Appropriations for FY1996 : Military Construction One of a series of CRS Reports on FY1996 appropriations

95-621 F Appropriations for FY1996 : Military Construction One of a series of CRS Reports on FY1996 appropriations George H . Siehl Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division N Updated October 5, 1995 a mom cRti HI I 111,11 Appropriations For FY1996 : Military Construction Summary The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill finances (1) military construction projects in the United States and overseas ; (2) military family housing operations and construction ; (3) U .S . contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program (formerly called the NATO Infrastructure Program) ; and (3) most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of new facilities for functions being transferred and environmental cleanup at closing sites . The Administration has requested $10,698 million in budget authority for military construction in FY1996, an increase over the $8,868 million appropriated for FY1996 . Congressional action on the annual MilCon appropriations bill normally follows action in each house on the annual national defense authorization bill . The authorization bill typically reviews funding for military construction activities at the same level of detail as the MilCon appropriations bill, and most differences are reconciled in conference action on each measure . This year, House action on the defense authorization bill is expected in late May or early June, and the MilCon appropriations bill may come up very shortly thereafter . Last year, debate over the MilCon appropriations bill, especially in the Senate, focused on the issue of congressional additions to the Administration request . This year, that issue is less likely to arise because the Administration's budget request does not represent a decline from usual levels of funding, so the key congressional committees may not elect to boost funding . The major interest this year is in an Administration plan to improve military family housing . Long-standing issues include domestic versus overseas expenditures and contributions to the NATO construction fund . Contributors Name Area of Expertise CRS Division Telephone George H . Siehl Base closures ; natural resources . FAND 7-7284 Stephen Daggett Defense budget . 7-7642 FAND Contents Status 2 Key Policy Issues 5 Major Funding Trends 9 For Additional Reading CRS Products 13 13 This CRS report is one of a series on FY1996 appropriations . These reports are available from CRS by calling 7-7132. CRS Appropriations Series Order Code Report Subject 95-620 C Appropriations Overview 95-624 ENR Agriculture 95-632 E Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 95-622 F Defense 95-628 GOV District of Columbia 95-625 ENR Energy and Water 95-623 F Foreign Operations 95-629 ENR Interior 95-633 EPW Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education 95-626 GOV Legislative Branch 95-621 F Military Construction 95-627 E Transportation 95-630 E Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office 95-631 A VA, HUD, and Independent Agenc es Appropriations for FY1996 : Military Construction The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill funds construction projects and real property maintenance of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and their reserve components ; defense-wide construction ; U .S . contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program (formerly called the NATO Infrastructure Program) ; and military family housing operations and construction . The bill also provides funding for the Base Realignment and Closure Account, which finances most base realignment and closure costs, including construction of new facilities for functions being transferred and environmental cleanup at closing sites . The FY1996 budget requests $10,697,995,000 of budget authority for military construction, up from $8,868,200,000 in FY1995 . Typically, the appropriated construction funds are made available for obligation for a period of five fiscal years . The military construction appropriations bill ($8 .9 billion for FY1995) is only one of several annual pieces of legislation that concern funding for national defense . Other major legislation includes (1) the defense appropriations bill, that provides funds for all military activities of the Department of Defense except for military construction ($243 .5 billion for FY1995), see, CRS Report95622 F ; (2) the energy and water development appropriations bill, that provides funding for atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy ($10 .3 billion for defense-related activities in FY1995), see, CRS Report 95-625 ENR ; and (3) the national defense authorization bill, which authorizes appropriations for national defense . Two