Appropriations for FY2003: Military Construction
Released: 2003-02-12T00:00:00

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 AppropriationsCommittee 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 Committeemarked its version ( S. 2709 , S.Rept. 107-202 ) on June 27 and reported on July 3. TheSenate 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 theSenate 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 sentto the President on October 18 and enacted on October 23 as P.L. 107-249 , one of the twoappropriations 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 Senateon May 14. Equivalent authorization legislation ( S. 2514 ) was marked up by the SenateCommittee on the Armed Services on May 9 and reported with additional and minority views onMay 15 ( S.Rept. 107-151 ). S. 2514 was debated and amended in the Senate betweenJune 19 and June 27, when it passed with amendments 97-2 (Record Vote No. 165). Its text wasincorporated into H.R. 4546 and passed by unanimous consent. On July 25, the Houseamended the Senate amendment and appointed conferees. The Senate disagreed to the amendmentand appointed conferees. Conferees met on September 5 and reported the bill to the House onNovember 12 ( H.Rept. 107-772 ), where it was agreed to by voice vote. The Defense AuthorizationBill 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 meetingon February 10, 2003 (see below).

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 andmaintain this infrastructure. The bill funds construction projects and some of the facilitysustainment, restoration and modernization of the active Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force,and their reserve components; (2) additionaldefense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to theNATO Security Investment Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure Program); (3) andmilitary family housing operations and construction. The bill also provides funding for the BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC) account, which finances most base realignment and closure costs,including construction of new facilities for transferred personnel and functions and environmentalcleanup 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 defenseappropriations bill, which provides funds for all non-construction military activities of theDepartment of Defense and constitutes more than 90% of national security-related spending, and theenergy and water development appropriations bill, which provides funding for atomic energy defenseactivities of the Department of Energy and for civil projects carried out by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. Two other appropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies andCommerce-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 centuryCongress has forbidden the Department ofDefense to obligate funds for any project or program until specific authorization is granted. (7) Thisexplains why, for defense funds, both authorization and appropriations bills are required. Twoseparate defense appropriations bills are written annually, a "Military Construction AppropriationsAct" dedicated to military construction, and a "National Defense Appropriations Act" covering allother defense appropriations. (8) Normally only one"National Defense Authorization Act" is passedeach year to authorize both of these appropriations. (9) Therefore, major debates over defense policyand 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 includessalient parts of the authorization bill in its discussion of the military construction appropriationprocess.

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 increasein military construction appropriations. Given the strong and enduring security threat posed by theSoviet Union, a relatively high level of spending on military infrastructure appeared likely tocontinue. The appropriations committees established military construction subcommittees andcreated a separate military construction bill. The first stand-alone military construction bill waswritten 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 so-called minor constructionand property maintenance within its operations and maintenance accounts. In addition, constructionand maintenance of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation-related facilities are partially funded throughproceeds 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), (10) and the Department of Defense FamilyHousing Improvement Fund, (11) both of whichperform functions ancillary to the direct building ofmilitary 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 ofconstruction 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 hisbudget 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, andinstallation infrastructure (such as roads, utility services, and the like). Subcommittee hearingsduring previous congressional sessions contained lengthy discussions of the leveraging ofappropriated funds through the privatization of utility services at military installations and of somemilitary family housing. (12) Subcommittees havealso addressed the allocation of sufficient budgetauthority 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 FY2010as the target date for the elimination of all substandard military housing. Private development wasseen as a way to speed refurbishment or replacement while concurrently reducing the burden onappropriated funds, and Congress authorized DOD to use a set of "alternative" business practicesin its negotiations with private contractors, to include the creation of long-term public-private jointventures 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 IIof the venture at Naval Air Station Kingsville, Texas, to 5,912 units at Fort Hood, Texas. Projectscovering 24,518 housing units are now underway at installations operated by all four militaryservices. An additional 41,503 units in 26 projects are currently pending solicitation, and another 32projects with 54,193 units are being planned. (13) DOD is exploring ways to extend the privatizationprogram 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 dateto bring it forward to FY2007. The FY2003 budget authority request of $4.25 billion for militaryfamily 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 manymilitary bases as feasible. (15) Congress authorizedthe service secretaries to do this by conveying theseutilities to private ownership by a local utility company or other entity. (16) The award of privatizationcontracts 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, DODexpects to improve living and working conditions for those stationed overseas through more efficientutilization of its funds. Consolidation agreements have been concluded with both the FederalRepublic of Germany and the Republic of Korea. The commander of U.S. forces in Europe hasrequested funds for three construction projects to increase the capacity of the U.S. installation atGrafenwoehr, Germany. "Graf" is expected to accept personnel from 13 separate smaller facilitiesthat will be closed as part of the command's "Efficient Basing East" plan. A similar program, calledthe "Land Partnership Plan," has been negotiated between the commander of U.S. forces in Koreaand the government of the Republic of Korea. (18) This 10-year plan will close approximately half ofthe U.S. facilities currently located in South Korea and consolidate U.S. military personnel onto theremaining installations, which will be upgraded to accept them.

Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases. Through legislation passed during its first session, the 107th Congressauthorized a new round of military base realignments and closures (BRAC). Criteria to select basesfor inclusion in the new BRAC will be created and members will be appointed to a BRAC reviewcommission during FY2003, with realignment and closure action scheduled to begin duringFY2005. (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 beentransferred, but the process is not yet complete. For example, the 1995 BRAC round tasked theDepartment of the Army with closing and conveying title to approximately 248,800 acres of Armyproperty. 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 reasonthat more property had not been conveyed. (20) DODmaintains as its goal the transfer of all 1995BRAC property before beginning the 2005 round and has requested $545 million in FY2003 BRACfunds. (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 beappropriated in a BRAC Environmental Cleanup Acceleration Initiative in order to speed the transferof ownership of former military property to local authorities. Of this additional funding, $20 millionis to be allocated to the Army, $55 million to the Navy, and $25 million to the Air Force for their useat the most pressing unfunded environmental cleanup sites.

Efficient Facilities Initiative. On August 3, 2001, the General Counsel of Department of Defense submitted legislative language to Congress for aprogram termed the "Efficient Facilities Initiative," or EFI. The EFI included DOD's plan for a roundof base realignments and closures during FY2003 and the permanent authorization and expansionto all services of the Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project. (22) This languagewould have granted the service secretaries the authority to convey title to some or all of the federalproperty on a military installation to a non-federal entity (such as a local economic developmentauthority) with the intention of leasing back only those facilities needed to support the base's militarymission.

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. 107-107 ). Title XXXof the Act established the procedure for carrying out a FY2005 (vice FY2003) BRAC round. Section2813, instead of granting the requested permanent authority for conveyance and lease-back,permitted the three service secretaries to nominate two military installations in each militarydepartment for a 4-year pilot project aimed at determining its potential for increasing the efficiencyand 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 militaryconstruction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation process moves forward.

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2003

Dashes indicate no action yet taken.

Appropriations Action

House Appropriations Action. The House Subcommittee on Military Appropriations held a series of hearings on thebudget request dealing with the construction and family housing requirements of theindividual services, both active and reserve components, and the European andPacific commands between February 6 and April 17, 2002. The Subcommitteemarked 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 RulesCommittee 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) onJune 27, 2002. The bill was received in the Senate on June 28.The House rejected theSenate amendment on September 10, 2002, and appointed conferees.

Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Constructionheld hearings during March. Committee markup on its version of the bill wascompleted on June 27, 2002. The bill ( S. 2709 , S.Rept. 107-202 ) wasreported 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 LegislativeCalendar under General Orders on July 8, 2002 (Calendar No. 486). On July 17, theSenate 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 ) onOctober 10 on a 419-0 vote (Roll No. 458). The Senate adopted the conference reportby unanimous consent on October 11, 2002. The completed bill was sent to thePresident 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, individualconstruction projects for which new budget authority has been granted by Congress.Of these, more than 300 were adjusted (increased or decreased) during the periodbetween budget submission in February until enactment in October and December,respectively. In the Appendix , Tables 10 and 11 list the line items that wereadjusted during the legislative process, indicating the amount of new budget authorityrequested by the President, appropriated in the House, the Senate, and the finalconference versions of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, and authorizedby the National Defense Authorization Act. It is possible to follow the changes inproposed legislation by consulting these tables, ascertaining where each product wasintroduced, adjusted, or eliminated as the Congress exercised its oversight andfunding 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, andDOD has, in turn, passed executive responsibility for the program to the Departmentof the Army. The presidential submission placed this construction funding in theArmy budget, but Congress neither appropriated nor authorized the funding (zeroingout the request). Instead, Table 10 indicates funding for Pueblo Depot under theDefense-Wide (DOD) budget, with the House granting the full $38 million, theSenate passing a slightly reduced $36.1 million, and both appropriators andauthorizers agreeing on the requested amount of $38 million. The effect was toremove the project from the Army's budget and place it under the Department ofDefense.

