The House Appropriations Committee introduced its Military Construction Appropriations Billfor Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 ( H.R. 2559 , H.Rept. 108-173 ) on June 23, 2003. The Houseconsidered 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 thetext 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 theSenate amendment (motion to do so was carried without objection) and appointed conferees. Theconference report was completed on November 4, 2003, and was passed by the House on November5 (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, andsent notice of its action to the House. The conference report ( H.Rept. 108-337 ) was filed on October30. The House approved the report on October 31 (298-121, Roll No. 601), and the Senate approvedby 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 onSeptember 10 (406-0). 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; (1) additionaldefense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to theNATO Security Investment Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure Program); (2) 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. (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 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. (4) No funds may be expended by any agency of the federal government before they are appropriated. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Normally only one"National Defense Authorization Act" is passedeach year to authorize both of these appropriations. (8) 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), (9) and the Department of Defense FamilyHousing Improvement Fund, (10) 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 hisFY2004 budget request to the Congress on February 3, 2003. Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the FY2004 militaryconstruction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation process moves forward. Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2004 Notes: Dashes indicate no action yet taken. House Appropriations Action. Following a series of hearings by the House Subcommittee on MilitaryAppropriations, 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 placedon the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 88). The House considered the bill under theprovisions 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 Constructionheld hearings on its bill during March and April of 2003. The full Committeereported 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 . TheSenate passed the bill on July 11 (91-0), insisted on its amendment, and requested aconference 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 meetingon October 22, the conferees had not agreed on a final report. Difference betweenHouse and Senate managers appeared to center on allocations of funding forconstruction projects in Europe and in the Republic of Korea, where the Presidenthad requested $292 million, but where the future of many installations remains indoubt (See Realignment of Overseas Bases , below). The conferees agreed on theirbill 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. 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 bill (11) to themilitary construction appropriations bill and calculations performed by theCongressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to an Administration request for ageneral provision of funding related to the "Foreign Currency Fluctuations,Construction, Defense" account. The funding transfers included $25,500,000 for thepurpose of constructing a Special Operations Forces facility and $119,815,000 forchemical demilitarization construction. The CBO calculation resulted in are-appropriation of $55 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee similarly amended the President's budget submission, including the transfer of funds for the Special Operations Forces facilityand the CBO calculation. It did not include the transfer of chemical demilitarizationconstruction funds from the defense appropriations bill, as had been done in theHouse version of the bill. (12) Therefore, the Senateversion of the budget submissionis quoted as $9,117,281,000. (13) On September 21, 2003, the President forwarded to Congress his request for an emergency, non-offset supplemental appropriations for FY2004. (14) The House andSenate 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 ($10.5million), and Operation Noble Eagle ($2.2 million). Also, $1.4 million was identifiedas 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 destinedfor the Air Force. The anticipated use of these funds is laid out in Table 2 . Notincluded in the military construction portion of the request is additional funding forbeddown facilities for approximately 25,000 soldiers. Consisting of trailers andcontainers equipped with housing and shower facilities, these accommodations areto be drawn from the Army Operation and Maintenance ($21.2 billion total) andOther Procurement ($930.7 million) supplemental appropriations requests. Table 3 compares presidential account requests with recommendations made by the Houseand Senate Committees on Appropriations. The request also includes authorization to transfer significant funding into construction from other accounts. Iraqi Freedom Fund. The Operations and Maintenance section requests $1.99 billion for an Iraqi FreedomFund (IFF). The IFF is a transfer account, or an account that is not dedicated to anyspecific purpose. Rather, it can be considered a "holding pot" for funds that may betransferred to other accounts at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. Therequest justifies the creation of a transfer account by noting "the unpredictable scope,duration, and intensity" of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thisprovision 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 otherexisting