Order Code RL34558
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations
Updated October 9, 2008
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Analyst in Veterans Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
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 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 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://beta.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=2349].
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations
Summary
The President submitted his FY2009 appropriations request to Congress on
February 4, 2008, including $115.3 billion for programs covered in this
appropriations bill: $24.4 billion for Title I (military construction and family
housing); $90.8 billion for Title II (veterans affairs); and $183 million for Title III
(related agencies). Compared with funding thus far appropriated for FY2008
(emergency supplemental appropriations are pending), this represents increases for
Title I of $3.8 billion (18.3%), for Title II of $3.2 billion (3.6%), and for Title III of
$16.7 million (10.1%). The overall increase in appropriations between that requested
for FY2009 and enacted for FY2008 is $7.0 billion (6.4%).
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reported their versions
of the FY2009 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
appropriations bill on June 24 (H.R. 6559) and July 22 (S. 3301), 2008, respectively.
The bill’s legislative path is laid out in detail in the “Fiscal Year 2009
Appropriations” section of this report.
The House committee recommended appropriating $118.7 billion in new budget
authority, $3.4 billion above the President’s request. This included $24.8 billion for
Title I, $400 million above the request and $4.2 billion above the FY2008 enactment.
The Senate committee recommended $119.8 billion, including $24.7 billion for Title
I. The Continuing Appropriations Act appropriated $119.6 billion, including $25.0
billion for Title I.
In the area of veterans’ non-medical benefits, mandatory spending is increasing
as claims for disability compensation, pension, and readjustment benefits increase
due to a combination of several factors including the aging of the veterans population
and the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of the increase in the
number of claims, the average processing time for a disability claim in FY2007 was
183 days. To reduce the pending claims workload and improve the claims processing
time, funds were provided in the FY2008 appropriation for hiring and training
additional claims processing staff. In FY2008 mandatory spending was $44.5 billion,
increasing to $46.0 billion in FY2009.
In terms of medical care afforded to veterans, similar to the past six years, the
Administration has included several cost sharing proposals including increase in
pharmacy copayments and enrollment fees for lower priority veterans. An additional
proposal would bill veterans directly for treatment of nonservice-connected
conditions. The House Appropriations Committee draft bill provides $40.8 billion
for Veterans Health Administration for FY2009, a 9.6% increase over the FY2008
enacted amount of $37.2 billion, and 4.1% above the President’s request of $39.2
billion. The draft bill does not include any provisions that would give the Department
of Veterans Affairs the authority to implement fee increases. This report will be
updated as events warrant.
Key Policy Staff for Military Construction, Military Quality of Life,
and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Area of
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Expertise
Moshe Schwartz
7-1463
mschwartz@crs.loc.gov
Acquisition
Valerie Bailey Grasso
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure
Daniel H. Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Stephen Daggett
7-7642
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Defense Budget
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Pat Towell
7-2122
ptowell@crs.loc.gov
Legal Issues
R. Chuck Mason
7-9294
rcmason@crs.loc.gov
Health Care;
Don J. Jansen
7-4769
djansen@crs.loc.gov
Military
Military
Daniel H. Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Construction
Military
David F. Burrelli
7-8033
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Personnel
Charles A. Henning
7-8866
chenning@crs.loc.gov
Military
Personnel;
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Reserves
Related Agencies
Christine Scott
7-7366
cscott@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Affairs
Christine Scott
7-7366
cscott@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Affairs;
Sidath Viranga
7-0623
spanangala@crs.loc.gov
Healthcare
Panangala
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Summary and Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdiction Realignment,
110th Congress, 1st Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Regular Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request for the
Global War on Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military
Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes . . . . . . . . . 6
Executive Order 13457 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Construction Cost Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)/Integrated Global
Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS)/Global Defense
Posture Realignment (GDPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Repealing the BRAC Commission Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
“Growing the Force” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Overseas Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Agency Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Key Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Appropriations: DOD Military Construction Accounts . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Selected Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Figures
Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1a. Status of FY2009 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations (H.R. 6599, S. 3301, H.R. 2638) . . . . 2
Table 1b. Status of FY2009 National Defense Authorization
(H.R. 5658, S. 3001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Second FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110-252) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. IGPBS/GDPR One-Time Implementation Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2002-FY2008 . . . 20
Table 5. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008-FY2009 . . 21
Table 6. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 7. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies:
FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies marked its bill on June 12,
2008. The full committee marked the bill on June 24, 2008, adopting the measure by
voice vote. Representative Chet Edwards introduced the bill (H.R. 6599) and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-775) on July 24. The House passed the bill on
August 1, 2008.
The Senate subcommittee polled out its version of the bill, and the full
Committee on Appropriations marked on July 17, 2008. Senator Tim Johnson
introduced the bill (S. 3301) and its accompanying report (S.Rept. 110-428) on July
22.
On September 24, 2008, the bill was incorporated into an amendment to the
Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2008. That bill was renamed the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, with the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009, as its Division E.1 The House passed
the amended bill on September 24. The Senate agreed to the House amendment on
September 27, 2008, and cleared the bill for the White House. The President enacted
the bill on September 30 as P.L. 110-329.
A detailed description of the legislative path for the appropriations bill, the
accompanying national defense authorization bills, and other associated legislation
can be found in the section of this report entitled “Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations.”
1 Division A of the House amendment, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, extends
appropriations for most governmental operations through the passage of regular
appropriations bills or March 6, 2009, at a rate consistent with that provided in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). Division B is the Disaster Relief and
Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. Division C is the Department of Defense,
2009. Division D is the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009.
CRS-2
Status of Legislation
Table 1a. Status of FY2009 Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations
(H.R. 6599, S. 3301, H.R. 2638)
Committee
Conference
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Report Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
P.L.
06/24/08 07/17/08
08/01/08
09/27/08
—
—
—
110-775
110-428
110-329
Table 1b. Status of FY2009 National Defense Authorization
(H.R. 5658, S. 3001)
Committee
Conference
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Report Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
05/14/08 05/12/08
05/22/08
09/17/08
—
—
—
—
110-652
110-335
Summary and Key Issues
Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations
The President submitted his FY2009 appropriations request to Congress on
February 4, 2008. The House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, chaired by
Representative Chet Edwards (17th Congressional District of Texas), began its series
of hearings on February 14 by addressing requested appropriations for the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Subsequent hearings focused on the small
agencies funded by the appropriation, the DVA’s Office of Inspector General,
veterans’ medical care, military construction for the Departments of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Defense, the Central, European, and Pacific combatant commands,
and DVA’s use of information technology. House subcommittee hearings ended on
April 10 with the European Command presentation.2
2 The Related Agencies funded by this appropriation include the American Battlefield
Monuments Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Arlington
National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery, and the
Armed Forced Retirement Home.
CRS-3
The Senate subcommittee, chaired by Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota),
held two hearings. The first, concerned with the DVA request, convened on April 10.
The second, on military construction, took place on April 24, 2008.
The House subcommittee marked its bill on June 12, adopting the mark by voice
vote. The full committee mark took place on June 24, 2008, and was also adopted by
voice vote. Representative Chet Edwards, subcommittee chair, introduced the bill
(H.R. 6599, H.Rept. 110-775) on July 24, 2008 (Congressional Record, p. H7163),
when it was placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 494).
The House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1384, its rule on consideration of
H.R. 6599, on the evening of Tuesday, July 29, which allowed both one hour of
general debate and amendment of the bill.3 The House passed H.Res. 1384 on July
31.
The House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, with Representative
Earl Pomeroy (ND/AL) acting as Chair, to debate H.R. 6599. Representative Rob
Bishop (UT/01) offered an amendment to insert into the bill a new Division B, the
“American Energy Act.”4 Mr. Edwards (TX) raised a point of order under House
Rule XXI, asserting that the amendment would constitute legislation in an
appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order. Debate continued until
1:06 am on the morning of August 1 with the Committee of the Whole debating
amendments and adopting a number of them.5
3 The rule permitted only those amendments that had been printed in the Congressional
Record on or before July 30, 2008, save those pro forma amendments offered for the
purposes of floor debate.
4 H.Amdt. 1150, numbered 24 as printed in the Congressional Record, 8/1/2008, pp.
H7724-H7742.
5 Amendments adopted during the July 31-August 1 debate: $7 million of appropriated funds
for installing alternative fueling stations at 35 medical facility campuses (Rep. Steve Buyer,
IN/04); prohibition of use of funds to enforce 42 U.S.C. §17142, which prohibits federal
procurement of alternative of synthetic fuels unless their life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
would be less than those produced by conventional fuels (Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX/05);
prohibition of use of funds to enforce Sec. 2703 of P.L. 109-234 (Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006),
which directed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to clean up and transfer all Department
land parcels in Gulfport, MS, to the city (Rep. Gene Taylor, MS/04); to prohibit use of funds
for a project or program named for an individual then serving as a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, or Senator of the U.S. Congress (Rep. Michael T. McCaul, TX/10);
prohibition use of funds during FY2009 to carry out 38 U.S.C. §111(c)(5), which directs the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to adjust retroactively the dollar amounts deducted from
allowances paid to veterans for beneficiary (rehabilitation, counseling, treatment, care, etc.)
travel when the basic rate is changed (Rep. Bart Stupak, MI/01); prohibition of the use of
funds to modify standards applied to veteran special monthly pension entitlement
determinations (Rep. Zach Wamp, TN/03); and prohibition of use of funds to enforce Sec.
