Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Specialist in Veterans Policy
July 5, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42586
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 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 (VA), 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 advance appropriations for veterans’
medical services.
President Barack Obama submitted his request to Congress for FY2013 appropriations on
February 13, 2012. For the appropriations accounts included in this bill, his request totaled $145.2
billion in new budget authority, divided into three major categories: Title I (military construction
and family housing) at $11.2 billion; Title II (veterans affairs) at $135.6 billion; and Title III
(related agencies) at $219.5 million. Of the total, $74.4 billion (49.9%) would be discretionary
appropriations, with the remainder considered mandatory. On May 15, the House Committee on
Appropriations reported a bill recommending appropriating $10.9 billion for Title I (less $235
million in funds rescinded from prior years), $135.4 billion for Title II, and $347 million for Title
III.
Military construction funding amounts requested by the President and enacted by Congress have
fallen off as the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round has reached
completion, although Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has requested statutory authority to carry
out two new BRAC rounds in 2013 and 2015. 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.
Funding for the VA between FY2012 and FY2013 in the Administration request, H.R. 5854, and
S. 3215, reflects increases for mandatory veterans’ benefits and health care. The largest
percentage increases between FY2012 and FY2013 are for mandatory benefits, primarily
disability compensation and pension benefits.
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its FY2013 bill (H.R. 5854) on May 16, 2012
(H.Rept. 112-491) and passed the bill on May 31. The Senate received H.R. 5854 on June 5. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its bill (S. 3215) on May 22 (S.Rept. 112-168), and
the bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders.

Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Contents
Status of Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 1
Budget Control Act of 2011....................................................................................................... 1
Appropriation ............................................................................................................................ 2
National Defense Authorization ................................................................................................ 3
Title I: Department of Defense ........................................................................................................ 4
Military Construction ................................................................................................................ 4
Key Budget Issues ..................................................................................................................... 5
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)............................................................................. 5
Overseas Installations........................................................................................................ 10
Project Labor Agreements................................................................................................. 14
Additional Objections in Statements of Administration Policy......................................... 16
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs ........................................................................................ 18
Agency Overview.................................................................................................................... 18
Appropriation Highlights......................................................................................................... 18
Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 22
American Battle Monuments Commission.............................................................................. 22
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ............................................................................. 22
Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) .................................................. 22
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)............................................................................... 22

Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2012 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act ....................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Status of FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act ..................................................... 1
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2006-FY2012 ................................. 18
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012-FY2014 ................................ 19
Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2012-FY2014......................................................................................................................... 21
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2012-FY2013 ...................................................... 23
Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2011-FY2013 .................. 24
Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2011-FY2013 ................ 29

Appendixes
Appendix A. Military Construction Appropriations, FY2011-FY2013 ......................................... 24

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Status of Legislation
Table 1. Status of FY2012 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(H.R. 5854, S. 3215)
Conference
Committee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report Passage Report House Senate Law
05/16/2012 05/22/2012 H.Rept. 05/31/2012 S.Rept. — —
—
—
—
112-491
112-
168
Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
Table 2. Status of FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 4310, S. 3254)
Conference
Committee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report House Senate Law
05/9/2012 05/22/2012 H.Rept. 05/18/2012 S.Rept.
— — — — —
112-479
112-
173
Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
Budget Control Act of 2011
FY2013 discretionary appropriations will be considered in the context of the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-
FY2021. The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a
federal deficit reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012.1 The
failure of Congress and the President to enact deficit reduction legislation by that date triggered
an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA, consisting of a combination of
sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, to begin on January 2, 2013. The
sequestration process for FY2013, scheduled to occur on January 2, 2013, requires across-the-
board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve equal budget reductions from
both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be determined, under terms specified in
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-
177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922), as amended by the BCA, by the Office of Management and Budget.

1 Section 302(a) of the act established budget goal enforcement mechanisms by amending the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. These amendments established the deadline for enactment of the Joint Select
Committee’s plan and included subsequent automatic reductions in available budget authority.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

However, certain programs are exempt from sequestration, and special rules govern the
sequestration of others. For the most part, these provisions are found in Sections 255 and 256 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2
U.S.C. 900-922), as amended. Section 255 of BBEDCA, as amended in 2010 (P.L. 111-139),
specifically excludes from sequestration, among other programs, appropriations for all programs
administered by the VA. Nevertheless, Section 256(e) of BBEDCA appears to allows a maximum
2% reduction in budget authority for VA medical care for any fiscal year. This apparent
discrepancy between the two sections of the law raised questions about whether VA will be totally
exempt from sequestration or whether medical care will be subject to a maximum permissible 2%
reduction in budget authority, if sequestration occurs as scheduled on January 2, 2013. On April
23, 2012, OMB issued a letter stating that “all programs administered by the VA, including
Veterans’ Medicare Care, are exempt from sequestration under Section 255(b).”
The failure of Congress and the President to enact deficit reduction legislation by January 15,
2012, also triggered a re-defining of the “security” and “non-security” categories of discretionary
spending. Under the new definitions, the “security” category is defined as spending in budget
function 050, which effectively includes defense and military construction, and the “non-
security” category is defined as all other spending.
Appropriation
On February 14, 2012, President Barack Obama submitted to Congress his request for military
construction appropriations to support federal government operations during the fiscal year
beginning on October 1, 2012 (FY2013).
The House Committee on Appropriations introduced its Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2013 (H.R. 5854, H.Rept. 112-491) on May 23,
2012. The House began debate on May 31 (Congressional Record (CR) H3309-H3359) and
passed the bill on the same day by the Yeas and Nays, 407-12 (Roll No. 305). H.R. 5854 was
received in the Senate on June 5, 2012, read twice, and placed on the Legislative Calendar under
General Orders (Calendar No. 421).
Before the House took up debate on H.R. 5854, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) stating that the President’s senior advisors
would recommend a veto of the bill. Among the reasons cited relevant to military construction
were
• the bill’s incremental funding of the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile
Complex in Romania, and
• language governing the inclusion of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) in federal
construction projects.
Issues cited in this SAP will be addressed later in this report.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations introduced its own draft of the bill (S. 3215, S.Rept.
112-168) on May 22. The bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders
(Calendar No. 408).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

