Order Code RL31310
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Military Construction
Updated September 11, 2002
Daniel H. Else
Analyst in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Defense Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.sht
ml].

---

Appropriations for FY2003: Military Construction
Summary
The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill provides funding for (1)
military construction projects in the United States and overseas; (2) military family
housing operations and construction; (3) U.S. contributions to the NATO Security
Investment Program; and (4) the bulk of base realignment and closure (BRAC)costs.
On February 4, 2002, the Administration submitted a $379 billion FY2003
defense budget request. $9.0 billion of this was designated for accounts falling
within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committees’ subcommittees on military
construction. This request was approximately $1.7 billion less than the amount
appropriated for FY2002. The decrease resulted from a $2.1 billion reduction in
domestic military construction that was offset somewhat by increases for family
housing and for building at military installations overseas. The Department of
Defense justified the reduction by stating that some projects were being held in
abeyance anticipating the FY2005 round of base realignments and closures (BRAC).
To offset the $2.1 billion decrease in construction, DOD increased its request for
funds used to maintain and rehabilitate existing defense property (funded from
accounts outside the military construction appropriation) by approximately $677
million above the amount enacted in FY2002 (a section of this report discusses
overall and specific account funding). $4.2 billion of this year’s request is devoted
to military construction projects. According to the President’s current national
defense budget estimate, requests for these same accounts are expected to rise to
$12.7 billion by FY2007.
In a separate appropriation submission for the Defense Emergency Response
Fund (DERF), the Administration requested an additional $594 million (subsequently
raised to $717 million) in military construction budget authority. This report contains
information on how this has been apportioned between the services. For the current
status of DERF legislation, see CRS Report RL31305, Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.
Authorization of military construction is included within the defense
authorization bill. The House passed its version of the FY2003 defense authorization
bill (H.R. 4546) on May 10. The Senate Armed Services Committee marked its
authorization bill (S. 2514) and reported it on May 15. The Senate substituted the text
of S. 2514, passed the amended bill, and appointed conferees on June 27, 2002. The
House further amended the bill and appointed conferees on July 26. Conferees began
meeting on September 5, 2002.
Military construction appropriations markup by the House Appropriations
Committee occurred on June 24. The bill (H.R. 5011) was introduced on June 25 and
passed on June 26. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked its version of the
bill (S. 2709) on June 27. On July 17, the Senate substituted the language of S. 2709
for that of H.R. 5011, passed the amended bill on July 18 and appointed conferees.
The House rejected the Senate amendment on September 10 and appointed conferees.
This report will be updated frequently until the military construction appropriations
bill is enacted.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Telephone
Area of Expertise
Name
Division
and E-Mail
Base Closure
David Lockwood
FDT*
7-7621
dlockwood@crs.loc.gov
Defense Acquisition
Valerie Grasso
FDT
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Def. Budget, Mil. Con./
Daniel H. Else
FDT
7-4996
Defense Industry
delse@crs.loc.gov
Defense Budget
Amy Belasco
FDT
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Defense Reform
Gary Pagliano
FDT
7-1750
gpagliano@crs.loc.gov
Guard and Reserve Issues Lawrence Kapp
FDT
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
* FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research
Service

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Content of Annual Military Construction Appropriations and
Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status of Ongoing Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Elective Quality of Life Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Efficient Facilities Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
House Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Senate Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overall and Specific Account Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Military Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Defense Emergency Response Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Supplemental Legislation for FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Military Construction Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Figures
Figure 1. Guard and Reserve Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Military Construction Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Budget Authority by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3. Domestic Military Construction, Active Duty and Reserves . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Sustainment Funding Trend, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5. DERF Military Construction Allocation by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1999-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 7. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2002-FY2003 . . 19
Table 8. Military Construction FY2003 Appropriations by Account;
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 9. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for
National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1993-FY2003 . . . . 21

---

Appropriations for FY2003:
Military Construction
Most Recent Developments
The President submitted his fiscal year 2003 budget request to Congress on
February 4, 2002. The House Subcommittee on Military Construction forwarded its
markup to the full Appropriations Committee on June 12, which completed its mark
on June 24. The bill (H.R. 5011, H.Rept. 107-533) was introduced to the House on
June 25. The bill was considered on June 27 and passed 426-1 (Roll No. 277). The
Senate received the bill on June 28. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked
its version of the bill (S. 2709, S.Rept. 107-202) on June 27. This bill was reported
on July 3. The Senate substituted the text of S. 2709 and passed the amended H.R.
5011 on July 18 (96-3), appointed conferees, and informed the House of its action.
The House rejected the Senate amendment on September 10, 2002, and appointed
conferees.
Defense authorization legislation (H.R. 4546) cleared the House Committee on
Armed Services and was passed by recorded vote (359-58) on May 10.1 It was
received by the Senate on May 14. Equivalent authorization legislation (S. 2514) was
marked up by the Senate Committee on the Armed Services on May 9 and reported
with additional and minority views on May 15 (S.Rept. 107-151). S. 2514 was
debated and amended in the Senate between June 19 and June 27, when it was passed
with amendments 97-2 (Record Vote No. 165). Its text was incorporated into
H.R. 4546 as an amendment, passed by unanimous consent. On July 25, the House
amended the Senate amendment and appointed conferees. The next day, the Senate
disagreed to the amendment and appointed conferees. The conferees met on
September 5 and are scheduled to continue meeting on September 11 through 13.
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
1 A companion bill, H.R. 4547, authorizing the $10.0 billion incremental funding for
ongoing operations in the war on terrorism (the “war reserve fund”) specified in H.Con.Res.
353 remains in committee awaiting a specific and detailed administration budget request.

