Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Daniel H. Else, Coordinator
Specialist in National Defense
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Analyst in Veterans Policy
December 10, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40731
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Summary
The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides
funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of facilities used by
active and reserve military components worldwide. It capitalizes military family housing and the
U.S. share of the NATO Security Investment Program, and finances the implementation of
installation closures and realignments. It underwrites veterans benefit and health care programs
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides for the creation and maintenance of
U.S. cemeteries and battlefield monuments within the United States and abroad, and supports the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and Armed Forces Retirement Homes. The bill also
funds construction supporting Overseas Military Operations, a function previously carried out
through emergency supplemental appropriations, and advance appropriations for veterans medical
services.
Rather than submit a complete appropriations request for FY2010 only five weeks after taking
office, President Barack Obama published a budget overview, A New Era of Responsibility:
Renewing America’s Promise
, on February 26, 2009. The President submitted his regular FY2010
appropriations request to Congress on May 7, 2009, including $133.5 billion for programs
covered in the regular Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill: $24.4 billion for Title I (military construction and family housing); $108.9
billion for Title II (veterans affairs); and $275.7 million for Title III (related agencies). Compared
with funding appropriated for FY2009, this represented decreases for Title I of $3.7 billion
(13.4%), and increases for Title II of $12.9 billion (13.5%) and for Title III of $69.0 million
(33.3%). The overall increase in appropriations between that requested for FY2010 and enacted
for FY2009 is $9.2 billion (7.4%).
Military construction is experiencing an overall decrease in spending as the annual appropriation
required to implement the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment round begins to drop off.
Also, appropriations dedicated to the construction and operation of military family housing are
decreasing as its privatization program expands.
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, the average number of days for completing a pension or compensation
claim in FY2008 was 179 days. To reduce the pending claims workload and improve processing
time, funds have been provided in previous appropriation bills for hiring and training additional
claims processing staff.
The House version of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Act for
2010 (H.R. 3082) was passed by the House on July 10, 2009, and sent to the Senate. The Senate
passed an amended version of the bill on November 17, 2009. H.R. 3082 was subsequently
incorporated as Div. E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288).

Congressional Research Service

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Contents
Status of Legislation.................................................................................................................... 1
Appropriation ....................................................................................................................... 1
National Defense Authorization............................................................................................. 2
Title I: Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 3
Military Construction ............................................................................................................ 3
Key Budget Issues ................................................................................................................ 4
Planning Future Construction .......................................................................................... 4
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) .......................................................................... 6
Guam Redeployment....................................................................................................... 8
Overseas Installations.................................................................................................... 10
Military Housing........................................................................................................... 12
Incremental vs. Phased Construction Funding ............................................................... 12
Navy Outlying Landing Fields ...................................................................................... 13
Other Issues .................................................................................................................. 14
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs..................................................................................... 15
Agency Overview ............................................................................................................... 15
Key Budget Issues .............................................................................................................. 18
Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 18
American Battle Monuments Commission........................................................................... 18
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims .......................................................................... 19
Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) ................................................ 19
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) ........................................................................... 19
Appropriations for FY2009 ....................................................................................................... 20
Regular Appropriations (Consolidated Security and Continuing Appropriations) ................. 20
Economic Stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) ........................................ 21
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 .............................................................................. 22

Figures
Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation.................................... 7

Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2010 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Status of FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act ................................................... 1
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009 ................................ 15
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011 ............................... 16
Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2009-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 17
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2009-FY2010 .................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table A-1. Appropriations: Military Construction Appropriations Accounts ............................... 23

Appendixes
Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts ................................................................... 23
Appendix B. Additional Resources ............................................................................................ 28

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Status of Legislation
Table 1. Status of FY2010 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
(H.R. 3082, S. 1407)
Conference
Committee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report Passage Reporta House Senate Law
06/23/09 — 111-188 07/10/09
111-40
11/17/09
111-366
— — —
Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
Note:
a. Conference Report for H.R. 3288, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
Table 2. Status of FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 2647, S. 1390)
Committee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
06/16/09 07/02/09 111-166 06/25/09 111-35 07/23/09 10/07/09 10/08/09 10/22/09 P.L.
111-84
Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
Appropriation
President Barack Obama did not submit a detailed appropriations request during the first weeks of
his administration. Instead, he forwarded the outline of a budget request, stating
In the little more than a month my Administration has had in office, we have not had the
time to fully execute all the budget reforms that are needed, and to which I am fully
committed. Those will come in the months ahead, and next year’s budget process will look
much different.1
Detailed information on the FY2010 Department of Defense (DOD) request was released on May
7, 2009.
Representative Chet Edwards (TX/17), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, reported an
original measure, H.R. 3082 (H.Rept. 111-188), to the House on June 26, 2009. The bill was
placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 101). The House Committee on Rules reported

1 President Barack Obama, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC, February 6, 2009, p. 3, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.
Congressional Research Service
1

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

H.Res. 622, for consideration of H.R. 3082, on July 9, allowing one hour of general debate. The
rule was passed on July 10, and the bill was brought to the floor for consideration (Congressional
Record
p. H7976-7983). Following floor debate (CR p. H7983-7991), the measure passed on the
Yeas and Nays: 415-3 (Roll No. 529).
Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota), chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, introduced an
original measure, S. 1407 (S.Rept. 111-40), to the Senate on July 7, 2009, where it was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No 100).
H.R. 3082 was received in the Senate on July 13, 2009, where it was placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 16). The bill was laid before the Senate
on November 5, 2009 (CR p. S11187-S11191). The Senate debated the bill on November 6 (CR p.
S11239-S11245), November 9 (CR p. S11265-S11273, and S11283-S11284), November 10 (CR
p. S11313-S11334), November 16 (CR p. S11362-S11378), and November 17 (CR p. S11403-
S11411), passing it on November 17 by Yea-Nay vote: 100-0 (Record Vote No.348).
On December 8, 2009, H.R. 3082, along with appropriations bills for Transportation-HUD,
Commerce-Justice-Science, Financial Services, Labor-HHS, and State-Foreign Operations, was
included in the conference report for H.R. 3288, the 2010 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill
retitled as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. H.R. 3082 became Div. E of that report,
H.Rept. 111-366. The House adopted the conference report on December 10.
Detailed, appropriations account-level data on the appropriations bills, including enacted amounts
for prior years, are displayed in Table 4 (Department of Veterans Affairs), Table 6 (Related
Agencies), and Table A-1 (Military Construction and Family Housing).2
National Defense Authorization
Representative Ike Skelton (MO/04) introduced H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization
Act for 2010, on June 2, 2009, when it was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services
(HASC). The committee reported the bill (H.Rept. 111-166) on June 16. The House began
consideration on June 24 and passed it on June 25, 2009. The bill was received in the Senate on
July 6 and placed on the Legislative Calendar (No. 96).
The Senate’s version of the bill, S. 1390, was introduced to that chamber by the chair of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services (SASC), Senator Carl Levin (MI), as an original measure
on July 2, 2009. The Senate began consideration of the bill on July 14. Senator Harry Reid (NV),
the Majority Leader, introduced a cloture motion on July 22 and passed it, as amended, on July
23, 2009, by Yea-Nay vote (87-7, Record Vote No. 242).
On July 23, the Senate took up consideration of H.R. 2647, struck all after its Enabling Clause,
and substituted the debate-amended language of S. 1390. The Senate then passed the amended
H.R. 2647 by Unanimous Consent, insisted on its amendment, and requested a conference.