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 theproject.

Table 11 can be similarly used for examining the military family housing portion of military construction appropriations. The first Army project listed is asingle housing unit in Stuttgart, Germany. The budget submission requested $990thousand for the work. The House passed an appropriation for the full amount, whilethe Senate reduced the project to $500 thousand. Neither the appropriationsconference nor the authorization included any funding (zeroing out the request).

Key Policy Issues

Several issues regarding military construction have gained visibility during thelegislative deliberations of the current session of Congress. Among these are: overalland specific account funding levels requested by the Administration; congressionaladditions to the military construction budget request; military housing (including theencouragement 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 February4, 2002, requested $8.987 billion in new budget authority, an amount $1.62 billionbelow the 2002 enactment. Subsequent additional requests included in the DefenseEmergency Response Fund (DERF) raised the total request to $9.578 billion in timefor House consideration of its bill. An additional $122.5 million in Army DERFrequests was later received by Congress and will be considered by the Senate. Thisraises the total Presidential budget request for FY2003 to $9.66 billion. The Senateis also expected to consider a $200 million Army and Air Force TransformationInitiative intended to appropriate a funding pool to accelerate the creation ofinfrastructure to support the Army's Interim Brigade Combat Team and Air ForceC-17 aircraft mobility programs. This and the upward adjustment of BRACenvironmental cleanup funding was not reckoned with by the House. The SenateAppropriations Committee has recommended a total of $10.62 billion in new militaryconstruction 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, theFY2003 request, and the bills as passed by the House and the Senate as reflected in Table 2 .

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 tomaintenance, management, provision of utilities, etc. There is also an increase infunding requested for general military construction overseas, reflecting a DOD effortto increase the quality of life in the workplace for military personnel stationed there.

Table 2. Budget Authority by Location ($000)

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, somemajor and minor construction projects, and classified projects for militaryconstruction; and maintenance, furnishings and utilities accounts for familyhousing, among others.

c. Special accounts include BRAC, the NATO Security Investment Fund, theHomeowners Assistance Fund (zeroed out this year), and the DOD FamilyHousing Improvement Fund.

The most noticeable reduction in budget authority is seen in domestic military construction. Table 3 compares military construction budget authority betweenFY2002 and FY2003 for military construction projects located within the UnitedStates, divided between the active duty and reserve (National Guard and federalreserves) components.

Table 3. Domestic Military Construction, Active Duty and Reserves ($000)

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 DonaldRumsfeld and DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim stated in a press briefing on February4, 2002, that they expected a 20 to 25% reduction in military bases during theFY2005 BRAC round and anticipated this with a reduced construction request. (23) Thisdecrease in construction was to be offset by an increase in sustainment funds. (24) Table4 compares the DOD sustainment funds requested for FY2003 with those actuallyexpended in FY2001 and appropriated for FY2002. (25)

Table 4. Sustainment Funding Trend, FY2001-FY2003 (Current $000)

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 DODfacilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM) accounts.

* These figures do not include additional funds requested for the FY2003DERF.