other appropriations bills -- VA-HUD-Independent Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State -- also include small amounts for national defense . In addition, the energy and water development appropriations bill provides funds for civil projects carried out by the U .S . Army Corps of Engineers -- this funding is not included in the National Defense Budget Function (Function 050) . MilCon appropriations are the major, but not the only, source of funds for facility investments by the military services and defense agencies . The defense appropriations bill provides some funds for real property maintenance in operation and maintenance accounts . In addition, funds for construction and maintenance of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation-related facilities are provided in part through proceeds of commissaries, recreational user fees, and other income . CRS- 2 Status Status of Appropriations Legislation : Military Construction Subconumttee Markup ouse Sena 06/07/95 07/17/95 House Report House Passage Senate Report Conference Senate Conference Report Approval Passage Report House Senate H . Rcpt . 104-137 104-116 06/21/95 07/21/95 104-247 06/13/95 07/19/95 09/14/95 Public Law P.L . 09/20/95 09/22/95 104-32 Congressional action on the annual MilCon appropriations bill normally follows action in each house on the annual national defense authorization . The authorization bill typically reviews funding for military construction activities at the same level of detail as the MilCon appropriations bill, and most differences are reconciled in conference action on each measure . The MilCon bill is the first FY1996 appropriations bill sent to the White House . It was signed into law by President Clinton on Oct . 3, 1995 as P .L . 10432 . The Senate had approved the conference report, H . Rept . 104-247, on September 22, 1995, after the House voted approval on September 20 . Some had speculated that President Clinton might veto the bill because it is $479 million over the amount he requested, and because the increases are at odds with pending cuts in domestic programs in other appropriations bills being finalized in Congress . This was not the case, however . House action: The House Committee on National Security reported out the FY1996 Defense Authorization bill, H . R . 1530, on June 1, 1995 (H . Rept . 104-131) . The military construction section of the bill -- Division B -- was $500 million higher than the Administration request ($10 .698 billion) . The total authorization in the bill as reported, $11,197,995,000 stipulated $6,878,840,000 for military construction, BRAC closure operations, and NATO infrastructure . Family housing construction and support were set at $4,319,155,000 . Table 2 shows funding levels for the various MilCon accounts at key points throughout the appropriations process . On June 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Military Construction approved a bill for consideration by the full Appropriations Committee . On June 13, the full committee ordered the FY1996 Military Construction bill, H .R . 1817, reported . Funding levels and specific projects are the same as in the Authorization bill, H .R . 1530 . House floor consideration of H .R . 1817 began June 16, 1995, and was completed with passage on the third day of debate, June 21, 1995, by a vote of 319 to 105 . Several amendments made minor cuts from the amounts reported from the Appropriations Committee . Specifically : CRS- 3 -$14 million in land acquis o for an Army Museum adjoining Washington, D .C . was eliminated on a vote of 261-137 . The Military Construction subcommittee had previously cut the request from $17 million ; -- $6 .9 million for construction of Air Force housing was cut by a vote of 266-160 . The amendment targeted units costing more than $200,000 ; Six amendments that would have cut projects or accounts by a total of $184 .5 million were rejected, as was an amendment to cut the military construction and NATO infrastructure accounts by 5% . Advocates of these cuts noted that the FY1996 proposal was 28% higher than FY1995 appropriation . Supporters of H .R . 1817 said the increase was necessary because so little had been done to improve military housing in the past decade . The House approved a total of $11 .177 billion in the MilCon Appropriations bill it sent to the Senate . Senate action : The MilCon Appropriations subcommittee marked-up H .R . 1817 on July 17th . On July 19 the full committee marked-up and ordered the bill reported at a funding level of $11,158,995,000 . This is $336 million above the reported Senate authorization mark and $18 million below the House approved MilCon appropriation level . The amount reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee exceeded the Administra on budget request by $461 million . The MilCon Appropriations bill, H.R . 