Appropriations for FY2005: Military Construction

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2005:
Military Construction
Updated November 15, 2004
Daniel H. Else
Analyst in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress. Congressional
practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are
rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the status of the bill,
its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as
events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related
CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/ a pppa g e.shtml].

Appropriations for FY2005:
Military Construction
Summary
The military construction (MilCon) appropriations bill provides funding for (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) the bulk of base realignment and closure (BRAC)costs.
The President forwarded his FY2005 budget request of $9.6 billion to the
Congress on February 2, 2004.
Military construction subcommittees held hearings between February 25 and
June 22, 2004. The House Appropriations Committee its bill (H.R. 4837) on July 15,
2004. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its bill (S. 2674) on the same
day. Both bills recommended $10.0 billion in new budget authority.
Floor action on H.R. 4837 began on July 21. A procedural dispute regarding
Section 129 of the bill (adjusting the cap on new budget authority available for the
military housing privatization program) precipitated the drafting of a separate bill
(H.R. 4879) incorporating a portion of the section, which was struck on a point of
order. The House passed an amended H.R. 4837 on July 22, which was received in
the Senate on September 7. On September 15, the Senate incorporated the text of S.
2674 into H.R. 4837, passing the amended bill on September 20 and appointing its
conferees. The House appointed conferees on October 8.
On October 5, the President submitted a hurricane disaster assistance emergency
supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 5212) that included $148.9 million in DOD
construction and repair appropriations. The bill’s language was incorporated into
Division B of H.R. 4837, whose short title was changed to the Military Construction
Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005.
Division C of H.R. 4837, titled the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act,
incorporates some portions of H.R. 6., the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The House
passed H.R. 4837 on October 9, as did the Senate on October 11. The President
signed the bill into law on October 13, 2004 (P.L. 108-324).
Authorization of military construction is included within the defense
authorization bill. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 4200) on May 19.
The Senate substituted the text of S. 2400, passing the amended bill on June 24. The
conference began on September 29, 2004, and ended on October 8. The House and
the Senate passed the bill on October 9. The President signed the bill into law on
October 18, 2004 (P.L. 108-375). For a comprehensive report on defense
authorization legislation, see CRS Report RL32305, Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2005: Defense, by Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.

Key Policy Staff
CRSTelephone
Area of ExpertiseNameDivisionand E-Mail
*
David LockwoodFDT7-7621dlockwood@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure, Process7-4996
Daniel H. ElseFDTdelse@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure,David M.RSI7-2390
Environmental PolicyBeardendbearden@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure, Aaron M. FlynnALD7-4877
Land Use Lawaflynn@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure,7-7600
EconomicJ. Tadlock CowanRSItcowan@crs.loc.gov
Redevelopment
Base Closure,7-0652
EconomicBaird J. WebelG&Fbwebel@crs.loc.gov
Redevelopment
Base Closure, Linwood B.INF7-8983
Document SearchCarterlcarter@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure, Estela I. VelezALD7-4833
General Military LawPollackevpollack@crs.loc.gov
Defense AcquisitionValerie GrassoFDT7-7617vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Def. Budget, Mil. Con./Daniel H. ElseFDT7-4996
Defense Industrydelse@crs.loc.gov
Stephen DaggettFDT7-7642sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Defense Budget7-7627
Amy BelascoFDTabelasco@crs.loc.gov
Defense ReformGary PaglianoFDT7-1750gpagliano@crs.loc.gov
Guard and ReserveLawrence KappFDT7-7609
Issues l k app@crs.l o c.go v
* FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division; RSI = Resources, Science, and
Industry Division; ALD = American Law Division; G&F = Government and Finance
Division; INF = Information Research Division.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background ......................................................1
Content of Annual Military Construction Appropriations and
Defense Authorization Bills..................................1
Bill Status........................................................4
Appropriations Action..........................................4
House Appropriations Action................................4
Senate Appropriations Action................................5
Conference Action.........................................6
Key Policy Issues..................................................6
Overall Funding Levels.....................................6
Realignment of Overseas Bases...............................7
Redeployment of U.S. Troops from Overseas Garrisons to Bases
within the United States, 2004-2014.......................9
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).......................11
Military Housing Privatization Budget Authority Cap............13
Significant Funding Trends.........................................17
Legislation ......................................................19
Military Construction Appropriations.............................19
Defense Authorization.........................................22
For Additional Information.........................................27
CRS Products................................................27
Selected World Wide Websites..................................28
List of Figures
Figure 1. Military Construction Funding, FY1989-FY2005................18
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2005............4
Table 2. Selected U.S. Overseas Garrisons, 1986 and 2003................10
Table 3. Selected U.S. Overseas Garrisons, Grouped Totals, 1986 and 2003...11
Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account: FY2004-FY2005..24
Table 5. Military Construction FY2005 Appropriations by Account:
Congressional Action..........................................25
Table 6. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget Requests for
National Guard and Reserve Military Construction, FY1995-FY2005....26

Appropriations for FY2005:
Military Construction
Most Recent Developments
The President signed H.R. 4837, the Military Construction Appropriations and
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005, into law on October

13, 2004 (P.L. 108-324).

The President signed H.R. 4200, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, into law on October 28, 2004 (P.L. 108-375).
Background
Content of Annual Military Construction Appropriations
and Defense Authorization Bills
The Department of Defense (DOD) manages the world’s largest dedicated
infrastructure, covering more than 29.2 million acres of land with a physical plant
worth almost $647 billion, housed within buildings encompassing more than 2.2
billion square feet of floor space. More than 2.36 million men and women, including
1.7 million military personnel, 465,000 civil servants, and 195,000 other U.S. and
foreign nationals, work on U.S. military installations. Eighty-eight percent of military
personnel, 95 percent of civil servants, and more than half of other employees work
on the 3,842 listed installations that constitute the 98 percent of Department of
Defense land located within the United States and its territories. The remainder work
at 860 listed installations located in foreign countries.
The military construction appropriations bill provides a large part of the funding
to enhance and maintain this infrastructure. The bill funds construction projects and
some of the facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization of the active Army,¹
Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and their reserve components; additional
defense-wide construction; U.S. contributions to the NATO Security Investment

¹ Facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) includes the repair and
maintenance of buildings, structures, warehouses, roadways, runways, aprons, railway
tracks, utility plants, and their associated distribution systems, plus minor construction (cost
not to exceed $500,000) to create new facilities or expand, alter, or convert existing
facilities. A large part of the funding dedicated to the SRM function is requested not as part
of the military construction appropriation, but rather as part of the Operations and
Maintenance account within the annual national defense appropriation.

Program (formerly known as the NATO Infrastructure Program);² 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.³
The military construction appropriations bill is but one piece of annual
legislation that provides funding for the country’s “national security.” Other national
security appropriation legislation includes the national defense appropriations bill,
which provides funds for all non-construction military activities of the Department
of Defense and constitutes more than 90% of national security-related spending, and
the energy and water development appropriations bill, which provides funding for
atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy and for civil projects
carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Two other appropriations bills,
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies and Commerce-Justice-State, also include small
amounts for national defense.⁴ Supplemental appropriations bills may be passed to
provide additional Department of Defense funding as needed.
No funds may be expended by any agency of the federal government before they
are appropriated.⁵ In addition, for nearly half a century Congress has forbidden the
Department of Defense to obligate funds for any project or program until specific
authorization is granted.⁶ This explains why, for defense funds, both authorization
and appropriations bills are required. The annual Military Construction
Appropriations Act is dedicated to military construction, and the annual National
Defense Appropriations Act covers all other Department of Defense appropriations.⁷
Normally only one National Defense Authorization Act is passed each year to
authorize both of these appropriations.⁸ Therefore, major debates over defense policy

² The NATO Security Investment program is the U.S. contribution to Alliance funds for the
construction of facilities and the procurement of equipment essential to the wartime support
of operational forces in the common defense of the NATO area. Facilities funded by this
program include airfields, naval bases, signal and telecom installations, pipelines, and war
headquarters, as well as early warning radar and missile installations. The U.S. contributes
approximately 25% of the total annual NSIP assessment, with the rest coming from the other
members of the North Atlantic Alliance.
³ Virtually all costs associated with the latest completed BRAC round (that of FY1995) have
been funded. The bulk of current BRAC appropriations are dedicated to the environmental
remediation of closed military installations.
⁴ See CRS Report RL32305, Appropriations and Authorization: FY2005: Defense, by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco, for details on the defense authorization and
appropriation process.
⁵ Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
⁶ See 10 U.S.C. 114.
⁷ The relevant subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are
Military Construction (for the military construction appropriation) and Defense (for the
national defense appropriation).
⁸ The Subcommittee on Readiness in the House Armed Services Committee and the
(continued...)