---

CRS-2
a large part of the funding to enhance and maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds
construction projects and some of the facility sustainment, restoration and
modernization of the active Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and their
reserve components;2 additional defense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to the
NATO Security Investment Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure
Program);3 and military family housing operations and construction. The bill also
provides funding for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account, which
finances most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of new
facilities for transferred personnel and functions and environmental cleanup at
closing sites.4
The military construction appropriations bill is one of several annual pieces of
legislation that provide funding for national defense. Other major appropriation
legislation includes the defense appropriations bill, which provides funds for all non-
construction military activities of the Department of Defense and constitutes more
than 90% of national security-related spending, and the energy and water
development appropriations bill, which provides funding for atomic energy defense
activities of the Department of Energy and for civil projects carried out by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Two other appropriations bills, VA-HUD-Independent
Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State, also include small amounts for national
defense.5
No funds may be expended by any agency of the federal government before they
are appropriated.6 In addition, for nearly half a century Congress has forbidden the
Department of Defense to obligate funds for any project or program until specific
2 Facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) includes the repair and
maintenance of buildings, structures, warehouses, roadways, runways, aprons, railway
tracks, utility plants, and their associated distribution systems, plus minor construction (cost
not to exceed $500 thousand) to create new facilities or expand, alter, or convert existing
facilities. A large part of the funding dedicated to the SRM function is requested not as part
of the military construction appropriation, but rather as part of the Operations and
Maintenance account within the annual defense appropriation.
3 The NATO Security Investment program is the U.S. contribution to Alliance funds for the
construction of facilities and the procurement of equipment essential to the wartime support
of operational forces in the common defense of the NATO area. Facilities funded by this
program include airfields, naval bases, signal and telecom installations, pipelines, war
headquarters, as well as early warning radar and missile installations. The U.S. contributes
approximately 25% of the total annual NSIP assessment, with the rest coming from the other
members of the North Atlantic Alliance.
4 Virtually all costs associated with the latest completed BRAC round (that of FY1995) have
been funded. The bulk of current BRAC appropriations (before the next round commences
in FY2005) will be dedicated to environmental remediation of closed military installations.
5 See CRS Report RL31005, Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense, by
Amy Belasco, Mary Tyszkiewicz, and Stephen Daggett, for details on the defense
authorization and appropriation process.
6 Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

---

CRS-3
authorization is granted.7 This explains why, for defense funds, both authorization
and appropriations bills are required. Two separate defense appropriations bills are
written annually, a “Military Construction Appropriations Act” dedicated to military
construction, and a “National Defense Appropriations Act” covering all other defense
appropriations.8 Normally only one “National Defense Authorization Act” is passed
each year to authorize both of these appropriations.9 Therefore, major debates over
defense policy and funding issues, including military construction, can be associated
with any of these bills. Because issues in the defense authorization and appropriations
bills intertwine, this report includes salient parts of the authorization bill in its
discussion of the military construction appropriation process.
The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s.
Traditionally, military construction was funded through annual defense or
supplemental appropriations bills. However, the Korean War prompted a surge of
military construction, followed by a steady increase in military construction
appropriations. Given the strong and enduring security threat posed by the Soviet
Union, a relatively high level of spending on military infrastructure appeared likely
to continue. The appropriations committees established military construction
subcommittees and created a separate military construction bill. The first stand-alone
military construction bill was written for FY1959 (P.L. 85-852).
Military construction appropriations are not the sole source of funds available
to defense agencies for facility investment. The defense appropriations bill funds so-
called minor construction and property maintenance within its operations and
maintenance accounts. In addition, construction and maintenance of Morale, Welfare,
and Recreation-related facilities are partially funded through proceeds of
commissaries, recreation user fees, and other non-appropriated income.
Several special accounts are included within the military construction
appropriation. Among these are the Homeowners Assistance Fund (Defense),10 and
7 See 10 USC 114.
8 The relevant subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are
Military Construction (for the military construction appropriation) and Defense (for the
national defense appropriation).
9 The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities in the House Armed Services
Committee and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support in the Senate
Armed Services Committee draft legislation to authorize military construction
appropriations.
10 The Homeowners Assistance Fund (Defense) was established by the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 USC 3374). It authorizes the Secretary of
Defense to acquire the title to, or to reimburse for certain losses upon the sale of, one- and
two-family homes owned by federal employees located at or near military installations
ordered closed in whole or in part.

---

CRS-4
the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund,11 both of which
perform functions ancillary to the direct building of military infrastructure.
Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal
year. Military construction appropriations, though, are an exception. Because of the
long-term nature of construction projects, these funds can generally be obligated for
up to five fiscal years.
Consideration of the military construction budget begins when the President’s
budget is delivered to Congress each year, usually in early February. This year, the
President submitted his budget request on February 4, 2002.
Status of Ongoing Initiatives
Elective Quality of Life Construction. In recent years, attention has been
focused on funding improvements to military housing, workplaces, and installation
infrastructure (such as roads, utility services, and the like). Subcommittee hearings
during previous congressional sessions contained lengthy discussions of the
leveraging of appropriated funds through the privatization of utility services at
military installations and of some military family housing.12 Subcommittees have also
addressed the allocation of sufficient budget authority to support improved housing
and workplace quality at overseas bases.
During the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense evaluated more than half of
its existing family housing as being substandard. In 1996, then-Secretary of Defense
William Cohen set FY2010 as the target date for the elimination of all substandard
military housing. Private development was seen as a way to speed refurbishment or
replacement while concurrently reducing the burden on appropriated funds, and
Congress authorized DOD to use a set of “alternative” business practices in its
negotiations with private contractors, to include the creation of long-term public-
private joint ventures at locations where they might prove beneficial.
Since 1996, when the first agreement was concluded at Naval Air Station
Corpus Christi/Naval Air Station Kingsville, Texas, contracts for sixteen separate
11 10 USC 2883 (Department of Defense Housing Funds) is part of subchapter IV
(Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing) of the basic
law governing the armed forces. It establishes two independent funds: the Department of
Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund and the Department of Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund (unaccompanied members of the military are
either unmarried or are married but separated geographically from their families). The funds
are sustained by direct appropriation, fund transfers made by the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of the Navy from other accounts, proceeds from certain title conveyances or the
lease of federal military family housing property, or other financial activity associated with
either military family or unaccompanied housing. These funds may be used for the
planning, construction, or improvement of military housing as provided for under this
particular subchapter of Title 10.
12 CRS Report RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Daniel H. Else, provides a background to the military’s housing
privatization program.