1817, was brought to the Senate floor and approved by a vote of 84 to 10 on July 21 . 1995 . The bill was approved with the amendments reported from the Appropriations Committee (see Table 2 for dollar changes from the House bill) . The Senate passed appropriation bill makes rescissions of over $55 .7 million from prior year appropriations ; the House passed measure contained no rescissions . The Senate bill contains $228 million in military construction projects that had not been authorized . These projects are in ten accounts within the MilCon appropriation as listed in section 126 of the bill . The committee report notes that the bill is $2 .4 billion more than the 1995 appropriation and $461 million more than the Administration budget request, but $18 million under the level approved by the House . Table 2 shows the funding differences in each account between the House and Senate passed versions of H .R . 1817 . This will be the basis of a conference on the bill in September . Senator Bingaman offered an amendment on the floor to reduce the funding for military construction and family housing by $300 million, but it was rejected in a 77-18 vote . During debate, Senator McCain, a cosponsor of the amendment, noted that all the projects in the bill met the criteria that he suggested and the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted last year (see discussion under key policy issues, below) . Nonetheless, he argued that military construction projects were not the highest priority needs of the services . The CRS- 4 money added to the MilCon bill, he said, "would be better used for higher priority requirements . . . or to meet the must-pay bills for ongoing contingency operations" . Senator McCain noted the "good news" that the military construction add-ons for FY1996 would be significantly less than less than the $1 billion added last year . Senator Reid, ranking member of the MilCon subcommittee, subsequently noted, "there are lots of other places these moneys could be spent, but this is a Military Construction Subcommittee budget and that is where we are obligated to spend the money," not on training, contingency operations or other higher priority requirements . Other than the Bingaman amendment, two issues were debated at length by the Senate : the funding level for construction of National Guard and Reserve unit facilities, and the costs of environmental cleanup at closing bases . Senator Bond, cochair of the National Guard caucus, stated that the administration requested on $18 million for all Army Guard units in the 50 States, and that the $85 million allocated to the Air National Guard was only half the amount needed for required projects . Senator Burns, chair of the MilCon subcommittee, said that because so much money was needed for cleanup, it was necessary to add the funds requested for Guard and Reserve projects . These items are discussed further under the following Key Policy Issues section . The Senate Armed Services Committee reported S . 1026, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, on July 12, 1995 (Senate Report 104-112) . The report recommended a total of $10 .82 billion for the MilCon portion of the authorization bill, with over $6 .6 billion for military construction and nearly $4 .2 billion for military housing and support for FY1996 . The Senate authorization recommendation was about $120 million more than the Administration request for $10 .704 billion . S . 1026 would authorize the plan to promote private financing and development of military housing, and recommends full funding for the Base Closure and Realignment accounts . The Senate Defense Authorization bill, S . 1124 was passed on Sept . 6, 1995, following debate on August 3, 4, and 5 . Prior to final passage, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Thurmond to authorize an additional $228 million for 46 military construction projects . These projects were funded in the MilCon Appropriations bill passed by the Senate on July 21, so the Thurmond amendment would bring the authorization and appropriation bills into conformance . Conference action: Conferees met and reported H .R . 1817, the MilCon Appropriations bill for FY1996, on Sept . 14, 1995 (H . Rept . 104-247) . The reported bill appropriates a total of $11,177,009,000 . The amount is $479 more than requested by the administration, and $2 .4 billion above FY1995 appropriations . Table 2 provides a break out and a comparison with the budget request and funding levels earlier approved by the two chambers . The House approved the conference report by a vote of 326 yeas to 98 nays on Sept . 20, 1995 . The Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 86 yeas to 14 nays on Sept . 