Appropriations for FY1998: Military Construction

Appropriations for FY1998: Military Construction

97-210 F
Appropriations for FY1998:
Military Construction
Updated February 26, 1998
(name redacted)
Analyst in National Defense
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget resolutions,
appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and budget reconciliation
bills. The process begins with the President's budget request and is bounded by the rules of the
House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended),
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program authorizations. In addition, the line item
veto takes effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate Subcommittees on
Military Construction Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its
scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff
relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
Since this report was last updated, data related to the FY1998 appropriations may have changed
through supplemental appropriations or rescissions, entitlement revisions, or scorekeeping
adjustments. These changes will be reflected in a subsequent report.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html

Appropriations for FY1998:
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; and (4) most
base realignment and closure costs.
This paper reviews the appropriations and authorization process for military
construction. The appropriators have finished their work on H.R 2016. Both chambers
approved the conference report for the military construction appropriations bill (H.Rept. 105-
247) and the President signed the bill on September 30, 1997, creating P.L. 105-45. The
defense authorizing conference report (H.Rept. 105-340) passed the House on October 23 and
the Senate on November 7. The President signed the authorization bill on November 18,
1997, creating P.L. 105-85.
The debate perennially centers on the adequacy of the President's budget for military
construction needs and the necessity for congressional add-ons, especially for Guard and
Reserve projects. FY1998 congressional additions to the military construction request have
prioritized projects to improve the quality of life for servicemembers and Guard and Reserve
construction.
For FY1998, the Administration has requested budget authority of $8.4 billion. This is
down from the FY1996 level of $11.1 billion and the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion. The
House and Senate appropriations conference committee added $800 million and 129 additional
projects to the request.
On October 6, 1997, the President exercised his line item veto authority on the FY1998
military construction appropriations law. Thirty-eight projects were eliminated by the
President because they were not requested, could not be completed in FY1998 and did not
contribute to the quality of life for servicemembers. The savings of $287 million from the
eliminated projects go directly to the U.S Treasury for deficit reduction -- not to the
Department of Defense.
The Congress considered two disapproval bills. The Senate passed S. 1292, which
would have reversed the cancellation of 36 of the 38 projects, on October 30. The House
passed a bill to reinstate all 38 projects -- H.R. 2631 -- on November 8. Then the House-
passed version was approved by the Senate on November 9, obviating the need for a
conference committee. The President vetoed the bill on November 13th. On February 5,
1998, the House overrode the President's veto of H.R. 2631 by voting 347-69. On February
26, 1998, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 78-20. With the veto overturned, funding
is restored for the 38 targeted projects.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Telephone
Base Closure
David Lockwood
FAND
7-....
Defense Budget, Mil. Const.
Mary Tyszkiewicz
FAND
7-....
Defense Budget
(name redacted)
FAND
7-....
DOD Outsourcing, Privatization
Valerie Grasso
FAND
7-....
Guard and Reserve Issues
Robert Goldich
FAND
7-....

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background: Content of Military Construction
Appropriations and Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appropriations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Line-item Veto Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Disapproval Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authorization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Past Debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Congressional Additions to the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Debate Over Added Projects: The McCain Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Overseas Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Prior Year Savings for Current Year Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Government Performance and Results Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
"Honest" Budgets and the Future Years Defense Plan for Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Guard and Reserve Project Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Housing as Important to the Quality of Life for Servicemembers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Housing Revitalization Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Improving the Utility Infrastructure of Military Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Vision 21: Consolidating Testing & Evaluation Centers and Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Real Property Maintenance Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Selected World Wide Web Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2. Mil. Con. Appropriations, FY1994-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 3. Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account: FY1996-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 4. Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account - Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 5. Congressional Additions to Annual Department of Defense Budget Requests for National Guard and Reserve
Military Construction, FY1985-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 6. Military Construction Projects
Targeted by Line-Item Veto, October 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appropriations for FY1998:
Military Construction
Most Recent Developments
In their appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 105-247) both chambers added
$800 million and 129 projects to the President's request for the military construction bill
H.R. 2016. The President signed the bill on September 30, 1997, creating P.L. 105-45. On
October 6, the President exercised his line item veto authority, by targeting 38 projects in
24 states added by Congress, totalling $287 million.
Both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House National Security
Committee held hearings in October on the decision process for the President's line item
veto of the military construction bill.
The Congress considered two disapproval bills. The Senate passed S. 1292, which
would have reversed the cancellation of 36 of the 38 projects, on October 30. The House
passed a bill to reinstate all 38 projects -- H.R. 2631 -- on November 8. Then the House-
passed version was approved by the Senate on November 9, obviating the need for a
conference committee. The President vetoed the bill on November 13.
The projects were restored by a veto override of H.R. 2631 in the second session of the
105th Congress. On February 5, 1998, the House took the first step by voting 347-69 to
overturn the President's veto. On February 26, 1998, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote
of 78-20.
Background: Content of Military Construction
Appropriations and Defense Authorization Bills
The military construction appropriations bill funds construction projects and real
property maintenance of the active Army, Navy & Marine Corps, 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 transferred personnel and functions, and environmental
cleanup at closing sites.
The military construction appropriations bill 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; (2) the national defense authorization bill, that

authorizes appropriations for national defense1, and (3) the energy and water development
appropriations bill, that provides funding for atomic energy defense activities of the
Department of Energy. 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.
The annual defense authorization bill authorizes all the activities in the defense
appropriation measures described above. Therefore, major debates over defense policy and
funding issues, including military construction can be also found in the authorization bill.
Since issues in the defense authorization and appropriations bills intertwine, this report
highlights salient parts of the authorization bill, along with the military construction
appropriation process.
Most funds appropriated each year must be expended in that fiscal year. Military
construction appropriations are an exception, since these funds are made available for
obligation for five fiscal years.
The separate military construction appropriations bill dates to the late 1950s when a
large defense build-up occurred in response to intercontinental ballistic missile threats and the
Soviet launch of Sputnik. Defense construction spending soared, as facilities were hardened,
missile silos were constructed, and other infrastructure was built. The appropriations
committees established military construction subcommittees to deal with this new level of
activity. Consequently, the separate military construction bill was created. The first stand-
alone military construction bill was in FY1959, P.L. 85-852. Previously, military
construction funding was provided through annual defense appropriations or supplemental
appropriations bills.
Military construction appropriations are the major, but not the sole, 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 partially provided, through proceeds of commissaries,
recreation user fees, and other income.
Consideration of military construction budget starts when the President's budget is
delivered to the Congress in late February or March. For FY1998, the President's budget
requested $8.4 billion, 14% less than the $9.8 billion appropriated for FY1997.
Status
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the FY1998
military construction appropriation.
See
1
Appropriations for FY1998: Defense, by (name redacted), CRS Report 97-205, for details
on the defense authorization and appropriation process.

Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY1998
Conference Report
Subcommittee Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
Approval
Public Law
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.Rept.
S. Rept.
H.Rept. 105-
P.L. 105-45
6/18/97
7/17/97
7/8/97
7/22/97
9/16/97
9/17/97
105-150
105-52
247
9/30/97
Appropriations Process
Line-item Veto Process. On October 6, 1997, the President exercised his line-item
veto authority on the m
2
ilitary construction appropriations law (P.L. 105-45), eliminating 38
projects in 24 states, totalling $287 million. (See Table 6.)
The $287 million savings will go directly to deficit reduction and not to the Department
of Defense. The Chair of the President's National Economic Council -- Gene Sperling --
explained to the press on October 6 that "the main savings from the line item veto comes not
from what you line-item, but from the savings that you get by encouraging fiscal discipline
in future bills". He continued that "...for the line item veto to have its power as a deterrent
effect on unnecessary spending...the President has to be willing and is willing to use it when
necessary."
The President used three criteria to line item veto projects added by Congress.
1. The projects were not in the Department of Defense's future years defense plan
(FYDP).
2. Design work for the projects was not completed and therefore the project could not
be executed in the coming fiscal year.
3. The projects would provide no "substantial" contribution to improving the quality of
life of U.S. troops.
The Congress can send the vetoed items back to the President with a majority vote. This
is called a disapproval bill. If the President vetoes them again, a two-thirds majority is needed
to override.
Disapproval Bills. The Congress considered two disapproval bills:
! S. 1292, which would have reversed the cancellation of 36 of the 38 projects
(see Senate Action below for details), and
! H.R. 2631, which reinstates all 38 projects.
The House passed H.R. 2631 on November 8, 1997 by a 362-64 vote. Then the House-
passed version was approved by the Senate on November 9, 1997 by voice vote, obviating the
need for a conference committee.
The President vetoed H.R. 2631 on November 13, 1997, despite the White House's
admission that they used erroneous data for some of the canceled projects. The Office of
See
2
The Line Item Veto Act: Procedural Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
,
CRS Report 97-973, for details on the line item veto process.

Management and Budget (OMB) has refused to confirm which projects or how many were
vetoed by mistake.

The projects were restored by a veto override of H.R. 2631 during the second session
of the 105th Congress. On February 5, 1998, the House took the first step by voting 347-69
to overturn the President's veto. On February 26, 1998, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote
of 78-20. With the veto overturned, funding is restored for the 38 targeted projects.
Senate Action. On October 9, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a
hearing on the use of the line item veto on the military construction appropriations bill. The
witnesses were military budget officials from the Army, Air Force and Navy. Chairman
Stevens stated that the purpose of the hearings was to gather factual information on the
criteria used for the 38 projects that were vetoed. The Senators also stated their opinions on
the President's use of the line item veto on the bill.
According to the Clinton Administration, the vetoed projects needed to meet all three
criteria (see above) to be put on the veto list. The criteria did not hold up to the data the
military officers provided on particular projects. First, the data showed that 33 of the 38
projects were in the Pentagon's FYDP. Second, some of the projects did have design work in
progress and that the original information that President received on design work for some
projects was incomplete. Also, these were "executable" projects, defined in the testimony as
contracts that could be started in FY1998. Third, the committee questioned the White House's
judgement of the quality of life merit of the 38 projects.
Most of the 38 projects did not meet two out of three criteria for inclusion on the veto
list. Chairman Stevens stated that based on these facts that he would introduce a disapproval
bill to overturn the veto.
On October 24, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 1292 to overturn 34
of the 38 line item vetoes in the military construction appropriations (H.R. 2016, P.L. 105-
45). Four items from Indiana, Wisconsin and South Dakota were left out of the disapproval
measure, since Senators from these states did not want to vote for a veto override or go on
record opposing the line item veto. On October 30, the Senate passed S. 1292 as amended
with two more Indiana projects, by a 69-30 vote. (See the Disapproval Bills section above
for information on passage and the veto override process.)
House Action. On October 22, the House National Security Committee (HNSC)
held a hearing on the line item veto and canceled projects in the military construction and
defense appropriations bills. Although jurisdiction for remedying line item vetoes resides in
the Committee on Appropriations, the HNSC stated that it was important to investigate the
data and process that the President used to choose projects to veto. As in the Senate
Appropriations Committee hearing on the line item veto, the witnesses for the HNSC hearing
were military budget officials from the Army, Air Force and Navy. (Hearing testimony is
located at http://www.house.gov./nsc/)
The purpose of the hearing was to establish the record on the specific items that were
vetoed, the rationale for the cancellation and the effect the delay of the projects may have on
the armed forces. The HNSC was concerned about the use of the line item veto and some
members called for repeal of the law. Others focused on the chronic underfunding of the
defense budget and that the savings from the canceled projects went to U.S. Treasury and out
of the defense budget.

Members were irked that the vetoed projects were considered pork by the President and
media. Those members pointed out that the added projects went through a rigorous screening
process by the HNSC, were requested by facilities as priority projects and that many of the
projects were in the President's Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). The military budget
officers admitted that erroneous data on the design status was passed from the Pentagon to
OMB. The members were distressed that their congressional offices had more up-to-date data
on the design of projects than the Pentagon and President. Inadequate and out-of-date data
highlighted the flaws of the decision process to cancel projects.
The HNSC invited the Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, and the Director of
OMB, Franklin Raines to the October 22 hearing. However, both declined to testify. Some
members of the HNSC were incensed these top officials did not attend the hearing, especially
after it became clear that the process questions the members were interested in could only be
answered by Hamre and Raines. The House National Security Committee would like to have
another hearing on the line item veto with John Hamre and Franklin Raines in attendance.
Representative Skeen from New Mexico introduced H.R. 2631 in early October, which
would reverse the cancellation of the 38 vetoed projects. The House called up the bill under
suspension of the rules on November 8. The measure passed by a 352-62 vote. (See the
Disapproval Bills section above for details on passage and the veto override process.)
Conference Agreement. The conference committee (H.Rept. 105-247) added $800
million to the President's request. The House approved the conference report by a vote of
413-12 on September 16. The Senate passed the report by a vote of 97-3 on September 17.
The bill was signed into law (P.L. 105-45) by the President on September 30.
The conference agreement used savings of $108.8 million from reestimations of inflation
and adjustments of foreign currency fluctuations. These savings were taken as a lump-sum
from the military construction appropriations bill total. (See Table 4.)
The conference committee rejected the practice of using prior year savings for current
FY1998 program, and instructed the Pentagon to use the traditional method of requesting
rescissions of funds by account and fiscal year. (See Prior Year Savings for Current Year
Programs section below for more information.)
The conference committee's report also highlighted Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) construction projects, historic preservation and unified design guidance. The
conference report emphasized that defense committees must be notified of the transfer of
BRAC construction money, and that construction money cannot be reprogrammed. The
conference was concerned that historic family quarters are costly and tasked the Pentagon to
work with appropriate Federal agencies to reduce the cost. The conference report also
directed the DOD and armed services to report on possible unification of military construction
design guidance and procedures.
House Action. On July 8, the House approved -- without amendment -- the $9.183
billion recommended by the House Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee (H.R.
2016, H.Rept. 105-150) by a vote of 395-14. The House added $799.8 million to the
President's request. Of the money appropriated, 42% is for family housing; 35% is for general
military construction projects, such as the construction and revitalization of barracks, medical
facilities, day care centers, environmental compliance and energy conservation and 23% is to
meet the obligations of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) accounts. (To view a fact
sheet on the subcommittee markup and full committee markup, go to the press release section
of Representative Packard's home page: http://www.house.gov/packard/).

