Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012
Appropriation and Authorization
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
June 29, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41885
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Summary
This report focuses on those government activities funded under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
military construction appropriation, examines trends in military construction funding, and
outlines military construction issues extant in each of the major regions of U.S. military activity.
President Barack Obama submitted his FY2012 appropriations request to Congress on February
14, 2011. His military construction appropriations request for $14.7 billion in new budget
authority fell approximately $9.9 billion below the amount enacted for FY2010 and $3.0 billion
below that enacted for FY2011. Much of that reduction came from military base closure accounts.
Initiated in late 2005, the current base realignment and closure (BRAC) round is expected to
conclude in September 2011. Funding needed in FY2010 and FY2011 for construction and
movement of organizations will not be needed in FY2012 and subsequent years. In addition, the
President requested less regular military construction for FY2012 than in earlier years. Finally,
funding for construction supporting Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO, or active military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), appropriations for which totaled $1.4 billion in FY2010 and
$1.3 billion in FY2011, has been virtually eliminated, with only $217 million in the regular
FY2012 appropriation requested for construction within U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
The first military construction bill (H.R. 2055) was passed by the House on June 14, 2011.
Construction issues within the United States center on relocations associated with the BRAC
movements, the proposed transfer of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk, VA, to
Mayport, FL, the potential to move detainees from Naval Station Guantanamo, and the possible
expansion of the Army’s Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.
In the Pacific region, 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, and normalization of duty there, which will
lengthen tours and 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 near Landstuhl
and Vilseck. 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 much of Africa is now exercised by U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM). Though headquartered in Germany, AFRICOM has one enduring military garrison
site on the continent, at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti. Press accounts have indicated that a new
permanent home for AFRICOM headquarters might be located in southeastern Virginia.
Southwest Asia, the area of responsibility for CENTCOM, 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. H.R. 1540, the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, would
extend that authority into FY2012. 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. CENTCOM construction has fallen with the FY2012 request.
Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Contents
Military Construction Funding Trends, FY2010-FY2012............................................................. 1
Appropriations Overview ...................................................................................................... 1
FY2012 Military Construction Authorization and Appropriations .......................................... 2
Military Construction Funding Levels, FY2010-FY2012....................................................... 4
Regional Command Construction Issues ..................................................................................... 6
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) ..................................................................................... 6
Pacific Command (PACOM) ................................................................................................. 7
MCAS Futenma Replacement ......................................................................................... 8
Guam Redeployment....................................................................................................... 8
Korea Transformation ..................................................................................................... 9
European Command (EUCOM) ............................................................................................ 9
Africa Command (AFRICOM)............................................................................................ 10
Central Command (CENTCOM)......................................................................................... 11
FY2011 Continuing Appropriations........................................................................................... 12
FY2012 Appropriations............................................................................................................. 12
Questions for Congress ............................................................................................................. 13

Tables
Table 1. Military Construction Appropriations Accounts by Title, FY2010-FY2012..................... 1
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012.................................. 4
Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012 ................. 14
Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2010-FY2012................ 17

Appendixes
Appendix. Detailed Military Construction Appropriations Tables .............................................. 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Military Construction Funding Trends,
FY2010-FY2012
Appropriations Overview
On 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.
A full-year continuing appropriations bill (H.R. 1473, P.L. 112-10) that included military
construction was enacted on April 15, 2011.
The House Committee on Appropriations introduced its Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2012 (H.R. 2055) on May 31. The House began
debate on June 2 and passed the bill on June 14, 2011. Debate and amendment on the House floor
encompassed several provisions that could affect the cost of and competition for military
construction projects. One debate centered on Section 415, which was eventually stricken by
recorded vote, 204-203 (H.Amdt. 411, Roll no. 413). The section would have barred the use of
military construction funds to enforce Executive Order 13502 (41 U.S.C. 251 note). This order
permits executive agencies to specify that “project labor agreements” (PLA) be used on
construction costing $25 million or more. These PLAs are pre-hire collective bargaining
agreements with labor organizations that establish the terms and conditions of employment on
specific construction projects.1 Another amendment, proposed on the floor, would have barred the
imposition of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards on military construction projects. The
motion was defeated in a recorded vote, 178-232 (H.Amdt. 413, Roll no. 414).2
Table 1. Military Construction Appropriations Accounts by Title, FY2010-FY2012
(total budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10, Div B,
FY2012
FY2012 House
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Title X)
Request
Bill (H.R. 2055)
Grand Total, Title I
23,279,950
16,587,773
14,766,047
14,165,347
Grand Total, Title IV
1,398,984
1,222,852
—
—
Grand
Total
24,678,934 17,810,625
14,766,047 14,165,347
Source: CRS calculation based on data appearing in Table A-1 and Table A-2.
Note: Appropriations figures portray total budget authority made available under the relevant bills. This includes
New Budget Authority and rescinded appropriations and may differ from tables produced by others.