National Defense Authorization
Section 114 of Title 10, United States Code, requires that Congress authorize the appropriation of
funding to the Department of Defense (DOD) for certain purposes, including military
construction, as part of the annual appropriations cycle. This authorization is effected through the
enactment of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), of which one division
constitutes the Military Construction Authorization Act. While appropriations bills fall within the
jurisdiction of the two chambers’ Committees on Appropriations, writing the NDAA is the
responsibility of the Committees on Armed Services.
The House version of the NDAA for FY2013 (H.R. 4310) was introduced in the House on March
29, 2012. The House Committee on Armed Services reported its amendment of the bill on May 11
(H.Rept. 112-479, with a supplemental report, H.Rept. 112-479, Part 2, submitted on May 15).
The House began debate of the bill on May 16 and passed it by recorded vote, 299-120 (Roll no.
291), on May 18. H.R. 4310 was received in the Senate on June 19 and referred to the Committee
on Armed Services.
In its SAP on H.R. 4310, issued on May 15, 2012, OMB cited a number of objections to the
legislation and stated that “If the cumulative effects of the bill impede the ability of the
Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources, the
President’s senior advisors would recommend to the President that he veto the bill.” Among the
issues cited in its statement, OMB noted
• the bill’s prohibition on the use of funds to propose or plan for additional rounds
of BRAC;
• language that would effectively freeze certain Air Force command structures,
capabilities, and functions as they existed in 2011;
• reductions in the funding authorized for construction of the Aegis Ashore Missile
Defense Complex in Romania and requirement for new missile defense
construction on the U.S. East Coast;
• the absence of an authorization for two new base closure (BRAC) rounds; and
• the inclusion of language enabling retroactive DOD liability for environmental
conditions at military installations closed outside the BRAC process after
October 24, 1988.
Each of these issues will be expanded upon in subsequent sections of this report.
The Senate version of the NDAA (S. 3254) was introduced to the Senate on June 4, 2012,
accompanied by its report (S.Rept. 112-173), and was placed on the legislative calendar under
general orders (Calendar No. 419).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 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, and facility planning and design in 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. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5), or ARRA (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.2
• 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

2 The ARRA also authorized the Secretary of Defense to extend HAP eligibility to some military personnel ordered to
change their permanent duty stations who found themselves having to sell their homes in a depressed housing market.
Eligibility under those provisions expired on September 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

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 the
Appendix A to this report.
Key Budget Issues
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Completing the 2005 BRAC Round
The Department of Defense has completed implementation of the recommendations made by the
2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (also known as the BRAC
Commission) and approved by President George W. Bush. Since the President approved the
commission’s recommendations on September 15, 2005, the defense agencies and military
departments have carried out a highly complex—and often contentious—program of construction
and movement to prepare new facilities at bases gaining military missions, to wind down
operations and close facilities no longer needed by the military departments, and to transfer
personnel and equipment to new locations.3 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 totaled $34.5 billion.4
The House version of the NDAA (H.R. 4310) contains a provision (Section 2711) that would
establish a single “Department of Defense Base Closure Account” on the books of the Treasury
that would consolidate all existing BRAC Treasury accounts (including the Defense Base Closure
Account funding the 1988 BRAC round; the Defense Base Closure Account 1990 funding the
1991, 1993, and 1995 BRAC rounds; and the Defense Base Closure Account 2005 funding the
2005 BRAC round). This account would constitute the sole source of federal funding for
• environmental restoration and mediation, property management and disposal and
caretaker costs incurred at military installations closed or realigned under the
various BRAC rounds;
• supervision, inspection, overhead, engineering, and design of military
construction projects and subsequent claims undertaken before September 30,
2013, as part of any BRAC round; or

3 Perhaps the last implementation action, the movement of staff of the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
from its long-standing location at the original Naval Observatory between the Department of State headquarters and the
United States Institute of Peace on 23rd Street in the District of Columbia to a new Defense Health Headquarters in
Falls Church, VA, began on May 30, 2012. For more information on the decision to create this new tri-service medical
headquarters, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Needs to Address the Expected Benefits, Costs, and
Risks for Its Newly Approved Medical Command Structure, GAO-08-122, October 12, 2007,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-122.
4 Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD Base Realignment and Closure, 2005, BRAC Commission Executive
Summary, Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Program Year 2011, Exhibit BC-02, BRAC Implementation Costs
and Savings, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 8, http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/
budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/BRAC%202005%20Executive%20Summary/
BRAC_2005_Exec_Sum_FY2011_PresBud_FINAL_26Jan10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

• record, adjust, and liquidate obligations properly chargeable to the former BRAC
accounts.
The Senate version of the NDAA (S. 3254) contains no such provision.
Requesting New BRAC Rounds
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced on January 26, 2012, that the President would
request congressional authorization to carry out two new BRAC rounds, in 2013 and 2015.5
Citing his belief that impending military troop reductions could similarly reduce the need for
infrastructure to support them, the Secretary concluded that
The best approach to reducing that infrastructure politically on Capitol Hill has been to work
it through the BRAC process and to develop an approach whereby, you know, we would
submit recommendations, the commission would look at those recommendations and then
make a complete presentation to the Congress, and it would be voted up or down with one
vote. So obviously, the BRAC process provides that kind of process. 6
The President submitted his recommendation for the necessary legislative language to Congress
on March 28, 2012. The proposed legislation, titled “the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 2012,” would authorize a process closely resembling the one that evolved in the enactment
and subsequent amendment of the similarly titled act of 1990.7 That process required the
Secretary of Defense to undertake a detailed analysis of the infrastructure requirements of the
nation’s future military forces and an assessment of the infrastructure inventory on hand to meet
those requirements. The Secretary then formulated a series of recommended actions by which the
infrastructure inventory could be brought into line with those projected future needs.
These recommendations were submitted to an independent commission whose members were
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That commission and its staff then
assessed the adequacy of those recommendations, using the supporting data provided by DOD
and additional information accepted from the public, gained through site visits, and gathered
through public hearings. The commission was given limited power to revise or reject the
Secretary’s recommendations or to create its own. The commission then submitted the adjusted
list of recommendations to the President for approval.
The governing statute gave the President only three options for disposing of the commission’s
recommendations list: reject it, return it for revision, or approve it. He was not empowered to
amend the recommendation list. Once the President approved the list, the governing statute gave
Congress up to 45 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval that would halt the BRAC
process. This resolution would be considered under an expedited legislative process and the
President would have to enact it for there to be any legal effect. Otherwise, the statute required

5 Secretary Leon E. Panetta was a Member of Congress representing the area around Monterey, California, between
1977 and 1993, when he resigned in order to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. A major
military installation in his district, Fort Ord, was recommended by the Army for closure in the 1991 BRAC round,
experienced a partial closure in the 1993 round and was fully closed in the 1995 round.
6 See Department of Defense, “Major Budget Decisions Briefing from the Pentagon,” press release, January 26, 2012,
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4962.
7 The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, is codified as 10 U.S.C. 2687.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