2 An overview of the status of all FY2010 appropriations bills is available through the CRS website at
http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/appover.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
2

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The House took up the amended bill on October 6, 2009, when Representative Skelton moved
that the chamber disagree to the amendment and agree to a conference. The motion carried by
voice vote. Representative J. Randy Forbes moved that the conferees be instructed on a provision
regarding the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. After one hour of debate, the
motion failed by the Yeas and Nays, 178-234 (Roll No. 754).
Conferees filed the conference report (H.Rept. 111-288) in the House on October 7.3
Representative Skelton brought up the report for floor consideration on October 8. After one hour
of debate, Representative Buck McKeon moved that report be recommitted with instructions to
the conference committee. The motion was defeated by the Yeas and Nays (208-216, Roll No.
769). The House agreed to the conference report by a recorded vote of 281-146 (Roll No. 770).
The Senate took up the conference report on October 20. A cloture motion was filed the same day.
Cloture on the conference report was invoked by the Senate on October 22 by a Yea-Nay vote of
64-35 (Record Vote No. 326). The chamber agreed to the conference report by Yea-Nay vote (68-
29) on the same day (Record Vote No. 327).
Congress cleared the bill for the White House on October 22, 2009. It was presented to the
President on October 26 and signed by him on October 28, becoming P.L. 111-84.
a. Table 1 and Conference Report for H.R. 3288, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
Table 2 track the progress of the appropriations and authorization acts, respectively.
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 DOD
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
aids federal personnel stationed at or near an installation scheduled for closure or
realignment who are unable to sell their homes by allowing the Secretary of Defense to subsidize
the sale or to purchase homes outright.4 The Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-

3 Filing conference report, Congressional Record, October 7, 2009, pp. H10565-H11052.
4 The ARRA for 2009 permanently expanded eligibility for the Homeowner Assistance Program to some classes of
wounded and injured DOD and Coast Guard personnel and surviving spouses and temporarily authorized eligibility to
some other federal personnel. A discussion of this expansion can be found in CRS Report RL34558, Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations
, by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and
Sidath Viranga Panangala.
Congressional Research Service
3

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

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).
Funding of the various accounts included under Title I (Department of Defense) is listed in
Appendix A to this report.
Key Budget Issues
Planning Future Construction
Congressional committees with jurisdiction over military construction appropriations and
appropriation authorizations require the Secretary of Defense to justify in detail the construction
projects requested for the upcoming fiscal year. In addition, in order to anticipate upcoming
construction requirements, Congress requires the Secretary to regularly project its future budget
plans and to review its national defense strategy. These exercises are referred to as the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
Uncertainty in Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)
Section 221 of Title 10 of the United States Code (10 U.S.C. 221) requires the Secretary of
Defense to submit a Future Years Defense Plan in conjunction with the President’s annual
appropriations request. A FYDP projects the Secretary’s anticipated appropriations requirements,
including military construction-related accounts, over the next five or six years and is used by the
defense committees to exercise oversight by tracking changes in DOD plans.
Rather than submit a complete appropriations request for FY2010 only five weeks after taking
office, President Barack Obama published a budget overview, A New Era of Responsibility:
Renewing America’s Promise
, on February 26, 2009. Detailed information on the FY2010 DOD
request was released on May 7. In the accompanying documentation, Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates did not project the Department’s requirements into the future, citing the ongoing
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR, see next section) and the uncertainty of its potential impact
on future military construction.
All four congressional defense committees noted the Secretary’s failure to provide this
information. The HAC declared its expectation for the Department “to promptly inform the
Committee when decisions on future plans are finalized.”5 Their Senate counterparts (SAC) noted
that the “Department’s decision to not provide [FYDP] data with the fiscal year 2010 budget has

5 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010, report to
accompany H.R. 3082, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 26, 2009, H.Rept. 111-188, p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
4

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

… complicated the Committee’s efforts to ascertain the scope and timetable of large-scale
initiatives.”6
The House Committee on Armed Services (HASC) observed, “The inability of the Department to
produce this critical document for consideration in this Act leads to a degradation of the quality of
the military construction program. The committee encourages the Department to submit these
documents … in concert with other budget documents, for consideration in the annual budget
request.”7 Finally, the SASC, in its discussion of the anticipated move of more than 7,000
Marines from the Japanese Prefecture of Okinawa to the U.S. Territory of Guam, also noted that
the budget submission did not include a FYDP and pointed out that a “FYDP would go a long
way toward illustrating to the committee that the total U.S. investment required for the
[relocation] initiative can be supported in future budget requests.”8
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress has required DOD to periodically reassess its
strategic objectives and potential military threats to national defense. The Department is currently
undertaking its fourth such exercise, the 2010 QDR. As stated above, the Secretary of Defense
deferred submission of detailed budget documentation this year, explaining that his planning
could not proceed while a QDR was ongoing. Section 1002 of the enacted National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-84) amended 10 U.S.C. 118 by adding a new
subsection (h), clarifying that the development of the QDR should not interfere with or delay
delivery of budget materials and congressional reporting requirements tied to Section 1105(a) of
Title 31, United States Code, the requirement for timely budget submission.
The QDR may affect a number of decisions that will impact future military construction
programs. Three important initiatives whose future have become clouded awaiting the review’s
findings are Army modularization, the redeployment of forces from Germany to the United
States, and the stationing of new troops as the Army’s end strength grows.
On April 6, 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced that he would cap the number of Army
Modular Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) at 45, three below the 48 BCTs envisioned in his
December 2007 Grow the Army plan. The three installations where new brigades will not be
created include Fort Carson, CO, Fort Stewart, GA, and Fort Bliss, TX.9 The SAC observed that
$2.10 billion had been appropriated in 2009 for the military construction and family housing
intended to support these three BCTs. The SASC noted that the decision not to activate the three
BCTs would logically reduce the requirement for new military construction at the three sites.10

6 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, report to
accompany S. 1407, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 7, 2009, S.Rept. 111-40, p. 10.
7 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, report on H.R. 2647, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
June 18, 2009, H.Rept. 111-166, p. 541.
8 S.Rept. 111-40, p. 220.
9 H.Rept. 111-166, p. 21-2; S.Rept. 111-40, p. 14.
10 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
report to accompany S. 1390, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 2, 2009, S.Rept. 111-35, p. 213.
Congressional Research Service
5

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The redeployment of existing BCTs from German garrisons to installations in the United States
and of 7th Army Headquarters to a new Command and Battle Facility at Wiesbaden, Germany,
have been delayed until completion of the QDR and a reevaluation of overseas deployment
requirements.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Cost of Implementation, 2005 BRAC Round
In the detailed documentation submitted by DOD to accompany the President’s FY2010
appropriations request, DOD estimated that its one-time implementation costs for BRAC 2005
will total $34.8 billion.11
These cost estimates have changed over time as the military departments and DOD have
developed plans to carry out the various required BRAC actions. In its FY2007 request, DOD
estimated the total one-time implementation cost to implement the 2005 BRAC round and to
redeploy approximately 70,000 troops and their families from overseas garrisons to bases within
the United States at $17.9 billion. Between the submission of the FY2007 request in February
2006 and the FY2008 request the next year, DOD estimates had risen considerably, causing the
estimate of one-time implementation cost to rise to more than $30.7 billion. The same estimate
made by DOD in February 2008 for the FY2009 appropriations request rose again, to
approximately $32.0 billion.
Figure 1 displays the progression of DOD cost estimates.