1 For more information on project labor agreements, see CRS Report R41310, Project Labor Agreements, by Gerald
Mayer.
2 Broader discussions of the use of Davis-Bacon wage rates can be found in CRS Report R40663, The Davis-Bacon Act
and Changes in Prevailing Wage Rates, 2000 to 2008, by Gerald Mayer, and CRS Report 94-408, The Davis-Bacon
Act: Institutional Evolution and Public Policy, by William G. Whittaker.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

FY2012 Military Construction Authorization and Appropriations
Section 114 of Title 10, United States Code, requires that Congress authorize the appropriation of
funding to the Department of Defense for certain purposes, including military construction, as
part of the annual appropriations cycle. This authorization is effected through the enactment of
the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), of which one division constitutes the
Military Construction Authorization Act. The NDAA for FY2012 (H.R. 1540) was introduced in
the House on April 14, 2011. The House Committee on Armed Services reported its amendment
of the bill on May 17 (H.Rept. 112-78, with a supplemental report, H.Rept. 112-78, Part 2,
submitted on May 23). The House passed the bill by recorded vote, 322-96 (Roll no. 375), on
May 26, and the Senate received it on June 6, 2011.
In addition to authorizing military construction appropriations, the act provides additional
authorities related to military construction and family housing. It routinely authorizes specific
construction projects and land acquisitions, property improvements, and the like. It can also
forbid various actions. For example, Section 2307 of the House version of H.R. 1540 would
prohibit the disestablishment, closure, or realignment of any element of the Air Force’s Air and
Space Operations Center until the Department of the Air Force takes certain specified actions.3
The military construction appropriation, Title I of 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
component facilities. Military construction funds also pay for construction and movement of
organizations mandated in base closure and realignment actions, and for the environmental
remediation required for the disposal of defense real property as required by the base closure acts
of 1988 and 1990, as amended.4
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

3 More information on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 may be found in CRS Report R41861,
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat Towell.
4 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 FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

the privatization of much of the inventory of domestic military family housing under the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) begun during the late 1990s. A separate account, the
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund, performs the same function for the barracks or
dormitories that house single service members or those whose families do not relocate with a
change of duty stations. 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.5
Title IV was a temporary 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, designating it as “Title IV (OCO)” military construction. FY2012 marks
the first year when no funds have been requested to find OCO construction.6
On June 2, 2011, the House took up H.R. 2055, its version of the Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2012, passing an amended version on
June 14. This bill would appropriate $14.2 billion in new budget authority for military
construction and family housing. This would be a reduction of $0.6 billion (4.1%) below the
presidential request, but this figure does not count $237.1 million in budget authority from
previous appropriations that would be rescinded, effectively recycling funding into the new fiscal
year. Therefore, the total military construction and family housing appropriation that would be
enacted in this bill would come to $14.4 million–$14.2 billion in new budget authority and $0.2
billion in unexpired, unobligated funds reclaimed from previous fiscal years. The Senate has not
yet taken up its version of the bill.