and funding issues, including military construction, can be associated with any of
these bills. Because issues in the defense authorization and appropriations bills
intertwine, this report includes salient parts of the authorization bill in its discussion
of the military construction appropriation process.
The separate military construction appropriations bill dates back to the late
1950s. Traditionally, military construction was funded through annual defense or
supplemental appropriations bills. However, the Korean War prompted a surge of
military construction, followed by a steady increase in military construction
appropriations. The strong and enduring security threat posed by the Soviet Union
drove a relatively high and continuous level of spending on military infrastructure.
The congressional appropriations committees established military construction
subcommittees and created a separate military construction bill. The first stand-alone
military construction bill was written for FY1959 (P.L. 85-852).
It should be pointed out that, first, military construction appropriations are not
the sole source of funds available to defense agencies for facility investment. The
national defense appropriations bill funds so-called minor construction and property
maintenance within its operations and maintenance accounts. Construction and
maintenance of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation-related facilities are partially funded
through proceeds of commissaries, recreation user fees, and other non-appropriated
income. Second, several special accounts are included within the military
construction appropriation. Among these are the Homeowners Assistance Fund
(Defense),⁹ and the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund,¹⁰
both of which perform functions ancillary to the direct building of military
infrastructure.
Most congressional appropriations must be obligated in the fiscal year for which
they are appropriated. Military construction appropriations, though, are an exception.

⁸ (...continued)
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support in the Senate Armed Services
Committee draft legislation to authorize military construction appropriations.
⁹ The Homeowners Assistance Fund (Defense) was established by the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 USC 3374). It authorizes the Secretary of
Defense to acquire the title to, or to reimburse for certain losses upon the sale of, one- and
two-family homes owned by federal employees located at or near military installations
ordered closed in whole or in part.
¹⁰ 10 U.S.C. 2883 (Department of Defense Housing Funds) is part of subchapter IV
(Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing) of the basic
law governing the armed forces. It establishes two independent funds: the Department of
Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund and the Department of Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund (unaccompanied members of the military are
either unmarried or are married but separated geographically from their families). The funds
are sustained by direct appropriation, fund transfers made by the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of the Navy from other accounts, proceeds from certain title conveyances or the
lease of federal military family housing property, or other financial activity associated with
either military family or unaccompanied housing. These funds may be used for the planning,
construction, or improvement of military housing as provided for under this particular
subchapter of Title 10.

Because of the long-term nature of construction projects, these funds can generally
be obligated for up to five fiscal years.
Consideration of the military construction budget begins when the President’s
budget is delivered to Congress each year, usually in early February. This year, the
President submitted his FY2005 budget request to the Congress on February 2, 2004.
Bill Status
Table 1 shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of the
FY2005 military construction appropriations. It will be updated as the appropriation
process moves forward.
Table 1. Status of Military Construction Appropriations, FY2005
^C^o^mmi^t^t^e^e^{Conference Report}
^Ma^r^k^u^p^Hou^s^e^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.^A^p^p^r^oval^Public
^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^La^w
^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e
^07/^15/⁰⁴^07/^15/⁰⁴^H.R^e^p^t^.^108-⁶⁰⁷^07/^22/⁰⁴^S.Rep^t^.^108-³⁰⁹^09/^20/⁰⁴^H.R^e^p^t^.^108-⁷⁷³^10/^09/⁰⁴^10/^11/⁰⁴^P.^L^.^108-³²⁴
^No^te:^Das^h^esⁱⁿ^{dicate n}^o^action^y^e^{t tak}^eⁿ^.
Appropriations Action
An emergency supplemental appropriation, H.R. 5212, introduced on October
5, and the continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 107, enacted on September 30, 2004, are
discussed in the Legislation section below.
House Appropriations Action. The House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction held nine hearings between February 25 and
June 22, 2004. The topics addressed included Quality of Life (senior enlisted and
military family representatives, February 25), family housing privatization and
Central Command programs (March 3), overview of military construction
(Department of Defense representatives, March 10), European Command programs
(March 25), Pacific Command programs (March 31), Navy programs (June 15),
Army programs (June 16), and Air Force programs (June 22). The subcommittee
reported its bill to the full committee by voice vote on July 6, and the full committee
reported its mark on H.R. 4837 on July 15, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-607). The bill was
then placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 365.
H.R. 4837 was introduced on the floor of the House on July 21. Debate centered
on Section 129 of the bill, a provision that would raise the limitation on the budget
authority that could be applied to the military housing privatization initiative and
would exempt such budget authority from scoring (Congressional Record,
H6460-6469). A more extensive discussion of the issue is included in the Military
Housing Privatization Budget Authority Cap portion of the Key Policy Issues section

of this report. A separate bill, H.R. 4879, which incorporated the budget authority
language of Section 129, was introduced in mid-afternoon and passed under
suspension of the rules (requiring a two-thirds majority) on a vote of 423-0-11 (Roll
no. 406, Congressional Record, H6489-95, H6498).
H.R. 4837 was brought up again as unfinished business on the evening of July
22. Mr. Nussle raised a point of order against the content of the measure, citing
Section 129 as seeking to change existing law (violating House Rule XXI). The point
of order was sustained by the Chair, thereby striking Section 129 from the bill. Mr.
Obey moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to increase the military housing privatization budget authority limitation
referred to above. Mr. Nussle raised a point of order against the motion and was
again sustained by the Chair. Mr. Obey then moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Appropriations with slightly different instructions. The House then
engaged in ten minutes of debate on the motion, whereupon it was ordered. The
motion failed on a vote of 201-217-16 (Roll no. 416). H.R. 4837 was then passed on
a vote of 420-1-11 (Roll no. 417).
On October 8, after the return of the amended bill from the Senate (see Senate
Appropriations Actions, below), the House agreed without objection to disagree with
the amendment and appointed conferees.
Senate Appropriations Action. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction held two hearings on Defense-Wide and Air
Force construction projects (March 30) and Army and Navy projects (April 7, 2004).
The subcommittee completed the informal markup of its bill on July 14, and the full¹¹
committee reported its mark on S. 2674 on July 15 (S.Rept. 108-309). The bill was
placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 637).
The Senate received H.R. 4837 from the House on September 7, 2004, read it
twice, and placed it on the Legislative Calendar (Calendar No. 690). On September
15, S. 2674 was brought to the floor. Senator Hutchison, on behalf of herself and
Senator Feinstein, offered two amendments, S.Amdt. 3660 and S.Amdt. 3661 (see
Congressional Record S9242). S.Amdt. 3660 (new Sec. 130) would make available
additional funds in the sum of $1.5 million for the Commission on Review of
Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. S.Amdt. 3661 (new Sec.
131) would require the Department of Defense to assess the impact on the military
family housing program of having the total value of contracts and investments
undertaken under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative reach the limitation
on budget authority (both of these issues are addressed at length elsewhere in this
report). Both amendments were agreed to by Unanimous Consent, and the bill was
returned to the Calendar (Calendar No. 637).

¹¹ An informal subcommittee markup, or poll, is not uncommon in the creation of bills that
are expected to be approved without significant amendment in drafting. It is often effected
through the distribution of a draft to subcommittee Members, who then have the opportunity
to amend the text or approve it as drafted.

The Senate then incorporated the language of S. 2674 into H.R. 4837 as an
amendment. The Senate passed the amended H.R. 4837 on September 20 by recorded
vote 91-0-9. The Senate sent a message on its action to the House on September 22,

2004.

Conference Action. Senate conferees were appointed on September 20. The
House disagreed with the Senate amendment, and conferees were appointed on
October 8.
The conferees added Division B, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Hurricane Disasters Assistance Act, 2005, and Division C, the Alaska Natural
Gas Pipeline Act, to the basic bill.¹²
The conferees filed the conference report (H.Rept. 108-773, text at
Congressional Record H9054-9113) on October 9. The House considered the report
(Congressional Record H9175-9176) and agreed by the Yeas and Nays, 374-0-58
(Roll no. 529). That same day, the Senate began consideration on the conference
report, and a cloture motion was presented (Congressional Record S10978-10979).
The cloture motion was withdrawn by unanimous consent on October 11, and the
Senate agreed to the conference report by Voice Vote (Congressional Record
S11223-11228).
The bill was presented to the President and signed on October 13, 2004 (P.L.