3 of Veterans Health Administration Directive 2008-025, Voting Assistance for VA Patients,
which cites the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326) and potential facility disruptions in
banning voter registration drives at VA medical facilities (Rep. Christopher S. Murphy,
(continued...)
CRS-4
Debate continued later in the morning of August 1 when the Committee of the
Whole again took up H.R. 6599 as unfinished business. Several additional
amendments were considered, with one being adopted, before the House rose from
the Committee of the Whole at 10:13 am to report the bill.6
After the House adopted the amended bill, Representative Jerry Lewis (CA/41)
moved to recommit the bill to the committee with instructions to insert a section
enacting H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act. Mr. Edwards (TX) raised a point of
order against the motion, stating that the motion to recommit constituted legislation
in an appropriations bill. The point of order was sustained by the Chair.
Representative John E. Peterson (PA/05) appealed the ruling, and Mr. Edwards
moved to table the motion to appeal. The House agreed to table the motion to appeal
by recorded vote, 230-184 (Roll no. 562). The House passed H.R. 6599 on August
1, 2008, by the yeas and nays, 409-4 (Roll no. 563).7
The Senate subcommittee polled out its version of the appropriations bill. The
full committee ordered the bill to be reported out favorably without amendment on
July 17 by a vote of 29-0. Senator Tim Johnson, subcommittee chair, introduced the
measure (S. 3301, S.Rept. 110-428) on July 22 (Congressional Record, p. S7030),
when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders
(Calendar No. 892).
Early press accounts suggested that a number of appropriations bills, this
included, could be held until the 111th Congress convenes in January 2009.8
Nevertheless, a version of the bill was incorporated on September 24, 2008, into
Division E of an amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 2638, the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, that was subsequently retitled the
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2009. The House agreed to the amendment by the yeas and nays, 370-58-1 (Roll no.
632) on September 24, 2008 (Congressional Record, pp. H9231-H9305). The Senate
considered the House-amended bill on Friday, September 26, and passed the measure
on Saturday, September 27 by yea-nay vote, 78-12 (Record Vote Number 208,
Congressional Record, p. S9965), clearing it for the White House. The President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 110-329) on September 30, 2008.
Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdiction Realignment,
110th Congress, 1st Session
With the opening of the 110th Congress, the House and Senate brought the
responsibilities of their appropriations subcommittees more closely into alignment.
5 (...continued)
CT/05).
6 The adopted amendment, proposed by Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA/11) would prohibit the use
of funds to take private property for public use without just compensation.
7 See Congressional Record, pp. H7793-H7794 of August 1, 2008.
8 Manu Raju, “Approps Bills May Wait,” The Hill, July 2, 2008, p. 1.
CRS-5
On the House side, this resulted in a new alignment of jurisdictions and the renaming
of several subcommittees.
As a result, non-construction quality-of-life defense appropriations that had been
considered in the House version of this appropriations bill during the 109th Congress,
including Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization, Basic Allowance
for Housing, Environmental Restoration, and the Defense Health Program, were
transferred to the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense. The former Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies became the Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, mirroring its counterpart in
the Senate.
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008
Regular Appropriations. The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642) was introduced in the House on
May 22, 2007. Passed by the House on June 15,it was extensively amended by the
Senate and adopted on September 6. A conference convened in early November,
when the bill was inserted into the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (H.R.
3043) as its Division B. Division B was struck from H.R. 3043 on November 7,
2007, when a point of order was raised on the Senate floor.9
The appropriations bill was eventually bundled with others and added to the
existing State Foreign Operations and Related Activities appropriations bill (H.R.
2764) as Division I of what then became the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2008. H.R. 2764 was enacted by the President on December 26, 2007,
as P.L. 110-161. H.R. 2642 was later amended to become the Second FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations for Military Operations, International Affairs, and
Other Purposes (see below).
FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on
Terror. In February 2007, coincident with its annual request for FY2008
appropriations, DOD submitted a supplemental request for $141.7 billion dedicated
primarily, but not exclusively, to funding continued military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Additional requests transmitted to Congress in July and October 2007
brought total supplemental funding to $189.3 billion.10
Some construction was covered by these funds. These included new or
upgraded facilities in direct support of military units deployed in Kygyzstan,
9 Federal funding through the first several months of FY2008 was sustained by a series of
continuing resolutions. For more detailed discussion of the legislative history of FY2008
appropriations, see CRS Report RL34038, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath
Viranga Panangala.
10 For further information, see CRS Report RL34278, FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations
for Global War on Terror Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes,
by Stephen Daggett, Susan B. Epstein, Rhoda Margesson, Curt Tarnoff, and Pat Towell.
CRS-6
Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar. Additional construction funds were dedicated
to building a new headquarters in Djibouti, Africa, and facilities at a number of
installations across the United States. Funding for the realignment of Walter Reed
Army Medical Center in the District of Columbia, part of the implementation of the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, and an addition to the Burn
Rehabilitation Unit at the Brooke Army Medical Center, Ft. Sam Houston, Texas,
was also part of the supplemental request.
Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military
Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes. H.R. 2642, the
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
was reintroduced to the House in mid-May 2008 and reconstituted as a second
supplemental appropriation for FY2008. After debate and amendment by both
chambers, the supplemental appropriation was presented to the President on June 27,
2008, and signed into law on June 30 as P.L. 110-252.11
The act provides additional funds for a number of accounts related to military
construction and veterans’ affairs, as delineated in Table 2.12
Table 2. Second FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110-252)
(budget authority in thousands of $)
Account
Request
Enacted
Military Construction, Army
1,486,100
1,108,200
Military Construction, Army (barracks
200,000
improvement)
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
360,257
355,907
Military Construction, Air Force
409,627
399,627
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
27,600
890,921
Family Housing Construction, Navy and
11,766
11,766
Marine Corps
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005
1,202,886
1,278,886
Total, Military Construction
3,498,236
4,245,307
General Administration Expenses
100,000
100,000
Information Technology Systems
20,000
20,000
Construction
396,377
396,377
Total, Veterans Affairs
516,377
516,377
11 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34451, Second FY2008 Supplemental
Appropriations for Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes, by
Stephen Daggett, Susan B. Epstein, Rhoda Margesson, Curt Tarnoff, Pat Towell, Catherine
Dale, and Shannon S. Loane.
12 Amounts are drawn from the legislation. Most of these funds may be obligated through
September 30, 2009 (i.e., throughout FY2009). Some construction funding remains available
through September 30, 2012, while the remainder is so-called “no year” dollars, which are
available until expended.
CRS-7
Executive Order 13457
Congress typically funds this act by appropriating directly to broadly defined
appropriations accounts, such as Military Construction — Army or Family Housing
— Air Force. These appropriations have typically been stated within the statutory
language of the act itself. Nevertheless, within the budget documentation that the
President submits to Congress each year are hundreds of detailed justifications for
individual construction projects at specified locations for stated purposes in
established funding amounts. The appropriations and authorization committees
consider each of these as individual requests and indicate their approval, disapproval,
or additions to the project lists in the explanatory statements reported to their
respective chambers. While it is generally recognized by legal experts that statutory
language (provisions stated in the body of legislation passed by Congress and enacted
by the President) carries the full weight of law, the legal standing of statements
contained within what is generally considered supporting language, such as
explanatory statements written into reports to the chambers by members of
committees, is less clear.
On January 29, 2008, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13457, titled “Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on
Wasteful Earmarks.” In that E.O., the President stated, in part, that:
For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order,
executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of
earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of
committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or
communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other
non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself
determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit
under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.13
The impact of E.O. 13457 on appropriation or implementation practices of
either the executive or the legislative branches is unclear. For example, the order
states that “executive agencies should [emphasis added] not commit, obligate, or
expend funds ...” under certain circumstances. In law, “should” is interpreted as non-
binding guidance to those to whom it is addressed. However, in a subsequent section
of the E.O., the President directs that “the head of each agency shall [emphasis
added] take all necessary steps ...” to implement the policy according to certain
criteria that he then lays out. It should be noted that “shall” is a much stronger,
directive term. The E.O. applies only to appropriations enacted after January 29,
2008, and will therefore not affect any existing or prior-year appropriation.
13 The President defines “earmark” as “funds provided by the Congress for projects,
programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text,
report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or
competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails
the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities
pertaining to the funds allocation process.” The full text of E.O. 13457 can be found online
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080129-5.html].
CRS-8
The E.O. does not appear to bar the implementation of congressionally directed
funding in cases where spending is “required by law or when an agency has itself
determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit
under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.” Examples of such a
situation have existed where particular construction projects have been directed in
the text of previously enacted authorization acts. The President’s order also allows
agency heads to “consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff
of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry
out any earmark” when “such views are in writing....”
