<font size="+1">List of Tables</font>
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2004
Table 2. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2004
Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2003-FY2004
Table 5. Military Construction FY2004 Appropriations by Account; Congressional Action
Table 6. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1994-FY2004
The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill provides funding for (1) military construction projects in the United States and overseas; (2) military family housing operations and construction; (3) U.S. contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program; and (4) the bulk of base realignment and closure (BRAC)costs.
The President forwarded his fiscal year 2004 budget request to the Congress on February 3, 2003. The original military construction request of $9.0 billion was later increased to $9.2 billion due to reprogramming from the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2658) and an Administration request related to foreign currency fluctuations as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office.
On June 17, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee reported a bill (H.R. 2559) that recommends $9.2 billion in military construction appropriations. This is $41 million below the President's revised request and $1.5 billion below the FY2003 appropriation. The House passed the bill on June 26. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an original version of the bill (S. 1357) and reported it to the Senate on June 26. On July 10, the Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559, substituting the text of S. 1357, and passed the amended bill on July 11. The conference committee reported its bill on November 4, 2003.
Authorization of military construction is included within the defense authorization bill. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 1588) on May 22. The Senate substituted the text of S. 1050 for that of H.R. 1588 and passed the amended bill on June 4, 2003. The conference committee began meeting on July 22 and had not reported its bill as of this writing. For a comprehensive report on defense authorization legislation, see CRS Report RL31805, Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004: Defense, by [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 funding specific to military construction and unlimited authority to transfer unspecified additional funds from the Iraqi Freedom Fund ($1.99 billion) to military construction and up to $500 million from other Department of Defense funds into a contingency construction account. The bill was passed by both chambers and was presented to the President on November 5. For more information on the supplemental, see CRS Report RL32090, FY2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism: Military Operations & Reconstruction Assistance, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].
<center>Key Policy Staff</center>
|Area of Expertise||Name||CRS Division||Telephone
|Base Closure||David Lockwood||FDT*||[phone number scrubbed]
[email address scrubbed]
|Defense Acquisition||Valerie Grasso||FDT||[phone number scrubbed]
[email address scrubbed]
|Def. Budget, Mil. Con./
|[author name scrubbed]||FDT||[phone number scrubbed]
[email address scrubbed]
|Defense Budget||[author name scrubbed]||FDT||[phone number scrubbed]
[email address scrubbed]
|Defense Reform||Gary Pagliano||FDT||[phone number scrubbed]
[email address scrubbed]
|Guard and Reserve Issues||[author name scrubbed]||FDT||[phone number scrubbed]
[email address scrubbed]
* FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service.
The House Appropriations Committee introduced its Military Construction Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 (H.R. 2559, H.Rept. 108-173) on June 23, 2003. The House considered and passed the bill on June 26, 2003.
The Senate Appropriations Committee introduced its companion bill (S. 1357, S.Rept. 108-82) on June 26. On July 10, the Senate amended H.R. 2559 by striking the text and substituting that of S. 1357. The Senate passed the amended bill on July 11 (91-0) and requested a conference with the House. On September 16, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment (motion to do so was carried without objection) and appointed conferees. The conference report was completed on November 4, 2003, and was passed by the House on November 5 (417-5). The message on House action is being held at the desk in the Senate.
In late September, the President submitted an emergency supplemental appropriations request. While the Senate considered its version of the bill (S. 1689), the House passed its bill (H.R. 3289) on October 17, 2003 (303-125). The Senate substituted the text of S. 1689 for that of H.R. 3289, passed the amended bill by unanimous consent, and sent notice of its action to the House. The conference report (H.Rept. 108-337) was filed on October 30. The House approved the report on October 31 (298-121, Roll No. 601), and the Senate approved by voice vote on November 3. The bill was presented to the President on November 5.
Conference action on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (H.R. 1588) began on July 22 and has not yet concluded. The House voted to instruct its conferees on September 10 (406-0).
The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world's largest dedicated infrastructure, covering more than 40,000 square miles of land and a physical plant worth more than $500 billion. The military construction appropriations bill provides a large part of the funding to enhance and maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds construction projects and some of the facility sustainment, restoration and modernization of the active Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and their reserve components; (1) additional defense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure Program); (2) and military family housing operations and construction. The bill also provides funding for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account, which finances most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of new facilities for transferred personnel and functions and environmental cleanup at closing sites. (3)
The military construction appropriations bill is one of several annual pieces of legislation that provide funding for national defense. Other major appropriation legislation includes the defense appropriations bill, which provides funds for all 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. (4)
No funds may be expended by any agency of the federal government before they are appropriated. (5) In addition, for nearly half a century Congress has forbidden the Department of Defense to obligate funds for any project or program until specific authorization is granted. (6) This explains why, for defense funds, both authorization and appropriations bills are required. Two separate defense appropriations bills are written annually, a "Military Construction Appropriations Act" dedicated to military construction, and a "National Defense Appropriations Act" covering all other defense appropriations. (7) Normally only one "National Defense Authorization Act" is passed each year to authorize both of these appropriations. (8) Therefore, major debates over defense policy and funding issues, including military construction, can be associated with any of these bills. Because issues in the defense authorization and appropriations bills intertwine, this report includes salient parts of the authorization bill in its discussion of the military construction appropriation process.
