Military Construction: Analysis of the
President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
February 25, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41653
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Summary
President Barack Obama submitted his Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 request for appropriations to
Congress on Monday, February 14, 2012. At the time, the federal government was operating
under the fourth FY2011 continuing appropriation. Wording within the initial continuing
appropriation (P.L. 111-242), extended under each subsequent bill, has been interpreted by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to bar the commencement of any FY2011 construction project.
Hence, no new military construction has been initiated for the current fiscal year.
This report explains those government activities funded under the military construction
appropriation, examines trends in military construction funding over the past few years, and
outlines military construction issues extant in each of the major regions of U.S. military activity.
As shown in Table 1, the President’s current request for military construction appropriations is
reduced by approximately $9.9 billion below the amount enacted for FY2010 and $5.2 billion
below what he requested for FY2011. The largest portion of those reductions comes from the
military base closure accounts. Initiated in late 2005 with the approval of a list of
recommendations for base realignment and closure (BRAC) actions, the 2005 BRAC round is
expected to conclude in September 2011. The funding needed in FY2010 and FY2011 for
construction and movement of organizations will not be necessary in FY2012 and subsequent
years. In addition, the President is requesting less in regular military construction for FY2012
than he did for either FY2010 or FY2011. Finally, funding for construction supporting Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO, or active military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), for which
$1.4 billion was appropriated in FY2010 and $1.3 billion was requested for FY2011, has been
virtually eliminated, with only $80 million in the regular FY2012 appropriation requested for
construction at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
Construction issues within the United States center on the relocations associated with the BRAC
movements, the proposed transfer of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk, VA, to
Mayport, FL, and the disestablishment of two major military commands, Joint Forces Command
(JFCOM) and the Navy’s Second Fleet (2FLT), both located in the Tidewater region of Virginia.
In the Pacific region, the topics of major interest include planned relocations of U.S. Marine
forces within the Japanese Prefecture of Okinawa and from Okinawa to the U.S. Territory of
Guam, movement of U.S. garrisons in the Republic of Korea to new concentrations south of the
capital of Seoul, and the normalization of duty for servicemembers stationed there, which will
lengthen their tours and will bring many more military families to Korea.
Troops are also moving within Europe and redeploying to the United States. Active duty military
personnel stationed in Europe now number only one-quarter of the force present in 1980, and
garrisons in Germany are being concentrated into two large military communities in the south. At
least one major combat formation scheduled to move to the United States during the past few
years has been retained at its garrison in Germany pending a military basing review.
Military responsibility for Africa has been placed under a new Africa Command (AFRICOM).
Though headquartered in Germany, AFRICOM does have one enduring military garrison site on
the continent, at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti. Construction at that site continues to be of interest to
Congress. Press accounts have indicated that a new permanent home for AFRICOM headquarters
might be located in southeastern Virginia.
Congressional Research Service
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Southwest Asia, the area of responsibility for U.S. Central Command, has seen ongoing military
operations for almost a decade. Since FY2004, Congress has given DOD special authority to use
some operations and maintenance funds for military construction outside of the normal
appropriations process. That authority was extended into FY2011. Funds for military construction
had been provided through special emergency supplemental appropriations, but beginning in
FY2010, these funds were folded into the base budget—though still categorized separately from
normal construction requests. Funding for military construction in support of operations in
Central Command has fallen precipitously with the FY2012 request.
Congressional Research Service
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Contents
Military Construction Funding Trends, FY2010-FY2012............................................................. 1
Appropriations Overview ...................................................................................................... 1
Military Construction Appropriations Accounts ..................................................................... 1
Military Construction Funding Levels, FY2010-FY2012....................................................... 3
Funding Overview .......................................................................................................... 4
Regional Command Construction Issues ..................................................................................... 5
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) ..................................................................................... 5
Pacific Command (PACOM) ................................................................................................. 6
MCAS Futenma Replacement ......................................................................................... 6
Guam Redeployment....................................................................................................... 7
Korea Transformation ..................................................................................................... 7
European Command (EUCOM) ............................................................................................ 7
Africa Command (AFRICOM).............................................................................................. 8
Central Command (CENTCOM)........................................................................................... 9
FY2011 Continuing Appropriations: Status and Impact ............................................................. 10
The President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request ....................................................................... 11
Questions for Congress ............................................................................................................. 11
Tables
Table 1.Military Construction Budget Authority, FY2010-FY2012 .............................................. 1
Table 2.Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012 .................................. 3
Table A-1. Title I—Military Construction Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012.............................. 12
Table A-2. Title IV—Overseas Contingency Operations Construction Appropriations,
FY2010-2012......................................................................................................................... 16
Appendixes
Appendix. Detailed Military Construction Appropriations Tables .............................................. 12
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 16
Congressional Research Service
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Military Construction Funding Trends, FY2010-
FY2012
Appropriations Overview
On Monday, February 14, 2011, President Barack Obama submitted to Congress his request for
military construction appropriations to support federal government operations during FY2012,
which will begin on October 1, 2011 (see Table 1). The timing of his request was unusual
because it overlapped the congressional process of appropriating for government operations
during FY2011.