In addition, the definition of an “earmark” written into the E.O. may reduce
somewhat the clarity of exactly what spending is to be avoided. That definition states
that earmarks are “purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report
language, or other communication) [that] circumvents otherwise applicable
merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or
recipient” (emphasis added).14 While much of the E.O. stresses the necessity of
adhering to the letter of the law, this definition could be interpreted as preventing an
agency from observing some statutory text.
More generally, the E.O. may raise a number of other questions regarding future
expenditure of appropriated funds. Two examples are suggested below.
1. There are instances where a construction project is not stated within the statutory
text of the law in question, but rather is referenced in the text of another. An example
might be a statutory requirement for the Department of Veterans Affairs to construct
a number of cemeteries for the use of veterans at specified locations for which
appropriations are not provided until a number of years later.15 Would the E.O. bar
the initiation of construction until such a statutory link is found and proven to
unambiguously cover each project?
2. The E.O. grants agency heads the authority to accept congressionally directed
funding when a project has “merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based
decisionmaking,” or when considering “the views of a House, committee, Member,
officer, or staff of the Congress ... when such views are in writing....” Do these
provisions constitute a broad discretion on the part of agency heads to accept
congressional guidance on spending?
In drafting its version of the FY2009 appropriations bill, the House committee
clarified the status of congressionally directed spending within the context of the
Executive Order by referencing the list of construction projects within the statute. For
each appropriation account for which specific construction projects are identified in
the committee report, the proposed legislation states, “That the amount appropriated
in this paragraph shall be for the projects and activities, and in the amounts, specified
14 Legal interpretation in this section has been assisted by CRS Legislative Attorney R.
Chuck Mason.
15 Other instances where text outside of an appropriations act may be considered as legally
binding can occur when Congress incorporates language such as “shall be effective as if
enacted by law,” or “in accordance with” into statute.
CRS-9
under the headings ... in the table entitled ... in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany this bill.”16
Title I: Department of Defense
Military Construction
Military construction accounts provide funds for new construction, construction
improvements, planning and design, and host nation support of active and reserve
military forces and Department of Defense agencies. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) is the U.S. contribution to defray
the costs of construction (airfields, fuel pipelines, military headquarters, etc.) needed
to support major NATO commands. Family housing accounts fund new construction,
construction improvements, federal government costs for family housing
privatization, maintenance and repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities,
and other expenses incurred in providing suitable accommodation for military
personnel and their families where needed.
The DOD Housing Improvement Fund is the vehicle by which funds, both
directly appropriated and transferred from other accounts, support military housing
privatization. The Homeowners Assistance Fund provides relief to federal personnel
stationed at or near an installation scheduled for closure or realignment who are
unable to sell their homes. The Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-
Wide, account provides for the design and construction of disposal facilities required
for the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. The Base Realignment and
Closure Account 1990 funds the remaining environmental remediation requirements
(including the disposal of unexploded ordnance) arising from the first four base
realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995). The Base
Realignment and Closure Account 2005 provides funding for the military
construction, relocation, and environmental requirements of the implementation of
both the 2005 BRAC round and the DOD Integrated Global Presence and Basing
Strategy/Global Defense Posture Realignment (military construction only).
Key Budget Issues
Several issues regarding military construction funding may be of interest to
some Members in their consideration of the FY2009 appropriation request. Funding
of the various accounts included under Title I (Department of Defense) is listed in
Appendix A to this report.
16 In the FY2009 House bill, the referenced accounts include Military Construction, Army;
Military Construction, Navy; Military Construction, Air Force; Military Construction,
Defense-Wide; Military Construction, Army National Guard; Military Construction, Air
National Guard; Military Construction, Army Reserve; Military Construction, Navy
Reserve; Military Construction, Air Force Reserve; Family Housing Construction, Army;
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps; Family Housing Construction, Air
Force; and Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide.
CRS-10
Construction Cost Inflation. Military construction appropriations
legislation often permits budget authority obligations (the ability of agencies to
obligate funding) to continue for as many as five years after the appropriation is
enacted. The House committee noted that inflation and the cost of construction over
such a lengthy period could significantly affect the accuracy of cost estimates
submitted by DOD. The committee directed DOD to increase the accuracy of its
inflation estimates and report on the baseline inflation rate used in the creation of its
2010 budget request, comparing it with similar calculations used by other agencies.
Neither the Senate committee nor the Continuing Appropriations versions of the
report contain such language.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)/Integrated Global Presence
and Basing Strategy (IGPBS)/Global Defense Posture Realignment
(GDPR).
Cost of Implementation. In its appropriations request for FY2007, DOD
estimated that the total one-time implementation between 2006 and 2011 of the 2005
BRAC round (the realignment and closure of a number of military installations on
United States territory) and the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy
(IGPBS, the redeployment of 60,000 - 70,000 troops and their families from overseas
garrisons to bases within the United States) would cost $17.9 billion.17
Between the submission of that request in February 2006 and submission of the
FY2008 BRAC funding request a year later, DOD advanced its planning for the
execution of all military construction, movement of facilities, and relocation of
personnel necessary to carry out the approved recommendations of the 2005 BRAC
Commission. This revision caused the estimate of one-time implementation cost to
rise to more than $30.7 billion, due principally to significantly higher implementation
cost estimates for FY2008-FY2011. The same estimate made by DOD in February
2008 for the FY2009 appropriations request rose again, now totaling $32.0 billion.
Figure 1 compares DOD BRAC 2005 new budget authority requirement estimates
made for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009.18
17 The DOD Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) has been renamed the
Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR).
18 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget
Estimates for FY 2008, Department of Defense, March 2007. A thorough discussion of the
defense budget, including definition of budget-related terms such as “new budget authority,”
can be found in CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tysziewicz
and Stephen Daggett.
CRS-11
Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005
Implementation
10,000
)
n
9,065
9,000
illio
8,000
M
$
8,174
7,912
7,000
(
y
6,000
rit
5,623
o
5,626
5,696
5,473
5,558
5,000
th
4,000
Au
3,000
et
g
2,996
2,071
2,104
d
2,000
u
1,502
1.489
1,563
1,000
w B
0
484
Ne
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Fiscal Ye ar
F Y 2007 Es t.
F Y 2008 Es t.
F Y 2009 Es t.
Sources: DOD Budget Justification Documents for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009
Although the BRAC 2005 account pays for buildings, moving, cleanup, and the
like, the most significant factor driving implementation cost estimates for the peak
years (originally FY2007 and FY2008, and later FY2008 and FY2009) is military
construction. This wavelike cost profile is characteristic of BRAC rounds and is
produced by the combined effects of the six-year statutory deadline for completing
BRAC implementation and the need to commit funds for the execution of
construction contracts at least two to three years before new building can be accepted
and occupied.
BRAC 2005 appropriations requests had usually been funded fully by Congress,
either through regular appropriations, omnibus appropriations, continuing
resolutions, or emergency supplemental appropriations. The Senate committee’s
recommendation for FY2009, though, would have reduced the appropriation by $73.7
million, or 1% of the President’s request, in order to increase funding for the
construction of a missile defense radar site in Poland. The Continuing Appropriations
bill (H.R. 2638) appropriated $8.7 billion to the BRAC 2005 account, a reduction of
roughly $300 million from the President’s request.
Modification of Annual BRAC Reporting Requirements. Under current
statute, the Secretary of Defense is required to report annually to Congress schedules
and descriptions of actions undertaken to implement the closures and realignments
required by the 2005 BRAC round. Implementation of all BRAC closure and
realignment actions is to be completed by September 15, 2011. Section 2711 of the
House amendment to the NDAA (S. 3001) would end the reporting requirement,
which is currently indefinite, with the DOD budget submission for FY2016.
Creation of an Independent Walter Reed Design Review Panel. The
main campus of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in the District of
CRS-12
Columbia is scheduled to close during the 2005 BRAC round, with the majority of
its functions being transferred to other installations.19 Section 2721 of the original
House version of the Duncan Hunter NDAA (H.R. 5658) would have limited the
construction of facilities needed to house those functions until the Secretary of
Defense certified that 90% of construction design, an independent cost estimate, and
a milestone schedule for the proposed realignment were complete.
Section 2721 of the amended NDAA (S. 3001) would create a panel of
healthcare and facility design experts to review the plans for the new National
Military Medical Center at Bethesda, Maryland, advise the Secretary of Defense on
their adequacy, and recommend to the Secretary any changes needed to ensure that
the resulting facilities are “world-class.” Under the amended section, the Secretary
would report to congressional defense committees on the recommendations, prepare
a cost estimate for the closure of WRAMC, construction of replacement facilities,
and relocation of functions, and create a milestone schedule for its execution.
Planned construction activity would not be impeded.