---

CRS-5
projects have been awarded under this “Military Housing Privatization Initiative.”
These range in size from 150 housing units in Phase II of the venture at Naval Air
Station Kingsville, Texas, to 5,912 units at Fort Hood, Texas. Projects covering
24,518 housing units are now underway at installations operated by all four military
services. An additional 41,503 units in 26 projects are currently pending solicitation,
and another 32 projects with 54,193 units are being planned.13 DOD is exploring
ways to extend the privatization program to include the improvement of some
unaccompanied housing.14
In 1996, DOD set a target of FY2010 for the elimination of all substandard
military housing. With recent increases in budget authority appropriated by Congress,
DOD has revised this target date to bring it forward to FY2007. The FY2003 budget
authority request of $4.25 billion for military family housing exceeds the FY2002
enactment by $151 million.
DOD also created a Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) during the 1990s in order
remove itself from ownership, management, and responsibility for the operation of
the public utilities at as many military bases as feasible.15 Congress authorized the
service secretaries to do this by conveying these utilities to private ownership by a
local utility company or other entity.16 The award of privatization contracts is
expected to be completed by September 30, 2003.17
Integrated with quality of life construction is the consolidation of overseas
military facilities. By reducing the number of small installations and combining
personnel onto fewer large bases, DOD expects to improve living and working
conditions for those stationed overseas through more efficient utilization of its funds.
Consolidation agreements have been concluded with both the Federal Republic of
Germany and the Republic of Korea. The commander of U.S. forces in Europe has
requested funds for three construction projects to increase the capacity of the U.S.
installation at Grafenwoehr, Germany. “Graf” is expected to accept personnel from
13 separate smaller facilities that will be closed as part of the command’s “Efficient
Basing East” plan. A similar program, called the “Land Partnership Plan,” has been
negotiated between the commander of U.S. forces in Korea and the government of
13 Information on the privatization of military housing is found on the World Wide Web at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/installation/hrso/].
14 Unaccompanied housing is also referred to as bachelor officer or enlisted quarters,
barracks, etc. It lodges unmarried or geographically separated military personnel who live
on military installations.
15 These include electric, water, waste water, and natural gas, as well as steam, hot and
chilled water, and telecommunications systems at active duty, reserve, and National Guard
installations. Privatization is not contemplated for locations where it is economically
infeasible or where privatization may create a risk to security.
16 See 10 USC 2688.
17 More information on the privatization of utilities at U.S. military installations is available
on the Internet at [http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/utilities/privatization.htm].

---

CRS-6
the Republic of Korea.18 This 10-year plan will close approximately half of the U.S.
facilities currently located in South Korea and consolidate U.S. military personnel
onto the remaining installations, which will be upgraded to accept them.
Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases. Through
legislation passed during its first session, the 107th Congress authorized a new round
of military base realignments and closures (BRAC). Criteria to select bases for
inclusion in the new BRAC will be created and members will be appointed to a
BRAC review commission during FY2003, with realignment and closure action
scheduled to begin during FY2005.19
A significant portion of the federal property at closed installations during the
1995 BRAC round has been cleaned under the Defense Environmental Restoration
Program (DERP) and title has been transferred, but the process is not yet complete.
For example, the 1995 BRAC round tasked the Department of the Army with closing
and conveying title to approximately 248,800 acres of Army property. As of
February, 2002, the Army had disposed of 115,000 acres, or 46% of its total.
Department of the Army has cited environmental remediation requirements as the
principal reason that more property had not been conveyed.20 DOD maintains as its
goal the transfer of all 1995 BRAC property before beginning the 2005 round and has
requested $545 million in FY2003 BRAC funds.21
The President requested $545.1 million in BRAC funding for FY2003, which
the House passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended that an
additional $100.0 million be appropriated in a BRAC Environmental Cleanup
Acceleration Initiative in order to speed the transfer of ownership of former military
property to local authorities. Of this additional funding, $20 million is to be allocated
to the Army, $55 million to the Navy, and $25 million to the Air Force for their use
at the most pressing unfunded environmental cleanup sites.
Efficient Facilities Initiative. On August 3, 2001, the General Counsel of
Department of Defense submitted legislative language to Congress for a program
termed the “Efficient Facilities Initiative,” or EFI. The EFI included DOD’s plan for
a round of base realignments and closures during FY2003 and the permanent
authorization and expansion to all services of the Brooks Air Force Base
18 See Franklin Fisher, “With Accord Signed, Planners Get To Work On Details Of S. Korea
Land Return,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, April 16, 2002.
19 See CRS Report RL30051, Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by David
E. Lockwood, and CRS Report RL30440, Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand?,
by David E. Lockwood, for more information on the FY2005 BRAC round.
20 See the testimony of Gen. Robert van Antwerp, Assistant Chief of Staff of the Army for
Fort Installation Management before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Military Construction of February 17, 2002.
21 For more information on defense-related environmental programs, see CRS Report
RL31198, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2002, by David M. Bearden. DOD maintains a web site with
extensive additional information on its environmental cleanup efforts at
[http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/COffice/CleanupO.htm].

---

CRS-7
Development Demonstration Project.22 This language would have granted the service
secretaries the authority to convey title to some or all of the federal property on a
military installation to a non-federal entity (such as a local economic development
authority) with the intention of leasing back only those facilities needed to support
the base’s military mission.
Congress incorporated the authority for both base realignment and closure and
the EFI in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (S.1438, P.L. 107-
107). Title XXX of the Act established the procedure for carrying out a FY2005 (vice
FY2003) BRAC round. Section 2813, instead of granting the requested permanent
authority for conveyance and lease-back, permitted the three service secretaries to
nominate two military installations in each military department for a 4-year pilot
project aimed at determining its potential for increasing the efficiency and
effectiveness of operations. To date, no facilities have been nominated for the pilot
project.
Bill Status
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the
FY2003 military construction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation
process moves forward.
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2003
Conference Report
Committee Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
06/24/02 06/27/02
06/27/02
07/18/02
—
—
—
—
107-533
107-202
Dashes indicate no action yet taken.
Appropriations Action
House Appropriations Action. The House Subcommittee on Military
Appropriations held a series of hearings on the budget request dealing with the
construction and family housing requirements of the individual services, both active
and reserve components, and the European and Pacific commands between
February 6 and April 17, 2002. The Subcommittee marked its bill June 12, and the
full Committee followed on June 24. The bill (H.R. 5011, H.Rept 107-533) was
introduced on June 25, and the Rules Committee introduced a rule (H.Res. 462) on
June 26. H.R. 5011 was considered, amended, and passed on a vote of 426-1 (Roll
No. 277) on June 27, 2002. The bill was received in the Senate on June 28.
22 A fuller description of the Brooks Demonstration Project is given in CRS Report
RL31010, Appropriations for FY2002: Military Construction, by Daniel H. Else.