5 Detailed discussions of veterans affairs appropriations may be found in CRS Report R41343, Veterans Medical Care:
FY2011 Appropriations, by Sidath Viranga Panangala; and CRS Report R41688, Veterans Affairs: A Preliminary
Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriations Request , by Christine Scott and Sidath Viranga Panangala.
6 Nevertheless, the President’s request did include $80 million for military construction in Afghanistan at Bagram Air
Base, $100 million for work in Bahrain, and $37 million for construction in Qatar.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Military Construction Funding Levels, FY2010-FY2012
As FY2010 expired at the end of September of that year, Congress passed the first of what would
become eight continuing appropriations bills to fund FY2011.7 The initial continuing
appropriation, while allowing for spending on military construction at a rate equal to that enacted
for FY2010, barred DOD from initiating any new construction projects. Sec. 101 of the act
permitted the continuation of projects that were provided for in the FY2010 appropriation, but
Sec. 102 stated that no funds provided under the appropriation could be used to initiate any
project “for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available during fiscal year
2010.” This restriction was not lifted until the enactment of the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) on April 15, 2011, more than halfway
into FY2011. The forced moratorium allowed Congress to reclaim some FY2011 funding through
the rescission process and apply it to the FY2012 appropriation. The House began debate on the
Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2012 (H.R. 2055), on June 2, and passed the bill
in its amended form on June 14, 2011.
Funding enacted for FY2010 and FY2011, the President’s request for FY2012, and H.R. 2055 are
laid out in Table 2. The amounts shown are “new budget authority” (NBA), the new
appropriations needed to fund the various accounts for the years indicated. NBA is the total
appropriation amount required for a given year minus reductions and rescissions mandated by
subsequent legislation. A more detailed comparison, which includes these additional details, may
be found in the Appendix in Table A-1 and Table A-2. Note that the NBA presented in these
tables does not reflect changes in accounts made by amendments adopted during floor debate.
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012
(new budget authority, thousands of dollars)
FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10,
FY2012
House Bill
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Div B, Title X)
Request
(H.R. 2055)
Military Construction, Army 3,456,419 3,517,023 3,235,991 3,041,491
Military Construction, Navy and
3,482,535 3,235,954
2,461,547 2,436,547
Marine Corps
Military Construction, Air Force 1,255,567
983,081 1,364,858 1,247,358
Military Construction, Defense-
2,942,519 2,718,816
3,848,757 3,533,757
wide
Total,
Active
Components 11,137,040 10,454,874
10,911,153 10,259,153

7 The continuing appropriations for FY2011 were, in chronological order, H.R. 3081 (P.L. 111-242, October 1–
December 3, 2010), H.J.Res. 101 (P.L. 111-290, December 4–December 18, 2010), H.J.Res. 105 (P.L. 111-317,
December 19–December 21, 2010), H.R. 3082 (P.L. 111-322, December 22, 2010–March 4, 2011), H.J.Res. 44 (P.L.
112-4, March 5–March 18, 2011), H.J.Res. 48 (P.L. 112-6, March 19–April 8, 2011), H.R. 1363 (P.L. 112-8, April 9–
April 15, 2011), and H.R. 1473 (P.L. 112-10, April 16–September 30, 2011). For additional information on continuing
appropriations, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent
Practices, by Sandy Streeter; CRS Report R41771, FY2011 Appropriations in Budgetary Context, by D. Andrew
Austin and Amy Belasco; and the Congressional Budget Office website, Continuing Resolutions for FY2011,
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=17.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10,
FY2012
House Bill
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Div B, Title X)
Request
(H.R. 2055)
Military Construction, Army
549,056 871,917
773,592 773,592
National Guard
Military Construction, Air
364,226 194,596
116,246 116,246
National Guard
Military Construction, Army
431,566 317,539
280,549 280,549
Reserve
Military Construction, Navy
125,874 61,434
26,299 26,299
Reserve
Military Construction, Air Force
112,269 7,816
33,620 33,620
Reserve
Total, Reserve Components
1,582,991
1,453,302
1,230,306
1,230,306
Total, Military Construction 12,720,031 11,908,176
12,141,459 11,489,459
NATO Security Investment
197,414 258,366
272,611 272,611
Program
Family Housing Construction,
273,236 92,184
186,897 186,897
Army
Family Housing Ops and Debt,
523,418 517,104
494,858 494,858
Army
Family Housing Construction,
146,569 186,071
100,972 100,972
Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing Ops and Debt,
368,540 365,613
367,863 367,863
Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing Construction, Air
66,101 77,869
84,804 84,804
Force
Family Housing Ops and Debt, Air 502,936 512,764
404,761 404,761
Force
Family Housing Construction,
2,859 —
—
—
Defense-wide
Family Housing Ops and Debt,
49,214 50,363
50,723 50,723
Defense-wide
DOD Family Housing
2,600 1,094
2,184 2,184
Improvement Fund
Homeowners Assistance Fund
323,225
16,482
1,284
1,284
Total, Family Housing
2,258,698
1,819,544
1,694,346
1,694,346
Chemical Demilitarization
151,541 124,721
75,312 75,312
Construction, Defense-wide
Base Realignment and
7,952,266 2,476,996
582,319 482,319
Closure
Total, Title Ia 23,279,950
16,587,773
14,766,047
14,014,047
Total, Title IVb 1,398,984
1,222,852
—
—
Grand
Total
24,678,934 17,810,625
14,766,047 14,014,447
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Source: H.Rept. 111-366; P.L. 112-10; DOD Budget Justification Material, FY2012; H.R. 2055.
a. Title I funds normal military construction and family housing projects.
b. Title IV was a temporary funding classification that replaced the separate emergency supplemental funding of
previous years for Overseas Contingency Operations, primarily in areas of active military operations.
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 required by 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 mandated by the Commission 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. Nevertheless, perceiving military service inability to fully implement some of the more
complex commission recommendations by the statutorily mandated deadline, Section 2704 of
H.R. 1540, the NDAA for FY2012, would permit the Secretary of Defense to extend the
completion of as many as seven recommendations for up to a year.8
Another section of the bill, Section 2707, would prevent the use of more than 1,000 parking
spaces at the site of BRAC Commission Recommendation 133 until the Secretary of Defense
takes certain actions, including the completion of a number of traffic mitigation projects. BRAC
133, as it is called, will move a large number of defense workers to newly constructed facilities at
the Mark Center in Arlington, Virginia. Congress has questioned the ability of that site to absorb
the expected increase in surface traffic generated by the transfers and has written provisions
similar to this into previous versions of the NDAA.
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
Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), later renamed the 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