22, 1995 . CRS- 5 Key Policy Issues Issues associated with military construction funding include the following : Family housing initiatives : The National Secu y Committee has agreed with an Administration proposal to establish incentives for the private sector to build new family housing on, or near, military facilities . To deal with the nagging problem of low-quality housing, H .Rept . 104-131 states, "The committee proposes to address these shortfalls with both short-term improvements and legislative changes to the military construction program to enhance public-private partnerships in the development of military family housing" . The proposal calls for carrying out several pilot projects over the next few years . Section 2801 of H .R . 1530 authorizes several alternatives whereby the secretary could acquire and improve family housing, including the ability to contract and lease family housing . DOD would be authorized to contribute up to 35% of the cost of the projects, with the investment being in the form of cash, current housing, and/or real property . Property at closing bases is one possible source of real property that could be exchanged for the development of housing needed at other facilities . A Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund is established as the sole source of funding for the program . The Military Construction Appropriations bill, H .R . 1817 provides the $22 mi ion requested by the Administration and authorized by the National Security Committee for pilot projects under the Defense Family Housing initiative . Senate Committees have also approved this initiative . Section 2811 of the Senate Authorization bill, S . 1026, supports use of the private sector to improve housing opportunities for military personnel and would establish a Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund through Sept . 30, 2000 . The Senate MilCon bill as reported from Committee provides $22 million for operation of the fund, the amount requested by the Administration and approved by the House . Most agree that steps to correct inadequacies in military housing are needed . Last year Congress added funds above those DOD requested for barracks renovation . This year, Secretary of Defense Perry made plans to improve family housing a centerpiece of his congressional testimony on the FY1996 defense budget . The secretary pointed out that military housing needs have changed dramatically in recent years as the all-volunteer force has evolved . A much larger share of the force is now comprised of older personnel with families . Moreover, military service members, like the rest of the population, have come to expect modern conveniences and design in their housing -including closet space, air conditioning, space for washers and dryers, etc . Secretary Perry has stressed that the lack of these quality of life features can adversely affect troop morale and retention . These losses, in turn, can undermine military readiness . Congressional additions to the Administration request : The House Defense Authorization bill approves $500 million more for military construction CRS- 6 than the Administration requested . All of the added projects were priorities of the services for which funding was not otherwise available . The Military Construction Appropriations bill provides this additional funding for projects included in the Authorizing measure . Last year, a major focus of debate over the MilCon appropriations bill, especially in the Senate, concerned the issue of congressional additions to the Administration request . Senator McCain, in particular, objected to the provision of substantial amounts for projects that the Administration had not requested, arguing that such projects largely represent "pork barrel" spending and come at the expense of higher priority defense programs . In Senate floor consideration of the MilCon bill, the managers accepted a McCain amendment that called for certain criteria to be applied to any projects proposed to be added -- including a provision that any project to be added should be included in military service lists of needed projects . The amendment was not incorporated into the final conference version of the bill, however, and the conference agreement provided over $900 million for unrequested construction . From FY1990 through FY1994, according to Senator McCain, Congress added an average of $880 million per year in unrequested military construction projects . The MilCon bill reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee for FY1996 exceeds the Administration request by $461 million . Senator McCain has raised similar questions about congressional ad itions to Administration defense budget requests in other areas besides military construction . The whole matter is, to say the least, extremely contentious . Within the MilCon budget, the debate over congressional additions