 3289) that included

$412 million in funding specific to military construction and unlimited authority to

transfer unspecified additional funds from the Iraqi Freedom Fund ($1.99 billion) to

military construction and up to $500 million from other Department of Defense funds

into a contingency construction account. The bill was passed by both chambers and

was presented to the President on November 5. For more information on the

supplemental, see CRS Report RL32090, FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations for

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism: Military Operations &

Reconstruction Assistance, by (name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted), and

(name redacted).

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Content of Annual Military Construction Appropriations

and Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

House Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Senate Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Changes in Funding Request During the Legislative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Fiscal Year 2004 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Request . . . . . . 6

Iraqi Freedom Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Contingency Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Senate Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (S. 1689) . . . . . . . . . . 8

House Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (H.R. 3289) . . . . . . . . 9

Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Overall Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Realignment of Overseas Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project . . . 14

Perchlorate Groundwater Contamination Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Military Construction Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

List of Figures

Figure 1. Military Construction Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2003-FY2004 . . 18

Table 5. Military Construction FY2004 Appropriations by

Account; Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 6. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget

Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,

FY1994-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appropriations for FY2004:

Military Construction

Most Recent Developments

The House Appropriations Committee introduced its Military Construction

Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 (H.R. 2559, H.Rept. 108-173) on June

23, 2003. The House considered and passed the bill on June 26, 2003.

The Senate Appropriations Committee introduced its companion bill (S. 1357,

S.Rept. 108-82) on June 26. On July 10, the Senate amended H.R. 2559 by striking

the text and substituting that of S. 1357. The Senate passed the amended bill on July

11 (91-0) and requested a conference with the House. On September 16, the House

disagreed with the Senate amendment (motion to do so was carried without

objection) and appointed conferees. The conference report was completed on

November 4, 2003, and was passed by the House on November 5 (417-5). The

message on House action is being held at the desk in the Senate.

In late September, the President submitted an emergency supplemental

appropriations request. While the Senate considered its version of the bill (S. 1689),

the House passed its bill (H.R. 3289) on October 17, 2003 (303-125). The Senate

substituted the text of S. 1689 for that of H.R. 3289, passed the amended bill by

unanimous consent, and sent notice of its action to the House. The conference report

(H.Rept. 108-337) was filed on October 30. The House approved the report on

October 31 (298-121, Roll No. 601), and the Senate approved by voice vote on

November 3. The bill was presented to the President on November 5.

Conference action on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (H.R.

1588) began on July 22 and has not yet concluded. The House voted to instruct its

conferees on September 10 (406-0).

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

CRS-2

reserve components;1 additional defense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to the

NATO Security Investment Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure

Program);2 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.3

The military construction appropriations bill is one of several annual pieces of

legislation that provide funding for national defense. Other major appropriation

legislation includes the defense appropriations bill, which provides funds for all nonconstruction military activities of the Department of Defense and constitutes more

than 90% of national security-related spending, and the energy and water

development appropriations bill, which provides funding for atomic energy defense

activities of the Department of Energy and for civil projects carried out by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Two other appropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent

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

defense.4

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

are appropriated.5 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.6 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

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.

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.

CRS-3

appropriations.7 Normally only one “National Defense Authorization Act” is passed

each year to authorize both of these appropriations.8 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.

Several special accounts are included within the military construction

appropriation. Among these are the Homeowners Assistance Fund (Defense),9 and

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 Readiness 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.

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.

CRS-4

the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund,10 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 FY2004 budget request to the Congress on February 3, 2003.

Bill Status

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

FY2004 military construction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation

process moves forward.

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2004

Committee Markup

House

Senate

06/17/03 06/26/03

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

H.Rept. 06/26/03

108-173 (428-0)

S.Rept.

108-82

07/11/03

(91-0)

H.Rept.

108-342

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

––

Public

Law

––

Notes: Dashes indicate no action yet taken.

Appropriations Action

House Appropriations Action. Following a series of hearings by the House

Subcommittee on Military Appropriations, the full Committee marked up its bill on

June 17. H.R. 2559 (H.Rept. 108-173) was introduced to the House on June 23,

2003, and placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 88). The House considered

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-5

the bill under the provisions of a Special Rule (H.Res. 298) on June 26, 2003

(Congressional Record, H5979-5990). The measure passed by the Yeas and Nays:

428-0 (Roll no. 325).

The bill was received in the Senate the same day and placed on the Legislative

Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 177).

Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Military Construction held hearings on its bill during March and

April of 2003. The full Committee reported legislation (S. 1357, S.Rept. 108-82) to

the Senate on June 26. The bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General

Orders (Calendar No. 176).