Force Redeployment to United States Territory. The one-time
implementation costs to carry out the President’s redeployments to new garrisons on
United States territory are included within the BRAC 2005 cost estimate. Table 3
displays DOD cost during the six-year BRAC implementation. This shows that
$495.3 million of the $9.1 billion (5.5%) of the FY2009 BRAC 2005 appropriation
request is devoted to the IGPBS/GDPR redeployment.20
Table 3. IGPBS/GDPR One-Time Implementation Costs
(budget authority in millions of $)
BRAC 2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Total
Subaccount
Military
344.6
881.8
682.7
439.0
272.0
0.0
2,612.1
Construction
Environment
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
Ops. &
6.7
20.1
67.2
55.9
57.4
134.8
342.1
Maint.
Other
0.0
14.3
26.2
8.4
16.5
8.8
74.1
Budget
352.0
916.1
776.1
495.3
345.9
143.6
3,029.0
Request
Source: DOD FY2009 Army Budget Justification Documentation.
Note: The Department of the Army segregates funds into One-Time Implementation Costs, Recurring
Costs, One-Time Savings, and Recurring Savings in calculating the net cost of IGPBS/GDPR. This
table presents only One-Time Implementation Costs. Budget Request may not add precisely due to
rounding.
19 For detailed information on the realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, see
CRS Report RL34055, Walter Reed Army Medical Center: Realignment Under BRAC 2005
and Options for Congress, by Daniel H. Else and JoAnne O’Bryant.
20 IGPBS/GDPR is wholly funded by the Department of the Army BRAC 2005 account.
CRS-13
Repealing the BRAC Commission Mechanism. Section 2711 of the
original House version of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2009 (H.R. 5658) would have repealed the President’s authority to appoint an
independent commission to recommend the closure or realignment of military
installations.21
Under current law, the Secretary of Defense must submit to such a commission
any recommendations he may have regarding the reduction of civilian employment
at or the closure of military installations.22 This panel, often referred to as the BRAC
Commission, is empowered to accept, reject, or amend the Secretary’s
recommendations, or it may draft its own. Once the Commission has finalized its list
of recommended actions and gained the President’s approval, Congress may halt the
implementation of these actions by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.23
Otherwise, the Secretary of Defense is required to carry out the approved
recommendations not later than six years from the date of presidential approval.
Section 2711 would, if enacted, have eliminated the independent commission
from the base closure process. Under the revised procedure, the Secretary of Defense
would have submitted a list of recommended closures and realignments directly to
President for his approval. The approved list would still have been subject to a
congressional joint resolution of disapproval.
The provision was not included in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment of the NDAA (S. 3001).
“Growing the Force”. DOD is planning to increase the end strength of the
regular Army by 65,000 soldiers and Marine Corps by 27,000 Marines and the Army
National Guard and Army Reserves by an additional 9,200 citizen-soldiers by 2012.
This will require additional military construction to accommodate, train, and house
these personnel and their families.
DOD requested more than $3.7 billion in FY2007 emergency supplemental and
FY2008 military construction appropriations to support this increase. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the additional military construction
21 The President’s authority to appoint a commission or initiate a base closure round has
expired. Any future closure round will require specific congressional authorization.
22 10 USC §2687 sets certain thresholds for the magnitude such a reduction before
commission action is triggered.
23 For additional information on the base closure process, see CRS Report RS22061,
Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC Commission, by Daniel H. Else and David E.
Lockwood; CRS Report RL33766, Military Base Closures and Realignment: Status of the
2005 Implementation Plan, by Kristine E. Blackwell; CRS Report RS22291, Military Base
Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report and Its Additional Proposed
Legislation, by Daniel H. Else and David E. Lockwood; CRS Report RL30051, Military
Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, by David E. Lockwood; or CRS Report
97-305, Military Base Closures: A Historical Review from 1988 to 1995, by David E.
Lockwood and George H. Siehl.
CRS-14
cost between 2007 and 2013 of these soldiers and Marines will total $15.7 billion,
with the bulk of the appropriations required during FY2008-FY2010.24
Overseas Initiatives. While redeploying a number of troops to the United
States, DOD is also renegotiating the location and garrisoning of a number of its
remaining overseas installations. These efforts are principally focused on the Federal
Republic of Germany, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. In addition, a number
of new, relatively austere, installations are being created in eastern Europe and in the
Pacific, Central, and Southern Command areas. In Germany, U.S. forces are
continuing to consolidate at existing installations in the south of the country, while
the installation near Vicenza, Italy, is being expanded in anticipation of the
deployment of a modular brigade. U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea are in the
process of shifting from sites immediately along the Demilitarized Zone, at the
frontier between that nation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK),
and from a large headquarters garrison in the capital of Seoul to expanded facilities
further to the south. While the bulk of construction cost will be borne by the Korean
government, this initiative could require as much as $750 million in U.S.
construction funding to complete.
Africa Command (AFRICOM). The creation of Africa Command
(AFRICOM) under U.S. Army Gen. William E. “Kip” Ward, currently scheduled to
become operational on October 1, 2008, may soon require the construction of a
number of minimally manned or unmanned “cooperative security locations” at
critical sites across the continent.25 Both appropriations committees noted that the
Administration’s decision to stand up AFRICOM operations has not been
accompanied by a clearly enunciated plan for the creation of facilities on the
continent to receive U.S. military forces, nor as the location of AFRICOM’S
permanent headquarters and announced.26
24 Letter from Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the Hon. Carl
Levin, Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 16, 2007, p. 8.
25 DOD defines and ranks its overseas installations by a three-tier system. A Cooperative
Security Location (CSL) is “A facility located outside the United States and U.S. territories
with little or no permanent U.S. presence, maintained with periodic Service [sic], contractor,
or host-nation support. Cooperative security locations provide contingency access, logistic
support, and rotational use by operating forces and are a focal point for security cooperation
activities.” A Forward Operating Site (FOS) is more substantial, being “A scaleable location
outside the United States and U.S. territories intended for rotational use by operating forces.
Such expandable ‘warm facilities’ may be maintained with a limited U.S. military support
presence and possibly pre-positioned equipment. Forward operating sites support rotational
rather than permanently stationed forces and are a focus for bilateral and regional training.”
The Main Operating Base (MOB) is “A facility outside the United States and U.S. territories
with permanently stationed operating forces and robust infrastructure. Main operating bases
are characterized by command and control structures, enduring family support facilities, and
strengthened force protection measures.” Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, April 12, 2001 (as amended through May 30,
2008). This publication is available on the World Wide Web at [http://www.dtic.mil
/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf].
26 General Ward is currently the deputy commanding general of U.S. European Command
(continued...)
CRS-15
Guam. DOD and the Government of Japan have agreed to move approximately
8,000 Marines and 9,000 of their family members from bases on Okinawa to new
facilities in the U.S. territory of Guam. The construction costs associated with this
move have been estimated at $10 billion, and Japan has agreed to underwrite 60%
of this expense. The Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have separately
initiated their own increase in presence on Guam, which is expected to add personnel
and family members to this total over the next several years. These moves onto the
island are expected to be complete by 2014 and will increase the military-associated
population from 14,000 to approximately 39,000. Based on the most recent estimates
of the territorial population of approximately 175,000, the post-2014 military
community could represent as much as 22% of the island’s inhabitants.27
DOD has estimated that approximately $3 billion will be needed for military
construction on Guam. Nevertheless, as in the AFRICOM case, all appropriations
committees noted that DOD has not yet finalized the construction needed to support
the island’s force buildup.
Section 2824 of the House-passed version of the Senate’s NDAA (S. 3001)
would establish a new Treasury account, the “Support for United States Relocation
to Guam Account,” to accept the Japanese contributions to the realignment of
military installations and relocation of U.S. military personnel to Guam.28 The section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to report annually on each military
construction project requested for the relocations to Guam from Japanese territory
and as part of the general military buildup in the Territory.
Overseas Installation Management. The Government Accountability
Office addressed DOD planning for overseas installations in a report completed in
September 2007.29 The report concluded that although DOD had updated its overseas
master plans, which lay out projected infrastructure requirements at overseas military
installations, the Department had not sufficiently incorporated into its calculations
the “residual value” of property being returned to host nations for reuse.30 GAO also
noted that neither DOD nor the military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force)
26 (...continued)
(USEUCOM) and is functioning as AFRICOM’s commander from USEUCOM headquarters
in Stuttgart, Germany. Additional information on the new Africa Command can be found
in CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S.
Military in Africa, by Lauren Ploch.
27 If the same percentage were projected on the entire U.S. population of approximately 350
million, the U.S. military community would number 78 million. Actual active-duty military
personnel and their families number less than 4 million.
28 The law authorizing the acceptance of foreign contributions is found at 10 U.S.C. §2350k,
“Relocation within Host Nation of Elements of Armed Forces Overseas.”
29 Government Accountability Office, Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans are
Improving, but DOD Needs to Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military
Buildup on Guam (GAO-07-1015), September 12, 1007.
30 GAO stated that compensation received for the residual value of returned real property
could affect overseas construction funding requirements.
