FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of Division J of P.L. 116-260
link to page 1 link to page 2 
February 26, 2021
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of
Division J of P.L. 116-260
Overview
request (see Table 1 below; for a historical funding
On December 27, 2020, then-President Donald Trump
perspective, see Figure 1 on the next page).
signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L.
116-260), which included as Division J the Military
Legislative Activity
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
On February 10, 2020, then-President Trump submitted an
Appropriations Act, 2021. Division J provided funding to
FY2021 budget request that included $8.16 billion for DOD
support the Department of Defense’s (DOD) military
MILCON and family housing activities.
installations and housing portfolio. (For more on Veterans
On July 9, 2020, the House Appropriations Committee
Affairs appropriations, see CRS Report R46459,
approved its version of the Military Construction, Veterans
Department of Veterans Affairs FY2021 Appropriations, by
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2021.
Sidath Viranga Panangala, Jared S. Sussman, and Heather
On July 13, the panel reported H.Rept. 116-445 to
M. Salazar.)
accompany the legislation, introduced as H.R. 7609. On
Division J provided $8.41 billion in discretionary budget
July 24, the House approved the measure as part of H.R.
authority for DOD military construction (MILCON)
7608, which included three other appropriations bills.
projects, family housing programs, and other activities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not mark up a
That figure includes funding for the base budget and
version of the legislation. On November 10, 2020, Senator
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Excluding one-
Richard Shelby, chair of the Senate Committee on
time natural disaster relief provided in FY2020 for projects
Appropriations, released drafts of all 12 annual
to replace or rebuild infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes
appropriations bills and accompanying explanatory
Florence and Michael, flooding and earthquakes, the
statements intended to further negotiation on annual
FY2021 enacted level reflects a decrease of $3.55 billion
appropriations between the House and the Senate.
(30%) from the FY2020 enacted level. The FY2021 enacted
level is $0.25 billion (3%) more than the President’s budget
Table 1. FY2021 Military Construction and Family Housing Appropriations
(in billions of dollars of budget authority)
Appropriation
FY2021
FY2021
FY2020 Enacted
FY2021 Requested
FY2021 Enacted
Category (Title)
House-passed
Senate draft
Military Construction
8.80
6.46
6.37
6.15
6.25
(Title I)
Family Housing (Title I)
1.32
1.35
1.35
1.32
1.34
Administrative
1.19
0.00
2.36
0.59
0.47
Provisions (Title I)
OCO/GWOT (Title
0.64
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
IV)
Subtotal
11.96
8.16
10.44
8.41
8.41
Natural Disaster Relief
6.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Title V)
Total
18.19
8.16
10.44
8.41
8.41
Source: CRS analysis of funding tables in explanatory statement accompanying Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division J of P.L. 116-260), in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 166 (December 21, 2020), pp.
H8747-H8765; Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority for 2020 and Budget Requests and Amounts Recommended in
the Bill for 2021 in H.Rept. 116-445, pp. 128-147; and Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement accompanying
Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bill, pp. 98-108.
Notes: The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee did not mark up a version of the FY2021 defense appropriations act.
On November 10, 2020, the Committee released drafts of all 12 annual appropriations bills and accompanying explanatory statements. Totals
may not sum due to rounding.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of Division J of P.L. 116-260
Selected Policy Matters
Survival Training Facility at Camp Pendleton,
Installations and Resilience. Section 132 of Division J
California ($25 million).
provided $4 million each to the Army and Air Force and $7
$60 million to the Military Construction, Air Force
million to the Navy and Marine Corps to enhance “military
account. The Air Force sought funding for a Flight Test
installation resilience.” The funding is intended to support
Engineering Laboratory Complex at Edwards Air Force
developing projects, conducting studies, and updating
Base, California ($40 million); Organic Software
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), according to the
Sustainment Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah ($10
accompanying explanatory statement. It is also intended to
ensure installations “
million); and the first increment of the B-21 Two-Bay
remain operational against natural and
manmade threats,” with an emphasis on reducing the
Low-Observable (LO) Restoration Facility (i.e., a stealth
coatings/composite repair hangar) at Ellsworth Air
impacts of natural disasters. (For more information, see
Force Base, South Dakota ($10 million).
