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 report reviews the appropriations and authorization process for military construction. The congressional 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. In recent years, Congress has frequently complained that the Pentagon has not adequately funded military construction. The Administration's FY2001 budget request for military construction is $8.0 billion, which is 5.5% below the level provided in FY2000. This continues a downward trend from the peak FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998 level of $9.3 billion, the FY1999 level of $9.0 billion and the FY2000 level of $8.4 billion.
On May 16, 2000, the House passed the Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2001 ( H.R. 4425 ), by a 386-22 roll call vote. The House followed the House Appropriations Committee's lead and passed the $8.634 billion bill with only one amendment. On May 18, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2521 , their version of the FY2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill, on a 95-4 vote. Because emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2000 was added onto this bill, the conference debate has focused on domestic and defense issues outside of military construction. For background and comprehensive information on the FY2000 supplemental funding, see CRS Report RL30457(pdf) , Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance and Other Initiatives , by Larry Nowels, et al. The Military Construction Appropriations conference report, recommending $8.834 billion, was approved by the House on June 29, 2000, and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L. 106-246 on July 13, 2000. In authorization action, on May 18, 2000, the House approved its defense authorization bill ( H.R. 4205 , H.Rept. 106-616 ). The Senate substituted their version of the defense authorization bill -- S. 2549 , S.Rept. 106-292 -- in H.R. 4205 and passed that bill on July 13, 2000. The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-945 ) was passed by the House on October 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The conference authorized $8.8 billion, $787 million more than the President's request. The FY2001 defense authorization bill became P.L. 106-398 on October 30, 2000.
<font size="+1">List of Tables</font>
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2001
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1996-2000
Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY1999-2001
Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account - Congressional Action
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 report reviews the appropriations and authorization process for military construction. The congressional 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. In recent years, Congress has frequently complained that the Pentagon has not adequately funded military construction.
The Administration's FY2001 budget request for military construction is $8.0 billion, which is 5.5% below the level provided in FY2000. This continues a downward trend from the peak FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998 level of $9.3 billion, the FY1999 level of $9.0 billion and the FY2000 level of $8.4 billion.
On May 16, 2000, the House passed the Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2001 (H.R. 4425), by a 386-22 roll call vote. The House followed the House Appropriations Committee's lead and passed the $8.634 billion bill with only one amendment.
On May 18, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2521, their version of the FY2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill, on a 95-4 vote. Because emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2000 was added onto this bill, the conference debate has focused on domestic and defense issues outside of military construction. For background and comprehensive information on the FY2000 supplemental funding, see CRS Report RL30457(pdf), Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance and Other Initiatives, by [author name scrubbed], et al.
The Military Construction Appropriations conference report, recommending $8.834 billion, was approved by the House on June 29, 2000, and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L. 106-246 on July 13, 2000.
In authorization action, on May 18, 2000, the House approved its defense authorization bill (H.R. 4205, H.Rept. 106-616). The Senate substituted their version of the defense authorization bill - S. 2549, S.Rept. 106-292 - in H.R. 4205 and passed that bill on July 13, 2000. The conference report (H.Rept. 106-945) was passed by the House on October 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The conference authorized $8.8 billion, $787 million more than the President's request. The FY2001 defense authorization bill became P.L. 106-398 on October 30, 2000.
<center>Key Policy Staff</center>
| Area of Expertise | Name | CRS Division | Tel. |
| Base Closure | David Lockwood | FDT | [phone number scrubbed] |
| Defense Acquisition | Valerie Grasso | FDT | [phone number scrubbed] |
| Defense Budget, Mil. Con. | Mary Tyszkiewicz | FDT | [phone number scrubbed] |
| Defense Budget | [author name scrubbed] | FDT | [phone number scrubbed] |
| Defense Reform | Gary Pagliano | FDT | [phone number scrubbed] |
| Guard and Reserve Issues | [author name scrubbed] | FDT | [phone number scrubbed] |
Division abbreviations: FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade.