11 One-time implementation costs for BRAC include the construction of necessary facilities, environmental remediation
of surplus military property, the operation and maintenance of property associated with BRAC, and the transfer of
military and DOD civilian employees to new duty stations.
Congressional Research Service
6

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation
10,000
9,143
s)
8,509
9,000
9,025
llion
8,174
7,581
8,000
8,174
7,912
Mi
$

7,000
y (
5,639
5,623
6,000
5,623
5,558
orit
5,626
5,696
5,473
h
5,000
4,000
Aut
2,439
3,000
dget
2,996
2,104
1,530
2,071
2,000
1,502
1,502
1,563
1,000
1,489
ew Bu
484
N
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Fiscal Year
FY2007 Est.
FY2008 Est.
FY2009 Est.
FY2010 Est.

Source: DOD Budget Justification Documents for FY2007-FY2010.
In requesting military construction funds for FY2007, DOD estimated the total one-time
implementation cost to implement the 2005 BRAC round (the realignment and closure of a
number of military installations on United States territory) and to redeploy approximately 70,000
troops and their families from overseas garrisons to bases within the United States at $17.9
billion. Between the submission of the FY2007 request in February 2006 and the FY2008 request
the next year, DOD estimates had matured considerably, causing the estimate of one-time
implementation cost to rise to more than $30.7 billion. The same estimate made by DOD in
February 2008 for the FY2009 appropriations request rose again, to $32.0 billion.
Requiring the Secretary to Seek Fair Market Value in Economic Development
Conveyances

The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) contained language
(Section 2711) that would have amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Act
of 1990, redefining the role of the Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) and restricting the
ability of the Secretary of Defense to negotiate the fair market value of surplus property being
transferred to local redevelopment authorities.12 The provision would have loosened the definition

12 An economic development conveyance (EDC) is the transfer of title to surplus real property for the expressed
purpose of generating employment on the site. An EDC requires that proceeds from the sale or lease of the transferred
property must be devoted to economic development of the site for a period of seven years. The existing BRAC law
required the Secretary of Defense to seek fair market value for all property surplused in the 2005 BRAC round and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

of the EDC and tied the value of the property to post hoc market conditions, rather than ad hoc
valuation by the Secretary. It would also have required the Secretary to convey the property for
no consideration (no-cost) under certain conditions.
Section 2705 of the Senate amendment expressed a sense of the Senate that the Department of
Defense should comprehensively assess the needs of communities while assisting them to deal
with the effects of base closures or growth.
The enacted version of the bill (P.L. 111-84) amended Section 2905 of the BRAC Act to replace
the previous requirement for the Secretary to seek fair market value in real property EDC with
authority granting him discretion to account for local economic conditions and the cost of needed
additional local infrastructure (transportation, utilities, schools, etc.) when considering the amount
of consideration to be requested for all BRAC-surplused property. The enacted language also
grants the Secretary the authority to accept a range of considerations in lieu of cash value,
including a share of the revenues generated from subsequent sale or lease of the property.
Implementing the 2005 BRAC Round, Eglin AFB Funding
One of the BRAC Commission recommendations establishes a joint pilot training school for the
new F-35 Thunderbolt II (Joint Strike Fighter, JSF) at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) adjacent to
Valparaiso, FL. In their FY2010 request, the Air Force and Navy jointly requested six
construction projects related to the new training squadron. Both the House Appropriations and
Armed Services Committees recommended that the full cost of these projects be fully funded
through the Air Force account, with the Armed Services Committee noting that unitary
management would “ensure that a complete and usable facility can be constructed.”13
Guam Redeployment
The FY2010 budget includes the first request for funds to relocate approximately 8,000 Marines
and an estimated 10,000 members of their families from installations in the Prefecture of
Okinawa to the U.S. Territory of Guam. Relocation funding is to be shared between the
governments of Japan and the United States. Associated with the Guam relocation is the
construction of a replacement facility on Okinawa for the Marine aviation facility at Futenma and
a redeployment of units to Camp Schwab, Okinawa.14 In its Statement of Administration Policy
(SAP) on H.R. 2647 (the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2010), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) objected to a provision (Section 2836)
that would prevent the Secretary of Defense from accepting a Japanese-built Futenma
Replacement Facility (FRF) until he certifies that it meets Naval Aviation Safety standards. OMB
stated that the planned FRF configuration has already been formally agreed between the
governments of the United States and Japan.

(...continued)
conveyed for the purpose of economic development. For a more complete description of an EDC and introduced
legislation that would amend its provisions, see CRS Report R40620, Military Installation Real Property and Services:
Proposed Legislation in the 111th Congress
, coordinated by Daniel H. Else.
13 H.Rept. 111-188, pp. 22-3; H.Rept. 111-166, p. 518.
14 MCAS Futenma is located approximately five miles from Naha, the capital of Okinawa Prefecture, in south-central
Okinawa. Camp Schwab is located in northeastern Okinawa. The construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility is
expected before the end of 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

More than $10.2 billion in joint construction funding for the relocation, which includes new
operations-related structures and housing and infrastructure and utility upgrades on Guam, has yet
to be coordinated between Japan and the United States, and the recent election of a new
government in Japan may have slowed the conclusion of these negotiations. Nevertheless, the
relocation is expected to be complete by 2014.15 Several provisions in the House-passed version
of H.R. 2647 related to construction supporting the relocation. Among them, Section 2833 would
have required construction workers to be paid not less than the lowest wage rates for comparable
work performed in Hawaii, rather than the prevailing local wage rate set by the Secretary of
Labor. In his written response to advance policy questions submitted to the SASC pursuant to his
July 9, 2009, hearing on his nomination to become Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral
Robert F. Willard, USN, stated
According to Department of Labor data, Hawaii construction wage rates are approximately
300% higher than those on Guam. The $10.27B estimated cost for construction to relocate
the Marines to Guam was based on historical wages experienced on Guam. In accordance
with international agreement, the amount of funding that Japan will provide is fixed.
Therefore, any additional cost will require more U.S funding. The Joint Guam Program
Office estimates application of Hawaii Davis-Bacon wage rates with fringes to Guam could
increase the labor cost for the realignment by $4.7B.16
Section 2833 would also have limited the number of construction work hours each month
performed by persons holding H2B visas to no more 30% of the total.17
The SASC noted that an Environmental Impact Statement, required before construction can begin
on Guam, is underway. For several years, the committee has been vocal in requesting a DOD
master plan that would detail the extent of military construction and associated infrastructure
upgrades that the relocation would require. To date, no such comprehensive plan has been
submitted, and the initiation of a QDR and deferral of a FYDP appears to indicate that a Guam
Master Plan will be further delayed. The committee recommended that some construction
projects requested for Guam be deferred pending the submission of a master plan and FYDP and
reduced the requested Navy construction authorization by $211.0 million.18 In its SAP on S. 1390,
OMB objected, stating that the government of Japan had appropriated $366.0 million for its
current fiscal year as part of a $6.0 billion commitment to help develop Guam.
The enacted version of the bill (P.L. 111-84) requires that local wage rates apply to military
construction contracts associated with the realignment of military installations and relocation of
personnel to Guam and requires the Secretary of Labor to issue an annual wage rate
determination until 90% of the funds for the project are expended. It also imposes no limitation
on the number of visa holders who may work on construction projects, but requires that the
needed visas be issued subsequent to the issuance of a temporary labor certification by the