On July 10, the Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559, striking all after the

enacting clause and substituting the text of S. 1357. The Senate passed the bill on

July 11 (91-0), insisted on its amendment, and requested a conference with the

House.

Conference Action. On September 16, 2003, the House disagreed with the

Senate amendment, agreed to a conference, and appointed conferees (Congressional

Record, H8228). By the end of their meeting on October 22, the conferees had not

agreed on a final report. Difference between House and Senate managers appeared

to center on allocations of funding for construction projects in Europe and in the

Republic of Korea, where the President had requested $292 million, but where the

future of many installations remains in doubt (See Realignment of Overseas Bases,

below). The conferees agreed on their bill on November 4. The House approved the

report on November 5 (417-5, Roll No. 606), and the message on House action is

being held at the desk in the Senate.

Changes in Funding Request During the Legislative Process

The President’s original budget submission for military construction totaled

$9,036,721,000.

This was amended upward by the House Appropriations Committee to

$9,237,096,000 because of transfers from the defense appropriations bill11 to the

military construction appropriations bill and calculations performed by the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to an Administration request for a

general provision of funding related to the “Foreign Currency Fluctuations,

Construction, Defense” account. The funding transfers included $25,500,000 for the

purpose of constructing a Special Operations Forces facility and $119,815,000 for

chemical demilitarization construction. The CBO calculation resulted in a reappropriation of $55 million.

Rep. Jerry Lewis introduced the Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2658, H.Rept. 108187) to the House on July 2, 2003, when it was placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No.

96).

CRS-6

The Senate Appropriations Committee similarly amended the President’s budget

submission, including the transfer of funds for the Special Operations Forces facility

and the CBO calculation. It did not include the transfer of chemical demilitarization

construction funds from the defense appropriations bill, as had been done in the

House version of the bill.12 Therefore, the Senate version of the budget submission

is quoted as $9,117,281,000.13

Fiscal Year 2004 Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Request

On September 21, 2003, the President forwarded to Congress his request for an

emergency, non-offset supplemental appropriations for FY2004.14 The House and

Senate versions of the bill are H.R. 3289 and S. 1689.

The Department of Defense requested $65.6 billion of the overall supplemental

appropriations. Its stated purpose is to support three ongoing military operations:

Operation Iraqi Freedom ($51.5 million), Operation Enduring Freedom ($10.5

million), and Operation Noble Eagle ($2.2 million). Also, $1.4 million was identified

as supporting coalition forces.

Of this total, $412.5 million is designated for domestic and overseas

construction supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

About $119.9 million is to be committed to the Army, and $292.6 million is destined

for the Air Force. The anticipated use of these funds is laid out in Table 2. Not

included in the military construction portion of the request is additional funding for

beddown facilities for approximately 25,000 soldiers. Consisting of trailers and

containers equipped with housing and shower facilities, these accommodations are

to be drawn from the Army Operation and Maintenance ($21.2 billion total) and

Other Procurement ($930.7 million) supplemental appropriations requests. Table 3

compares presidential account requests with recommendations made by the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

The request also includes authorization to transfer significant funding into

construction from other accounts.

Presidential budget submissions for the demilitarization of chemical munitions had usually

been divided between the defense and military construction appropriations because both

construction and operations are involved in the process. For FY2004, the Department of

Defense folded both components into the much larger defense appropriations request,

apparently to be able to shift funds into and out of construction without having to request

transfer authority from the Congress.

FY2004 request amounts shown in the tables of this report are taken from the House

version of the President’s budget submission.

See CRS Report RL32090, FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan,

and the Global War on Terrorism: Military Operations & Reconstruction Assistance, by

(name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted), for a comprehensive

discussion of the entire emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

CRS-7

Iraqi Freedom Fund. The Operations and Maintenance section requests $1.99

billion for an Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF). The IFF is a transfer account, or an account

that is not dedicated to any specific purpose. Rather, it can be considered a “holding

pot” for funds that may be transferred to other accounts at the discretion of the

Secretary of Defense. The request justifies the creation of a transfer account by noting

“the unpredictable scope, duration, and intensity” of ongoing military operations in

Iraq and Afghanistan. This provision is contained in the enacted law.

According to the language of the legislation, authority to transfer the funds in

the IFF is to be granted to the Secretary of Defense and is in addition to any other

existing transfer authority. Funds may be transferred from the IFF to military

personnel, operation and maintenance, Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance

and Civic Aid, procurement, military construction, Defense Health Program, and

working capital appropriations accounts. Any funds deemed to be in excess after

transfer to a regular appropriations account may be returned to the IFF for subsequent

retransfer. The request specifies that the Secretary of Defense will notify the

congressional defense committees not less than five (5) days in advance of any

transfer and will summarize the details of IFF transfers not later than 30 days after

the end of each fiscal quarter.