The Military Construction Appropriations conference report, recommending $8.834 billion, was approved by the House on June 29, 2000, and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L. 106-246 on July 13, 2000.
In authorization action, on May 18, 2000, the House approved its defense authorization bill (H.R. 4205, H.Rept. 106-616). The Senate substituted their version of the defense authorization bill - S. 2549, S.Rept. 106-292 - in H.R. 4205 and passed that bill on July 13, 2000. The conference report (H.Rept. 106-945) was passed by the House on October 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The conference authorized $8.8 billion, $787 million more than the President's request. The FY2001 defense authorization bill became P.L. 106-398 on October 30, 2000.
The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world's largest dedicated infrastructure, covering over 40,000 square miles of land and a physical plant worth over $500 billion. The military construction appropriations bill provides a large part of the funding to maintain this infrastructure. The 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 (BRAC) 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 provide 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 defense, (1) 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.
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 the 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.
Most funds appropriated by Congress each year must be obligated in that fiscal year. Military construction appropriations are an exception, since these funds are generally made available for obligation for five fiscal years.
Consideration of the military construction budget starts when the President's budget is delivered to Congress early each year. For FY2001, the President requested $8.0 billion in funding for the military construction program.
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the FY2001 military construction appropriations.
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2001
<center>| Committee Markup | House Report | House Passage | Senate Report | Senate Passage | Conference Report | Conference Report Approval | Public Law | ||
| House | Senate | House | Senate | ||||||
| 5/9/00 | 5/8/00 | H.Rept. 106-614 | 5/16/00 | S.Rept.
106-290 |
5/18/00 | H.Rept.
106-710 |
6/29/00 | 6/30/00 | P.L. 106-246 |
</center>
Conference Appropriations Action. The Military Construction Appropriations conference report, recommending $8.834 billion, was approved by the House on June 29, 2000, and the Senate on June 30, 2000. It became P.L. 106-246 on July 13, 2000. The conference report debate centered on domestic and defense items in the FY2000 supplemental emergency appropriations. (For more details, see Senate Appropriations Emergency Appropriations Action for FY2000 section, below.)
House Appropriations Action. On May 16, 2000, the House passed the FY2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act (H.R. 4425), by a 386-22 roll call vote. The House followed the House Appropriations Committee's lead and passed the bill with only one amendment. The Traficant amendment prohibits any money in the bill from going to individuals or companies convicted of violating the "Buy American" laws.
The House Appropriations Committee decided, as written in its report (H.Rept. 106-614) to:
The $8.634 billion bill passed by voice vote. This bill is 4% over last year's bill and some $600 million more than the President's FY2001 request. The bill provides $3.9 for military construction, $3.5 million for family housing and $1.2 billion for Base Realignment and Closure costs. (2)
Senate Appropriations Action. On May 18, 2000, the Senate passed S. 2521, by a vote of 96-4. Because emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2000 was added to this bill, the debate on S. 2521 has centered on domestic and defense riders attached on the bill. (See below.)
On May 9, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version (S. 2521), of the FY2001 military construction appropriations bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee decided, as written in its report (S.Rept. 106-290) to:
The $8.634 billion bill passed by voice vote. This bill is $292 million over last year's bill and some $600 million more than the President's FY2001 request. The bill provides $3.81 for military construction, $3.5 million for family housing and $1.2 billion for Base Realignment and Closure costs. (3)
Senate Appropriations Emergency Supplemental Action for FY2000. FY2000 supplemental funding was attached to this Senate bill, S. 2521. Defense items include: peacekeeping costs in Kosovo and East Timor, counter-terrorism, growth in fuel and health-care costs for DOD dependents and retirees, and counter-narcotics costs in Columbia. (For a complete list of supplemental items attached to S. 2521, see Appendix 1.) The debate on S. 2521 is centering on supplemental riders on gun control and Kosovo. The most controversial provision that would have put a deadline to have U.S. troops withdraw from Kosovo, by July 1, 2001, was voted down by the Senate.