8 The recommendations to be selected by the Secretary have not been identified.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

capacity to service a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.9 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, although
the budget request includes some ancillary items that would support future facility construction.10
The FY2012 request does not include funding to build the needed facilities. Section 2204 of H.R.
1540 (NDAA for FY2012) would bar the use of any appropriations for FY2012 for “architectural
and engineering services and construction design of any military construction project necessary to
establish a homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.”11
A provision in H.R. 2055, Section 412 of the military construction appropriation, would prevent
the use of funds for any construction in the United States to house any Guantanamo detainees.
Section 128 would forbid the use of funds to support “any action that relates to or promotes the
expansion of the boundaries or size of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.” This
prohibition stems from an attempt several years ago by the Army to request authorization to
expand the maneuver area. Stiff local resistance led to the insertion of this language into the
annual military construction appropriation.
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 (North Korea); the
Republic of Korea (South 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.
GAO recently completed an analysis of the costs associated with changes in the U.S. military
posture in Asia, finding that
DOD’s posture planning guidance does not require the U.S. Pacific Command to include
comprehensive cost data in its theater posture plan, and as a result, DOD lacks critical
information that could be used by decision makers as they deliberate on posture requirements
and affordability.... Without comprehensive and routine reporting of posture costs, DOD
decision makers will not have the full fiscal context in which to develop posture plans and
requirements, and congressional committees will lack a full understanding of the potential
funding requirements associated with DOD budget requests.12

9 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.
10 For a much more extensive examination of the Mayport carrier issue, see CRS Report R40248, Navy Nuclear
Aircraft Carrier (CVN) Homeporting at Mayport: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
11 For more information regarding the proposed relocation to Mayport, see CRS Report R41254, Defense: FY2011
Authorization and Appropriations, coordinated by Pat Towell.
12 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Management: Comprehensive Cost Information and Analysis of
Alternatives Needed to Assess Military Posture in Asia, GAO-11-316, May 25, 2011, frontispiece.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

MCAS Futenma Replacement
As the result of intergovernmental agreements, 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 for the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) and other Japanese
domestic political considerations have delayed initiation of construction of the new facility.13
Nevertheless, the Japanese press recently announced agreement between the two national
governments on a potential site and runway configuration.14 These plans may be formalized at a
joint U.S.–Japan ministerial meeting on June 21, 2011. However, both governments concluded
that adherence to the original 2014 completion date would be impossible, announcing afterward
that the FRF would be completed “at the earliest possible date after 2014.”15 and there may be
provisions introduced in the Senate’s version of the NDAA calling for a review of the relocation
plan.16
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. The Japan has pledged to provide approximately $6 billion of the estimated $10 billion
needed for the relocation.17
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.18 Nevertheless, the
redeployment is inextricably linked to the FRF project. DOD is awaiting “tangible progress” on
the part of the Japanese in constructing the FRF before commencing the construction necessary to
house the Marines relocating from Okinawa.19