15 The 2000 U.S. census stated the population of Guam as 154, 805. The Marine relocation may increase the Territory’s
population by more than 11.6% within the next five years and will be preceded by a large number of temporary
construction workers.
16 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Hearing to Consider the Nominations of General James E.
Cartwright, USMC, and Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 9, 2009.
17 An H2B visa is issued to nonimmigrant, temporary, nonagricultural workers for labor that is seasonal, intermittent,
one-time, or meets a peak load need, and U.S. workers cannot be found. Additional information on the H2B visa
program can be found in CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker
Programs
, by Andorra Bruno.
18 S.Rept. 111-35, pp. 219-20.
Congressional Research Service
9

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Governor of Guam.19 The bill also conditions acceptance of the Futenma Replacement Facility on
a report by the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense committees that it and its
associated operating procedures are consistent with naval aviation safety requirements, but does
not deny the Secretary the authority to exercise his existing waiver authorities.
Overseas Installations
Overseas Contingency Operations
The FY2010 appropriations request includes $1.41 billion in overseas contingency construction
for projects at various locations in Afghanistan. In previous years, construction projects in an
active military area of operations would have been requested in one or more requests for
emergency supplemental appropriations. This marks the first year that all such construction is
included in the regular annual appropriation request.
Construction at Al Musannah Air Base, Oman
The U.S. Air Force operates a facility at Seeb International Airport (also known as Muscat
International Airport), Oman, a joint civil-Royal Omani Air Force site, that includes prepositioned
war reserve materiel. The Omani government has requested that U.S. military activity at the
airport be relocated to a new site, Al Musannah, so that commercial development may proceed at
Seeb International.20 DOD subsequently requested funding for construction at the Al Musannah
site. The SASC recommended that funding requested in FY2010 ($69.0 million for airlift ramp
and fuel facilities and $47.0 million for a war reserve materiel compound) be denied, noting the
lack of a base master plan to guide construction, the incomplete state of the needed long-term
agreement with the Omani government for its use, and the absence of contributions from the
Omanis to its construction and operation. The committee calculated that the future cost to
complete construction and bring the new installation into operation would likely reach $350
million, observing that a FYDP would assist in confirming the magnitude of the necessary future
investment.21 The final version of the authorization act (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-84) did not authorize
the appropriation of the funds requested for construction. The conferees recommended that DOD
confirm the existence of an updated host nation agreement before resubmitting the project in a
future Presidential budget request.
Oversight of the Development of Overseas Installations
The SASC noted in its report on S. 1390 that then-President George W. Bush released an
Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) in 2004. Later renamed the Global

19 Section 2834 of the enacted bill. The Governor must also certify to the Secretary of Defense that there are
insufficient United States workers able, willing, and available for the work and that the hiring of such visa-holders will
not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in Guam.
20 The Oman Airports Management Company reports that between 2000 and 2006, the number of passengers annually
passing through Seeb International increased from 2.7 million to 4.8 million, the tons of freight transshipped rose from
69.6 to 99.5 thousand tons, and the number of civilian aircraft movements increased from 36.0 thousand to 46.3
thousand. Activity at the airport in more recent years has since dropped off somewhat. Information downloaded from
http://www.omanairports.com/seeb_trafficstatistics.asp, downloaded on July 13, 2009.
21 S.Rept. 111-35, p. 223.
Congressional Research Service
10

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Defense Posture Realignment Strategy (GDPRS), it formed the basis for plans to redeploy as
many as 70,000 military personnel and their families from garrisons overseas to installations
within the United States over the subsequent decade.
Section 2704 of S. 1390 would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report
on the status of overseas base closures and realignments that result from the implementation of
changes in DOD’s basing strategy. Because the QDR was created to be a comprehensive
examination of national defense strategy, infrastructure, and other elements of defense policy,
Section 2704 would also have amended its governing law, 10 U.S.C. 118, to require an additional
report from the Secretary on the impact each QDR would have on the global posture of U.S.
military forces. The enrolled version of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647, P.L.
111-84) retained that provision as an amendment to Title 10, inserting a new Section 2687a,
“Overseas Base Closures and Realignments and Basing Master Plans.”
The final bill also included in Section 1063 a requirement that the Secretary of Defense submit,
concurrent with delivery of the 2009 QDR, a report on the plan for basing forces outside of the
United States. In particular, the report is to address how such a plan would support international
and bilateral security agreements, describe the current security environment in each geographic
combatant command's Area of Responsibility, and assess the impact of any permanent change in
unit basing would have on those agreements and on the status of overseas base closure and
realignment actions already underway. The report is to also include the Secretary's
recommendations, if any, for additional overseas base closures or realignments. The statute
requires the Secretary to notify Congress at least 30 days before the permanent relocation of a
unit stationed outside of the United States.
Transition of Camp Lemonier from Expeditionary to Enduring Status
Construction at Camp Lemonier, a former French Foreign Legion facility in Djibouti that is now
the location of Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), has been supported by
emergency supplemental appropriations for expeditionary operations.22 Nevertheless, CJTF-HOA
has recently been described by the Africa Command (AFRICOM) staff as an “enduring forward
operating site,” implying that it has assumed a more permanent status. New construction projects
requested for the Camp in 2010 have been included in the regular appropriation.
In its report on S. 1407, the SAC observed that AFRICOM headquarters is located in Stuttgart,
Germany. With Camp Lemonier, still an expeditionary outpost, its sole installation within the
AFRICOM area of responsibility, the committee was unwilling to support any enduring
construction prior to the release of the 2010 QDR. The SAC instructed DOD to submit a strategic
infrastructure plan for AFRICOM not later than April 30, 2010.23

22 CJTF-HOA was created in late 2002 aboard USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20), a Navy headquarters communications
ship. The staff moved ashore to Camp Lemonier during 2003. Its area of responsibility encompassed Kenya, Somalia,
Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia in Africa, and Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula. Since its inception, CJTF-HOA
has existed within the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility, but as the newly created Africa
Command (AFRICOM) gains its full organizational capacity, Djibouti and the rest of the continent (except Egypt) will
come under its control.
23 S.Rept. 111-40, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
11