the Secretary to implement all recommendations within six years of the date of presidential
approval.
Sunset provisions were written into the law, in both its first iteration in 1990 and in its
reauthorization in late 2001.8 The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, which
authorized three BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, terminated the 1990 BRAC Commission
on December 31, 1995. The 2001 reauthorization terminated the 2005 BRAC Commission on
April 15, 2006.9 Therefore, these acts created special, temporary processes by which domestic
military installations could be closed, or their missions and manning could be significantly
adjusted. In fact, Section 2909 of the act specified that between November 5, 1990 (the original
date of enactment) and April 15, 2006, “this part shall be the exclusive authority for selecting for
closure or realignment, or for carrying out any closure or realignment of, a military installation
inside the United States,” thereby supplanting the permanent authorities found elsewhere in
statute and discussed in the following section of this report.
The President’s recommendation for two new BRAC rounds preserves the established BRAC
process essentially as seen in the single 2005 round and combines it with creation of a multi-
round commission as seen in the 1991-1995 rounds. Under the new recommendation, the new
BRAC Commission would terminate on April 15, 2016.
However, the President’s legislative request did not appear in either the House or the Senate
committee-reported drafts of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013.
The version of the NDAA reported by the House Committee on Armed Services (H.R. 4310)
contained a provision (Section 2713) that would prohibit the use of any appropriations authorized
under the bill to be used to propose, plan for, or execute an additional BRAC round.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services noted in the report on its version of the NDAA
testimony from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Dr.
Dorothy Robyn. During a March 2012 hearing, Dr. Robyn had stated that the 2005 BRAC round
had eliminated only a small percentage of the excess infrastructure carried by DOD. The
committee further noted that senior Army officials had been quoted expressing no interest in
another BRAC round and that senior Air Force officers had been quoted as saying that the Air
Force has too many bases, despite the fact that few Air Force installations had been recommended
for closure during BRAC 2005. The committee directed the Comptroller General to conduct a
review of the systems and processes used by DOD to identify the extent to which bases or
facilities are excess to needs and report his findings to the congressional defense committees by
May 7, 2013.10

8 The original act was enacted as Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L.
101-510). The authorization for the 2005 BRAC round was enacted at Title XXX of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-107).
9 The text of the act may be found as a note to Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 2687.
10 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
report to accompany S. 3254, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 4, 2012, S.Rept. 112-173 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp.
272-273.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Permanent Authorities to Close or Realign Military Installations
The Constitution shares the authority to direct, regulate, and govern the nation’s federal military
establishment between the executive and legislative branches of government. Article I, Section 8,
grants Congress the power
• To raise and support Armies ...;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and
the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress.
Article II, Section 2, creates the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the
United States.”
Thus, the fundamental compact that called the United States into being empowered Congress to
create the nation’s military forces and appointed a President as their commander, with the
authority to deploy and employ them as necessary for national defense. This arrangement
constructs a natural tension between the two.
This tension, at least with respect to DOD real property management, rose dramatically during the
1960s and 1970s when the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Administrations undertook to trim
the infrastructure created during World War II and the early years of the Cold War. Congressional
resistance to military base closures and reductions in operational activity came to a head in 1965
when President Lyndon B. Johnson vetoed a military construction authorization bill because it
contained a provision increasing congressional control over military base realignments.11
The veto delayed by a decade a return to the issue. The military construction authorization bill for
Fiscal Year 1977 (H.R. 94-12384) sent to President Gerald R. Ford contained language that would
impose a delay of one year on the proposed closure or major realignment of military installations
that would affect a specified number of DOD civilian employee positions. President Ford vetoed
the bill on July 2, 1976. Congress subsequently passed a new bill (H.R. 94-14846) that was
identical except that the advance notification to congressional armed services committees was
reduced to 60 days.12 This new bill was enacted as P.L. 94-431, but its provisions expired at the
end of FY1977. The following year, the Senate Committee on Armed Services inserted language
into its military construction authorization bill (S. 95-1474) making those restrictions permanent.

11 Pat Towell, “Ford Vetoes Military Construction Bill Over Base Closings Issue,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Edition, July 10, 1976, p. 1829.
12 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

The provisions survived conference and were enacted as Section 612(a) of P.L. 95-82 on August
1, 1977.
That statutory restriction on the President’s authority was codified as Section 2687 of Title 10 of
the United States Code (10 U.S.C. § 2687). Amended a number of times over the years (most
recently in P.L. 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012), the statute
retains its essential elements, barring any action to close a military installation at which at least
300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or to realign one involving a reduction by
more than 1,000, or by more than 50%, in the number of civilian employees authorized to be
employed, at the time the Secretary of Defense or the military department concerned makes his
decision unless he
• notifies the Committees on Armed Services as part of an annual appropriation
authorization request;
• includes with that notification an evaluation of the fiscal, local economic,
budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of such
closure or realignment and the criteria used to reach that decision; and
• waits for a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days, whichever is
longer.13
The section imposes some additional requirements on the Secretary if he determines, in the
course of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), that a significant transportation impact will occur as a result of his action.
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 created a new restriction on the ability of the Secretaries to
change the operational activity at a military installation through the codification of 10 U.S.C. 993.
While 10 U.S.C. 2687 keys on the civilian personnel positions affected by a closure or
realignment, this statute requires the Secretary concerned to notify Congress of any plan to reduce
by more than 1,000 the members of the armed forces assigned to duty at a military installation.
The provision bars the Secretary from taking any irrevocable action regarding such a reduction
until he
• notifies the Committees on Armed Services,
• submits a justification for the reduction and an evaluation of the local strategic
and operational impact of such reduction, and
• a period of 21 days has passed following notification (14 days if submitted
electronically).14
Therefore, neither the President nor his defense secretaries require specific authorization from
Congress before initiating the closure or realignment of a domestic military installation.

13 The statute waives these requirements if the President certifies to Congress that such closure or realignment must be
implemented for reasons of national security or a military emergency.
14 The statute is waived if the realignment is undertaken pursuant to a base closure law or if the President certifies to
Congress that such closure or realignment must be implemented for reasons of national security or a military
emergency.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Overseas Installations
Europe: Consolidation within Germany and Troop Redeployment to the United
States
Army and Air Force personnel in the Federal Republic of Germany are being consolidated into
two large military communities centered at Kaiserslautern (known to many servicemembers as
“K-Town”) in the country’s southwest near Frankfurt, and Grafenwöhr-Vilseck in eastern Bavaria
near the Czech border. For the past several years, military construction supporting this relocation
has been concentrated in these areas.
A significant portion of the combat power remaining in the Army portion of EUCOM was
scheduled to redeploy to new posts in the southwestern United States as part of an ongoing
defense-wide reevaluation of troop garrisoning strategy, but the Secretary of Defense agreed to
reconsider the movement of two brigade combat teams (BCT) from Germany to the United States
after the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review reconsidered the U.S. interest in supporting
NATO.15 Nevertheless, in a May 7, 2012, press release, DOD announced that the U.S. military
presence in Europe would be reduced by approximately 15% over the coming decade. As part of
that plan, a number of units will be recalled and inactivated, including
• two of the four Army brigade combat teams currently garrisoned in Germany, the
170th and 172nd Infantry Brigades, by FY 2014;
• the Air Force’s 81st Fighter Squadron (A-10 aircraft) during FY 2013;
• the Air Force’s 603rd Air Control Squadron in FY 2013; and
• the Army’s 5th Corps Headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, into which U.S.
Army Europe headquarters will move from Heidelberg; plus
• approximately 2,500 additional Army personnel over the course of the next five
years.
Two heavy brigade combat teams will remain in garrison in Germany – the 173rd Airborne
Brigade Combat Team at Vicenza, Italy, and 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment at Vilseck, Germany.
Though the overall number of U.S. personnel permanently garrisoned in Europe will be drawn
down, the U.S. presence is planned to be reconfigured to include:
• a rotational U.S.-based heavy brigade combat team to support the NATO
Response Force;16
• a battalion-size element from the rotational brigade to participate in joint
exercises and operations;
• four ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers to be home-ported in Rota,
Spain;

