The Military Construction Appropriations conference report, recommending $8.834 billion,was approved by the House on June 29, 2000, and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L.106-246 on July 13, 2000. In authorization action, on May 18, 2000, the House approved its defense authorization bill ( H.R. 4205 , H.Rept. 106-616 ). The Senate substituted their version of the defenseauthorization bill - S. 2549 , S.Rept. 106-292 - in H.R. 4205 and passedthat bill on July 13, 2000. The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-945 ) was passed by the House onOctober 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The conference authorized $8.8 billion,$787 million more than the President's request. The FY2001 defense authorization bill became P.L.106-398 on October 30, 2000. The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world's largest dedicated infrastructure,covering over 40,000 square miles of land and a physical plant worth over $500 billion. The militaryconstruction appropriations bill provides a large part of the funding to maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds construction projects and real property maintenance of the active Army, Navy &Marine Corps, Air Force, and their reserve components; defense-wide construction; U.S.contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program (formerly called the NATO InfrastructureProgram); and military family housing operations and construction. The bill also provides fundingfor the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account, which finances most base realignment andclosure costs, including construction of new facilities for transferred personnel and functions, andenvironmental cleanup at closing sites. The military construction appropriations bill is only one of several annual pieces of legislation that provide funding for national defense. Other major legislation includes (1) the defenseappropriations bill, that provides funds for all military activities of the Department of Defense,except for military construction; (2) the national defense authorization bill, that authorizesappropriations for national defense, (1) and (3) theenergy and water development appropriations bill,that provides funding for atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. Two otherappropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State, also includesmall amounts for national defense. In addition, the energy and water development appropriationsbill provides funds for civil projects carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The annual defense authorization bill authorizes all the activities in the defense appropriation measures described above. Therefore, major debates over defense policy and funding issues,including military construction can be also found in the authorization bill. Since issues in thedefense authorization and appropriations bills intertwine, this report highlights salient parts of theauthorization bill, along with the military construction appropriation process. The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s when a large defense build-up occurred in response to intercontinental ballistic missile threats and the Sovietlaunch of Sputnik. Defense construction spending soared, as facilities were hardened, missile siloswere constructed, and other infrastructure was built. The appropriations committees established themilitary construction subcommittees to deal with this new level of activity. Consequently, theseparate military construction bill was created. The first stand-alone military construction bill wasin FY1959, P.L. 85-852. Previously, military construction funding was provided through annualdefense appropriations or supplemental appropriations bills. Military construction appropriations are the major, but not the sole, source of funds for facility investments by the military services and defense agencies. The defense appropriations bill providessome funds for real property maintenance in operation and maintenance accounts. In addition, fundsfor construction and maintenance of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation-related facilities are partiallyprovided through proceeds of commissaries, recreation user fees, and other income. Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal year. Military construction appropriations are an exception, since these funds are generally made available forobligation for five fiscal years. Consideration of the military construction budget starts when the President's budget is delivered to Congress early each year. For FY2001, the President requested $8.0 billion in funding for themilitary construction program. Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the FY2001 militaryconstruction appropriations. Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations,FY2001 Conference Appropriations Action. The Military Construction Appropriations conferencereport, recommending $8.834 billion, was approved by the House on June 29, 2000,and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L. 106-246 on July 13, 2000. Theconference report debate centered on domestic and defense items in the FY2000supplemental emergency appropriations. (For more details, see SenateAppropriations Emergency Appropriations Action for FY2000 section, below.) House Appropriations Action. On May 16, 2000, the House passed the FY2001 Military Construction AppropriationsAct ( H.R. 4425 ), by a 386-22 roll call vote. The House followed theHouse Appropriations Committee's lead and passed the bill with only oneamendment. The Traficant amendment prohibits any money in the bill from goingto individuals or companies convicted of violating the "Buy American" laws. The House Appropriations Committee decided, as written in its report ( H.Rept. 106-614 ) to: reprimand the Pentagon about serious shortfalls in the militaryconstruction request and the severe backlog in readiness, revitalization, and qualityof life projects, deny the Pentagon's advance appropriations requests, direct the DOD Comptroller to monitor the impact of nocontingency funding for construction and hopes this action will improve the Services'cost estimating, and expect the Pentagon to include facility modernization programsin its Quadrennial Defense Review. The $8.634 billion bill passed by voice vote. This bill is 4% over last year's billand some $600 million more than the President's FY2001 request. The bill provides$3.9 for military construction, $3.5 million for family housing and $1.2 billion forBase Realignment and Closure costs. (2) Senate Appropriations Action. On May 18, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2521 , by a vote of 96-4. Because emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2000 was added to this bill,the debate on S. 2521 has centered on domestic and defense ridersattached on the bill. (See below.) On May 9, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version ( S. 2521 ), of the FY2001 military construction appropriations bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee decided, as written in its report ( S.Rept. 106-290 ) to: chastise the Pentagon for its inadequately-fundedproposal, require the Pentagon to add 5% contingency funding in itsFY2002 request, in order to promote flexibility in completing projects (the Pentagonproposed zero in FY2001), and continue to require the Pentagon to report repair projects inOperations and Maintenance account funding to Congress. The $8.634 billion bill passed by voice vote. This bill is $292 million over last year's bill and some $600 million more than the President's FY2001 request. The billprovides $3.81 for military construction, $3.5 million for family housing and $1.2billion for Base Realignment and Closure costs. (3) Senate Appropriations Emergency Supplemental Action for FY2000. FY2000 supplemental funding was attached tothis Senate bill, S. 2521 . Defense items include: peacekeeping costs inKosovo and East Timor, counter-terrorism, growth in fuel and health-care costs forDOD dependents and retirees, and counter-narcotics costs in Columbia. (For acomplete list of supplemental items attached to S. 2521 , see Appendix1.) The debate on S. 2521 is centering on supplemental riders on guncontrol and Kosovo. The most controversial provision that would have put adeadline to have U.S. troops withdraw from Kosovo, by July 1, 2001, was voteddown by the Senate. For background and comprehensive information on the supplemental, see CRS Report RL30457(pdf) , Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia,Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance and Other Initiatives , by[author name scrubbed], et al. For background on the Kosovo operations, see CRS Issue Brief IB98041, Kosovo and U.S. Policy , by Steve Woehrel, and CRS Issue Brief IB10027, Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations, by [author name scrubbed]. On May 18, 2000, the House passed the defense authorization bill ( H.R. 4205 , H.Rept. 106-616 ) Following the lead of the MilitaryConstruction Subcommittee, the House recommended $8.4 billion dollars for militaryconstruction, $400 million more than the President's request. The Senate substituted their version of the defense authorization bill - S. 2549 , S.Rept. 106-292 - in H.R. 4205 and passed thatbill by 97-3 on July 13, 2000. The Senate recommended $8.46 billion for militaryconstruction, $430 million more than the President's request. The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-945 ) was passed by the House on October 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The FY2001 defense authorizationbill became P.L. 106-398 on October 30, 2000. The conference authorized $8.8 billion, $787 million more than the President's request. The conferees added over $200 million of the service chiefs' unfundedrequirements and emphasized additions to improved living and working conditionsfor military personnel and their families. The conference also agreed to extend the alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing in Section 2806 - better known as MilitaryHousing Privatization Initiative. It is extended from February 10, 2001, to December31, 2004. (For more information on this initiative, see the Key Policy Issues sectionbelow.) Long-term Planning for Military Construction. Throughout the 1990s, Congress and Administrationhave debated whether military construction funding and long-term planning areadequate. Members of Congress have complained that poor planning and insufficientfunding on the Pentagon's part have made it difficult for Congress to insure thatmilitary construction plans meet pressing priorities. The Department of Defense uses a formal process called the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) to create its budget for Congress. (4) ThePPBS process is also used to prepare DOD's internal, long-term financial plan. Thelong-term plan extends over a six-year period and is known as the Future YearsDefense Plan (FYDP). During the 1990s, Congress has criticized the Pentagon'slong-term planning for military construction. In hearings on the FY2001 military construction request, legislators expressedcontinuing concern over military construction planning and the sufficiency offunding. Rep. Joel Hefley, Chair of the Military Installations and FacilitiesSubcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) argued at a hearingon March 2, 2000, that the FY2001 budget request - like the previous FY1997-00requests - continues the poor planning and downward trend for military constructionbudgets. For the FY1997-2001 military construction requests, the