13 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.
14 “Minister Tells Okinawa Gov. of Plan to Proceed with Futenma Relocation,” Kyodo News, June 13, 2011, posted
online at 01:17.
15 William Wan, “U.S., Japan Agree to Delay Relocation of Air Base on Okinawa,” The Washington Post, June 22,
2011, p. A9.
16 “U.S. Defense Budget Bill to Urge Review of Futenma Plan: Senator,” Kyodo News, June 14, 2011, posted online at
13:39.
17 Of this sum, the Government of Japan has committed to provide $2.8 billion in cash, with the remainder taking the
form of recoverable financial instruments.
18 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.
19 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.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

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
South Korea and North Korea, with a major headquarters complex at Yongsan, adjacent to the
capital of Seoul.
Following agreements between South Korea and the U.S., the headquarters of U.S. Forces, Korea
(USFK) 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. In its May 2011 report on the military posture in Asia, the GAO noted that they
obtained DOD cost estimates that total $17.6 billion through 2020 for initiatives in South
Korea, but DOD cost estimates are incomplete. One initiative, to extend the tour length of
military service members and move thousands of dependents to South Korea ... could cost
DOD $5 billion by 2020 and $22 billion or more through 2050, but this initiative was not
supported by a business case analysis that would have considered alternative courses of
action and their associated costs and benefits. As a result, DOD is unable to demonstrate that
tour normalization is the most cost-effective approach to meeting its strategic objectives.
This omission raises concerns about the investments being made in a $13 billion construction
program at Camp Humphreys, where tour normalization is largely being implemented.20
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
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.21
As part of the GDPR mentioned earlier, Army and Air Force personnel in the Federal Republic of
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 in these areas.

20 GAO-11-316, frontispiece. 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.
21 U.S. military manpower levels are regularly reported by the Defense Manpower Data Center. Its military personnel
figures can be accessed at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/miltop.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

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 after the
most recent Quadrennial Defense Review reviewed the U.S. interest in supporting NATO.22
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 (later not supported by the House), 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.23 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 limited
in size. In its report on the military construction appropriation for FY2011, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations 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.24 The President’s request for FY2012 includes $43.5 million
for construction of housing at the camp and $46.0 million for facility improvements at the
adjoining airfield. The House version of H.R. 2055 fully funded this request.
Since its creation, AFRICOM headquarters has been located in Germany. Press reports have
mentioned discussions concerning its potential movement to the Norfolk, VA, area.25 In its report
on the NDAA for FY2012, the House Committee on Armed Services noted that Commander, U.S.
Africa Command, has studied various alternatives for moving his headquarters to the United

22 Jason Sherman, “QDR Reconsidering Plan to Move Two Brigades from Europe to U.S.,” Inside the Pentagon,
August 13, 2009, vol. 25, no. 32.
23 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.
24 S.Rept. 111-226, p. 16.
25 Robert McCabe, “JFCOM Downsizing to be Complete by March 2012,” The Virginian Pilot & Ledger Star,
February 10, 2011, p. A1.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

States and directed the Secretary of Defense to report the conclusions of that study not later than
April 1, 2012.26
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.
The House version of H.R. 2055 supports that funding.
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. Section 2805 of
the House version of the FY2012 NDAA would reauthorize this authority for an additional year,
through September 30, 2012.
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
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009, 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.