108-324).

Key Policy Issues
Several issues regarding military construction have gained visibility during the
legislative deliberations of the current session of Congress. Among these are overall
funding levels, realignment of overseas bases, base realignment and closure (BRAC),
and perchlorate ground water contamination remediation.
Overall Funding Levels. The FY2005 budget submitted by the President on
February 2, 2004, as subsequently amended, requested $9.6 billion in new budget
authority, an amount $112.7 million below the 2004 enactment.¹³ As shown in Table

¹² For more information on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane
Disasters Assistance Act, 2005, see CRS Report RL32581, Assistance After Hurricanes and
Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations, by Keith Bea and
Ralph M. Chite. For an explanation of energy policy issues related to the Alaska Natural
Gas Pipeline Act, see CRS Report RL32033, Omnibus Energy Legislation (H.R. 6):
Side-by-side Comparison of Non-tax Provisions, by Mark Holt and Carol Glover,
coordinators, and CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on
Public Lands, by Marc Humphries.
¹³ The original February appropriation proposal of $9.52 billion was increased to $9.55
billion by the addition of $30 million made available by the cancellation of the RAH-64
Comanche helicopter program. This new budget authority was dedicated to three new
(continued...)

4, Active Component military construction requested is $378.7 million below that
enacted for FY2004, with increases in the Army and Defense-wide accounts being¹⁴
more than offset by decreases for the Navy and Air Force. Requests for every
account within the Reserve Components, save for the Air Force Reserve, are below
the amounts enacted last year, with the net impact being a $110.5 million decline
from the previous year. The overall military construction request for FY2005 is $489
million below the enactment for FY2004.
Family housing construction and operation and debt servicing, as requested for
FY2005, represents an increase of more than $351.5 million over that enacted for
FY2004. Caution should be exercised in interpreting these figures, however, because
the military services are responsible for satisfying their own family housing needs,
and the Department of Defense and military services are engaged in an extensive
program of privatizing (i.e., removing from direct support by military construction
appropriations) a significant portion of military housing. In addition, the services are
completing a nine-year effort to substantially increase the military pay supplement
(the Basic Allowance for Housing, or BAH, that is funded in the personnel account
in the national defense appropriation) to a level that will eliminate out-of-pocket
expenses should a military member choose to live in his or her local civilian
community.
Realignment of Overseas Bases. The armed services are in the midst of
a global reassessment study of their infrastructure inventory, with an eye toward
reducing the number and realigning the concentration of troops stationed outside the
United States and its territories. This closely parallels, but is separate from, the
process of realigning military installations within the United States, known as Base
Realignment and Closure, or BRAC. Details of what is variously known as the
Global Posture Study, “global sourcing,” efficient basing, or the “global BRAC,”
have not yet been released by the Department of Defense. The Senate Committee on
Armed Services has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Thursday, September 23,
2004. The Secretary of Defense and the unified command commanders are scheduled
to appear as witnesses.
In addition, Congress created the Commission on Review of Overseas Military
Facility Structure of the United States last year to determine for itself whether the
eventual Department of Defense plan for altering overseas basing requirements and
stationing of troops will be adequate to national security needs.¹⁵ The commission is
tasked with conducting “a thorough study of matters relating to the military facility
structure of the United States overseas” and assessing “whether or not the current
military basing and training range structure of the United States overseas is adequate
to meet the current and future mission of the Department of Defense, including

¹³ (...continued)
aviation-related construction projects in the Army National Guard appropriation account.
¹⁴ Defense-wide military construction is devoted to projects not properly allocated within
the individual military services, such as construction specific to Special Operations
Command.
¹⁵ The commission was created by Section 128 of the Military Construction Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2004, H.R. 2559, P.L. 108-132.

contingency, mobilization, and future force requirements,” among other duties. The
commission’s report, containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for
legislative and administrative actions, is due to the Congress not later than December
31, 2004 (though language in the report accompanying the Senate version of the
Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, S. 2674, extends the
report deadline to August 15, 2005, as indicated below). The commission is also to
propose an overseas basing strategy for the Department of Defense that will meet its
current and future mission requirements.
The law established a commission of eight members, appointed as follows:¹⁶

1.Two appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate: Maj. Gen. Lewis E. Curtis,

III, U.S. Air Force (retired), of Texas; Vice Adm. Anthony A. Less, U.S. Navy
(retired), of Virginia;
2.Two appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate: Al Cornella, of South
Dakota (chair), and James A. Thomson, of California;

3.Two appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives: none appointed;

and

4.Two appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives: Lt.

Gen. H. G. (Pete) Taylor, U.S. Army (retired), of Texas, and Keith Martin of
Pennsylvania.
A major issue for Congress is the absence of a formal Department of Defense
plan for the future of its overseas basing. For this specific reason, Congress did not
fund some of the construction projects requested by the Department at overseas
locations for FY2004. In its report to the Senate on the FY2005 appropriations bill,
the Senate Committee on Appropriations noted that the Department of Defense is
now more than two years overdue in forwarding its master overseas basing plan to
the committee and again recommended against funding several requested overseas
construction projects.¹⁷
In its report on the FY2005 appropriations bill, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations noted that the creation of the commission had met with significant
Department of Defense opposition. Nevertheless, the committee went on to state:
Because of delays in the appointment of commissioners, the establishment of
suitable Commission facilities, and the submission to the Congress of the
Department’s global basing and presence plan, the deadline for the
Commission’s final report is extended to August 15, 2005. This will make the
Commission’s life coterminal with its funding, which under current law expires
September 30, 2005, and will provide an opportunity for the Commission to
interact with the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, whose members
need not be appointed until March 15, 2005. However, in order to inform both

¹⁶ The law also provides for a staff of up to 12 individuals, including an executive director,
who will assist the commissioners in carrying out their task. The Executive Director of the
commission’s staff is Patricia J. Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs (Materiel and Facilities), who is on temporary detail to this position.
¹⁷ These included projects requested for Japan, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the United Kingdom
and a proposed barracks renovation in the Bahamas.

BRAC and consideration of the fiscal year 2006 military construction
appropriations bill, the committee urges the Overseas Basing Commission to
present its preliminary conclusions to the Congress no later than March 31,¹⁸

2005.

Section 2518 of the House-passed version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2005 would repeal the provision of law that established the
commission. There is no such provision in the bill as it was passed by the Senate.
The conference report retained the Senate’s due date extension for the Commission’s
final report, but eliminated additional funding that the Senate had provided.
Redeployment of U.S. Troops from Overseas Garrisons to Bases
within the United States, 2004-2014.
Presidential Announcement. On August 16, 2004, President George W.
Bush included the following remarks in his address to the national convention of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in Cincinnati, Ohio:
I’m announcing today, over the next 10 years, we will bring home about 60,000
to 70,000 uniformed personnel, and about 100,000 family members and civilian¹⁹
employees.
The Redeployment in Context. Analysts expect that the majority of the
forces redeployed to the United States will be drawn from those countries that
currently host the largest overseas U.S. garrisons. These are the Federal Republic of
Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Japan.
It may be helpful to place this redeployment in historic context by comparing
the numbers of troops in garrison in these three countries in 1986 with those in
garrison in 2003. The figures for 1986 reflect U.S. overseas force posture during the
closing years of the Cold War.²⁰ In addition, the United States then maintained
sizable garrisons in both the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of Panama
that would be redeployed to the United States, its possessions, or other overseas
locations during the late 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, these troops have been
included in the construction of Tables 2 and 3.

¹⁸ S.Rept. 108-309, p. 10.
¹⁹ The President’s remarks can be seen in their entirety at the White House press release
website: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040816-12.html]. The
numbers quoted by the President include active members of the military, their families and
other dependents, and civil service employees. They do not count the host-nation nationals
and individuals employed by private contractors who may be affected by the reconfiguration
of overseas basing.
²⁰ Active duty military members numbered 2.17 million in 1986, according to the
Department of Defense, with 1.70 million on permanent active duty in 2003.