Administrationrequested fewer funds than it had programmed in its budget assumptions in theprevious years' FYDP. This mismatch between plans and funding was cited in thecongressional criticism of the Pentagon's military construction planning. Since theFYDP and the requested amount decreases each year for military construction, Mr.Hefley states that he is finding it difficult to take Pentagon future plans for militaryconstruction seriously. That sentiment was echoed by the Senate AppropriationsMilitary Construction Subcommittee chair - Sen. Conrad Burns - who expresseddismay at the kind of long-term planning seen in the FY2001 military constructionproposal. At the March 2nd HASC hearing, Randall Yim, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations), outlined a new DOD approach to installation management,in response to the subcommittee's concerns about planning. Yim established anInstallation Policy Board, consisting of the senior service facilities leaders, seniorservice engineers and representatives from financing and program communities. ThisBoard, chaired by Yim, meets monthly to peer review and audit installationrequirements, to develop common standards between services and to provide a forumfor DOD-wide installations issues. Yim outlined three analytical tools that the Installation Policy Board is developing for more efficient planning. The first is a facilities strategic plan, soDOD knows what type of facilities are needed in the future. The second is thefacilities sustainment model, which uses auditable data to model and identify thefunds needed to keep facilities in good working order. The final tool is aninstallation readiness reporting system, so that installation readiness can beconsidered as part of operational readiness decisions. Reauthorization of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. DOD is requesting that Congress amendSection 2885, Title 10, U.S.C. to extend the Military Housing Privatization Initiative(MHPI) pilot program for an additional five years. The MHPI is set to expire inFebruary 2001. The DOD believes the authorities that the MHPI provides willcontribute significantly to its plan to solve its housing situation by 2010, whencombined with traditional government-funded construction. The defense authorization conference report for FY 2001 ( H.Rept. 106-945 ) approved an extension of these authorities in Section 2806 for an additional 3-yearperiod - from February 2001 to December 2004. Background on Problems in Military Family Housing. In testimony to the House Armed ServicesCommittee on March 16, 2000, the official in charge of DOD installations - Randall Yim - described the continuing problem of military family housing. Hestated that approximately two-thirds of DOD's nearly 300,000 family housing unitsneed extensive renovation or replacement. Yim also testified that fixing this problemusing only traditional military construction methods would take 30 years and cost asmuch as $16 billion. In his testimony, Yim emphasized that privatization of military family housing is just one part of a three part program to fix the DOD housing problem by 2010. Two other important components are increasing housing allowances to eliminateout-of-pocket costs for servicemembers and a strong military construction program. Increasing the housing allowance will reduce demand for on-base housing and atraditional government-funded construction program will continue to help fix on-basehousing. Definition of MHPI Authorities. Recognizing the severity of the family housing problem, Congress passed theMilitary Housing Privatization Initiative in the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act( P.L. 104-106 ). This gave the Pentagon new authorities to obtain private sectorfinancing and expertise for military housing. The authorities are: guarantees, both loan and rental; conveyance or lease of existing property andfacilities; differential lease payments; investments, both limited partnerships and stock/bondownership; and direct loans. The legislation enabled the new authorities to be used individually, or in combination. (5) History on Use of MHPI Authorities. Yim gave the history of DOD's implementation of the MHPI. In the early days ofusing these authorities (1996-1998), the Department of Defense's HousingRevitalization Support Office (HRSO) coordinated the application of the newauthorities and oversaw all aspects of the process from initial site visits to finalsolicitation. During this phase - said Yim - significant strides were made indeveloping program criteria, financial models, legal documents and budget scoringguidelines. Only two on-base projects reached the solicitation stage, however,largely due to a problems in DOD's centralized management structure. In October 1998, the Pentagon changed tactics and devolved the execution of housing privatization projects to the Services. (6) Todate, there have been four projectsawarded and/or completed, twelve projects solicited and fourteen planned, using theMHPI process. (7) Evaluation of MHPI. Progress of the privatization initiative has been slow. Representative Gene Taylor, Ranking Memberof the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the HASC stated at theMarch 16, 2000 hearing that Congress has been disappointed with the pace ofprivatization implementation. Taylor hoped that DOD will be able to find the rightmix of public and private funding and that the housing privatization concept will liveup to its promise of providing high quality housing for our troops and their families. The General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighted some concerns with the privatization initiative when it reviewed DOD's military housing situation in July1998. (8) Initial evaluation of life-cycle costs ofprivatized housing versus traditionalmilitary