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The SASC expressed concern in its report on S. 1390 that the future mission of CJTF-HOA, its
relationship with other U.S. governmental organizations in the region, and the ability of
AFRICOM to sustain the task force’s current level of operations remain unclear and directed the
Secretary of Defense to submit an explanatory report.24 This language was not included in the
final authorization act’s conference report.
Military Housing
Army Trainee Barracks
The Department of the Army has reported that housing for an anticipated 65,000 new troops at its
various initial training facilities will not be brought up to its current habitability standards before
2015. The House recommended additional funding to accelerate trainee troop barracks
modernization.25
Privatization Initiatives
The Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), initiated more than a decade ago by then-
Secretary of Defense William J. Cohen, has thus far resulted in the transfer of responsibility, and
cost, to private enterprise for the construction, maintenance, and operation of military family
housing at approximately 100 military installations across the nation. This privatization has
reduced the amount of appropriated funds needed for the construction and operation of military
family housing. Therefore, the total military family housing appropriation request for FY2010,
$1.96 billion, comprises only 62% of the FY2009 enacted level of funding.26
Incremental vs. Phased Construction Funding
Major construction projects often require several years to complete. In their planning and
execution, military departments and defense agencies have developed the practice of requesting
authorization and appropriations in discrete phases, each of which is considered to be independent
of another.
A “military construction project” is defined in statute to include “all … work … necessary to
produce a complete and usable facility or a complete and usable improvement to an existing
facility.”27 Thus, each construction phase must result in a facility that can be placed in service.
All four military construction committees have expressed their willingness to authorize these
large and complex construction projects in their entirety and appropriate funding incrementally
(i.e., in annual portions). As assessed by the SASC, when used on some large-scale projects, the
use of phased construction “can lead to inefficient designs, complex construction difficulties …,

24 S.Rept. 111-35, pp. 218-9.
25 H.Rept. 111-188, p. 18.
26 Because privatized housing is paid for primarily through the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) issued to service
members living in non-government accommodations, the primary budgetary effect of housing privatization is a shift of
the cost of housing from the military construction appropriation to the military personnel appropriation account in the
defense appropriation. See H.Rept. 111-188, p. 28, and S.Rept. 111-40, pp. 6-7.
27 10 U.S.C. 2801(b).
Congressional Research Service
12

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

repeated contractor mobilizations, and inefficient ordering of construction materials. This phasing
strategy often leads to higher overall costs … and longer construction times….”28 The HASC
supported full authorization for a number of major projects, but authorized the appropriation of
only part of the total amount. The HASC calculated this reduction based on its assessment of the
relevant military department’s ability to execute an annual increment of the needed construction.29
In its Statements of Administration Policy on H.R. 2647 and S. 1390, the House and Senate
versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, and H.R. 3082, the House-
passed version of the military construction appropriations bill, OMB objected to incremental
funding, stressing its desire to continue the use of so-called “full funding.”
The HAC stated, “that while projects should be fully funded or separated into standalone phases
where practicable, incremental funding should remain an option when it makes fiscal and
programmatic sense.”30 The Senate committee observed, “it continues to be the practice of the
Committee to provided incremental funding for certain large projects, despite administration
policy to the contrary, to enable the services to more efficiently allocate military construction
dollars….”31
The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-84)
authorized full funding and incremental appropriations for hospital replacement projects on Guam
and at Ft. Bliss, TX.32
Navy Outlying Landing Fields
Navy and Marine crews of fixed-wing aircraft are required to periodically practice shipboard
landing techniques under daylight and nighttime conditions at specially equipped airfields before
deploying to their assigned aircraft carriers. In order to mimic conditions at sea as closely as
possible, the Department of the Navy maintains a number of these Outlying Landing Fields
(OLF) at sites selected in part for their proximity to major Naval and Marine Corps Air Stations
and at sufficient distance from encroaching city and suburban sprawl to eliminate distracting
lights.
OLF Fentress, an auxiliary airstrip located eight miles southwest of Naval Air Station (NAS)
Oceana in Virginia Beach, VA, has served this purpose for several decades. Residential
encroachment prompted the Department of the Navy to remove the training function to a new site
available to F/A-18 squadrons based at both NAS Oceana and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Cherry Point, NC. The initial effort focused on a rural inland location midway between Plymouth,
VA, and Pantego, NC, approximately 85 miles from the NAS and 57 miles from the MCAS, but
the new airfield was resisted by local governments, culminating in Congress repealing the Navy’s
authorization to acquire the land. The Department is now examining alternative OLF locations.
In its report on S. 1390, the SASC directed the Secretary of the Navy to consult with the State of
North Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia, local governments and other interested

28 S.Rept. 111-35, p. 240.
29 H.Rept. 111-166, pp. 515-6.
30 The committee’s report notes that the Office of Management and Budget will disallow any incrementally funded
military construction projects beginning with the FY2010 appropriations request. H.Rept. 111-188, p. 18.
31 S.Rept. 111-40, p. 9.
32 H.Rept. 111-288, p. 875.
Congressional Research Service
13

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

parties prior to issuing a final environmental impact statement and record of decision on its
choice of location of a new field and to report on this to the defense committees.33
The HASC also addressed Navy OLFs, but went farther by incorporating several specific
measures into their recommended statutory language. Section 2818 of the House-drafted version
of H.R. 2647 would prevent the Secretary of the Navy from establishing an OLF at a location
where the Secretary finds the local political jurisdiction formally opposed. Section 2819 would
prohibit the establishment of an OLF at either Sand Banks or Hale’s Lake, NC, two more recently
studied sites.
The enacted version of H.R. 2647 contained neither of these provisions.
Other Issues
Piñon Canyon, CO, Maneuver Training Area (PCMTA)
During the 1980s, the Department of the Army acquired approximately 250,000 acres near Ft.
Carson, CO, for use as a troop maneuvering area. Half of the land was purchased via open sale,
with the remainder bought through the use of condemnation proceedings.34
When the Department announced that the number of soldiers stationed at Ft. Carson would
increase substantially, it initiated an effort to add an additional 450,000 acres to the PCMTA.
Local land owners expressed concern that public condemnation might again be invoked to
acquire the new land.
An amendment to the bill appropriating military construction funds for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161)
forbade the use of such funds for Piñon Canyon expansion. Identical language appeared in the
military construction appropriations act for FY2009. This restriction is continued in Section 125
of Administrative Provisions in Title I of the current H.R. 3082, the House version of the Military
Construction Appropriations Act for FY2010.
New Project Starts Under Continuing Resolutions
Federal agency operations are normally funded through the enactment of one of the 13 annual
appropriations bills requested by the President and passed by Congress. Absent an annual
appropriation, agency operations are funded under one or more continuing resolutions. Statute
forbids the initiation of new programs using continuing resolution funding.
DOD requested statutory relief from this restriction for new military construction projects. The
HAC did not include such a provision in its version of the appropriations act (H.R. 3082).35