CRS-16
had yet finalized the number or makeup of forces being transferred to Guam from
Japan and the United States. This meant that the housing, training and operational
requirements, and community impact of significant force relocation could not be
estimated.31
Since FY2004, the Senate committee has required DOD to submit an annual
master plan for its installations overseas. Citing the continuing military operations
in Southwest Asia, troop relocations within and from Europe and Korea, and the
creation of AFRICOM, the committee included an extension of the existing reporting
requirement in the language of its report.
Other Issues.
Brigade Transformation and Expansion of the Piñon Canyon, CO,
Maneuver Training Area. During the mid-1980s, the Department of the Army
acquired approximately 250,000 acres of land near Ft. Carson, CO, for use as a
training site. Approximately half of the land was obtained through open purchase,
with the remainder acquired through condemnation proceedings.32
As part of the Global Rebasing effort, roughly 10,000 soldiers will redeploy to
Ft. Carson from garrisons currently located overseas.33 In addition, the Army is in the
process of transforming its fundamental combat organization from one based on the
division (usually made up of three brigades) into one based on the “modular Brigade
Combat Team” (BCT), which emphasizes tactics based on unit speed of movement
and maneuverability. The Army has estimated that each BCT requires at least 95,000
acres of land for optimal training and has planned to base four such BCTs at Ft.
Carson.
This increase in training need led the Army to consider a significant expansion
of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Training Area. As of mid-2006, the Department of
the Army expected to acquire an additional 418,000 acres.
The proposed move generated concerns among local landowners that public
condemnation might again be employed to acquire properties for incorporation into
the site. The question of whether eminent domain, or condemnation, was being
considered by DOD was put to Philip Grone, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
31 Guam’s population is currently estimated at approximately 173, 400, or roughly 30% of
that of the District of Columbia on land area of 212 sq. mi., or about one-eighth (13.7%) that
of the State of Rhode Island. DOD reported that 2,828 active duty military personnel,
predominantly Air Force, were stationed in the territory as of June 27, 2007. The movement
of more than 17,000 military personnel and family members is therefore likely to have a
significant impact on surrounding communities.
32 Testimony offered by Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment
Keith Eastin to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs on May 9, 2006.
33 The Department of Defense has reported that as of September 30, 2006, 14,026 military
personnel were based at Ft. Carson. See DOD Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2007
Baseline, pg. DOD-44.
CRS-17
for Installations and Environment, by Senator Wayne Allard (CO) at a hearing of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs on March 22, 2007. Mr. Grone stated that the Department would
“always prefer to work with willing sellers. But I would not desire to rule out any
legally available tool.”
Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 contained
a provision that required the Secretary of the Army to conduct an analysis of the
sufficiency of existing training facilities at Ft. Carson to support the current and
future training needs of units currently stationed and planned to be stationed at the
post and to report the results to Congress.34 An amendment to the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008, which funded military construction and DOD land
acquisition, stipulated that, “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used for any action that is related to or promotes the
expansion of the boundaries or size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.”35
Identical language appears in Section 127 of the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009, as passed by the House. The same Section 127 is
retained in Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638).
In its report to Congress on Piñon Canyon, the Department of the Army has
indicated that its current assessment of need for training land at Ft. Carson may not
exceed an additional 100,000 acres.36
Extending the Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for
Overseas Construction. Section 2808 of the NDAA for 2004 (P.L. 108-136, 117
Stat. 1723) permitted the Secretary of Defense to use Operation and Maintenance
funds for construction projects outside of the United States if the construction (1) was
needed for urgent military operational requirements of a temporary nature; (2) was
not located at a military installation where the U.S. was expected to have a long-term
presence; (3) would not be used by the U.S. after operations ended; and (4) was the
minimum needed to meet the temporary requirements.37
Both the original House and Senate bills would have extended this authority for
an additional year, through FY2009. Section 2806 of the House-passed version of the
Senate bill (S. 3001) would extend the authority through FY2009 but would restrict
its use to U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and Africa Command
(USAFRICOM) Areas of Responsibility in Central Asia and continental Africa. In
addition, the bill would exempt construction in Afghanistan from the prohibition on
the use of funds to support the long-term presence of U.S. military forces.
34 See National Defense Authorization Act, 2008 (H.R. 4986, P.L. 110-181), Sec. 2831.
35 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161), Division I, Sec. 409.
The amendment was proposed by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (CO/04).
36 “Army Takes Public Comments on Pinon Canyon Report,” Associated Press Newswires,
17:26, August 15, 2008.
37 The original authorization was amended and extended beyond FY2004 by Sec. 2810 of
P.L. 108-375, Sec. 2809 of P.L. 109-163, Sec. 2802 of P.L. 109-364, and Sec. 2801 of P.L.
110-181.
CRS-18
Military Housing Privatization. Since the mid-1990s, the Department of
Defense has exercised a number of congressionally granted special authorizations to
privatize military family housing at military installations. To date, approximately 87
housing projects have been initiated in which the title to family housing serving a
number of installations has been transferred from DOD to private joint ventures
under agreements to construct, maintain, and manage the sites for up to 50 years.38
During 2006 and 2007, American Eagle Communities, a major developer in
family housing projects at several installations, found itself unable to raise the capital
needed to continue construction and operation.39 Although other contractors
eventually assumed responsibility for completing the existing contracts, the Senate
version of the NDAA (Section 2803) would have increased the responsibilities of the
various Secretaries for project oversight and reporting to the Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations and Environment) and would have set thresholds on the
qualifications of contractors allowed to participate. Another provision in the Senate
bill (Section 2805) would have required the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
cost-benefit analysis to Congress regarding the proposed dissolution of one of the
affected joint ventures, Patrick Family Housing LLC at Patrick AFB, Florida, before
taking any action. Section 2805 of the House-amended version of S. 3001 retains
these provisions.
Leasing Military Housing to the Secretary of Defense. Both House and
Senate versions of the NDAA would authorize the department Secretaries to lease
housing on a military installation in the National Capital Region to the Secretary of
Defense. Proposed by DOD, this move is characterized as a cost-effective alternative
to the periodic installation, maintenance, and protection in private homes of the DOD
communications equipment and security devices and detail of personnel needed by
the Secretary of Defense in pursuit of his duties. The bills differ in their method of
calculating the requisite rent to be paid by the Secretary.
The House-amended version of S. 3001 retains this provision in Section 2804
and would set the rent to be paid by the Secretary at 105% of the basic housing
allowance paid to the current highest-ranking member of the military services, a
general or admiral in the grade of 0-10 with family, assigned to the installation
where the housing is located.40
Defense Access Road Program. 23 U.S.C. 210 authorizes DOD to make
appropriated funds “available, without regard to apportionment among the several
38 For additional information on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, see CRS
Report RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues, by
Daniel H. Else.
39 Projects for privatized housing which American Eagle participated served AFB, Georgia,
Little Rock AFB, Arkansas, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, and Patrick AFB, Florida, plus
a number of Army and Navy installations.
40 Housing allowance rates are set with and without family (dependents) for each installation
and geographic area where military members are assigned to duty. For more information on
this Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), see CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and
Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS-19
States, for paying all or any part of the cost of the construction and maintenance” of
certain roads, “bridges, tubes, and tunnels leading to military reservations, to defense
industries and defense industry sites, and to the sources of raw materials” when
designated by the Secretary of Defense as being “important to the national defense.”41
This authority, embodied in the Defense Access Road (DAR) Program, permits DOD
to assess road improvement needs, request the necessary appropriation, and partner
with the Office of Federal Lands Highway, Federal Highway Administration, in the
Department of Transportation and the appropriate agency that would administer the
construction project.
The current BRAC round and the Global Defense Posture Realignment are
expected to substantially increase the military populations at a number of installations
across the country. Some communities are anticipating significant strain to be
imposed on the local transportation infrastructure serving these sites. The House
version of the NDAA would have amended the statute to require the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a transportation “needs assessment” at installations where a
significant transportation impact is anticipated. The Senate version contained no such
legislative language, but the committee report singled out the program as an item of
special interest and would have directed the Secretaries of Defense and
Transportation to review the criteria by which an improvement project is deemed
eligible for DAR funding and report their findings to Congress.
Section 2814 of the House-passed version of S. 3001 would amend 23 U.S.C.
210 to conduct the needs assessments and report its results to the relevant
congressional committees.
Restricting the Use of NASJRB Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. Naval
Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NASJRB) Willow Grove is located in Horsham, PA,
a suburb of Philadelphia, and is scheduled to close as part of the 2005 BRAC round.
Section 8115 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2638, P.L. 110-
329) provides for all Department of the Navy property at the site to be transferred at
no cost from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Air Force as the
Horsham Joint Interagency Installation and renamed “Pitcairn-Willow Grove Field.”
The Secretary of the Air Force will then transfer Pitcairn-Willow Grove Field and all
excess Air Force property at the former NASJRB to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for use as the Horsham Joint Interagency Installation.
The section further provides that the property shall return to the Department of
Defense should it cease being used as the Horsham Joint Interagency Installation. It
may not be reconveyed by the Commonwealth.