For background and comprehensive information on the supplemental, see CRS Report RL30457(pdf), Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000: Plan Colombia, Kosovo, Foreign Debt Relief, Home Energy Assistance and Other Initiatives, by [author name scrubbed], et al. For background on the Kosovo operations, see CRS Issue Brief IB98041, Kosovo and U.S. Policy, by Steve Woehrel, and CRS Issue Brief IB10027, Kosovo: U.S. and Allied Military Operations, by [author name scrubbed].
On May 18, 2000, the House passed the defense authorization bill (H.R. 4205, H.Rept. 106-616) Following the lead of the Military Construction Subcommittee, the House recommended $8.4 billion dollars for military construction, $400 million more than the President's request.
The Senate substituted their version of the defense authorization bill - S. 2549, S.Rept. 106-292 - in H.R. 4205 and passed that bill by 97-3 on July 13, 2000. The Senate recommended $8.46 billion for military construction, $430 million more than the President's request.
The conference report (H.Rept. 106-945) was passed by the House on October 11, 2000 and by the Senate on October 12, 2000. The FY2001 defense authorization bill became P.L. 106-398 on October 30, 2000.
The conference authorized $8.8 billion, $787 million more than the President's request. The conferees added over $200 million of the service chiefs' unfunded requirements and emphasized additions to improved living and working conditions for military personnel and their families.
The conference also agreed to extend the alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing in Section 2806 - better known as Military Housing Privatization Initiative. It is extended from February 10, 2001, to December 31, 2004. (For more information on this initiative, see the Key Policy Issues section below.)
Long-term Planning for Military Construction. Throughout the 1990s, Congress and Administration have debated whether military construction funding and long-term planning are adequate. Members of Congress have complained that poor planning and insufficient funding on the Pentagon's part have made it difficult for Congress to insure that military construction plans meet pressing priorities.
The Department of Defense uses a formal process called the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) to create its budget for Congress. (4) The PPBS 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). During the 1990s, Congress has criticized the Pentagon's long-term planning for military construction.
In hearings on the FY2001 military construction request, legislators expressed continuing concern over military construction planning and the sufficiency of funding. Rep. Joel Hefley, Chair of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) argued at a hearing on March 2, 2000, that the FY2001 budget request - like the previous FY1997-00 requests - continues the poor planning and downward trend for military construction budgets. For the FY1997-2001 military construction requests, the Administration requested fewer funds than it had programmed in its budget assumptions in the previous years' FYDP. This mismatch between plans and funding was cited in the congressional criticism of the Pentagon's military construction planning. Since the FYDP and the requested amount decreases each year for military construction, Mr. Hefley states that he is finding it difficult to take Pentagon future plans for military construction seriously. That sentiment was echoed by the Senate Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee chair - Sen. Conrad Burns - who expressed dismay at the kind of long-term planning seen in the FY2001 military construction proposal.
At the March 2nd HASC hearing, Randall Yim, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations), outlined a new DOD approach to installation management, in response to the subcommittee's concerns about planning. Yim established an Installation Policy Board, consisting of the senior service facilities leaders, senior service engineers and representatives from financing and program communities. This Board, chaired by Yim, meets monthly to peer review and audit installation requirements, to develop common standards between services and to provide a forum for DOD-wide installations issues.
Yim outlined three analytical tools that the Installation Policy Board is developing for more efficient planning. The first is a facilities strategic plan, so DOD knows what type of facilities are needed in the future. The second is the facilities sustainment model, which uses auditable data to model and identify the funds needed to keep facilities in good working order. The final tool is an installation readiness reporting system, so that installation readiness can be considered as part of operational readiness decisions.
Reauthorization of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. DOD is requesting that Congress amend Section 2885, Title 10, U.S.C. to extend the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) pilot program for an additional five years. The MHPI is set to expire in February 2001. The DOD believes the authorities that the MHPI provides will contribute significantly to its plan to solve its housing situation by 2010, when combined with traditional government-funded construction.