The table shows that sustainment funding rose $267 million between FY2001 and FY2002. If the same rate of increase (4.8%) occurred between FY2002 andFY2003, DOD would have been expected to request $6.089 billion. Instead, DODrequested $6.488 billion, or approximately $398 million beyond the normalexpectation. This increase may be considered to constitute the substantive additionalfunds 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 particularlyinadequate. (26) Until the late 1980s, the amount ofmilitary construction fundingappropriated by Congress for the Guard and Reserve rose steadily, closely matchingthe amounts requested by DOD. For FY1989, though, the Administration began todecrease its requests for Guard and Reserve construction. Congress responded byappropriating funds in excess of the request (see Figure 1 ). Senator ChristopherBond commented during floor debate on FY1996 military constructionappropriations that "National Guard forces traditionally have been underfunded" inconstruction requests submitted by the Pentagon. (27) Since FY1989, Congress hasconsistently appropriated more than the Administration request, and the gap betweenrequest and enactment has grown considerably. The House, after including the DERFrequest, passed an appropriation for Guard and Reserve construction $210 millionabove that asked for by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended adding $290 million to the Administration's Guard and Reserveconstruction request.

Military Housing. Military housing for both families and unaccompanied has been a highly visible militaryconstruction issue for several years. In the mid 1990s, then-Secretary of DefenseWilliam Cohen announced a goal of the elimination of substandard military housingby 2010. He proposed to do this using an increase in traditional DOD-fundedconstruction and renovation, plus less orthodox methods such as partnering withprivate enterprise to build and maintain housing and increasing the military BasicAllowance for Housing (BAH) to cover the cost of off-base housing. (28) At the presenttime, approximately one-third of military families live in government-ownedhousing.

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 withrespect to living space, amenities, etc. In addition, BAH compensation covered only85% of the cost (accommodation and utilities) of living off-base. DOD and Congressthen initiated several programs to encourage private investment and to increasefunding of traditional housing construction for both families and unaccompaniedmembers, and to increase the percentage of off-base housing costs covered bymilitary allowances. DOD now estimates that substandard housing will disappear forall military members and their families by 2007 and that out-of-pocket expensesassociated with living on the local economy will be eliminated by 2005. (29)

Because improvement and expansion of adequate housing on military installations may encourage the movement of significant numbers of military familiesonto bases, some members have expressed concern that local school districts servinglarge military communities may find their facility and personnel plans unexpectedlydisrupted. Language included in the House report for the Bob Stump NationalDefense 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 AirForce installations (Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, Ft. Hood, Texas, and Lackland AirForce Base, Texas) where large housing privatization projects are underway. (30)

Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Administration defense budget request for operations andmaintenance (considered part of the defense appropriation, not the militaryconstruction appropriation) contained a single new entry for $20.1 billion entitled theDefense Emergency Response Fund (DERF). (31) This is intended for use by DOD torespond to or protect against acts of terrorism. The request contained detailedjustification for $10.1 billion, or about half of the total request, of which DODidentified approximately $594 million as appropriate for consideration as militaryconstruction to enhance physical security at military installations. (32) The DERF is atransfer fund, which is used to shift appropriations between accounts withoutadherence to normal congressional reprogramming or notification requirements. TheHouse Appropriations Committee considered $594 million of the DERF to be partof the Administration's military construction appropriation request and added it tothe suitable appropriations accounts. The Administration forwarded an additionalDERF request too late for House consideration but in time for Senate and conferenceaction. DERF funding, as requested by the President and recommended by theconference committee, is shown in Table 5 .

Additional Omnibus Appropriations. Additional defense and military constructionappropriations language was included in Division M (Other Matters), Title I (DefenseRelated Technical Corrections) of the Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 2 of the 108th Congress (the Omnibus Appropriations Act) (January 15, CRS988-S909). Several provisions of the bill amend P.L. 107-249 (the MilitaryConstruction 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 beobligated for Partnership for Peace Programs in the New Independent States of theformer Soviet Union," to read "Not more than $2,000,000 of the funds appropriatedor 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 fulfillobligations under the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999. (33) The USFWS is thenpermitted to grant these funds to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation toreplace 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 variousreprogramming thresholds, a raise in the limit placed on expense/investment valuefor items purchased with Operation and Maintenance funds from $100,000 to$250,000, various transfers of defense appropriations between accounts, and anadditional 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[author name scrubbed]. (35)

Table 5. DERF Military Construction Allocation by Account ($000)

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

Major Funding Trends

Between FY1985 and FY1998, funding devoted to military constructiondeclined steadily as DOD and Congress struggled with a changing strategicenvironment, a shrinking military force, and the uncertainties associated with severalrounds of base realignments and closures. Appropriations began to rise with FY1998as Congress sought to replace outdated facilities and improve the quality of life formilitary personnel at home and in the workplace. Administration requests for militaryconstruction funding (not including BRAC and family housing) continued to declineuntil FY2000, but have risen forFY2001 and 2002. The request for FY2003 dips, butDOD projects that its annual construction requests will approximately triple betweenFY2003 and FY2007 (see Figure 2 ).

