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

Congressional research reportFeb 4, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and

Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in National Defense

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

(name redacted)

Analyst in Veterans Policy

February 4, 2010

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40731

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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

Summary

The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides

funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of facilities used by

active and reserve military components worldwide. It capitalizes military family housing and the

U.S. share of the NATO Security Investment Program, and finances the implementation of

installation closures and realignments. It underwrites veterans benefit and health care programs

administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides for the creation and maintenance of

U.S. cemeteries and battlefield monuments within the United States and abroad, and supports the

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and Armed Forces Retirement Homes. The bill also

funds construction supporting Overseas Military Operations, a function previously carried out

through emergency supplemental appropriations, and advance appropriations for veterans medical

services.

Rather than submit a complete appropriations request for FY2010 only five weeks after taking

office, President Barack Obama published a budget overview, A New Era of Responsibility:

Renewing America’s Promise, on February 26, 2009. The President submitted his regular FY2010

appropriations request to Congress on May 7, 2009, including $133.5 billion for programs

covered in the regular Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

appropriations bill: $24.4 billion for Title I (military construction and family housing); $108.9

billion for Title II (veterans affairs); and $275.7 million for Title III (related agencies). Compared

with funding appropriated for FY2009, this represented decreases for Title I of $3.7 billion

(13.4%), and increases for Title II of $12.9 billion (13.5%) and for Title III of $69.0 million

(33.3%). The overall increase in appropriations between that requested for FY2010 and enacted

for FY2009 was $9.2 billion (7.4%). The enacted bill (P.L. 111-117) appropriated $23.3 billion

for Title I, $157.8 billion for Title II, $280.7 million for Title III, and $1.2 billion for Title IV

(Overseas Contingency Operations construction included in Title I of the President’s request).

Military construction is experiencing an overall decrease in spending as the annual appropriation

required to implement the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment round begins to drop off.

Also, appropriations dedicated to the construction and operation of military family housing are

decreasing as its privatization program expands.

In the area of veterans’ non-medical benefits, mandatory spending is increasing as claims for

disability compensation, pension, and readjustment benefits increase due to a combination of

several factors including the aging of the veterans’ population and the current conflicts in Iraq and

Afghanistan. As a result, the average number of days for completing a pension or compensation

claim in FY2008 was 179 days. To reduce the pending claims workload and improve processing

time, funds have been provided in previous appropriation bills for hiring and training additional

claims processing staff.

The House version of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Act for

2010 (H.R. 3082) was passed by the House on July 10, 2009, and sent to the Senate. The Senate

passed an amended version of the bill on November 17, 2009. H.R. 3082 was subsequently

incorporated as Div. E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288).

Congressional Research Service

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

Contents

Status of Legislation....................................................................................................................1

Appropriation .......................................................................................................................1

National Defense Authorization.............................................................................................3

Title I: Department of Defense ....................................................................................................4

Military Construction ............................................................................................................4

Key Budget Issues ................................................................................................................4

Planning Future Construction ..........................................................................................4

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ..........................................................................6

Guam Redeployment.......................................................................................................8

Overseas Installations.................................................................................................... 10

Military Housing........................................................................................................... 12

Incremental vs. Phased Construction Funding ............................................................... 12

Navy Outlying Landing Fields ...................................................................................... 14

Other Issues .................................................................................................................. 14

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs..................................................................................... 16

Agency Overview ............................................................................................................... 16

Key Budget Issues .............................................................................................................. 21

Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 21

American Battle Monuments Commission........................................................................... 21

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims .......................................................................... 22

Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) ................................................ 22

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) ........................................................................... 22

Appropriations for FY2009 ....................................................................................................... 24

Regular Appropriations (Consolidated Security and Continuing Appropriations) ................. 24

Economic Stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) ........................................ 24

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 .............................................................................. 25

Figures

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

Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2010 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act...................................................................................................................1

Table 2. Status of FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act ...................................................1

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009 ................................ 16

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011 ............................... 18

Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,

FY2009-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 20

Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2009-FY2010 .................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

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

Table A-1. Appropriations: Military Construction Appropriations Accounts ............................... 26

Appendixes

Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts ................................................................... 26

Appendix B. Additional Resources ............................................................................................ 31

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 33

Congressional Research Service

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

Status of Legislation

Table 1. Status of FY2010 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act

(H.R. 3082, S. 1407)

Committee

Markup

Conference

Report Approval

House

Senate

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Reporta

House

Senate

06/23/09

07/07/09

111-188

07/10/09

111-40

11/17/09

111-366

12/10/09

12/13/09

Public

Law

P.L.

111117

Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).

Conference Report for Div. E, H.R. 3288, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.

Table 2. Status of FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act

(H.R. 2647, S. 1390)

Committee

Markup

Conference

Report Approval

House

Senate

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

House

Senate

06/16/09

07/02/09

111-166

06/25/09

111-35

07/23/09

10/07/09

10/08/09

10/22/09

Public

Law

P.L.

111-84

Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).

Appropriation

President Barack Obama did not submit a detailed appropriations request during the first weeks of

his administration. Instead, he forwarded the outline of a budget request, stating

In the little more than a month my Administration has had in office, we have not had the

time to fully execute all the budget reforms that are needed, and to which I am fully

committed. Those will come in the months ahead, and next year’s budget process will look

much different.1

Detailed information on the FY2010 Department of Defense (DOD) request was released on May

7, 2009.

Representative Chet Edwards (TX/17), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, reported an

original measure, H.R. 3082 (H.Rept. 111-188), to the House on June 26, 2009. The bill was

placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 101). The House Committee on Rules reported

President Barack Obama, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC, February 6, 2009, p. 3, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.

Congressional Research Service

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

H.Res. 622, for consideration of H.R. 3082, on July 9, allowing one hour of general debate. The

rule was passed on July 10, and the bill was brought to the floor for consideration (Congressional

Record pp. H7976-H7983). Following floor debate (CR pp. H7983-H7991), the measure passed

on the Yeas and Nays: 415-3 (Roll No. 529).

Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota), chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, introduced an

original measure, S. 1407 (S.Rept. 111-40), to the Senate on July 7, 2009, where it was placed on

the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 100).

H.R. 3082 was received in the Senate on July 13, 2009, where it was placed on the Senate

Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 16). The bill was laid before the Senate

on November 5, 2009 (CR pp. S11187-S11191). The Senate debated the bill on November 6 (CR

pp. S11239-S11245), November 9 (CR pp. S11265-S11273, and S11283-S11284), November 10

(CR pp. S11313-S11334), November 16 (CR pp. S11362-S11378), and November 17 (CR pp.

S11403-S11411), passing it on November 17 by Yea-Nay vote: 100-0 (Record Vote No. 348).

On December 8, 2009, H.R. 3082, along with appropriations bills for Transportation-HUD,

Commerce-Justice-Science, Financial Services, Labor-HHS, and State-Foreign Operations, was

included in the conference report for H.R. 3288, the 2010 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill

retitled as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. H.R. 3082 became Div. E of that report,

H.Rept. 111-366. The House adopted the conference report on December 10 by the Yeas and

Nays, 221-202-1 (Roll No. 949).

The Senate began consideration of the H.R. 3082 conference report the same day, along with an

accompanying cloture motion. Floor action continued through December 13, including a point of

order invoking Rule XXVIII (the rule was waived by Yea-Nay vote: 60-36, Record Vote No.

372),2 the invocation of cloture (Yea-Nay vote: 60-34, Record Vote No. 373), and final agreement

to the conference report by Yea-Nay vote: 57-35 (Record Vote No. 374).3

The passed bill was presented to the President on December 15, 2009, who it signed into law the

next day as P.L. 111-117.