33 S.Rept. 111-35, pp. 220-1.
34 A more lengthy discussion of the issues surrounding the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Training Site can be found on pp.
22-3 of CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations,
by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga Panangala.
35 H.Rept. 111-188, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
14

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

School Construction
A number of military installations will gain a significant number of military and civilian
personnel during the next several years due to force shifts associated with base realignments,
military end strength increases, and the redeployment of military units from overseas to domestic
garrisons. Most school-age children of military personnel attend public schools operated by local
school agencies.
Federal property is exempt from the local taxation that normally supports school systems, and an
important federal support for school attendance takes the form of Impact Aid Program payments
to local school districts.36 Nevertheless, impact aid is retroactive, depending on an annual census
of military family school children. This has presented a challenge for jurisdictions to prepare for a
large influx of students as military units move to nearby installations.
The HAC directed DOD to report on options available to proactively assist local agencies with
school construction and renovation and on conditions that could trigger the need for new DOD
school construction.37
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
VA
58.10
61.84 65.84 71.46 79.55 88.11 95.95
Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the Appropriations Committees accompanying the appropriations
bills for the years noted above.
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 3, VA appropriations
for benefits and services has increased from $52.38 billion in FY2003 to $95.95 billion in
FY2009.

36 The Impact Aid Program is established in Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA).
37 H.Rept. 111-188, pp. 18-9. The DOD Education Agency (DODEA) operates 192 primary, middle, and secondary
schools in 14 districts located in seven states, the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 12 foreign
countries where significant numbers of U.S. military families are stationed.
Congressional Research Service
15

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011
(budget authority in billions of $)



House (H.R. 3082)
FY2009
FY2010
Program
Enacted
Request
FY2010 FY2011
Compensation and pensions
43.112
47.218
47.218

Readjustment benefits
3.833
8.664
8.664

Insurance and indemnities
0.042
0.049
0.049

Housing programs (net, indefinite)a -0.243
-0.109
-0.109

Housing programs administration
0.158
0.165
0.165

Total, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
46.901
55.988
55.988






National Cemetery Administration
0.230
0.242
0.250

Supplemental Appropriationsb 0.050



Total, National Cemetery Administration (NCA)
0.280
0.242
0.250





Medical Services
30.970
34.705
34.705

Advance appropriations



37.136
Medical support and compliance
4.450
5.100
4.900

Advance appropriations



5.307
Medical facilities 5.029
4.693 4.893

Advance appropriations



5.740
Supplemental Appropriationsb 1.000



Medical and prosthetic research
0.510
0.580
0.580

Medical Care Collection Fundc




(Offsetting receipts)
-2.544
-2.954
-2.954

(Appropriations - indefinite)
2.544
2.954
2.954

Total, Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
41.959
45.078
45.078

Total, VHA advance appropriationsd


48.183
Available to VHA (includes col ections)
44.503
48.032
48.029






General operating expenses
1.802
2.219
2.086

Supplemental Appropriationsb 0.150



Information technology
2.489
3.307
3.307

Supplemental Appropriationsb 0.050



Inspector General
0.088
0.107
0.106

Supplemental Appropriationsb
0.001

Construction, major projects
0.923
1.194
1.194

Construction, minor projects
0.742
0.600
0.723

Grants for state extended care facilities
0.175 0.085 0.085
Supplemental Appropriationsb 0.150



Grants for state veterans cemeteries
0.042
0.042
0.046

Congressional Research Service
16

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations




House (H.R. 3082)
FY2009
FY2010
Program
Enacted
Request FY2010 FY2011
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation
Fund
0.198

Total, Departmental Administration
6.810
7.554
7.547






Total, Department of Veterans Affairs
95.950
108.861
108.860
Total, VA advance appropriations



48.183
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations
Committee, 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 col ected.
b. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)
c. Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget
authority equal to the revenue col ected.
d. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have provided budget authority for FY2011 in
FY2010 Appropriations Bills for the following accounts: medical services, medical support and
compliance, and medical facilities. Under current budget scoring guidelines new budget authority for an
advance appropriation is scored in the fiscal year in which the funds become available for obligation.
Therefore, in this table the budget authority is recorded in FY2011 column.
Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011
(budget authority in billions of $)



House (H.R. 3082)
Senate (S. 1407)
FY2009
FY2010

Enacted
Request
FY2010 FY2011 FY2010 FY2011
Mandatory






Benefits (VBA)
46.743
55.822
55.822

55.822

Discretionary






Medical (VHA)
41.959
45.078
45.075
45.234
Advance appropriations



48.183
48.183
National Cemetery
0.280
0.242
0.250

0.250

Administration (NCA)
Departmental administration
6.810
7.554
7.547

7.538

Housing administration (VBA)
0.158
0.166
0.166

0.166

Total, discretionary
49.206
53.038
53.037
53.189
Discretionary, advance


48.183
48.183
appropriations
Total, Department of
95.950 108.861 108.860
109.010
Veterans Affairs
Total, VA advance


48.183
48.183
appropriations
Congressional Research Service
17

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations




House (H.R. 3082)
Senate (S. 1407)
FY2009
FY2010

Enacted
Request
FY2010 FY2011 FY2010 FY2011







Percentages of Total






Mandatory
48.7%
51.3%
51.3%

51.2%

Discretionary
51.3%
48.7%
48.7%
100.0%
48.8%
100.0%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations
Committee, various fiscal years.
Key Budget Issues
The FY2010 budget submitted by the Administration in May 2009 called for funding the VA at a
level of $108.9 billion for FY2010 (see Table 4). This would be an increase of $12.9 billion, or
13.5%, over the FY2009 appropriation (including the economic stimulus funding provided by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA, P.L. 111-5]).
The largest increases in funding for the VA between FY2009 and FY2010 in the Administration
request, H.R. 3082, and S. 1407 are for compensation and pension benefits, and readjustment
benefits, where the largest component is for education benefits. As shown in Table 4, H.R. 3082
would provide $108.9 billion in FY2010 funding for the VA, and $48.2 billion in advance
FY2011 funding for VA medical care. While H.R. 3082 provides total funding for the VA equal to
the Administration request, H.R. 3082 would provide lower funding for general operating
expenses and greater funding for minor construction and the National Cemetery Administration
than in the Administration request.
S. 1407 would provide, as shown in Table 4, $109.0 billion in FY2010 funding for the VA, and
$48.2 billion in advance FY2011 funding for VA medical care. S. 1407 would provide higher
funding for medical facilities and grants for state extended care facilities than in the
Administration request.
As shown in Table 5, there is an almost equal split between mandatory and discretionary funding
for the VA. In the FY2009 appropriation, mandatory funding was only slightly less than
discretionary funding. Both the Administration request, H.R. 3082, and S. 1407 for FY2010
would provide discretionary funding that is slightly less than mandatory funding. For FY2011, all
of the advance funding provided by H.R. 3082 and S. 1407 is discretionary funding.
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
Congressional Research Service
18