---

CRS-8
Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction held hearings during March. Committee
markup on its version of the bill was completed on June 27, 2002. The bill (S. 2709,
S.Rept. 107-202) was reported on July 3 and placed on the Legislative Calendar
under General Orders (Order No. 479). The bill was read twice in the Senate and
placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders on July 8, 2002 (Calendar
No. 486). On July 17, the Senate substituted the language of S. 2709 for that of H.R.
5011. The Senate passed the amended H.R. 5011 (96-3, Roll No. 181) in lieu of
S. 2709 and appointed conferees on July 18, 2002.
Conference Action. Senate conferees have been appointed.
Key Policy Issues
Several issues regarding military construction have gained visibility during the
legislative deliberations of the current session of Congress. Among these are: overall
and specific account funding levels requested by the Administration; congressional
additions to the military construction budget request; military housing (including the
encouragement of private sector financing of housing construction and maintenance);
and funding requested through the Defense Emergency Response Fund.
Overall and Specific Account Funding Levels. The FY2003 budget
submitted by the President on February 4, 2002, requested $8.987 billion in new
budget authority, an amount $1.62 billion below the 2002 enactment. Subsequent
additional requests included in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF)
raised the total request to $9.578 billion in time for House consideration of its bill.
An additional $122.5 million in Army DERF requests was later received by Congress
and will be considered by the Senate. This raises the total Presidential budget request
for FY2003 to $9.66 billion. The Senate is also expected to consider a $200 million
Army and Air Force Transformation Initiative intended to appropriate a funding pool
to accelerate the creation of infrastructure to support the Army’s Interim Brigade
Combat Team and Air Force C-17 aircraft mobility programs. This and the upward
adjustment of BRAC environmental cleanup funding was not reckoned with by the
House. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended a total of
$10.62 billion in new military construction budget authority for FY2003.
Within the overall military construction appropriation, there was a substantial
change in how budget authority was allocated between the FY2002 enactment, the
FY2003 request, and the bills as passed by the House and the Senate as reflected in
Table 2.
Increases in budget authority are evident in the construction and renovation of
military family housing both within the United States and at overseas installations,
offset somewhat by a reduction in the unspecified location accounts devoted to
maintenance, management, provision of utilities, etc. Likewise, there is an increase
in funding requested for general military construction overseas, reflecting a DOD
effort to increase the quality of life in the workplace for military personnel stationed
there.

---

CRS-9
The most noticeable reduction in budget authority is seen in domestic military
construction. Table 3 compares military construction budget authority between
FY2002 and FY2003 for military construction projects located within the United
States, divided between the active duty and reserve (National Guard and federal
reserves) components.
Table 2. Budget Authority by Location
($000)
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
Request a
Passed a
Passed a
Military Construction,
4,700,849
3,189,151
3,555,398
3,742,568
Domestic
Military Construction,
692,480
988,390
955,568
970,700
Overseas
Military Construction, Location
556,377
611,204
569,261
904,147
Unspecified a
Total Military Construction
5,949,706
4,788,745
5,080,227
5,617,415
Family Housing, Domestic
321,202
603,639
622,569
603,639
Family Housing, Overseas
28,112
71,122
69,890
69,400
Family Housing, Location
3,682,713
3,578,433
3,578,433
3,578,433
Unspecified a
Total Family Housing
4,032,027
4,253,194
4,270,892
4,251,472
Total, Domestic
5,022,051
3,792,790
4,177,967
4,346,207
Total, Overseas
720,592
1,059,512
1,025,458
1,040,100
Total, Location Unspecified b
4,239,090
4,189,637
4,147,694
4,482,580
Defense-Wide Special
807,295
715,338
715,338
815,338
Accounts c
Grand Total
10,789,028
9,757,277
10,066,457
10,684,225
Sources: Calculated by project from DOD Comptroller, Construction Programs (C-1), Department
of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, February 2002, H.Rept. 107-323, and S.Rept. 107-202.
a. These figures include the additional requests of the FY2003 DERF as considered by the House and
Senate, respectively, but do not deduct recisions recommended by committees. They do not include
the four projects included in a floor amendment made prior to Senate passage.
b. Examples of location unspecified projects are energy conservation funding, some major and minor
construction projects, and classified projects for military construction; and maintenance,
furnishings and utilities accounts for family housing, among others.
c. Special accounts include BRAC, the NATO Security Investment Fund, the Homeowners Assistance
Fund, Defense, and the DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund.

---

CRS-10
Table 3. Domestic Military Construction,
Active Duty and Reserves
($000)
FY2002
FY2003
Change
Enacted
Request a
Military Construction, Active Duty
3,878,692
2,372,175
-1,506,517
Military Construction, National Guard and
822,157
231,154
-591,003
Reserve
Total, Active and Reserve
4,700,849
2,603,329
-2,097,520
Source: DOD Comptroller, Construction Programs (C-1), Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal
Year 2003, February 2002.
a. These figures do not include the additional funds requested for the FY2003 DERF.
These figures represent decreases of 38.8% in active duty and 71.9% in reserve
construction funding between FY2002 and FY2003. Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim stated in a press briefing on February
4, 2002, that they expected a 20 to 25 percent reduction in military bases during the
FY2005 BRAC round and anticipated this with a reduced construction request.23 This
decrease in construction was to be offset by an increase in sustainment funds.24
Table 4 compares the DOD sustainment funds requested for FY2003 with those
actually expended in FY2001 and appropriated for FY2002.25
23 See Political Transcripts, “Secretary Rumsfeld and Comptroller Zakheim Hold a Briefing
on the FY 2003 Defense Budget.” Federal Document Clearing House, February 4, 2002, or
at [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/t02042002_t0204sd.html]. The additional
force protection and anti-terrorism funding requested for the DERF raised the total military
construction request for active duty components to $4.262 billion and for the reserves to
$319 million.
24 Sustainment includes the maintenance, restoration, and modernization of existing
structures and is part of the operations and maintenance budget activity of the defense
budget. It therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committees’
Subcommittees on Defense, not Military Construction.
25 Operations & Maintenance funds are tracked as “total obligational authority” (TOA).
TOA is an accounting term unique to DOD and equals appropriated budget authority
adjusted to include credits (transfers) from other accounts and funds left unused from prior
years. See CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tyszkiewicz and
Stephen Daggett, for a more comprehensive explanation of defense budget terms.