The conference report accompanying the enacted bill specifies that

The language and allocations set forth in H.Rept. 111-188 and S.Rept. 111-40 should be

complied with unless specifically addressed to the contrary in the conference agreement and

this explanatory statement. Report language included by the House, which is not changed by

the report of the Senate or this explanatory statement, and Senate report language, which is

not changed by this explanatory statement is approved by the Committees on Appropriations

of both Houses of Congress. This explanatory statement, while repeating some report

language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless

expressly provided herein. In cases where the House or the Senate have directed the

submission of a report, said report is to be submitted to both Houses of Congress.4

Senate Standing Rule XXVIII states that a point of order may be raised against any conference report in which

conferees have either inserted matter not committed to them by either House or have struck from the bill matter agreed

to by both Houses. See [http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HowCongressWorks.RulesOfSenate].

See Congressional Record pp. S12876-S13029, S13068-S13096, and S13126-13131.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

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

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). 5

National Defense Authorization

Representative Ike Skelton (MO/04) introduced H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization

Act for 2010, on June 2, 2009, when it was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services

(HASC). The committee reported the bill (H.Rept. 111-166) on June 16. The House began

consideration on June 24 and passed it on June 25, 2009. The bill was received in the Senate on

July 6 and placed on the Legislative Calendar (No. 96).

The Senate’s version of the bill, S. 1390, was introduced to that chamber by the chair of the

Senate Committee on Armed Services (SASC), Senator Carl Levin (MI), as an original measure

on July 2, 2009. The Senate began consideration of the bill on July 14. Senator Harry Reid (NV),

the Majority Leader, introduced a cloture motion on July 22 and passed it, as amended, on July

23, 2009, by Yea-Nay vote (87-7, Record Vote No. 242).

On July 23, the Senate took up consideration of H.R. 2647, struck all after its Enabling Clause,

and substituted the debate-amended language of S. 1390. The Senate then passed the amended

H.R. 2647 by Unanimous Consent, insisted on its amendment, and requested a conference.

The House took up the amended bill on October 6, 2009, when Representative Skelton moved

that the chamber disagree to the amendment and agree to a conference. The motion carried by

voice vote. Representative J. Randy Forbes moved that the conferees be instructed on a provision

regarding the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. After one hour of debate, the

motion failed by the Yeas and Nays, 178-234 (Roll No. 754).

Conferees filed the conference report (H.Rept. 111-288) in the House on October 7.6

Representative Skelton brought up the report for floor consideration on October 8. After one hour

of debate, Representative Buck McKeon moved that report be recommitted with instructions to

the conference committee. The motion was defeated by the Yeas and Nays (208-216, Roll No.

769). The House agreed to the conference report by a recorded vote of 281-146 (Roll No. 770).

The Senate took up the conference report on October 20. A cloture motion was filed the same day.

Cloture on the conference report was invoked by the Senate on October 22 by a Yea-Nay vote of

64-35 (Record Vote No. 326). The chamber agreed to the conference report by Yea-Nay vote (6829) on the same day (Record Vote No. 327).

Congress cleared the bill for the White House on October 22, 2009. It was presented to the

President on October 26 and signed by him on October 28, becoming P.L. 111-84.

(...continued)

Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Div. E, H.R. 3288, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8,

2009, H.Rept. 111-366 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 1.

An overview of the status of all FY2010 appropriations bills is available through the CRS website at

http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/appover.shtml.

Filing conference report, Congressional Record, October 7, 2009, pp. H10565-H11052.

Congressional Research Service

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

Table 1 and Table 2 track the progress of the appropriations and authorization acts, respectively.

Title I: Department of Defense

Military Construction

Military Construction accounts provide funds for new construction, construction improvements,

planning and design, and host nation support of active and reserve military forces and DOD

agencies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) is the U.S.

contribution to defray the costs of construction (airfields, fuel pipelines, military headquarters,

etc.) needed to support major NATO commands. Family housing accounts fund new construction,

construction improvements, federal government costs for family housing privatization,

maintenance and repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, and other expenses incurred

in providing suitable accommodation for military personnel and their families where needed.

The DOD Housing Improvement Fund is the vehicle by which funds, both directly appropriated

and transferred from other accounts, support military housing privatization. The Homeowners

Assistance Fund aids federal personnel stationed at or near an installation scheduled for closure or

realignment who are unable to sell their homes by allowing the Secretary of Defense to subsidize

the sale or to purchase homes outright.7 The Chemical Demilitarization Construction, DefenseWide, account provides for the design and construction of disposal facilities required for the

destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. The Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990

funds the remaining environmental remediation requirements (including the disposal of

unexploded ordnance) arising from the first four base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds

(1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995). The Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 provides

funding for the military construction, relocation, and environmental requirements of the

implementation of both the 2005 BRAC round and the DOD Integrated Global Presence and

Basing Strategy/Global Defense Posture Realignment (military construction only).

Funding of the various accounts included under Title I (Department of Defense) is listed in

Appendix A to this report.

Key Budget Issues

Planning Future Construction

Congressional committees with jurisdiction over military construction appropriations and

appropriation authorizations require the Secretary of Defense to justify in detail the construction

projects requested for the upcoming fiscal year. In addition, in order to anticipate upcoming

construction requirements, Congress requires the Secretary to regularly project its future budget

The ARRA for 2009 permanently expanded eligibility for the Homeowner Assistance Program to some classes of

wounded and injured DOD and Coast Guard personnel and surviving spouses and temporarily authorized eligibility to

some other federal personnel. A discussion of this expansion can be found in CRS Report RL34558, Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

plans and to review its national defense strategy. These exercises are referred to as the Future

Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

Uncertainty in Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)

Section 221 of Title 10 of the United States Code (10 U.S.C. 221) requires the Secretary of

Defense to submit a Future Years Defense Plan in conjunction with the President’s annual

appropriations request. A FYDP projects the Secretary’s anticipated appropriations requirements,

including military construction-related accounts, over the next five or six years and is used by the

defense committees to exercise oversight by tracking changes in DOD plans.

Rather than submit a complete appropriations request for FY2010 only five weeks after taking

office, President Barack Obama published a budget overview, A New Era of Responsibility:

Renewing America’s Promise, on February 26, 2009. Detailed information on the FY2010 DOD

request was released on May 7. In the accompanying documentation, Secretary of Defense Robert

Gates did not project the Department’s requirements into the future, citing the ongoing

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR, see next section) and the uncertainty of its potential impact

on future military construction.

All four congressional defense committees noted the Secretary’s failure to provide this

information. The HAC declared its expectation for the Department “to promptly inform the

Committee when decisions on future plans are finalized.”8 Their Senate counterparts (SAC) noted

that the “Department’s decision to not provide [FYDP] data with the fiscal year 2010 budget has

… complicated the Committee’s efforts to ascertain the scope and timetable of large-scale

initiatives.”9

The House Committee on Armed Services (HASC) observed, “The inability of the Department to

produce this critical document for consideration in this Act leads to a degradation of the quality of

the military construction program. The committee encourages the Department to submit these

documents … in concert with other budget documents, for consideration in the annual budget

request.”10 Finally, the SASC, in its discussion of the anticipated move of more than 7,000

Marines from the Japanese Prefecture of Okinawa to the U.S. Territory of Guam, also noted that

the budget submission did not include a FYDP and pointed out that a “FYDP would go a long

way toward illustrating to the committee that the total U.S. investment required for the

[relocation] initiative can be supported in future budget requests.”11

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and

Related Agencies, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010, report to

accompany H.R. 3082, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 26, 2009, H.Rept. 111-188, p. 17.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,

and Related Agencies, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, report to

accompany S. 1407, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 7, 2009, S.Rept. 111-40, p. 10.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and

Related Agencies, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, report on H.R. 2647, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,

June 18, 2009, H.Rept. 111-166, p. 541.

S.Rept. 111-40, p. 220.

Congressional Research Service

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

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress has required DOD to periodically reassess its

strategic objectives and potential military threats to national defense. The Department is currently

undertaking its fourth such exercise, the 2010 QDR. As stated above, the Secretary of Defense

deferred submission of detailed budget documentation this year, explaining that his planning

could not proceed while a QDR was ongoing. Section 1002 of the enacted National Defense

Authorization Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-84) amended 10 U.S.C. 118 by adding a new

subsection (h), clarifying that the development of the QDR should not interfere with or delay

delivery of budget materials and congressional reporting requirements tied to Section 1105(a) of

Title 31, United States Code, the requirement for timely budget submission.