transfer authority. Funds may be transferred from the IFF to militarypersonnel, operation and maintenance, Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster Assistanceand Civic Aid, procurement, military construction, Defense Health Program, andworking capital appropriations accounts. Any funds deemed to be in excess aftertransfer to a regular appropriations account may be returned to the IFF for subsequentretransfer. The request specifies that the Secretary of Defense will notify thecongressional defense committees not less than five (5) days in advance of anytransfer and will summarize the details of IFF transfers not later than 30 days afterthe end of each fiscal quarter. Contingency Construction. Under Chapter 8 (General Provisions), the Secretary of Defense asked for the authority totransfer up to $500 million of the supplemental appropriations into a contingencyconstruction account. This proposal did not survive, but Section 1301 of the enactedbill provided temporary authority for the use of up to $150 million of operations andmaintenance 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 anymilitary construction project not otherwise authorized if the Secretary determines thatits deferral to the next Military Construction Appropriations Act would beinconsistent 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 congressionalcommittees. 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 mustalso include an estimate of the project's cost. Section 2804 also bars the Secretaryfrom carrying out the project until after the end of a 21-day period that begins on thedate 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 afternotification was sent to the appropriate congressional committees by the Secretaryof Defense. This notification would have certified "that the transfer is necessary torespond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism or to supportDepartment of Defense operations in Iraq, and [specify] the amounts and purposesof the transfer, including a list of proposed projects and their estimated costs." The recommendation further specified that, notwithstanding the 21-day waiting period required under Title 10, the Secretary of Defense "shall notify the appropriatecommittees of Congress no later than 15 days after the obligation of the funds for theproject, specifying the estimated cost of the project" and including the standard DODForm 1391 (Military Construction Program). (15) This would have eliminated therequirement 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 operationalcontrol of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense. For thepurposes of this contingency construction account, the recommended languageexpands this definition to also include "any building, structure, or other improvementto real property to be used by the Armed Forces, regardless of whether such use isanticipated 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 constructionprojects outside the United States when they: are necessary to meet urgent militaryoperational requirements of a temporary nature; on a military installation where theUnited States will not have a long-term presence; where the United States has nointention of using the construction after the operational requirement has beensatisfied; and the level of construction is the minimum necessary to meet thetemporary 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 onall projects within 30 days of the end of each fiscal-year quarter. The section specifiesthat only this temporary authority and the limited authority of 10 USC 2805(c)(Unspecified Minor Construction) permit the Secretary of Defense to useappropriated 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 theLegislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 296). It was laid before theSenate on October 1 ( Congressional Record , S12220-12270). After debate andamendment, 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,Army (emergency) account and $292.6 million to the Military Construction, AirForce (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 millionrequested. It retains the requested expedited 21-day waiting period between initialnotification 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 Appropriationsmarked up its version of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation on October 9,2003, recommending $544.6 million for military construction and family housingaccounts. The Senate and House recommendations differ primarily in fundingdedicated to the reconstruction of military facilities and housing due to damageincurred in North Carolina and Virginia by Hurricane Isabel during mid-September2003. 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 projectsoutside the United States and levies a quarterly reporting requirement on theobligation and expenditure of these funds. This authority is not tied to thecontingency construction provisions of 10 USC 2804, but rather characterizes the useof these funds as "unspecified minor construction" as authorized under 10 USC 2805.Statute places cost caps on unspecified minor construction projects that do not existfor 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, theSenate struck all after the Enacting Clause, substituted the language of S. 1689 amended, and passed the bill by Unanimous Consent (CRS12822-12832; bill text, October 20 CR S12892-12905). The Senate insisted on itsamendment 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 (CRH9770-9775; text, CR H9770). Conference Action. The conference was held on October 28, 2003. The conference report was filed onOctober 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). TheSenate considered the report on November 3 ( Congressional Record ,S13751-13784), agreeing by a voice vote. The bill was presented to the President onNovember 5. Table 2. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2004 Sources: S.Rept. 108-160 ; H.Rept. 108-312 ; H.Rept. 108-337 . Several issues regarding military construction have gained visibility during thelegislative 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 subsequentlyamended, requested $9.24 billion in new budget authority, an amount $1.46 billionbelow the 2003 enactment. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations requestsubmitted in late September would increase the total request by $412 million andwould 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 ofKorea 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 PartnershipPlan, they are part of a worldwide DOD effort to transform itself into a lighter andmore 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 supportchanging military objectives overseas. These commanders are required to submit abasing plan that enhances their abilities to project power, to support operations, andto conduct activities based upon the Secretary's views of a military structuretransformed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Based on the DOD study ofoverseas basic requirements, the Administration in its amendment asked for thedeletion of 16 construction projects totaling $269 million that had been requested forGermany 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 militaryconstruction at overseas sites may not reflect a well-considered strategy. Thecommittee, noting that DOD has announced the retrenchment of some garrisons inthe Republic of Korea, recommended rescinding $107 million from prior yearappropriations at sites slated to be closed and re-appropriating them to installationsexpected to remain in service. The Senate Appropriations Committee strongly supported the DOD effort to reevaluate its overseas basing requirements, though both appropriations committeesnoted that a DOD overseas basing master plan, due on April 1, 2002, had not yetbeen submitted. The Senate committee recognized that the DOD study of rebasinghad not progressed beyond its embryonic stage. In observing public statementsindicating that DOD would likely reduce the number of troops stationed in Germanyand would reconfigure its installations in Korea, it did not find much of the newconstruction in Europe and Korea that had been requested in the May 1, 2003, budgetamendment. The Senate Committee recommended that an eight-member Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States be formed toassess whether current overseas basing is adequate and assess the feasibility ofvarious new configurations. Appointed by congressional leadership, the Commissionwould provide an independent view of overseas basing requirements and wouldsubmit its report, including findings, conclusions, recommendations for legislationand administrative action, and a proposed overseas basing strategy, to the Presidentand Congress by August 30, 2004. The Committee also directed the Department ofDefense to submit master plans for changing the military infrastructure requirementswithin each overseas regional command and report annually, through FY2008, on theplans' implementation. Notwithstanding congressional direction, the press has reported that the Department of Defense and the military services have begun taking action to realignforce 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 Japaneseofficials had entered into an agreement to return to Japanese control more than 700acres of land near Yokosuka used by the American military. (16) In return, the Japanesegovernment agreed to build 800 new residential housing units near the mainYokosuka naval base. 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 thereturn 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 sentmore to train than to garrison. Countries where these "bare-bones" bases might belocated include Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Algeria, and Morocco. (17) A more recentreport in the press indicated that two of the Army divisions currently engaged inoperations in Iraq, the First Armored and the First Infantry Divisions, currently basedin Wiesbaden and WÃ¼rzburg, Germany, could be permanently redeployed to theUnited 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 Divisioncurrently based near the Demilitarized Zone between the Republic of Korea and theDemocratic Peoples Republic of Korea moving south, and the garrison at theYongsan Garrison in the capital city of Seoul beginning its relocation "as soon aspossible." (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 hadspecified, 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 withthe Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission (the Senate had proposed submission withthe Fiscal Year 2005 budget), and specified that a status report on the comprehensiveplans and their implementation are to be submitted each year through Fiscal Year2009, along with the military construction budget request. The conferees suggestedthat they may extend this reporting requirement to include installations located withinthe 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 countryhas been planned by the Department of Defense. Nevertheless, they noted that nomaster plan exists for the consolidation of these troops within Camp Humphreys, theDepartment's stated goal. The conferees agreed to allow planning for construction atCamp Humphreys to proceed, but construction itself may not commence until amaster facilities plan is developed and cost-sharing arrangements for the relocationof 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 firstin 1989. A fifth round, expected to affect as many installations as the previous fourrounds 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 realignmentactions. The Secretary's force structure plan, a comprehensive base inventory, andcertification that the BRAC round is needed are to be included