Table 2. Selected U.S. Overseas Garrisons, 1986 and 2003
(As of September 30 of the respective years)
19862003Change
Federal Republic of Germany
Army 196,924 60,882 (136,042)
Navy000
Air Force37,92914,168(23,761)
Marine Corps000
Total 234,853 75,050 (159,803)
Republic of Korea
Army 31,600 26,313 (5,287)
Navy01,2241,224
Air Force12,7688,788(3,980)
Marine Corps000
Total 44,368 36,325 (8,043)
Japan
Army 2,308 1,177 (1,131)
Navy01,2241,224
Air Force12,7688,788(3,980)
Marine Corps000
Republic of the Philippines
Army000
Navy 6,180 0 ( 6,180)
Air Force9,1840(9,184)
Marine Corps000
Total 15,364 0 ( 15,364)
Republic of Panama
Army 7,634 0 ( 7,634)
Navy6800(680)
Air Force2,3170(2,317)
Marine Corps000
Total 10,631 0 ( 10,631)
^Source:^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^Bas^e^St^r^u^ct^ur^{e Repor}^t^s^f^o^{r F}ⁱ^s^cal^Y^ears^{1987 an}^{d 2004.}

Table 3. Selected U.S. Overseas Garrisons, Grouped Totals,
1986 and 2003
(As of September 30 of the respective years)
19862003Change
Germany, Japan, and Korea
Army 230,832 88,372 (142,460)
Navy 14,545 19,603 5,058
Air Force71,63237,340(34,292)
Marine Corps21,97812,471(9,507)
Total 338,987 157,786 (181,201)
Philippines and Panama
Army 7,634 0 ( 7,634)
Navy 6,860 0 ( 6,860)
Air Force11,5010(11,501)
Marine Corps000
Total 25,995 0 ( 25,995)
^Source:^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^Bas^e^St^r^u^ct^ur^{e Repor}^t^s^f^o^{r F}ⁱ^s^cal^Y^ears^{1987 an}^{d 2004.}
These figures indicate that although the announced redeployment is substantial,
it has precedent in the post-Cold War era when examined in the context of the entire
military force or when focused on the U.S. garrisons in Germany, Korea, and Japan.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Four BRAC rounds have been
completed since the first in 1989. Under statutory language included in the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2002, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to
carry out a fifth round of realignment or closures during FY2006 through FY2011.
The Secretary has established a list of criteria that he will use to recommend
base closure and realignment actions and has certified to the Congress the need to
carry out this fifth BRAC round. The Department of Defense is in the process of
evaluating the base infrastructure needs of its future military force. This process
includes the detailed assessment of each installation’s capacity as measured along a
number of dimensions, such as potential for hosting additional troops, ease of access
to major transportation resources, proximity to training and operating areas, etc., and
the changes needed in order to make it conform to the needs of the future force. This
evaluation will result in the creation of a list of BRAC actions that the Secretary is
required to submit in May 2005 to an independent BRAC Commission for review.
The BRAC Commission is scheduled to forward this list, including any revisions, to

the President in September 2005. The final presidential list of BRAC actions is due
to the Congress on November 7, 2005.²¹
The House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (H.R. 4200) contains a provision that would effectively delay the
remaining steps in the BRAC process for two years.²² In its Statement of
Administration Policy issued on May 19, 2004, the Office of Management and
Budget stated:
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration strongly opposes
any provision to weaken, delay, or repeal the BRAC authority passed by
Congress three years ago. If the President is presented a bill that weakens, delays,
or repeals the BRAC authority, the Secretary of Defense, joining with other
senior advisors, will recommend that the President veto the bill.
Appearing before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on September 23,
2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reiterated his opposition to delay of the
BRAC round in a response to a question posed by Senator John McCain:
McCain: I want to thank the witnesses. Mr. Secretary, I was very pleased to hear
your comments in response to Senator Warner’s question about the necessity of
BRAC. Would you recommend a veto if a defense bill came to the president that
had a two-year delay in BRAC?
Rumsfeld: Yes, I certainly would. It would be a terrible thing, Senator.²³
Press accounts on the deliberations of the conference committee cited the issue
of BRAC delay as one of three or four most significant issues confronting the
conferees.²⁴

²¹ For more information on the BRAC process, see CRS Report RS21822, Military Base
Closures: DOD’s 2005 Internal Selection Process, by Daniel H. Else and David E.
Lockwood; CRS Report RL32216, Military Base Closures: Implementing the 2005 Round,
by David E. Lockwood; CRS Report RL30440, Military Base Closures: Estimates of Costs
and Savings, by David E. Lockwood; CRS Report RL30051, Military Base Closures:
Agreement on a 2005 Round, by David E. Lockwood; and CRS Videotape MM70068,
Military Base Closures: DOD’s Internal 2005 BRAC Selection Process, by Daniel H. Else
and David E. Lockwood, available online at [http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/sem_
bc-040422.shtml ].
²² Sec. 2821-5 in Subtitle C — Base Realignment and Closure, H.R. 4200 EH. The Senate
version of the bill contains no such language. Emphasis in the original Statement of
Administration Policy, which can be found on the World Wide Web at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e house.gov/ omb/ l e gi sl at i ve/ sap/ 108-2/ hr 4200sap-h.pdf ] .
²³ “U.S. Senator John W. Warner (R-Va) Holds Hearing On Global Posture Review -
Committee Hearing,” Political Transcripts by Federal Document Clearing House, September

23, 2004.

²⁴ Amy Klamper, “Defense Authorization Conferees Nearing An Agreement,” National
Journal’s CongressDaily, October 5. 2004.

Conference Report, Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4200). The conference report for the Ronald
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 does not delay the
implementation of the 2005 BRAC round, but several sections in the bill do address
BRAC issues:
Sec. 2831. The Secretary of Defense is required to submit an updated force-
structure plan and infrastructure inventory not later than March 15, 2005. Existing
law states that these are to be submitted along with the Department’s Fiscal Year

2006 budget justification material.

Sec. 2832. This section specifies the final criteria that are to be used by the
Secretary of Defense in calculating the “military value” of installations considered
for closure or realignment and “other criteria” that the Secretary shall consider in
making his recommendations. Previous law established several criteria for the
evaluation of military value and “special considerations” that are to be included “at
a minimum” in the writing of the Secretary’s recommendations. The Act’s language
appears to remove some flexibility in the ability of the Secretary to choose those
factors he deems relevant to the calculation. Previous law specified that military
value is the primary consideration in creating the recommended BRAC action list.
The Act’s language requires the Secretary to “give priority” to military value. The
section goes on to state that the “final selection criteria specified in this section shall
be the only criteria to be used, along with the force-structure plan and infrastructure
inventory ... in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military
installations inside the United States under this part in 2005.”
Sec. 2833. Existing law authorizes the Secretary of Defense to place a military
installation in an inactive status as an alternative to closure or realignment. The Act’s
language repeals this authority.
Sec. 2834. Previous law required the Commission to give the Secretary of
Defense a 15-day warning before adding an installation to his list of
recommendations for closure or realignment and demanded that seven of the nine
Commissioners then vote for the addition. The Act’s language made the same
requirement applicable to Commission consideration for adding an installation to the
Secretary’s list of recommendations and requires that at least two members of the
Base Realignment and Closure Commission visit any installation for which the
Commission intends to add a closure or realignment recommendation not made by
the Secretary of Defense or to expand a realignment that the Secretary has
recommended.
Military Housing Privatization Budget Authority Cap. In the late 1990s,
Congress granted to the Department of Defense specific “alternative authorities” by
which the Department could enter into “public-private partnerships” with private²⁵
enterprise. These partnerships are corporations that assume responsibility for the

²⁵ These special authorities give the Department of Defense the power to take actions, such
as guaranteeing rents, guaranteeing minimum occupancy rates, investing equity, offering
(continued...)

construction, maintenance, and operation of housing for military personnel on, or
adjacent to, military installations. To date, the military services have negotiated
contracts for 32 separate projects that will create or refurbish more than 61,000
military family housing units.²⁶
This Military Housing Privatization Initiative leverages, but does not replace,
the use of appropriated funds to provide military housing. The budget authority
needed to support the initiative is calculated, or “scored,” by the Department of
Defense according to guidelines established by the Office of Management and
Budget.²⁷ 10 U.S.C. 2883(g) imposes limitations on the total value in budget
authority of all contracts and investments undertaken using the alternative authorities,
restricting the Department of Defense to $850 million for the acquisition or
construction of military family housing and $150 million for the acquisition or
construction of military unaccompanied housing (barracks or dormitories).
Contract negotiations for the creation of almost 74,000 privatized military
family housing units are ongoing, and the Department of Defense is planning to
privatize an additional 34,000 units during the next few years. The Department of
Defense estimates that it will exhaust the budget authority granted to it under the
program before the end of the current fiscal year. The Department, therefore, has
requested that this budget authority limitation be raised.²⁸
Efforts to Raise the Budget Authority Cap. Section 2806 of H.R. 4200,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (engrossed as agreed
to or passed by House) would repeal the limitation on budget authority applied to
military family housing.²⁹ The Senate version of the bill (S. 2400, incorporated into