Since the beginning of FY2011, federal funding has been provided through a series of legislative
instruments—four—that continue government spending at the same rate enacted for FY2010.
Because the 111th Congress adjourned sine die without passing any FY2011 regular
appropriations bills, the task has fallen to the 112th Congress.
Table 1.Military Construction Budget Authority, FY2010-FY2012
New Budget Authority, thousands of dollars
FY2010
FY2011
Enacted
Continuing
(P.L. 111-
FY2011
Appropriation
FY2012
Account
117)
Request
(H.R. 1)
Request
Grand Total, Title I
23,279,950
18,747,368
17,348,047
14,766,047
Grand Total, Title
1,398,984 1,257,002 1,257,000
0
IV
Grand Total
24,678,934
20,004,370
18,605,047
14,766,047
Sources: H.Rept. 111-366; H.Rept. 111-559; S.Rept. 111-226; H.Rept. 112-1; DOD Budget Justification Material,
FY2012.
Note: Title I includes regular military construction accounts; Title IV constitutes a special category of
appropriations for the support of Overseas Contingency Operations by the Department of Defense.
Military Construction Appropriations Accounts
The military construction appropriation, Title I of one of those bills, the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, pays for the building of new military
facilities required for new weapons systems, including aircraft and naval vessels; the
redeployment of military forces to new locations; the improvement of military living and working
conditions; the reduction of facility operating costs; and the improvement of military productivity
at both active and reserve components. Military construction funds also pay for construction and
movement of organizations mandated in base closure and realignment actions, and for the
Congressional Research Service
1
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
environmental remediation required for the disposal of defense real property as required by the
base closure acts of 1988 and 1990, as amended.1
Another appropriation within the bill provides funding for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Security Investment Program (NSIP), which constitutes the U.S. contribution to a 28-
nation collective account for the acquisition and construction of international collective defense
facilities within the North Atlantic Treaty Area.
Other subaccounts finance all costs associated with construction, improvement, operation, and
leasing of all government-provided military family housing. The Family Housing Improvement
Fund (FHIP) finances the DOD portion of the various public-private partnerships resulting from
the privatization of much of the inventory of domestic military family housing under the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) begun during the late 1990s. The Homeowners
Assistance Fund (HAF) was created during the mid-1960s to assist DOD family homeowners
who are forced to sell their houses in markets depressed by base closures, but eligibility to apply
for such assistance was temporarily expanded to include military members who purchased homes
during the so-called “housing bubble” and who were ordered to change duty stations during the
subsequent “housing crisis.” The Secretary of Defense terminated this temporary eligibility late in
2010, as permitted under the enabling statute.
A final subaccount funds the construction of facilities at several chemical munitions depots.
These munitions, such as nerve gases, have been banned from use in warfare by international
treaty, and highly sophisticated industrial plants at select depots have been constructed to
demilitarize (render non-lethal) and safely dispose of U.S. chemical munitions stockpiles.
Construction for this program is nearing completion.
Titles II and III of the bill fund the benefits programs and operations of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and several federal agencies, including the American Battle Monuments
Commission, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, and Arlington National Cemetery. These titles are not addressed in this report.
Title IV is a new appropriation provision dedicated to military construction supporting “overseas
contingency operations” (OCO), such as the ongoing ground force deployments to U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM). During the first years of active military engagement in CENTCOM,
such construction was paid for through a series of emergency supplemental appropriations. In
recent years, the Obama Administration has moved this funding into the regular appropriations
process, yet highlighted it through the designation of “Title IV (OCO)” military construction.
1 These acts were the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, 1988 (P.L. 100-526,
Div A, Title XII, Part D, § 1231(17), 101 Stat. 1161), and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, 1990 (P.L.
101-510, Div B, Title XXIX, Part A, § 2911, 104 Stat. 1819). A number of CRS products have addressed various
aspects of military installation closures. Current products include CRS Report RS22147, Military Base Closures:
Socioeconomic Impacts, by Tadlock Cowan and Oscar R. Gonzales; CRS Report RL34709, Economic Development
Assistance for Communities Affected by Employment Changes Due to Military Base Closures (BRAC), by Oscar R.
Gonzales; and CRS Report R40476, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Transfer and Disposal of Military
Property, by R. Chuck Mason. Examples of other products include CRS Report RS22184, Military Base Closures:
Redevelopment Assistance Programs, by Baird Webel; CRS Report RL32963, The Availability of Judicial Review
Regarding Military Base Closures and Realignments, by Ryan J. Watson; and CRS Report RL33137, Military Base
Closures and the Impact Aid Program for Education, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
2
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Military Construction Funding Levels, FY2010-FY2012
FY2011 military construction is being funded under a series of continuing appropriations rather
than a year-long appropriations act. A continuing appropriation does not specify a set amount of
budget authority available for each account, but rather allows DOD and the various military
departments, in general, to obligate (spend) funds at the same rate as last enacted in a regular
appropriation bill. At the present time, P.L. 111-117, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2010,
included the most recent four-year military construction appropriation.