41 23 U.S.C. 210(a).
CRS-20
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2008
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
VA
52.38 58.10 61.84
65.84
71.46 79.55
88.11
Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the Appropriations Committees accompanying the
appropriations bills for the following years.
Agency Overview
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers directly, or in conjunction
with other federal agencies, programs that provide benefits and other services to
veterans and their spouses, dependents and beneficiaries. The VA has three primary
organizations to provide these benefits: the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). Benefits available to veterans include service-connected
disability compensation; a pension for low-income veterans who are elderly or have
a nonservice-connected disability; vocational rehabilitation for disabled veterans;
medical care; life insurance; home loan guarantees; burial benefits; and educational
and training benefits to help in the transition of active servicemembers to civilian life.
As shown in Table 4, VA appropriations for benefits and services has increased from
$52.38 billion in FY2002 to $87.60 billion in FY2008.
CRS-21
Table 5. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Enacted
Program
Enacted
Request
(H.R. (S. 3301)
(H.R.
6559)
2638)
Compensation and pensions
41.236
43.112
43.112
43.112
$43.112
Readjustment benefits
3.300
3.087
3.087
3.833e
3.833e
Insurance and indemnities
0.041
0.042
0.042
0.042
0.042
Housing programs (net, indefinite)a
-0.090
-0.243
-0.243
-0.243
-0.243
Housing programs administration
0.155
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
44.643
46.155
46.155
46.901
46.901
National Cemetery Administration
0.167
0.181
0.240
0.230
0.230
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.028
Total, National Cemetery Administration (NCA)
0.195
0.181
0.240
0.230
0.230
Medical Services b
27.168
34.076
30.854
35.590
30.970
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
1.937
Medical support and compliance
3.442
b
4.400
b 4.450
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.075
Medical facilities
3.592
4.661
5.029
4.961
5.029
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.508
Medical and prosthetic research
0.411
0.442
0.500
0.527
0.510
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.069
Medical Care Collection Fund
(Offsetting receipts)
-2.414
-1.879
-2.544
-2.544
-2.544
(Appropriations - indefinite)
2.414
1.879
2.544
2.544
2.544
Total, Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
37.201
39.179
40.783
41.078
40.959
Available to VHA (includes collections) c
39.615
41.058
43.327
43.622
43.503
General operating expenses d
1.472
1.700
1.802
1.779
1.802
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.133
Information technology
1.859
2.442
2.492
2.471
2.489
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.107
Inspector General
0.073
0.077
0.088
0.094
0.088
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.008
Construction, major projects
0.727
0.582
0.923
1.218
0.923
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.342
Construction, minor projects
0.233
0.329
0.991
0.729
0.742
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.397
Grants for state extended care facilities
0.085
0.085
0.165
0.250
0.175
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.080
Grants for state veterans cemeteries
0.032
0.032
0.045
0.042
0.042
Contingent emergency (P.L. 110-161)
0.008
Total, Departmental Administration
5.556
5.246
6.507
6.583
6.261
Total, Department of Veterans Affairs
87.595
90.761
93.685
94.793
94.351f
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.
a. This negative budget authority is the result of combining the loan subsidy payments estimated to be needed
during FY2006 with the offsetting receipts expected to be collected.
CRS-22
b. The FY2009 request and S. 3301 combine medical services and medical support and compliance.
c. Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget authority
equal to the revenue collected.
d. Does not reflect a transfer in the FY2008 omnibus of $6 million of general operating expenses to maintain
funding for payments to state approving agencies at the FY2007 levels.
e. Includes funding for new education benefit provided in P.L. 110-252.
f. Does not include the $198 million appropriation provided in H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) for the Filipino
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund that would be established by H.R. 6897, which passed the House on
September 23, 2008.
Table 6. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Request (H.R. 6559)
(S. 3301) (H.R. 2638)
Mandatory
Benefits (VBA)
44.488
45.998
45.998
46.744
$46.744
Discretionary
Medical (VHA)
37.201
39.179
40.783
41.078
40.959
National Cemetery Administration
0.195
0.181
0.240
0.230
0.230
(NCA)
Departmental administration
5.556
5.246
6.507
6.583
6.261
Housing administration (VBA)
0.155
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
Total, discretionary
43.107
44.763
47.687
48.049
47.607
Total, Department of Veterans Affairs
87.595
90.761
93.685
94.793
94.351a
Percentages of Total
Mandatory
50.8%
50.7%
49.1%
49.3%
49.5%
Discretionary
49.2%
49.3%
50.9%
50.7%
50.5%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.
a. Does not include the $198 million appropriation provided in H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) for the Filipino
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund that would be established by H.R. 6897, which passed the House on
September 23, 2008.
Key Budget Issues
The FY2009 budget submitted by the Administration in February 2008 called
for funding VA at a level of $90.8 billion for FY2009 (see Table 6). This would be
an increase of $3.2 billion, or 3.6%, over the FY2008 appropriation (including the
contingent emergency funding).
One of the key issues for VA non-medical benefits has been the size of the
disability claims workload and the average time (183 days in FY2007)42 to process
claims. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
42 Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008 Budget Submission, Summary - Volume 3, pg.
4B-6.
CRS-23
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28) provided additional funding
to the VA for resources to address the large number of pending claims and shorten
processing times. P.L. 110-28 provided an additional $60.75 million for hiring and
training of additional claims processing personnel, and $20.0 million for information
technology to support claims processing.
The FY2008 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161) provided $124.2 million for the hiring of
additional claims processors and $2.0 million for leasing office space for the new
hires. Additional funds were also provided to the Board of Veterans Appeals ($3.7
million) and the Office of General Council ($3.2 million) for additional personnel to
handle the increase in the number of appeals.
As shown in Table 5, H.R. 6559 provides $93.7 billion in FY2009 funding for
the VA, an increase of $6.1 billion, or 7%, above the FY2008 appropriation
(including the contingent emergency funding). S. 3301 provides $94.8 billion in
FY2009 funding for the VA, and increase of $7.2 billion, or 8.2%. H.R. 2638 (P.L.
110-329) provides $94.4 billion in FY2009 funding for the VA, an increase of $6.8
billion or 7.7% over the FY2008 enacted level. All of the FY2009 funding bills also
provide a large increase in FY2009 funding relative to the FY2008 appropriation for
several programs including minor construction; medical support; National Cemetery
Administration; and medical facilities.
As shown in Table 6, there is an almost equal split between mandatory and
discretionary funding for the VA. In the FY2008 appropriation, mandatory funding
was only slightly above discretionary funding. For H.R. 6559, S. 3301, and H.R.
2638 (P.L. 110-329) discretionary funding is slightly above mandatory funding.
Medical Care
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a direct service provider of
primary care, specialized care, and related medical and social support services to
veterans through an integrated health care system. In FY2008, VHA operated 153
medical centers, 135 nursing homes, 795 ambulatory care and community based
outpatient clinics (CBOCs),43 and 232 Readjustment Counseling Centers (Vet
43 Data on the number of CBOCs differ from source to source. Some count clinics located
at VA hospitals while others count only freestanding CBOCs. The number represented in
this report excludes clinics located in VA hospitals. On June 26, 2008, VA announced that
it would be establishing 44 new CBOCs in FY2008 and FY2009. The new CBOCs are to
be located in: Marshall County, and Wiregrass, AL; Matanuska-Susitna Borough area, AK;
Ozark, and White County, AR; East Bay-Alameda County area, CA; Summerfield, FL;
Baldwin County, Coweta County, Glynn County, and Liberty County, GA; Miami County,
and Morgan County, IN; Wapello County, IA; Lake Charles, Leesville, Natchitoches, St.
Mary Parish, and Washington Parish, LA; Lewiston-Auburn area, ME; Douglas County,
and Northwest Metro, MN; Franklin County, MO; Rio Rancho, NM; Robeson County, and
Rutherford County, NC; Grand Forks County, ND; Gallia County, OH; Altus, Craig County,
Enid, and Jay, OK; Giles County, Maury County, and McMinn County, TN; Katy, Lake
Jackson, Richmond, Tomball, and El Paso County, TX; Augusta County, Emporia, and
Wytheville, VA; and Greenbrier County, WV.
CRS-24
Centers).44 VHA also pays for care provided to veterans by independent providers
and practitioners on a fee basis under certain circumstances. Inpatient and outpatient
care is provided in the private sector to eligible dependents of veterans under the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(CHAMPVA).45 In addition, VHA provides grants for construction of state-owned
nursing homes and domiciliary facilities, and collaborates with the Department of
Defense (DOD) in sharing health care resources and services.
The total amount requested by the Administration for VHA for FY2009 was
$39.2 billion, a 2.0 billion increase in funding compared to the FY2008 enacted
amount. The total amount of funding that would have been available for VHA under
the President’s budget proposal for FY2009, including third-party collections, was
approximately $41.1 billion. For FY2009, the Administration requested $34.1 billion
for medical services, an approximately $5.0 billion, or17%, increase in funding over
the FY2008 enacted amount. However, it should be noted that this amount included
funding for the medical administration account which the Administration proposed
to consolidate with the medical services account. The President’s budget also
requested $4.6 billion for medical facilities, and $442 million for medical and
prosthetic research.