CRS Insight IN11566, Military Installation Resilience:
What Does It Mean?, by G. James Herrera.)
$50 million to the Military Construction, Army National
Guard account. The Army National Guard sought
Deterrence Initiatives. Section 401 of Division J restricted
funding for Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training at
DOD from obligating or expending planning and design
Hermiston, Oregon ($16 million); National Guard
funds for European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) construction
Readiness Center at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas ($15
projects until it submits to congressional defense
million); National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop at
committees a list of all such projects anticipated to be
Ardmore, Oklahoma (approximately $10 million); and
carried out from FY2022 through FY2026. The legislation
National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop at
did not provide explicit funding for the Pacific Deterrence
Bakersfield, California ($9 million).
Initiative (PDI). The explanatory statement specified $10
million in Defense-Wide funding for “Strategic
$30 million to the Military Construction, Air National
Construction in the Indo-Pacific Region.”
Guard account. The Air National Guard sought funding
for a Consolidated Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations
Border Barrier. Sections 129 and 513 of the House-passed
facility at Hector International Airport, North Dakota
bill (H.R. 7608) would have prohibited the use of FY2021
($18 million); and a base supply complex at the
or prior-year MILCON funding to design, construct, or
Montgomery Regional Airport, Alabama ($12 million).
carry out construction projects or access roads along the
southern U.S. border. On July 23, 2020, in a Statement of
$25 million to the Military Construction, Air Force
Administration Policy, the White House objected to these
Reserve account. The Air Force Reserve sought funding
provisions. The Senate Appropriations Committee draft bill
for a facility to house an F-35 Squadron
and the enacted legislation did not include the provisions.
Operations/Aircraft Maintenance Unit at Naval Air
Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas.
Bases Named after Confederate Officers. Section 130 of
the House-passed bill (H.R. 7608) would have prohibited
Figure 1. Military Construction and Family Housing
the use of FY2021 MILCON funding to construct a project
Appropriations, FY2001 – FY2021
on a military installation bearing the name of a confederate
officer, unless a process to replace such names commenced.
(budget authority in billions of constant FY2021 dollars)
The White House, in the Statement of Administration
Policy, objected to the provision. The Senate
Appropriations Committee draft bill and the enacted
legislation did not include the provision.
Funding for Projects Not in Budget
Request
Section 124 of Division J provided $470 million in
MILCON funding for projects not in the budget request but
identified on the military departments’ FY2021 unfunded
priority lists (amounts rounded to nearest million):
$233 million to the Military Construction, Army
account. The Army sought funding for a Child
Development Center (CDC) at the Aliamanu Military
Source: DOD, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2021, Table 6-
Reservation, Hawaii ($65 million); Unaccompanied
8: DOD Budget Authority by Public Law Title (FY 1948 to FY 2025);
Enlisted Personnel Housing at Fort Wainwright, Alaska
explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-260.
($59 million); a CDC at Fort Wainwright ($60 million);
Notes: FY2001-FY2020 figures from DOD Table 6-8; FY2021 figures
and a CDC at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii ($49 million).
from explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-260. Amounts
include OCO and emergency funding.
$73 million to the Military Construction, Navy and
Marine Corps account. The Navy sought funding for
Brendan W. McGarry, Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget
magazines (i.e., ammunition/explosives storage) at Seal
G. James Herrera, Analyst in U.S. Defense Readiness and
Beach, California ($22 million); Perimeter Security at
Infrastructure
Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master
Station Atlantic Detachment (NCTAMS LANT) in
IF11775
Cutler, Maine ($26 million); and Combat Water
https://crsreports.congress.gov
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of Division J of P.L. 116-260
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
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’s institutional role. 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 the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11775 · VERSION 1 · NEW
February 26, 2021
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of
Division J of P.L. 116-260
Overview
request (see Table 1 below; for a historical funding
On December 27, 2020, then-President Donald Trump
perspective, see Figure 1 on the next page).
signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L.