Both House and Senate drafted military construction legislation for FY2011, but neither bill was
enacted before adjournment of the 111th Congress.2 In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R.
1, a full-year continuing appropriation, on February 19, 2011, which awaits action by the Senate.
Finally, as noted earlier, the President has requested appropriations for FY2012.
Funding for the FY2010 act, the President’s FY2011 appropriation request, H.R. 1 (as introduced
to the House), and the President’s FY2012 request are laid out in Table 2. A more detailed
comparison, including the regular FY2011 House and Senate military construction appropriations
bills, may be found in the Appendix in Table A-1 and Table A-2.
Table 2.Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012
New Budget Authority, thousands of dollars
FY2011
FY2010
Continuing
Enacted (P.L.
FY2011
Appropriation
FY2012
Account
111-117)
Request
(H.R. 1)
Request
Military Construction, Army 3,719,419
4,078,798 3,744,998 3,235,991
Military Construction, Navy and Marine
3,769,003 3,879,104 3,482,173 2,461,547
Corps
Military Construction, Air Force 1,412,926
1,311,385
1,127,295
1,364,858
Military Construction, Defense-wide 2,942,519
3,118,062 2,815,562
3,848,757
Total, Active Components
11,843,867
12,387,349
11,170,028
10,911,153
Military Construction, Army National
582,056 873,664 873,664 773,592
Guard
Military Construction, Air National
371,226 176,986 194,986 116,246
Guard
Military Construction, Army Reserve
431,566
318,175 318,175 280,549
Military Construction, Navy Reserve
125,874
61,557 61,557 26,299
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
112,269 7,832 7,832 33,620
Total, Reserve Components
1,622,991
1,438,214
1,456,214
1,230,306
Total, Military Construction 13,466,858
13,825,563
12,626,242 12,141,459
2 The House bill, H.R. 5822, was adopted by that chamber on July 19, 2011, and forwarded to the Senate. The Senate
bill, S. 3615, was introduced on July 19, 2011, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders
(Calendar No. 469).
Congressional Research Service
3
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
FY2011
FY2010
Continuing
Enacted (P.L.
FY2011
Appropriation
FY2012
Account
111-117)
Request
(H.R. 1)
Request
NATO Security Investment
197,414 258,884 258,884 272,611
Program
Family Housing Construction, Army
273,236
92,369
92,369
186,897
Family Housing Ops and Debt, Army
523,418
518,140
518,140
494,858
Family Housing Construction, Navy and
146,569 186,444 186,444 100,972
Marine Corps
Family Housing Ops and Debt, Navy and
368,540 366,346 366,346 367,863
Marine Corps
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
66,101
78,025
78,025
84,804
Family Housing Ops and Debt, Air Force
502,936
513,792
513,792
404,761
Family Housing Construction, Defense-
2859 — — —
wide
Family Housing Ops and Debt, Defense-
49,214 50,464 50,464 50,723
wide
DOD Family Housing Improvement
2,600 1,096 1,096 2,184
Fund
Homeowners Assistance Fund
323,225
16,515
16,515
1,284
Total, Family Housing
2,258,698
1,823,191
1,823,191
1,694,346
Chemical Demilitarization
151,541 124,971 124,971
75,312
Construction, Defense-wide
Base Realignment and Closure
7,952,266
2,714,759
2,514,759
582,319
Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 110-
— — — —
252, Sec. 1001) Barracks Improvements
General Reductions (Sec. 129)
-529,091
0
0
0
General Rescissions (Sec. 130)
-217,736
0
0
0
Total, Title I
23,279,950
18,747,368
17,348,047
14,766,047
Total, Title IV
1,398,984
1,257,002
1,257,000
0
Grand Total
24,678,934
20,004,370
18,605,047
14,766,047
Sources: H.Rept. 111-366; H.Rept. 111-559; S.Rept. 111-226; H.Rept. 112-1; DOD Budget Justification Material,
FY2012.
Funding Overview
President Obama has requested a total of $14.8 billion in military construction and family
housing new budget authority for FY2012. This is a reduction of $9.9 billion from the amount
enacted for FY2010, representing a drop of 40.2%. The falloff in BRAC costs due to the
completion of construction and organization movement is responsible for $7.4 billion, or 75%, of
the difference between the two years.