As in FY2003, FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 the
Administration included several cost sharing proposals. The first proposal was the
tiered annual enrollment fee for all enrolled Priority Group 7 and Priority Group 8
veterans, which was structured to charge $250 for veterans with family incomes from
$50,000 to $74,999; $500 for those with family incomes from $75,000 to $99,999;
and $750 for those with family incomes equal to or greater than $100,000.
According to the VA, this proposal would have increased government revenue by
$129 million beginning in FY2010, and by $514 million over five years.
The Administration also proposed increasing the pharmacy copayments from
$8 to $15 for all enrolled Priority Group 7 and Priority Group 8 veterans, whenever
they obtain medication from VA on an outpatient basis for the treatment of a
nonservice-connected condition.46 The Administration put forward this proposal in
its FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007 and FY2008 budget requests as well, but did
not receive any approval from Congress. At present, veterans in Priority Groups 2-8
pay $8 for a 30-day supply of medication, including over-the-counter medications.
44 New Vet Centers in 2008 are located in: Montgomery, AL; Fayetteville, AR; Modesto,
CA; Grand Junction, CO; Fort Myers, Melbourne, and Gainesville, FL; Macon, GA;
Manhattan, KS; Baton Rouge, LA; Cape Cod, MA; Saginaw and Escanaba, MI; Berlin, NH;
Las Cruces, NM; Binghamton, Middletown, Nassau County and Watertown, NY; Toledo,
OH; Du Bois, PA; Killeen, TX; and Everett, WA.
45 For further information on CHAMPVA see CRS Report RS22483, Health Care for
Dependents and Survivors of Veterans, by Sidath Viranga Panangala and Susan Janeczko.
46 The term “service-connected” means, with respect to disability, that such disability was
incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. VA
determines whether veterans have service-connected disabilities, and for those with such
disabilities, assigns ratings from 0 to 100% based on the severity of the disability.
Percentages are assigned in increments of 10%.
CRS-25
The VA estimated that this proposal would have increased government revenue by
$334 million beginning in FY2009, and by $1.6 billion over five years.
Lastly, the Administration proposed to bill veterans directly for treatment
associated with nonservice-connected conditions. Presently, VA uses third-party
collections to satisfy veterans’ first party debt; that is, if VA treats an insured veteran
for a nonservice-connected disability, and the veteran is also determined by VA to
have copayment responsibilities, VA will apply each dollar collected from the insurer
to satisfy the veteran’s copayment debt related to that treatment. The Administration
proposed to eliminate this practice. According to the VA, this proposal would have
increased government revenue by $44 million beginning in FY2009 and by $215
million over five years. The President’s budget request for medical services did not
reflect these legislative proposals.
Compared to previous budget proposals, the FY2009 budget proposals if
implemented would have deposited all collections in the U.S. Treasury and not in the
Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) as is the current practice with regard to
collections.47
The House Appropriations Committee-passed version of the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2009 provided $40.7
billion for the VHA for FY2009. This amount included $30.9 billion for medical
services, $1.8 billion (6%) over the FY2008 enacted amount of $29.1 billion. The
Committee-passed measure also included $4.4 billion for medical support and
compliance (previously known as medical administration), $883 million (25%) above
the FY2008 enacted amount of $3.5 billion; $5.0 billion for medical facilities, a
7.8% increase over the President’s request of $4.7billion; and $500 million for
medical and prosthetic research, a 13.1% increase over the President’s request of
$442 million. The House-passed version of the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2009 did not include any bill language authorizing
fee increases as requested by the Administration’s budget proposal for VHA for
FY2009.
Of the amount recommended by the House Appropriations Committee for the
medical services account, $3.8 billion was for specialty mental health care, $584
million was for the substance abuse program, $568 million was to increase the
number of Priority 8 enrollment by 10 percent, and $100 million was to increase the
mileage reimbursement rate from 28.5 cents a mile to 41.6 cents a mile.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2009 recommended
$41.1 billion (excluding collections) for VHA for FY2009. This was a 4.8% increase
over the FY2009 request, and $294 million above the House Appropriations
47 VA deposits into MCCF copayments collected from veterans obligated to make such
payments for either medical services or inpatient pharmacy benefits for outpatient
medication, and third-party insurance payments from service-connected veterans for
nonservice-connected conditions. These collected funds do not have to be spent in any
particular fiscal year and are available until expended.
CRS-26
Committee-recommended amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee concurred
with the President’s proposal to merge the medical services account with the medical
administration account.
Under the proposed new account structure the Committee recommended $35.6
billion for the medical services account, a 4.4% ($1.5 billion) increase over the
FY2009 request. S. 3301, as marked up by the Committee, also provided $5.0 billion
for medical facilities. This was a 21% increase compared to the FY2008 enacted
amount, 6.4% above the FY2009 request, and $68 million below the House
Committee-recommended amount. The Senate marked up MILCON-VA
appropriations bill also provided $527 million for the medical and prosthetic research
account. This was a 19.2% increase over the FY2009 request, and 9.8% above the
FY2008 enacted amount.
The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R.
2638, P.L. 110-329) provides approximately $41.0 billion (excluding collections) for
VHA for FY2009. Funding levels for the medical services, medical support and
compliance, medical facilities, and medial and prosthetic research accounts remained
closer to the House-approved amounts. P.L. 110-329 provides $375 million to
increase Priority Group 8 enrollment. It also includes an additional $133 million to
increase the beneficiary travel reimbursement mileage rate to 41.5 cents per mile
while freezing the deductible at current levels.
Title III: Related Agencies
American Battle Monuments Commission
The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) is responsible for the
maintenance and construction of U.S. monuments and memorials commemorating
the achievements in battle of U.S. armed forces since the nation’s entry into World
War I; the erection of monuments and markers by U.S. citizens and organizations in
foreign countries; and the design, construction, and maintenance of permanent
cemeteries and memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24
cemeteries, 22 separate monuments and markers in foreign countries, and three
memorials on U.S. soil.
The ABMC was responsible for the planning and construction of the World War
II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. Though the National Park Service
assumed responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Memorial at its
dedication, the ABMC retains a fiduciary responsibility for the remaining public
contributions given for its construction. The ABMC also undertook construction of
an Interpretive Center at the Normandy American Cemetery in Normandy, France,
to commemorate the World War II Allied invasion of France on June 6, 1944, and
the subsequent land battles in Europe. The new facility opened on June 6, 2007.
CRS-27
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by the
Veterans’ Administration Adjudication Procedure and Judicial Review Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-687). The Court is an independent judicial tribunal with exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. It has the
authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret constitutional, statutory,
and regulatory provisions; and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms
of an action by the VA. It is authorized to compel action by the VA. It is authorized
to hold unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful and set aside decisions, findings,
conclusions, rules and regulations issued or adopted by the VA or the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals.
The Court currently occupies leased facilities near Judiciary Square in the
District of Columbia and is searching for a permanent location as the current lease
expires in September 2010. The Court’s major operational initiative is to continue
and develop plans, with the General Services Administration, for a Veterans’
Courthouse and Justice Center.
Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses)
The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the administration, operation and
maintenance of Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home
National Cemetery. In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery,
Arlington is the site of approximately 3,200 non-funeral ceremonies each year and
has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.
The FY2008 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161) included additional funds in FY2008 for
realignment of government-issued headstones, construction of a heavy equipment
storage facility, and funds for costs not included in the budget request related to the
relocation of utilities at Arlington Cemetery.
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)
The Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund provides funds to operate and
maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC (also known as the
United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home) and the Armed Forces Retirement
Home in Gulfport, Mississippi (originally located in Philadelphia, PA, and known
as the United States Naval Home). These two facilities provide long-term housing
and medical care for approximately 1,600 needy veterans. The Gulfport campus,
encompassing a 19-story living accommodation and medical facility tower, was
severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August, 2005, and is not
currently in use. Residents of the facility were transferred to the Washington, DC,
location immediately after the storm. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was
signed between the AFRH and the General Services Administration (GSA) for the
rebuilding of the Gulfport facility, with a targeted completion date in 2010.
The appropriation for the AFRH facilities is from the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Trust Fund. The trust fund is maintained through gifts, bequests, and a $0.50
CRS-28
per month assessment on the pay of active duty enlisted military personnel and
warrant officers. The FY2008 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161) provided $800,000 in general
funds for the study of the long-term viability of the trust fund.
The budget request for FY2009 includes funds for renovation of the Scott
Dormitory Building for residents on the D.C. campus. The renovations are
scheduled to begin in 2010, so the new Gulfport facility can be used to house the
D.C. residents displaced by the renovations.
Table 7 shows the FY2008 enacted appropriations, the FY2009 request, and the
appropriations provided in H.R. 6559, S. 3301, and H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) for
each of the related agencies.