The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s. Traditionally, military construction was funded through annual defense or supplemental appropriations bills. However, the Korean War prompted a surge of military construction, followed by a steady increase in military construction appropriations. Given the strong and enduring security threat posed by the Soviet Union, a relatively high level of spending on military infrastructure appeared likely to continue. The appropriations committees established military construction subcommittees and created a separate military construction bill. The first stand-alone military construction bill was written for FY1959 (P.L. 85-852).
Military construction appropriations are not the sole source of funds available to defense agencies for facility investment. The defense appropriations bill funds 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), (9) and the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund, (10) both of which perform functions ancillary to the direct building of military infrastructure.
Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal year. Military construction appropriations, though, are an exception. Because of the long-term nature of construction projects, these funds can generally be obligated for up to five fiscal years.
Consideration of the military construction budget begins when the President's budget is delivered to Congress each year, usually in early February. This year, the President submitted his FY2004 budget request to the Congress on February 3, 2003.
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the FY2004 military construction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation process moves forward.
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2004
|Committee Markup||House Report||House Passage||Senate Report||Senate Passage||Conf. Report||Conference Report Approval||Public Law|
|H.Rept. 108-342||- -||- -||- -|
Notes: Dashes indicate no action yet taken.
House Appropriations Action. Following a series of hearings by the House Subcommittee on Military Appropriations, the full Committee marked up its bill on June 17. H.R. 2559 (H.Rept. 108-173) was introduced to the House on June 23, 2003, and placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 88). The House considered the bill under the provisions of a Special Rule (H.Res. 298) on June 26, 2003 (Congressional Record, H5979-5990). The measure passed by the Yeas and Nays: 428-0 (Roll no. 325).
The bill was received in the Senate the same day and placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 177).
Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction held hearings on its bill during March and April of 2003. The full Committee reported legislation (S. 1357, S.Rept. 108-82) to the Senate on June 26. The bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 176).
On July 10, the Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559, striking all after the enacting clause and substituting the text of S. 1357. The Senate passed the bill on July 11 (91-0), insisted on its amendment, and requested a conference with the House.
Conference Action. On September 16, 2003, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment, agreed to a conference, and appointed conferees (Congressional Record, H8228). By the end of their meeting on October 22, the conferees had not agreed on a final report. Difference between House and Senate managers appeared to center on allocations of funding for construction projects in Europe and in the Republic of Korea, where the President had requested $292 million, but where the future of many installations remains in doubt (See Realignment of Overseas Bases, below). The conferees agreed on their bill on November 4. The House approved the report on November 5 (417-5, Roll No. 606), and the message on House action is being held at the desk in the Senate.
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 the military construction appropriations bill and calculations performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to an Administration request for a general provision of funding related to the "Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Construction, Defense" account. The funding transfers included $25,500,000 for the purpose of constructing a Special Operations Forces facility and $119,815,000 for chemical demilitarization construction. The CBO calculation resulted in a re-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 facility and the CBO calculation. It did not include the transfer of chemical demilitarization construction funds from the defense appropriations bill, as had been done in the House version of the bill. (12) Therefore, the Senate version of the budget submission is quoted as $9,117,281,000. (13)
On September 21, 2003, the President forwarded to Congress his request for an emergency, non-offset supplemental appropriations for FY2004. (14) The House and Senate versions of the bill are H.R. 3289 and S. 1689.
The Department of Defense requested $65.6 billion of the overall supplemental appropriations. Its stated purpose is to support three ongoing military operations: Operation Iraqi Freedom ($51.5 million), Operation Enduring Freedom ($10.5 million), and Operation Noble Eagle ($2.2 million). Also, $1.4 million was identified as supporting coalition forces.