involves several overlapping issues . MilCon proponents, including facility advocates in the military services, argue that military facilities have been systematically underfunded for many years -- even, some say, in the midst of the buildup of the early- to mid-1980s . Indeed, this same line of argument took place during the House Appropriations Committee mark-up on the FY1996 MilCon bill . Some noted that the funding level was up 28% from last year, while others defended the increase as simply making good previous shortfalls in funding for new construction or maintenance of existing facilities . The current DOD backlog of deferred maintenance and repair for family housing alone totals over $2 billion dollars . A goal of DOD facility managers has been to allocate about 3% of the plant replacement value of DOD facilities to construction and maintenance each year - a figure somewhat below the average for public facilities nationwide . Actual funding, however, has typically run at 1 to 2% of plant replacement value, which represents a replacement cycle of 50 to 100 years for defense facilities . Facility proponents, therefore, commonly feel that congressional additions are to be welcomed . (For a discussion of this and related issues, see Martin Cohen and Stephen Daggett, Military Construction : Current Controversies and Long-Term Issues, CRS Report 91-669 F, Sept . 8, 1991 .) A related issue is that, in the FY1993 budget request and again in the FY1995 request, senior officials in the Defense Department imposed a freeze on CRS- 7 all but essential military construction projects -- i .e ., projects needed to comply with environmental regulations or other mandates . The official rationale in each year was that the military base closure process made it impossible to determine which projects should go ahead and which should not . In both cases, however, the key congressional committees were skeptical of this reasoning . In the FY1995 cycle, in each house, the appropriations allocations to the military construction subcommittees reflected a substantial increase over the Administration request to keep total MilCon funding in line with the prior year level . This necessarily entailed a substantial number of congressional additions to the request . Finally, congressional MilCon subcommittees -- including authorization as well as appropriation subcommittees -- have frequently taken issue with Administration military construction priorities . In the early 1990s, for example, the committees frequently reduced amounts requested for construction overseas -- on the ground that troop levels abroad should be reduced and that allied burden sharing contributions should increase -- and reallocated the funds to domestic projects . In addition, congressional committees have, at various times, added unrequested funds for quality of life improvements such as day care centers and barracks renovation, arguing that the military services have tended to neglect these areas in favor of "warfighting" investments . There is also the issue of funding National Guard and Reserve component construction projects . National Guard and Reserve expenditures : Congress traditionally has added funds for National Guard and Reserve construction projects . Supporters of these additions contend, as did Senator Bond during the floor debate on FY1996 MilCon Appropriations, that the DOD depends upon Congress to adequately fund these programs after active duty personnel in the Pentagon see to it that their own needs are met in the budget request . Critics see Guard and Reserve projects as largely pork barrel spending, or as lesser contributions to the readiness of American arms . In the mid to late 1980's, Congress varied from the administration budget requests for Guard and Reserve projects by cutting as much as $38 .9 million or adding $28 .7 million . In 1989, however, the additions topped $132 million and grew to over $400 million in FY1995 . This funding history is shown in Table 3. Overseas expenditures : Recent MilCon budget requests have included only very small amounts for construction at U .S . military bases abroad, with the largest amounts for the NATO Infrastructure Program, which was renamed the NATO Security Investment Program in December 1994 . Both the FY1996 Defense Authorization and MilCon Appropriations bills reported from committees cut $18 million from the $179 million the Administration requested for NATO infrastructure . The MilCon subcommittees have traditionally scrutinized overseas funding requests very closely, and Congress has reduced NATO Infrastructure funding from the level requested in almost every budget . For the most part, however, defense burden sharing issues have been addressed, not in MilCon appropriations bills, but in congressional action on the annual defense authorization