For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-97-210 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 97-210 F Appropriations for FY1998: Military Construction Updated February 26, 1998 Mary T. Tyszkiewicz 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 7-7621 Defense Budget, Mil. Const. Mary Tyszkiewicz FAND 7-3144 Defense Budget Stephen Daggett FAND 7-7642 DOD Outsourcing, Privatization Valerie Grasso FAND 7-7617 Guard and Reserve Issues Robert Goldich FAND 7-7633 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. 1 See Appropriations for FY1998: Defense, by Stephen Daggett, 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 authority2 on the military 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 2 See The Line Item Veto Act: Procedural Issues, by Louis Fisher and Virginia A. McMurtry, 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. 3 See CRS Report 97-294, Defense Budget for FY1998: Data Summary, by Stephen Daggett 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 3 (...continued) Mary T. Tyszkiewicz for more information on the 050 budget function and definition of budget authority and outlays. 4 . For more detailed information the 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 5 See Appropriations for FY1998: Defense, by Stephen Daggett, 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 Stephen Daggett. 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.7 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). 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 7 For a discussion of the formulation of the defense budget proposal by the DOD, see CRS Report 93-317, A Defense Budget Primer, by Keith Berner and Stephen Daggett. 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.10 Defense officials defended their proposal, 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. 9 Adelsberger, Bernard, "How to fix the housing crunch: Another study," Navy Times, March 4, 1996, p. 6. 10 Maze, Rick, "Officials defend cuts in housing construction funds," 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.11 Other bases with planned projects include 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. 11 Jowers, Karen, "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 Valerie Bailey Grasso. CRS Reports CRS Report 93-317 F. A Defense Budget Primer, by Keith Berner and Stephen Daggett. CRS Report 97-205 F. Appropriations for FY1998: Defense, by Stephen Daggett. CRS Report 97-294 F. Defense Budget for FY1998: Data Summary, by Stephen Daggett and Mary T. Tyszkiewicz. CRS Report 94-515 F. Defense Burdensharing: Is Japan's Host Nation Support a Model for Other Allies?, by Stephen Daggett. CRS Report 91-669 F. Military Construction: Current Controversies and Long-Term Issues, by Martin Cohen and Stephen Daggett. Selected World Wide Web Site U.S. Department of Defense, Installations Home Page http://www.acq.osd.mil/inst ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-97-210