The defense authorization conference report for FY 2001 (H.Rept. 106-945) approved an extension of these authorities in Section 2806 for an additional 3-year period - from February 2001 to December 2004.
Background on Problems in Military Family Housing. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on March 16, 2000, the official in charge of DOD installations - Randall Yim - described the continuing problem of military family housing. He stated that approximately two-thirds of DOD's nearly 300,000 family housing units need extensive renovation or replacement. Yim also testified that fixing this problem using only traditional military construction methods would take 30 years and cost as much as $16 billion.
In his testimony, Yim emphasized that privatization of military family housing is just one part of a three part program to fix the DOD housing problem by 2010. Two other important components are increasing housing allowances to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for servicemembers and a strong military construction program. Increasing the housing allowance will reduce demand for on-base housing and a traditional government-funded construction program will continue to help fix on-base housing.
Definition of MHPI Authorities. Recognizing the severity of the family housing problem, Congress passed the Military Housing Privatization Initiative in the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 104-106). This gave the Pentagon new authorities to obtain private sector financing and expertise for military housing. The authorities are:
The legislation enabled the new authorities to be used individually, or in combination. (5)
History on Use of MHPI Authorities. Yim gave the history of DOD's implementation of the MHPI. In the early days of using these authorities (1996-1998), the Department of Defense's Housing Revitalization Support Office (HRSO) coordinated the application of the new authorities and oversaw all aspects of the process from initial site visits to final solicitation. During this phase - said Yim - significant strides were made in developing program criteria, financial models, legal documents and budget scoring guidelines. Only two on-base projects reached the solicitation stage, however, largely due to a problems in DOD's centralized management structure.
In October 1998, the Pentagon changed tactics and devolved the execution of housing privatization projects to the Services. (6) To date, there have been four projects awarded and/or completed, twelve projects solicited and fourteen planned, using the MHPI process. (7)
Evaluation of MHPI. Progress of the privatization initiative has been slow. Representative Gene Taylor, Ranking Member of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the HASC stated at the March 16, 2000 hearing that Congress has been disappointed with the pace of privatization implementation. Taylor hoped that DOD will be able to find the right mix of public and private funding and that the housing privatization concept will live up to its promise of providing high quality housing for our troops and their families.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighted some concerns with the privatization initiative when it reviewed DOD's military housing situation in July 1998. (8) Initial evaluation of life-cycle costs of privatized housing versus traditional military housing showed a potential savings of only about 10% or less. The proposed long-term time horizons for some privatization projects of 50 years or more raised concerns that the housing might not be needed that far into future. Also, the GAO argued that Pentagon planning for military housing remains poor. GAO stated that housing requirements are not integrated with particular facilities and community needs, that the plans underutilize the use of local housing and that there is poor communication between offices responsible for housing allowances and military housing construction. GAO recommended that comprehensive, better integrated plans could help maximize the privatization initiative while minimizing total housing costs.
A March 2000 GAO follow-up study on the privatization initiative (9) reported that since no projects under the initiative have been fully implemented, there is little basis to evaluate whether the initiative will ultimately achieve its goals of eliminating inadequate housing more economically and faster than could be achieved through traditional military construction financing. Also, the GAO points out that the DOD does not have an evaluation plan to assess the initiative.
The GAO recommended that the DOD create a privatization evaluation plan to be used consistently by all the Services. The plan should include performance measures, such as evaluation of each authority, comparison of actual to estimated costs of projects, assessment of developer performance, collection of data on the use and satisfaction of housing by service members. DOD agreed with GAO's recommendations and has begun to create an evaluation plan.
Privatization Initiative for Utility Infrastructure. Yim testified on March 16th that DOD is pursuing utility privatization through the authority of Section 2871 of Title 10 for cost savings and recapitalization of aging infrastructure. The DOD would like to privatize 1,700 utility systems by 2003, in order have public and private sector experts run and upgrade these systems according to best business practices.