15 Jason Sherman, “QDR Reconsidering Plan to Move Two Brigades from Europe to U.S.,” Inside the Pentagon,
August 13, 2009, vol. 25, no. 32.
16 A “rotational” unit is not placed in permanent garrison, but rather deploys temporarily from its garrison to a forward
location for a specific purpose, returning to its garrison when that task is completed.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

• a squadron of new V-22 aircraft to be based in Europe to support special
operations;
• a small aviation detachment in Poland to support rotational deployments of F-16
and C-130 units as they promote interoperability with Polish air forces;
• a ground-based radar in Turkey (part of a missile defense deployment); and
• additional Special Forces units stationed in Germany.17
The President’s FY2013 request includes $243 million for construction in Germany. It includes
$2.4 million for an upgrade to a Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) facility at Patch
Barracks (Stuttgart), $61.4 million to replace an elementary school at the garrison in Vogelweh,
another $52.2 million to add to a high school in Wiesbaden, and $127.0 million for the second
funding increment of a $1.2 billion replacement project for the medical center at the Rhine
Ordnance Barracks in the Kaiserslautern Military Community.18
Japan: The Futenma Replacement Facility, Redeployment within Japan, and
Marine Movement to Guam
As the result of intergovernmental agreements, Japan has undertaken to construct a new air
facility in the Prefecture of Okinawa for the use of U.S. Marine Corps aviation units now
operating from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, near the prefecture capital of Naha.
Upon completion of the new station, the existing facility is to be returned to Japanese control.
The selection of a new site for the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) and other Japanese
domestic political considerations have delayed initiation of construction of the new facility.19
Nevertheless, the Japanese press recently announced agreement between the two national
governments on a potential site and runway configuration.20 These plans were formalized at a
joint U.S.-Japan ministerial meeting on June 21, 2011, though both governments concluded that
adherence to the original 2014 completion date would be impossible, announcing afterward that
the FRF would be completed “at the earliest possible date after 2014.”21
In its report on military construction for FY 2013, the Senate Committee on Appropriations noted
these changes, stating
Nowhere is the evolving nature of United States force posture overseas more apparent than
in the Pacific Area of Operation [AOR]. For the past 6 years, the Department has been

17 Unattributed, “Force Changes in Europe to Preserve Strategic Edge,” Department of Defense Press Releases, May 7,
2012.
18 Rhine Ordnance Barracks, part of the Kaiserslautern Military Community, is a major deployment terminus for U.S.
forces stationed in the European Central Region. Located adjacent to Ramstein Air Base and near major ammunition
storage sites, the barracks will act as a major outfitting and processing station for any unit being deployed from the
region on a military operation. The new medical center will replace the existing Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
located several miles distant.
19 For additional information and analysis of U.S.-Japanese security relations, see CRS Report RL33436, Japan-U.S.
Relations: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Emma Chanlett-Avery.
20 “Minister Tells Okinawa Gov. of Plan to Proceed with Futenma Relocation,” Kyodo News, June 13, 2011.
21 William Wan, “U.S., Japan Agree to Delay Relocation of Air Base on Okinawa,” The Washington Post, June 22,
2011, p. A9.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

struggling to implement a PACOM strategy that called for the relocation of 8,500 U.S.
marines from Okinawa to Guam, construction of a new U.S. military base in Okinawa, and
tour normalization in Korea, by which unaccompanied tours would be migrated to permanent
tours to include all military personnel and their families. Today, that strategy has been turned
on its head.
In the past year, the administration has decided to limit the number of U.S. marines
scheduled to relocate from Okinawa to Guam, re-negotiate the relocation plan with the
Government of Japan, de-link Guam relocation from the timing of construction of a new
U.S. military base in Okinawa, and scrap future tour normalization for Korea. Instead, the
Administration has proposed a new strategic plan for the Pacific AOR that provides for U.S.
rotational forces in Australia, Singapore, and the Philippines, a reduced presence of U.S.
marines permanently based in Guam, and a planned shift of 2,500 marines from Okinawa to
Hawaii. These changes have profound implications for military construction requirements in
the PACOM AOR. As the Department continues to refine its military construction
requirements to adapt to this new strategy, the Committee looks forward to a revised and
comprehensive basing plan that will encompass these changes. In the interim, the Committee
has deferred funding additional military construction related to the relocation of U.S. marines
to Guam.22
The House Committee on Armed Services recommended that the Secretary of Defense be
temporarily authorized to use operation and maintenance funds to assist the Government of Guam
in its preparations to supply the additional municipal services and facilities needed to
accommodate the Marine redeployment. The committee also recommended that the creation of a
firing range on Guam be prohibited until DOD certifies that the range is required to meet a
national security need.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services noted that the President’s request for defense operation
and maintenance funding included $139.4 million for DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment that
was intended for “socioeconomic and water/wastewater infrastructure improvements” on Guam
related to the Marine relocation. Citing the ongoing reevaluation of the project, the committee
assessed that the request precedes the actual need and recommended against this funding.23
In addition, the committee expressed its unease with the level of uncertainty manifested in Guam
relocation planning.
The committee remains concerned with the lack of comprehensive cost and schedule data
associated with this important U.S. force posture issue. The strategic implications of the
realignment are the subject of an ongoing independent assessment commissioned by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess
the costs associated with the revised plan to realign marines in the Asia-Pacific region as set
forth in the joint statement of the United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee dated
April 27, 2012. The assessment shall identify and assess costs associated with the initiatives’
projected movement of marines to Guam, Hawaii, and Australia. To the extent possible, the

22 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013, report to accompany S. 3215, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2012, S.Rept. 112-
168 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 12-13.
23 S.Rept. 12-173, p. 86.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

assessment shall distinguish between costs that are known, costs that are estimated, and costs
that are not yet known and cannot yet be estimated. The assessment should also include an
estimate of the recurring annual costs of the moves that will affect future budgets for the
Department of the Defense, including costs for the sustainment of forces, base operating
support, and other operations and maintenance requirements.24
South Korea: Tour Normalization and Relocation
Since the Armistice on the Korean Peninsula ended combat in 1954, U.S. ground forces have
been concentrated in a number of forward bases distributed along the demarcation line between
South Korea and North Korea, with a major headquarters complex at Yongsan (or Yongsan-gu), a
district within the capital of Seoul.
Following agreements between South Korea and the United States, the headquarters of U.S.
Forces, Korea (USFK) and U.S. Army and Air Force units are being concentrated into two large
military communities centered on Osan Air Base and Camp Humphreys, south of the capital.
Additionally, tours of duty for military personnel are being lengthened, and servicemembers will
soon be permitted to bring their families with them, significantly increasing the size of those
communities. In its May 2011 report on the military posture in Asia, the GAO noted that it
obtained DOD cost estimates that total $17.6 billion through 2020 for initiatives in South
Korea, but DOD cost estimates are incomplete. One initiative, to extend the tour length of
military service members and move thousands of dependents to South Korea ... could cost
DOD $5 billion by 2020 and $22 billion or more through 2050, but this initiative was not
supported by a business case analysis that would have considered alternative courses of
action and their associated costs and benefits. As a result, DOD is unable to demonstrate that
tour normalization is the most cost-effective approach to meeting its strategic objectives.
This omission raises concerns about the investments being made in a $13 billion construction
program at Camp Humphreys, where tour normalization is largely being implemented.25
As a prelude to action on the FY2013 bill, House Committee on Appropriations first expressed its
views on the issue of “tour normalization” in its report on the FY 2012 military construction
appropriations bill, stating
The Department of Defense has taken on an arduous and expensive task to normalize
deployments to Korea by establishing a two-year tour for single members of the service and
three-year tours for married servicemembers to include their families. The task will require
great investment in military construction for schools, family housing and child development
centers just to name a few. The Committee is concerned that this investment may be an
expense that the United States should not incur. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the Committee on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this
Act the total cost and plan for Tour Normalization in Korea.26
The Senate Committee on Appropriations voiced its concerns with both tour normalization and
the redeployment of U.S. forces on the peninsula in its report on H.R. 2055, which appropriated
military construction funds for FY 2012.

24 Ibid., p. 257. The report would be due to the committees on armed services by March 1, 2013.
25 GAO-11-316, frontispiece. Additional details on the relocation of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula may be found
in CRS Report R41481, U.S.-South Korea Relations, coordinated by Mark E. Manyin.
26 H.Rept. 112-94, pp. 21-22.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

This lack of a business case analysis ... raises concerns about the investments being made in
a $13,000,000,000 construction program at Camp Humphreys, Korea, to accommodate the
relocation of United States troops south of Seoul and the first phase of tour normalization.
Full tour normalization would require additional land, housing, schools and other facilities at
Camp Humphreys, which would require a revised master plan for the base and would likely
require changes to the current construction program. Given the extent of construction
currently underway at Camp Humphreys, any substantive change in the plan could impact
efficiency and drive up costs considerably.... No funding was requested in the fiscal year
2012 budget for military construction related to tour normalization in Korea, but the
Committee will expect detailed cost information and a completed business case analysis,
approved by the Secretary of Defense, for the strategic objectives that to this point have
driven the decision to implement tour normalization, before approving any funding requests
in future years. This business case analysis should clearly articulate the strategic objectives,
identify and evaluate alternative courses of action to achieve those objectives, and
recommend the most cost-effective alternative.27
Finally, the Senate Committee on Armed Services incorporated into S. 1253, its version of the
NDAA for FY2012, Section 2113, which would bar any funds from being obligated or expended
in support of tour normalization until
• DOD’s Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) conducts
an appropriate analysis of alternatives to the program being pursued by the Army,
• the Secretary of the Army submits a master plan detailing the schedule and costs
for the needed facility and infrastructure construction, and
• subsequent legislation authorizes such obligation.
This provision had originally been enacted as Section 2111 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).
Section 2107 of the House version of the NDAA for FY 2013 (H.R. 4310) continues this
prohibition on funds in support of tour normalization through FY2013, while the Senate bill (S.
3254) contains no such provision. Nevertheless, Senator Carl Levin, chair of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, while discussing defense budget cuts at a public forum, was
quoted at a National Press Club forum on national security as saying, “We cannot afford to be
spending – I believe it was a figure like $10,000 a month for family housing that was planned in
order to have families – more families come over and be with our troops in Korea. We cannot
afford that.”28
Project Labor Agreements
In construction projects, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are arrangements between the
contractors and labor organizations arrived at before hiring that establish employment terms and
conditions for a specific construction project. PLAs have been used in public construction
projects since the 1930s. In issuing Executive Order (E.O.) 13502 on February 6, 2009, President
Barack Obama directed that, under certain circumstances, “In awarding any contract in

27 S.Rept. 112-29, pp. 8, 10.
28 Unattributed, “Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Participates in a Discussion on National Security at the National Press
Club,” Political Transcripts by CQ Transcriptions, June 12, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

connection with a large-scale construction project, or obligating funds pursuant to such a contract,
executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis, require the use of a project labor agreement
by a contractor ... .” Later in the E.O., the President stipulated that
This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any
construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project labor agreement in
circumstances not covered by this order, including leasehold arrangements and projects
receiving Federal financial assistance. This order also does not require contractors or
subcontractors to enter into a project labor agreement with any particular labor
organization.29
That notwithstanding, Section 517 of the House-passed version of the military construction
appropriation (H.R. 5854) states
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by any Government authority or
agent thereof awarding a construction contract on behalf of the Government, in any
solicitations, bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents, to
require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to
agreements with one or more labor organizations; nor shall such funds be used to
discriminate against or give preference to such bidders, offerors, contractors, or
subcontractors based on their entering or refusing to enter into such agreements. The
previous sentence does not apply to construction contracts awarded before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
A floor amendment to the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2013,
proposed by Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD/06), would amend Section 2852 of Title 10, United
States Code to forbid contracting officers of the Department of Defense or any military
department from requiring or prohibiting contractors from entering into or adhering to PLAs or to
discriminate against or give preference to bids or contractors based on such agreements. This
provision was adopted by recorded vote, 211-209, on May 19, 2012 (Roll No. 267) and
subsequently precipitated the OMB objection in the Statement of Administration Policy on the
bill.30
Extension of Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds for
Military Construction
Both of the Committees on Armed Services reported versions of the NDAA for FY2013 that
include a provision (Section 2803) that extends for a year the Secretary of Defense’s authority to
use up to $200 million in O&M funds from the defense appropriation for the construction of
facilities in the geographic areas of responsibility of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and
those areas on the continent of Africa formerly under CENTCOM responsibility. For construction
in Afghanistan, the Secretary may use up to an additional $300 million in O&M funding for
construction if he certifies the need. Congress originally granted this authority in FY2004 and has
renewed it for each subsequent year.31

29 Executive Order 13502, “Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects,” 74 Federal Register
6893, February 11, 2009.
30 Frances Symes, “Labor Dustup,” CQ Budget Tracker Newsletter, May 31, 2012.
31 More detailed discussions of this so-called “Section 2808” or “Contingency Construction Authority” are laid out in
CRS Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Additional Objections in Statements of Administration Policy
The Administration also raised concerns over incremental funding of construction projects, noted
in the SAP regarding H.R. 5854 (the military construction appropriation), and the restructuring of
Air Force Reserve Component command and infrastructure, cited in the SAP on S. 3254 (the
Senate committee’s NDAA).
Incremental Funding of Construction Projects
Congress funds governmental activity by providing “budget authority,” making funds available to
agencies from the Treasury for designated purposes. For military construction, this budget
authority is requested and provided at 100% of the amount estimated to finish a complete
construction project. At times, though, a large-scale project may require more budget authority
than is prudent to commit in a single fiscal year. At this point, the project may be broken up into
“phases” or it may be funded “incrementally.”
Phased construction requires the completion of a usable structure at the end of each phase. So, for
example, a large hospital may be built in phases, with each phase yielding a usable wing and the
final phase completing the structure. Incremental funding does not require a usable structure.
Funding, rather than construction, is staged.
This has led to controversy between the executive and legislative branches. The typical executive
position has held that full budget authority should be allocated to projects when requested, while
appropriators have suggested that this practice could over-commit limited budget authority in a
given fiscal year to a few large projects to the detriment of other needed construction. Therefore,
Congress has proven more receptive to incremental construction than the executive. This is
reflected in a statement found in the report accompanying the Senate committee version of the
military construction appropriation (S. 3215):
In general, the Committee supports full funding for military construction projects. However,
it continues to be the practice of the Committee to provide incremental funding for certain
large projects, despite administration policy to the contrary, to enable the services to more
efficiently allocate military construction dollars among projects that can be executed in the
year of appropriation. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends incremental funding
for the following projects: High Performance Computing Center, increment 2, Fort Meade,
Maryland; U.S. STRATCOM Replacement Facility, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; Cadet
Barracks, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York; Hospital Replacement, Fort Bliss,
Texas; and Explosives Handling Wharf 2, Kitsap, Washington.32

(...continued)
coordinated by Amy Belasco and CRS Report R41345, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies:
FY2011 Appropriations, by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga Panangala.
32 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2013, report
to accompany S. 3215, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2012, S.Rept. 112-168 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Air Force Reserve Component Command and Infrastructure
Section 1701 through Section 1709 of the Senate-reported version of the NDAA would create a
“National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.” This eight-member commission,
appointed by the chairs of the armed services committees and the President, and would study and
report on the force structure needed to support certain goals. In order to prevent the Air Force
from taking any actions that could preclude any potential commission findings or
recommendations, the bill would prevent the expenditure of any FY2013 funding to remove, or
prepare to remove, any Air Force aircraft from the Reserve Component units to which they were
assigned as of May 31, 2012 (except C-5A aircraft under certain conditions). The bill would then
authorize the appropriation of $1.4 billion “for the purpose of freezing Air Force structure in
place or as planned... .”33 If enacted, this provision would retain at their current locations all
Reserve Component aircraft through the end of FY2013. The commission’s report would be
produced not later than March 31, 2013.
During the past several months, the Secretary of the Air Force has announced his intention to
transfer the aircraft assigned to several reserve component (Air Force Reserve and Air National
Guard) units and, in some instances, close their associated installations. In each case, the
Secretary has insisted that these installations do not fall within the parameters of 10 U.S.C. 2687,
the permanent base closure statute, which imposes limitations on actions to close or realign
installations where a certain number of authorized civilian personnel actions would be affected. In
Section 2704 of the bill, the committee charges the Comptroller General with submitting a report
to the congressional defense committees that would include the “objective criteria to be used by
the Department of Defense to make decisions relating to realignments of units employed at
military installations that are not covered by the requirements of section 2687 of title 10, United
States Code, and closures of military installations that are not covered by such requirements.”
Of more immediate effect, the section would bar any action prior to October 1, 2013, that “would
result in a military installation covered under paragraph (1) of section 2687(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to no longer be covered by such paragraph.” The cited subsection brings under the
statute “the closure of any military installation at which at least 300 civilian personnel are
authorized to be employed.” This refers to a change in the authorized civilian manning at any
military installation currently exceeding 300 positions that would result in an authorization below
that number. The closure of installations falling within Section 2687 requires notification to
Congress at the time of the annual defense budget request with an accompanying detailed
justification for the closure and a wait of a certain number of days before implementation. This
provision could prevent certain actions that would have the effect of sidestepping this
requirement. Nevertheless, because the Secretary has consistently maintained that the civilian
manning at each of the installations slated for closure already does not meet Section 2687 levels,
this proposed section by itself may not materially affect those closures.

33 S.Rept. 112-173, p. 246.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2006-FY2012
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
VA
71.46
79.55
88.11
95.95
122.99
120.64
122.23
Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the appropriations committees accompanying the appropriations
bills for the years noted above. FY2010 includes $13.4 billion in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 111-212.
FY2011 reflects 0.2% reductions required by P.L. 112-10.
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 have increased from $71.46 billion in FY2006 to $122.23 billion in
FY2012.
Appropriation Highlights
The FY2013 budget submitted by the Administration called for funding the VA at a level of
$135.64 billion for FY2013 (see Table 4). This is an increase of $13.41 billion, or 11.0%,
compared to the FY2012-enacted appropriation (P.L. 112-74).
In addition to the request for FY2013, as required by law, the Administration requested $54.46
billion in advance FY2014 funding for VA medical care.
The differences between the Administration request and H.R. 5854 are that H.R. 5854: (1) does
not include the additional funding for Medical Services requested by the Administration; and (2)
includes a rescission for the proposed federal civilian pay raise.
The differences between the Administration request and S. 3215 are that S. 3215 includes slightly
less funding for Medical Services than requested, and slightly more funding than requested for
General Administration and Office of the Inspector General.
As shown in Table 5, mandatory funding is higher than discretionary funding for the VA. In the
FY2012 appropriation, mandatory funding was 52.2%, while for FY2013 mandatory funding is
55.1% of total funding for the VA in H.R. 5854. All advance funding for VA medical care is
discretionary funding.

Congressional Research Service
18

---

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012-FY2014
(billions of dollars)

FY2012 Enacted
Request
H.R. 5854
S. 3215
FY2013
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
Program FY2012
Advance FY2013 Advance FY2013 Advance FY2013 Advance
Compensation and pensions
51.238
61.741
61.741
61.741
Readjustment benefits
12.108
12.607
12.607
12.607
Insurance and indemnities
0.100
0.105
0.105
0.105
Housing programs (net, indefinite)
0.320
0.186
0.186
0.186
Housing programs administration
0.155
0.158
0.158
0.158
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration
63.921
74.797
74.797
74.797
(VBA)









National Cemetery Administration
0.251
0.258
0.258
0.258
Total, National Cemetery Administration
0.251
0.258
0.258
0.258
(NCA)









Medical Services
39.650
41.519a
41.354
41.509


Advance
appropriations

41.354
43.557
43.557
43.557
Medical support and compliance
5.535
5.746
5.746
5.746

Advance
appropriations

5.746
6.033
6.033
6.033
Medical facilities
5.426
5.441
5.441
5.441

Advance
appropriations

5.441
4.872
4.872
4.872
Medical and prosthetic research
0.581
0.583
0.583
0.583
Medical Care Collection Fundb
-3.326
-2.527
-2.527
-2.527
(Offsetting receipts)
3.326
2.527
2.527
2.527
(Appropriations - indefinite)
51.192
53.289
53.124
53.279
Total, Veterans Health Administration
(VHA)
51.192
53.289
53.124
53.279
Total, VHA advance appropriations
50.611 52.541 52.541 54.462 52.541 54.462 52.541 54.462
Total, VHA non-advance appropriations
0.581

0.748

0.583

0.738

Available to VHA (includes collectionsc)
54.518

55.816

55.651

55.806










General operating expenses








General administration
0.417
0.417
0.417
0.425
General operating expenses, VBA
2.019
2.164
2.164
2.164
Information technology
3.111

3.327

3.327

3.327

Inspector General
0.112
0.113
0.113
0.115
CRS-19

---

FY2012 Enacted
Request
H.R. 5854
S. 3215
FY2013
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
Program FY2012
Advance FY2013 Advance FY2013 Advance FY2013 Advance
Construction, major projects
0.590
0.532
0.532
0.532
Construction, minor projects
0.482
0.608
0.608
0.608
Grants for state extended care facilities
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
Grants for state veterans cemeteries
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
Total, Departmental Administration
6.862

7.292

7.292

7.302










Pay raise rescission




-0.094











Total, Department of Veterans
122.226
135.637
135.378
135.637
Affairs
Total, VA advance appropriations
50.611
52.541
52.706
54.462
52.541
54.462
52.696
54.462
Total, VA non-advance
71.615
82.931
82.837
82.941
appropriations
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Notes: Table shows appropriation amount (new budget authority), and not total budget authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Total budget authority for
the VA is the amount of money the VA can spend or obligate to spend by law, and has several forms including appropriations; authority to borrow; contract authority; and
authority to spend from offsetting col ections. For more information see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, coordinated by Bill Heniff Jr.
a. The Administration request additional funds of $165 million for FY2013 above the advanced appropriated amount in P.L. 112-74.
b. Medical Care Col ection Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as an indefinite budget authority equal to the revenue
collected.
c. Beginning with FY2012, the General operating expenses category is split into General administration and General operating expenses, VBA (Veterans Benefit
Administration).
For a discussion of VA health care appropriations, see CRS Report R42518, Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2013 Appropriations, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala.

CRS-20

---

Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012-FY2014
(billions of dollars)

FY2012 Enacted
Request
H.R. 5854
S. 3215
FY2013
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
FY2012
Advance
FY2013
Advance
FY2013
Advance
FY2013
Advance
Mandatory








Benefits (VBA)
63.765

74.638

74.638

74.638

Discretionary









Medical
(VHA)
51.192
53.289
53.124
53.279

Advance
appropriations
52.541
54.462
54.462
54.462
National Cemetery Administration (NCA)
0.251

0.258

0.258

0.258

Departmental administration
6.862

7.292

7.292

7.302

Housing administration (VBA)
0.156

0.159

0.159

0.159


Pay
raise
recission

-0.094


Total,
discretionary
58.461
60.998
60.740
60.998

Discretionary,
advance
appropriations
52.541
54.462
54.462
54.462
Total, Department of Veterans
Affairs
122.226
135.637
135.378
135.637
Total, VA advance appropriations

52.541
54.462
54.462
54.462









Percentages of Total








Mandatory
52.2%

55.0%

55.1%

55.0%


Discretionary

47.8% 100.0% 45.0% 100.0% 44.9% 100.0% 45.0% 100.0%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Notes: Table shows appropriation amount (new budget authority), and not total budget authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Total budget authority for
the VA is the amount of money the VA can spend or obligate to spend by law, and has several forms including appropriations; authority to borrow; contract authority; and
authority to spend from offsetting col ections. For more information see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, coordinated by Bill Heniff Jr.

CRS-21

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 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 foreign countries and 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.34
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 million visitors annually. H.R.
5854 differs from the Administration request in that the request provided funding for Arlington
National Cemetery from three accounts in two different appropriation bills. H.R. 5854 provides
the same level of total funding in this single account. S. 3215 contains a lower level of funding
than the request.
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, MS (originally
located in Philadelphia, PA, and known as the United States Naval Home). The appropriation for
the AFRH facilities is normally all 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.

34 For more information on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, see CRS Report RS22561, Veterans Affairs:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—Judicial Review of VA Decision Making, by Douglas Reid Weimer.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Table 6 shows the FY2012 enacted appropriations, the Administration request, H.R. 5854, and S.
3215 funding for FY2013 for each of the related agencies.
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2012-FY2013
(thousands of dol ars)
FY2012
H.R.

Enacted
Request
5854
S. 3215
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)



Salaries and expenses
61,100
58,400
59,290
58,400
Foreign currency fluctuations account
16,000
15,200
15,200
15,200
Total, ABMC
77,100
73,600
74,490
73,600





U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims




Salaries and expenses
30,770
32,481
31,187
32,481





Army Cemeterial Expenses




Salaries and expenses
45,800
45,800
173,733
41,000
Construction programs



107,800
Total, Army Cemeterial Expenses
45,800
45,800
173,733
148,800





Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)




Operation and maintenance
65,700
65,590
65,590
65,590
Capital program
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Total, AFRH
82,330
67,590
67,590
67,590





Total, All Related Agencies
236,000
219,471
347,000
322,471
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on the reports of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Appendix A. Military Construction Appropriations,
FY2011-FY2013
Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2011-FY2013
(budget authority in thousands of dol ars)
FY2011 Full-
Year
FY2013
Continuing
FY2012
Enacted
Senate
FY2013
FY2013
Account
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-
Request
House Bill
Committee
(P.L. 112-10,
74, Div. H)
(H.R. 5854)
Bill (S.
Div B,
3215)
Title X)
Military
Construction,
3,787,598 3,006,491 1,923,323 1,820,323 1,684,323
Army
Rescissions
-263,000

Reduction -7,575

Total New BA
3,517,023
3,006,491
1,923,323
1,820,323
1,684,323
Military
Construction,
3,303,611 2,112,823 1,701,985 1,551,217 1,650,240
Navy and Marine
Corps
Rescissions -61,050

Reduction -6,607

Total New BA
3,235,954
2,112,823
1,701,985
1,551,217
1,650,240
Military
Construction, Air
1,106,995 1,227,058 388,200 388,200 322,543
Force
Rescissions
-121,700

Reduction -2,214

Total New BA
983,081
1,227,058
388,200
388,200
322,543
Military
Construction,
2,873,062 3,431,957 3,654,623 3,569,623 3,442,123
Defense-wide
Rescissions
-148,500

Reduction -5,746

Total New BA
2,718,816
3,431,957
3,654,623
3,569,623
3,442,123
Total, Active
10,454,874 9,778,329 7,668,131 7,329,363 7,099,229
Components
Military
Construction,
873,664 773,592 613,799 613,799 613,799
Army National
Guard
Reduction -1,747

Congressional Research Service
24

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2011 Full-
Year
FY2012
FY2013
Continuing
Enacted
FY2013
FY2013
Senate
Account
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-
Request
House Bill
Committee
(P.L. 112-10,
74, Div. H)
(H.R. 5854)
Bill (S.
Div B,
3215)
Title X)
Total New BA
871,917
773,592
613,799
613,799
613,799
Military
Construction, Air
194,986 116,246 42,386 42,386 42,386
National Guard
Reduction -390
Total New BA
194,596
116,246
42,386
42,386
42,386
Military
Construction,
318,175 280,549 305,846 305,846 305,846
Army Reserve
Reduction -636
Total New BA
317,539
280,549
305,846
305,846
305,846
Military
Construction,
61,557 26,299 49,532 49,532 49,532
Navy Reserve
Reduction -123
Total New BA
61,434
26,299
49,532
49,532
49,532
Military
Construction, Air
7,832 33,620 10,979 10,979 10,979
Force Reserve
Reduction -16
Total New BA
7,816
33,620
10,979
10,979
10,979
Total, Reserve
1,453,302 1,230,306 1,022,542 1,022,542 1,022,542
Components
Total, Military
11,908,176 11,008,635 8,690,673 8,351,905 8,121,771
Construction
(Appropriations) 12,527,480 11,008,635
8,690,673 8,351,905 8,121,771
(Rescissions)
-594,250

(Reductions)
-25,054

NATO Security
Investment
258,884 247,611 254,163 254,163 254,163
Program
Reduction -518
Total New BA
258,366
247,611
254,163
254,163
254,163
Family Housing
Construction,
92,369 176,897 4,641 4,641 4,641
Army
Reduction -185
Total New BA
92,184
176,897
4,641
4,641
4,641
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2011 Full-
Year
FY2012
FY2013
Continuing
Enacted
FY2013
FY2013
Senate
Account
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-
Request
House Bill
Committee
(P.L. 112-10,
74, Div. H)
(H.R. 5854)
Bill (S.
Div B,
3215)
Title X)
Family Housing
Ops and Debt,
518,140 493,458 530,051 530,051 530,051
Army
Reduction -1,036

Total New BA
517,104
493,458
530,051
530,051
530,051
Family Housing
Construction,
186,444 110,972 102,182 102,182 102,182
Navy and Marine
Corps
Reduction -373
Total New BA
186,071
110,972
102,182
102,182
102,182
Family Housing
Ops and Debt,
366,346 367,863 378,230 378,230 378,230
Navy and Marine
Corps
Reduction -733
Total New BA
365,613
367,863
378,230
378,230
378,230
Family Housing
Construction, Air
78,025 60,042 83,824 83,824 83,824
Force
Reduction -156
Total New BA
77,869
60,042
83,824
83,824
83,824
Family Housing
Ops and Debt, Air
513,792 429,523 497,829 497,829 497,829
Force
Reduction -1,028

Total New BA
512,764
429,523
497,829
497,829
497,829
Family Housing
Construction,





Defense-Wide
Family Housing
Ops and Debt,
50,464 50,723 52,238 52,238 52,238
Defense-Wide
Reduction -101
Total New BA
50,363
50,723
52,238
52,238
52,238
DOD Family
Housing
1,096 2,184 1,786 1,786 1,786
Improvement
Fund
Reduction -2
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2011 Full-
Year
FY2012
FY2013
Continuing
Enacted
FY2013
FY2013
Senate
Account
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-
Request
House Bill
Committee
(P.L. 112-10,
74, Div. H)
(H.R. 5854)
Bill (S.
Div B,
3215)
Title X)
Total New BA
1,094
2,184
1,786
1,786
1,786
Homeowners
16,515 1,284


Assistance Fund
Reduction -33
Total New BA
16,482
1,284



Total, Family
1,819,544 1,682,946 1,650,781 1,650,781 1,650,781
Housing
(Appropriations) 1,823,191 1,682,946 1,650,781 1,650,781 1,650,781
(Reductions) -3,647 0 0 0 0
Chemical
Demilitarization
124,971 75,312
151,000
151,000
151,000
Construction,
Defense-wide
Reduction -250
Total New BA
124,721
75,312
151,000
151,000
151,000
Base
Realignment





and Closure
BRAC,1990
360,474 323,543 349,396 349,396 349,396
Reduction -721
Total New BA
359,753
323,543
349,396
349,396
349,396
BRAC,2005
2,354,285 258,776 126,697 126,697 126,697
Rescissions
-232,363

Reduction -4,709

Total New BA
2,117,213
258,776
126,697
126,697
126,697
Total,
BRAC 2,476,966 582,319 476,093 476,093 476,093
(Appropriations) 2,714,759 582,319 476,093 476,093 476,093
(Rescissions)
-232,363

(Reductions)
-5,430

Rescissions





(Sec. 131)
Military
Construction,
-100,000



Army
Military
Construction,
-25,000

Navy and Marine
Corps
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2011 Full-
Year
FY2012
FY2013
Continuing
Enacted
FY2013
FY2013
Senate
Account
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-
Request
House Bill
Committee
(P.L. 112-10,
74, Div. H)
(H.R. 5854)
Bill (S.
Div B,
3215)
Title X)
Military
Construction, Air
-32,000

Force
Military
Construction,
-131,400



Defense-Wide
Rescissions





(Sec. 132)
Base Realignment
-258,776



and Closure, 2005
Cancellation





(Sec. 127)
Military
Construction,


-20,000

Defense-Wide
Cancellation





(Sec. 128)
BRAC 2005



-212,291

Reduction (Sec.





129)
Civilian Pay Raise


-2,334

Reduction
Grand Total,
16,587,773 13,049,647 11,222,710 10,649,317 10,653,808
Title I
(Appropriations) 17,449,285 13,596,823 11,222,710 10,883,942 10,653,808
(Rescissions) -826,613
-547,176
0
-234,625
0
(Reductions)
-34,899
0 0 0 0
Sources: P.L. 112-10; P.L. 112-74; H.Rept. 112-491, S.Rept. 112-168.

Congressional Research Service
28

---

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2011-FY2013
(budget authority in thousands of dol ars)
FY2011 Full-
Year
FY2012
FY2013
Continuing
Enacted (P.L.
FY2013
FY2013
Senate
Appropriation
112-74, Div.
Request
House Bill
Committee
(P.L. 112-10,
(H.R. 5854)
Div B, Title
H)
Bill (S. 3215)
Account
X)
Military Construction,
981,346
80,000
Army
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine

189,703
150,768
Corps
Military Construction,
195,006
Air Force
Military Construction,
46,500
Defense-wide
Grand Total,
1,222,852
0 0
Title IV
Rescission (P.L. 111-

-269,703
117)
Rescission (P.L. 112-

-150,768
10 and P.L. 112-74)
(Appropriations)
269,703
150,768
(Rescissions)

-269,703
-150,768
Sources: P.L. 112-10; P.L. 112-74; DOD Budget Justification Material, FY2013; H.Rept. 112-491; S.Rept. 112-
168.

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
29

---