House floor consideration had two themes. First, Rep. Packard emphasized
servicemembers' quality of life as connected to the quality of military facilities. Second, Rep.
Bereuter noted that the Army National Guard budget did not receive any additional money
from the House, since the Guard did not clearly communicate its plans to the Military
Construction Appropriations Subcommittee.
Senate Action. The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) marked up their version
of the Military Construction Appropriations Act on July 17. The subcommittee did not go
through the markup process -- the bill went directly to the full committee. The SAC bill
provides a total of $9.182 billion for military construction, which exceeds the President's
request by $799.7 million and is $100,000 under the House appropriation. Of the money
appropriated, 41% is for family housing; 36% is for military construction and 23% is for the
obligations of the base realignment and closure accounts. (See Table 4 or S.Rept. 105-52 for
a chart comparing the President's request, the House bill and the Senate bill.)
In Section 125 of their bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee used June 1997
inflation numbers from Office of Management and Budget to reduce military construction,
NATO infrastructure and base realignment and closure accounts by $31 million. The SAC
directed that the inflation savings be applied to family housing accounts on a pro rata basis.
Therefore, the $31 million inflation savings is taken as a lump sum over the entire military
construction and family housing budget. (See Table 4.)
The Senate Appropriations Committee highlighted barracks construction programs,
medical facilities and environmental compliance projects in their bill. The SAC approved
$659.9 million for the barracks construction program to provide single service members better
barracks and dormitories. This recommended level is $17.2 million over the budget request
and $91.9 under the FY1997 level. An additional $208.5 million for medical facilities and
$103.6 million for environmental clean-up projects were added by the Senate.
Although the bill totals are almost the same, active and reserve forces fared differently
in the House and Senate bills. In the House, active forces fared better than reserve forces.
The reverse is true in the Senate bill, which added $392 million for Guard and Reserve
facilities, compared to the House's increase of $155 million.
On July 22, the Senate approved the SAC recommendations for the FY1998 Military
Appropriations Act. The vote was unanimous, except for the no votes cast by the Senators
from Arizona -- McCain and Kyl. In the Senate floor debate, Sen. McCain protested against
what he called the additional, low-priority and unrequested military construction projects,
which totalled $682 million. He asked that the additional projects -- 42 active duty and 50
Reserve & Guard -- be printed in the record. Sen. McCain also worried about the trend for
Senators to earmark design and planning funds, which previously were left for the discretion
of the armed services departments.
Budget Resolution. The budget resolution sets the stage for the appropriations
process. This year's agreement (H.Con.Res. 84) passed on May 18, 1997, and set ceilings on
budget authority and outlays for functional categories of the budget. The national defense
budget function, called 050 was set at $268.2 billion in budget authority and $266.0 billion
in outlays for FY1998. The Department of Defense's budget accounts for 95% of the 050
budget function3.
See CRS Report 97-294,
3
Defense Budget for FY1998: Data Summary, by (name redacted) and
(continued...)

In the framework of the budget agreement, the chairs of the House and Senate
appropriations committees allocate the budget function according to appropriations
subcommittees. The amounts given to each subcommittee are called the 602(b) allocations.
The House Appropriations Committee approved its 602(b) allocations on June 18, with the
Senate Appropriations Committee approving theirs on June 19. The military construction
subcommittees received similar allocations - $9.183 billion in the House and $9.2 billion in
the Senate. These levels are down from the currently funded FY1997 level of $9.8 billion for
military construction.
Authorization Process
Conference Agreement. On October 23, the conference committee for the
defense authorization bill filed its report (H. Rept. 105-340). The conference committee
agreed on $9.2 billion ($800 million) more than the President's request) for military
construction. Over 55 percent ($441 million) of the increase is for quality of life projects.4
The defense authorizing conference report passed the House on October 23 and the Senate on
November 7, 1997. The President signed the authorization bill on November 18, 1997
creating P.L. 105-85.
House Action. The House of Representatives approved the $9.1 billion for
military construction as recommended by the House National Security Committee (HNSC)
in the FY1998 Defense Authorization bill, which is $750 million more than the President's
request. The HNSC reported that over 60% ($472 million) of the increase is dedicated to
quality of life enhancements. The committee highlighted additions to family housing, troop
housing, child development centers, education and training, and the public and installation
safety initiative.
Senate Action. On July 11th, the Senate approved approximately $707 million
more than the Administration's FY1998 budget, closely following the Senate Armed Services
Committee's (SASC) recommendation of a $700 million addition. The SASC designated $218
million of the additional money for unaccompanied personnel quarters, child development
centers, dining facilities, education centers and military family housing. The remaining $189
million is for high priority projects submitted by the military services that were not funded in
the President's request, many of them Guard and Reserve projects. Amendments to the
defense authorization bill added $7 million to the SASC recommendations for military
construction accounts. The chairman and ranking member of the SASC, Senators Thurmond
and Levin offered an amendment to reduce Army family housing and Navy military
construction by $15 million to partially offset additional projects in Missouri, Hawaii, New
Mexico and Vermont, which totaled $22 million.
In face of antiquated facilities which are important to quality of life for servicemembers,
both the HNSC (H.Rept. 105-132) and the SASC (S.Rept. 105-29) reports remarked on the
low budget request compared to prior years (25% less than the FY1996 request). The
(...continued)
3
(n ame redacted) for more information on the 050 budget function and definition of budge
t
authority and outlays.
. For more detailed information t
4
he FY1998 conference report and House authorization bill, see
the press releases and committee reports & bills sections on the House National Security Home Page
at http://www.house.gov./nsc/