---

CRS-11
Table 4. Sustainment Funding Trend, FY2001-FY2003
(Current $000)
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Actual
Estimate
Request*
Total Sustainment
5,543,955
5,810,492
6,487,642
Change from previous year
266,537
677,150
* These figures do not include additional funds requested for the FY2003 DERF.
Source: DOD Comptroller, Operation and Maintenance Programs (O-1): Department
of Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, February 2002.
Note: Total Obligational Authority (TOA). Sustainment includes all DOD facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM) accounts.
The table shows that sustainment funding rose $267 million between FY2001
and FY2002. If the same rate of increase (4.8%) occurred between FY2002 and
FY2003, DOD would have been expected to request $6.089 billion. Instead, DOD
requested $6.488 billion, or approximately $398 million beyond the normal
expectation. This increase may be considered to constitute the substantive additional
funds devoted to maintaining existing property.
In addition, some Members have deemed DOD funding requests for the Army
National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the federal reserves particularly
inadequate.26 Until the late 1980s, the amount of military construction funding
appropriated by Congress for the Guard and Reserve rose steadily, closely matching
the amounts requested by DOD. For FY1989, though, the Administration began to
decrease its requests for Guard and Reserve construction. Congress responded by
appropriating funds in excess of the request (see Figure 1). Senator Christopher
Bond commented during floor debate on FY1996 military construction
appropriations that “National Guard forces traditionally have been underfunded” in
construction requests submitted by the Pentagon.27 Since FY1989, Congress has
consistently appropriated more than the Administration request, and the gap between
request and enactment has grown considerably. The House, after including the DERF
request, passed an appropriation for Guard and Reserve construction $210 million
above that asked for by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended adding $290 million to the Administration’s Guard and Reserve
construction request.
26 Senator Dianne Feinstein, in questioning the Deputy Director of the Army National Guard
at a military construction hearing, remarked, “Many people believe that [deliberate
underfunding is] the game that is played in this institution with this particular budget, that
they really look at the Congress to kind of plus it up after it’s been requested.” See the
Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction hearing of
March 5, 2002. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserves are permanently
under the control of the Department of Defense. The Army and Air National Guards are
state-controlled organizations until such time as they are called into federal service.
27 Congressional Record, July 21, 1995, S10454.

---

CRS-12
Figure 1. Guard and Reserve Funding
Military Housing. Military housing for both families and unaccompanied has
been a highly visible military construction issue for several years. In the mid 1990s,
then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced a goal of the elimination of
substandard military housing by 2010. He proposed to do this using an increase in
traditional DOD-funded construction and renovation, plus less orthodox methods
such as partnering with private enterprise to build and maintain housing and
increasing the military Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to cover the cost of off-
base housing.28 At the present time, approximately one-third of military families live
in government-owned housing.
At the outset of the effort, DOD estimated that more than half of existing
military family housing did not meet its own minimum housing standards with
respect to living space, amenities, etc. In addition, BAH compensation covered only
85% of the cost (accommodation and utilities) of living off-base. DOD and Congress
then initiated several programs to encourage private investment and to increase
funding of traditional housing construction for both families and unaccompanied
members, and to increase the percentage of off-base housing costs covered by
military allowances. DOD now estimates that substandard housing will disappear for
all military members and their families by 2007 and that out-of-pocket expenses
associated with living on the local economy will be eliminated by 2005.29
28 For a description of the privatization of military family housing, see CRS Report
RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues, by Daniel H.
Else. The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is money added to a military member’s base
pay when he or she is authorized to live outside of government-furnished quarters, or “off-
base.” The domicile is usually established in a privately-owned apartment or house rented
or purchased on the local economy.
29 The calculated BAH shortfall is being reduced incrementally in annual budget requests
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
Because improvement and expansion of adequate housing on military
installations may encourage the movement of significant numbers of military families
onto bases, some members have expressed concern that local school districts serving
large military communities may find their facility and personnel plans unexpectedly
disrupted. Language included in the House report for the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act (H.Rept. 107-436 accompanying H.R. 4546) directs DOD
to report by March 1, 2003, on the situations at three Army and Air Force
installations (Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, Ft. Hood, Texas, and Lackland Air Force
Base, Texas) where large housing privatization projects are underway.30
Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Administration defense budget
request for operations and maintenance (considered part of the defense appropriation,
not the military construction appropriation) contained a single new entry for
$20.1 billion entitled the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF).31 This is
intended for use by DOD to respond to or protect against acts of terrorism. The
request contained detailed justification for $10.1 billion, or about half of the total
request, of which DOD identified approximately $594 million as appropriate for
consideration as military construction to enhance physical security at military
installations.32 The DERF is a transfer fund, which is used to shift appropriations
between accounts without adherence to normal congressional reprogramming or
notification requirements. The House Appropriations Committee considered
$594 million of the DERF to be part of the Administration’s military construction
appropriation request and added it to the suitable appropriations accounts. Too late
for House consideration, the Administration forwarded an additional Army DERF
request for $122.5 million. This will be considered by the Senate. The DERF request,
the appropriations bill as passed by the House, and the subsequent Senate Committee
recommendation, are shown in Table 5.
29 (...continued)
in order to eliminate service members’ out-of-pocket housing and utility costs by 2005.
30 See Title XXXVIII–General Provisions, Items of Special Interest, p. 383.
31 Like facility sustainment, renovation, and modernization accounts, the DERF is part of
the defense appropriation. The $20.1 billion requested for the DERF is not included in the
budgetary analyses in this report. The DERF itself was created as a “transfer fund,” which
means its function is to act as an accounting vehicle for redistributing sums from one
account to another. Therefore, it normally does not receive its own appropriation. See CRS
Report RL31187, Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental
Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Q. Nowels, and CRS Report RL31305,
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by Stephen Daggett and Amy
Belasco.
32 The remaining $10.0 billion of the request was not accompanied by detailed justification.
This was funding designated by the Budget Resolution for FY2003 (H.Con.Res. 353) as a
“war reserve fund” to support ongoing military operations in and around Afghanistan. A
second defense authorization bill (H.R. 4547, see below under Legislation, Defense
Authorization) has been created to accommodate an anticipated detailed budget request for
this $10.0 billion war reserve.