Of this total, $412.5 million is designated for domestic and overseas construction supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. About $119.9 million is to be committed to the Army, and $292.6 million is destined for the Air Force. The anticipated use of these funds is laid out in Table 2. Not included in the military construction portion of the request is additional funding for beddown facilities for approximately 25,000 soldiers. Consisting of trailers and containers equipped with housing and shower facilities, these accommodations are to be drawn from the Army Operation and Maintenance ($21.2 billion total) and Other Procurement ($930.7 million) supplemental appropriations requests. Table 3 compares presidential account requests with recommendations made by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The request also includes authorization to transfer significant funding into construction from other accounts.
Iraqi Freedom Fund. The Operations and Maintenance section requests $1.99 billion for an Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF). The IFF is a transfer account, or an account that is not dedicated to any specific purpose. Rather, it can be considered a "holding pot" for funds that may be transferred to other accounts at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. The request justifies the creation of a transfer account by noting "the unpredictable scope, duration, and intensity" of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This provision is contained in the enacted law.
According to the language of the legislation, authority to transfer the funds in the IFF is to be granted to the Secretary of Defense and is in addition to any other existing transfer authority. Funds may be transferred from the IFF to military personnel, operation and maintenance, Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance and Civic Aid, procurement, military construction, Defense Health Program, and working capital appropriations accounts. Any funds deemed to be in excess after transfer to a regular appropriations account may be returned to the IFF for subsequent retransfer. The request specifies that the Secretary of Defense will notify the congressional defense committees not less than five (5) days in advance of any transfer and will summarize the details of IFF transfers not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter.
Contingency Construction. Under Chapter 8 (General Provisions), the Secretary of Defense asked for the authority to transfer up to $500 million of the supplemental appropriations into a contingency construction account. This proposal did not survive, but Section 1301 of the enacted bill provided temporary authority for the use of up to $150 million of operations and maintenance funds for similar purposes (see below).
Contingency construction, as established by 10 USC 2804, permits the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, or Air Force) to carry out any military construction project not otherwise authorized if the Secretary determines that its deferral to the next Military Construction Appropriations Act would be inconsistent with national security or the national interest.
Existing law specifies that when the Secretary decides that contingency construction is appropriate, he must report this to the appropriate congressional committees. The report must explain why the project is necessary (its justification), and why it must be a contingency (instead of a regular) construction project. It must also include an estimate of the project's cost. Section 2804 also bars the Secretary from carrying out the project until after the end of a 21-day period that begins on the date his notification is received by the committees.
The Supplemental Appropriations request would have permitted the transfer of DOD funds into the contingency construction account seven (7) days after notification was sent to the appropriate congressional committees by the Secretary of Defense. This notification would have certified "that the transfer is necessary to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism or to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, and [specify] the amounts and purposes of the transfer, including a list of proposed projects and their estimated costs."
The recommendation further specified that, notwithstanding the 21-day waiting period required under Title 10, the Secretary of Defense "shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress no later than 15 days after the obligation of the funds for the project, specifying the estimated cost of the project" and including the standard DOD Form 1391 (Military Construction Program). (15) This would have eliminated the requirement to explain the need for a contingency, vice regular, construction project.
Normally, military construction is carried out only on a military installation, which is defined as real property (land, building, or structure) under the operational control of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense. For the purposes of this contingency construction account, the recommended language expands this definition to also include "any building, structure, or other improvement to real property to be used by the Armed Forces, regardless of whether such use is anticipated to be temporary or of longer duration."
Section 1301 of the enacted legislation authorized the Secretary of Defense to obligate operations and maintenance funds during Fiscal Year 2004 for construction projects outside the United States when they: are necessary to meet urgent military operational requirements of a temporary nature; on a military installation where the United States will not have a long-term presence; where the United States has no intention of using the construction after the operational requirement has been satisfied; and the level of construction is the minimum necessary to meet the temporary requirement.
The Act requires the Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees within 15 days of the obligation of funds for any project, and to submit a report on all projects within 30 days of the end of each fiscal-year quarter. The section specifies that only this temporary authority and the limited authority of 10 USC 2805(c) (Unspecified Minor Construction) permit the Secretary of Defense to use appropriated operations and maintenance funds for construction.
Senate Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (S. 1689). Senator Stevens introduced S. 1689 to the Senate without report on September 30, 2003, and the bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 296). It was laid before the Senate on October 1 (Congressional Record, S12220-12270). After debate and amendment, it was again taken up on October 2 (Congressional Record, S12311-12346, S12350-12360) and on October 3 (Congressional Record, S12424-12432). The Committee on Appropriations filed its report on the bill (S.Rept. 108-160) on October 2.
The Committee recommended emergency military construction appropriations equal to the President's request, totaling $119.9 million to the Military Construction, Army (emergency) account and $292.6 million to the Military Construction, Air Force (emergency) account, for a total of $412.5 million.