The QDR may affect a number of decisions that will impact future military construction

programs. Three important initiatives whose future have become clouded awaiting the review’s

findings are Army modularization, the redeployment of forces from Germany to the United

States, and the stationing of new troops as the Army’s end strength grows.

On April 6, 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced that he would cap the number of Army

Modular Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) at 45, three below the 48 BCTs envisioned in his

December 2007 Grow the Army plan. The three installations where new brigades will not be

created include Fort Carson, CO, Fort Stewart, GA, and Fort Bliss, TX.12 The SAC observed that

$2.10 billion had been appropriated in 2009 for the military construction and family housing

intended to support these three BCTs. The SASC noted that the decision not to activate the three

BCTs would logically reduce the requirement for new military construction at the three sites.13

The redeployment of existing BCTs from German garrisons to installations in the United States

and of 7th Army Headquarters to a new Command and Battle Facility at Wiesbaden, Germany,

have been delayed until completion of the QDR and a reevaluation of overseas deployment

requirements.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

Cost of Implementation, 2005 BRAC Round

In the detailed documentation submitted by DOD to accompany the President’s full FY2010

appropriations request, DOD estimated that its one-time implementation costs for BRAC 2005

will total $34.8 billion.14

These cost estimates have changed over time as the military departments and DOD have

developed plans to carry out the various required BRAC actions. In 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

H.Rept. 111-166, pp. 21-2; S.Rept. 111-40, p. 14.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,

report to accompany S. 1390, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 2, 2009, S.Rept. 111-35, p. 213.

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

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

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. The FY2010 estimate for one-time implementation costs over

the FY2006-2011 period reached $34.2 billion.

The Obama Administration requested $7.48 billion for FY2010 for the implementation of the

2005 BRAC round. The House and Senate separately supported the request, and the

appropriations conferees agreed to appropriate $7.46 billion, ascribing the difference to cost

reductions due to the realignment of funding for a hospital replacement project at Fort Bliss,

Texas.

Figure 1 displays the progression of DOD cost estimates.

New Budget Authority ($ Millions)

Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation

10,000

9,143

8,509

9,000

9,025

8,174

8,000

8,174

7,581

7,912

7,000

5,639

6,000

5,623

5,558

5,623

5,626

5,000

5,473

5,696

4,000

2,439

3,000

2,000

1,502

1,000

2,996

1,530

1,502

2,071

2,104

1,563

1,489

484

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiscal Year

FY2007 Est.

FY2008 Est.

FY2009 Est.

FY2010 Est.

Source: DOD Budget Justification Documents for FY2007-FY2010.

Requiring the Secretary to Seek Fair Market Value in Economic Development

Conveyances

The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) contained language

(Section 2711) that would have amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Act

Congressional Research Service

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

of 1990, redefining the role of the Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) and restricting the

ability of the Secretary of Defense to negotiate the fair market value of surplus property being

transferred to local redevelopment authorities.15 The provision would have loosened the definition

of the EDC and tied the value of the property to post hoc market conditions, rather than ad hoc

valuation by the Secretary. It would also have required the Secretary to convey the property for

no consideration (no-cost) under certain conditions.

Section 2705 of the Senate amendment expressed a sense of the Senate that the Department of

Defense should comprehensively assess the needs of communities while assisting them to deal

with the effects of base closures or growth.

The enacted version of the bill (P.L. 111-84) amended Section 2905 of the BRAC Act to replace

the previous requirement for the Secretary to seek fair market value in real property EDC with

authority granting him discretion to account for local economic conditions and the cost of needed

additional local infrastructure (transportation, utilities, schools, etc.) when assessing the amount

of consideration to be requested for all BRAC-surplused property. The enacted language also

grants the Secretary the authority to accept a range of considerations in lieu of cash value,

including a share of the revenues generated from subsequent sale or lease of the property.

Implementing the 2005 BRAC Round, Eglin AFB Funding

One of the BRAC Commission recommendations establishes a joint pilot training school for the

new F-35 Thunderbolt II (Joint Strike Fighter, JSF) at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) adjacent to

Valparaiso, FL. In their FY2010 request, the Air Force and Navy jointly requested six

construction projects related to the new training squadron. Both the House Appropriations and

Armed Services Committees recommended to DOD that the entire cost of these projects be fully

funded through the Air Force account, with the Armed Services Committee noting that unitary

management would “ensure that a complete and usable facility can be constructed.”16

Guam Redeployment

The FY2010 budget includes the first request for funds to relocate approximately 8,000 Marines

and an estimated 10,000 members of their families from installations in the Prefecture of

Okinawa to the U.S. Territory of Guam. Relocation funding is to be shared between the

governments of Japan and the United States. Associated with the Guam relocation is the

construction of a replacement facility on Okinawa for the Marine aviation facility at Futenma and

a redeployment of units to Camp Schwab, Okinawa.17 In its Statement of Administration Policy

An economic development conveyance (EDC) is the transfer of title to surplus real property for the expressed

purpose of generating employment on the site. An EDC requires that proceeds from the sale or lease of the transferred

property must be devoted to economic development of the site for a period of seven years. The existing BRAC law

required the Secretary of Defense to seek fair market value for all property surplused in the 2005 BRAC round and

conveyed for the purpose of economic development. For a more complete description of an EDC and introduced

legislation that would amend its provisions, see CRS Report R40620, Military Installation Real Property and Services:

Proposed Legislation in the 111th Congress, coordinated by (name redacted).

H.Rept. 111-188, pp. 22-3; H.Rept. 111-166, p. 518.

MCAS Futenma is located approximately five miles from Naha, the capital of Okinawa Prefecture, in south-central

Okinawa. Camp Schwab is located in northeastern Okinawa. The construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility is

expected before the end of 2010.

Congressional Research Service

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

(SAP) on H.R. 2647 (the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for

FY2010), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) objected to a provision (Section 2836)

that would prevent the Secretary of Defense from accepting a Japanese-built Futenma

Replacement Facility (FRF) until he certifies that it meets Naval Aviation Safety standards. OMB

stated that the planned FRF configuration has already been formally agreed between the

governments of the United States and Japan.

More than $10.2 billion in joint construction funding for the relocation, which includes new

operations-related structures and housing and infrastructure and utility upgrades on Guam, has yet

to be coordinated between Japan and the United States, and the recent election of a new

government in Japan may have slowed the conclusion of these negotiations. Nevertheless, the

relocation is expected to be complete by 2014.18 Several provisions in the House-passed version

of H.R. 2647 related to construction supporting the relocation. Among them, Section 2833 would

have required construction workers to be paid not less than the lowest wage rates for comparable

work performed in Hawaii, rather than the prevailing local wage rate set by the Secretary of

Labor. In his written response to advance policy questions submitted to the SASC pursuant to his

July 9, 2009, hearing on his nomination to become Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral

Robert F. Willard, USN, stated

According to Department of Labor data, Hawaii construction wage rates are approximately

300% higher than those on Guam. The $10.27B estimated cost for construction to relocate

the Marines to Guam was based on historical wages experienced on Guam. In accordance

with international agreement, the amount of funding that Japan will provide is fixed.

Therefore, any additional cost will require more U.S funding. The Joint Guam Program

Office estimates application of Hawaii Davis-Bacon wage rates with fringes to Guam could

increase the labor cost for the realignment by $4.7B.19

Section 2833 would also have limited the number of construction work hours each month

performed by persons holding H2B visas to no more 30% of the total. 20

The SASC noted that an Environmental Impact Statement, required before construction can begin

on Guam, is underway. For several years, the committee has been vocal in requesting a DOD

master plan that would detail the extent of military construction and associated infrastructure

upgrades that the relocation would require. To date, no such comprehensive plan has been

submitted, and the initiation of a QDR and deferral of a FYDP appears to indicate that a Guam

Master Plan will be further delayed. The committee recommended that some construction

projects requested for Guam be deferred pending the submission of a master plan and FYDP and

reduced the requested Navy construction authorization by $211.0 million. 21 In its SAP on S. 1390,

OMB objected, stating that the government of Japan had appropriated $366.0 million for its

current fiscal year as part of a $6.0 billion commitment to help develop Guam.