---

CRS-14
Table 5. DERF Military Construction Allocation by Account
($000)
Account
Request*
House Passed
Senate
recommend
Army
222,465
100,000
222,465
Navy
220,730
209,430
220,730
Air Force
190,597
180,597
188,297
Defense-Wide
31,300
24,700
31,300
Air National Guard
8,933
8,933
8,933
Naval Reserve
7,117
7,117
7,117
Air Force Reserve
6,076
6,076
3,576
Family Housing O&M, Air Force
29,631
29,631
29,631
TOTAL
716,849
566,484
712,049
* As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in S.Rept. 107-202. The House did not
consider a late submission of $122.5 million by the Army.
Major Funding Trends
Between FY1985 and FY1998, funding devoted to military construction
declined steadily as DOD and Congress struggled with a changing strategic
environment, a shrinking military force, and the uncertainties associated with several
rounds of base realignments and closures. Appropriations began to rise with FY1998
as Congress sought to replace outdated facilities and improve the quality of life for
military personnel at home and in the workplace. Administration requests for military
construction funding (not including BRAC and family housing) continued to decline
until FY2000, but have risen forFY2001 and 2002. The request for FY2003 dips, but
DOD projects that its annual construction requests will approximately triple between
FY2003 and FY2007 (see Figure 2).

---

CRS-15
Figure 2. Military Construction Funding
Prior to FY1994, Congress considered Administration requests to exceed real
construction requirements, typically appropriating less new budget authority than
requested. This pattern reversed with the FY1995 budget. Every year since then,
Congress has added to Administration requests, countering what Members have
termed “inadequate” funding for military construction. The DOD request for
construction funds for FY2003 fell relative to both its FY2002 request and the
subsequent enactment, anticipating the FY2005 round of base realignments and
closures, according to statements made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim. DOD projects that future requests for military
construction will rise steadily and rapidly.
Table 6 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1999
(including BRAC and Family Housing). Table 7 breaks down the FY2003 request
by appropriations account and compares it to FY2002 levels. Table 8 shows
congressional action on current military construction appropriations by account.
Table 9 compares Administration military construction requests and enactments for
Guard and Reserve projects from FY1993-2003.

---

CRS-16
Legislation
Supplemental Legislation for FY2002
H.R. 4775 (Young). Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. This bill does not contain
significant military construction funding. Introduced as an original bill on May 20,
2002, by the House Committee on Appropriations with H.Rept. 107-480 and placed
on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 289). Passed in the House on May 24, 2002,
280-138 (Roll No. 206), and laid before the Senate on June 3. The Senate struck all
after the Enacting Clause and substituted the text of S. 2551 in its place. It was then
placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 405). Debate
and amendment of the bill began on June 4, 2002, and continued through June 6. On
June 7, the Senate passed the bill with an amendment, substituting the text of its own
version of the bill (S. 2551), by a vote of 71-22 (Record Vote No. 145), insisted on
its amendment, and appointed conferees. The House disagreed with the amendment
and appointed its own conferees on June 12 (CR H3459-H3461). A conference report
was filed on July 19 (H.Rept. 107-593, CR H4935-H4985). The House took up the
conference report as unfinished business on July 23 (CR H5201-H5229, H5289) and
agreed with it on a roll call vote (397-32, Roll no. 328). The Senate considered the
conference report on July 24 (S7263-S7282) and agreed with a 92-7 vote (Record
Vote Number 188). The action was reported to the House and the bill was cleared for
the President. The bill was enacted by the President on August 2, 2002 (P.L. 107-
206).
Military Construction Appropriations
H.R. 5011 (Hobson). Making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The House
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction held a series
of hearings between February 6 and April 17, 2002. The Subcommittee markup was
forwarded to the full Committee on June 12. The full Committee mark took place on
June 24. The bill was reported on June 25 (H.Rept. 107-533, CR H3914, H3927). A
rule was reported (H.Res. 462) on the bill on June 26 (CR H4039, H4064, H4067).
H.R. 5011 was considered and passed on a 426-1 vote (Roll No. 277). The bill was
read twice in the Senate and placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders
on July 8, 2002 (Calendar No. 486). On July 17, the Senate substituted the language
of S. 2709 for that of H.R. 5011 (CR S6931-S6934). The Senate passed the amended
H.R. 5011 (96-3, Roll No. 181) and appointed conferees on July 18, 2002 (CR
S6972-S6976). The House rejected the Senate amendment and appointed its
conferees on September 10, 2002.
S. 2709 (Feinstein). The Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Military Construction held hearings during March. The Senate received the House
Military Construction Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5011) on June 28 (CR S6317). The
Senate Appropriations Committee marked its version of the bill, recommending
$10.62 billion in new budget authority, on June 27. The bill was reported on July 3
(S.Rept. 107-202, CR July 8, 2002, S6361) and placed on the Legislative Calendar