²⁵ (...continued)
direct loans, etc., that it otherwise could not.
²⁶ See CRS Report RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and
Issues, by Daniel H. Else, for a list of the alternative military housing privatization
authorities granted to the Department of Defense. The list of existing, solicited, and planned
housing privatization projects can be found online at [http://www.acq.osd.mil/housing/].
²⁷ Budget scoring (or “scorekeeping”) is the percentage of dollar value, from 0% to 100%,
of an action’s cost that must be allocated to an agency’s budget in a given fiscal year.
Therefore, if the cost of an action (in this case, the use of an alternative authority in the
creation of a housing public-private partnership) is estimated $1 million and is scored at
10%, then $100,000 of the agency’s budget authority for that year must be used to cover the
assessment. A score of 100% would mean that all $1 million would have to be covered by
the agency’s budget authority in the designated year. This scoring is calculated based on the
Government’s “degree of exposure,” or the statistical probability that a default on the
project by the private contractor will have a financial impact on the federal deficit. Each of
the authorities created for the MHPI has an associated budget score that was calculated by
the Office of Management and Budget.
²⁸ The Department and the military services have focused their attention on family, not
unaccompanied, housing, so it is the $850 million family housing authority that is being
exhausted.
²⁹ The section leaves unchanged the $150 million budget authority cap on military
(continued...)

H.R. 4200 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute) does not contain similar
language, and the difference between the two remains to be worked out in
conference. In the meantime, Section 129 of the Military Construction
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4837), as it was reported to the House, would
have raised the budget authority cap on military family housing by $500 million to
$1.35 billion. This section was struck when a point of order was raised and sustained
during floor debate.
An independent bill, the Military Housing Improvement Act of 2004 (H.R.
4879), accomplishing the same goal, was introduced and passed by the House on July

21, 2004 (see “Military Construction Appropriations,” in the Legislation section,

below, for more information on legislative action). It was received by the Senate on
September 7, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Senator
Hutchison, on behalf of herself and Senator Feinstein, offered S.Amdt. 3661 to the
Senate version of the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005,
S. 2674, when it was laid before the Senate on September 15. This amendment would
require the Department of Defense to assess the impact of the exhaustion of new
budget authority on the military family housing program. The amendment was
accepted into the bill, which was then incorporated into the House version of the
Military Construction Appropriations Act (H.R. 4837). Because the language raising
the budget authority cap was struck from the House bill on a point of order, the
principal effect of this amendment is to allow the issue to be raised in conference.
The Senate passed the amended bill on September 20, 2004.
Section 2805 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4200) repealed both the budget authority cap and the
termination date for the use of the alternative authorities, which had been set for
December 31, 2012.
The Budget Scoring Issue — Differences Between OMB and CBO.
The Congressional Budget Office has taken issue with the Office of Management and
Budget interpretation of federal accounting standards in its scoring of the
Department’s alternative authorities. The OMB calculated its scoring according to
the financial liability each authority places on the government, thereby recording
costs incrementally over time. The CBO, on the other hand, argues that the
Department is engaging in a “governmental activity” by supplying family housing in
whatever form, either government or privately owned, to military personnel.³⁰ The
CBO contends that the Department of Defense exercises significant control over the
operation of these housing projects and that the government is the dominant or only
source of project income, rendering the partnered private-sector corporation
effectively an instrument of the government.³¹

²⁹ (...continued)
unaccompanied housing.
³⁰ This, in the eyes of the CBO, differs from the case where a military member accepts a
cash housing allowance and uses it to secure commercial accommodation in a rented or
purchased dwelling that is independent of the Department of Defense.
³¹ The CBO bases its contention of government control of privatized projects on provisions
(continued...)

The “leveraging” in the privatization initiative occurs when appropriated funds
are used, either in the form of a loan guarantee, direct loan, or equity stake, to assist
the private-sector corporation in securing the additional commercial financing
necessary to capitalize the project. Because the CBO regards privatization projects
as inherently governmental, it considers all such investments as borrowing authority,
a form of budget authority, that should be recorded up front rather than scored over
time.
For its part, the Department of Defense maintains that privatized housing is
controlled by a private corporation, not the government, that military members are
free to use their housing allowance wherever they wish, and that the budget authority
recorded is properly limited to the amount of financial liability incurred by the
Department, as calculated by the OMB scoring rules.
In awarding its 32 family housing projects, the Department of Defense has used
OMB’s accounting methodology to record obligations of approximately $580
million. The CBO, using the rationale explained above, contends that the full amount
of the Department’s commitments to date approximates $6 billion.
The Office of Management and Budget devoted a significant portion of its
Statement of Administration Policy on S. 2674, the Senate version of the Military
Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, issued on September 20,

2004, to an explanation of its position on the issue of the housing privatization cap,

stating:
The President’s Budget included a request that would increase the military
housing privatization cap from $850 million to $1.85 billion. This increase will
help improve the quality of life of our military families by eliminating inadequate
housing and allowing them the option to rent high-quality homes at prices
covered by housing allowances. Furthermore, without this increase, the current
limit would be reached by November 2004. OMB would not score any additional
cost to this provision, because it does not increase the amount of budget authority
available to the Department of Defense (DOD). Moreover, DOD does not need
additional budget authority to cover the construction cost of these private
projects. These projects receive private sector funding and are controlled and
managed by private owners, and DOD does not require service members to live
in the units and does not guarantee their occupancy. Any immediate costs to
DOD associated with these contracts, such as credit subsidies or cash
investments, are paid for out of funds appropriated to the Department’s housing
accounts. Additional costs to the Department in the form of allowances paid to

³¹ (...continued)
that are written into most partnering contracts. These can permit the Department of Defense
to direct or influence business operations, control occupancy and access to housing (physical
and contractual), and influence construction and management of the housing development.
The CBO argues that the Department of Defense is the dominant source of project income
because the housing is intended to be occupied by military families throughout its economic
life and has the authority to contribute to the partnership itself by contributing land and
housing units, providing cash contributions and direct loans, requiring rent payment by
military tenants through pay allotment or by providing a single project-wide lump-sum
payment per month, or by reserving units for military families.

service members are offset by avoidance of costs associated with building and
maintenance of government housing. The Administration urges the Senate to
either eliminate the cap or raise the cap to the requested $1.85 billion, which is
essential to meet the FY2007 DOD goal of eliminating inadequate housing³²
units.
Significant Funding Trends
Between FY1985 and FY1998, funding devoted to military construction
declined steadily as DOD and Congress struggled with a changing strategic
environment, a shrinking military force, and the uncertainties associated with several
rounds of base realignments and closures. Appropriations began to rise with FY1998
as Congress sought to replace outdated facilities and improve the quality of life for
military personnel at home and in the workplace. Administration requests for military
construction funding (not including BRAC and family housing) continued to decline
until FY2000, but have risen for FY2001 and FY2002. The request for FY2005 rises
above the level requested for FY2004, but falls short of projections made several
years ago. In FY2001, DOD anticipated that its annual construction requests would
approximately triple between FY2003 and FY2007, which would have led an
observer to anticipate an FY2005 request approximately $1 billion higher than that
submitted (see Figure 1).

³² The Statement of Administration Policy can be found on the World Wide Web at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e house.gov/ omb/ l e gi sl at i ve/ sap/ 108-2/ s2674sap-s .pdf ] .