Contingency Construction. Under Chapter 8 (General Provisions), the

Secretary of Defense asked for the authority to transfer up to $500 million of the

supplemental appropriations into a contingency construction account. This proposal

did not survive, but Section 1301 of the enacted bill provided temporary authority for

the use of up to $150 million of operations and maintenance funds for similar

purposes (see below).

Contingency construction, as established by 10 USC 2804, permits the Secretary

of Defense (or the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, or Air Force) to carry out any

military construction project not otherwise authorized if the Secretary determines that

its deferral to the next Military Construction Appropriations Act would be

inconsistent with national security or the national interest.

Existing law specifies that when the Secretary decides that contingency

construction is appropriate, he must report this to the appropriate congressional

committees. The report must explain why the project is necessary (its justification),

and why it must be a contingency (instead of a regular) construction project. It must

also include an estimate of the project’s cost. Section 2804 also bars the Secretary

from carrying out the project until after the end of a 21-day period that begins on the

date his notification is received by the committees.

The Supplemental Appropriations request would have permitted the transfer of

DOD funds into the contingency construction account seven (7) days after

notification was sent to the appropriate congressional committees by the Secretary

of Defense. This notification would have certified “that the transfer is necessary to

respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism or to support

Department of Defense operations in Iraq, and [specify] the amounts and purposes

of the transfer, including a list of proposed projects and their estimated costs.”

CRS-8

The recommendation further specified that, notwithstanding the 21-day waiting

period required under Title 10, the Secretary of Defense “shall notify the appropriate

committees of Congress no later than 15 days after the obligation of the funds for the

project, specifying the estimated cost of the project” and including the standard DOD

Form 1391 (Military Construction Program).15 This would have eliminated the

requirement to explain the need for a contingency, vice regular, construction project.

Normally, military construction is carried out only on a military installation,

which is defined as real property (land, building, or structure) under the operational

control of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense. For the

purposes of this contingency construction account, the recommended language

expands this definition to also include “any building, structure, or other improvement

to real property to be used by the Armed Forces, regardless of whether such use is

anticipated to be temporary or of longer duration.”

Section 1301 of the enacted legislation authorized the Secretary of Defense to

obligate operations and maintenance funds during Fiscal Year 2004 for construction

projects outside the United States when they: are necessary to meet urgent military

operational requirements of a temporary nature; on a military installation where the

United States will not have a long-term presence; where the United States has no

intention of using the construction after the operational requirement has been

satisfied; and the level of construction is the minimum necessary to meet the

temporary requirement.

The Act requires the Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees

within 15 days of the obligation of funds for any project, and to submit a report on

all projects within 30 days of the end of each fiscal-year quarter. The section specifies

that only this temporary authority and the limited authority of 10 USC 2805(c)

(Unspecified Minor Construction) permit the Secretary of Defense to use

appropriated operations and maintenance funds for construction.

Senate Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (S. 1689). Senator

Stevens introduced S. 1689 to the Senate without report on September 30, 2003, and

the bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No.

296). It was laid before the Senate on October 1 (Congressional Record,

S12220-12270). After debate and amendment, it was again taken up on October 2

(Congressional Record, S12311-12346, S12350-12360) and on October 3

(Congressional Record, S12424-12432). The Committee on Appropriations filed its

report on the bill (S.Rept. 108-160) on October 2.

The Committee recommended emergency military construction appropriations

equal to the President’s request, totaling $119.9 million to the Military Construction,

A Form 1391 is prepared for each regular construction project requested by the

Department of Defense and included in the detailed justification materials submitted

annually to Congress. It names, numbers, and describes the project, gives its location, lists

the estimated costs of its components, explains the requirement, reports the current situation,

and assesses the impact if the project is not approved.

CRS-9

Army (emergency) account and $292.6 million to the Military Construction, Air

Force (emergency) account, for a total of $412.5 million.

Section 315 of the Senate bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer up

to $150 million into a contingency construction fund, instead of the $500 million

requested. It retains the requested expedited 21-day waiting period between initial

notification and obligation of funds.

On October 17, the Senate substituted the language of S. 1689 into H.R. 3289.

Further discussion of the bill proceeds under that number.

House Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (H.R. 3289). The

House Committee on Appropriations marked up its version of the Emergency

Supplemental Appropriation on October 9, 2003, recommending $544.6 million for

military construction and family housing accounts. The Senate and House

recommendations differ primarily in funding dedicated to the reconstruction of

military facilities and housing due to damage incurred in North Carolina and Virginia

by Hurricane Isabel during mid-September 2003.