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

maintenance of permanent cemeteries and memorials in foreign countries. The Commission
maintains 24 cemeteries and 25 memorials in either foreign countries or on U.S. soil.
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.
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
3,100 non-funeral ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.
H.R. 3082 would prohibit construction of a perimeter wall at Arlington National 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 per month assessment on
the pay of active duty enlisted military personnel and warrant officers.
The FY2010 Administration request and H.R. 3082 contain funding for construction at the
Washington, DC location.
Congressional Research Service
19

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 6 shows the FY2009 enacted appropriations, the FY2010 request, and the funding provided
by H.R. 3082 for FY2010 for each of the related agencies.
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2009-FY2010
(budget authority in thousands of $)
House
Senate



(H.R. 3082)
(S. 1407)
FY2009
FY2010

Enacted
Request
FY2010 FY2010
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)



Salaries and expenses
59.470
60.300
61.800
63.549
Foreign currency fluctuations account
17.100
17.100
17.100
17.100
Total, ABMC
76.570
77.400
78.900
80.649





U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims




Salaries and expenses
30.975
27.115
28.115
27.115





Army Cemeterial Expenses




Salaries and expenses
36.730
37.200
42.500
37.200





Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)




Operation and maintenance
54.985
62.000
62.000
62.000
Capital program
8.025
72.000
72.000
72.000

Total,
AFRH
63.010 134.000 134.000 134.000





Total, All Related Agencies
207.285
275.715
283.515
278.964
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations
Committee, various fiscal years.
Appropriations for FY2009
Regular Appropriations (Consolidated Security and Continuing
Appropriations)

President George W. Bush submitted his FY2009 appropriations request to Congress on February
4, 2008. The House Committee on Appropriations (HAC) Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies marked its bill on June 12, 2008, and the
full committee markup took place on June 24. Representative Chet Edwards, the subcommittee
Congressional Research Service
20

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

chair, introduced the bill (H.R. 6599, H.Rept. 110-775) on July 24. After extensive debate and the
raising of two points of order on the floor, the House passed H.R. 6599 on August 1, 2008.38
The Senate Committee on Appropriations (SAC) Subcommittee on Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies polled out its version of the appropriations bill, and the
full committee reported it out without amendment by a unanimous vote on July 17, 2008. Senator
Tim Johnson, subcommittee chair, introduced the measure (S. 3301, S.Rept. 110-428) on July 22,
2008.
In the course of legislative business, several analysts suggested that this and other appropriations
bills might not be adopted until the convening of the 111th Congress.39 The text of the military
construction appropriations bill was incorporated into Division E of an amendment to H.R. 2638,
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, a bill subsequently retitled the
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Passed by
both chambers in late September, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 110-329) on
September 30, 2008.40
Economic Stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act)
Representative David R. Obey, chair of the HAC, introduced the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), or ARRA, to the 111th Congress on January 26, 2009. Title X
of the bill added funding to several military construction and veterans affairs appropriations
accounts. After debate and amendment, H.R. 1 was passed by the House on January 27. The
Senate subsequently substituted its own version of the bill, S. 336, and after floor debate and
amendment, passed H.R. 1 on February 10, 2009.
The conference committee filed its report (H.Rept. 111-16) on February 12, and President Barack
Obama signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-5) on February 16, 2009.41
The ARRA added $4.28 billion to already-enacted military construction, family housing, and
veterans affairs appropriations, increasing DOD accounts by $2.88 billion and Department of
Veterans Affairs accounts by $1.40 billion. A detailed discussion of ARRA provisions related to
military construction appropriations may be found in CRS Report RL34558, Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations
, by Daniel H. Else,
Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga Panangala.

38 A more detailed discussion of the bill’s passage is found in CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations
, by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga
Panangala.
39 Manu Raju, “Approps Bills May Wait,” The Hill, July 2, 2008, p. 1.
40 For more information on the bill, see CRS Report RL34711, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-
329): An Overview
, by Robert Keith.
41 A detailed discussion of the ARRA can be found in CRS Report R40537, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (P.L. 111-5): Summary and Legislative History
, by Clinton T. Brass et al.
Congressional Research Service
21

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
Representative Obey introduced a supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2346) on May 12, 2009,
that consolidated funds, with some adjustments, that the Administration had requested in four
supplemental appropriations proposals, including an April 9 request for $83.4 billion in
supplemental funding for defense, international affairs, domestic fire fighting, and other purposes;
an April 30 request for $1.5 billion for influenza preparedness and response; and a May 12
request for $5 billion to support International Monetary Fund (IMF) borrowing authority.
The House passed the bill on May 14. The Senate passed its version of the bill on May 21.
On June 2, the Administration submitted an additional request for $2.0 billion more for influenza
response, for expanded authority to transfer funds from other appropriations for influenza
measures, and for $200 million in additional humanitarian assistance to Pakistan. The conference
committee filed its report (H.Rept. 111-151) on June 12, 2009. After agreement by both
chambers, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-32) on June 24.42
The Act added $2.11 billion to military construction accounts, including $1.23 billion for Army,
$239.0 million for Navy and Marine Corps, and $281.0 million for Air Force construction, $263.3
million for the Base Realignment and Closure 2005, and $100.0 million for the NATO Security
Investment Program accounts.

42 For more detailed information on the supplemental appropriation, see CRS Report R40531, FY2009 Spring
Supplemental Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations
, coordinated by Stephen Daggett and Susan B.
Epstein.
Congressional Research Service
22

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts
Table A-1. Appropriations: Military Construction Appropriations Accounts
(budget authority in $000)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010
Account
Enacted
Enacteda
Requestb
Committee
Committee Conference
Military Construction, Army
3,936,583 4,692,648 3,660,779 3,630,422 3,477,673 3,719,419
Rescissions -8,690
-51,320

-59,500


Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
1,108,200 — — — — —
110-252)
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 180,000




111-5)
Supplemental
Appropriations (P.L.
— 1,326,231




111-32)
Overseas
Contingency
— —
923,884
926,484
924,484 —
Operations
Total
5,036,093 6,147,559 4,584,663 4,497,406 4,402,157 3,719,419
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
2,198,394 3,333,369
3,763,264 3,760,317 3,548,771 3,769,003
Rescissions
-10,557 — — — — —
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
355,907 — — — — —
110-252)
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 280,000




111-5)
Supplemental
Appropriations (P.L.
— 235,881




111-32)
Total
2,543,744 3,849,250 3,763,264 3,760,317 3,548,771 3,769,003
Military Construction,
Air Force
1,159,747 1,117,746 1,145,434 1,356,184 1,213,539 1,450,426
Rescissions -10,470
-20,821



37,500
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
399,627 — — — — —
110-252)
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 180,000




111-5)
Supplemental
— 281,620




Appropriations (P.L.
Congressional Research Service
23

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010
Account
Enacted
Enacteda
Requestb
Committee
Committee Conference
111-32)
Overseas
Contingency
— —
474,500
474,500
474,500 —
Operations
Total
1,548,904 1,558,545 1,619,934 1,830,684 1,688,039 1,412,926
Military Construction,
Defense-wide
1,609,596 1,695,204 3,097,526 2,743,526 3,069,114 3,093,679
Rescissions
-10,192 -3,589
— -25,800
— -151,160
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
890,921 — — — — —
110-252)
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 1,450,000