---

CRS-17
under General Orders (Calendar No. 479). The Senate amended H.R. 5011 by
substituting the language of S. 2709 on July 18, 2002, and passed the amended
H.R. 5011 in lieu of S. 2709 (see paragraph above).
Defense Authorization
H.R. 4546 (Stump, by request).33 To authorize appropriations for FY2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, and for military construction, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2003, and for other purposes. Introduced
on April 23, 2002, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, it was further
referred to the Subcommittees on Military Personnel, Military Installations and
Facilities, and Military Readiness (amendment added) on April 25 and returned to the
full Committee on the same day. The Subcommittee on Military Installations and
Facilities, which exercises jurisdiction over the military construction portion of the
authorization bill, defeated (3-13-2) an amendment that would have repealed existing
authority to conduct an FY2005 round of base realignments and closures (BRAC).
The bill was referred to the Subcommittees on Military Procurement and Military
Research and Development on April 30 and returned to the full Committee the same
day. The full Committee considered the bill on May 1, 2002, and ordered it reported,
rejecting an identical BRAC-stopping amendment (19-38). The bill was reported on
May 3, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-436, CR H2104-2105), and placed on the Union Calendar
(Calendar No. 258). A supplemental report (a dissenting opinion, H.Rept 107-436,
Part II, CR H2108) was filed on May 6. Brought to the floor on May 9, 2002, subject
to a rule (H.Res.415, H.Rept.107-450). H.R. 4546 was debated, amended, and passed
by recorded vote (359-58, Roll no 158) on May 10. The bill was received in the
Senate on May 14, 2002, and on May 16 was placed on the Legislative Calendar
under General Orders (Calendar No. 379). The bill was amended in the Senate on
June 27 by the substitution of the text of S. 2514 (see below) after the enabling clause
CR S6225). The bill was passed by unanimous consent and the Senate appointed
conferees. A message on the Senate action was sent to the House on July 8. On
July 25, the Rules Committee reported to the House (H.Res. 500) the rule for
consideration of the amended bill. The House amended the Senate amendment and
appointed conferees and voted to instruct them (419-2, Roll no. 349). The Senate
disagreed by Unanimous Consent to the House amendment on July 26 and appointed
conferees. The conferees began meeting on September 5, 2002, and will continue on
September 11-13.
H.R.4547 (Stump, by request). To authorize appropriations for FY2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense and to prescribe military personnel
strengths for FY2003. Companion bill to H.R. 4546, introduced on April 23, to
authorize the $10.0 billion designated as incremental funding for ongoing operations
in the war on terrorism (the “war reserve fund”), as specified in the Budget
Resolution for FY2003 (H.Con.Res. 353). Also known as the Costs of
War/Substitute Amendment, the original bill was amended on May 1 to authorize the
war reserve fund. Of this, $3.7 billion would be used to replace equipment destroyed
33 S. 2225 corresponds to the Administration’s budget request and was introduced by
request. H.R. 4546 and S. 2514 are the defense authorization bills from the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees respectively.

---

CRS-18
in the war in Afghanistan, upgrade equipment and defray other war-related costs, and
offer war-related pay to military personnel. House Armed Services Committee held
its markup on July 18, 2002, and reported the bill (H.Rept. 107-603) on July 23
(Union Calendar, Calendar No. 365). On a motion to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (2/3 required), the bill was passed (413-3, Roll no. 335) early on July 24. The bill
was received in the Senate on July 24 and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services.
S. 2514 (Levin).34 An original bill to authorize appropriations for FY2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. Introduced as an
original measure by the Senate Committee on Armed Forces on May 15, 2002
(S.Rept. 107-151, CR S4387). Placed on the Legislative Calendar under General
Orders (Calendar No. 370). Debate on the defense authorization bill began in the
Senate on June 19 (CR beginning S5727). S. 2514 was passed on June 27 with
amendments on a vote of 97-2 (Record Vote No. 165). It was then incorporated into
H.R. 4546 and passed by unanimous consent (CR S6178-80, S6182).
Table 6. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1999-FY2003
(new budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2003
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate Request*
House
Senate
Passed
Passed*
Military
5,405
4,793
5,423
6,745
5,249
4,248
6,225
Construction
Family
3,592
3,597
3,683
4,050
4,246
5,835
4,228
Housing
Total
8,997
8,390
9,106
10,795
9,495
10,083
10,453
* Includes $717 million in added DERF requests, as considered by the Senate, which is $123 million
above the request considered by the House. Does not include the floor amendment made just prior to
Senate passage.
Source: Actual FY1999-2001 data, Estimate FY2002 and Request FY2003 from Department of
Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables, February 2002 and previous years’ reports, H.Rept. 107-
533, and S.Rept. 107-202.
Notes: “Actual” and “Estimated” budget authority differs from “Enacted” amounts by funds
reprogrammed (transferred) by the Department of Defense between appropriations accounts. Military
Construction in this table includes BRAC funding, but not NSIP.
34 S. 2515, S. 2516, and S. 2517 originated with the Senate Armed Services Committee and
correspond to S. 2514 Division A (Department of Defense authorization), S. 2514 Division
B (Military Construction authorization), and S. 2514 Division C (Department of Energy and
other national security authorizations) respectively. When S. 2514 was considered by the
Senate on June 27, Divisions A, B, and C were separated and substituted for the original
language in S. 2515, S. 2516, and S. 2517, respectively. These three bills were then passed
by unanimous consent. See CR S6225 for June 27, 2002. They were sent to the House on
July 8.

---

CRS-19
Table 7. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:
FY2002-FY2003
(new budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2003
FY2003
FY2002
FY2003
Account
House
Senate
Enacted
Request*
Passed
Passed*
MilCon, Army
1,742,512 1,672,903
1,495,881
1,665,536
MilCon, Navy
1,113,736 1,105,391
1,244,425
1,215,303
MilCon, Air Force
1,224,112
834,687
954,021
1,165,336
MilCon, Defense-wide
796,804
771,835
898,090
924,266
MilCon, Army National Guard
400,994
101,595
159,672
208,482
MilCon, Air National Guard
250,530
62,406
119,613
217,988
MilCon, Army Reserve
165,136
58,779
99,059
66,487
MilCon, Navy Reserve
51,676
58,671
75,821
58,671
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
74,013
37,976
75,276
58,209
BRAC Acct., Total
632,713
545,138
545,138
645,138
NATO Security Investment
162,600
168,200
168,200
168,200
Program
Foreign Curr. Fluct., Constr., Def.
(60,000)
)
)
)
Total: Military Construction
6,554,826 5,417,581
5,835,196
6,393,616
Family Housing Const., Army
309,217
283,346
278,426
277,936
Family Housing Operation &
1,077,292 1,119,007
1,119,007
1,119,007
Debt, Army
Family Housing Const., Navy &
328,040
375,700
377,616
371,816
Marine Corps
Family Housing Operation &
899,837
867,788
867,788
867,788
Debt, Navy & Marine Corps
Family Housing Const., AF
544,496
676,694
681,042
667,912
Family Housing Operation &
835,194
874,050
874,050
874,050
Debt, AF
Family Housing Const., Def-wide
247
5,480
5,480
5,480
Family Housing Operation &
43,269
42,395
42,395
42,395
Debt, Def-wide
Homeowners Assist. Fund, Def.
10,005
)
)
)
DOD Family Housing
1,977
2,000
2,000
2,000
Improvement Fund
Total: Family Housing
4,049,574 4,246,460
4,247,804
4,228,384
GRAND TOTAL
10,604,400 9,664,041 10,083,000 10,622,000
* Includes $717 million in added DERF request, as considered by the Senate. Does not include floor
amendment made just prior to Senate passage.
Source: Data for FY2002 Enacted from FY2003 Budget Request, House Passed from H.Rept. 107-
533, Request and Senate Recommend from S.Rept 107-202.
Note: FY2002 Enacted includes P.L. 107-64 Sec. 130 (here listed as “Foreign Curr. Fluct.”) and 132
rescissions.