The 2000 U.S. census stated the population of Guam as 154, 805. The Marine relocation may increase the Territory’s

population by more than 11.6% within the next five years and will be preceded by a large number of temporary

construction workers.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Hearing to Consider the Nominations of General James E.

Cartwright, USMC, and Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 9, 2009.

An H2B visa is issued to nonimmigrant, temporary, nonagricultural workers for labor that is seasonal, intermittent,

one-time, or meets a peak load need, and U.S. workers cannot be found. Additional information on the H2B visa

program can be found in CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker

Programs, by (name redacted).

S.Rept. 111-35, pp. 219-20.

Congressional Research Service

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

The enacted version of the bill (P.L. 111-84) requires that local wage rates apply to military

construction contracts associated with the realignment of military installations and relocation of

personnel to Guam and requires the Secretary of Labor to issue an annual wage rate

determination until 90% of the funds for the project are expended. It also imposes no limitation

on the number of visa holders who may work on construction projects, but requires that the

needed visas be issued subsequent to the issuance of a temporary labor certification by the

Governor of Guam.22 The bill also conditions acceptance of the Futenma Replacement Facility on

a report by the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense committees that it and its

associated operating procedures are consistent with naval aviation safety requirements, but does

not deny the Secretary the authority to exercise his existing waiver authorities.

Overseas Installations

Overseas Contingency Operations

The FY2010 appropriations request includes $1.41 billion in overseas contingency construction

for projects at various locations in Afghanistan. In previous years, construction projects in an

active military area of operations would have been requested in one or more requests for

emergency supplemental appropriations. This marks the first year that all such construction is

included in the regular annual appropriation request.

Construction at Al Musannah Air Base, Oman

The U.S. Air Force operates a facility at Seeb International Airport (also known as Muscat

International Airport), Oman, a joint civil-Royal Omani Air Force site, that includes prepositioned

war reserve materiel. The Omani government has requested that U.S. military activity at the

airport be relocated to a new site, Al Musannah, so that commercial development may proceed at

Seeb International.23 DOD subsequently requested funding for construction at the Al Musannah

site. The SASC recommended that funding requested in FY2010 ($69.0 million for airlift ramp

and fuel facilities and $47.0 million for a war reserve materiel compound) be denied, noting the

lack of a base master plan to guide construction, the incomplete state of the needed long-term

agreement with the Omani government for its use, and the absence of contributions from the

Omanis to its construction and operation. The committee calculated that the future cost to

complete construction and bring the new installation into operation would likely reach $350

million, observing that a FYDP would assist in confirming the magnitude of the necessary future

investment. 24 The final version of the authorization act (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-84) did not authorize

the appropriation of the funds requested for construction. The conferees recommended that DOD

confirm the existence of an updated host nation agreement before resubmitting the project in a

future Presidential budget request.

Section 2834 of the enacted bill. The Governor must also certify to the Secretary of Defense that there are

insufficient United States workers able, willing, and available for the work and that the hiring of such visa-holders will

not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in Guam.

The Oman Airports Management Company reports that between 2000 and 2006, the number of passengers annually

passing through Seeb International increased from 2.7 million to 4.8 million, the tons of freight transshipped rose from

69.6 to 99.5 thousand tons, and the number of civilian aircraft movements increased from 36.0 thousand to 46.3

thousand. Activity at the airport in more recent years has since dropped off somewhat. Information downloaded from

http://www.omanairports.com/seeb_trafficstatistics.asp, downloaded on July 13, 2009.

S.Rept. 111-35, p. 223.

Congressional Research Service

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

Oversight of the Development of Overseas Installations

The SASC noted in its report on S. 1390 that then-President George W. Bush released an

Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) in 2004. Later renamed the Global

Defense Posture Realignment Strategy (GDPRS), it formed the basis for plans to redeploy as

many as 70,000 military personnel and their families from garrisons overseas to installations

within the United States over the subsequent decade.

Section 2704 of S. 1390 would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report

on the status of overseas base closures and realignments that result from the implementation of

changes in DOD’s basing strategy. Because the QDR was created to be a comprehensive

examination of national defense strategy, infrastructure, and other elements of defense policy,

Section 2704 would also have amended its governing law, 10 U.S.C. 118, to require an additional

report from the Secretary on the impact each QDR would have on the global posture of U.S.

military forces. The enrolled version of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647, P.L.

111-84) retained that provision as an amendment to Title 10, inserting a new Section 2687a,

“Overseas Base Closures and Realignments and Basing Master Plans.”

The final bill also included in Section 1063 a requirement that the Secretary of Defense submit,

concurrent with delivery of the 2009 QDR, a report on the plan for basing forces outside of the

United States. In particular, the report is to address how such a plan would support international

and bilateral security agreements, describe the current security environment in each geographic

combatant command's Area of Responsibility, and assess the impact of any permanent change in

unit basing would have on those agreements and on the status of overseas base closure and

realignment actions already underway. The report is to also include the Secretary's

recommendations, if any, for additional overseas base closures or realignments. The statute

requires the Secretary to notify Congress at least 30 days before the permanent relocation of a

unit stationed outside of the United States.

Transition of Camp Lemonier from Expeditionary to Enduring Status

Construction at Camp Lemonier, a former French Foreign Legion facility in Djibouti that is now

the location of Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), has been supported by

emergency supplemental appropriations for expeditionary operations.25 Nevertheless, CJTF-HOA

has recently been described by the Africa Command (AFRICOM) staff as an “enduring forward

operating site,” implying that it has assumed a more permanent status. New construction projects

requested for the Camp in 2010 have been included in the regular appropriation.

In its report on S. 1407, the SAC observed that AFRICOM headquarters is located in Stuttgart,

Germany. With Camp Lemonier, still an expeditionary outpost, its sole installation within the

AFRICOM area of responsibility, the committee was unwilling to support any enduring

CJTF-HOA was created in late 2002 aboard USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20), a Navy headquarters communications

ship. The staff moved ashore to Camp Lemonier during 2003. Its area of responsibility encompassed Kenya, Somalia,

Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia in Africa, and Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula. Since its inception, CJTF-HOA

has existed within the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility, but as the newly created Africa

Command (AFRICOM) gains its full organizational capacity, Djibouti and the rest of the continent (except Egypt) will

come under its control.

Congressional Research Service

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

construction prior to the release of the 2010 QDR. The SAC instructed DOD to submit a strategic

infrastructure plan for AFRICOM not later than April 30, 2010.26

The SASC expressed concern in its report on S. 1390 that the future mission of CJTF-HOA, its

relationship with other U.S. governmental organizations in the region, and the ability of

AFRICOM to sustain the task force’s current level of operations remain unclear and directed the

Secretary of Defense to submit an explanatory report.27 This language was not included in the

final authorization act’s conference report.

Military Housing

Army Trainee Barracks

The Department of the Army has reported that housing for an anticipated 65,000 new troops at its

various initial training facilities will not be brought up to its current habitability standards before

2015. The House recommended $450 million in additional funding to accelerate trainee troop

barracks modernization. 28 The conference agreement reduced this to $350 million.29

Privatization Initiatives

The Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), initiated more than a decade ago by thenSecretary of Defense William J. Cohen, has thus far resulted in the transfer of responsibility, and

cost, to private enterprise for the construction, maintenance, and operation of military family

housing at approximately 100 military installations across the nation. This privatization has

reduced the amount of appropriated funds needed for the construction and operation of military

family housing. Therefore, the total military family housing appropriation request for FY2010,

$1.96 billion, comprises only 62% of the FY2009 enacted level of funding. 30

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.