Congressional Research Service
4
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
That reduction of the FY2012 request below the funding levels of FY2010 extends across most of
the military construction and family housing subaccounts.3 The President is asking for $1.3
billion (9.8%) less for active and reserve component construction than was appropriated in
FY2010. For the various family housing accounts (construction, operation, FHIP, and HAF), he is
requesting $564 million less (25%) than given for FY2010. His chemical demilitarization
construction request has been cut in half relative to FY2010, and his BRAC needs have virtually
disappeared. Finally, the President is asking for virtually no OCO military construction funding.4
Of the funding requested by the President for FY2012, $9.3 billion is dedicated for expenditure
within the United States, $1.8 billion for projects outside of the United States, and the remainder
($3.7 billion) for uses where either the location is unspecified or currently unknown (e.g., for
future planning and design of various construction projects).
The principal purposes for which the requested funding is to be used include major construction
projects ($11.1 billion), planning and design ($972.7 million), operating expenses (primarily for
military family housing, $602.8 million), BRAC ($511.6 million), and property leases ($411.8
million).5
Regional Command Construction Issues
Northern Command (NORTHCOM)
The geographic land area comprising U.S. Northern Command includes the contiguous United
States, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico.
The principal military construction issues within Northern Command center on the relocation of
personnel and organizations within the continental United States and the redeployment of troops
from garrisons overseas to domestic duty stations.
The largest portion of domestic relocation was brought on by the implementation of the
recommendations of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (also known
as the BRAC Commission). Over the past six years, the defense agencies and military
departments have carried out a highly complex—and often contentious—program of construction
and movement that required the appropriation of approximately $35 billion. The 2005 BRAC
round, save for environmental cleanup and disposal of surplus property, is scheduled to be
completed not later than September 15, 2011.
Associated with the domestic BRAC, and funded through the BRAC appropriation, is the
construction needed to house units repositioned to the United States as part of the parallel
3 Because the continuing appropriations currently funding FY2011 are largely projections of the last-enacted full-year
appropriations, comparisons are made to FY2010 amounts.
4 The President has included three Army construction projects, totaling $80 million, at Bagram Air Base as part of his
regular military construction request, and Congress recently renewed the Secretary of Defense’s authority to use some
operations and maintenance funding within the defense appropriation for military construction in Afghanistan.
5 Account- and project-level data are taken from the detailed Department of Defense FY2012 budget documentation for
Construction Programs (C-1) found on the website of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget2012.html.
Congressional Research Service
5
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), later referred to as Global Defense
Posture Realignment (GDPR).
Separate from the 2005 BRAC round, DOD announced plans to permanently move one of the
Navy’s aircraft carriers from its home port of Norfolk, VA, to a new duty station in Mayport, FL.
The announced reasoning for the move is strategic. Currently, the naval station at Norfolk is the
sole Navy facility along the nation’s eastern or southern coasts with the needed facilities and
capacity to service a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.6 The Navy became concerned that
stationing all Atlantic Fleet carriers at a single port facility could offer a vulnerability to potential
adversaries and decided to build a second facility at Mayport, estimating the cost of the project at
$580 million. Thus far, Congress has not appropriated the necessary construction funds. The
FY2012 request does not include funding to build the needed facilities.7
Other issues potentially involving military construction funding include the recently announced
disestablishment of Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) and the Navy’s Second Fleet (2FLT)
Headquarters. Most of the personnel attached to both organizations are located in the Tidewater
Virginia area. Because both closures are focused on organizations, and are characterized as
“reductions in force” rather than the closure or realignment of specific installations, neither
triggers the actions required by the military base closure law (10 U.S.C. § 2687).
Pacific Command (PACOM)
U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is geographically the largest of the combatant commands,
holding within its area of responsibility most of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans; the People’s
Republic of China; Mongolia; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the Republic of
Korea; Japan and the Philippines; Indonesia; the countries of Southeast Asia; the southern Asian,
Oceanic, and Australian landmasses to the western border of India; and the corresponding sea
areas of the Indian Ocean. Three major force movements, and their associated construction, are
imminent or underway in the Pacific region.
MCAS Futenma Replacement
As the result of agreements between the governments of Japan and the United States, the
Government of Japan has undertaken the construction of a new air facility in the Prefecture of
Okinawa for the use of U.S. Marine Corps aviation units now operating from Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS) Futenma, near the prefecture capital of Naha. Upon completion of the new
station, the existing facility is to be returned to sole Japanese control.
The selection of a new site and other Japanese domestic political considerations have delayed
initiation of construction of the new facility.8
6 The USS John F. Kennedy, the Navy’s last conventionally fueled aircraft carrier, was decommissioned on August 1,
2007. All active aircraft carriers are now nuclear powered.
7 For more information regarding the proposed relocation to Mayport, see CRS Report R41254, Defense: FY2011
Authorization and Appropriations, coordinated by Pat Towell.
8 For additional information and analysis of U.S.-Japanese security relations, see CRS Report RL33436, Japan-U.S.
Relations: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Emma Chanlett-Avery.
Congressional Research Service
6
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Guam Redeployment
The two governments have also agreed to move approximately 8,000 Marines from their present
garrisons in Okinawa to facilities in the U.S. Territory of Guam, approximately 1,400 miles to the
east, with the Government of Japan providing approximately $6 billion of the estimated $10
billion needed for the relocation.