Section 1201 of the House bill allows the Secretary of Defense to use up to $500

million in operations and maintenance funds during FY2004 for construction projects

outside the United States and levies a quarterly reporting requirement on the

obligation and expenditure of these funds. This authority is not tied to the

contingency construction provisions of 10 USC 2804, but rather characterizes the use

of these funds as “unspecified minor construction” as authorized under 10 USC 2805.

Statute places cost caps on unspecified minor construction projects that do not exist

for contingency construction.

The House passed H.R. 3289 (303-125, Roll No. 562), as amended in floor

debate, and sent the measure to the Senate on October 17. That same day, the Senate

struck all after the Enacting Clause, substituted the language of S. 1689 amended,

and passed the bill by Unanimous Consent (CR S12822-12832; bill text, October 20

CR S12892-12905). The Senate insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees.

On October 21, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment by unanimous

consent and agreed to a conference, designating and instructing the conferees (CR

H9770-9775; text, CR H9770).

Conference Action. The conference was held on October 28, 2003. The

conference report was filed on October 30 (H.Rept. 108-337). The House considered

the report on October 30 (Congressional Record, H10139-10157) and October 31

(Congressional Record, H10215-10231). The bill passed on October 31 (298 - 121,

Roll No. 601). The Senate considered the report on November 3 (Congressional

Record, S13751-13784), agreeing by a voice vote. The bill was presented to the

President on November 5.

CRS-10

Table 2. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2004

Account

Request

House

Senate

Enacted

MilCon, Army

119,900

185,100

119,900

162,100

MilCon, Navy

MilCon, Air Force

)

292,550

45,530

292,550

45,530

292,550

Total: Military Construction

Family Housing Operation &

Debt, Army

Family Housing Operation &

Debt, Navy & Marine Corps

Family Housing Operation &

Debt, AF

412,450

523,180

412,450

500,180

)

8,151

)

11,420

)

6,268

)

6,280

)

6,971

)

6,981

Total: Family Housing

Total Emergency Supplemental

412,450

21,390

544,570

412,450

24,681

524,861

Sources: S.Rept. 108-160; H.Rept. 108-312; H.Rept. 108-337.

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

funding levels, realignment of overseas bases, base realignment and closure (BRAC),

and perchlorate ground water contamination remediation.

Overall Funding Levels. The FY2004 budget submitted by the President on

February 3, 2003, as subsequently amended, requested $9.24 billion in new budget

authority, an amount $1.46 billion below the 2003 enactment. The Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations request submitted in late September would increase the

total request by $412 million and would authorize the transfer of unspecified

additional funds as they are needed.

Realignment of Overseas Bases. The Department of Defense has initiated

efforts in Germany and in the Republic of Korea to reduce the number and shift the

locations of its permanent installations. Known in Europe as Efficient Basing-East

and in Korea as the Land Partnership Plan, they are part of a worldwide DOD effort

to transform itself into a lighter and more agile military establishment.

As part of this endeavor, the Secretary of Defense has tasked his combatant

commanders to review military construction projects in order that they might support

changing military objectives overseas. These commanders are required to submit a

basing plan that enhances their abilities to project power, to support operations, and

to conduct activities based upon the Secretary’s views of a military structure

transformed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Based on the DOD study of

overseas basic requirements, the Administration in its amendment asked for the

CRS-11

deletion of 16 construction projects totaling $269 million that had been requested for

Germany and Turkey in its original FY2004 submission.

This DOD study is not yet complete, however, and the House Appropriations

Committee, in its report, expressed concerns that current and projected military

construction at overseas sites may not reflect a well-considered strategy. The

committee, noting that DOD has announced the retrenchment of some garrisons in

the Republic of Korea, recommended rescinding $107 million from prior year

appropriations at sites slated to be closed and re-appropriating them to installations

expected to remain in service.

The Senate Appropriations Committee strongly supported the DOD effort to

reevaluate its overseas basing requirements, though both appropriations committees

noted that a DOD overseas basing master plan, due on April 1, 2002, had not yet

been submitted. The Senate committee recognized that the DOD study of rebasing

had not progressed beyond its embryonic stage. In observing public statements

indicating that DOD would likely reduce the number of troops stationed in Germany

and would reconfigure its installations in Korea, it did not find much of the new

construction in Europe and Korea that had been requested in the May 1, 2003, budget

amendment.