Section 315 of the Senate bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $150 million into a contingency construction fund, instead of the $500 million requested. It retains the requested expedited 21-day waiting period between initial notification and obligation of funds.
On October 17, the Senate substituted the language of S. 1689 into H.R. 3289. Further discussion of the bill proceeds under that number.
House Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (H.R. 3289). The House Committee on Appropriations marked up its version of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation on October 9, 2003, recommending $544.6 million for military construction and family housing accounts. The Senate and House recommendations differ primarily in funding dedicated to the reconstruction of military facilities and housing due to damage incurred in North Carolina and Virginia by Hurricane Isabel during mid-September 2003.
Section 1201 of the House bill allows the Secretary of Defense to use up to $500 million in operations and maintenance funds during FY2004 for construction projects outside the United States and levies a quarterly reporting requirement on the obligation and expenditure of these funds. This authority is not tied to the contingency construction provisions of 10 USC 2804, but rather characterizes the use of these funds as "unspecified minor construction" as authorized under 10 USC 2805. Statute places cost caps on unspecified minor construction projects that do not exist for contingency construction.
The House passed H.R. 3289 (303-125, Roll No. 562), as amended in floor debate, and sent the measure to the Senate on October 17. That same day, the Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause, substituted the language of S. 1689 amended, and passed the bill by Unanimous Consent (CR S12822-12832; bill text, October 20 CR S12892-12905). The Senate insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees.
On October 21, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment by unanimous consent and agreed to a conference, designating and instructing the conferees (CR H9770-9775; text, CR H9770).
Conference Action. The conference was held on October 28, 2003. The conference report was filed on October 30 (H.Rept. 108-337). The House considered the report on October 30 (Congressional Record, H10139-10157) and October 31 (Congressional Record, H10215-10231). The bill passed on October 31 (298 - 121, Roll No. 601). The Senate considered the report on November 3 (Congressional Record, S13751-13784), agreeing by a voice vote. The bill was presented to the President on November 5.
Table 2. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2004
|MilCon, Air Force||292,550||292,550||292,550||292,550|
|Total: Military Construction||412,450||523,180||412,450||500,180|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, Army||8,151||11,420|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, Navy & Marine Corps||6,268||6,280|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, AF||6,971||6,981|
|Total: Family Housing||0||21,390||0||24,681|
|Total Emergency Supplemental||412,450||544,570||412,450||524,861|
Sources: S.Rept. 108-160; H.Rept. 108-312; H.Rept. 108-337.
Several issues regarding military construction have gained visibility during the legislative deliberations of the current session of Congress. Among these are overall funding levels, realignment of overseas bases, base realignment and closure (BRAC), and perchlorate ground water contamination remediation.
Overall Funding Levels. The FY2004 budget submitted by the President on February 3, 2003, as subsequently amended, requested $9.24 billion in new budget authority, an amount $1.46 billion below the 2003 enactment. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations request submitted in late September would increase the total request by $412 million and would authorize the transfer of unspecified additional funds as they are needed.
Realignment of Overseas Bases. The Department of Defense has initiated efforts in Germany and in the Republic of Korea to reduce the number and shift the locations of its permanent installations. Known in Europe as Efficient Basing-East and in Korea as the Land Partnership Plan, they are part of a worldwide DOD effort to transform itself into a lighter and more agile military establishment.
As part of this endeavor, the Secretary of Defense has tasked his combatant commanders to review military construction projects in order that they might support changing military objectives overseas. These commanders are required to submit a basing plan that enhances their abilities to project power, to support operations, and to conduct activities based upon the Secretary's views of a military structure transformed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Based on the DOD study of overseas basic requirements, the Administration in its amendment asked for the deletion of 16 construction projects totaling $269 million that had been requested for Germany and Turkey in its original FY2004 submission.
This DOD study is not yet complete, however, and the House Appropriations Committee, in its report, expressed concerns that current and projected military construction at overseas sites may not reflect a well-considered strategy. The committee, noting that DOD has announced the retrenchment of some garrisons in the Republic of Korea, recommended rescinding $107 million from prior year appropriations at sites slated to be closed and re-appropriating them to installations expected to remain in service.
The Senate Appropriations Committee strongly supported the DOD effort to reevaluate its overseas basing requirements, though both appropriations committees noted that a DOD overseas basing master plan, due on April 1, 2002, had not yet been submitted. The Senate committee recognized that the DOD study of rebasing had not progressed beyond its embryonic stage. In observing public statements indicating that DOD would likely reduce the number of troops stationed in Germany and would reconfigure its installations in Korea, it did not find much of the new construction in Europe and Korea that had been requested in the May 1, 2003, budget amendment.