Table 7. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in thousands of $)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Request (H.R. 6559)
(S. 3301) (H.R. 2638)
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)
Salaries and expenses
44.600
64.570
55.470
59.470
$59.470
Foreign currency fluctuations account
11.000
0.000
17.100
17.100
17.100
Total, ABMC
55.600
64.570
72.570
76.570
76.570
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and expenses
22.717
23.975
73.975
23.975
30.975
Army Cemeterial Expenses
Salaries and expenses
31.230
31.230
31.230
42.230
36.730
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)
Operation and maintenance
55.724
63.010
63.010
63.010
63.010
General Fund Appropriation
0.800
Total, AFRH
56.524
63.010
63.010
63.010
63.010
Total, All Related Agencies
166.071
182.785
240.785
205.785
$207.285
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.
CRS-29
Appendix A. Appropriations:
DOD Military Construction Accounts
(budget authority in $000)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Account
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
(H.R. 2683)
(H.R. 6659)
(S. 3301)
Military Construction, Army
3,330,031
3,936,583
4,615,920
4,801,536
4,561,561
4,692,648
Rescissions
—
(8,690)
—
(51,320)
(65,120)
(51,320)
Emergency Approps.
— 1,108,200
—
—
—
—
(P.L. 110-252)
Total
3,330,031
5,036,093
4,615,920
4,750,216
4,496,441
4,641,328
Military Construction,
1,565,407 2,198,394
3,096,399
3,280,809
3,159,191
3,333,369
Navy and Marine Corps
Rescissions
—
(10,557)
—
—
—
—
Emergency Approps.
—
355,907
—
—
—
—
(P.L. 110-252)
Total
1,565,407
2,543,744
3,096,399
3,208,809
3,159,191
3,333,369
Military Construction,
1,154,756 1,159,747
934,892
976,524
1,058,694
1,117,746
Air Force
Rescissions
—
(10,470)
—
(17,681)
(8,080)
(20,821)
Emergency Approps.
—
399,627
—
—
—
—
(P.L. 110-252)
Total
1,154,756
1,548,904
934,892
958,843
1,050,614
1,096,925
Military Construction,
1,135,846 1,609,596
1,783,998
1,614,450
1,688,270
1,695,204
Defense-wide
Rescissions
—
(10,192)
—
(3,589)
—
(3,589)
Emergency Approps.
—
890,921
—
—
—
—
(P.L. 110-252)
Total
1,135,846
2,490,325
1,783,998
1,610,861
1,688,270
1,691,615
Total, Active components
7,186,040 11,619,066 10,431,209
10,600,729
10,394,516
10,763,237
Military Construction,
473,000
536,656
539,296
628,668
660,669
736,317
Army National Guard
Rescissions
—
— —
—
(1,400)
(1,400)
Total
473,000
536,656
539,296
628,668
659,269
734,917
Military Construction,
126,000
287,537
34,374
142,809
180,286
242,924
Air National Guard
Military Construction,
166,000
148,133
281,687
282,607
357,387
282,607
Army Reserve
Military Construction,
43,000
64,430
57,045
57,045
61,045
57,045
Naval Reserve
Military Construction,
45,000
28,359
19,265
30,018
29,915
36,958
Air Force Reserve
Rescissions
—
(3,069)
—
—
—
—
Total
45,000
25,290
19,265
30,018
29,915
36,958
Total, Reserve components
853,000 1,062,046
931,667
1,141,147 1,287,902
1,354,451
Total, Military
8,039,040 12,681,112 11,362,876
11,741,876
11,682,418
12,117,688
Construction
NATO Security Investment
328,111
201,400
240,867
218,867
240,867
230,867
Program
CRS-30
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Account
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
(H.R. 2683)
(H.R. 6659)
(S. 3301)
Family Housing Construction,
595,362
424,400
678,580
646,580
678,580
646,580
Army
Rescissions
—
(4,559)
—
—
—
—
Total
595,362
419,841
678,580
646,580
678,580
646,580
Family Housing Ops and
718,816
731,920
716,110
716,110
721,110
716,110
Debt, Army
Family Housing Construction,
231,733
293,129
382,778
382,778
381,073
380,123
Navy and Marine Corps
Emergency Approps.
—
11,766
—
—
—
—
(P.L. 110-252)
Total
231,733
304,895
382,778
—
—
308,123
Family Housing Ops and
503,165
371,404
376,062
376,062
381,062
376,062
Debt, Navy and Marine Corps
Family Housing Construction,
1,222,399
327,747
395,879
395,879
395,879
395,879
Air Force
Rescissions
—
(15,000)
—
—
—
—
Total
1,222,399
312,747
395,879
395,879
395,879
395,879
Family Housing Ops and
795,162
688,335
599,465
594,465
604,465
594,465
Debt, Air Force
Family Housing Construction,
9,000
— — — — —
Defense-wide
Rescissions
— — — — —
(6,040)
Total
9,000
—
—
—
—
(6,040)
Family Housing Ops and
47,957
48,848
49,231
49,231
49,231
49,231
Debt, Defense-wide
DOD Family Housing
—
500
850
850
850
850
Improvement Fund
Homeowners Assistance Fund
—
—
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,500
Total, Family Housing
4,123,594 2,878,450
3,203,455
3,166,455 3,216,750
3,157,760
Chemical Demilitarization
131,000
104,176
134,278
134,278
144,278
144,278
Construction, Defense-wide
Base Realignment and Closure
BRAC, 1990
137,393
295,689
393,377
473,377
468,377
458,377
BRAC, 2005
5,622,872 7,235,591
9,065,386
9,065,386
8,991,700
8,765,613
Emergency Approps.
— 1,278,886
—
—
—
—
(P.L. 110-252)
Total, BRAC
5,760,265 8,810,166
9,458,763
9,538,763
9,460,077
9,223,990
Air National Guard Fire
—
—
—
—
—
28,000
Stations (Sec. 131)
Army National Guard
Aviation and Training
—
—
—
—
—
147,000
(Sec. 132)
Emergency Appropriations
(P.L. 110-252, Sec. 1001)
—
200,000
—
—
—
—
Barracks Improvements
Grand Total, MilCon & FH
18,382,010 24,875,344
24,400,239
24,800,239
24,744,390
25,049,583
CRS-31
Appendix B. Additional Resources
Budget
CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tyszkiewicz and
Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report 98-720, Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by Robert Keith and
Allen Schick.
Veterans Affairs
CRS Report RL33991, Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers, by
Christine Scott, Sidath Viranga Panangala, and Charles A. Henning.
CRS Report RS22483, Health Care for Dependents and Survivors of Veterans, by
Sidath Viranga Panangala, and Susan Janeczko.
CRS Report RS20533, VA-Home Loan Guaranty Program: An Overview, by Bruce
E. Foote and Meredith Peterson.
CRS Report RL33704, Veterans Affairs: The Appeal Process for Veterans’ Claims,
by Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS Report RL33113, Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability Benefit
Programs, by Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS Report RL33323, Veterans Affairs: Benefits for Service-Connected Disabilities,
by Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS Report RL34370, Veterans Affairs: Health Care and Benefits for Veterans
Exposed to Agent Orange, by Sidath Viranga Panangala and Douglas Reid
Weimer.
CRS Report RS22897, Veterans Affairs: Historical Budget Authority, Fiscal Years
1940 through 2007, by Christine Scott.
CRS Report RS22561, Veterans Affairs: The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims — Judicial Review of VA Decision Making, by Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS Report RS22666, Veterans Benefits: Federal Employment Assistance, by
Christine Scott.
CRS Report RL33985, Veterans’ Benefits: Issues in the 110th Congress, by Carol D.
Davis, Shannon S. Loane, Meredith Peterson, Christine Scott, Libby Perl, and
Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS Report RL33992, Veterans Benefits: Merchant Seamen, by Christine Scott, and
Douglas Reid Weimer.
CRS-32
CRS Report RS22902, Veterans Benefits: An Overview, by Carol D. Davis, Sidath
Viranga Panangala, and Christine Scott.
CRS Report RL34626, Veterans’ Benefits: An Overview of Benefits for Disabled
Veterans, by St Jalisa E. Miller, Christine Scott, and Carol D. Davis.
CRS Report RS22804, Veterans’ Benefits: Pension Benefit Programs, by Carol D.
Davis and Christine Scott.
CRS Report RL34627, Veterans’ Benefits: The Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program, by Beverley A. Crane, Christine Scott, and Carol D.
Davis.
CRS Report RL33993, Veterans’ Health Care Issues, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.
CRS Report RL34598, Veterans Medical Care: FY2009 Appropriations, by Sidath
Viranga Panangala.
Selected Websites
House Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.senate.gov/]
House Committee on Armed Services
[http://www.house.gov/hasc/]
Senate Committee on Armed Services
[http://armed-services.senate.gov/]
House Committee on Veterans Affairs
[http://veterans.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
[http://veterans.senate.gov/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office
[http://www.cbo.gov/]
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC Commission)
[http://www.brac.gov]
Government Accountability Office
[http://www.gao.gov/]