The Senate Committee recommended that an eight-member Commission on the

Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States be formed to

assess whether current overseas basing is adequate and assess the feasibility of

various new configurations. Appointed by congressional leadership, the Commission

would provide an independent view of overseas basing requirements and would

submit its report, including findings, conclusions, recommendations for legislation

and administrative action, and a proposed overseas basing strategy, to the President

and Congress by August 30, 2004. The Committee also directed the Department of

Defense to submit master plans for changing the military infrastructure requirements

within each overseas regional command and report annually, through FY2008, on the

plans’ implementation.

Notwithstanding congressional direction, the press has reported that the

Department of Defense and the military services have begun taking action to realign

force levels and the basing “footprint” at overseas locations.

On July 23, the Pacific Stars and Stripes, a newspaper written for military

members stationed throughout the Pacific area, announced that U.S. and Japanese

officials had entered into an agreement to return to Japanese control more than 700

acres of land near Yokosuka used by the American military.16 In return, the Japanese

government agreed to build 800 new residential housing units near the main

Yokosuka naval base.

According the the report, all of the Fukaya Communications Site, Tomioka Storage Area

and Negishi Dependent Housing Area and most of the Kamiseya Communications Station

will be returned at a future date not yet determined. See Joseph Giordono, “Japan Pledges

To Build 800 Residential Units Near Yokosuka,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, July 23, 2003.

CRS-12

In Europe, the press has reported that the U.S. European Command is

considering the closure of many of the military installations in Germany and the

return to the United States of many of the combat units now stationed there. New,

more austere, bases could be constructed to house lighter, smaller combat units sent

more to train than to garrison. Countries where these “bare-bones” bases might be

located include Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Algeria, and Morocco.17 A more recent

report in the press indicated that two of the Army divisions currently engaged in

operations in Iraq, the First Armored and the First Infantry Divisions, currently based

in Wiesbaden and Würzburg, Germany, could be permanently redeployed to the

United States when they are relieved of their present assignments.18

In the Republic of Korea during early June 2003, officials announced that U.S.

forces there would be realigned, with elements of the Second Infantry Division

currently based near the Demilitarized Zone between the Republic of Korea and the

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea moving south, and the garrison at the

Yongsan Garrison in the capital city of Seoul beginning its relocation “as soon as

possible.”19

The conference report retained provisions for the establishment of a

Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States.

The Commission's structure and duties remained much as the Senate committee had

specified, though the Commission's report deadline was established as December 31,

2004.

The conferees also directed the Department of Defense to prepare

comprehensive master plans for overseas military bases that are to be submitted with

the Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission (the Senate had proposed submission with

the Fiscal Year 2005 budget), and specified that a status report on the comprehensive

plans and their implementation are to be submitted each year through Fiscal Year

2009, along with the military construction budget request. The conferees suggested

that they may extend this reporting requirement to include installations located within

the continental United States.

The conferees noted that movement of US military forces from their established

garrisons near the Demilitarized Zone in Korea to bases further south in the country

has been planned by the Department of Defense. Nevertheless, they noted that no

See Brian Whitmore, “US Looks East To Set Up New Europe Bases,” Boston Globe, July

12,2003, p. 1.

See Amy Svitak and Vince Crawley, “Germany-Based Divisions May Move Stateside,”

Army Times, August 4, 2003, p. 14.

See Howard W. French, “Official Says U.S. Will Reposition Its Troops In South Korea.”

New York Times, June 3, 2003, Jeremy Kirk and Franklin Fisher, “Army: No Timetable For

S. Korea Move,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, June 10, 2003, and Seo Soo-min, “ROK, US

Agree on Fast-Track Force Realignment,” Korea Times, June 30, 2003. The U.S.

ambassador to the Republic of Korea has since cautioned that the redeployment of troops

from their current location in Seoul to their new positions will be slow, awaiting the funding

of necessary construction by the host nation and by the Congress. See Sim Sung-tae,

“Envoy: Redeploying Troops Takes Time,” Korea Herald, July 8, 2003.

CRS-13

master plan exists for the consolidation of these troops within Camp Humphreys, the

Department's stated goal. The conferees agreed to allow planning for construction at

Camp Humphreys to proceed, but construction itself may not commence until a

master facilities plan is developed and cost-sharing arrangements for the relocation

of US forces has been agreed with the government of the Republic of Korea.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Four BRAC rounds have been

completed since the first in 1989. A fifth round, expected to affect as many

installations as the previous four rounds combined, is scheduled to take effect in

FY2005.