with the presidentialsubmission of his FY2005 budget in early February 2004. Congress will have theopportunity to disapprove the Secretary's selection criteria during early 2004. Thefinal 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 BRACround as the "Efficient Facilities Initiative." This substitution is inaccurate and hasled to some confusion. In fact, BRAC and Efficient Facilities Initiative are definedin 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 repeatBRAC round. The EFI was intended to encompass all military installations, bothdomestic and overseas, and would have instituted a different method of administeringmany 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 toCongress on August 3. It included three major actions: the potential realignment andclosure of U.S. military installations overseas; the potential realignment and closureof installations within the United States during FY2003; and the permanentauthorization of the Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project,expanded to include all military services. The language as proposed was not adoptedby Congress. Instead, Congress incorporated some aspects of the EFI into the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002. (21) Because military bases on foreign territoryare established by agreement between governments, no legislation was needed tobegin the process of overseas bases. Congress ignored that portion of the EFI.Instead of approving the Secretary's suggested process for review of domestic basesand establishment of a permanent Department-wide Brooks-like base managementsystem, Congress created the FY2005 BRAC round in Title XXX of the Act andauthorized DOD to carry out a "Pilot Efficient Facilities Initiative" for a maximumof 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 AirForce Base Development Demonstration Project in San Antonio, Texas. The Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project. The Brooks Air Force Base DevelopmentDemonstration Project (also known as the "Base Efficiency Project" or the "BrooksCity-Base Project") is a partnership between the Secretary of the Air Force and theCity of San Antonio, Texas, and represents an alternative to traditional base closingsor realignments. Usually, military reservations are federal land jurisdictionally independent of the surrounding communities and governed by the base commander. Congress authorizedthe Secretary to "convert any military or civil service appropriated ornon-appropriated fund activity at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, into a contractedactivity or an exchange of services compensated for by the lease, sale, conveyance,or transfer of real or private property." (22) Thisempowered the Secretary to transfertitle, in exchange for appropriate compensation, of the whole of federal real propertyat Brooks to the city and to lease back for military use those parts that directlysupport the base's military mission. (23) The baseis then no longer federal property.The cost of maintaining and operating the facility's physical plant, including fire andpolice protection, upkeep, and the like, is effectively transferred along withownership from the Department of Defense to the local community. Funds generatedfrom the lease or sale of property, reimbursements, and so on, is placed in a specialProject 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 theyconsidered appropriate. But Congress granted this authority only as a pilot project oflimited scope and duration. To date, the Department of Defense has not selectedcandidate sites. Perchlorate Groundwater Contamination Remediation. The Senate Appropriations Committee includedlanguage in its report requiring the Department of Defense to report not later thanMarch 30, 2004, on the activities of the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committeeof the Department of Defense. The Steering Committee was established in January1998 to facilitate the flow of information between defense agencies on technologicalissues related to perchlorate contamination of drinking water supplies and irrigationwater supplies. The report of the House Appropriations Committee on the defense appropriations bill ( H.R. 2658 , H.Rept. 108-187 ) also addressedperchlorate groundwater contamination. That Committee directed the Department ofDefense to conduct a joint study with the Environmental Protection Agency onperchlorate contamination of water supplies in southern California, Arizona, andNevada. This report would be completed within 180 days of the enactment of thedefense appropriations bill and would recommend national groundwatercontamination standards, indicate the military and defense industry contaminationsources, and outline mitigation steps for which the federal government would beresponsible. 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 movedthe deadline for the submission of this report from the Senate-recommended March30, 2004, to April 30, 2004. 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 for FY2001 and FY2002. The request for FY2004 risesabove the level requested for FY2003, and DOD projects that its annual constructionrequests will approximately triple between FY2003 and FY2007 (see Figure 1 ). Table 4 breaks down the FY2004 request by appropriations account and compares it to FY2003 levels. Table 5 shows congressional action on currentmilitary construction appropriations by account. Table 6 compares Administrationmilitary construction requests and enactments for Guard and Reserve projects fromFY1994-FY2004. H.R. 2559 (Knollenberg). Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Departmentof 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, andintroduced 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 itsamendment, and requested a conference with the House. The House disagreed to theSenate amendment on a motion passed without objection on September 16. TheHouse then requested a conference and appointed conferees. Conferees agreed on thefinal 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 theSenate. S. 1357 (Hutchinson). An original bill making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for theDepartment of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for otherpurposes. 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 bystriking all text after the enacting clause and substituting the text of S.1357. All subsequent action is listed under H.R. 2559 . H.R. 1588 (Hunter, by request). (25) To authorize appropriationsfor FY2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, and for militaryconstruction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2004, and for otherpurposes. Introduced on April 23, 2003, and referred to the Committee on ArmedServices, it was further referred to the Subcommittees on Projection Forces, TotalForce, Readiness, Tactical Air and Land Forces, Terrorism, Unconventional Threatsand Capabilities, and Strategic Forces. The subcommittees completed markup andreturned the bill to the full committee on May 9. The Subcommittee on Readiness,which exercises jurisdiction over the military construction portion of theauthorization bill, recommended increasing the requested funding for constructionand 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). Thecommittee filed a supplemental report ( H.Rept 108-106 , Part II) on May 21. Broughtto 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 EnactingClause and substituted the language of S. 1050 . The bill passed with anamendment by voice vote the same day ( Congressional Record , S7297-7364).TheSenate then insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees. The Senate sent amessage 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 dangerpay) (406-0, Roll No. 500, Congressional Record , H8167, et seq. ). On September 17,the House debated whether to instruct its conferees on Subtitle F of Title VI of theSenate amendment (relating to naturalization and family protection for militarymembers) ( Congressional Record , H8366-H8369). The vote on whether to accept themotion 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 inthousands of dollars) Source: Data for FY2003 Enacted from H.Rept. 108-173 ; H.Rept. 108-342 . Table 5. Military Construction FY2004 Appropriations by Account; Congressional Action (inthousands of dollars) 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 . Table 6. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,FY1994-FY2004 (current year dollars in thousands) Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years, H.Rept. 108-342 . CRS Report RL31310 . Appropriations for FY2003: Military Construction , by Daniel Else. CRS Report RL31805 . Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004: Defense , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL32090 , FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism: Military Operations & ReconstructionAssistance , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and RhodaMargesson. CRS Report RL31349(pdf) . Defense Budget for FY2003: Data Summary , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31187(pdf) . Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental Allocations , by [author name scrubbed] and Larry Q. Nowels, CRS Report RL31305 . Appropriations and Authorization for FY2003: 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: Estimates of Costs and Savings , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30051 . Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round , by [author name scrubbed]. 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), 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/ 

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 andconstruction; (3) U.S. contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program; and (4) the bulk ofbase 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 billiondue to reprogramming from the defense appropriations bill ( H.R. 2658 ) and anAdministration request related to foreign currency fluctuations as calculated by the CongressionalBudget 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 millionbelow the President's revised request and $1.5 billion below the FY2003 appropriation. The Housepassed the bill on June 26. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an original version ofthe bill ( S. 1357 ) and reported it to the Senate on June 26. On July 10, the Senate beganconsideration of H.R. 2559 , substituting the text of S. 1357 , and passedthe 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 thetext of S. 1050 for that of H.R. 1588 and passed the amended bill on June4, 2003. The conference committee began meeting on July 22 and had not reported its bill as of thiswriting. For a comprehensive report on defense authorization legislation, see CRS Report RL31805 , Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004: Defense , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. 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 fundingspecific to military construction and unlimited authority to transfer unspecified additional funds fromthe Iraqi Freedom Fund ($1.99 billion) to military construction and up to $500 million from otherDepartment of Defense funds into a contingency construction account. The bill was passed by bothchambers and was presented to the President on November 5. For more information on thesupplemental, see CRS Report RL32090 , FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq,Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism: Military Operations & Reconstruction Assistance ,by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]. Key Policy Staff * FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service.