116-260), which included as Division J the Military
Legislative Activity
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
On February 10, 2020, then-President Trump submitted an
Appropriations Act, 2021. Division J provided funding to
FY2021 budget request that included $8.16 billion for DOD
support the Department of Defense’s (DOD) military
MILCON and family housing activities.
installations and housing portfolio. (For more on Veterans
On July 9, 2020, the House Appropriations Committee
Affairs appropriations, see CRS Report R46459,
approved its version of the Military Construction, Veterans
Department of Veterans Affairs FY2021 Appropriations, by
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2021.
Sidath Viranga Panangala, Jared S. Sussman, and Heather
On July 13, the panel reported H.Rept. 116-445 to
M. Salazar.)
accompany the legislation, introduced as H.R. 7609. On
Division J provided $8.41 billion in discretionary budget
July 24, the House approved the measure as part of H.R.
authority for DOD military construction (MILCON)
7608, which included three other appropriations bills.
projects, family housing programs, and other activities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not mark up a
That figure includes funding for the base budget and
version of the legislation. On November 10, 2020, Senator
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Excluding one-
Richard Shelby, chair of the Senate Committee on
time natural disaster relief provided in FY2020 for projects
Appropriations, released drafts of all 12 annual
to replace or rebuild infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes
appropriations bills and accompanying explanatory
Florence and Michael, flooding and earthquakes, the
statements intended to further negotiation on annual
FY2021 enacted level reflects a decrease of $3.55 billion
appropriations between the House and the Senate.
(30%) from the FY2020 enacted level. The FY2021 enacted
level is $0.25 billion (3%) more than the President’s budget
Table 1. FY2021 Military Construction and Family Housing Appropriations
(in billions of dollars of budget authority)
Appropriation
FY2021
FY2021
FY2020 Enacted
FY2021 Requested
FY2021 Enacted
Category (Title)
House-passed
Senate draft
Military Construction
8.80
6.46
6.37
6.15
6.25
(Title I)
Family Housing (Title I)
1.32
1.35
1.35
1.32
1.34
Administrative
1.19
0.00
2.36
0.59
0.47
Provisions (Title I)
OCO/GWOT (Title
0.64
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
IV)
Subtotal
11.96
8.16
10.44
8.41
8.41
Natural Disaster Relief
6.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Title V)
Total
18.19
8.16
10.44
8.41
8.41
Source: CRS analysis of funding tables in explanatory statement accompanying Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division J of P.L. 116-260), in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 166 (December 21, 2020), pp.
H8747-H8765; Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority for 2020 and Budget Requests and Amounts Recommended in
the Bill for 2021 in H.Rept. 116-445, pp. 128-147; and Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement accompanying
Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft bill, pp. 98-108.
Notes: The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee did not mark up a version of the FY2021 defense appropriations act.
On November 10, 2020, the Committee released drafts of all 12 annual appropriations bills and accompanying explanatory statements. Totals
may not sum due to rounding.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of Division J of P.L. 116-260
Selected Policy Matters
Survival Training Facility at Camp Pendleton,
Installations and Resilience. Section 132 of Division J
California ($25 million).
provided $4 million each to the Army and Air Force and $7
$60 million to the Military Construction, Air Force
million to the Navy and Marine Corps to enhance “military
account. The Air Force sought funding for a Flight Test
installation resilience.” The funding is intended to support
Engineering Laboratory Complex at Edwards Air Force
developing projects, conducting studies, and updating
Base, California ($40 million); Organic Software
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), according to the
Sustainment Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah ($10
accompanying explanatory statement. It is also intended to
ensure installations “
million); and the first increment of the B-21 Two-Bay
remain operational against natural and
manmade threats,” with an emphasis on reducing the
Low-Observable (LO) Restoration Facility (i.e., a stealth
coatings/composite repair hangar) at Ellsworth Air
impacts of natural disasters. (For more information, see
Force Base, South Dakota ($10 million).