and defense appropriations measures . CRS- 8 Environment, historic preservation, oversight, and other issues : In the past, Congress has encouraged the Defense Department to take a leadership role in ensuring environmentally sound operating practices, preserving historic buildings, and protecting important natural habitats on military facilities . The costs of compliance with legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and other environmental legislation may also come under review . It remains to be seen if the 104th Congress continues to support funds in the defense budget for these purposes . Finally, MilCon subcommittees exercise oversight over potentially contentious issues such as land acquisition, land use, and property disposal at military facilities throughout the world . The cost of environmental cleanup at closingbases, roughly one-third of the MilCon appropriation, raises concerns . The House MilCon Appropriations Report notes that from FY 1990 through 1995, not less than $1 .965 billion was made available for BRAC environmental costs, and that $2 .330 billion was allocated by DOD for this purpose . The House placed a cap on future BRAC environmental allocations, rather than a floor, and noted a concern that cleanup efforts should be tailored to the proposed re-use of an area, "to assure that costs are reasonable and affordable ." As noted above, Senate floor debate on MilCon Appropriations identified the high cost of environmental restoration in the Base Realignment and Closure process as a barrier to shifting funds to National Guard and Reserve construction projects ; funding those projects required additions to the budget request . The Senate MilCon Appropriations Report states that GAO is to submit a report by March 1, 1999 reviewing and making recommendations on the DOD environmental compliance program . H .R . 1530 addresses a land use issue, directing the Secretary to submit by May 1, 1996 a report on the feasibility of conveying excess lands at closing military bases to the States for wildlife management, sporting, and outdoor recreation purposes . These would be lands with little value for local development . H .R. 1817 provides full, $50 million funding for the DOD Energy Conservation Investment Program which aims to accomplish a 20% reduction in building and facility energy requirements by the year 2000 . DOD estimates that the savings from this program are comparable to the savings in the recent round of base closures . The Army Museum : The Army Chief of Staff revised the idea of a national Army museum in 1983 . The Army reviewed over 60 possible sites for the facility, and eventually recommended the former Marriott Motel site near the 14th Street Bridge in northern Virginia . This seven acre location was favored because it is close to Mall tourist flow, easily accessible to the Pentagon and Ft . Meyer enabling staff coordination and support from the ceremonial 3rd Infantry (Old Guard) . Proximity to the Smithsonian Institution, Library of Congress, and National Archives would facilitate research, proponents noted . CRS- 9 The Army indicated that the facility would serve several purposes : to honor those who had served in the U .S . Army, educate and inspire soldiers and the public, protect military art and artifacts, and contribute to military historical research and scholarship . The museum would also provide office space for the Center of Military History which now uses leased space in Washington, D . C . The budget requested $17 million for land acquisition ; funding for construction of the museum itself is to raised from private sources . Backers feared that the land would be sold or developed before the money for purchase could be raised privately, so Congressional appropriation of this amount was sought . The House Military Construction subcommittee limited its approval to $14 million . Opponents of the measure voiced several concerns : there are already a number (figures ranged from 28 to 48) of Army museums around the country, the museum could be built on other Army or Federal lands already owned in the Washington, D .C . area, and improved military housing is a more important use of the $14 million (although the amendment to eliminate the land acquisition funds did not redirect the money to military housing, it only reduced the appropriation level for the MilCon bill) . e Senate, the requested $17 million funding for museum land acquisition was deleted from the defense authorization and appropriations bills as reported from the Committees . Thus, 1995 legislation provides neither authority nor funding for the Army to acquire the Marriott site for an Army Museum . Major Funding Trends Funding for military family housing has been fairly stable in recent years, in large part because totals are driven by annual operating