Congress has criticized the pace of DOD planning for the move. During consideration of FY2011
appropriations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended deferring $464.6 million
in requested construction funding from overseas projects in Guam, Europe, Korea, and other
locations pending the completion of a DOD review of its global posture.9 The relocation is
scheduled to be completed by 2014.10
Korea Transformation
Since the Armistice on the Korean Peninsula ended combat in 1954, U.S. ground forces have
been concentrated in a number of forward bases distributed along the demarcation line between
the Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(North Korea), with a major headquarters complex at Yongsan, adjacent to the capital of Seoul.
Following agreements between the ROK and U.S. governments, the headquarters and U.S. Army
and Air Force units are being concentrated into two large military communities centered on Osan
Air Base and Camp Humphreys, south of the capital. Additionally, tours of duty for military
personnel are being lengthened, and servicemembers will soon be permitted to bring their
families with them, significantly increasing the size of those communities.11
European Command (EUCOM)
U.S. European Command (EUCOM) encompasses the countries in Europe, Russia, Israel,
Greenland, and Iceland. The EUCOM commander simultaneously serves as NATO’s Supreme
Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR). Because Europe was long considered the front line
during the Cold War, the bulk of U.S. forces permanently garrisoned overseas was stationed
within the EUCOM area of responsibility. In 1980, more than 331,000 servicemembers were on
duty in the countries of Western and Southern Europe and afloat on adjacent seas. Of these, more
than 244,000, along with their families and associated civilian employees, were stationed in what
was then West Germany.
With the end of the Cold War, these garrisons saw significant reductions in their size. By 1999,
Europe and adjacent waters hosted approximately 116,200 U.S. servicemembers, with 65,000 of
9 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010,
Report to accompany S. 3615, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 19, 2010, S.Rept. 111-226, p. 9.
10 Additional information on and analysis of the Marine relocation can be found in CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S.
Defense Deployments, by Shirley A. Kan.
11 Additional details on the relocation of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula may be found in CRS Report R41481,
U.S.-South Korea Relations, coordinated by Mark E. Manyin.
Congressional Research Service
7
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
those located in Germany. As of September 30, 2010, the number in and around Europe had fallen
to 79,000, with 53,900 located in Germany, 9,600 in Italy, and 9,200 in the United Kingdom.12
As part of the GDPR mentioned earlier, Army and Air Force personnel in Germany are being
consolidated into two large military communities centered at Kaiserslautern (known to many
servicemembers as “K-Town”) in the country’s southwest near Frankfurt, and Grafenwöhr-
Vilseck in eastern Bavaria near the Czech border. For the past several years, military construction
supporting this relocation has concentrated on these areas.
A significant portion of the combat power remaining in the Army portion of EUCOM was
scheduled to redeploy to new posts in the southwestern United States as part of the GDPR, but the
Secretary of Defense agreed to reconsider the movement of two brigade combat teams when the
most recent Quadrennial Defense Review reconsidered the U.S. interest in supporting NATO.13
The President’s FY2012 request includes $563 million for construction in Germany. It includes
$249 million for Army construction of the relocated European Army and Air Force Exchange
Central Distribution Facility, various training and communications facilities, barracks, and family
housing. The DOD Education Agency (DODEA) is requesting $207 million to build, expand, or
replace elementary, middle, and high schools at several locations. The Tricare Management
Agency plans to replace the military medical center at Rhine Ordnance Barracks at a total cost of
$1.2 billion and is requesting $71 million for the first increment of funding.14 The Air Force is
asking for $35 million to build a new airman’s dormitory at Ramstein Air Base, and the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) is asking for $2.4 million to upgrade its facility serving U.S.
Army, Europe, headquarters near Stuttgart.
Africa Command (AFRICOM)
Until U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was activated in 2008, military affairs on the continent
were the responsibility of EUCOM. With creation of AFRICOM headquarters, much of that
responsibility shifted to the new command (Egypt, though, did not transfer to AFRICOM).
Funds for the construction of two headquarters buildings at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, were
requested in FY2011. One of these was intended for Camp Lemonier itself, while the other was
planned for the use of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA). While the task
force comprises the majority of personnel assigned to the installation, Camp Lemonier is of
limited size. The Senate Committee on Appropriations, in its report on the military construction
appropriation for FY2011, noted that DOD had not submitted a requested report on plans for
future operations of both Camp Lemonier and CJTF-HOA and recommended that funds for a
separate task force headquarters be denied.15 The President’s request for FY2012 includes $44
12 U.S. military manpower levels are regularly reported by the Defense Manpower Data Center. Its military personnel
figures can be accessed online at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/miltop.htm.
13 Jason Sherman, “QDR Reconsidering Plan to Move Two Brigades from Europe to U.S.,” Inside the Pentagon,
August 13, 2009, vol. 25, no. 32.