111-5)
Supplemental
Appropriations (P.L.
— 661,552




111-32)
Overseas
Contingency
— —
6,600 — — —
Operations
Total
2,490,325 3803,167 3,104,126 2,717,726 3,069,114 2,942,519
Total, Active
components
11,619,066 15,358,521 13,071,987 12,806,133 12,708,081 11,843,887
Military Construction,
Army National Guard
536,656 736,317 426,491 523,129 497,210 582,056
Rescissions —
-1,400




Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 50,000




111-5)
Total
536,656 784,917 426,491 523,129 497,210 582,056
Military Construction,
Air National Guard
287,537 242,924 128,261 242,126 297,661 371,226
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 50,000




111-5)
Total
287,537 292,924 128,261 242,126 297,661 371,226
Military Construction,
Army Reserve
148,133 282,607 374,862 437,516 379,012 431,566
Military Construction,
Naval Reserve
64,430 57,045 64,124 110,874 64,124 125,874
Military Construction,
Air Force Reserve
28,359 36,958 27,476 103,169 47,376 112,269
Rescissions
-3,069 — — — — —
Total
25,290 36,958 27,476 103,169 47,376 112,269
Congressional Research Service
24

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010
Account
Enacted
Enacteda
Requestb
Committee
Committee Conference
Total, Reserve
components
1,062,046 1,454,451 1,021,214 1,416,814 1,285,383 1,622,991
Total, Military
Construction
12,681,112 14,307,688 14,093,201 14,222,947 13,993,464 13,468,858
NATO Security
Investment Program
201,400 230,867 276,314 234,914 276,314 197,414
Supplemental
Appropriations (P.L.
— 100,000




111-32)
Total,
NSIP
201,400 330,867 276,314 234,914 276,314 197,414
Family Housing
Construction, Army
424,400 646,580 273,236 273,236 273,236 273,236
Rescissions
-4,559 — — — — —
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 34,507




111-5)
Total
419,841 681,087 273,236 273,236 273,236 273,236
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Army
731,920 716,100 523,418 523,418 523,418 523,418
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 3,932




111-5)
Total
731,920 720,042 523,418 523,418 523,418 523,418
Family Housing
Construction, Navy and
293,129 380,123 146,569 146,569 146,569 146,569
Marine Corps
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
11,766 — — — — —
110-252)
Total
304,895 380,123 146,569 146,569 146,569 146,569
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Navy and Marine
371,404 376,062 368,540 368,540 368,540 368,540
Corps
Family Housing
Construction, Air Force
327,747 395,879 66,101 66,101 66,101 66,101
Rescissions
-15,000 — — — — —
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 80,100




111-5)
Total
312,747 475,979 66,101 66,101 66,101 66,101
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Air Force
688,335 594,465 502,936 502,936 502,936 502,936
Emergency
— 16,461




Appropriations (P.L.
Congressional Research Service
25

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010
Account
Enacted
Enacteda
Requestb
Committee
Committee Conference
111-5)
Total
688,335 610,926 502,936 502,936 502,936 502,936
Family Housing
Construction, Defense-
— —
2,859
2,859
2,859
2,859
wide
Rescissions —
-6,040




Total
— -6,040 2,859 2,859 2,859 2,859
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Defense-wide
48,848 49,231 49,214 49,214 49,214 49,214
DOD Family Housing
Improvement Fund
500 850
2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600
Homeowners Assistance
Fund
— 4,500 23,225 23,225 373,225 323,225
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
— 555,000




111-5)
Total
— 559,500 23,225 23,225 373,225 323,225
Total, Family Housing
2,878,450
3,847,760
1,958,698
1,958,698
2,308,698
2,258,698
Chemical
Demilitarization
104,176 144,278 146,541 146,541 151,541 151,541
Construction,
Defense-wide
Base Realignment and Closure
BRAC,
1990
295,689 458,377 396,768 536,768 421,768 496,768
BRAC,
2005
7,235,591 8,765,613 7,479,498 7,479,498 7,479,498 7,455,498
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L.
1,278,886 — — — — —
110-252)
Supplemental
Appropriations (P.L.
— 263,300




111-32)
Total,
BRAC
8,810,166 9,487,290 7,876,266 8,016,266 7,901,226 7,952,266
Air National Guard Fire
Stations (Sec. 131
— 28,000




Army National Guard
Aviation and Training
— 147,000




(Sec. 132)
Emergency
Appropriations (P.L. 110-
200,000 — — — — —
252, Sec. 1001) Barracks
Improvement
General Reductions (Sec.
129)






Military Construction,
— — — — —
230,000
Congressional Research Service
26

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010
Account
Enacted
Enacteda
Requestb
Committee
Committee Conference
Army
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
— — — — —
235,000
Military Construction,
Air Force
— — — — —
64,091
General Rescissions (Sec.
130)






Military Construction,
Army
— — — — —
33,000
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
— — — — —
51,468
Military Construction,
Air Force
— — — — —
93,268
Military Construction,
Army National Guard
— — — — —
33,000
Military Construction,
Air National Guard
— — — — —
7,000
Grand Total, MilCon
& FH
24,875,334 28,117,883 24,351,020 24,579,366 24,631,243 23,279,950
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations
Committee, various fiscal years.
a. Because FY2009 Enacted figures incorporate al enacted supplemental appropriations, totals and subtotals
may differ from those appearing in other sources.
b. FY2010 Request figures incorporate Overseas Contingency Operations construction projects into the so-
cal ed base budget. In prior years, these had been funded thorough separate emergency supplemental
appropriations. For comparison, all appropriations are included in this table and may differ from those
appearing in other sources.
Congressional Research Service
27

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

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 et al.
CRS Report RS22483, Health Care for Dependents and Survivors of Veterans, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala.
CRS Report RS20533, VA-Home Loan Guaranty Program: An Overview, by Bruce E. Foote.
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
2008
, 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, coordinated by Carol D.
Davis.
CRS Report RL33992, Veterans Benefits: Merchant Seamen, by Christine Scott and Douglas Reid
Weimer.
CRS Report RS22902, Veterans Benefits: An Overview, by Carol D. Davis, Sidath Viranga
Panangala, and Christine Scott.
CRS Report RL34626, Veterans’ Benefits: Benefits Available for Disabled Veterans, by Christine
Scott and Carol D. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
28

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

CRS Report RS22804, Veterans’ Benefits: Pension Benefit Programs, by Christine Scott and
Carol D. Davis.
CRS Report RL34627, Veterans’ Benefits: The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Program
, by 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/appover.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/

Congressional Research Service
29

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Daniel H. Else, Coordinator
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Specialist in National Defense
Analyst in Veterans Policy
delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996
spanangala@crs.loc.gov, 7-0623
Christine Scott

Specialist in Social Policy
cscott@crs.loc.gov, 7-7366


Congressional Research Service
30