costs which are not very variable . Funding for military construction has varied more from year to year, however, especially with the FY1993 freeze on non-essential projects . Table 1 shows overall military construction funding since FY1993, including family housing and Figure 1 displays the trend in military construction funding, excluding family housing, in constant, inflation adjusted prices, since the peak of the Reagan-era military buildup in FY1985 . Table 2 breaks down the FY1996 request by appropriations account . CRS- 10 Table 1 : Military Construction Appropriations, FY1993 to FY1997 (budget authority, current year dollars in millions) 1 a sing Military Construction Total Actual FY1993 Actual FY1994 . ated FY1995 Request FY1996 Request FY1997 3,941 3,501 3,387 4 554 6,009 5,481 6,573 4,488 8,495 9,510 8,868 10,698 8,823 4,335 Figure 1 : Military Construction Budget Authority, FY1985-96 (Excluding Family Housing) Constant FY96$ in Billions 8 6 Def-wide mA.F . Navy Army 4 2 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Fiscal Year Sources : Department of Defense Comptroller, "National Defense Budget Estimates for FY1995," March 1994 ; Department of Defense, "Financial Summary Tables," Feb . 1995 ; deflators from Department of Defense Comptroller . CRS-11 Table 2 : Military Construction Appropriations by Account (in thousands of dollars) Account on, M 1Con, ilCon, Con, Army Navy Air Force Defense-wide on, Army National Guard ilCon, Air National Guard MilCon, Army Reserve 4ilCon, Naval Reserve o Ai Fo e Re e e Base Realign . Pad Closure (BRAC) Acct . Part I BRAC Acct . Part IIIN Family Housing Operation & Debt, AF Famil o Co t . De 'de F ily Housing Operation & e t, Def-wide a ily Housing Improvement Fund omeo ers Assist . Fund, Def. FY1995 Enacted FY1996 Request House Bill Senate Bill Conf. Report 548,791 415,098 472,724 488,086 611,608 588,243 516,664 552,586 633,814 554,636 513,784 502,467 189,000 495,655 857,405 18,4 0 578,841 728,332 72,537 569,616 828,07 156,357 587,234 640,357 137,110 248,591 55,693 85,647 42,963 118,267 42,963 168,972 83,423 171,272 72,728 22,7 8 56,958 87,600 7,920 27,002 19,655 31,502 7,920 32,297 19,055 36, 82 ®® 1,438,469 ~® 824,845 350 29,031 -133,000 1,573,258 850,059 ®® 25 772 3 72 3 772 3 772 30,467 30,467 42,367 30,467 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 75,586 75,586 75,586 75,586 Sources : Department of Defense, "Financial Summary Tables," Feb . 1995 . H .R . 1817 as passed by House on June 21, 1995, as passed by Senate on July 21, 1995, and as agreed to in conference on Sept . 14, 1995 . CRS-12 TABLE 3 . Congressional Additions to Annual Department of Defense Budget Requests For National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1985-96 (current year dollars in thousands) Request Enacted Fiscal a Army National Guard Air National Guard Army Reserve Naval Reserve Air Force Reserve Total 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1.996 88,900 102,100 121,100 170,400 138,300 125,000 66,678 50,400 46,700 50,865 9,929 18,480 102,900 137,200 140,000 160,800 147,500 164,600 66,500 131,800 173,270 142,353 122,770 85,647 70,400 70,700 86,700 95,100 79,900 76,900 59,300 57,500 31,500 82,233 7,910 42,963 60,800 51,800 44,500 73,737 48,400 50,900 50,200 20,900 37,772 20,591 2,355 7,920 67,800 66,800 58,900 79,300 58,800 46,200 37,700 20,800 52,880 55,727 28,190 27,002 390,800 428,600 451,200 579,337 472,900 463,600 280,378 281,400 342,122 351,769 171,154 182,012 Source : Department of Defense, "Financial Summary Tables," successive years . Army National Guard Air National Guard Army Reserve Naval Reserve Air Force Reserve 98,603 102,205 140,879 184,405 229,158 223,490 313,224 231,117 214,989 302,719 187,500 111,200 121,250 148,925 151,291 158,508 235,867 180,560 217,566 305,759 247,491 248,591 69,306 61,346 86,700 95,100 85,958 96,124 77,426 110,389 42,150 102,040 57,193 60,800 41,800 44,500 73,737 60,900 56,600 80,307 59,900 15,400 25,029 22,748 67,800 63,030 58,900 79,300 70,600 46,200 38,600 9,700 29,900 74,486 56,958 Total Total Change from Re us 407,709 389,631 479,904 583,833 605,124 658,281 690,117 628,672 608,198 751,765 572,990 +16,909 -38,969 +28,704 +4,496 132,224 194,681 409,739 +347,272 +266,076 +399,996 01,836 For Additional Reading CRS Products Defense Budget for F'Y1996 : Major Issues and Congressional Action, by Stephen Daggett, CRS Issue Brief 95049, updated regularly . Defense Burdensharing: Is Japan's Host Nation Support a Model for Other Allies?, by Stephen Daggett, CRS Report 94-515 F, June 20, 1994 . Military Construction : Current Controversies and Long-Term Issues, by Martin Cohen and Stephen Daggett, CRS Report 91-669 F, Sep . 3, 1991 . Natural Resource Issues in National Defense Programs, Report 91-781 ENR, October 31, 1991 . by George H. Siehl, CRS crsphpgw