14 Rhine Ordnance Barracks, part of the Kaiserslautern Military Community, is a major deployment terminus for U.S.
forces stationed in the European Central Region. Located adjacent to Ramstein Air Base and near major ammunition
storage sites, the barracks will act as a major outfitting and processing station for any unit being deployed from the
region on a military operation.
15 S.Rept. 111-226, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
8
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
million for construction of housing at the camp and $45 million for facility improvements at the
adjoining airfield.
Since its creation, AFRICOM headquarters has been located in Germany. Press reports indicate
that discussions are ongoing concerning its potential movement to the Norfolk, VA, area.16
Central Command (CENTCOM)
The area of responsibility assigned to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) includes Egypt, the
Arabian Peninsula, and much of south and southwestern Asia. CENTCOM has been the primary
focal point of U.S. military operations since early 2002.
While considerable construction in the CENTCOM area has been funded in previous years, the
FY2012 request for appropriations includes only $80 million for a new entry control point and
phases (slices) of funding for a barracks and drainage system at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, since FY2004, Congress has annually renewed a temporary authority permitting the
Secretary of Defense to use operations and maintenance (O&M) funding in the defense
appropriation for military construction in support of overseas contingency operations. This
discretion, referred to as “Sec. 2808 authority” for the provision originally granting it in the
FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136), has varied over the years in the
amount of funding available and the locations where it may be used, rising as high as $500
million for FY2009. Sec. 2804 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act, 2011 (P.L.
111-383) limited funding to $100 million and restricted its use to Afghanistan.
Legislative language used by congressional appropriators and authorizers has sought to
distinguish between construction intended to support short-term expeditionary military operations
and permanent garrisoning of troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That language has prevented
funds from being used for the “permanent stationing” of forces and stressed that construction is to
support “operational requirements of a temporary nature.”
Nevertheless, this stance has softened somewhat in recent years. Sec. 2806 of P.L. 110-417, the
National Defense Authorization Act, 2009, exempted construction in Afghanistan from the
existing ban on the use of O&M funds “deemed as supporting a long-term presence.”
A detailed discussion of war-related construction funding may be found in CRS Report R41232,
FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs,
coordinated by Amy Belasco.
16 Robert McCabe, “JFCOM Downsizing to be Complete by March 2012,” The Virginian Pilot & Ledger Star,
February 10, 2011, p. A1.
Congressional Research Service
9
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
FY2011 Continuing Appropriations: Status and
Impact
CRS has published a report, recently updated, on continuing appropriations that discusses at
length and tracks the five bills that have thus far temporarily funded federal government
operations through FY2011.17
Normally, a continuing appropriation permits government agencies to operate at the same rate as
experienced in the most recent full-year appropriation—in this case FY2010—for the duration of
the appropriation. The first of these bills, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-242),
was enacted on September 30, 2010, and provided funding through December 3, 2010. Since
then, three other bills have extended federal funding through March 4, 2011.
The original Act, though, adjusted the amounts available to several appropriations accounts from
their prorated FY2010 levels. The most substantial adjustment to military construction accounts
was the reduction of the BRAC 2005 account from the $8.0 billion needed near the height of
BRAC construction in FY2010 to $2.4 billion. Nevertheless, the act also contained the following
text:
Sec. 102. (a) No appropriation or funds made available or authority granted pursuant to
section 101 for the Department of Defense shall be used for (1) the new production of items
not funded for production in fiscal year 2010 or prior years; (2) the increase in production
rates above those sustained with fiscal year 2010 funds; or (3) the initiation, resumption, or
continuation of any project, activity, operation, or organization (defined as any project,
subproject, activity, budget activity, program element, and subprogram within a program
element, and for any investment items defined as a P-1 line item in a budget activity within
an appropriation account and an R-1 line item that includes a program element and
subprogram element within an appropriation account) for which appropriations, funds, or
other authority were not available during fiscal year 2010.
Although the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (P.L. 111-383),
enacted on January 7, 2011, authorized the expenditure of appropriations for a number of military
construction projects, DOD has taken this section to be a barrier to the initiation of any new
FY2011 construction. None of the subsequent enacted appropriations altered this language, and
DOD has reported that no new FY2011 construction has yet been undertaken.
The House passed H.R. 1, a full-year continuing appropriation, on February 19, 2011. The bill
would set new FY2011 full-year appropriations amounts for each of the military construction and
family housing accounts, as indicated in Table A-1 and Table A-2 in the Appendix. With the
exception of new construction projects, DOD may be assumed to be obligating funds in each
account at a rate commensurate with its FY2010 appropriation. When a final appropriation for
FY2011 is enacted, the various defense agencies and military departments will have to adjust
their spending rates to end the fiscal year without exceeding their newly enacted budget authority.
17 See CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy
Streeter.
