PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Senate passed companion measure H.R. 4837 in lieu of this measure by Yea-Nay Vote. 91 - 0. Record Vote Number: 185.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jul 15, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2005 - Appropriates funds for FY 2005 for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure functions administered by the Department of Defense (DOD), namely: (1) military construction for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, DOD, the Army and Air National Guards, and the Army, Naval, and Air Force reserves; (2) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program; (3) family housing and related operation and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; (4) family housing construction and operation and maintenance, defense-wide; (5) the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund; (6) chemical demilitarization construction, defense; and (7) the Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.
Specifies restrictions and authorizations regarding the use of funds appropriated in this Act and in other military construction appropriations Acts. (Sec. 113) Directs the Secretary of Defense to notify the appropriate congressional committees 30 days in advance of the plans and scope of any military exercise involving U.S. personnel if construction costs are anticipated to exceed $100,000. (Sec. 118) Directs the Secretary to report to the congressional appropriations committees on actions proposed by DOD to encourage other member nations of NATO, Japan, Korea, and other U.S. allies in the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share of the common defense burden of such nations and the United States. (Sec. 121) Prohibits this Act's funds from being obligated for Partnership for Peace programs in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. (Sec. 122) Requires the Secretary of the military department concerned, before issuing any solicitation for a contract with the private sector for military family housing, to notify the congressional defense committees of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental payments, and the extent and likelihood of Federal liability) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private party under the contract involved in the event of: (1) the closure or realignment of the installation for which housing is provided under the contract; (2) a reduction in force of units stationed at such installation; or (3) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at such installation. (Sec. 126) Prohibits the obligation or expenditure for missile defense studies of any funds appropriated for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. (Sec. 127) Extends until August 15, 2005 (currently, December 31, 2004) the due date for a findings report from the Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States to the President and Congress. (Sec. 129) Directs the Secretary of the Army, upon determining that any portion of certain real property at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, is excess to the needs of the Army, to first offer such property to the Secretary of Agriculture for inclusion in the National Forest System. Requires the Secretary of the Army to perform any necessary environmental remediation with respect to the property before such transfer.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Senate passed companion measure H.R. 4837 in lieu of this measure by Yea-Nay Vote. 91 - 0. Record Vote Number: 185.
Senate roll call 185 · Individual votesSenate incorporated this measure in H.R. 4837 as an amendment.
Returned to the Calendar. Calendar No. 637.
The bill was read the third time by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9242)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637.
Committee on Appropriations. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Hutchison. With written report No. 108-309.
Committee on Appropriations. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Hutchison. With written report No. 108-309.
Committee on Appropriations ordered to be reported an original measure.
Introduced in Senate
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction. Hearings held prior to introduction and/or referral. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 108-738.
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction. Hearings held prior to introduction and/or referral.
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2674 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2674 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2674 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2674 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.