authorizing committees noted the continuing low priority military facilities received, despite
maintenance and modernization backlogs.
The House and Senate have rejected the Administration's proposal for two more base
closure rounds and other reductions as proposed in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) -
5
the DOD's May 19 report to Congress on long-term defense strategies. The House did not
consider more base closure rounds in committee or on the floor. In the Senate, a base closure
amendment was defeated in committee on a tie 9-9 vote. On July 9, the Senate passed an
amendment to the FY1998 authorization bill to direct the DOD to conduct a major review and
cost analysis before more bases could be closed. This amendment, sponsored by Senators
Dorgan and Lott, defeated a competing amendment by Senators McCain and Levin to require
two more base closing rounds in 1999 and 2001.
Key Policy Issues
Past debates over military construction priorities have centered around:
! Congressional additions to the Administration request; and
! The debate over added projects: The McCain Criteria.
Current issues in Defense committee reports and appropriation & authorization hearings and
legislation on the FY1998 military construction budget have highlighted:
! Overseas expenditures;
! Prior year savings for current year programs;
! Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) concerns;
! Government Performance and Results Act;
! "Honest" budgets and the Future Years Defense Plan for military construction;
! Housing as important to the quality of life for Servicemembers;
! Improving the utility infrastructure of military facilities;
! Vision 21: Consolidating testing & evaluation centers and laboratories; and
! Real property maintenance reporting requirements.
Past Debates
Congressional Additions to the Administration Request. In recent years, the
Congress has added significant amounts to annual Administration military construction budget
requests. This year is no exception. For example, the Congress added $479 million in
FY1996 and $850 million in FY1997 to the military construction accounts. In appropriations
action on the FY1998 request, the House and Senate added approximately $800 million more
than the Clinton administration's request. In authorization action, the House added $750
million and the Senate added $707 million.
Congressional additions to the military construction budget have been common and
controversial throughout the 1990s. Three themes explain the pattern of reoccurring
congressional additions. First, some members of the Military Construction Subcommittees
have believed that military construction has been chronically underfunded and therefore
See
5
Appropriations for FY1998: Defense, by (name redacted), CRS Report 97-205, for details
on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

additional funds are needed. This theme was echoed in the FY1998 reports from the House
Appropriation Committee and the defense authorizing committees. Second, often Congress
has different priorities than the Administration, as reflected in frequent congressional cuts to
overseas construction requests and contributions to the NATO Security Investment Program.
Third, other Members of Congress, as Senator Bond commented during the floor debate on
FY1996 military construction appropriations, believe that DOD counts on Congress to add
money to Guard and Reserve programs. In recent years, Congress has added large amounts
for National Guard and Reserve construction projects, as much as $401.8 million in FY1995.
(See Table 5.)
Debate over congressional additions to the military construction budget involves several
overlapping issues. Military construction 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. This line of
argument was prominent during House Appropriations Committee mark-up of the FY1996
military construction bill. Some complained that the funding level was up 28% from the prior
year, while others defended the increase as simply making good previous shortfalls in funding
for new construction and maintenance. The House report on the FY1997 bill (H.Rept. 104-
591) cited a current DOD backlog of deferred maintenance and repair for family housing
alone that totaled over $4.5 billion dollars.
DOD facility managers have fallen below their goal to allocate 3% of the plant
replacement value of DOD facilities for annual construction and maintenance. Although this
3% goal is below the average for public facilities nationwide, actual DOD funding has
typically run at 1 to 2% of plant replacement value. Therefore, the replacement cycle for
defense facilities is 50 to 100 years and facility proponents welcome any congressional
additions.6
Finally, congressional military construction subcommittees -- authorization as well as
appropriations 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 grounds 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 added unrequested
funds for quality of life improvements, such as day care centers and barracks renovation. The
Congress has argued that the military services have tended to neglect these areas in favor of
warfighting investments.
The Debate Over Added Projects: The McCain Criteria. In 1994, the Senate
debate on the military construction appropriations bill focused the amount of congressional
additions to the request despite constraints on overall defense spending. Senator McCain, in
particular, objected to the provision of substantial amounts for projects that the
Administration had not requested. He argued that such projects largely represent "pork
barrel" spending, and come at the expense of higher priority defense programs. In Senate
floor consideration of the military construction bill that year, the managers accepted a McCain
amendment that called for criteria to be applied to additional projects. His amendment
included a provision that any added project should be on the military lists of critical yet
unbudgeted projects. The McCain amendment was not incorporated into the final conference
6 For a discussion of this and related issues, see CRS Report 91-669, Military Construction:
Current Controversies and Long-Term Issues, by Martin Cohen and (name redacted).

version of the bill, however, and the conference agreement provided over $900 million for
unrequested construction projects.
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1995 (P.L. 103-337), however,
incorporated Senator McCain's criteria as a sense of the Senate provision, providing that the
unrequested projects should be:
1. essential to the DOD's national security mission,
2. not inconsistent with the Base Realignment and Closure Act,
3. in the services' Future Years Defense Plan (see below),
4. executable in the year they are authorized and appropriated, and
5. offset by reductions in other defense accounts, through advice from the Secretary of
Defense.
The purpose of the criteria is to help the Congress rate the relative importance of
different projects. Though a sense of the Senate provision does not have the force of law, the
McCain criteria have been used in Senate authorization and appropriations debates for
FY1996 and FY1997. The criteria were also cited in the House FY1997 debates by members
of the "porkbusters" coalition. In practice, debates have focused on justifying projects
according to the first four criteria, while ignoring the offset criteria.
In debate on the FY1997 military construction appropriations, Senator McCain noted
that, since FY1990, Congress has added nearly a billion dollars a year in unrequested military
construction projects. H.R. 3517, the FY1997 military construction bill, exceeded the
Administration request by $900 million in the House version and by $700 million in the Senate
bill. During House floor debate on the FY1997 bill, Representative Minge, co-chair with
Senator McCain of a "porkbusters" coalition, conceded the House bill "largely adheres" to the
McCain criteria. He voted against the measure, however, because it exceeded the President's
request by $900 million, including $300 million for 42 projects not in the DOD's long-range
plan.
In debate on the FY1998 military construction appropriations conference report, Senator
McCain continued to point out congressional adds. He noted that the Congress added 129
projects, totalling $941 million. The National Guard and Reserve received $268 million of
the additional congressional money. Senator McCain presented the list of extra projects in the
Congressional Record, in a letter to the President and on his web page
(http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/milconf.txt).
Current Issues
Overseas Expenditures. The House National Security Committee noted in its Title
28 of its report (H.Rept. 105-132) that it believes that the current level of burdensharing with
the Korean government is insufficient given the conditions of the facilities and their
importance to security of the region. With the expiration in 1998 of the Special Measures
Agreement (SMA), the HNSC urges the Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of
State to improve the level of burdensharing in the follow-on agreement.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is also concerned about overseas construction.
With the likelihood of reductions in the size of the U.S. military, overseas military presence
may decrease. The SAC noted that the request of $600 million for overseas construction is
24% of the construction budget. Therefore, the committee cautioned the Pentagon to be
conservative in committing funds and consider leasing facilities or sharing with the host
nations.