Figure 1. Military Construction Funding, FY1989-FY2005
^No^te^:^D^o^e^s^no^{t incl}^ude^BRA^{C o}^r^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^us^ing^f^unding
^S^o^u^rce:^D^e^par^t^m^e^{nt o}^f^D^e^f^e^ns^e^,^Fⁱ^{nancial Sum}^m^a^r^y^T^ables^{, su}^cce^ssi^v^e^y^e^ars
Table 4 breaks down the FY2005 request by appropriations account and
compares it to FY2004 enacted levels. Table 5 shows congressional action on current
military construction appropriations by account. Table 6 compares Administration
military construction requests and enactments for Guard and Reserve projects from
FY1995 to FY2005.
Several issues were singled out for special attention in the appropriations
committee reports. Among these were the inadequacy of Department requests for
sustainment, restoration, and modernization funds and the inappropriate use of
unprogrammed minor construction funding.
The House Appropriations Committee noted the long-standing tension between
funds needed for construction of new buildings and the funds that are dedicated to
the maintenance of existing facilities. The former is funded through the military
construction appropriation, while the latter is supported by sustainment, restoration,
and modernization (SRM) accounts in the national defense appropriation. The
committee remarked that the majority of military installations are rated by the

services at the lowest two of four possible facility readiness grades (C-3 and C-4),
while SRM appropriations are often diverted to support base operations.³³
The Senate Appropriations Committee highlighted what it determined to be the
inappropriate use of minor construction funds for construction not authorized by
congressional committees. According to 10 U.S.C. 2805, the Secretary of Defense
is permitted to initiate construction projects that have not been either authorized or
specifically appropriated for using funds in what is referred to as the “unspecified
minor construction” appropriation account. This authority is intended for use only
under circumstances where the need for construction could not have been foreseen
in time to request an appropriation through the normal process and, in the case where
such construction would correct a deficiency that threatens life, health, or safety;
authority is limited to projects that will cost $3 million or less.³⁴ The committee
observed that in the period since September 11, 2001, this authority has been
frequently used to justify projects, such as gates, inspection facilities, and even a
firing range, that are primarily intended as anti-terrorism/force protection measures,
all of which should by now be readily identifiable sufficiently far in advance to
appear in the normal appropriation process.³⁵
Legislation
Military Construction Appropriations
H.R. 4837 (Knollenberg). Making appropriations for military construction,
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. The House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, held nine
hearings between February 25 and June 22, 2004. The subcommittee reported its
mark of the bill by voice vote to the full committee on July 6, 2004. The full
committee mark was completed, also by voice vote, on July 9, and the committee
reported its bill on July 15 (H.Rept. 108-607, CR H5907). The bill was then placed
on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 365.
The House Committee on Appropriations, in its report accompanying its mark
of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, endorsed the privatization efforts
of the Department of Defense, stating, “The Committee therefore strongly supports
current efforts to raise or eliminate the budgetary cap on MHPI and address scoring³⁶
methodology changes proposed by CBO” (see the “Military Housing Privatization
Budget Authority Cap” portion of the Key Policy Issues section above). Section 129
of its reported bill, H.R. 4837, would have increased the 10 U.S.C. 2883(g)(l) limit
on available budget authority from $850 million to $1.35 billion and would exempt

³³ H.Rept 108-607, pp. 8-9.
³⁴ In other cases, the project cost cap is $1.5 million.
³⁵ S.Rept. 108-309, pp. 10-12.
³⁶ H.Rept. 108-607, pg. 8.

the funds from scoring for purposes of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974. This language, appearing in an appropriations bill, presented
several procedural challenges to existing House rules, though the Rules Committee
had waived all relevant points of order except a potential Rule XXI (legislating in an
appropriations bill) challenge to Section 129.³⁷
Debate on H.R. 4837 began on July 21 (Congressional Record, H6460-6469).
Later that day, Mr. Nussle introduced a separate bill, H.R. 4879, that would raise the
budget authority cap without invoking questions of Committee of the Budget
jurisdiction. This measure passed on a vote of 423-0-11 (Roll no. 406, Congressional
Record, H6489-95, H6498).³⁸ H.R. 4837 was again considered on July 22
(Congressional Record, H6660-6675), when Mr. Nussle raised a Rule XXI point of
order against Section 129. He was sustained by the Chair, striking the section from
the bill (Congressional Record H6667). Mr. Obey then made two motions to
recommit the bill to committee with instructions, neither of which was successful,
and the amended bill was passed on a vote of 420-1-13 (Roll No. 417).
The Senate replaced the original language of H.R. 4837 with that of S. 2674 on
September 15, passing the amended bill on September 20, with a vote of 91-0-9
(Record Vote No. 185) and appointed its conferees. The Senate transmitted a
message on its action to the House on September 22, 2004.
On October 8, the House agreed without objection to disagree with the Senate
amendment and appointed its conferees.
The conferees added Division B, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Hurricane Disasters Assistance Act, 2005, and Division C, the Alaska Natural
Gas Pipeline Act, to the basic bill,³⁹ filing the conference report (H.Rept. 108-773,

³⁷ Section 129 was inserted in the bill during its full committee mark, after the subcommittee
had committed the entirety of its 302(b) budget authority allocation. Section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 prohibits consideration of legislation
providing new budget authority in excess of a subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation. Section
306 of the same Act prohibits consideration of legislation considered to be within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless it is reported by that committee. This bill
was not reported by the Committee on the Budget. The rule accompanying the bill, H.Res.
732, waived all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4837 regarding these two
provisions of law.
However, Clause 2 of House Rule XXI prohibits unauthorized appropriations or
legislative provisions in an appropriations bill. H.Res. 732 waived all points of order against
consideration of the bill that would be based on this clause except for Section 129. The
rule’s resolution states, “Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except: section 129.” During consideration of H.Res.
732 by the Rules Committee, Mr. Frost moved to waive all points of order against Section

129. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3-7 (Rules Committee record vote no. 312),

leaving H.R. 4837 vulnerable to a Rule XXI point of order challenge.
³⁸ H.R. 4879 was received by the Senate on July 22. On September 7, the bill was referred
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
³⁹ For more information on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane
(continued...)

text at Congressional Record H9054-9113) on October 9. The House considered the
report (Congressional Record H9175-9176) and agreed by the Yeas and Nays, 374-
0-58 (Roll no. 529). That same day, the Senate began consideration on the conference
report, and a cloture motion was presented (Congressional Record S10978-10979).
The cloture motion was withdrawn by unanimous consent on October 11, and the
Senate agreed to the conference report by Voice Vote (Congressional Record
S11223-11228).
The bill was presented to the President and signed on October 13, 2004 (P.L.

108-324).

S. 2674 (Hutchison). An original bill making appropriations for military
construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for DOD for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction held the first
of its annual series of hearings on the Defense-wide and Air Force appropriations
requests on March 30, 2004. It held a hearing on the Army and Navy appropriations
requests on April 7. After informal subcommittee markup, the full committee
reported its bill on July 15, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-309, Congressional Record S8228).
The bill was then placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar
No. 637).
S. 2674 was laid before the Senate on September 15, 2004. The Senate amended
the text twice (S.Amdt. 3660 and 3661, Congressional Record S9242) by Unanimous
Consent, returned it to the Calendar (Calendar No. 637), and incorporated its
language into companion measure H.R. 4837. Subsequent action is described in the
relevant section above.
H.J.Res. 107 (Young). Mr. Young introduced an emergency supplemental bill
on September 28 that would enable the continued funding through November 20,
2004, of previously authorized military construction projects and operations at a rate
consistent with that appropriated for Fiscal Year 2004. The House considered the
measure on September 29 under the provisions of rule H.Res. 802 (Congressional
Record H7778-7786). Mr. Obey moved to recommit with instructions to
Appropriations (text and consideration, Congressional Record H7783-7785), but the
motion to recommit with instructions failed by the Yeas and Nays: 200 - 221 (Roll
No. 478). The bill then passed by recorded vote: 389 - 32 (Roll No. 479). The bill
was received by the Senate on the same day, passed without amendment by
Unanimous Consent (consideration, Congressional Record S9993), and cleared for
the White House. The Senate sent a message on its action to the House on September

³⁹ (...continued)
Disasters Assistance Act, 2005, see CRS Report RL32581, Assistance After Hurricanes and
Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations, by Keith Bea and
Ralph M. Chite. For an explanation of energy policy issues related to the Alaska Natural
Gas Pipeline Act, see CRS Report RL32033, Omnibus Energy Legislation (H.R. 6):
Side-by-side Comparison of Non-tax Provisions, by Mark Holt and Carol Glover,
coordinators, and CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on
Public Lands, by Marc Humphries.