This authority requires that the long-term economic benefit of utility privatization exceeds the long-term economic and utility services costs. To date, 12 systems at 7 installations have been privatized, representing a savings of more than $10 million, according to DOD.
Through this authority, DOD divests ownership of the utility system (i.e. wires and pipes) where it is economically feasible. In certain locations and markets, energy management may be included in a proposal in order to offer the best value to the government.
To give incentives to DOD installations to privatize utilities, the DOD is asking Congress to amend this utility privatization authority. With the proposed change, the Services would be able to keep savings generated by utility privatization in their installations, instead of the savings going to the general treasury.
The Funding Pattern for Military Construction Budgets. In recent years, Congress has added significant amounts to annual Administration military construction budget requests. This has been a recurring pattern in the 1990s. The President proposes what Congress calls an inadequate military construction budget, especially for Guard and Reserve needs. Congress then adds funding for military construction, with some attention to Guard and Reserve projects. For example, Congress added $479 million in FY1996, $850 million in FY1997, $800 million in FY1998, and $875 million in FY1999 to the military construction accounts.
Congressional additions to the military construction budget have been common and controversial throughout the 1990s. Three themes explain the pattern of recurring congressional additions. First, some members of the military construction subcommittees have believed that military construction has been chronically underfunded. This theme was echoed in hearings on the FY2001 budget and the reports from the House Appropriations Committee and the defense authorizing committees on bills for FY1998-2000. 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 the Pentagon 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, including a peak amount of $451.1 million in FY2000. (See Table 5.)
Low military construction budgets has led to growing maintenance backlogs, inadequate budgets for installation maintenance, and conflict between congressional & Pentagon military construction priorities. Military construction proponents, including facility advocates in the military services, argue that military facilities have been systematically underfunded for many years. For example, GAO reported its results of a review of the management of real property assets by the DOD and the services, at a March 1, 2000 hearing to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. The review focused on properties that the services maintain and repair using operation and maintenance accounts. The GAO pointed out that Congress has been concerned about the DOD's real property maintenance since the 1950s. Recently, the backlog for deferred maintenance has grown from $8.9 billion in 1992 to $14.6 billion in 1998.
Also, DOD facility managers have not met their goal to allocate 3% of the plant replacement value of DOD facilities for annual construction and maintenance (called real property maintenance at the Pentagon). 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. For example, the Navy testified on March 1, 2000 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee for Readiness that the Navy budgeted 1.8% for real property maintenance. As a result, facility proponents welcome any congressional additions.
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. Congress has argued that the military services have tended to neglect these areas in favor of warfighting investments.
The Debate Over Added Projects. Since Congress has added significant amounts to military construction budgets over the last 10 years, congressional debate has centered on how to prioritize worthy additional projects.
In 1994, the Senate debate on the military construction appropriations bill focused on 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 represented "pork barrel" spending, and came 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 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, (10) 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 above),
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.
Since the 104th Congress, the House military construction authorizing and appropriations committees have also used similar criteria, in collaboration with the Pentagon, to add projects to the military construction budget. Each potential project needs to pass the following criteria, similar to the McCain criteria: Is the project essential to the DOD mission, consistent with BRAC plans, in the Future Years Defense Plan and "executable" in the coming fiscal year? If the project can meet those criteria, the military construction authorizing and appropriations committees may add the project.
Debate over congressionally-added projects continues. In debate on the FY2000 military construction appropriations conference report, Senator McCain continued to discuss projects added by Congress. He noted that Congress added nearly $975 million of extra projects. Senator McCain presented his list of questionable projects in the Congressional Record, in a letter to the President and on his web page http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/mil00cf.htm.