The SAC also instructed the Pentagon to report by October 15 on the new funding
demands that would be made on the NATO infrastructure account because of NATO
expansion.
In the Senate debate over the Military Construction Act, Senator Murray, the ranking
member of subcommittee, mentioned instruction to the administration to execute a
burdensharing agreement with Qatar for prepositioning of equipment in southwest Asia.
Prior Year Savings for Current Year Programs. The defense authorizing
committees disallowed the practice of funding current programs with prior year savings. The
authorizers reduced military construction title by approximately $55 million -- the amount of
prior year savings budgeted for FY1998. In their report (S.Rept. 105-29), the Senate Armed
Services Committee noted that this trend started in the FY1997 budget request with $12
million of prior year savings, which escalated to $55 million of prior year savings budgeted
for FY1998 programs. DOD's use of prior year savings reinforces the committees' concern
that the Pentagon is trying to overprogram the limited amount of money budgeted for military
construction. Budgeting prior year savings in the SASC view limits the flexibility to fund cost
variations and complete projects with justifiable cost increases. The Senate and House
authorizing committees expects the DOD to fully fund future military construction requests,
without using savings.
The House Appropriations Committee objected strongly to this method of financing, but
allowed it in the this year's budget request. The Senate Appropriations Committee also
rejected the practice of prior savings for current programs in its report.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) concerns. The Senate Appropriations
Committee asked the General Accounting Office to continue its annual review of the base
realignment and closure accounts to help the committee validate requests for individual
projects. The report would be due May 15, 1998.
The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that many of the housing privatization
initiatives contain various mechanisms that shift financial risk and liability to the Government.
Some of these guarantees insulate private interests against future BRAC actions, force
reductions or extended deployments. The committee commented that housing projects with
these guarantees could be an advantage to a base in future BRAC rounds. Therefore, the
committee has added a provision for the Pentagon to notify the congressional defense
committees of all privatization agreements which contain any clause providing consideration
for BRAC, force reductions and extended deployments.
Government Performance and Results Act. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees inserted language into the Military Construction Appropriations Act report
(H.Rept. 105-150 and S.Rept. 105-52) stating that implementation of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (P.L. 103-62) is to be a priority for all agencies of
government. Starting with FY1999, GPRA requires agencies establish performance goals and
measures. The HAC report states that they will consider these measures in the FY1999
appropriations cycle. It is likely that this report language will appear in each of the thirteen
FY1998 appropriation bills. The SAC noted that the DOD has begun to incorporate GPRA
into the Department's planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS). (See section on
"Honest budgeting" below for more information on PPBS.)
"Honest" Budgets and the Future Years Defense Plan for Military
Construction. The Department of Defense uses a formal process called the Planning,

Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) to create its budget for Congress. The PPBS
7
process is also used to prepare DOD's internal, long-term financial plan. The long-term plan
extends over a six-year period and is known as the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).
In the FY1998 hearings, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Representative Ron Packard chastised the Department of Defense for repeatedly
failing to submit "honest" budgets reflecting real service priorities. He complained that the
military construction request traditionally leaves out necessary projects, especially for the
National Guard and Reserve, and yet the services expect Congress to add them. Mr. Packard
wanted the subcommittee to get out of the business of adding money for projects that the
administration had not requested, but yet supposedly needs. He also wanted DOD and
Services to use the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) rigorously to set priorities for their
construction projects and integrate Guard and Reserve needs.
In testimony on the FY1998 request to the Military Construction Subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee, the DOD Comptroller, John Hamre admitted that DOD
needs to undertake good detailed planning for the military construction budget and has not
done this in the past. Hamre also conceded that the DOD has not evaluated the accuracy of
the military construction FYDPs, and that he sees a need for that assessment.
In the FY1998 House Committee on Appropriations Report (H.Rept. 105-150), the
Committee supported a coherent Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for military construction
at the project level of detail and encouraged efforts to reconcile annual adjustments in this
plan. This report language echoed themes heard in the FY1998 hearings, which asked for
coherent planning for Guard and Reserve facility needs.
Guard and Reserve Project Additions. The Ranking Minority Member of the House
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Representative Bill Hefner stressed in the FY1998
hearings the importance of the Guard and Reserve forces in the Bosnian operation. He then
questioned whether the Guard and Reserve should have a better and more professional budget
system to reflect that role. Hamre admitted that there is history of the Guard not being able
to get projects they think are crucial for their mission into the Army's FYDP and that he is
working with the Services to get a more forthright budget including the Guard and Reserves.
DOD Comptroller Hamre agreed that if the DOD is going to honor the total force concept,
that the Pentagon needs to go a better job of building a budget that includes the Guard and
Reserves.
The House Committee on Appropriations in their report (H.Rept. 105-150) directed the
Army National Guard to report backlog facility requirements, develop a nation-wide armory
infrastructure plan and submit a Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) with the Army National
Guard and Air National Guard military construction budget request. In contrast to the
negative opinion of the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee commended the Army
National Guard installation philosophy, but also required a FYDP plan from the Guard by
March 30, 1998.
The House National Security Committee added $154 million to the President's request
of $173 million for Guard and Reserve Forces facilities. However, the Army National Guard
received no additions from the HNSC. In their Title 26 of their report (H.Rept. 105-132), the
committee notes its concern about the instability of the Army National Guard budget and
For a discussion of the formulation of the d
7
efense budget proposal by the DOD, see CRS Report
93-317, A Defense Budget Primer, by Keith Berner and (name redacted).

planning process, since 60% of the projects in FY1997 plan are no longer in the immediate
FY1998 budget plan. The committee directed the Army to insure that the Army National
Guard adheres to an integrated department-wide budget and planning process.
Housing as Important to the Quality of Life for Servicemembers. Housing has
emerged as a key quality of life issue in the Pentagon and in congressional debates over
military construction. The Department of Defense has found that about two-thirds of military
housing -- both family quarters and barracks -- are substandard because of size, safety or
condition.
8 The FY1998 Pentagon construction plan includes money for 5,900 new housing
units and 11,000 barracks living spaces.
In 1995, then-Defense Secretary Perry established an external advisory committee and
an in-house executive committee to look at quality of life issues. Two major housing
initiatives emanated from those committees. Private sector financing and methods for family
housing were proposed and implemented in the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act. Also, a
new standard was set for barracks, called "1 + 1". This standard provides each
servicemember at sergeant or below an individual room plus a shared bathroom with an
adjoining room.9 In their FY1998 report (H.Rept. 105-150), the House Appropriations
Committee states that it will take $14.3 billion and 20 years to reach the 1 + 1 standard.
Because of the need for better military housing, some members of Congress were critical
that the budget request reduces the family housing budget for FY1998 by 10% to $3.7 billion
compared to the FY1997 enacted amount of $4.1 billion. Representative Hefley, Chairman
of the House National Security Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee, said he felt
"betrayed" by the reduction, since he had the understanding that the privatization concept was
to augment, not replace government funding. Defense officials defended their proposal
10
,
since the Pentagon was leveraging defense dollars to build three times the amount of DOD-
financed housing units.

Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund. In their FY1998 report
(H.Rept. 105-150), the House Appropriations Committee recommended no appropriation for
the DOD Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund. This is equal to the budget
request, but $5 million less than last year. The purpose of the fund is to encourage the use of
private capital to develop barracks housing more quickly, yet the no requirements were
identified for the FY1997 money by the DOD. The HAC would like the DOD to aggressively
apply these privatization authorities to modernize servicemember housing.
Housing Revitalization Support Program. Working with the Administration, the
Congress in the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 104-106) approved the Housing
Revitalization Support Program, which gives incentives for the private sector to provide
military housing. The incentives include guarantees of mortgage or rental payments by
military families, commercial-style lease arrangements, and joint ventures with developers of
new housing on bases.

8
Maze, Rick, "The new Congress: What's in store for you," Navy Times, January 20, 1997, p.
6.
Adelsberger, Bernard
9
, "How to fix the housing crunch: Another study," Navy Times, March 4,
1996, p. 6.
Maze, Rick, "Officials defend cuts in housing construction funds,"
10
Army Times, March 3,
1997.

The program has had a slow start, with construction underway on only one 400-unit
project in Corpus Christi and Ingleside, Texas. Other bases with planned projects include
11
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Everette Naval Station, Washington; Fort Carson,
Colorado; Camp Pendleton, California; and Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base, Georgia.
There have been complex issues to work out with these new partnerships. In the Lackland Air
Force Base case, for example, the DOD and local community needed to sort out whether the
private developer would pay local taxes.
The House Appropriations Committee noted in its in its FY1998 report (H.Rept. 105-
150) that the Housing Revitalization Support Office (HRSO) has just completed its first year
of operations for managing the DOD's military housing privatization efforts. The HAC is
concerned with heavy use of consultants by the office, since it believes that the HRSO should
develop in-house expertise in private sector operations to effectively manage this program.
Improving the Utility Infrastructure of Military Facilities. Hearings on the
FY1998 military construction request also reflected the interest of the committees in the
potential savings from improving utility infrastructure of military facilities. The FY1998
budget has requested funds for the Energy Conservation Improvement Program, which will
fund capital projects intended to lower the energy use in military facilities. Members
expressed interest in investigating whether privatizing or outsourcing utilities and other
"underground" infrastructure (such as pipes) on bases could save money.
The House Appropriations Committee noted that in their FY1998 report (H.Rept. 105-
150) that infrastructure -- such as water and sewer systems, electrical systems,
communication systems and transportation systems -- do not receive sufficient priority in
military construction plans. The HAC encouraged the DOD to look at installation-wide
infrastructure projects and to program and budget for the work and to study the feasibility of
privatizing utility systems.
The Senate Armed Services Committee added Section 2802 in S. 936 to their defense
authorization act on the sale of utility systems of the military departments. The provision
authorizes the service secretaries to convey all or part of government utility systems located
on military installation to commercial or public utilities. The types of utilities that may be
conveyed include -- but are not limited to -- electrical generation and supply; water treatment;
water supply; wastewater collection and treatment; steam, hot, chilled water generation and
supply; and natural gas supply.
Vision 21: Consolidating Testing & Evaluation Centers and Laboratories. The
House Appropriations Committee expects the Vision 21 report by November 1998. This
report is the DOD's 5-year plan to consolidate and restructure all defense testing, evaluation
and labs to achieve effective intra-Service and cross-Service organizational arrangements.
The HAC directs the Secretary of Defense to certify any new activities before funds are
obligated, because of the consolidation process.
Real Property Maintenance Reporting Requirements. The House National
Security Committee limited facility repair with operations and maintenance funds through a
legislative provision (Section 2801) in H.R. 1119. The House Appropriations Committee
supported the HNSC's action and directed that the defense committees be notified before
carrying out any repair project with an estimated cost of over $10 million.
Jowers, Karen
11
, "Housing tops quality-of-life list for '97," Navy Times, January 13, 1997, p. 6.

Major Funding Trends
The Administration proposed significant reductions in military construction spending for
FY1998, compared to the enacted FY1997 amount. The President's FY1998 proposal of $8.4
billion is a 16% reduction from the FY1997 $9.8 billion level approved by Congress. In
action on the FY1998 request, the House and Senate added approximately $800 million to the
request. On the authorization side, the House added $750 million. Amendments to the
defense authorization bill in the Senate added $7 million to the Senate Armed Service
Committee recommendation of a $700 million addition.
Table 2 shows overall military construction funding since FY1994, including family
housing. Table 3 breaks down the FY1998 request by appropriations account and compared
to FY1996 and FY1997. Table 4 shows congressional action on the FY1998 request. Table
5 shows congressional military construction add-ons for Guard and Reserve projects since
FY1985. Table 6 shows military construction projects targeted by the President's line item
vetoes in October 1997.
As seen in Table 2, funding for military family housing has been fairly stable in recent
years. Family housing budgets are driven by annual operating costs which do not vary
greatly. The potential of the Housing Revitalization Support Program to increase family
construction through private incentives, however, has encouraged the Defense Department to
submit a request that is 10% less than what was enacted last fiscal year. In contrast, funding
for military construction has varied more from year to year.
Legislation
H.R. 2631 (Skeen)
Referred to House Committee on Appropriations on October 7, 1997. Called up by
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by Yea-Nay Vote: 352-64 on
November 8, 1997. Received in the Senate, read twice on November 8, 1997. Passed the
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on November 9, 1997. Presented to the
President on November 10, 1997. Vetoed by the President November 13, 1997. Passed by
Yeas and Nays in the House (2/3 required): 347-69. Passed by Yeas and Nays in the Senate
(2/3 required): 78-20.
S. 1292 (Stevens)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations pursuant to the order of
section 1025 of P.L. 93-344 for seven days of session. Full committee markup held October
23, 1997. Reported with an amendment to the Senate on October 23, 1997. Passed Senate
without amendment by Yea-Nay 69-30, on October 30, 1997. Senate vitiated previous
passage and indefinitely postponed by Senate by unanimous consent on November 13, 1997.
H.R. 2016 (Packard)
Full committee markup held and reported an original measure, June 24, 1997, with
H.Rept. 105-150. Measure passed the House by Yea-Nay Vote: 395-14, July 8, 1997.
Senate full committee markup held and reported the measure (as amended) on July 17, 1997,
with S.Rept. 105-52. Measure passed the Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote: 98-2,
on July 22, 1997. Conferees agreed to file conference report (H.Rept. 105-247) on September
9, 1997. House agreed to conference report by Yeas and Nays: 413-12 on September 16,
1997. Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote: 97-3, on September 17, 1997.
Signed by the President and became P.L. 105-45 on September 30, 1997.