Prior to FY1994, Congress considered Administration requests to exceed realconstruction requirements, typically appropriating less new budget authority thanrequested. This pattern reversed with the FY1995 budget. Every year since then,Congress has added to Administration requests, countering what Members havetermed "inadequate" funding for military construction. The DOD request forconstruction funds for FY2003 fell relative to both its FY2002 request and thesubsequent enactment, anticipating the FY2005 round of base realignments andclosures, according to statements made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldand DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim. DOD projects that future requests for militaryconstruction 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 requestby appropriations account and compares it to FY2002 levels. Table 8 showscongressional action on current military construction appropriations by account. Table 9 compares Administration military construction requests and enactments forGuard and Reserve projects from FY1993-2003.

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 notcontain significant military construction funding. Introduced as an original bill onMay 20, 2002, by the House Committee on Appropriations with H.Rept. 107-480 andplaced 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 Senatestruck 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, andcontinued 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 of71-22 (Record Vote No. 145), insisted on its amendment, and appointed conferees.The House disagreed with the amendment and appointed its own conferees on June12 (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 businesson 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 actionwas reported to the House and the bill was cleared for the President. The bill wasenacted by the President on August 2, 2002 ( P.L. 107-206 ).

Military Construction Appropriations

H.R. 5011 (Hobson). Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Departmentof Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.The House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Constructionheld a series of hearings between February 6 and April 17, 2002. The Subcommitteemarkup was forwarded to the full Committee on June 12. The full Committee marktook place on June 24. The bill was reported on June 25 ( H.Rept. 107-533 , CRH3914, H3927). A rule was reported ( H.Res. 462 ) on the bill on June26 (CR H4039, H4064, H4067). H.R. 5011 was considered and passedon a 426-1 vote (Roll No. 277). The bill was read twice in the Senate and placed onthe 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 appointedits conferees on September 10, 2002. Conferees met on October 8. The Houseaccepted 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 onOctober 11. The completed bill was sent to the President on October 18, thoughwithout the companion authorization bill ( H.R. 4546 ), which had notbeen passed as of that date. The President signed the bill on October 23 as P.L.107-249 .

S. 2709 (Feinstein). The Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction held hearings during March. The Senatereceived the House Military Construction Appropriations Bill ( H.R. 5011 ) on June 28 (CR S6317). The Senate Appropriations Committee marked itsversion 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) andplaced on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 479). TheSenate 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 appropriationsfor FY2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, and for militaryconstruction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2003, and for otherpurposes. Introduced on April 23, 2002, and referred to the Committee on ArmedServices, it was further referred to the Subcommittees on Military Personnel, MilitaryInstallations and Facilities, and Military Readiness (amendment added) on April 25and returned to the full Committee on the same day. The Subcommittee on MilitaryInstallations and Facilities, which exercises jurisdiction over the military constructionportion of the authorization bill, defeated (3-13-2) an amendment that would haverepealed existing authority to conduct an FY2005 round of base realignments andclosures (BRAC). The bill was referred to the Subcommittees on MilitaryProcurement and Military Research and Development on April 30 and returned to thefull 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 (adissenting opinion, H.Rept 107-436 , Part II, CR H2108) was filed on May 6. Broughtto 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, andon May 16 was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (CalendarNo. 379). The bill was amended in the Senate on June 27 by the substitution of thetext of S. 2514 (see below) after the enabling clause CR S6225). The billwas passed by unanimous consent and the Senate appointed conferees. A messageon the Senate action was sent to the House on July 8. On July 25, the RulesCommittee reported to the House ( H.Res. 500 ) the rule for considerationof the amended bill. The House amended the Senate amendment and appointedconferees and voted to instruct them (419-2, Roll no. 349). The Senate disagreed byUnanimous Consent to the House amendment on July 26 and appointed conferees.The conferees began meeting on September 5, 2002. On October 10, the House voted391-0 to instruct its conferees (Roll No. 463). The Military ConstructionAppropriations bill ( H.R. 5011 ) was sent to the President on October 18and enacted as P.L. 107-249 . Conferees reported the authorization bill to the Houseon November 12 ( H.Rept. 107-772 ), where it was agreed to by voice vote. ThePresident 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 militarypersonnel strengths for FY2003. Companion bill to H.R. 4546 ,introduced on April 23, to authorize the $10.0 billion designated as incrementalfunding for ongoing operations in the war on terrorism (the "war reserve fund"), asspecified in the Budget Resolution for FY2003 ( H.Con.Res. 353 ). Alsoknown as the Costs of War/Substitute Amendment, the original bill was amended onMay 1 to authorize the war reserve fund. Of this, $3.7 billion would be used toreplace equipment destroyed in the war in Afghanistan, upgrade equipment anddefray other war-related costs, and offer war-related pay to military personnel. HouseArmed 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 tosuspend 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 tothe Committee on Armed Services.