Under statutory language included in the National Defense Authorization Act

for FY2002, the Secretary of Defense is required to publish by December 31, 2003,

an initial list of the criteria he will use to recommend base closure and realignment

actions. The Secretary’s force structure plan, a comprehensive base inventory, and

certification that the BRAC round is needed are to be included with the presidential

submission of his FY2005 budget in early February 2004. Congress will have the

opportunity to disapprove the Secretary’s selection criteria during early 2004. The

final presidential list of BRAC actions is due to the Congress on November 7, 2005.20

The Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI). Some press reports have referred

to the FY2005 BRAC round as the “Efficient Facilities Initiative.” This substitution

is inaccurate and has led to some confusion. In fact, BRAC and Efficient Facilities

Initiative are defined in statute and refer to two different processes.

The original Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) was a new approach to reducing

and managing DOD real property holdings and was intended to substitute for a repeat

BRAC round. The EFI was intended to encompass all military installations, both

domestic and overseas, and would have instituted a different method of administering

many of the surviving bases.

The EFI was publicly announced by the Department of Defense on August 2,

2001, and the Department’s General Counsel submitted proposed legislation to

Congress on August 3. It included three major actions: the potential realignment and

closure of U.S. military installations overseas; the potential realignment and closure

of installations within the United States during FY2003; and the permanent

authorization of the Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project,

expanded to include all military services. The language as proposed was not adopted

by Congress.

Instead, Congress incorporated some aspects of the EFI into the National

Defense Authorization Act for FY2002.21 Because military bases on foreign territory

are established by agreement between governments, no legislation was needed to

begin the process of overseas bases. Congress ignored that portion of the EFI.

For a comprehensive review of the BRAC process, see CRS Report RL30440, Military

Base Closures: Estimates of Costs and Savings, by (name redacted), and CRS Report

RL30051, Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, by (name redacted).

S. 1438 (P.L. 107-107). H.Rept. 107-333 is the bill’s conference report.

CRS-14

Instead of approving the Secretary’s suggested process for review of domestic bases

and establishment of a permanent Department-wide Brooks-like base management

system, Congress created the FY2005 BRAC round in Title XXX of the Act and

authorized DOD to carry out a “Pilot Efficient Facilities Initiative” for a maximum

of four years at up to two military installations of each military department (Army,

Navy, and Air Force). These pilot initiatives were to be modeled on the Brooks Air

Force Base Development Demonstration Project in San Antonio, Texas.

The Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project.

The Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project (also known as the

“Base Efficiency Project” or the “Brooks City-Base Project”) is a partnership

between the Secretary of the Air Force and the City of San Antonio, Texas, and

represents an alternative to traditional base closings or realignments.

Usually, military reservations are federal land jurisdictionally independent of the

surrounding communities and governed by the base commander. Congress authorized

the Secretary to “convert any military or civil service appropriated or nonappropriated fund activity at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, into a contracted activity

or an exchange of services compensated for by the lease, sale, conveyance, or transfer

of real or private property.”22 This empowered the Secretary to transfer title, in

exchange for appropriate compensation, of the whole of federal real property at

Brooks to the city and to lease back for military use those parts that directly support

the base’s military mission.23 The base is then no longer federal property. The cost

of maintaining and operating the facility’s physical plant, including fire and police

protection, upkeep, and the like, is effectively transferred along with ownership from

the Department of Defense to the local community. Funds generated from the lease

or sale of property, reimbursements, and so on, is placed in a special Project Fund,

which the Secretary of the Air Force may employ for operations, leaseback,

maintenance and repair of Department facilities, and other uses.24

This has taken place at Brooks, and one aim of the EFI was to make the same

management tools available permanently to all service secretaries for use where they

considered appropriate. But Congress granted this authority only as a pilot project of

limited scope and duration. To date, the Department of Defense has not selected

candidate sites.

Perchlorate Groundwater Contamination Remediation. The Senate

Appropriations Committee included language in its report requiring the Department

of Defense to report not later than March 30, 2004, on the activities of the

Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee of the Department of Defense. The

Steering Committee was established in January 1998 to facilitate the flow of

Defense Appropriation Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-79) and Military Construction

Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-246).

This is often referred to as “sell and lease back.”

More information on the Brooks City-Base Project is available online at

[http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/edd/brooks/].

CRS-15

information between defense agencies on technological issues related to perchlorate

contamination of drinking water supplies and irrigation water supplies.

The report of the House Appropriations Committee on the defense

appropriations bill (H.R. 2658, H.Rept. 108-187) also addressed perchlorate

groundwater contamination. That Committee directed the Department of Defense to

conduct a joint study with the Environmental Protection Agency on perchlorate

contamination of water supplies in southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. This

report would be completed within 180 days of the enactment of the defense

appropriations bill and would recommend national groundwater contamination

standards, indicate the military and defense industry contamination sources, and

outline mitigation steps for which the federal government would be responsible.