---

CRS-20
Table 8. Military Construction FY2003 Appropriations by
Account; Congressional Action
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2003
House
Senate
Conf.
Account
Request*
Bill
Bill*
Report
MilCon, Army
1,672,903
1,495,881
1,665,536
)
MilCon, Navy
1,105,391
1,244,425
1,215,303
)
MilCon, Air Force
834,687
954,021
1,165,336
)
MilCon, Defense-wide
771,835
898,090
924,266
)
MilCon, Army Nat’l. Guard
101,595
159,672
208,482
)
MilCon, Air National Guard
62,406
119,613
217,988
)
MilCon, Army Reserve
58,779
99,059
66,487
)
MilCon, Navy Reserve
58,671
75,821
51,554
)
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
37,976
75,276
58,209
)
BRAC Acct.
545,138
545,138
645,138
)
NATO Security Investment
168,200
168,200
168,200
)
Program
Total: Military
5,417,581
5,835,196
6,386,499
)
Construction
Family Housing Const., Army
283,346
278,426
277,936
)
Family Housing Ops & Debt,
1,119,007
1,119,007
1,119,007
)
Army
Family Housing Const.,
375,700
377,616
371,816
)
Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing Ops & Debt,
867,788
867,788
867,788
)
Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing Const.,
676,694
681,042
667,912
)
Air Force
Family Housing Ops & Debt,
874,050
874,050
874,050
)
Air Force
Family Housing Const,
5,480
5,480
5,480
)
Defense-wide
Family Housing Ops & Debt,
42,395
42,395
42,395
)
Defense-wide
Homeowners Assist. Fund,
)
)
)
)
Def.
DOD Family Housing
2,000
2,000
2,000
)
Improvement Fund
Total: Family Housing
4,246,460
4,247,804
4,228,384
)
GRAND TOTAL
9,664,041
10,083,000
10,614,883
)
* Includes $717 million in added DERF request, as considered by the Senate. Does not include floor
amendment made just prior to Senate passage.
Sources: H.Rept. 107-533, S.Rept. 107-202.

---

CRS-21
Table 9. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget
Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,
FY1993-FY2003
(current year dollars in thousands)
Total
Army
Air
Air
Change
Fiscal
National
National
Army
Naval
Force
from
Year
Guard
Guard
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Total
Request
1993 Req.
46,700
173,270
31,500
37,772
52,880
342,122
–
1993
214,989
305,759
42,150
15,400
29,900
608,198
+266,076
Enacted
1994 Req.
50,865
142,353
82,233
20,591
55,727
351,769
–
1994
302,719
247,491
102,040
25,029
74,486
751,765
+399,996
Enacted
1995 Req.
9,929
122,770
7,910
2,355
28,190
171,154
–
1995
187,500
248,591
57,193
22,748
56,958
572,990
+401,836
Enacted
1996 Req.
18,480
85,647
42,963
7,920
27,002
182,012
–
1996
137,110
171,272
72,728
19,055
36,482
436,647
+254,635
Enacted
1997 Req.
7,600
75,394
48,459
10,983
51,655
194,091
–
1997
78,086
189,855
55,543
37,579
52,805
413,868
+219,777
Enacted
1998 Req.
45,098
60,225
39,112
13,921
14,530
172,886
–
1998
102,499
190,444
55,453
26,659
15,030
390,085
+217,199
Enacted
1999 Req.
47,675
34,761
71,287
15,271
10,535
179,529
–
1999
144,903
185,701
102,119
31,621
34,371
498,715
+319,186
Enacted
2000 Req.
57,402
73,300
77,626
14,953
27,320
250,601
–
2000
236,228
262,360
110,764
28,310
64,071
701,733
+451,132
Enacted
2001 Req.
59,130
50,179
81,713
16,103
14,851
221,976
–
2001
285,587
203,381
108,499
61,931
36,510
695,908
Enacted
+473,932
2002 Req.
267,389
149,072
111,404
33,641
53,732
615,238
–
2002
400,994
250,530
165,136
51,676
74,013
942,349
+327,112
Enacted
2003 Req.*
101,595
62,406
58,779
58,671
37,976
319,427
–
2003 Hse*
159,672
119,613
99,059
75,821
75,276
529,441
+210,014
2003 Sen*
208,482
217,988
66,487
58,671
58,209
609,837
+290,410
* Includes DERF requests of $594 million (House) and $717 million (Request and Senate).
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years.

---

CRS-22
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
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL31349. Defense Budget for FY2003: Data Summary, by Stephen
Daggett and Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL31187. Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency
Supplemental Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Q. Nowels,
CRS Report RL31005. Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense,
coordinated by Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tyszkiewicz and
Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL30440. Military Base Closures: Where Do We Stand, by David E.
Lockwood.
CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Time for Another Round?, by David
E. Lockwood.
CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues,
by Valerie Bailey Grasso.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Legislative Branch Sites
House Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office
[http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office
[http://www.gao.gov/]

---

CRS-23
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/]

---