H.R. 1119 (Spence)
Referred to the Committee on National Security, March 19, 1997; full committee
markup held and ordered to be reported, June 11, 1997. Reported to the House by Committee
on National Security (as amended), June 16, 1997, with H.Rept. 105-132. Measure
considered in the House, June 19 - June 24, 1997. Measure passed the House, by Yea-Nay
Vote: 304-120, June 24, 1997. The Senate deleted all after the enacting clause, inserted the
provisions of S. 936 and approved H.R. 1119, July 11, 1997. Conference agreement reached
and ordered to be reported October 23, 1997; conference report filed (H. Rept. 105-340).
House agreed to conference report, by Yea-Nay Vote: 286-123, October 28, 1997. Senate
agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote: 90-10, November 6, 1997. Signed by President
and became P.L. 105-85 on November 18, 1997.
S. 936 /S. 924 (Thurmond)
Committee on Armed Services ordered to be reported an original measure, June 12, 1997
(S. 924). Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Thurmond, on June 17, 1997 with
S.Rept. 105-29 (S.924). Reported to Senate from the Committee on Armed Services (without
written report) June 18, 1997 (S. 936). Report on S. 924 (S.Rept. 105-29) deemed to be filed
on S. 936. Measure considered in the Senate June 20 - July 11, 1997. Measure passed
Senate, amended, by roll call vote 94-4 on July 11, 1994. The Senate deleted all after the
enacting clause, inserted the provisions of S. 936 and approved H.R. 1119, July 11, 1997.
Table 2. Mil. Con. Appropriations, FY1994-98
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Actual
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
Enacted
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1998
Family
3,501
3,392
4,260
4,122
3,668
3,872
Housing
Military
6,009
5,426
6,893
5,671
4,715
5,420
Construction
Revised
Economic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-109
Assumptions
Total
9,510
8,818
11,153
9,793
8,383
9,183
Source: Actual FY1994-96 data and Request FY1998 data from Department of Defense, Financial Summary
Tables, February 1997 and previous years' reports. Enacted FY1997-98 data from Congressional Record,
September 16, 1997, H7317-7318.
Notes: NA = not applicable

Table 3. Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account: FY1996-98
(in thousands of dollars)
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
Account
Actual
Est.
Request
Milcon, Army
622,429
563,660
595,277
MilCon, Navy
546,251
695,794
540,106
MilCon, Air Force
572,084
751,964
495,782
MilCon, Defense-wide
596,139
755,550
673,633
MilCon, Army National Guard
137,110
78,086
45,098
MilCon, Air National Guard
164,572
189,855
60,225
MilCon, Army Reserve
72,728
55,543
39,112
MilCon, Navy Reserve
19,055
37,579
13,921
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
36,482
52,805
14,530
BRAC Acct., Army
694,682
425,644
400,493
BRAC Acct., Navy
2,495,948
1,201,064
990,542
BRAC Acct., Air Force
512,208
584,579
612,606
BRAC Acct., Defense-wide
189,100
296,187
57,213
NATO Security Investment Program
198,500
172,000
176,300
Foreign Curr. Fluct., Constr., Def.
35,309
--
--
Total: Military Construction
6,892,597
5,860,310
4,714,838
Family Housing Const., Army
118,256
158,503
143,000
Family Housing Operation & Debt, Army
1,311,759
1,212,466
1,148,937
Family Housing Const., Navy & Marine Corps
525,058
499,886
278,933
Family Housing Operation & Debt, Navy and Marine
1,048,329
1,015,083
976,504
Corps
Family Housing Const. AF
294,490
318,037
253,128
Family Housing Operation & Debt, AF
829,213
816,509
830,234
Family Housing Const., Def-wide
3,772
4,371
4,950
Family Housing Operation & Debt, Def-wide
30,467
30,963
32,724
Homeowners Assist. Fund, Def.
76,168
36,181
--
DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund
22,000
25,000
--
DOD Unaccompd. Housing Improvement Fund
--
5,000
--
Total: Family Housing
4,259,512
4,121,999
3,668,410
GRAND TOTAL
11,152,109
9,982,309
8,383,248
Sources: Department of Defense, "Financial Summary Tables," February 1997.

Table 4. Mil. Con. Appropriations by Account - Congressional Action
(in thousands of dollars)
FY1998
House
Conf.
Account
Senate Bill
Request
Bill
Report
Milcon, Army
595,277
721,027
652,046
714,377
MilCon, Navy
540,106
685,306
605,756
683,666
MilCon, Air Force
495,782
662,305
662,305
701,855
MilCon, Defense-wide
673,633
613,333
690,889
646,342
MilCon, Army National Guard
45,098
45,098
234,614
118,350
MilCon, Air National Guard
60,225
137,275
185,115
190,444
MilCon, Army Reserve
39,112
77,731
96,079
74,167
MilCon, Navy Reserve
13,921
40,561
21,111
47,329
MilCon, Air Force Reserve
14,530
27,143
31,830
30,243
BRAC Acct., Part II
116,754
116,754
116,754
116,754
BRAC Acct., Part III
768,702
768,702
768,702
768,702
BRAC Acct., Part IV
1,175,398
1,175,398
1,175,398
1,175,398
NATO Security Investment Program
176,300
166,300
152,600
152,600
Total: Military Construction
4,714,838
5,236,933
5,393,199
5,420,227
Family Housing Const., Army
143,000
202,131
167,100
197,300
Family Housing Operation & Maint., Army
1,148,937
1,148,937
1,149,937
1,140,568
Family Housing Const., N & MC
278,933
409,178
362,619
393,832
Family Housing Operation & Maint., N & MC
976,504
976,504
976,504
976,504
Family Housing Const. AF
253,128
341,409
296,633
295,709
Family Housing Operation & Maint., AF
830,234
830,234
830,234
830,234
Family Housing Const., Def-wide
4,950
4,950
4,950
4,950
Family Housing Operation & Debt, Def-wide
32,724
32,724
32,724
32,724
Total: Family Housing
3,668,410
3,946,067
3,820,701
3,871,821
GRAND TOTAL
8,383,248
9,183,000
9,213,900
9,292,048
Revised Economic Assumptions
NA
NA
-31,000
-108,800
Adjusted total
NA
NA
9,182,900
9,183,248
Sources: Congressional record, July 8, 1997, pp. H4879-4891.; S.Rept. 105-52; H.Rept. 105-247.
Note: NA = not applicable