housing showed a potential savings of only about 10% or less. The proposedlong-term time horizons for some privatization projects of 50 years or more raised concerns that the housing might not be needed that far into future. Also, the GAOargued that Pentagon planning for military housing remains poor. GAO stated thathousing requirements are not integrated with particular facilities and communityneeds, that the plans underutilize the use of local housing and that there is poorcommunication between offices responsible for housing allowances and militaryhousing construction. GAO recommended that comprehensive, better integratedplans could help maximize the privatization initiative while minimizing total housingcosts. A March 2000 GAO follow-up study on the privatization initiative (9) reported thatsince no projects under the initiative have been fully implemented, there is little basisto evaluate whether the initiative will ultimately achieve its goals of eliminatinginadequate housing more economically and faster than could be achieved throughtraditional military construction financing. Also, the GAO points out that the DODdoes not have an evaluation plan to assess the initiative. The GAO recommended that the DOD create a privatization evaluation plan to be used consistently by all the Services. The plan should include performancemeasures, such as evaluation of each authority, comparison of actual to estimatedcosts of projects, assessment of developer performance, collection of data on the useand satisfaction of housing by service members. DOD agreed with GAO'srecommendations and has begun to create an evaluation plan. Privatization Initiative for Utility Infrastructure. Yim testified on March 16th that DOD is pursuingutility privatization through the authority of Section 2871 of Title 10 for cost savingsand recapitalization of aging infrastructure. The DOD would like to privatize 1,700utility systems by 2003, in order have public and private sector experts run andupgrade these systems according to best business practices. This authority requires that the long-term economic benefit of utilityprivatization exceeds the long-term economic and utility services costs. To date, 12systems at 7 installations have been privatized, representing a savings of more than$10 million, according to DOD. Through this authority, DOD divests ownership of the utility system (i.e. wires and pipes) where it is economically feasible. In certain locations and markets, energymanagement may be included in a proposal in order to offer the best value to thegovernment. To give incentives to DOD installations to privatize utilities, the DOD is asking Congress to amend this utility privatization authority. With the proposed change, theServices would be able to keep savings generated by utility privatization in theirinstallations, instead of the savings going to the general treasury. The Funding Pattern for Military Construction Budgets. In recent years, Congress has added significant amountsto annual Administration military construction budget requests. This has been arecurring pattern in the 1990s. The President proposes what Congress calls aninadequate military construction budget, especially for Guard and Reserve needs. Congress then adds funding for military construction, with some attention to Guardand Reserve projects. For example, Congress added $479 million in FY1996, $850million in FY1997, $800 million in FY1998, and $875 million in FY1999 to themilitary construction accounts. Congressional additions to the military construction budget have been common and controversial throughout the 1990s. Three themes explain the pattern ofrecurring congressional additions. First, some members of the military constructionsubcommittees have believed that military construction has been chronicallyunderfunded. This theme was echoed in hearings on the FY2001 budget and the reports from the House Appropriations Committee and the defense authorizingcommittees on bills for FY1998-2000. Second, often Congress has differentpriorities than the Administration, as reflected in frequent congressional cuts tooverseas construction requests and contributions to the NATO Security InvestmentProgram. Third, other Members of Congress, as Senator Bond commented duringthe floor debate on FY1996 military construction appropriations, believe that thePentagon counts on Congress to add money to Guard and Reserve programs. Inrecent years, Congress has added large amounts for National Guard and Reserveconstruction projects, including a peak amount of $451.1 million in FY2000. (See Table 5 .) Low military construction budgets has led to growing maintenance backlogs, inadequate budgets for installation maintenance, and conflict between congressional& Pentagon military construction priorities. Military construction proponents,including facility advocates in the military services, argue that military facilities havebeen systematically underfunded for many years. For example, GAO reported itsresults of a review of the management of real property assets by the DOD and theservices, at a March 1, 2000 hearing to the House Armed Services Subcommittee onReadiness. The review focused on properties that the services maintain and repairusing operation and maintenance accounts. The GAO pointed out that Congress hasbeen concerned about the DOD's real property maintenance since the 1950s. Recently, the backlog for deferred maintenance has grown from $8.9 billion in 1992to $14.6 billion in 1998. Also, DOD facility managers have not met their goal to allocate 3% of the plant replacement value of DOD facilities for annual construction and maintenance (calledreal property maintenance at the Pentagon). Although this 3% goal is below theaverage for public facilities nationwide, actual DOD funding has typically run