S.Rept. 111-40, p. 14.

S.Rept. 111-35, pp. 218-9.

H.Rept. 111-188, p. 18.

H.Rept. 111-366, Div. E, p. 3.

Because privatized housing is paid for primarily through the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) issued to service

members living in non-government accommodations, the primary budgetary effect of housing privatization is a shift of

the cost of housing from the military construction appropriation to the military personnel appropriation account in the

defense appropriation. See H.Rept. 111-188, p. 28, and S.Rept. 111-40, pp. 6-7.

Congressional Research Service

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

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.”31 Thus, each construction phase must result in a facility that can be placed in service.

All four military construction committees have expressed their willingness to authorize these

large and complex construction projects in their entirety and appropriate funding incrementally

(i.e., in annual portions). As assessed by the SASC, when used on some large-scale projects, the

use of phased construction “can lead to inefficient designs, complex construction difficulties …,

repeated contractor mobilizations, and inefficient ordering of construction materials. This phasing

strategy often leads to higher overall costs … and longer construction times….”32 The HASC

supported full authorization for a number of major projects, but authorized the appropriation of

only part of the total amount. The HASC calculated this reduction based on its assessment of the

relevant military department’s ability to execute an annual increment of the needed construction.33

In its Statements of Administration Policy on H.R. 2647 and S. 1390, the House and Senate

versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, and H.R. 3082, the Housepassed version of the military construction appropriations bill, OMB objected to incremental

funding, stressing its desire to continue the use of so-called “full funding.”

The HAC stated, “that while projects should be fully funded or separated into standalone phases

where practicable, incremental funding should remain an option when it makes fiscal and

programmatic sense.”34 The Senate committee observed, “it continues to be the practice of the

Committee to provided incremental funding for certain large projects, despite administration

policy to the contrary, to enable the services to more efficiently allocate military construction

dollars….”35 The explanatory statement accompanying the final version of the bill contained the

following language:

The conferees continue to believe that military construction projects should be fully funded

or separated into stand-alone phases when practical. In some cases, however, incremental

funding makes fiscal and programmatic sense.36

The conference agreement then identified six construction projects that the bill would fund

incrementally.37

The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-84)

authorized full funding and incremental appropriations for hospital replacement projects on Guam

and at Ft. Bliss, TX.38

10 U.S.C. 2801(b).

S.Rept. 111-35, p. 240.

H.Rept. 111-166, pp. 515-6.

The committee’s report notes that the Office of Management and Budget will disallow any incrementally funded

military construction projects beginning with the FY2010 appropriations request. H.Rept. 111-188, p. 18.

S.Rept. 111-40, p. 9.

H.Rept. 111-366, Div E., p. 2.

These projects included the Aviation Task Force Complex Phase 1, Fort Wainwright, Alaska; North Region Tertiary

Treatment Plant Phase 1, Camp Pendleton, California; Hospital Replacement, Fort Bliss, Texas; Data Center, Camp

Williams, Utah; Ship Repair Pier Replacement, Portsmouth, Virginia; Apra Harbor Wharf Improvements Phase 1,

Guam; and Hospital Replacement, Guam.

H.Rept. 111-288, p. 875.

Congressional Research Service

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

Navy Outlying Landing Fields

Navy and Marine crews of fixed-wing aircraft are required to periodically practice shipboard

landing techniques under daylight and nighttime conditions at specially equipped airfields before

deploying to their assigned aircraft carriers. In order to mimic conditions at sea as closely as

possible, the Department of the Navy maintains a number of these Outlying Landing Fields

(OLF) at sites selected in part for their proximity to major Naval and Marine Corps Air Stations

and at sufficient distance from encroaching city and suburban sprawl to eliminate distracting

lights.

OLF Fentress, an auxiliary airstrip located eight miles southwest of Naval Air Station (NAS)

Oceana in Virginia Beach, VA, has served this purpose for several decades. Residential

encroachment prompted the Department of the Navy to remove the training function to a new site

available to F/A-18 squadrons based at both NAS Oceana and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)

Cherry Point, NC. The initial effort focused on a rural inland location midway between Plymouth,

VA, and Pantego, NC, approximately 85 miles from the NAS and 57 miles from the MCAS, but

the new airfield was resisted by local governments, culminating in Congress repealing the Navy’s

authorization to acquire the land. The Department is now examining alternative OLF locations.

In its report on S. 1390, the SASC directed the Secretary of the Navy to consult with the State of

North Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia, local governments and other interested

parties prior to issuing a final environmental impact statement and record of decision on its

choice of location of a new field and to report on this to the defense committees.39

The HASC also addressed Navy OLFs, but went farther by incorporating several specific

measures into their recommended statutory language. Section 2818 of the House-drafted version

of H.R. 2647 would prevent the Secretary of the Navy from establishing an OLF at a location

where the Secretary finds the local political jurisdiction formally opposed. Section 2819 would

prohibit the establishment of an OLF at either Sand Banks or Hale’s Lake, NC, two more recently

studied sites.

The enacted version of H.R. 2647 contained neither of these provisions.

Other Issues

Piñon Canyon, CO, Maneuver Training Area (PCMTA)

During the 1980s, the Department of the Army acquired approximately 250,000 acres near Ft.

Carson, CO, for use as a troop maneuvering area. Half of the land was purchased via open sale,

with the remainder bought through the use of condemnation proceedings.40

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.

S.Rept. 111-35, pp. 220-1.

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 (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Local land owners expressed concern that public condemnation might again be invoked to

acquire the new land.

An amendment to the bill appropriating military construction funds for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161)

forbade the use of such funds for Piñon Canyon expansion. Identical language appeared in the

military construction appropriations act for FY2009. This restriction is continued in Section 127

of the Administrative Provisions in Title I of the enacted appropriations bill.

New Project Starts Under Continuing Resolutions

Federal agency operations are normally funded through the enactment of one of the 13 annual

appropriations bills requested by the President and passed by Congress. Absent an annual

appropriation, agency operations are funded under one or more continuing resolutions. Statute

forbids the initiation of new programs using continuing resolution funding.

DOD requested statutory relief from this restriction for new military construction projects. The

HAC did not include such a provision in its version of the appropriations act (H.R. 3082).41

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.42 Nevertheless, impact aid is retroactive, depending on an annual census

of military family school children. This has presented a challenge for jurisdictions to prepare for a

large influx of students as military units move to nearby installations.

The HAC directed DOD to report on options available to proactively assist local agencies with

school construction and renovation and on conditions that could trigger the need for new DOD

school construction.43

Aegis Ashore Test Facility

The Obama Administration in September announced a significant restructuring of the existing

plan for the defense of Europe against potential missile attack from Iran. The Bush

Administration had planned and budgeted for the installation of two fixed missile defense sites,

H.Rept. 111-188, p. 33.

The Impact Aid Program is established in Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(ESEA).

H.Rept. 111-188, pp. 18-9. The DOD Education Agency (DODEA) operates 192 primary, middle, and secondary

schools in 14 districts located in seven states, the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 12 foreign

countries where significant numbers of U.S. military families are stationed.

Congressional Research Service

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

one in Poland and another in the Czech Republic. The revamped plan called instead for a less

robust configuration based on the Navy’s ballistic missile defense version of its Aegis weapon

control system and SM-3 missile interceptor.44

During floor debate of the military construction appropriations bill, Senator Daniel Inouye

introduced an amendment that would rescind those funds set aside for construction required for

the now-abandoned missile defense plan and add $68.5 million for a new Aegis Ashore Test

Facility needed to support the new plan.45 The Senate accepted the amendment and the

subsequent conference agreement retained both the rescission and appropriation.

Palanquero Air Base, Columbia

The Obama Administration requested $46.0 million for the development of a Cooperative

Security Location (CSL) at Palanquero Air Base, Columbia, for the conduct of various operations,

including counter narcotics and air mobility missions, throughout South America. The project

includes construction of operations and billeting facilities, a taxiway and parking apron, aircraft

refueling infrastructure, and improvements to utility services and communications support.