26 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
Report of the Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives on H.R. 1540 together with additional views
[including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office], 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2011, H.Rept. 112-78
(Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 288.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

FY2011 Continuing Appropriations
Federal funding for FY2011 was provided through a series of eight continuing appropriations of
varying lengths.27 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 bill of the series, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-242), was enacted
on September 30, 2010, and provided funding through December 3, 2010. This original Act,
rather than merely extending existing appropriations into the new year, 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.
This section, therefore, did not permit the initiation of any new FY2011 construction projects.
None of the subsequent enacted appropriations altered this language until the enactment of the
Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) on April 15, 2011.
FY2012 Appropriations
The President submitted his FY2012 appropriation request for military construction and family
housing to Congress on February 14, 2011, and the House passed its version of the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055) on June 14,
2011. The overall level of funding in the President’s request represents a 17.1% ($3.0 billion)
reduction below the combined Title I (military construction) and Title IV (Overseas Contingency
Operations construction) amount enacted for FY2011. The House version of H.R. 2055 funding
levels in New Budget Authority represent a 20.5% ($3.6 billion) reduction from FY2011 enacted
amounts.
The major portion of that reduction 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. The President also requested no funds for the Overseas Contingency Operations

27 For detailed information on these continuing appropriations, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions:
Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

construction account. This represented $1.2 billion in the FY2011 appropriation. Even though the
FY2012 base budget request includes $80 million in construction for Afghanistan, plus another
$137 million elsewhere in Central Command, this marks 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 the President’s request for
FY2012, a number of questions may suggest themselves:
• To what extent did the delay in FY2011 appropriations disrupt executive branch
planning and commitment of construction funds?
• Do the findings made by the GAO regarding U.S. basing in Asia indicate
inadequate management and planning on the part of DOD, or are there
extenuating circumstances that inhibit DOD’s ability to effectively plan and
execute the adjustment of its military posture there?
• 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?
• 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?
• Would new authority to extend implementation of some recommendations of the
2005 BRAC Commission reflect the complexity of the current BRAC round, or
have the military services not adequately planned to the mandatory deadline?
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Appendix. Detailed Military Construction
Appropriations Tables
Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10, Div B,
FY2012
FY2012 House
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Title X)
Request
Bill (H.R. 2055)
Military Construction,
3,719,419 3,787,598
3,235,991 3,141,491
Army
Rescissions
-33,000
-263,000
—
-100,000
Reduction
-230,000
-7,575
—
—
Total New BA
3,456,419
3,517,023
3,235,991
3,041,491
Military Construction,
3,769,003 3,303,611
2,461,547 2,461,547
Navy and Marine Corps
Rescissions
-51,468
-61,050
—
-25,000
Reduction
-235,000
-6,607
—
—
Total New BA
3,482,535
3,235,954
2,461,547
2,459,047
Military Construction, Air
1,450,426 1,106,995
1,364,858 1,279,358
Force
Rescissions
-130,768
-121,700
—
-32,000
Reduction
—
-2,214
—
—
Total New BA
1,255,567
983,081
1,364,858
1,276,158
Military Construction,
3,093,679 2,873,062
3,848,757 3,665,157
Defense-wide
Rescissions
-151,160
-148,500
—
-131,400
Reduction
—
-5,746
—
—
Total New BA
2,942,519
2,718,816
3,848,757
3,533,757
Total, Active
11,137,040 10,454,874
10,911,153 10,310,453
Components
Military Construction,
582,056 873,664
773,592 773,592
Army National Guard
Rescissions
-33,000
—
—
—
Reduction
—
-1,747
—
—
Total New BA
549,056
871,917
773,592
773,592
Military Construction, Air
371,226 194,986
116,246 116,246
National Guard
Rescissions
-7,000
—
—
—
Reduction
—
-390
—
—
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10, Div B,
FY2012
FY2012 House
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Title X)
Request
Bill (H.R. 2055)
Total New BA
364,226
194,596
116,246
116,246
Military Construction,
431,566 318,175
280,549 280,549
Army Reserve
Reduction
—
-636
—
—
Total New BA
431,566
317,539
280,549
280,549
Military Construction,
125,874 61,557
26,299 26,299
Navy Reserve
Reduction
—
-123
—
—
Total New BA
125,874
61,434
26,299
26,299
Military Construction, Air
112,269 7,832
33,620 33,620
Force Reserve
Reduction
—
-16
—
—
Total New BA
112,269
7,816
33,620
33,620
Total, Reserve
1,582,991 1,453,302
1,230,306 1,230,306
Components
Total, Military
12,720,031 11,908,176
12,141,459 11,540,759
Construction
(Appropriations) 13,655,518
12,527,480 12,141,459
11,777,859
(Rescissions) -406,396
-594,250
—
-237,100
(Reductions) -529,091
-25,054
—
—
NATO Security
197,414 258,884
272,611 272,611
Investment Program
Reduction
—
-518
—
—
Total New BA
197,414 258,366
272,611 272,611
Family Housing
273,236 92,369
186,897 186,897
Construction, Army
Reduction
—
-185
—
—
Total New BA
273,236
92,184
186,897
186,897
Family Housing Ops and
523,418 518,140
494,858 494,858
Debt, Army
Reduction
—
-1,036
—
—
Total New BA
523,418
517,104
494,858
494,858
Family Housing
146,569 186,444
100,972 100,972
Construction, Navy and
Marine Corps
Reduction
—
-373
—
—
Total New BA
146,569
186,071
100,972
100,972
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10, Div B,
FY2012
FY2012 House
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Title X)
Request
Bill (H.R. 2055)
Family Housing Ops and
368,540 366,346
367,863 367,863
Debt, Navy and Marine
Corps
Reduction
—
-733
—
—
Total New BA
368,540
365,613
367,863
367,863
Family Housing
66,101 78,025
84,804 84,804
Construction, Air Force
Reduction
—
-156
—
—
Total New BA
66,101
77,869
84,804
84,804
Family Housing Ops and
502,936 513,792
404,761 404,761
Debt, Air Force
Reduction
—
-1,028
—
—
Total New BA
502,936
512,764
404,761
404,761
Family Housing
2,859 —
— —
Construction, Defense-
Wide
Family Housing Ops and
49,214 50,464
50,723 50,723
Debt, Defense-Wide
Reduction
—
-101
—
—
Total New BA
49,214
50,363
50,723
50,723
DOD Family Housing
2,600 1,096
2,184 2,184
Improvement Fund
Reduction
—
-2
—
—
Total New BA
2,600
1,094
2,184
2,184
Homeowners Assistance
323,225 16,515
1,284 1,284
Fund
Reduction
—
-33
—
—
Total New BA
323,225
16,482
1,284
1,284
Total, Family Housing
2,258,698
1,819,544
1,694,346
1,694,346
(Appropriations) 2,258,698
1,823,191 1,694,346
1,694,346
(Reductions) 0
-3,647
0
0
Chemical
151,541 124,971
75,312 75,312
Demilitarization
Construction, Defense-
wide
Reduction
—
-250
—
—
Total New BA
151,541 124,721
75,312 75,312
Base Realignment and