The Administration has proposed $8.0 billion for the FY2001 military construction request. The conference report approved $8.8 billion. This total continues a downward trend from the FY1996 level of $11.2 billion, the FY1997 level of $9.8 billion, the FY1998 level of $9.3 billion, the FY1999 level of $9.0 billion. The FY2001 enacted amount of $8.8 billion is more than the FY2000 enacted amount of $8.4 billion.
Table 2 shows overall military construction program funding since FY1996. Table 3 breaks down the FY2001 request by appropriations account and compares it to FY1999 and FY2000 levels. Table 4 shows congressional action on military construction appropriations by account. Table 5 shows congressional military construction add-ons for Guard and Reserve projects from FY1985-2000.
P.L. 106-246, H.R. 4425 (Hobson)
Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The House Committee on Appropriations reported an original measure, H.Rept. 106-614, May 11, 2000. Passed House, 386 - 22 (Roll No. 184) (text: CR H3074-3076), May 16, 2000. Conference report (H.Rept. 106-710) filed June 29, 2000. Mr. Young (FL) brought up conference report by previously agreed to special order, June 29, 2000. Conference report passed House, 306 - 110 (Roll no. 362), June 29, 2000; passed Senate, by voice vote, June 30, 2000. Signed into law July 13, 2000.
S. 2521 (Burns)
An original bill making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. Committee on Appropriations ordered to be reported an original measure, May 9, 2000. By Senator Burns from Committee on Appropriations filed written report, H.Rept. 106-290, May 11, 2000. Measure laid before Senate, May 11, 2000. Considered by Senate, May 15-18, 2000. Senate incorporated this measure in H.R. 4425 as an amendment, May 18, 2000. Senate passed companion measure H.R. 4425 in lieu of this measure (96 - 4) on May 18, 2000.
H.R.4205 (Spence)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. Reported (amended) by the Committee on Armed Services (H.Rept. 106-616), May 12, 2000. Considered by the House, May 17-18, 2000. Passed House (353-63), May 18, 2000. Conference report H.Rept. 106-945 passed the House (382 - 31) on October 11, 2000. The Senate agreed to conference report (90 - 3) on October 12, 2000. Became P.L. 106-398 on October 30, 2000.
S. 2549 (Warner)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. Committee on Armed Services ordered to be reported an original measure, May 9, 2000. Report filed (S.Rept. 106-292), May 11, 2000. Considered by the Senate, June 6-8, June 14, and June 19-20, 2000. Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause for H.R. 4205 and substituted the language of S. 2549 as amended and this passed the Senate in lieu of S. 2549 with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote, 97 - 3, on July 13, 2000.
Table 2. Military Construction Appropriations, FY1996-2000 (budget authority in millions of dollars)
| Actual FY1996 | Actual FY1997 | Actual FY1998 | Actual FY1999 | Estimate FY2000 | Request
FY2001 |
Enacted FY2001 | |
| Military Construction | 6,893 | 5,718 | 5,466 | 5,405 | 4,793 | 4,549 | 5,411 |
| Family Housing | 4,260 | 4,131 | 3,828 | 3,592 | 3,597 | 3,485 | 3,422 |
| Total | 11,153 | 9,849 | 9,294 | 8,997 | 8,390 | 8,034 | 8,833 |
Source: Actual FY1996-99 data, Estimate FY2000 and Request 2001 from Department of Defense (DOD), Financial Summary Tables, Feb. 2000 & previous years' reports. Enacted FY2001 data from H.Rept. 106-710.