Although CSLs are by definition not host to a permanent U.S. military contingent and are

intended to be maintained by host nation or contractor personnel, the appropriations conferees

provided $43.0 million for the project and specified that “this funding is not intended to establish

a U.S. military presence in Colombia ... in accordance with the Defense Cooperation Agreement

of October 30, 2009.”46

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs

Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

58.10

61.84

65.84

71.46

79.55

88.11

95.95

Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the Appropriations Committees accompanying the appropriations

bills for the years noted above.

Agency Overview

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers directly, or in conjunction with other

federal agencies, programs that provide benefits and other services to veterans and their spouses,

dependents and beneficiaries. The VA has three primary organizations to provide these benefits:

the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the

National Cemetery Administration (NCA). Benefits available to veterans include serviceconnected disability compensation; a pension for low-income veterans who are elderly or have a

Amy Butler, "Aegis Ashore Test Bed Gets House Support," Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, vol. 232, no. 49

(December 10, 2009), p. 1.

S.Amdt. 2754 to H.R. 3082, introduced on November 9, 2009.

H.Rept. 111-366, Div. E, p. 5.

Congressional Research Service

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

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 $58.10 billion in FY2003 to $95.95 billion in

FY2009.

Congressional Research Service

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011

(budget authority in billions of $)

House (H.R. 3082)

Program

FY2009

Enacted

FY2010

Request

FY2010

FY2011

Conference Agreement,

P.L. 111-117

Senate (S. 1407)

FY2010

FY2011

FY2010

FY011

Compensation and pensions

43.112

47.218

47.396

Readjustment benefits

3.833

8.664

9.232

Insurance and indemnities

0.042

0.049

Housing programs (net, indefinite)a

-0.243

-0.109

Housing programs administration

0.158

0.165

Total, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)

46.901

55.988

56.734

National Cemetery Administration

0.230

0.242

0.250

Supplemental Appropriationsa

0.050

Total, National Cemetery Administration (NCA)

0.280

0.242

0.250

Medical Services

30.970

34.705

34.706

34.705

34.708

Advance appropriations

Medical support and compliance

37.136

4.450

5.100

4.897

Advance appropriations

Medical facilities

37.136

5.100

5.307

5.029

4.693

4.893

Advance appropriations

37.136

4.930

5.307

4.850

5.740

5.307

4.859

5.740

Supplemental Appropriationsa

1.000

Medical and prosthetic research

0.510

0.580

0.581

(Offsetting receipts)

-2.544

-2.954

(Appropriations - indefinite)

2.544

2.954

Medical Care Collection Fundc

CRS-18

Total, Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

41.959

45.078

House (H.R. 3082)

Senate (S. 1407)

45.075

45.235

Total, VHA advance appropriationsd

Available to VHA (includes collections)

48.183

Conference Agreement,

P.L. 111-117

45.078

48.183

44.503

48.032

48.029

48.189

48.032

General operating expenses

1.802

2.219

2.086

2.082

2.087

Supplemental Appropriationsa

0.150

Information technology

2.489

3.307

Supplemental Appropriationsa

0.050

Inspector General

0.088

0.107

0.106

0.109

Supplemental Appropriationsa

0.001

Construction, major projects

0.923

1.194

Construction, minor projects

0.742

0.600

0.723

0.735

0.703

Grants for state extended care facilities

0.175

0.085

0.115

0.100

Supplemental Appropriationsa

0.150

Grants for state veterans cemetaries

0.042

0.046

Income Verification (Internal Revenue Service)

0.002

Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund

0.198

Total, Departmental Administration

6.810

7.554

7.547

7.588

7.546

Total, Department of Veterans Affairs

95.948

108.861

108.860

109.060

109.608

Total, VA advance appropriations

48.183

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations Committee, various fiscal years.

This negative budget authority is the result of combining the loan subsidy payments estimated to be needed during FY2006 with the offsetting receipts expected to be

collected.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)

Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget authority equal to the revenue collected

CRS-19

The House and Senate Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bills for FY 2010, and Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2010

(Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010) provided budget authority for FY2011 for the following accounts: medical services, medical

support and compliance, and medical facilities. Under current budget scoring guidelines new budget authority for an advance appropriation is scored in the fiscal year in

which the funds become available for obligation. Therefore, in this table the budget authority is recorded in the FY2011 column.

Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:

Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2009-FY2011

(budget authority in billions of $)

House (H.R. 3082)

FY2009

Enacted

FY2010

Request

FY2010

FY2011

Senate (S. 1407)

FY2010

FY2011

Conference Agreement,

P.L. 111-117

FY2010

FY011

Mandatory

Benefits (VBA)

46.743

55.822

56.568

41.959

45.078

45.075

45.235

45.078

Discretionary

Medical (VHA)

Advance appropriations

48.183

National Cemetary Administration (NCA)

0.280

0.242

0.250

Departmental administration

6.808

7.554

7.547

7.588

7.546

Housing administration (VBA)

0.158

0.166

Total, discretionary

49.205

53.039

53.038

53.239

53.039

Discretionary, advance appropriations

Total, Department of Veterans Affairs

48.183

95.948

108.861

108.860

Total, VA advance appropriations

48.183

109.060

48.183

109.608

48.183

Percentages of Total

Mandatory

48.7%

51.3%

Discretionary

51.3%

48.7%

51.2%

100.0%

48.8%

51.6%

100.0%

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations Committee, various fiscal years.

CRS-20

48.4%

100.0%

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

Key Budget Issues

The FY2010 budget submitted by the Administration in May 2009 called for funding the VA at a

level of $108.9 billion for FY2010 (see Table 4). This would have been an increase of $12.9

billion, or 13.5%, over the FY2009 appropriation (including the economic stimulus funding

provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA, P.L. 111-5]).

The largest increases in funding for the VA between FY2009 and FY2010 in the Administration

request, H.R. 3082, S. 1407, and P.L. 111-117 were for compensation and pension benefits, and

readjustment benefits, where the largest component was for education benefits. As shown in

Table 4, H.R. 3082 would have provided $108.86 billion in FY2010 funding for the VA, and

$48.18 billion in advance FY2011 funding for VA medical care. While H.R. 3082 provided total

funding for the VA equal to the Administration request, H.R. 3082 would have provided lower

funding for general operating expenses and greater funding for minor construction and the

National Cemetery Administration than in the Administration request.

S. 1407 would have provided, as shown in Table 4, $109.06 billion in FY2010 funding for the

VA, and $48.18 billion in advance FY2011 funding for VA medical care. S. 1407 would have

provided higher funding for medical facilities and grants for state extended care facilities than in

the Administration request.

As shown in Table 4, P.L. 111-117 provided increases in funding, above the Administration

request, for compensation and pensions, and readjustment benefits (including education benefits).

Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) provides a total of approximately $45.1 billion

for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This is

a 7.4% increase over the FY2009 enacted amount and the same as the Administration’s budget

request for VHA. This amount includes funding for the medical services ($34.7 billion), medical

support and compliance ($4.9 billion), medical facilities ($4.9 billion) and medical and prosthetic

research ($581 million) accounts. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) also

provides approximately $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for the medical services, medical

support and compliance, and medical facilities accounts to be available in FY2011.

As shown in Table 5, there is an almost equal split between mandatory and discretionary funding

for the VA. In the FY2009 appropriation, mandatory funding was only slightly less than

discretionary funding. The Administration request, H.R. 3082, S. 1407, and P.L. 111-117 for

FY2010 provide discretionary funding that is slightly less than mandatory funding. For FY2011,

all of the advance funding provided by H.R. 3082, S. 1407, and P.L. 111-117 is discretionary

funding.

Title III: Related Agencies

American Battle Monuments Commission

The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) is responsible for the maintenance and

construction of U.S. monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in battle of

U.S. armed forces since the nation’s entry into World War I; the erection of monuments and

markers by U.S. citizens and organizations in foreign countries; and the design, construction, and

Congressional Research Service

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

maintenance of permanent cemeteries and memorials in foreign countries. The Commission

maintains 24 cemeteries and 25 memorials in either foreign countries or on U.S. soil.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by the Veterans’ Administration

Adjudication Procedure and Judicial Review Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-687). The Court is an

independent judicial tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of

Veterans’ Appeals. It has the authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret

constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions; and determine the meaning or applicability of

the terms of an action by the VA. It is authorized to compel action by the VA. It is authorized to

hold unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful and set aside decisions, findings, conclusions, rules

and regulations issued or adopted by the VA or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

The Court currently occupies leased facilities near Judiciary Square in the District of Columbia

and is searching for a permanent location as the current lease expires in September 2010.

Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses)

The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the administration, operation and maintenance of

Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. In

addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of approximately

3,100 non-funeral ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)

The Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund provides funds to operate and maintain the

Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC (also known as the United States Soldiers’

and Airmen’s Home) and the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, Mississippi (originally

located in Philadelphia, PA, and known as the United States Naval Home). These two facilities

provide long-term housing and medical care for approximately 1,600 needy veterans. The

Gulfport campus, encompassing a 19-story living accommodation and medical facility tower, was

severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August, 2005, and is not currently in use.

Residents of the facility were transferred to the Washington, DC, location immediately after the

storm. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the AFRH and the General

Services Administration (GSA) for the rebuilding of the Gulfport facility, with a targeted

completion date in 2010.

The appropriation for the AFRH facilities is from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust

Fund. The trust fund is maintained through gifts, bequests, and a $0.50 per month assessment on

the pay of active duty enlisted military personnel and warrant officers.

Table 6 shows the FY2009 enacted appropriations, the FY2010 request, and the funding provided

for FY2010 for each of the related agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2009-FY2010

(budget authority in thousands of $)

FY2009

Enacted

FY2010 Request

House

Senate

(H.R. 3082)

(S. 1407)

P.L. 111-117

FY2010

American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)

Salaries and expenses

59.470

60.300

61.800

63.549

62.675

Foreign currency fluctuations account

17.100

Total, ABMC

76.570

77.400

78.900

80.649

79.775

30.975

27.115

28.115

27.115

36.730

37.200

42.500

37.200

39.850

Operation and maintenance

54.985

62.000

Capital program

8.025

72.000

Total, AFRH

63.010

134.000

Total, All Related Agencies

207.285

275.715

283.515

278.964

280.740

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses

Army Cemeterial Expenses

Salaries and expenses

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations Committee, various fiscal years.

CRS-23

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

Appropriations for FY2009

Regular Appropriations (Consolidated Security and Continuing

Appropriations)

President George W. Bush submitted his FY2009 appropriations request to Congress on February

4, 2008. The House Committee on Appropriations (HAC) Subcommittee on Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies marked its bill on June 12, 2008, and the

full committee markup took place on June 24. Representative Chet Edwards, the subcommittee

chair, introduced the bill (H.R. 6599, H.Rept. 110-775) on July 24. After extensive debate and the

raising of two points of order on the floor, the House passed H.R. 6599 on August 1, 2008.47

The Senate Committee on Appropriations (SAC) Subcommittee on Military Construction,

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies polled out its version of the appropriations bill, and the

full committee reported it out without amendment by a unanimous vote on July 17, 2008. Senator

Tim Johnson, subcommittee chair, introduced the measure (S. 3301, S.Rept. 110-428) on July 22,

2008.

In the course of legislative business, several analysts suggested that this and other appropriations

bills might not be adopted until the convening of the 111th Congress.48 The text of the military

construction appropriations bill was incorporated into Division E of an amendment to H.R. 2638,

the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, a bill subsequently retitled the

Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Passed by

both chambers in late September, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 110-329) on

September 30, 2008.49

Economic Stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act)

Representative David R. Obey, chair of the HAC, introduced the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), or ARRA, to the 111th Congress on January 26, 2009. Title X

of the bill added funding to several military construction and veterans affairs appropriations

accounts. After debate and amendment, H.R. 1 was passed by the House on January 27. The

Senate subsequently substituted its own version of the bill, S. 336, and after floor debate and

amendment, passed H.R. 1 on February 10, 2009.

The conference committee filed its report (H.Rept. 111-16) on February 12, and President Barack

Obama signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-5) on February 16, 2009.50

A more detailed discussion of the bill’s passage is found in CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veterans

Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted)

Manu Raju, “Approps Bills May Wait,” The Hill, July 2, 2008, p. 1.

For more information on the bill, see CRS Report RL34711, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110329): An Overview, by (name redacted).

A detailed discussion of the ARRA can be found in CRS Report R40537, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009 (P.L. 111-5): Summary and Legislative History, by (name redacted) et al.

Congressional Research Service

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

The ARRA added $4.28 billion to already-enacted military construction, family housing, and

veterans affairs appropriations, increasing DOD accounts by $2.88 billion and Department of

Veterans Affairs accounts by $1.40 billion. A detailed discussion of ARRA provisions related to

military construction appropriations may be found in CRS Report RL34558, Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by (name redacted),

(name redacted), and (name redacted) .

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009

Representative Obey introduced a supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2346) on May 12, 2009,

that consolidated funds, with some adjustments, that the Administration had requested in four

supplemental appropriations proposals, including an April 9 request for $83.4 billion in

supplemental funding for defense, international affairs, domestic fire fighting, and other purposes;

an April 30 request for $1.5 billion for influenza preparedness and response; and a May 12

request for $5 billion to support International Monetary Fund (IMF) borrowing authority.

The House passed the bill on May 14. The Senate passed its version of the bill on May 21.

On June 2, the Administration submitted an additional request for $2.0 billion more for influenza

response, for expanded authority to transfer funds from other appropriations for influenza

measures, and for $200 million in additional humanitarian assistance to Pakistan. The conference

committee filed its report (H.Rept. 111-151) on June 12, 2009. After agreement by both

chambers, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-32) on June 24.51

The Act added $2.11 billion to military construction accounts, including $1.23 billion for Army,

$239.0 million for Navy and Marine Corps, and $281.0 million for Air Force construction, $263.3

million for the Base Realignment and Closure 2005, and $100.0 million for the NATO Security

Investment Program accounts.

For more detailed information on the supplemental appropriation, see CRS Report R40531, FY2009 Spring

Supplemental Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name red

acted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts

Table A-1. Appropriations: Military Construction Appropriations Accounts

(budget authority in $000)

Account

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

Enacteda

FY2010

Requestb

FY2010

House

Committee

FY2010

Senate

Committee

FY2010

Conference

Military Construction, Army

3,936,583

4,692,648

3,660,779

3,630,422

3,477,673

3,719,419

-8,690

-51,320

—

-59,500

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

110-252)

1,108,200

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

180,000

—

Supplemental

Appropriations (P.L.

111-32)

—

1,326,231

—

Overseas

Contingency

Operations

—

923,884

926,484

924,484

—

5,036,093

6,147,559

4,584,663

4,497,406

4,402,157

3,719,419

2,198,394

3,333,369

3,763,264

3,760,317

3,548,771

3,769,003

Rescissions

-10,557

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

110-252)

355,907

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

280,000

—

Supplemental

Appropriations (P.L.

111-32)

—

235,881

—

2,543,744

3,849,250

3,763,264

3,760,317

3,548,771

3,769,003

Military Construction,

Air Force

1,159,747

1,117,746

1,145,434

1,356,184

1,213,539

1,450,426

Rescissions

-10,470

-20,821

—

37,500

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

110-252)

399,627

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

180,000

—

Supplemental

Appropriations (P.L.