S. 2514 (Levin). (37) An original bill to authorize appropriations forFY2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for militaryconstruction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribepersonnel 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 May15, 2002 ( S.Rept. 107-151 , CR S4387). Placed on the Legislative Calendar underGeneral Orders (Calendar No. 370). Debate on the defense authorization bill beganin the Senate on June 19 (CR beginning S5727). S. 2514 was passed onJune 27 with amendments on a vote of 97-2 (Record Vote No. 165). It was thenincorporated into H.R. 4546 and passed by unanimous consent (CRS6178-80, 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 theHouse Appropriations Committee introduced a bill making further appropriations forFY2003. The bill was passed on January 8 (CR H121) and received in the Senate onJanuary 9. It was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (CalendarNo. 1) and laid before the Senate be unanimous consent on January 15 (CRS340-S839). Senator Stevens offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute.Numerous additional 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 VoteNumber 28, CR S1379-S1419). The Senate insisted on its amendment and appointedconferees. On January 29, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment andagreed without objection to a conference (CR H224-9). Mr. Obey moved that theconferees 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)

Source: Actual FY1999-2001 data, Estimate FY2002 and Request FY2003 from Department of Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables , February 2002 andprevious years' reports, H.Rept. 107-731 .

Notes: "Actual" and "Estimated" budget authority differs from "Enacted" amountsby funds reprogrammed (transferred) by the Department of Defense betweenappropriations accounts. Military Construction in this table includes BRAC funding,but not NSIP.

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

Table 7. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2002-FY2003 (new budget authority inthousands of dollars)

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, doesnot include additional appropriations included in H.J.Res 2 of the 108thCongress.

Table 8. Military Construction FY2003 Appropriations by Account; Congressional Action (inthousands of dollars)

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 asconsidered by the conference committee, does not include additional appropriationsincluded in H.J.Res 2 of the 108th Congress.

Table 9. Congressional Additions to AnnualDOD Budget Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,FY1993-FY2003 (current year dollars in thousands)

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

* Includes DERF requests of $594 million (House) and $717 million (Request andSenate), does not include additional appropriations included in H.J.Res 2 of the 108th Congress.

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 [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL31349(pdf) . Defense Budget for FY2003: Data Summary , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL31187(pdf) . Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental Allocations , by [author name scrubbed] and Larry Q. Nowels,

CRS Report RL31005 . Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30002(pdf) . A Defense Budget Primer , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30440 . Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30051 . Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round? , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed].

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/

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/

Appendix

These tables include only those projects and other line items that were eitherrequested by the President or appropriated or authorized by Congress. Table 10 shows changes to military construction projects and line items, while Table 11 doesthe same for family housing. Many DERF items show presidential requests and noHouse-recommended appropriations. This was caused by the late submission by thePresident of much of the DERF request.

Table 10. Changes in Project Funding, Military Construction Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations and Authorization ($000)

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.

Table 11. Changes in Project Funding, Military Family Housing Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations and Authorization ($000)

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.