The Senate Committee recommended that an eight-member Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States be formed to assess whether current overseas basing is adequate and assess the feasibility of various new configurations. Appointed by congressional leadership, the Commission would provide an independent view of overseas basing requirements and would submit its report, including findings, conclusions, recommendations for legislation and administrative action, and a proposed overseas basing strategy, to the President and Congress by August 30, 2004. The Committee also directed the Department of Defense to submit master plans for changing the military infrastructure requirements within each overseas regional command and report annually, through FY2008, on the plans' implementation.
Notwithstanding congressional direction, the press has reported that the Department of Defense and the military services have begun taking action to realign force levels and the basing "footprint" at overseas locations.
On July 23, the Pacific Stars and Stripes, a newspaper written for military members stationed throughout the Pacific area, announced that U.S. and Japanese officials had entered into an agreement to return to Japanese control more than 700 acres of land near Yokosuka used by the American military. (16) In return, the Japanese government agreed to build 800 new residential housing units near the main Yokosuka naval base.
In Europe, the press has reported that the U.S. European Command is considering the closure of many of the military installations in Germany and the return to the United States of many of the combat units now stationed there. New, more austere, bases could be constructed to house lighter, smaller combat units sent more to train than to garrison. Countries where these "bare-bones" bases might be located include Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Algeria, and Morocco. (17) A more recent report in the press indicated that two of the Army divisions currently engaged in operations in Iraq, the First Armored and the First Infantry Divisions, currently based in Wiesbaden and Würzburg, Germany, could be permanently redeployed to the United States when they are relieved of their present assignments. (18)
In the Republic of Korea during early June 2003, officials announced that U.S. forces there would be realigned, with elements of the Second Infantry Division currently based near the Demilitarized Zone between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea moving south, and the garrison at the Yongsan Garrison in the capital city of Seoul beginning its relocation "as soon as possible." (19)
The conference report retained provisions for the establishment of a Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. The Commission's structure and duties remained much as the Senate committee had specified, though the Commission's report deadline was established as December 31, 2004.
The conferees also directed the Department of Defense to prepare comprehensive master plans for overseas military bases that are to be submitted with the Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission (the Senate had proposed submission with the Fiscal Year 2005 budget), and specified that a status report on the comprehensive plans and their implementation are to be submitted each year through Fiscal Year 2009, along with the military construction budget request. The conferees suggested that they may extend this reporting requirement to include installations located within the continental United States.
The conferees noted that movement of US military forces from their established garrisons near the Demilitarized Zone in Korea to bases further south in the country has been planned by the Department of Defense. Nevertheless, they noted that no master plan exists for the consolidation of these troops within Camp Humphreys, the Department's stated goal. The conferees agreed to allow planning for construction at Camp Humphreys to proceed, but construction itself may not commence until a master facilities plan is developed and cost-sharing arrangements for the relocation of US forces has been agreed with the government of the Republic of Korea.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Four BRAC rounds have been completed since the first in 1989. A fifth round, expected to affect as many installations as the previous four rounds combined, is scheduled to take effect in FY2005.
Under statutory language included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002, the Secretary of Defense is required to publish by December 31, 2003, an initial list of the criteria he will use to recommend base closure and realignment actions. The Secretary's force structure plan, a comprehensive base inventory, and certification that the BRAC round is needed are to be included with the presidential submission of his FY2005 budget in early February 2004. Congress will have the opportunity to disapprove the Secretary's selection criteria during early 2004. The final presidential list of BRAC actions is due to the Congress on November 7, 2005. (20)
The Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI). Some press reports have referred to the FY2005 BRAC round as the "Efficient Facilities Initiative." This substitution is inaccurate and has led to some confusion. In fact, BRAC and Efficient Facilities Initiative are defined in statute and refer to two different processes.
The original Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) was a new approach to reducing and managing DOD real property holdings and was intended to substitute for a repeat BRAC round. The EFI was intended to encompass all military installations, both domestic and overseas, and would have instituted a different method of administering many of the surviving bases.
The EFI was publicly announced by the Department of Defense on August 2, 2001, and the Department's General Counsel submitted proposed legislation to Congress on August 3. It included three major actions: the potential realignment and closure of U.S. military installations overseas; the potential realignment and closure of installations within the United States during FY2003; and the permanent authorization of the Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project, expanded to include all military services. The language as proposed was not adopted by Congress.