—

281,620

—

Rescissions

Total

Military Construction,

Navy and Marine Corps

Total

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

Enacteda

FY2010

Requestb

FY2010

House

Committee

FY2010

Senate

Committee

FY2010

Conference

—

474,500

—

1,548,904

1,558,545

1,619,934

1,830,684

1,688,039

1,412,926

Military Construction,

Defense-wide

1,609,596

1,695,204

3,097,526

2,743,526

3,069,114

3,093,679

Rescissions

-10,192

-3,589

—

-25,800

—

-151,160

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

110-252)

890,921

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

1,450,000

—

Supplemental

Appropriations (P.L.

111-32)

—

661,552

—

Overseas

Contingency

Operations

—

6,600

—

Total

2,490,325

3803,167

3,104,126

2,717,726

3,069,114

2,942,519

Total, Active

components

11,619,066

15,358,521

13,071,987

12,806,133

12,708,081

11,843,887

536,656

736,317

426,491

523,129

497,210

582,056

Rescissions

—

-1,400

—

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

50,000

—

536,656

784,917

426,491

523,129

497,210

582,056

287,537

242,924

128,261

242,126

297,661

371,226

—

50,000

—

287,537

292,924

128,261

242,126

297,661

371,226

Military Construction,

Army Reserve

148,133

282,607

374,862

437,516

379,012

431,566

Military Construction,

Naval Reserve

64,430

57,045

64,124

110,874

64,124

125,874

Military Construction,

Air Force Reserve

28,359

36,958

27,476

103,169

47,376

112,269

Rescissions

-3,069

—

Total

25,290

36,958

27,476

103,169

47,376

112,269

Account

111-32)

Overseas

Contingency

Operations

Total

Military Construction,

Army National Guard

Total

Military Construction,

Air National Guard

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

Total

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

Enacteda

FY2010

Requestb

FY2010

House

Committee

FY2010

Senate

Committee

FY2010

Conference

Total, Reserve

components

1,062,046

1,454,451

1,021,214

1,416,814

1,285,383

1,622,991

Total, Military

Construction

12,681,112

14,307,688

14,093,201

14,222,947

13,993,464

13,468,858

NATO Security

Investment Program

201,400

230,867

276,314

234,914

276,314

197,414

Supplemental

Appropriations (P.L.

111-32)

—

100,000

—

Total, NSIP

201,400

330,867

276,314

234,914

276,314

197,414

Family Housing

Construction, Army

424,400

646,580

273,236

Rescissions

-4,559

—

34,507

—

419,841

681,087

273,236

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Army

731,920

716,100

523,418

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

3,932

—

731,920

720,042

523,418

Family Housing

Construction, Navy and

Marine Corps

293,129

380,123

146,569

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

110-252)

11,766

—

Total

304,895

380,123

146,569

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Navy and Marine

Corps

371,404

376,062

368,540

Family Housing

Construction, Air Force

327,747

395,879

66,101

Rescissions

-15,000

—

80,100

—

312,747

475,979

66,101

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Air Force

688,335

594,465

502,936

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

—

16,461

—

Account

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

Total

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

Total

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

Enacteda

FY2010

Requestb

FY2010

House

Committee

FY2010

Senate

Committee

FY2010

Conference

688,335

610,926

502,936

Family Housing

Construction, Defensewide

—

2,859

Rescissions

—

-6,040

—

Total

—

-6,040

2,859

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Defense-wide

48,848

49,231

49,214

DOD Family Housing

Improvement Fund

500

850

2,600

Homeowners Assistance

Fund

—

4,500

23,225

373,225

323,225

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

111-5)

—

555,000

—

Total

—

559,500

23,225

373,225

323,225

2,878,450

3,847,760

1,958,698

2,308,698

2,258,698

104,176

144,278

146,541

151,541

Account

111-5)

Total

Total, Family Housing

Chemical

Demilitarization

Construction,

Defense-wide

Base Realignment and Closure

BRAC, 1990

295,689

458,377

396,768

536,768

421,768

496,768

BRAC, 2005

7,235,591

8,765,613

7,479,498

7,455,498

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L.

110-252)

1,278,886

—

Supplemental

Appropriations (P.L.

111-32)

—

263,300

—

8,810,166

9,487,290

7,876,266

8,016,266

7,901,226

7,952,266

Air National Guard Fire

Stations (Sec. 131

—

28,000

—

Army National Guard

Aviation and Training

(Sec. 132)

—

147,000

—

200,000

—

230,000

Total, BRAC

Emergency

Appropriations (P.L. 110252, Sec. 1001) Barracks

Improvement

General Reductions (Sec.

129)

Military Construction,

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

Enacteda

FY2010

Requestb

FY2010

House

Committee

FY2010

Senate

Committee

FY2010

Conference

Military Construction,

Navy and Marine Corps

—

235,000

Military Construction,

Air Force

—

64,091

Military Construction,

Army

—

33,000

Military Construction,

Navy and Marine Corps

—

51,468

Military Construction,

Air Force

—

93,268

Military Construction,

Army National Guard

—

33,000

Military Construction,

Air National Guard

—

7,000

Grand Total, MilCon

& FH

24,875,334

28,117,883

24,351,020

24,579,366

24,631,243

23,279,950

Account

Army

General Rescissions (Sec.

130)

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House Appropriations

Committee, various fiscal years.

Because FY2009 Enacted figures incorporate all enacted supplemental appropriations, totals and subtotals

may differ from those appearing in other sources.

FY2010 Request figures incorporate Overseas Contingency Operations construction projects into the socalled base budget. In prior years, these had been funded thorough separate emergency supplemental

appropriations. For comparison, all appropriations are included in this table and may differ from those

appearing in other sources.

Congressional Research Service

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

Appendix B. Additional Resources

Budget

CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

CRS Report 98-720, Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by (name redacted) and Allen Schick.

Veterans Affairs

CRS Report RL33991, Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted).

CRS Report RS22483, Health Care for Dependents and Survivors of Veterans, by (name redacted)

CRS Report RS20533, VA-Home Loan Guaranty Program: An Overview, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL33704, Veterans Affairs: The Appeal Process for Veterans’ Claims, by (name re

dacted).

CRS Report RL33113, Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability Benefit Programs, by

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL33323, Veterans Affairs: Benefits for Service-Connected Disabilities, by (name re

dacted).

CRS Report RL34370, Veterans Affairs: Health Care and Benefits for Veterans Exposed to Agent

Orange, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

CRS Report RS22897, Veterans Affairs: Historical Budget Authority, Fiscal Years 1940 Through

2008, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS22561, Veterans Affairs: The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—Judicial

Review of VA Decision Making, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS22666, Veterans Benefits: Federal Employment Assistance, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL33985, Veterans’ Benefits: Issues in the 110th Congress, coordinated by (name red

acted).

CRS Report RL33992, Veterans Benefits: Merchant Seamen, by (name redacted) and (name redacte

d) .

CRS Report RS22902, Veterans Benefits: An Overview, by (name redacted), (name redacted)

, and (name redacted).

CRS Report RL34626, Veterans’ Benefits: Benefits Available for Disabled Veterans, by (name reda

cted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

CRS Report RS22804, Veterans’ Benefits: Pension Benefit Programs, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL34627, Veterans’ Benefits: The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment

Program, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

CRS Report RL33993, Veterans’ Health Care Issues, by (name redacted) .

CRS Report RL34598, Veterans Medical Care: FY2009 Appropriations, by (name redacted)

Selected Websites

House Committee on Appropriations

http://appropriations.house.gov/

Senate Committee on Appropriations

http://appropriations.senate.gov/

House Committee on Armed Services

http://www.house.gov/hasc/

Senate Committee on Armed Services

http://armed-services.senate.gov/

House Committee on Veterans Affairs

http://veterans.house.gov/

Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs

http://veterans.senate.gov/

CRS Appropriations Products Guide

http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/appover.shtml

Congressional Budget Office

http://www.cbo.gov/

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC Commission)

http://www.brac.gov

Government Accountability Office

http://www.gao.gov/

Congressional Research Service

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

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in National Defense

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Veterans Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.