Table 5. Congressional Additions to Annual Department of Defense Budget Requests for National
Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1985-97
(current year dollars in thousands)
Total
Army
Change
National Air National
Army
Naval
Air Force
from
Fiscal Year
Guard
Guard
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Total
Request
1985 Req.
88,900
102,900
70,400
60,800
67,800
390,800
1985 Enact.
98,603
111,200
69,306
60,800
67,800
407,709
+16,909
1986 Req.
102,100
137,200
70,700
51,800
66,800
428,600
1986 Enact.
102,205
121,250
61,346
41,800
63,030
389,631
-38,969
1987 Req.
121,100
140,000
86,700
44,500
58,900
451,200
1987 Enact.
140,879
148,925
86,700
44,500
58,900
479,904
+28,704
1988 Req.
170,400
160,800
95,100
73,737
79,300
579,337
1988 Enact.
184,405
151,291
95,100
73,737
79,300
583,833
+4,496
1989 Req.
138,300
147,500
79,900
48,400
58,800
472,900
1989 Enact.
229,158
158,508
85,958
60,900
70,600
605,124
+132,224
1990 Req.
125,000
164,600
76,900
50,900
46,200
463,600
1990 Enact.
223,490
235,867
96,124
56,600
46,200
658,281
+194,681
1991 Req.
66,678
66,500
59,300
50,200
37,700
280,378
1991 Enact.
313,224
180,560
77,426
80,307
38,600
690,117
+409,739
1992 Req.
50,400
131,800
57,500
20,900
20,800
281,400
1992 Enact.
231,117
217,556
110,389
59,900
9,700
628,672
+347,272
1993 Req.
46,700
173,270
31,500
37,772
52,880
342,122
1993 Enact.
214,989
305,759
42,150
15,400
29,900
608,198
+266,076
1994 Req.
50,865
142,353
82,233
20,591
55,727
351,769
1994 Enact.
302,719
247,491
102,040
25,029
74,486
751,765
+399,996
1995 Req.
9,929
122,770
7,910
2,355
28,190
171,154
1995 Enact.
187,500
248,591
57,193
22,748
56,958
572,990
+401,836
1996 Req.
18,480
85,647
42,963
7,920
27,002
182,012
1996 Enact.
137,110
171,272
72,728
19,055
36,482
436,647
+254,635
1997 Req.
7,600
75,394
48,459
10,983
51,655
194,091
1997 Enact.
78,086
189,855
55,543
37,579
52,805
413,868
+219,777
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years.

Table 6. Military Construction Projects
Targeted by Line-Item Veto, October 1997
Project
Location
Million
1. A command and control facility
Fort Irwin, Calif.
$2.7

2. A central, 24-bay wash facility for wheeled and tracked
Fort Irwin, Calif.
$8.5
vehicles
3. Two buildings and a harbor area to provide protection for
Coronado Naval Amphibious
$10.1
the Marine Mammal Program
Base, Calif.
4. A new Marine Corps Reserve Center
Pasadena, Calif.
$6.7
5. Removal of rail, turnouts and crossing and a new remote
Fort Carson, Col.
$16
loading facility
6. An increase in the number of larger berths for ships
Mayport Naval Station, Fla.
$17.9
7. Extension of one runway and the acquisition of clear zone
Whiting Field, Fla.
$1.3
for another runway for training aircraft
8. A facility to support combat search and rescue training
Moody Air Force Base, Ga.
$6.8
operations
9. A new space for the Asian-Pacific Center for Security
Fort Derussey, Hawaii.
$9.5
Studies
10. A new facility to be used for low-altitude navigation
Mountain Home Air Force
$9.2
Base, Idaho.
11. A facility for planning, briefing and critiqueing combat
Mountain Home Air Force
$3.8
crews and to direct flight operations
Base, Idaho.
12. A new maintenance, overhaul and engineering support
Crane Naval Surface Warfare
$4.1
facility for shipboard chemical and biological warfare
Center, Indiana.
detection devices
13. A new civil engineering complex to include maintenance
Grissom Air Reserve Base,
$8.9
shops, storage and roads
Indiana.
14. A new transportation complex with a vehicle operations
McConnell Air Force Base,
$2.9
facility
Kansas.
15. A vehicle maintenance shop and storage for a forward
Fort Campbell, Ky.
$9.9
support battalion and combat support hospital
16. Three control towers for a modernization of a rifle range
Fort Knox, Ky.
$7.2
17. Additional hangar space, Naval Electronic Systems
St. Inigoes, Maryland.
$2.6
Engineering Activity
18. Additions to dry and cold storage equipment and food
Malmstrom
$4.5
preparation areas
Air Force Base, Montana.
19. A larger replacement facility to support the inspection and
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
$2
testing of explosive munitions
20. Repair launch facilities for missile systems
White Sands
$6.9
Missile Range, New Mexico.
21. A new theater air simulation facility
Kirtland Air Force Base, New
$14
Mexico.
22. A target range for joint rotary and fixed wing operations
Fort Drum, N.Y.
$9

23. A building to house the readiness office and combat arms
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
$2.1
training space
24. A new Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain training
Fort Bragg, N.C.
$7.9
complex
25. A new Army Reserve training facility
Oakdale, Pa.
$6
26. A new Marine Corps Reserve Training Center and aircraft
Johnstown, Pa.
$14
maintenance hangar to upgrade current facilities
27. A 48,000-square-foot battle simulation center to replace a
Eastover, S.C.
$3.8
smaller facility for the Army National Guard at Leesburg
training site
28. A new hangar, maintenance, classroom and other support
Rapid City, S.D.
$5.2
for the Army National Guard
29. An air dryer facility to replace the old one
Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn.
$9.9
30. Expansion of the ammunition supply facility
Fort Bliss, Texas.
$7.7
31. Consolidation of a B-1B squadron operations facility
Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.
$10
32. New painting facility
Laughlin Air Force Base,
$4.8
Texas.
33. A new Army Reserve Center
Camp Williams, Utah.
$12.7
34. A new air operations facility, including an air traffic
Norfolk Naval Air Station, Va.
$4
control facility, radar tower and supporting infrastructure

35. A new wharf for ship repair and demolishing two
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Va.
$19.9
abandoned shipbuilding facilities and two buildings
36. An earth-covered magazine for storage of Tomahawk
Yorktown Naval Weapons
$3.3
missiles
Station, Va.
37. Expanded facility for several Army National Guard units
Camp Dawson, W.Va.
$6.8
at
38. An aerial port training facility to replace smaller facilities
Mitchell Air Reserve Station,
$4.2
Milwaukee, Wis.
GRAND TOTAL
$287
Source: Associated Press, "Clinton Veto List", October 6, 1997.

For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues, by (name r
edacted).
CRS Reports
CRS Report 93-317 F. A Defense Budget Primer, by Keith Berner and (name redacted).
CRS Report 97-205 F. Appropriations for FY1998: Defense, by (name redacted).
CRS Report 97-294 F. Defense Budget for FY1998: Data Summary, by (name redacted )
and (name redacted).
CRS Report 94-515 F. Defense Burdensharing: Is Japan's Host Nation Support a Model
for Other Allies?, by (name redacted).
CRS Report 91-669 F. Military Construction: Current Controversies and Long-Term
Issues, by Martin Cohen and (name redacted).
Selected World Wide Web Site
U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page
http://www.acq.osd.mil/inst

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.