at 1to 2% of plant replacement value. For example, the Navy testified on March 1, 2000to the House Armed Services Subcommittee for Readiness that the Navy budgeted 1.8% for real property maintenance. As a result, facility proponents welcome anycongressional additions. Finally, congressional military construction subcommittees - authorization as well as appropriations subcommittees - have frequently taken issue withAdministration military construction priorities. In the early 1990s, for example, thecommittees frequently reduced amounts requested for construction overseas - on thegrounds that troop levels abroad should be reduced and that allied burden-sharingcontributions should increase - and reallocated the funds to domestic projects. Inaddition, congressional committees have added unrequested funds for quality of lifeimprovements, such as day care centers and barracks renovation. Congress hasargued that the military services have tended to neglect these areas in favor ofwarfighting investments. The Debate Over Added Projects. Since Congress has added significant amounts to military construction budgets overthe last 10 years, congressional debate has centered on how to prioritize worthyadditional projects. In 1994, the Senate debate on the military construction appropriations bill focused on the amount of congressional additions to the request despite constraintson overall defense spending. Senator McCain, in particular, objected to the provisionof substantial amounts for projects that the Administration had not requested. Heargued that such projects largely represented "pork barrel" spending, and came at theexpense of higher priority defense programs. In Senate floor consideration of themilitary construction bill that year, the managers accepted a McCain amendment thatcalled for criteria to be applied to additional projects. His amendment included aprovision that any added project should be on the military lists of critical yetunbudgeted projects. The McCain amendment was not incorporated into the finalconference version of the bill, however, and the conference agreement provided over$900 million for unrequested construction projects. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1995 ( P.L. 103-337 ), however, incorporated Senator McCain's criteria as a "Sense of the Senate" provision, (10) providing that the unrequested projects should be: 1. essential to the DOD's national security mission, 2. not inconsistent with the Base Realignment and Closure Act, 3. in the services' Future Years Defense Plan (see above), 4. executable in the year they are authorized and appropriated, and 5. offset by reductions in other defense accounts, through advice from theSecretary of Defense. Since the 104th Congress, the House military construction authorizing and appropriations committees have also used similar criteria, in collaboration with thePentagon, to add projects to the military construction budget. Each potential projectneeds to pass the following criteria, similar to the McCain criteria: Is the projectessential to the DOD mission, consistent with BRAC plans, in the Future YearsDefense Plan and "executable" in the coming fiscal year? If the project can meetthose criteria, the military construction authorizing and appropriations committeesmay add the project. Debate over congressionally-added projects continues. In debate on the FY2000 military construction appropriations conference report, Senator McCaincontinued to discuss projects added by Congress. He noted that Congress addednearly $975 million of extra projects. Senator McCain presented his list ofquestionable projects in the Congressional Record , in a letter to the President and onhis web page http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/mil00cf.htm. The Administration has proposed $8.0 billion for the FY2001 militaryconstruction request. The conference report approved $8.8 billion. This totalcontinues a downward trend from the FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998 level of $9.3 billion, the FY1999 level of $9.0billion. The FY2001 enacted amount of $8.8 billion is more than the FY2000enacted amount of $8.4 billion. Table 2 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1996. Table 3 breaks down the FY2001 request by appropriations account and comparesit to FY1999 and FY2000 levels. Table 4 shows congressional action on militaryconstruction appropriations by account. Table 5 shows congressional militaryconstruction add-ons for Guard and Reserve projects from FY1985-2000. P.L. 106-246 , H.R. 4425 (Hobson) Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and baserealignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The House Committee onAppropriations reported an original measure, H.Rept. 106-614 , May 11, 2000. Passed House, 386 - 22 (Roll No. 184) (text: CR H3074-3076), May 16, 2000. Conference report ( H.Rept. 106-710 ) filed June 29, 2000. Mr. Young (FL) broughtup conference report by previously agreed to special order, June 29, 2000. Conference report passed House, 306 - 110 (Roll no. 362), June 29, 2000; passedSenate, by voice vote, June 30, 2000. Signed into law July 13, 2000. S. 2521 (Burns) An original bill making appropriations for military construction, family housing,and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal yearending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. Committee on Appropriationsordered to be reported an original measure, May 9, 2000. By Senator Burns fromCommittee on Appropriations filed written report, H.Rept. 106-290 , May 11, 2000. Measure laid before Senate, May 11, 2000. Considered by Senate, May 15-18, 2000. Senate incorporated this measure in H.R. 4425 as an amendment, May18, 2000. Senate passed companion measure H.R. 4425 in lieu of thismeasure (96 - 4) on May 18, 2000. H.R.4205 (Spence) To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of theDepartment of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnelstrengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. Reported (amended) by theCommittee on Armed Services ( H.Rept. 106-616 ), May 12, 2000. Considered bythe House, May 17-18, 2000. Passed House (353-63), May 18, 2000. Conferencereport H.Rept. 106-945 passed the House (382 - 31) on October 11, 2000. TheSenate agreed to conference report (90 - 3) on October 12, 2000. Became P.L.106-398 on October 30, 2000. S. 2549 (Warner) To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of theDepartment of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of theDepartment of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for theArmed Forces, and for other purposes. Committee on Armed Services ordered to bereported an original measure, May 9, 2000. Report filed ( S.Rept. 106-292 ), May 11,2000. Considered by the Senate, June 6-8, June 14, and June 19-20, 2000. Senatestruck all after the Enacting Clause for H.R. 4205 and substituted thelanguage of S. 2549 as amended and this passed the Senate in lieu of S. 2549 with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote, 97 - 3, on July 13, 2000. Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations,FY1996-2000 (budget authority in millions of dollars) Source: Actual FY1996-99 data, Estimate FY2000 and Request 2001 fromDepartment of Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables , Feb. 2000 & previousyears' reports. Enacted FY2001 data from H.Rept. 106-710 . Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:FY1999-2001 (in thousands of dollars) Source: FY1999-FY2001 Request from DOD, Financial Summary Tables , February2000. Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account -Congressional Action (in thousands of dollars) Source: H.Rept. 106-614 , S.Rept. 106-290 , H.Rept. 106-710 . Table 5. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD BudgetRequests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,FY1985-2000 (current year dollars in thousands) Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years. CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30002(pdf) . A Defense Budget Primer , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30505 . Appropriations for FY2001: Defense , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30447(pdf) . Defense Budget for FY2001: Data Summary , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), FY2001 Budget Materials http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/ U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page http://www.acq.osd.mil/installation House Committee on Appropriations http://www.house.gov/appropriations Senate Committee on Appropriations http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/ CRS Appropriations Products Guide http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov Office of Management & Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ 

Summary: The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill finances (1) military construction projects in the United States and overseas; (2) military family housing operations and construction;(3) U.S. contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program; and (4) most base realignment andclosure costs. This report reviews the appropriations and authorization process for military construction. The congressional debate perennially centers on the adequacy of the President's budget for militaryconstruction needs and the necessity for congressional add-ons, especially for Guard and Reserveprojects. In recent years, Congress has frequently complained that the Pentagon has not adequatelyfunded military construction. The Administration's FY2001 budget request for military construction is $8.0 billion, which is 5.5% below the level provided in FY2000. This continues a downward trend from the peakFY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998 level of $9.3 billion,the FY1999 level of $9.0 billion and the FY2000 level of $8.4 billion. On May 16, 2000, the House passed the Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2001 ( H.R. 4425 ), by a 386-22 roll call vote. The House followed the House AppropriationsCommittee's lead and passed the $8.634 billion bill with only one amendment. On May 18, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2521 , their version of the FY2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill, on a 95-4 vote. Because emergency supplemental appropriationsfor FY2000 was added onto this bill, the conference debate has focused on domestic and defenseissues outside of military construction. For background and comprehensive information on theFY2000 supplemental funding, see CRS Report RL30457(pdf) , Supplemental Appropriations forFY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance and OtherInitiatives , by [author name scrubbed], et al. The Military Construction Appropriations conference report, recommending $8.834 billion, was approved by the House on June 29, 2000, and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L. 106-246 on July 13, 2000. In authorization action, on May 18, 2000, the House approved its defense authorization bill ( H.R. 4205 , H.Rept. 106-616 ). The Senate substituted their version of the defenseauthorization bill - S. 2549 , S.Rept. 106-292 - in H.R. 4205 and passedthat bill on July 13, 2000. The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-945 ) was passed by the House onOctober 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The conference authorized $8.8 billion,$787 million more than the President's request. The FY2001 defense authorization bill became P.L.106-398 on October 30, 2000. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade.