Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Specialist in Veterans Policy
August 6, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41345
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 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, Armed Forces Retirement Homes, and Arlington
National Cemetery. The bill also funds construction supporting military operations overseas
(known as Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO), a function previously carried out through
emergency supplemental appropriations, and advance appropriations for veterans medical
services.
President Barack Obama submitted his request to Congress for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011
appropriations on February 1, 2010. For the appropriations accounts included in this bill, his
request totaled $191.7 billion in new budget authority, divided into four major categories: Title I
(military construction and family housing) at $18.7 billion; Title II (veterans affairs) at $171.4
billion; Title III (related agencies) at $283.8 million; and Title IV (a new category of funding for
construction in support of active military operations overseas) at $1.3 billion. All told, the request
comprised $20.0 billion in Department of Defense (DOD), $171.4 billion in veterans affairs, and
$283.8 million in other agency funding. Of the total, $76.0 billion (39.6%) would be discretionary
appropriations, with the remainder considered mandatory.
Simultaneously, the President requested an emergency supplemental appropriation for FY2010
that contained $521.4 million for Army and Air Force construction in Afghanistan.
The military construction funding amounts requested by the President and recommended by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have fallen off as building for the 2005 Defense
Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round has nearly reached completion. Funding support
for military family housing construction has also declined as the military departments (Army,
Navy, and Air Force) continue their efforts to privatize formerly government-owned
accommodations.
In the area of non-medical benefits, the largest dollar increases in funding for the VA between
FY2010 and FY2011 in the Administration request, the House Appropriations Committee
recommendation (H.R. 5822) and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation (S.
3615) are for disability compensation and pension benefits, and readjustment benefits, where the
largest component is for education benefits.
The appropriations subcommittees in both chambers reported their versions of the bill (S. 3615)
on July 14, 2010. The Senate introduced S. 3615 and placed it on the Legislative Calendar
(Calendar No. 469) on July 19. The House introduced H.R. 5822 on July 22, took it up on July
28, and passed it with amendments. The Senate received H.R. 5822 on July 29 and placed it on
the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 494).

Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 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: the Quadrennial Defense Review ..................................... 4
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): the Cost of Implementation .............................. 5
Overseas Installations: the Guam Redeployment ............................................................. 6
Incremental vs. Phased Construction Funding ................................................................. 7
Other Issues .................................................................................................................... 7
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs....................................................................................... 9
Agency Overview ................................................................................................................. 9
Key Budget Issues ................................................................................................................ 9
Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 14
American Battle Monuments Commission........................................................................... 14
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims .......................................................................... 14
Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) ................................................ 14
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) ........................................................................... 14
Title IV: Overseas Contingency Operations ............................................................................... 15
Temporary Contingency Construction Authority.................................................................. 15
Permanent Construction Authorities .................................................................................... 16
The Use of CCA for Construction ....................................................................................... 16
Creation of Title IV............................................................................................................. 17

Figures
Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation.................................... 6

Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2011 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Status of FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act ................................................... 1
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2004-FY2010 .................................. 9
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2010-FY2012 ............................... 11
Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2009-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 12
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2010-FY2011 .................................................... 15
Table A-1. Appropriations: Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts,
FY2010-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table A-2. Appropriations: Title IV OCO Military Construction Appropriations Accounts,
FY2010-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 20

Appendixes
Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts ................................................................... 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Status of Legislation
Table 1. Status of FY2011 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
(H.R. 5822, S. 3615)
Conference
Committee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report Passage Report House Senate Law
07/14/10 07/14/10 H.Rept. 07/28/10 S.Rept. — — — — —
111-559
111-
226
Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
Table 2. Status of FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 5136, S. 3454)
Conference
Committee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report House Senate Law
04/25/10 06/03/10 H.Rept. 05/28/10 S.Rept.
— — — — —
111-491
111-
201
Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
Appropriation
President Barack Obama submitted a detailed appropriations request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 on
February 1, 2010. In it, he requested $18.7 billion in new budget authority for regular military
construction and military family housing construction and operation, plus an additional $1.3
billion for construction in support of ongoing military contingency operations overseas, primarily
in Afghanistan. The committees on appropriations subsequently recommended to their respective
chambers that Congress appropriate funds equal to the president’s request, though each
committee’s allocation of funds among the various subaccounts differed in detail.
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. 3615 (S.Rept. 111-226), to the Senate on July 19, 2010, where it was placed
on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 469).
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. 5822 (H.Rept. 111-559), to the House on July 22, 2010. The bill was
placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 320). The House Committee on Rules met on July
27 to draft a rule for the consideration of H.R. 5822. The Rules Committee adopted a structured
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

rule (H.Res. 1559) the same day, submitting H.Rept. 111-570.1 The House passed the rule on July
28 and took up the bill, considering a total of 14 amendments. Of these, eleven were adopted
before passing the amended bill on the Yeas and Nays (411-62, Congressional Record H6228-
H6235, Roll No. 482).

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) and Table A-2 (Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction).2
National Defense Authorization
Representative Ike Skelton (MO/04) introduced H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization
Act for 2011, on April 26, 2010, when it was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services
(HASC).3 The committee referred parts of the bill, including the authorization request for the
FY2011 military construction appropriation, to its various subcommittees on May 11 and reported
the bill (H.Rept. 111-491) on May 21.4 The House took up the bill on May 27, adopted several
amendments, and passed an amended version on recorded vote (Roll No. 336) on May 28, 2010.
The bill was received in the Senate on June 9 and placed on the Legislative Calendar under
General Orders (No. 423). On June 24, the Senate, at the other chamber’s request (H.Res. 1467),
returned the papers to the House by Unanimous Consent. H.R. 5136 was again received in the
Senate on June 28 and placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (No. 447).
The Senate’s version of the defense authorization bill, S. 3454, 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 June 4, 2010 (S.Rept. 111-201). The measure was placed on the Legislative
Calendar under General Orders (No. 414).
Table 1 and Table 2 track the progress of the appropriations and authorization acts, respectively.
The remainder of this report is organized in parallel with the appropriations bills.

1 The rule permitted one hour of general debate and waived points of order against consideration of and provisions in
the bill under certain clauses of Rule XXI (Restrictions on Certain Bills). It made in order only those amendments
printed in the Rules Committee report, which would be introduced in order by a Member designated therein. It limited
debate on the amendments and provided for them to then be considered for adoption en gros.
2 An overview of the status of all FY2011 appropriations bills is available through the CRS website at
http://www.crs.gov/Pages/appover.aspx.
3 A much more comprehensive and detailed report on the National Defense Authorization Act can be found in CRS
Report R41254, Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations, coordinated by Pat Towell.
4 A supplemental report, H.Rept. 111-491, Part II, was filed on May 26, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Title I: Department of Defense
Military Construction
The military construction appropriations account includes a number of appropriations
subaccounts:
• 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 a common fund in which all NATO members participate 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 DOD provides the
seed money, both directly appropriated and transferred from other accounts, needed to
initiate public-private arrangements for the privatization of military housing.
• 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.5
• The Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide, account provides for the
design and construction of disposal facilities required for the destruction of chemical
weapons stockpiles, as required under international treaty.
• 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) and Title IV
(Overseas Contingency Construction) is listed in Appendix A to this report.

5 The ARRA for 2009 (the Stimulus Bill) permanently expanded eligibility for the Homeowner Assistance Program to
some classes of wounded and injured DOD and Coast Guard personnel or their 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: FY2011 Appropriations

Key Budget Issues
Planning Future Construction: the Quadrennial Defense Review
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. One important document in that planning
process is the statutorily mandated 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.6 The Department published
its fourth such exercise, the 2010 QDR, in February 2010.7
In recent QDRs, DOD expressed its intention to reevaluate its “global footprint,” the network of
permanent garrisons stationed on foreign soil, with an eye toward concentrating a greater
percentage of troops on U.S. territory, ready to deploy to temporary sites overseas where and as
needed. In the 2010 QDR, DOD appeared to reevaluate its position, stating its intention to extend
“a global defense posture composed of joint, ready forces forward-stationed and rotationally
deployed to prevail across all domains, prepositioned equipment and overseas facilities, and
international agreements.”8
The Senate appropriations committee noted that DOD had initiated several QDR-inspired reviews
of its basing policies and encouraged the Department to focus its installations planning on U.S.
European Command (USEUCOM) and Pacific Command (USPACOM), the geographic
commands with the most extensive basing establishments. While awaiting results of the DOD
reviews, the committee recommended deferring $464.6 million of the FY2011 presidential
request for military construction in Djibouti, Germany, Guam, Honduras, Japan, and the Republic
of Korea.9 The House committee also noted basing uncertainties in the 2010 QDR, including
references to the need for U.S. military forces to have “access to networks of bases and
supporting infrastructures that are more resilient than today’s in the face of attacks by a variety of
means,”10 and the “normalization” of duty tours in locations such as the Republic of Korea.11 The

6 10 U.S.C. § 118, Quadrennial Defense Review.
7 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Washington, DC, February 2010 (hereafter,
Quadrennial Defense Review), http://www.defense.gov/qdr/. For a thorough discussion of the 2010 QDR, see CRS
Report R41250, Quadrennial Defense Review 2010: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning, by
Stephen Daggett.
8 Quadrennial Defense Review, p. 15.
9 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2011, report
to accompany S. 3615, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 19, 2010, S.Rept. 111-226 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 9.
10 Quadrennial Defense Review, p. 33.
11 Duty in many locations, such as the Republic of Korea, has long been classified as a short-term “hardship”
assignment where service members are not authorized to have family members accompany them. In “normalizing”
such duty, DOD would incur a requirement to provide more extensive family housing and supporting infrastructure in
order to sustain families and lengthened tours.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

House committee directed DOD to include a report with its FY2012 budget submission detailing
how it intends to fund the construction needed to implement a revised overseas basing plan.12
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): the Cost of Implementation
In the detailed documentation submitted by DOD to accompany the President’s FY2011
appropriations request, DOD estimated that its one-time implementation costs for BRAC 2005
will total $34.5 billion.13
These cost estimates have increased over time as the military departments and DOD have
developed plans to carry out the various required BRAC actions. In requesting military
construction funds for FY2007, the first submission after the list of BRAC recommendations was
created, 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. DOD’s FY2010 estimate for one-time implementation costs
over the FY2006-2011 period reached $34.2 billion.
FY2011 is the final year of BRAC 2005 implementation, which by statute must be complete by
September 15, 2011, and the estimate for total new budget authority required to complete the
process has now been set by DOD at $34.5 billion. The President has requested $2.4 billion as the
final implementation installment. Both House and Senate committees have recommended full
funding of the President’s request.
Figure 1 displays the progression of DOD cost estimates.

12 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, 2011, report to
accompany H.R. 5822, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 22, 2010, H.Rept. 111-559 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 17.
13 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
5

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation
10,000
9,143
8,509
9,000
)
s
9,025
n
7,581
8,174
8,000
illio
8,174
7,912
M
7,000
$
(
5,639
5,623
y
6,000
rit
5,623
5,558
o
5,626
5,696
5,473
th
5,000
t Au
4,000
e
g
2,439
d
3,000
u
B
1,530
2,996
2,071
2,104
w
2,000
e
1,502
1,502
N
1,563
1,000
1,489
484
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Fiscal Year
FY2007 Est.
FY2008 Est.
FY2009 Est.
FY2010 Est.
FY2011 Est.

Source: DOD Budget Justification Documents for FY2007-FY2011.
Overseas Installations: the Guam Redeployment
The President has requested $426.9 million for construction to support the relocation of
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 and an additional $139.3
million for construction associated with the forward deployment of other military units.
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 Corps air station at Futenma and a redeployment of units to Camp Schwab,
Okinawa.14
In its report to the House, the Committee on Appropriations wrote of its concerns over the ability
of DOD to fully utilize this amount, citing an inadequate Navy Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed construction, lack of apparent progress in upgrading civil
infrastructure “outside the fence line” (such as roads, sewage treatment, water supplies, etc.), and
the uncertain impact of the 2010 QDR’s concept of installation “resiliency” on future construction
planning.15 The Senate committee also pointed out the absence of a definite DOD global basing
strategy, citing the Guam and the Okinawa relocations as cases in point. The Senate committee
drew attention to the “cost and magnitude of the construction program, the potential

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.
15 As discussed in the section above on the 2010 QDR, DOD has expressed a desire to make use of worldwide
“networks of bases and supporting infrastructures that are more resilient than today’s,” but has not elaborated on what
it seeks in creating “resiliency.”
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

environmental impact on Guam, and the timeline to complete the realignment.” 16 In the end, of
the $566.2 million requested by the President for construction on Guam, the House committee
recommended appropriating $393.2 million, and the Senate committee recommended $246.0
million.17
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.”18 Thus, as each phase of construction is presented as its own project, each must result in
a facility that can be placed in service.
Each approach presents certain advantages and distinct disadvantages. Phased construction
considers each portion of a major construction project to be a discrete undertaking, fully funded
and presenting a usable edifice at its conclusion. Under phased funding, DOD and Congress are
committed to even large-scale construction for only a limited period and either body could, at the
end of a phase, halt continued construction. Incremental funding would break large projects into
two legislative tracks – a single authorization for the entire construction and repeated
appropriations to carry the construction through to completion. By authorizing a project through
the incremental funding mechanism, Congress could commit itself, and potentially future
congresses, to its support for a number of years.
Phased funding could lead to inefficient construction in certain large projects because each phase
must be planned and executed as if it was discrete. Incremental funding may commit subsequent
congresses to the support of an already authorized construction project.
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.19

16 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 Appropriations Bill, 2011,
report to accompany S. 2615, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 19, 2010, S.Rept. 111-226 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 10.
17 A detailed discussion of recent issues in the planned deployment of additional U.S. military forces to Guam can be
found in CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments, by Shirley A. Kan.
18 10 U.S.C. 2801(b).
19 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.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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 those funds for the Piñon Canyon expansion. Identical language appeared in
the military construction appropriations acts for FY2009 and FY2010. This restriction is
continued in Section 126 of the Administrative Provisions in Title I of H.R. 5822, the House
version of the appropriations bill, but is not reflected in its companion bill, S. 3615.
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.20 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.
Sec. 2815 of H.R. 5136, the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2011, may offer an alternative path for DOD assistance in helping local jurisdictions cope with
expanded installation populations. The proposed language would amend 10 U.S.C. 2391, the
statute under which DOD offers economic adjustment and diversification assistance to
communities impacted by installation closure or realignment under BRAC. The amendment states
If the proposed or actual establishment or expansion of a military installation would
otherwise qualify a State or local government for assistance under this paragraph and is the
result of base realignment and closure activities authorized by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), the Secretary may make grants, conclude
cooperative agreements, and supplement funds available under Federal programs
administered by agencies other than the Department of Defense in order to assist the State or
local government with development of the public infrastructure (including construction)
required by the proposed or actual establishment or expansion.21


20 The Impact Aid Program is established in Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA).
21 H.R. 5822, Sec. 2815.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2004-FY2010
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
VA
61.84 65.84 71.46 79.55 88.11 95.95 109.61
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 $61.84 billion in FY2004 to $109.61 billion in
FY2010.
Key Budget Issues
The FY2011 budget submitted by the Administration called for funding the VA at a level of
$120.79 billion for FY2011 (see Table 4). This is an increase of $11.18 billion, or 10.2%, over
the FY2010 appropriation.
The largest dollar increases in funding for the VA between FY2010 and FY2011 in the
Administration request, the House Appropriations Committee recommendation (H.R. 5822) and
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation (S. 3615) are for disability compensation
and pension benefits, and readjustment benefits, where the largest component is for education
benefits.
As shown in Table 4, the Administration request, H.R. 5822 and S. 3615 would provide $53.49
billion in disability compensation and pension benefits, an increase of $6.10 billion or 12.9%
more than the FY2010 appropriation. The Administration request, H.R. 5822, and S. 3615 would
also provide $10.44 billion in readjustment benefits, an increase of $1.21 billion or 13.1% more
than the FY2010 appropriation.
The Administration request is for $120.79 billion in FY2011 funding for the VA, and $50.61
billion in advance FY2012 funding for VA medical care. H.R. 5822 provides total funding for the
VA of $120.81 billion for FY2011 (of which $48.18 was advance funding), and advance funding
for FY2012 of $50.61 billion. H.R. 5822 provides higher funding overall for general departmental
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

administration including increases in operating expenses, the Office of the Inspector General, and
construction, and a decrease for information technology compared to the Administration request.
S. 3615 would provide, as shown in Table 4, $120.84 billion in FY2011 funding for the VA (of
which $48.18 was advance funding), and $50.61 billion in advance FY2012 funding for VA
medical care. Unlike the Administration request and H.R. 5822, S. 3615 would provide
additional funding, beyond the prior advance funding for FY2011, for medical services and
medical facilities. S. 3615 would also provide higher funding overall for general departmental
administration, with increases in operating expenses, the Office of the Inspector General, and
construction, and a decrease for information technology compared to the Administration request.
As shown in Table 5, there is an almost equal split between mandatory and discretionary funding
for the VA. In the FY2010 appropriation, mandatory funding was only slightly higher than
discretionary funding. The Administration request, H.R. 5822, and S. 3615 for FY2011 would
provide discretionary funding that is less than mandatory funding. For FY2012, all of the advance
funding provided by H.R. 5822 and S. 3615 is discretionary funding.

Congressional Research Service
10

---

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in billions of $)

FY2010 Enacted
Administration Request
H.R. 5822
S. 3615






FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
Program
FY2010
Advance
FY2011
Advance
FY2011
Advance
FY2011
Advance

Compensation
and
pensions
47.396
53.492
53.492
53.492

Readjustment
benefits
9.232
10.440
10.440
10.440

Insurance
and
indemnities
0.049
0.063
0.063
0.063
Housing programs (net, indefinite)a

-0.109
-0.145
-0.145
-0.145

Housing
programs
administration
0.165
0.164
0.164
0.164
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
56.734
64.014
64.014
64.014

National
Cemetery
Administration
0.250
0.251
0.259
0.251

Medical
Services
34.708
0.000
0.000
0.100



Advance
appropriations

37.136 37.136 39.650 37.136 39.650 37.136 39.650

Medical
support
and
compliance
4.930
0.000
0.000
0.000



Advance
appropriations
5.307
5.535
5.535
5.535
Medical facilities
4.859
0.000
0.000
0.020



Advance
appropriations
5.740
5.426
5.426
5.426
Medical and prosthetic research
0.581
0.590
0.590
0.590
Medical Care Collection Fundb











(Offsetting
receipts)
-2.954
-3.393
-3.393
-3.393
(Appropriations - indefinite)
2.954
3.393
3.393
3.393
Total, Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
45.078
48.773
48.773
48.893
Total, VHA advance appropriations

48.183
48.183
50.611
48.183
50.611
48.183
50.611
Total, VHA non-advance appropriations
45.078
0.590
0.590
0.710
Available to VHA (includes col ections)
48.032
52.166
52.166
52.286
CRS-11

---

FY2010 Enacted
Administration Request
H.R. 5822
S. 3615






FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
Program
FY2010
Advance
FY2011
Advance
FY2011
Advance
FY2011
Advance









General operating expensesError! Reference source not found.
2.087
2.588
2.615
2.612
Information technology
3.307

3.307

3.222

3.147


Inspector
General
0.109
0.109
0.115
0.112

Construction,
major
projects
1.194
1.151
1.176
1.198

Construction,
minor
projects
0.703
0.468
0.508
0.486
Grants for state extended care facilities 0.100
0.085
0.085
0.085
Grants for state veterans cemeteries
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
Total, Departmental Administration
7.546

7.754

7.767

7.685











Total,
Department
of
Veterans
Affairs
109.608
120.792
120.813
120.843
Total, VA advance appropriations

48.183
48.183
50.611
48.183
50.611
48.183
50.611
Total, VA non-advance appropriations
109.608
72.609
72.630
72.660
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on reports of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
a. This negative budget authority is the result of combining the loan subsidy payments estimated to be needed with the offsetting receipts expected to be collected.
b. Medical Care Collection Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget authority equal to the revenue collected.
Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011
(budget authority in billions of $)

FY2010 Enacted
Request
H.R. 5822
S. 3615
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY012
FY2010
Advance FY2011 Advance FY2011 Advance FY2011 Advance
Mandatory








CRS-12

---

FY2010 Enacted
Request
H.R. 5822
S. 3615
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY012
FY2010
Advance FY2011 Advance FY2011 Advance FY2011 Advance
Benefits (VBA)
56.568

63.849

63.849

63.849

Discretionary








Medical (VHA)
45.078
48.773
48.773
48.893
Advance appropriations

48.183
50.611
50.611
50.611
National Cemetery Administration
0.250

0.251

0.259

0.251

(NCA)
Departmental administration
7.546

7.754

7.767

7.685

Housing administration (VBA)
0.166

0.165

0.165

0.165



Total,
discretionary
53.039
56.943
56.964
56.994
Discretionary, advance appropriations

48.183
50.611
50.611
50.611
Total, Department of Veterans
109.608
120.792
120.813
120.843
Affairs
Total, VA advance appropriations

48.183
50.611
50.611
50.611









Percentages of Total








Mandatory
51.6%

52.9%

52.8%

52.8%




Discretionary

48.4% 100.0% 47.1% 100.0% 47.2% 100.0% 47.2% 100.0%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on reports of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

CRS-13

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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 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. The
Administration request and H.R. 5822 provide $62 million in funds for a transfer to the General
Services Administration related to construction of a new courthouse. S. 3615 provides $25
million, as the first funding increment, for the construction of a new courthouse.
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. 5822 and S. 3615 provide additional funding and reporting requirements, in light of the
recent reports of mismanagement 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
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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 facility is scheduled to be completed this summer, with residents
being able to return in October 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.
Table 6 shows the FY2010 enacted appropriations, and the Administration request, the House
Appropriations Committee recommendations (H.R. 5822) and the Senate Appropriations
Committee (S. 3615) funding for FY2011 for each of the related agencies.
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in thousands of $)

Enacted
Administration Request
H.R. 5822
S. 3615

FY2010 FY2011 FY2011
FY2011
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)



Salaries and expenses
62.675
64.200
65.667
67.200
Foreign currency fluctuations account
17.100
20.200
20.200
20.200
Total, ABMC
79.775
84.400
85.867
87.400
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims



Salaries and expenses
27.115
90.147
90.147
53.297
Army Cemeterial Expenses




Salaries and expenses
39.850
38.100
39.600
43.100
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)




Operation and maintenance
62.000
69.200
69.200
69.200
Capital program
72.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
Total, AFRH
134.000
71.200
71.200
71.200





Total, All Related Agencies
280.740
283.847
286.814
254.997
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on reports of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
Title IV: Overseas Contingency Operations
Temporary Contingency Construction Authority
Construction of facilities in a fast-changing theater of war has presented DOD with an
extraordinarily complicated problem. In the normal appropriations and authorization process,
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

plans for construction projects are drafted a year or more in advance of the date construction is to
begin. Experience on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that even the best of
plans is likely to become outdated by the time the necessary legislation is passed and enacted.
Since FY2004, in order to provide timely assistance to commanders in the field, Congress has
used the annual National Defense Authorization Act to grant DOD a temporary authorization,
“Contingency Construction Authority” (CCA), to permit the use of a limited amount of already
appropriated operations and maintenance (O&M) funds from the defense appropriation for
construction. Reviewed and reauthorized every year since, the geographic areas where the CCA
may be employed, the purposes to which the funds may be put, and the ceiling imposed on the
amount available have varied.
Under its current authority, DOD may use up to $200 million of O&M appropriations in U.S.
Central Command (USCENTCOM), including those portions of U.S. Africa Command
(USAFRICOM) once part of USCENTCOM, for construction. If the Secretary of Defense
certifies the need, he may use up to an additional $300 million for construction within
Afghanistan.22
Permanent Construction Authorities
The Secretary of Defense has long held authority to initiate military construction projects without
waiting for specific authorization and appropriation. 10 U.S.C. §2804 permits the Secretary to
begin construction using already appropriated funds if he “determines that deferral of the project
for inclusion in the next Military Construction Authorization Act would be inconsistent with
national security or national interest” and notifies Congress of his action within a specified
period. This section of Title 10 is titled “Contingency Construction,” but is permanent and distinct
from the temporary authority mentioned above and should not be confused with it. 10 U.S.C.
§2805 (“Unspecified Minor Construction”) permits the Secretary to make very limited use of
O&M funds for small construction projects. 10 U.S.C. §2808 allows the Secretary to initiate
construction projects not otherwise authorized, using funds appropriated for military construction,
after a declaration of war or of national emergency requiring the employment of armed forces.23
The Use of CCA for Construction
In H.Rept. 111-559, the House committee noted that the use of the temporary CCA has given
commanders in the field added flexibility to address urgent construction requirements and that
almost $1.4 billion in O&M funding has been obligated under it to date. The committee also
noted the O&M appropriations account is part of the defense appropriation, not the military
construction appropriation, and its oversight lies with a subcommittee not responsible for defense
construction. The committee also pointed out that O&M funds are appropriated for other uses,

22 A more detailed discussion of expenditures on the CCA and military construction in Afghanistan is included in CRS
Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs, coordinated
by Amy Belasco.
23 The temporary CCA is sometimes referred to as “Sec. 2808 authority” because it was originally created as Sec. 2808
of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004. It is not the same as the permanent 10 U.S.C. §2808
construction authority.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

such as meeting operational requirements of armed forces in the field and, to the extent they are
expended on construction, they are unavailable for those ends to which they were intended.24
Creation of Title IV
Before FY2010, construction projects in an active military area of operations would have been
requested in one or more requests for emergency supplemental appropriations. FY2010 marked
the first year that all such construction was included in the regular annual appropriation request as
the Obama Administration migrated planned war-related construction costs away from emergency
supplemental appropriations into the regular appropriations process. FY2011 marks the first year
that a “Title IV: Overseas Contingency Operations” has been included in this appropriations bill
and appears to be a vehicle through which Congress may address concerns for both flexibility and
oversight.
The House committee recommended that all military construction funding for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) be considered emergency appropriations.25 The Senate committee
amended the list of projects for which it recommended funding to reflect changes requested by
DOD since its original FY2011 request and increased the amount dedicated to unspecified minor
construction in order to enhance commanders’ ability to meet emerging needs. The committee
also moved all construction requested for Afghanistan, whether included in regular military
construction or in OCO submissions, into Title IV.
Funding levels for the various appropriations accounts in Title IV are presented in Table A-2 in
Appendix A.

24 H.Rept. 111-559, pp. 62-63.
25 Ibid., pp. 63-64.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts
Table A-1. Appropriations: Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts,
FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in thousands of $)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House
Senate
FY2011
Account
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee Conference
Military Construction, Army
3,719,419 4,078,798 4,051,512 3,797,521
—
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
3,769,003 3,879,104 3,587,376 3,667,922
—
Military Construction,
Air Force
1,450,426 1,311,385 1,276,385 1,378,688
—
Rescissions
-37,500 — — — —
Total
1,412,926 1,311,385 1,276,385 1,378,688
—
Military Construction,
Defense-wide
3,093,679 3,118,062 2,999,612 3,241,601
—
Rescissions -151,160 — — — —
Total
2,942,519 3,118,062 2,999,612 3,241,601
—
Total, Active
components
11,843,867 12,387,349 11,914,885 12,085,732
—
Military Construction,
Army National Guard
582,056 873,664 1,020,228 980,072
—
Military Construction,
Air National Guard
371,226 176,986 292,386 337,454
—
Military Construction,
Army Reserve
431,566 318,175 358,325 347,916
—
Military Construction,
Navy Reserve
125,874 61,557 91,557 61,557
—
Military Construction,
Air Force Reserve
112,269 7,832 48,182 12,832
—
Total, Reserve
components
1,622,991 1,438,214 1,810,678 1,739,831
—
Total, Military
Construction
13,466,858 13,825,563 13,725,563 13,825,563
—
(Appropriations)
(13,655,518) (13,825,563) (13,725,563) (13,825,563)
—
(Rescissions) (-188,660) — — — —
NATO Security
Investment Program
197,414 258,884 258,884 258,884
—
Family Housing
Construction, Army
273,236 92,369 92,369 92,369
—
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Army
523,418 518,140 518,140 518,140
—
Family Housing
146,569 186,444 186,444 186,444
—
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House
Senate
FY2011
Account
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee Conference
Construction, Navy and
Marine Corps
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Navy and Marine
368,540 366,346 366,346 366,346
—
Corps
Family Housing
Construction, Air Force
66,101 78,025 78,025 78,025
—
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Air Force
502,936 513,792 513,792 513,792
—
Family Housing
Construction, Defense-
2,859 — — — —
wide
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Defense-wide
49,214 50,464 50,464 50,464
—
DOD Family Housing
Improvement Fund
2,600 1,096 1,096 1,096
—
Homeowners Assistance
Fund
323,225 16,515 16,515 16,515
—
Total, Family Housing
2,258,698
1,823,191
1,823,191
1,823,191
—
(Appropriations)
(2,258,698) (1,823,191) (1,823,191) (1,823,191)
—
(Rescissions)
— — — — —
Chemical
Demilitarization
Construction,
151,541 124,971 124,971 124,971
—
Defense-wide
BRAC,
1990
496,768 360,474 460,474 360,474
—
BRAC,
2005
7,455,498 2,354,285 2,354,285 2,354,285
—
Total,
BRAC
7,952,266 2,714,759 2,814,759 2,714,759
—
General Reductions
(Sec. 129)





Military Construction,
Army
-230,000 — — — —
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
-235,000 — — — —
Military Construction,
Air Force
-64,091 — — — —
Total
-529,091 — — — —
General Rescissions
(Sec. 130)





Military Construction,
Army
-33,000 — — — —
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
-51,468 — — — —
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House
Senate
FY2011
Account
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee Conference
Military Construction,
Air Force
-93,268 — — — —
Military Construction,
Army National Guard
-33,000 — — — —
Military Construction,
Air National Guard
-7,000 — — — —
Total
-217,736 — — — —
Grand Total, Title I
MilCon & FH
23,279,950 18,747,368 18,747,368 18,747,368
—
(Appropriations)
(23,686,346) (18,747,368) (18,747,368) (18,747,368)
—
(Rescissions) (-406,396) — — — —
Sources: H.Rept. 111-559, S.Rept. 111-226.
Table A-2. Appropriations: Title IV OCO Military Construction Appropriations
Accounts, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in thousands of $)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House
Senate
FY2011
Account
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Conference
Military Construction, Army
924,484
929,996 —
1,045,676 —
Military Construction, Army
(Emergency)
—
—
929,996 — —
Military Construction,
Air Force
474,500
280,506 —
164,826 —
Military Construction,
Air Force (Emergency)
—
—
280,504 — —
Military Construction,
Defense-wide
—
46,500 —
46,500 —
Military Construction,
Defense-wide (Emergency)
—
—
46,500 — —
Grand Total, Title IV
MilCon
1,398,984
1,257,002 1,257,000 1,257,000
—
Sources: H.Rept. 111-559, S.Rept. 111-226.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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.
Defense
CRS Report R41254, Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations, coordinated by Pat
Towell.
CRS Report R41250, Quadrennial Defense Review 2010: Overview and Implications for
National Security Planning, by Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report R40156, War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for Congress,
by Steve Bowman and Catherine Dale.
Veterans Affairs
CRS Report R41343, Veterans Medical Care: FY2011 Appropriations, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala.
CRS Report RL33991, Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers, by Christine Scott and
Don J. Jansen.
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.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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.
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.
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 Appropriation s Status Table
http://www.crs.gov/Pages/appover.aspx
Congressional Budget Office
http://www.cbo.gov/
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC Commission)
http://www.brac.gov
Government Accountability Office
http://www.gao.gov/

Author Contact Information

Daniel H. Else
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Specialist in National Defense
Specialist 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
23

---