Instead, Congress incorporated some aspects of the EFI into the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002. (21) Because military bases on foreign territory are established by agreement between governments, no legislation was needed to begin the process of overseas bases. Congress ignored that portion of the EFI. Instead of approving the Secretary's suggested process for review of domestic bases and establishment of a permanent Department-wide Brooks-like base management system, Congress created the FY2005 BRAC round in Title XXX of the Act and authorized DOD to carry out a "Pilot Efficient Facilities Initiative" for a maximum of four years at up to two military installations of each military department (Army, Navy, and Air Force). These pilot initiatives were to be modeled on the Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project in San Antonio, Texas.
The Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project. The Brooks Air Force Base Development Demonstration Project (also known as the "Base Efficiency Project" or the "Brooks City-Base Project") is a partnership between the Secretary of the Air Force and the City of San Antonio, Texas, and represents an alternative to traditional base closings or realignments.
Usually, military reservations are federal land jurisdictionally independent of the surrounding communities and governed by the base commander. Congress authorized the Secretary to "convert any military or civil service appropriated or non-appropriated fund activity at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, into a contracted activity or an exchange of services compensated for by the lease, sale, conveyance, or transfer of real or private property." (22) This empowered the Secretary to transfer title, in exchange for appropriate compensation, of the whole of federal real property at Brooks to the city and to lease back for military use those parts that directly support the base's military mission. (23) The base is then no longer federal property. The cost of maintaining and operating the facility's physical plant, including fire and police protection, upkeep, and the like, is effectively transferred along with ownership from the Department of Defense to the local community. Funds generated from the lease or sale of property, reimbursements, and so on, is placed in a special Project Fund, which the Secretary of the Air Force may employ for operations, leaseback, maintenance and repair of Department facilities, and other uses. (24)
This has taken place at Brooks, and one aim of the EFI was to make the same management tools available permanently to all service secretaries for use where they considered appropriate. But Congress granted this authority only as a pilot project of limited scope and duration. To date, the Department of Defense has not selected candidate sites.
Perchlorate Groundwater Contamination Remediation. The Senate Appropriations Committee included language in its report requiring the Department of Defense to report not later than March 30, 2004, on the activities of the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee of the Department of Defense. The Steering Committee was established in January 1998 to facilitate the flow of information between defense agencies on technological issues related to perchlorate contamination of drinking water supplies and irrigation water supplies.
The report of the House Appropriations Committee on the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2658, H.Rept. 108-187) also addressed perchlorate groundwater contamination. That Committee directed the Department of Defense to conduct a joint study with the Environmental Protection Agency on perchlorate contamination of water supplies in southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. This report would be completed within 180 days of the enactment of the defense appropriations bill and would recommend national groundwater contamination standards, indicate the military and defense industry contamination sources, and outline mitigation steps for which the federal government would be responsible.
The conferees directed the Department of Defense to submit a report identifying sources of perchlorate contamination on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) properties along with plans to remediate this contamination. The conferees moved the deadline for the submission of this report from the Senate-recommended March 30, 2004, to April 30, 2004.
Between FY1985 and FY1998, funding devoted to military construction declined steadily as DOD and Congress struggled with a changing strategic environment, a shrinking military force, and the uncertainties associated with several rounds of base realignments and closures. Appropriations began to rise with FY1998 as Congress sought to replace outdated facilities and improve the quality of life for military personnel at home and in the workplace. Administration requests for military construction funding (not including BRAC and family housing) continued to decline until FY2000, but have risen for FY2001 and FY2002. The request for FY2004 rises above the level requested for FY2003, and DOD projects that its annual construction requests will approximately triple between FY2003 and FY2007 (see Figure 1).
<center></center> Prior to FY1994, Congress considered Administration requests to exceed real construction requirements, typically appropriating less new budget authority than requested. This pattern reversed with the FY1995 budget. Every year since then, Congress has added to Administration requests, countering what Members have termed "inadequate" funding for military construction.
Table 4 breaks down the FY2004 request by appropriations account and compares it to FY2003 levels. Table 5 shows congressional action on current military construction appropriations by account. Table 6 compares Administration military construction requests and enactments for Guard and Reserve projects from FY1994-FY2004.
H.R. 2559 (Knollenberg). Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. H.R. 2559 was reported out of committee on June 17, 2003, and introduced to the House on June 23. The bill passed the House on June 26, 2003 (428-0), and was sent to the Senate.
The Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559 on July 10, amending it by striking all text after the enacting clause and substituting the text of S. 1357. On July 11, the Senate passed the bill (91-0), insisted upon its amendment, and requested a conference with the House. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on a motion passed without objection on September 16. The House then requested a conference and appointed conferees. Conferees agreed on the final bill on November 4, and the House approved their report on November 5 (417-5, Roll No. 606). The message on House action is being held at the desk in the Senate.