The conferees directed the Department of Defense to submit a report identifying

sources of perchlorate contamination on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

properties along with plans to remediate this contamination. The conferees moved

the deadline for the submission of this report from the Senate-recommended March

30, 2004, to April 30, 2004.

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 for FY2001 and FY2002. The request for FY2004 rises

above the level requested for FY2003, and DOD projects that its annual construction

requests will approximately triple between FY2003 and FY2007 (see Figure 1).

CRS-16

Figure 1. 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.

Table 4 breaks down the FY2004 request by appropriations account and

compares it to FY2003 levels. Table 5 shows congressional action on current

military construction appropriations by account. Table 6 compares Administration

military construction requests and enactments for Guard and Reserve projects from

FY1994-FY2004.

Legislation

Military Construction Appropriations

H.R. 2559 (Knollenberg). Making appropriations for military construction,

family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. H.R. 2559 was

reported out of committee on June 17, 2003, and introduced to the House on June 23.

The bill passed the House on June 26, 2003 (428-0), and was sent to the Senate.

The Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559 on July 10, amending it by

striking all text after the enacting clause and substituting the text of S. 1357. On July

11, the Senate passed the bill (91-0), insisted upon its amendment, and requested a

CRS-17

conference with the House. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on a

motion passed without objection on September 16. The House then requested a

conference and appointed conferees. Conferees agreed on the final bill on November

4, and the House approved their report on November 5 (417-5, Roll No. 606). The

message on House action is being held at the desk in the Senate.

S. 1357 (Hutchinson). An original bill making appropriations for military

construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department

of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. S.

1357 was reported as an original measure on June 26, 2003. The Senate began

consideration of H.R. 2559 on July 10, amending it by striking all text after the

enacting clause and substituting the text of S. 1357. All subsequent action is listed

under H.R. 2559.

Defense Authorization

H.R. 1588 (Hunter, by request).25 To authorize appropriations for FY2004 for

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

prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2004, and for other purposes. Introduced

on April 23, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, it was further

referred to the Subcommittees on Projection Forces, Total Force, Readiness, Tactical

Air and Land Forces, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, and

Strategic Forces. The subcommittees completed markup and returned the bill to the

full committee on May 9. The Subcommittee on Readiness, which exercises

jurisdiction over the military construction portion of the authorization bill,

recommended increasing the requested funding for construction and adopted (16-5)

an amendment sponsored by Representative Gene Taylor (Miss.-04) that would

repeal the FY2005 round of base realignments and closures. The measure was passed

out by voice vote. The bill was reported out on May 16, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-106), and

placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 53). The committee filed a supplemental

report (H.Rept 108-106, Part II) on May 21. Brought to the floor on May 21, 2003,

subject to a rule (H.Res.245). H.R. 1588 was debated, amended, and passed by

recorded vote (361-68, Roll no. 221) on May 21 and 22.

The bill was received in the Senate on June 2, 2003, and on June 4 was laid

before the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate struck all after the Enacting

Clause and substituted the language of S. 1050. The bill passed with an amendment

by voice vote the same day (Congressional Record, S7297-7364).The Senate then

insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees. The Senate sent a message to the

House informing it of its action on June 5, 2003.

Conferees met for the first time on July 22. The House voted on September 10

to instruct its conferees regarding Sections 606 and 619 of the Senate amendment

(relating to the rates of pay for the family separation allowance and imminent danger

pay) (406-0, Roll No. 500, Congressional Record, H8167, et seq.). On September 17,

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-18

the House debated whether to instruct its conferees on Subtitle F of Title VI of the

Senate amendment (relating to naturalization and family protection for military

members) (Congressional Record, H8366-H8369). The vote on whether to accept the

motion occurred on September 23 (298-118, 18 not voting, Roll No. 511,

Congressional Record, H8466).

Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:

FY2003-FY2004

(new budget authority in thousands of dollars)

FY2003

Enacted

FY2004

Request

FY2004

Conference

MilCon, Army

MilCon, Navy

1,636,334

1,351,888

1,536,010

1,132,858

1,264,624

1,192,836

MilCon, Air Force

MilCon, Defense-wide

1,201,266

866,669

830,671

694,301

1,044,751

701,162

Total: Active Components

MilCon, Army National Guard

5,056,157

241,377

4,193,840

168,298

4,203,373

311,592

MilCon, Air National Guard

MilCon, Army Reserve

203,813

100,554

60,430

68,478

222,908

88,451

MilCon, Navy Reserve

MilCon, Air Force Reserve

74,921

85,826

28,032

44,312

45,498

62,032

Total: Reserve Components

Total: Military Construction

706,491

5,762,648

369,550

4,563,390

730,481

4,933,854

NATO Security Investment Program

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

167,200

275,436

1,106,007

169,300

356,891

1,043,026

161,300

289,440

1,033,026

373,816

184,193

143,685

861,788

852,778

835,078

676,042

864,850

637,718

834,468

637,718

816,074

Family Housing Const., Def-wide

5,480

350

Family Housing Operation & Debt, Defwide

42,395

49,440

DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund

2,000

300

(9,392)