Congressional Research Service
10
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
The President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
The President submitted his FY2012 appropriation request for military construction and family
housing to Congress on February 14, 2011. The overall level of funding represents a 26.2% ($5.2
billion) reduction below the combined Title I (military construction) and Title IV (Overseas
Contingency Operations construction) amount requested for FY2011.
The major portion of that reduction (40.2%) comes from the $2.1 billion less in BRAC 2005
funding needed to support the first post-implementation year of that program. The President’s
FY2012 request is less than one-quarter of the amount needed during the last year of BRAC
construction and movement. Much of the rest of the reduction ($1.6 billion) can be found in the
reduced request for active component military construction, primarily drawn from the Navy and
Marine Corps account ($1.4 billion).
The President also requested no funds for the Overseas Contingency Operations construction
account. This represented $1.3 billion in his FY2011 request. Even though the base budget
request includes $80 million in construction for Afghanistan, this would mark a substantial
reduction in construction activity in the area of the most intense U.S. military operations.
Questions for Congress
As Members of Congress and the defense committees consider additional continuing
appropriations for FY2011 and the President’s request for FY2012, a number of questions may
suggest themselves:
• To what extent does the delay in a fiscal year appropriation disrupt executive
branch planning and commitment of construction funds?
• Can DOD or the military departments efficiently obligate construction funds
under a continuing appropriation?
• How, and to what extent, will limits on government debt impact both the timing
and the number of military construction projects that can be undertaken?
• What are the possible secondary effects of a government operations shutdown
should the continuing appropriations expire?
• Does the prohibition on congressionally directed spending (“earmarks”) limit
Congress’s ability to exercise its constitutional power to “raise and support
Armies” and “provide and maintain a Navy,” and if so, how and to what extent?
• Is it appropriate for DOD to assist local jurisdictions in absorbing the demands
on infrastructure and services created by significantly increased military
community size? If so, what legislation is required to create the necessary
authority and/or additional funding?
Congressional Research Service
11
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Appendix. Detailed Military Construction
Appropriations Tables
Table A-1. Title I—Military Construction Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
New Budget Authority, thousands of dollars
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
Senate
Continuing
(P.L. 111-
FY2011
House
Committee Appropriation
FY2012
Account
117)
Request
(H.R. 5822)
(S. 3615)
(H.R. 1)
Request
Military
3,719,419 4,078,798 4,051,512 3,797,521 3,904,998
3,235,991
Construction,
Army
Rescissions
—
—
—
—
-160,000
—
Emergency
— — — — —
—
Approps. (P.L.
110-252)
Total
3,719,419
4,078,798
4,051,512
3,797,521
3,744,998
3,235,991
Military
3,769,003 3,879,104 3,587,376 3,667,922 3,516,173
2,461,547
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps
Rescissions
—
—
—
—
-34,000
—
Emergency
— — — — —
—
Approps. (P.L.
110-252)
Total
3,769,003
3,879,104
3,587,376
3,667,922
3,482,173
2,461,547
Military
1,450,426 1,311,385 1,276,385 1,378,688 1,214,295
1,364,858
Construction, Air
Force
Rescissions
-37,500
—
—
—
-87,000
—
Emergency
— — — — —
—
Approps. (P.L.
110-252)
Total
1,412,926
1,311,385
1,276,385
1,378,688
1,127,295
1,364,858
Military
3,093,679 3,118,062 2,999,612 3,241,601 2,964,062
3,848,757
Construction,
Defense-wide
Rescissions
-151,160
—
—
—
-148,500
—
Emergency
— — — — —
—
Approps. (P.L.
110-252)
Total
2,942,519
3,118,062
2,999,612
3,241,601
2,815,562
3,848,757
Total, Active
11,843,867 12,387,349 11,914,885 12,085,732 11,170,028
10,911,153
Components
Congressional Research Service
12
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
Senate
Continuing
(P.L. 111-
FY2011
House
Committee Appropriation
FY2012
Account
117)
Request
(H.R. 5822)
(S. 3615)
(H.R. 1)
Request
Military
582,056 873,664
1,020,228 980,072 873,664
773,592
Construction,
Army National
Guard
Military
371,226 176,986 292,386 337,454 194,986
116,246
Construction, Air
National Guard
Military
431,566 318,175 358,325 347,916 318,175
280,549
Construction,
Army Reserve
Military
125,874 61,557 91,557 61,557 61,557
26,299
Construction,
Navy Reserve
Military
112,269 7,832 48,182 12,832 7,832
33,620
Construction, Air
Force Reserve
Rescissions
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
112,269
7,832
48,182
12,832
7,832
33,620
Total, Reserve
1,622,991 1,438,214 1,810,678 1,739,831 1,456,214
1,230,306
Components
Total, Military
13,466,858 13,825,563 13,725,563 13,825,563 12,626,242
12,141,459
Construction
(Appropriations) 13,655,518
13,825,563
13,725,563 13,825,563 13,055,742 12,141,459
(Rescissions) -188,660 0 0 0
-429,500
0
NATO Security
197,414 258,884 258,884 258,884 258,884
272,611
Investment
Program
Family Housing
273,236 92,369 92,369 92,369 92,369
186,897
Construction,
Army
Rescissions
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
273,236
92,369
92,369
92,369
92,369
186,897
Family Housing
523,418 518,140 518,140 518,140 518,140
494,858
Ops and Debt,
Army
Family Housing
146,569 186,444 186,444 186,444 186,444
100,972
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps
Emergency
— — — — —
—
Approps. (P.L.