S. 1357 (Hutchinson). An original bill making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. S. 1357 was reported as an original measure on June 26, 2003. The Senate began consideration of H.R. 2559 on July 10, amending it by striking all text after the enacting clause and substituting the text of S. 1357. All subsequent action is listed under H.R. 2559.
H.R. 1588 (Hunter, by request). (25) To authorize appropriations for FY2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2004, and for other purposes. Introduced on April 23, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, it was further referred to the Subcommittees on Projection Forces, Total Force, Readiness, Tactical Air and Land Forces, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, and Strategic Forces. The subcommittees completed markup and returned the bill to the full committee on May 9. The Subcommittee on Readiness, which exercises jurisdiction over the military construction portion of the authorization bill, recommended increasing the requested funding for construction and adopted (16-5) an amendment sponsored by Representative Gene Taylor (Miss.-04) that would repeal the FY2005 round of base realignments and closures. The measure was passed out by voice vote. The bill was reported out on May 16, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-106), and placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 53). The committee filed a supplemental report (H.Rept 108-106, Part II) on May 21. Brought to the floor on May 21, 2003, subject to a rule (H.Res. 245). H.R. 1588 was debated, amended, and passed by recorded vote (361-68, Roll no. 221) on May 21 and 22.
The bill was received in the Senate on June 2, 2003, and on June 4 was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 1050. The bill passed with an amendment by voice vote the same day (Congressional Record, S7297-7364).The Senate then insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees. The Senate sent a message to the House informing it of its action on June 5, 2003.
Conferees met for the first time on July 22. The House voted on September 10 to instruct its conferees regarding Sections 606 and 619 of the Senate amendment (relating to the rates of pay for the family separation allowance and imminent danger pay) (406-0, Roll No. 500, Congressional Record, H8167, et seq.). On September 17, the House debated whether to instruct its conferees on Subtitle F of Title VI of the Senate amendment (relating to naturalization and family protection for military members) (Congressional Record, H8366-H8369). The vote on whether to accept the motion occurred on September 23 (298-118, 18 not voting, Roll No. 511, Congressional Record, H8466).
Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2003-FY2004
(new budget authority in thousands of dollars)
|Account||FY2003 Enacted||FY2004 Request||FY2004 Conference|
|MilCon, Air Force||1,201,266||830,671||1,044,751|
|Total: Active Components||5,056,157||4,193,840||4,203,373|
|MilCon, Army National Guard||241,377||168,298||311,592|
|MilCon, Air National Guard||203,813||60,430||222,908|
|MilCon, Army Reserve||100,554||68,478||88,451|
|MilCon, Navy Reserve||74,921||28,032||45,498|
|MilCon, Air Force Reserve||85,826||44,312||62,032|
|Total: Reserve Components||706,491||369,550||730,481|
|Total: Military Construction||5,762,648||4,563,390||4,933,854|
|NATO Security Investment Program||167,200||169,300||161,300|
|Family Housing Const., Army||275,436||356,891||289,440|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, Army||1,106,007||1,043,026||1,033,026|
|Family Housing Const., Navy & Marine Corps||373,816||184,193||143,685|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, Navy & Marine Corps||861,788||852,778||835,078|
|Family Housing Const., AF||676,042||637,718||637,718|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, AF||864,850||834,468||816,074|
|Family Housing Const., Def-wide||5,480||350||350|
|Family Housing Operation & Debt, Def-wide||42,395||49,440||49,440|
|DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund||2,000||300||(9,392)|
|Total: Family Housing||4,207,814||3,959,164||3,795,419|
|Total: BRAC Acct.||561,138||370,427||370,427|
|General Provision (CBO est.)||55,000||55,000|
Source: Data for FY2003 Enacted from H.Rept. 108-173; H.Rept. 108-342.