CRS Insight IN11566, Military Installation Resilience:
What Does It Mean?, by G. James Herrera.)
$50 million to the Military Construction, Army National
Guard account. The Army National Guard sought
Deterrence Initiatives. Section 401 of Division J restricted
funding for Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training at
DOD from obligating or expending planning and design
Hermiston, Oregon ($16 million); National Guard
funds for European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) construction
Readiness Center at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas ($15
projects until it submits to congressional defense
million); National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop at
committees a list of all such projects anticipated to be
Ardmore, Oklahoma (approximately $10 million); and
carried out from FY2022 through FY2026. The legislation
National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop at
did not provide explicit funding for the Pacific Deterrence
Bakersfield, California ($9 million).
Initiative (PDI). The explanatory statement specified $10
million in Defense-Wide funding for “Strategic
$30 million to the Military Construction, Air National
Construction in the Indo-Pacific Region.”
Guard account. The Air National Guard sought funding
for a Consolidated Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations
Border Barrier. Sections 129 and 513 of the House-passed
facility at Hector International Airport, North Dakota
bill (H.R. 7608) would have prohibited the use of FY2021
($18 million); and a base supply complex at the
or prior-year MILCON funding to design, construct, or
Montgomery Regional Airport, Alabama ($12 million).
carry out construction projects or access roads along the
southern U.S. border. On July 23, 2020, in a Statement of
$25 million to the Military Construction, Air Force
Administration Policy, the White House objected to these
Reserve account. The Air Force Reserve sought funding
provisions. The Senate Appropriations Committee draft bill
for a facility to house an F-35 Squadron
and the enacted legislation did not include the provisions.
Operations/Aircraft Maintenance Unit at Naval Air
Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas.
Bases Named after Confederate Officers. Section 130 of
the House-passed bill (H.R. 7608) would have prohibited
Figure 1. Military Construction and Family Housing
the use of FY2021 MILCON funding to construct a project
Appropriations, FY2001 – FY2021
on a military installation bearing the name of a confederate
officer, unless a process to replace such names commenced.
(budget authority in billions of constant FY2021 dollars)
The White House, in the Statement of Administration
Policy, objected to the provision. The Senate
Appropriations Committee draft bill and the enacted
legislation did not include the provision.
Funding for Projects Not in Budget
Request
Section 124 of Division J provided $470 million in
MILCON funding for projects not in the budget request but
identified on the military departments’ FY2021 unfunded
priority lists (amounts rounded to nearest million):
$233 million to the Military Construction, Army
account. The Army sought funding for a Child
Development Center (CDC) at the Aliamanu Military
Source: DOD, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2021, Table 6-
Reservation, Hawaii ($65 million); Unaccompanied
8: DOD Budget Authority by Public Law Title (FY 1948 to FY 2025);
Enlisted Personnel Housing at Fort Wainwright, Alaska
explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-260.
($59 million); a CDC at Fort Wainwright ($60 million);
Notes: FY2001-FY2020 figures from DOD Table 6-8; FY2021 figures
and a CDC at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii ($49 million).
from explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-260. Amounts
include OCO and emergency funding.
$73 million to the Military Construction, Navy and
Marine Corps account. The Navy sought funding for
Brendan W. McGarry, Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget
magazines (i.e., ammunition/explosives storage) at Seal
G. James Herrera, Analyst in U.S. Defense Readiness and
Beach, California ($22 million); Perimeter Security at
Infrastructure
Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master
Station Atlantic Detachment (NCTAMS LANT) in
IF11775
Cutler, Maine ($26 million); and Combat Water
https://crsreports.congress.gov
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of Division J of P.L. 116-260
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
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’s institutional role. 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 the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11775 · VERSION 1 · NEW