30, and the bill was presented to the President, who signed it into law the same day
(P.L. 108-309).
H.R. 5212 (Young). Mr. Young introduced an emergency supplemental bill for
hurricane disaster relief on October 5, 2004. The bill included $148.9 million in
construction and repair funding related to damage caused by Hurricanes Ivan and
Jeanne ($147.6 million to rebuild Ivan-damaged Navy and Army Reserve
infrastructure at NAS Pensacola, Florida, and the remainder dedicated to repairing
damage caused by Jeanne to the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads and at Ft.
Buchanan in Puerto Rico and Patrick AFB, Florida).⁴⁰ The bill passed the House by
recorded vote 412-0-20 (Roll No. 501) on October 6and was received in the Senate
on October 7, 2004.⁴¹ The bill’s language was incorporated into H.R. 4837 as
Division B of the bill.
Defense Authorization
H.R. 4200 (Hunter, by request). To authorize appropriations for FY2005 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. Introduced on April
22, 2004, and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services, it was further
referred to the Subcommittees on Strategic Forces, Tactical Air and Land Forces,
Readiness, Projection Forces, Total Force, and Terrorism, Unconventional Threats
and Capabilities (several subcommittees held hearings prior to the introduction of the
bill). The subcommittees completed markup and returned the bill to the full
committee by May 6. The Subcommittee on Readiness, which exercises jurisdiction
over the military construction portion of the authorization bill, inserted an
amendment to the basic bill requiring the Department of Defense to complete and
provide to Congress a series of reports related to the ongoing 2005 round of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions. These reports would be submitted by the
end of calendar year 2005, and the amendment would bar the Department from taking
any BRAC-related action until 18 months after the last report is delivered to
Congress. The subcommittee approved the amendment by unanimous voice vote. The
bill was reported out on May 14, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-491), and placed on the Union
Calendar (Calendar No. 278). Brought to the floor on May 19, 2004, subject to a rule
(H.Res.648). H.R. 4200 was debated, amended, and passed by recorded vote (391-34,
Roll no. 206) on May 19 and 20.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 21, 2004, read twice, and placed on
the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 537). It was laid before
the Senate by Unanimous Consent on June 24, 2004, whereupon the Senate struck
all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 2400. The bill then
passed with an amendment by Unanimous Consent on the same day (Congressional

⁴⁰ The Administration’s request can be found online at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget/ame ndments/supplemental_10_5_04.pdf].
⁴¹ For additional detailed information on this and other disaster assistance supplemental
appropriations, see CRS Report RL32581, Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters:
FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations, by Keith Bea and Ralph M. Chite.

Record, S7300).The Senate then insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees,
sending a message to the House informing it of its action on July 6, 2004. Conferees
met between September 29 and October 8, 2004.
The conferees filed their report (H.Rept. 108-767, text in Congressional Record
H9187-9683) in the House on October 8. Mr. Hunter brought up the report for
consideration under the provisions of H.Res. 843 the same day (Congressional
Record H8995-9007). The House agreed by the Yeas and Nays: 359-14-59 (Roll no.

528, Congressional Record H9175) on October 9.

The Senate agreed to the conference report by Unanimous Consent
(Congressional Record S10945-10954) on October 9, 2004.
The bill was presented to the President on October 21, and signed into law on
October 28, 2004 (P.L. 108-375).
S. 2400 (Warner). An original bill to authorize appropriations for FY2005 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 Services, and for other purposes. Ordered to be
reported from the Committee on Armed Services as an original measure on May 6,
2004. The original bill was reported to the Senate from the Committee by Senator
Warner on May 11 (S.Rept. 108-260, with additional views). Laid before the Senate
by Unanimous Consent on May17, 2004. Debated on the Senate floor between May
17 and June 23, 2004. Passed the Senate with amendments on June 23 by Yea-Nay
vote (97-0, Record Vote No. 146). Incorporated by the Senate into H.R. 4200 as an⁴²

amendment in the nature of a substitute.
⁴² See H.R. 4200 for further action.

Table 4. Military Construction Appropriations by Account:
FY2004-FY2005
(new budget authority in thousands of dollars)
^Account^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Ena^c^t^e^d*^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Request^†^Difference
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}^r^m^y^1,426,724^1,771,285^344,561
^Mi^l^C^on^{, N}^a^v^y^1,238,366^1,060,455^(177,911)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}ⁱ^{r F}^o^rce¹^,337,301^663,964^(673,337)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^wⁱ^de^581,347^709,337^127,990
^T^o^tal^:^A^c^ti^{ve C}^o^m^p^on^en^ts^4,583,738^4,205,041^(378,697)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}^r^m^y^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^ard^311,592^295,657^(15,935)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}ⁱ^{r N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^ard^222,908^127,368^(95,540)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}^r^m^y^R^e^s^e^rv^e^88,451^87,070^(1,381)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, N}^a^v^y^R^e^s^e^rv^e^45,498^25,285^(20,213)
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}ⁱ^{r F}^o^{rce R}^e^s^e^rv^e^62,032^84,556^22,524
^T^o^tal^:^R^e^s^{erve C}^o^m^p^on^en^ts^730,481^619,936^(110,545)
^T^o^{tal: M}^{ilitary Cons}^truction^5,314,219^4,824,977^(489,242)
^N^A^T^{O S}^ecu^ri^{ty I}ⁿ^ves^t^m^eⁿ^t^Program^161,300^165,800^4,500
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^C^oⁿ^s^t^{., A}^r^m^y^289,440^636,099^346,659
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^&^D^e^bt^{, A}^r^m^y^1,044,446^928,907^(115,539)
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^C^oⁿ^s^t^{., N}^a^v^y^&^Mariⁿ^e^C^o^rps^143,685^139,107^(4,578)
^Fa^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^usi^{ng O}^p^e^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n & D}^e^b^t^,^N^a^vy^&^841,358^704,504^(136,854)
^Marin^e^C^o^rps
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^C^oⁿ^s^t^{., A}^F^637,718^846,959^209,241
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^&^D^e^bt^{, A}^F^823,055^863,896^40,841
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^C^oⁿ^s^t^{., D}^e^f^-^wⁱ^d^e³⁵⁰⁴⁹⁽³⁰¹⁾
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^&^D^e^bt^{, D}^e^f^-^wⁱ^d^e^49,440^49,575¹³⁵
^{DOD F}^a^m^ily^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g^Im^prov^em^en^{t F}^uⁿ^d^(9,392)^2,500^11,892
^T^o^tal^:^Famⁱ^l^y^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g³^,820,100^4,171,596^351,496
^Chem^{ical Dem}^{ilitarization}^119,815^81,886^(37,929)
^T^o^{tal: BRAC Acct.}^370,427^246,116^(124,311)
^G^eⁿ^eral^Provi^sⁱ^on^(S^{ec. 118)‡}^55,000^63,000^8,000
^G^{RAND T}^O^T^A^L^,^New^BA^9,666,046^9,553,375^(112,671)
^S^o^u^rce:^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^D^e^f^e^ns^e^.
^*:^FY^{2004 Ena}^c^t^e^d^a^m^ounts^re^f^l^e^c^t^the^orig^ina^l^ne^w^budg^e^t^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^en^ac^te^{d in the}^Milita^ry^Cons^truc^tion
^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^A^c^{t f}^o^r^Fis^c^a^l^Y^e^a^r^{2004 a}^s^s^ubs^e^que^ntly^a^d^jus^t^e^d^by^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^a^{nd e}^m^e^r^g^e^nc^y^a^ppr^opr^ia^tions
⁽^P^.L^{. 108-}¹⁰⁶⁾^.
^†:^FY^{2005 Re}^que^s^t^inc^l^ude^s^{$30 m}^{illion in thre}^e^A^r^m^y^N^a^tiona^{l G}^u^a^r^{d a}^v^ia^tion-re^la^te^{d c}^ons^truc^{tion proje}^c^t^s
^a^dde^{d in Ma}^y^{2004 s}^ubs^e^que^{nt to the}^c^aⁿ^c^e^lla^{tion of}^the^R^A^H^-⁶⁴^C^o^m^anc^he^he^lic^opte^r^pr^og^r^a^m^.
^‡:^Se^c^.^{118 r}^e^f^e^r^s^{to the}^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^of^e^x^pir^e^d^f^unds^{into the}^“^F^or^eⁱ^gⁿ^C^u^r^r^e^nc^y^Fluc^tua^tions^{, C}^ons^tr^uc^tion,
^D^e^f^e^ns^e^”^a^c^c^{ount, w}^h^e^r^e^the^y^be^c^o^m^e^a^v^a^ila^ble^f^o^r^e^x^pe^nditur^e^a^s^ne^w^a^ppr^opr^ia^tions^.