4,207,814

561,138

3,959,164

370,427

3,795,419

370,427

55,000

9,117,281

9,316,000

Account

Total: Family Housing

Total: BRAC Acct.

General Provision (CBO est.)

GRAND TOTAL

10,698,800

Source: Data for FY2003 Enacted from H.Rept. 108-173; H.Rept. 108-342.

CRS-19

Table 5. Military Construction FY2004 Appropriations by

Account; Congressional Action

(in thousands of dollars)

FY2004

Request*

House

Bill

Senate

Bill

Conferenc

MilCon, Army

1,536,010

1,350,045

1,071,540

1,264,624

MilCon, Navy

1,132,858

1,171,755

1,156,337

1,192,836

MilCon, Air Force

830,671

896,136

1,056,377

1,044,751

MilCon, Defense-wide

694,301

780,933

679,887

701,162

Total: Active Components

4,193,840

4,198,869

3,964,141

4,203,373

MilCon, Army Nat’l. Guard

168,298

208,033

304,085

311,592

MilCon, Air National Guard

60,430

77,105

221,013

222,908

MilCon, Army Reserve

68,478

84,569

73,979

88,451

MilCon, Naval Reserve

28,032

38,992

34,742

45,498

MilCon, Air Force Reserve

44,312

56,212

57,426

62,032

Total: Reserve Components

369,550

464,911

691,245

730,481

Total: Military Construction

NATO Security Investment

Program

4,563,390

4,663,780

4,655,386

4,933,854

169,300

161,300

Family Housing Const., Army

Family Housing Ops & Maint,

Army

Family Housing Const.,

Navy & Marine Corps

Family Housing Ops & Maint,

Navy & Marine Corps

Family Housing Const.,

Air Force

Family Housing Ops & Maint,

Air Force

Family Housing Const,

Defense-wide

Family Housing Ops & Maint,

Defense-wide

DOD Family Housing

Improvement Fund

356,891

289,440

1,043,026

1,033,026

184,193

180,608

143,685

852,778

835,078

637,718

628,026

637,718

834,468

826,074

834,468

816,074

350

49,440

300

(9,392)

3,959,164

3,937,493

3,945,887

3,795,419

BRAC Acct.

370,427

General Provision (CBO est.)

55,000

9,117,281

9,196,000

9,316,000

Account

Total: Family Housing

GRAND TOTAL

Sources: H.Rept. 108-173., S.Rept. 108-82, H.Rept. 108-342.

Note: Does not include Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2004.

* Data taken from H.Rept. 108-342.

CRS-20

Table 6. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget

Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,

FY1994-FY2004

(current year dollars in thousands)

Fiscal

Year

Army

National

Guard

Air

National

Guard

Army

Reserve

1994 Req.

50,865

142,353

1994

Enacted

302,719

1995 Req.

Total

Change

from

Request

Naval

Reserve

Air

Force

Reserve

Total

82,233

20,591

55,727

351,769

–

247,491

102,040

25,029

74,486

751,765

+399,996

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

+473,932

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

85,826

706,491

+387,064

2004 Req.

168,298

60,430

68,478

28,032

44,312

369,550

–

2004

Conference

311,592

222,908

88,451

45,498

62,032

730,481

+360,931

Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years, H.Rept. 108-342.

CRS-21

For Additional Information

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31310. Appropriations for FY2003: Military Construction, by

Daniel Else.

CRS Report RL31805. Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004: Defense, by

(name redacted) and

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL32090, FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan,

and the Global War on Terrorism: Military Operations & Reconstruction

Assistance, by (name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name

redacted).

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

me redacted) and

ame(nredacted).

CRS Report RL31187. Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on

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

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

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

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

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL30440. Military Base Closures: Estimates of Costs and Savings, by

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, 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/]

CRS-22

General Accounting Office

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

U.S. Department of Defense Sites

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

FY2004 Budget Materials

[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2004/index.html]

U.S. Department of Defense, Installations & Environment Home Page

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

White House Sites

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

Materials

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/]

Office of Management & Budget

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

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

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.