110-252)
Total
146,569
186,444
186,444
186,444
186,444
100,972
Congressional Research Service
13
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
Senate
Continuing
(P.L. 111-
FY2011
House
Committee Appropriation
FY2012
Account
117)
Request
(H.R. 5822)
(S. 3615)
(H.R. 1)
Request
Family Housing
368,540 366,346 366,346 366,346 366,346
367,863
Ops and Debt,
Navy and Marine
Corps
Family Housing
66,101 78,025 78,025 78,025 78,025
84,804
Construction, Air
Force
Rescissions
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
66,101
78,025
78,025
78,025
78,025
84,804
Family Housing
502,936 513,792 513,792 513,792 513,792
404,761
Ops and Debt, Air
Force
Family Housing
2,859 — — — —
—
Construction,
Defense-wide
Family Housing
49,214 50,464 50,464 50,464 50,464
50,723
Ops and Debt,
Defense-wide
DOD Family
2,600 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096
2,184
Housing
Improvement Fund
Homeowners
323,225 16,515 16,515 16,515 16,515
1,284
Assistance Fund
Total, Family
2,258,698 1,823,191 1,823,191 1,823,191 1,823,191
1,694,346
Housing
(Appropriations) 2,258,698
1,823,191
1,823,191 1,823,191 1,823,191 1,694,346
(Rescissions) 0
0
0
0
0
0
Chemical
151,541 124,971 124,971 124,971 124,971
75,312
Demilitarization
Construction,
Defense-wide
Base
Realignment
and Closure
BRAC,1990 496,768
360,474
460,474
360,474
360,474
323,543
BRAC,2005 7,455,498
2,354,285
2,354,285
2,354,285
2,354,285 258,776
Rescissions
—
—
—
—
-200,000
—
Total, BRAC
7,952,266
2,714,759
2,814,759
2,714,759
2,514,759
582,319
General
Reductions
(Sec. 129)
Military
-230,000 — — — —
—
Construction,
Army
Congressional Research Service
14
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
Senate
Continuing
(P.L. 111-
FY2011
House
Committee Appropriation
FY2012
Account
117)
Request
(H.R. 5822)
(S. 3615)
(H.R. 1)
Request
Military
-235,000 — — — —
—
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps
Military
-64,091 — — — —
—
Construction, Air
Force
Total -529,091
0
0
0
0 0
General
Rescissions (Sec.
130)
Military
-33,000 — — — —
—
Construction,
Army
Military
-51,468 — — — —
—
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps
Military
-93,268 — — — —
—
Construction, Air
Force
Military
-33,000 — — — —
—
Construction,
Army National
Guard
Military
-7,000 — — — —
—
Construction, Air
National Guard
Total -217,736
0
0
0
0 0
Grand Total,
23,279,950 18,747,368 18,747,368 18,747,368 17,348,047
14,766,047
Title I
(Appropriations) 24,215,437
18,747,368
18,747,368 18,747,368 17,777,547 14,766,047
(Rescissions) -935,487 0 0 0
-429,500
0
Source: House Committee on Appropriations: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, committee print,
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/08conappro.html; H.Rept. 111-559; S.Rept. 111-226.
Congressional Research Service
15
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request
Table A-2. Title IV—Overseas Contingency Operations Construction
Appropriations, FY2010-2012
New Budget Authority, thousands of dollars
FY2010
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
FY2011
Continuing
(P.L.
FY2011
House
Senate
Appropriation
FY2012
Account
111-117)
Request
(H.R.5822)
(S.3615)
(H.R. 1)
Request
Military Construction,
924,484 929,996
— 1,045,676
—
—
Army
Military Construction,
— —
929,996 — 929,994 —
Army (Emergency)
Military Construction, Air
474,500 280,506
— 164,826
—
—
Force
Military Construction, Air
— —
280,504 — 280,506 —
Force (Emergency)
Military Construction,
— 46,500
— 46,500
—
—
Defense-wide
Military Construction,
— —
46,500 — 46,500 —
Defense-wide
(Emergency)
Grand Total, Title IV
1,398,984 1,257,002 1,257,000
1,257,002
1,257,000
0
Sources: H.Rept. 111-366; H.Rept. 111-559; S.Rept. 111-226; H.R. 112-1; DOD Budget Justification Material,
FY2012.
Author Contact Information
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996
Congressional Research Service
16