Table 5. Military Construction FY2004 Appropriations by Account; Congressional Action
(in thousands of dollars)
|MilCon, Air Force||830,671||896,136||1,056,377||1,044,751|
|Total: Active Components||4,193,840||4,198,869||3,964,141||4,203,373|
|MilCon, Army Nat'l. Guard||168,298||208,033||304,085||311,592|
|MilCon, Air National Guard||60,430||77,105||221,013||222,908|
|MilCon, Army Reserve||68,478||84,569||73,979||88,451|
|MilCon, Naval Reserve||28,032||38,992||34,742||45,498|
|MilCon, Air Force Reserve||44,312||56,212||57,426||62,032|
|Total: Reserve Components||369,550||464,911||691,245||730,481|
|Total: Military Construction||4,563,390||4,663,780||4,655,386||4,933,854|
|NATO Security Investment Program||169,300||169,300||169,300||161,300|
|Family Housing Const., Army||356,891||356,891||356,891||289,440|
|Family Housing Ops & Maint, Army||1,043,026||1,043,026||1,043,026||1,033,026|
|Family Housing Const.,
Navy & Marine Corps
|Family Housing Ops & Maint, Navy & Marine Corps||852,778||852,778||852,778||835,078|
|Family Housing Const.,
|Family Housing Ops & Maint, Air Force||834,468||826,074||834,468||816,074|
|Family Housing Const, Defense-wide||350||350||350||350|
|Family Housing Ops & Maint, Defense-wide||49,440||49,440||49,440||49,440|
|DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund||300||300||300||(9,392)|
|Total: Family Housing||3,959,164||3,937,493||3,945,887||3,795,419|
|General Provision (CBO est.)||55,000||55,000||55,000||55,000|
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,
(current year dollars in thousands)
|Fiscal Year||Army National Guard||Air National Guard||Army Reserve||Naval Reserve||Air Force Reserve||Total||Total Change from Request|
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 & Reconstruction Assistance, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and Rhoda Margesson.
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
Senate Committee on Appropriations
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
Congressional Budget Office
General Accounting Office
U.S. Department of Defense Sites
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), FY2004 Budget Materials
U.S. Department of Defense, Installations & Environment Home Page
White House Sites
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget Materials
Office of Management & Budget
1. (back)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.
2. (back)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.
3. (back)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.
4. (back)See CRS Report RL31005, Appropriations and Authorization for FY2002: Defense, by Amy Belasco, Mary Tyszkiewicz, and [author name scrubbed], for details on the defense authorization and appropriation process.
5. (back)Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
6. (back)See 10 USC 114.
7. (back)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).
8. (back)The Subcommittee on Readiness in the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support in the Senate Armed Services Committee draft legislation to authorize military construction appropriations.
9. (back)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.
10. (back)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.
11. (back)Rep. Jerry Lewis introduced the Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2658, H.Rept. 108-187) to the House on July 2, 2003, when it was placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 96).
12. (back)Presidential budget submissions for the demilitarization of chemical munitions had usually been divided between the defense and military construction appropriations because both construction and operations are involved in the process. For FY2004, the Department of Defense folded both components into the much larger defense appropriations request, apparently to be able to shift funds into and out of construction without having to request transfer authority from the Congress.
13. (back)FY2004 request amounts shown in the tables of this report are taken from the House version of the President's budget submission.
14. (back)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], for a comprehensive discussion of the entire emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
15. (back)A Form 1391 is prepared for each regular construction project requested by the Department of Defense and included in the detailed justification materials submitted annually to Congress. It names, numbers, and describes the project, gives its location, lists the estimated costs of its components, explains the requirement, reports the current situation, and assesses the impact if the project is not approved.
16. (back)According the the report, all of the Fukaya Communications Site, Tomioka Storage Area and Negishi Dependent Housing Area and most of the Kamiseya Communications Station will be returned at a future date not yet determined. See Joseph Giordono, "Japan Pledges To Build 800 Residential Units Near Yokosuka," Pacific Stars and Stripes, July 23, 2003.
17. (back)See Brian Whitmore, "US Looks East To Set Up New Europe Bases," Boston Globe, July 12,2003, p. 1.
18. (back)See Amy Svitak and Vince Crawley, "Germany-Based Divisions May Move Stateside," Army Times, August 4, 2003, p. 14.
19. (back)See Howard W. French, "Official Says U.S. Will Reposition Its Troops In South Korea." New York Times, June 3, 2003, Jeremy Kirk and Franklin Fisher, "Army: No Timetable For S. Korea Move," Pacific Stars and Stripes, June 10, 2003, and Seo Soo-min, "ROK, US Agree on Fast-Track Force Realignment," Korea Times, June 30, 2003. The U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Korea has since cautioned that the redeployment of troops from their current location in Seoul to their new positions will be slow, awaiting the funding of necessary construction by the host nation and by the Congress. See Sim Sung-tae, "Envoy: Redeploying Troops Takes Time," Korea Herald, July 8, 2003.
20. (back)For a comprehensive review of the BRAC process, see CRS Report RL30440, Military Base Closures: Estimates of Costs and Savings, by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report RL30051, Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, by [author name scrubbed].
21. (back)S. 1438 (P.L. 107-107). H.Rept. 107-333 is the bill's conference report.
22. (back)Defense Appropriation Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-79) and Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-246).
23. (back)This is often referred to as "sell and lease back."
24. (back)More information on the Brooks City-Base Project is available online at http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/edd/brooks/.
25. (back)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.
Return to CONTENTS section of this Long Report.