Table 5. Military Construction FY2005 Appropriations by
Account: Congressional Action
(in thousands of dollars)
^Account^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Request^Hou^s^e^B^ill^Sena^t^e^B^ill^Conference
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}^r^m^y^1,771,285^1,862,854^1,977,166^1,962,108
^Mi^l^C^on^{, N}^a^v^y^1,060,455^1,081,042^1,016,315^1,045,947
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}ⁱ^{r F}^o^rce^663,964^797,865^841,131^844,531
^Mi^l^C^on^{, D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^wⁱ^de^709,337^718,837^696,491^663,318
^T^o^tal^:^A^c^ti^{ve C}^o^m^p^on^en^ts^4,205,041^4,460,598^4,531,103^4,515,904
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}^r^m^y^N^a^t^’^l^.^G^u^ard^295,657^394,100^381,765^446,748
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}ⁱ^{r N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^ard^127,368^180,533^231,083^238,043
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}^r^m^y^R^e^s^e^rv^e^87,070^116,521^66,325^92,377
^Mi^l^C^on^{, N}^a^v^a^l^R^e^s^e^rv^e^25,285^30,955^33,735^44,246
^Mi^l^C^on^{, A}ⁱ^{r F}^o^{rce R}^e^s^e^rv^e^84,556^111,725^101,373^123,977
^T^o^tal^:^R^e^s^{erve C}^o^m^p^on^en^ts^619,936^833,834^814,281^945,391
^T^o^{tal: M}^{ilitary Cons}^tructi^on^4,824,977^5,294,432^5,345,384^5,461,295
^NAT^{O Security I}ⁿ^ves^t^m^e^nt^165,800^165,800^165,800^160,800
^Program
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^C^oⁿ^s^t^{., A}^r^m^y^636,099^636,099^636,099^615,099
^Fam^ily^Ho^u^sⁱⁿ^g^Op^{s &}^Main^t,^928,907^926,507^928,907^926,507
^Ar^m^y
^Fa^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^usi^{ng Co}^nst^.^,^139,107^139,107^139,107^126,806
^N^a^vy^{& M}^a^rⁱ^ne^Co^r^p^s
^Fam^ily^Ho^u^sⁱⁿ^g^Op^{s &}^Main^t,^704,504^696,304^704,504^696,304
^N^a^vy^{& M}^a^rⁱ^ne^Co^r^p^s
^Fa^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^usi^{ng Co}^nst^.^,^846,959^846,959^846,959^801,788
^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce
^Fam^ily^Ho^u^sⁱⁿ^g^Op^{s &}^Main^t,^863,896^854,666^856,114^853,384
^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce
^Fa^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^usi^{ng Co}^nst^,⁴⁹⁴⁹⁴⁹⁴⁹
^Def^eⁿ^s^e-^wⁱ^d^e
^Fam^ily^Ho^u^sⁱⁿ^g^Op^{s &}^Main^t,^49,575^49,575^49,575^49,575
^Def^eⁿ^s^e-^wⁱ^d^e
^{DOD Fam}^ily^Ho^u^sⁱⁿ^g^2,500^2,500^2,500^(16,609)
^Im^prov^em^en^t^F^uⁿ^d
^T^o^tal^:^Famⁱ^l^y^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g⁴^,171,596^4,151,766^4,163,814^4,052,903
^Chem^ica^l^Dem^ilit^a^r^iza^t^ioⁿ⁸¹^,⁸⁸⁶⁸¹^,⁸⁸⁶⁸¹^,⁸⁸⁶⁸¹^,⁸⁸⁶
^{BRAC Acct.}^246,116^246,116^246,116^246,116
^G^eⁿ^eral^Provi^sⁱ^on^(S^{ec. 118)}^63,000^63,000⁰⁰
^G^{RAND T}^O^T^A^L^,^New^BA^9,553,375^10,003,000^10,003,000^10,003,000
^S^o^u^rces:^H^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{607, S.R}^e^{pt. 108-}^{309, H}^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^773.

Table 6. Congressional Additions to Annual DOD Budget
Requests for National Guard and Reserve Military Construction,
FY1995-FY2005
(current year dollars in thousands)
^To^t^a^l
^Arm^y^Air^Air^C^h^an^ge
^Fis^c^al^N^a^ti^on^al^N^a^ti^on^al^Arm^y^N^aval^Force^from
^Yea^r^Gu^a^r^d^Gu^a^r^d^Res^erve^Res^erve^R^e^s^erve^T^otal^Request
^{1995 R}^e^q.^9,929^122,770^7,910^2,355^28,190^171,154^—
¹⁹⁹⁵^187,500^248,591^57,193^22,748^56,958^572,990^+401,836
^En^acted
^{1996 R}^e^q.^18,480^85,647^42,963^7,920^27,002^182,012^—
¹⁹⁹⁶^137,110^171,272^72,728^19,055^36,482^436,647^+254,635
^En^acted
^{1997 R}^e^q.^7,600^75,394^48,459^10,983^51,655^194,091^—
¹⁹⁹⁷^78,086^189,855^55,543^37,579^52,805^413,868^+219,777
^En^acted
^{1998 R}^e^q.^45,098^60,225^39,112^13,921^14,530^172,886^—
¹⁹⁹⁸^102,499^190,444^55,453^26,659^15,030^390,085^+217,199
^En^acted
^{1999 R}^e^q.^47,675^34,761^71,287^15,271^10,535^179,529^—
¹⁹⁹⁹^144,903^185,701^102,119^31,621^34,371^498,715^+319,186
^En^acted
^{2000 R}^e^q.^57,402^73,300^77,626^14,953^27,320^250,601^—
²⁰⁰⁰^236,228^262,360^110,764^28,310^64,071^701,733^+451,132
^En^acted
^{2001 R}^e^q.^59,130^50,179^81,713^16,103^14,851^221,976^—
²⁰⁰¹^285,587^203,381^108,499^61,931^36,510^695,908^+473,932
^En^acted
^{2002 R}^e^q.^267,389^149,072^111,404^33,641^53,732^615,238^—
²⁰⁰²^400,994^250,530^165,136^51,676^74,013^942,349^+327,112
^En^acted
^{2003 R}^e^q.^101,595^62,406^58,779^58,671^37,976^319,427^—
²⁰⁰³^241,377^203,813^100,554^74,921^85,826^706,491^+387,064
^En^acted
^{2004 R}^e^q.^168,298^60,430^68,478^28,032^44,312^369,550^—
²⁰⁰⁴^311,592^222,908^88,451^45,498^62,032^730,481^+360,931
^En^acted
^{2005 R}^e^q.^295,657^127,368^87,070^25,285^84,556^619,936^—
²⁰⁰⁵^446,748^238,043^92,377^44,246^123,977^945,391^+325,455
^C^oⁿ^f^e^r^en^ce
^S^o^u^rce:^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^D^e^f^e^ns^e^,^Financ^{ial Sum}^m^a^r^y^Table^s^,^s^u^c^c^e^s^sⁱ^v^e^y^e^a^r^s^;^H^.^R^e^{pt 108-}^773.

For Additional Information
CRS Products
CRS Report RL31810. Appropriations for FY2004: Military Construction, by Daniel
Else.
CRS Report RL32305. Authorization and Appropriations for FY2005: Defense, by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL31305. Appropriations and Authorization for FY2003: Defense,
coordinated by Amy Belasco and Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL30002. A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tyszkiewicz and
Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL31039. Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and
Issues, by Daniel H. Else.
CRS Report RS21822. Military Base Closures: DOD’s 2005 Internal Selection
Process, by Daniel H. Else and David E. Lockwood.
CRS Report RL32216, Military Base Closures: Implementing the 2005 Round, by
David E. Lockwood.
CRS Report RL30440. Military Base Closures: Estimates of Costs and Savings, by
David E. Lockwood.
CRS Report RL30051. Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, by
David E. Lockwood.
CRS Report RL31443. The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool, by
Robert Keith.
CRS Videotape MM70068. Military Base Closures: DOD’s Internal 2005 BRAC
Selection Process, by Daniel H. Else and David E. Lockwood, available online
at [http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/sem_bc-040422.shtml].
CRS Report RL32581. Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004
and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations, by Keith Bea and Ralph M. Chite.
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries

Selected World Wide Websites
Legislative Branch Sites
House Committee on Appropriations
[ http://appropriations.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.senat e.gov/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
CRS Multimedia Library
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/multimedialibrary.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office
[ http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office
[ http://www.gao.gov/]
U.S. Department of Defense Sites
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
FY2004 Budget Materials
[ http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2005/index .html]
U.S. Department of Defense, Installations & Environment Home Page
[ http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/]
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment) Military Housing Privatization Program
[ http://www.acq.osd.mil/housing/ ]
White House Sites
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget
Materials
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/]
Office of Management & Budget
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]