Table 3. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY1999-2001 (in thousands of dollars)
| Account | FY1999 Actual | FY2000 Est. | FY2001 Request |
| Milcon, Army | 991,726 | 1,036,645 | 897,938 |
| MilCon, Navy | 608,453 | 896,869 | 753,422 |
| MilCon, Air Force | 642,009 | 783,963 | 530,969 |
| MilCon, Defense-wide | 551,114 | 629,145 | 784,753 |
| MilCon, Army National Guard | 151,303 | 236,228 | 59,130 |
| MilCon, Air National Guard | 185,701 | 262,360 | 50,179 |
| MilCon, Army Reserve | 102,119 | 110,764 | 81,713 |
| MilCon, Navy Reserve | 31,621 | 28,310 | 16,103 |
| MilCon, Air Force Reserve | 34,371 | 64,071 | 14,851 |
| BRAC Acct., Total | 1,617,302 | 663,834 | 1,170,305 |
| NATO Security Investment Program | 245,000 | 80,581 | 190,000 |
| Foreign Curr. Fluct., Constr., Def. | 63,186 | - | - |
| MILCON transfer fund (from FY1999 emergency supplemental for Kosovo costs) | 181,290 | - | - |
| Total: Military Construction | 5,405,195 | 4,792,770 | 4,549,363 |
| Family Housing Const., Army | 163,290 | 80,283 | 162,106 |
| Family Housing Operation & Debt, Army | 1,088,897 | 1,080,695 | 978,275 |
| Family Housing Const., Navy & Marine Corps | 294,590 | 339,307 | 362,822 |
| Family Housing Operation & Debt, Navy and Marine Corps | 920,892 | 886,860 | 882,638 |
| Family Housing Const. AF | 297,665 | 347,649 | 223,483 |
| Family Housing Operation & Debt, AF | 784,737 | 814,160 | 826,271 |
| Family Housing Const., Def-wide | 345 | 50 | - |
| Family Housing Operation & Debt, Def-wide | 36,914 | 41,226 | 44,886 |
| Homeowners Assist. Fund, Def. | 7,200 | 5,000 | 4,064 |
| DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund | 2,000 | 1,990 | - |
| DOD Unacccompd. Housing Improvement Fund | (5,000) | - | - |
| Total: Family Housing | 3,591,530 | 3,597,220 | 3,484,545 |
| GRAND TOTAL | 8,996,725 | 8,389,990 | 8,033,908 |
Source: FY1999-FY2001 Request from DOD, Financial Summary Tables, February 2000.
Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account - Congressional Action (in thousands of dollars)
| Account | FY2001 Request | House
Bill |
Senate
Bill |
Conf.
Report |
| Milcon, Army | 897,938 | 869,950 | 823,503 | 909,245 |
| MilCon, Navy | 753,422 | 891,380 | 828,278 | 928,273 |
| MilCon, Air Force | 530,969 | 703,903 | 777,793 | 870,208 |
| MilCon, Defense-wide | 784,753 | 800,314 | 801,098 | 814,647 |
| MilCon, Army National Guard | 59,130 | 137,603 | 233,675 | 281,717 |
| MilCon, Air National Guard | 50,179 | 110,585 | 183,029 | 203,829 |
| MilCon, Army Reserve | 81,713 | 115,854 | 99,888 | 108,738 |
| MilCon, Navy Reserve | 16,103 | 50,604 | 38,532 | 62,073 |
| MilCon, Air Force Reserve | 14,851 | 43,748 | 25,533 | 36,591 |
| BRAC Acct., Part IV | 1,174,369 | 1,174,369 | 1,174,369 | 1,024,369 |
| NATO Security Investment Program | 190,000 | 177,500 | 175,000 | 172,000 |
| Total: Military Construction | 4,553,427 | 5,075,810 | 5,160,698 | 5,411,690 |
| Family Housing, Army | 1,140,381 | 1,152,249 | 1,179,470 | 1,187,749 |
| Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps | 1,245,460 | 1,298,792 | 1,274,332 | 1,299,722 |
| Family Housing, Air Force | 1,049,754 | 1,062,263 | 1,048,121 | 1,072,861 |
| Family Housing, Defense-wide | 44,886 | 44,886 | 44,886 | 44,886 |
| Senate General Provision (Sec. 125: rescinds unobligated balances) | 0 | 0 | (73,507) | -- |
| General Provision
(Sec. 125) |
0 | 0 | 0 | (100,000) |
| General Provision
(Sec. 132) |
0 | 0 | 0 | (83,000) |
| Total: Family Housing | 3,480,481 | 3,558,190 | 3,473,302 | 3,422,218 |
| GRAND TOTAL | 8,033,908 | 8,634,000 | 8,634,000 | 8,833,908 |
Source: H.Rept. 106-614, S.Rept. 106-290, H.Rept. 106-710.