Closure
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10, Div B,
FY2012
FY2012 House
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Title X)
Request
Bill (H.R. 2055)
BRAC,1990 496,768
360,474
323,543
323,543
Rescissions
—
—
—
-100,000
Reduction
—
-721
—
—
Total New BA
496,768
359,753
323,543
223,543
BRAC,2005 7,455,498
2,354,285
258,776
258,776
Rescissions
—
-232,363
—
—
Reduction
—
-4,709
—
—
Total New BA
7,455,498
2,117,213
258,776
258,776
Total, BRAC
7,952,266
2,476,966
582,319
482,319
(Appropriations) 7,952,266
2,714,759
582,319
582,319
(Rescissions) —
-232,363
—
-100,000
(Reductions) —
-5,430
—
—
Grand Total, Title I
23,279,950
16587,773
14,766,047
14,014,047
(Appropriations) 24,215,437
17,449,285 14,766,047
14,402,447
(Rescissions) -406,396
-826,613
—
-388,400
(Reductions) -529,091
-34,899
—
—
Source: H.Rept. 111-366; P.L. 112-10; DOD Budget Justification Material, FY2012; H.R. 2055.
Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing
FY2010
Appropriation
FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-10, Div B,
FY2012
House Bill
Account
(P.L. 111-117)
Title X)
Request
(H.R. 2055)
Military Construction, Army
924,484
981,346
—
—
Military Construction, Army
— —
— —
(Emergency)
Military Construction, Air Force
474,500 195,006
—
—
Military Construction, Air Force
— —
— —
(Emergency)
Military Construction, Defense-
— 46,500
— —
wide
Military Construction, Defense-
— —
— —
wide (Emergency)
Grand Total, Title IV
1,398,984
1,222,852
—
—
Source: H.Rept. 111-366; P.L. 112-10; DOD Budget Justification Material, FY2012; H.R. 2055.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization


Author Contact Information

Daniel H. Else

Specialist in National Defense
delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996


Congressional Research Service
18

---