Table 5. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1985-2000 (current year dollars in thousands)
| Fiscal Year | Army National Guard | Air National Guard | Army Reserve | Naval Reserve | Air Force Reserve | Total | Total Change from Request |
| 1985 Req. | 88,900 | 102,900 | 70,400 | 60,800 | 67,800 | 390,800 | - |
| 1985
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
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
Enacted |
78,086 | 189,855 | 55,543 | 37,579 | 52,805 | 413,868 | +219,777 |
| 1998 Req. | 45,098 | 60,225 | 39,112 | 13,921 | 14,530 | 172,886 | - |
| 1998
Enacted |
102,499 | 190,444 | 55,453 | 26,659 | 15,030 | 390,085 | +217,199 |
| 1999 Req. | 47,675 | 34,761 | 71,287 | 15,271 | 10,535 | 179,529 | - |
| 1999
Enacted |
144,903 | 185,701 | 102,119 | 31,621 | 34,371 | 498,715 | +319,186 |
| 2000 Req. | 57,402 | 73,300 | 77,626 | 14,953 | 27,320 | 250,601 | - |
| 2000
Enact. |
236,228 | 262,360 | 110,764 | 28,310 | 64,071 | 701,733 | +451,132 |
Source: Department of Defense, Financial Summary Tables, successive years.
CRS Issue Brief IB96022. Defense Acquisition Reform: Status and Current Issues, by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report RL30002(pdf). A Defense Budget Primer, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report RL30505. Appropriations for FY2001: Defense, by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report RL30447(pdf). Defense Budget for FY2001: Data Summary, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), FY2001 Budget Materials
http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2001budget/
U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page
http://www.acq.osd.mil/installation
House Committee on Appropriations
http://www.house.gov/appropriations
Senate Committee on Appropriations
http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la
Congressional Budget Office
http://www.cbo.gov
General Accounting Office
http://www.gao.gov
Office of Management & Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/
1. (back) See Appropriations for FY2001: Defense, by [author name scrubbed], CRS Report RL30505, for details on the defense authorization and appropriation process.
2. (back)For a press release on the House Appropriations Subcommittee mark-up, see: http://www.house.gov/appropriations/pr01mcsu.html
3. (back)For a press release about the Senate Appropriations Committee mark-up, see:
http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/releases/fy01full.htm
4. (back) For a discussion of the formulation of the defense budget proposal by the DOD, see CRS Report RL30002(pdf), A Defense Budget Primer, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
5. (back) For more detailed information on the authorities; see the DOD's Privatization of Military Housing website, http://www.acq.osd.mil/installation/hrso/
6. (back) Each Service has its own program name for housing privatization: Army - Residential Communities Initiative (formerly known as the Capital Venture Initiative (CVI)); Navy - Public-Private Venture (PPV); and Air Force - Housing Privatization Program.
7. (back)For details on awarded, solicited, and planned privatization projects see: http://www.acq.osd.mil/installation/hrso/0100qreport.htm
8. (back)U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Housing: Privatization Off to a Slow Start and Continued Management Attention Needed, GAO Report Number NSIAD-98-178, July 1998.
9. (back)U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Housing: Continued Concerns in Implementing the Privatization Initiative, GAO Report Number NSIAD-00-71, March 2000. This report is also available on the GAO web site: http://www.gao.gov.
10. (back) A "Sense of the Senate" provision is a provision that requires approval by the Senate, but is not formally part of the bill and therefore does not have the force of law. This type of provision expresses the sense of the Senate on policy issues. There can also be similar Sense of the House and Sense of the Congress provisions.
Return to CONTENTS section of this Long Report.