# Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41939

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** February 1, 2012
- **Citation:** R41939

## Text

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in National Defense
(name redacted)
Specialist in Social Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Veterans Policy
February 1, 2012

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41939

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Summary
The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides
funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of facilities used by
active and reserve military components worldwide. It capitalizes military family housing and the
U.S. share of the NATO Security Investment Program and finances the implementation of
installation closures and realignments. It underwrites veterans benefit and health care programs
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), provides for the creation and
maintenance of U.S. cemeteries and battlefield monuments within the United States and abroad,
and supports the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Armed Forces Retirement Homes,
and Arlington National Cemetery. The bill also funds advance appropriations for veterans’
medical services.
President Barack Obama submitted his request to Congress for FY2012 appropriations on
February 14, 2011. For the appropriations accounts included in this bill, his request totaled $145.2
billion in new budget authority, divided into three major categories: Title I (military construction
and family housing) at $14.8 billion; Title II (veterans affairs) at $130.2 billion; and Title III
(related agencies) at $246.4 million. Of the total, $75.7 billion (52.1%) would be discretionary
appropriations, with the remainder considered mandatory. Congress passed less than the request,
appropriating $13.6 billion for Title I (less $547 million in funds rescinded from prior years),
$122.2 billion for Title II, and $236 million for Title III.
Military construction funding amounts requested by the President and enacted by Congress have
fallen off as the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round has reached
completion. Funding support for military family housing construction has also declined as the
military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) continue their efforts to privatize formerly
government-owned accommodations.
Funding for the VA between FY2011 and FY2012 in the Administration request, and both the
House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2055, reflects increases for veterans’ benefits and
health care and reductions in general administration. The largest percentage increases between
FY2011 and FY2012 are for mandatory benefits—disability compensation and pension benefits,
and readjustment benefits (where the largest component is for education benefits).
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its FY2012 bill (H.R. 2055) on May 31, 2011
(H.Rept. 112-94), and the House passed it on June 14. The Senate referred the bill to its
Appropriations Committee, which reported it with an amendment in the form of a substitute on
June 30 (S.Rept. 112-29). The Senate began debate on July 14 and passed the bill on July 20,
2011. Failing enactment before the beginning of the fiscal year, military construction was funded
in the interim by temporary appropriations, including the First (H.R. 2017, P.L. 112-33, through
October 4, 2011), Second (H.R. 2608, P.L. 112-36, through November 18, 2011), Third (H.R.
2112, P.L. 112-55, through December 16, 2011), Fourth (H.J.Res. 94, P.L. 112-67, through
December 17, 2011) and Fifth Continuing Resolutions (H.J.Res. 95, through December 23, 2011).
H.R. 2055 became the vehicle for a number of unenacted appropriations, and the conference
began on December 8, 2011. Conferees filed their report (H.Rept. 112-331) on what was now the
“Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012” on December 15, which was agreed to in the House on
December 16 and in the Senate on December 17, 2011. The Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, formed Division H of the larger bill. The
President signed the legislation on December 23, 2011, which subsequently became P.L. 112-74.

Congressional Research Service

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Contents
Status of Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 1
Appropriation ............................................................................................................................ 1
Continuing Appropriations.................................................................................................. 2
Use of H.R. 2055 as a “Megabus” ...................................................................................... 3
National Defense Authorization ................................................................................................ 4
Title I: Department of Defense ........................................................................................................ 5
Military Construction ................................................................................................................ 5
Key Budget Issues ..................................................................................................................... 6
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Completing the 2005 Round.............................. 6
Overseas Installations.......................................................................................................... 7
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs ........................................................................................ 12
Agency Overview.................................................................................................................... 13
Appropriation Highlights......................................................................................................... 13
Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 17
American Battle Monuments Commission.............................................................................. 17
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ............................................................................. 17
Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) .................................................. 17
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)............................................................................... 17

Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2012 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act ....................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Status of FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act ..................................................... 1
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2005-FY2011.................................. 12
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2011-FY2013 ................................ 14
Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2011-FY2013......................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2011-FY2012 ...................................................... 18
Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012 .................. 19
Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2010-FY2012 ................ 24

Appendixes
Appendix. Military Construction Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012............................................. 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 25

Congressional Research Service

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Status of Legislation
Table 1. Status of FY2012 Military Construction,Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2055)
Committee
Markup

Conference Report
Approval

House

Senate

05/13/2011

06/28/2011

House
Report

House
Passage

Senate
Report

Senate
Passage

Conf.
Report

H.Rept.
112-94

06/14/2011

S.Rept.
112-29

07/20/2011

H.Rept.
112331

House

Senate

12/16/2011

12/17/2011

Public
Law
P.L.
112-74

Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).

Table 2. Status of FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 1540, S. 1253, S. 1867)
Committee
Markup
House

Senate

04/14/2011

06/16/2011

Conference Report
Approval
House
Report

House
Passage

Senate
Report

Senate
Passage

Conf.
Report

H.Rept.
112-78a

05/26/11

S.Rept.
112-26

12/1/2011

H.Rept.
112329

House

Senate

12/14/2011

12/15/2011

Public
Law
P.L.
112-81

Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).
a.

The texts of a number of amendments to the reported bill are included in H.Rept. 112-88. See U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for the Further Consideration of the Bill (H.R. 1540) to
Authorize Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012 for Military Activities of the Department of Defense and for Military
Construction, to Prescribe Military Personnel Strengths for Fiscal Year 2012, and for Other Purposes, 112th
Congress, 1st session, May 24, 2010, H.Rept. 112-88 (Washington: GPO, 2011).

Appropriation
On February 14, 2011, President Barack Obama submitted to Congress his request for military
construction appropriations to support federal government operations during FY2012, which will
begin on October 1, 2011.
The House Committee on Appropriations introduced its Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2012 (H.R. 2055) on May 31. The House began
debate on June 2 and passed the bill on June 14, 2011. Debate and amendment on the House floor
encompassed several provisions that could affect the cost of and competition for military
construction projects. One debate centered on Section 415, which was eventually stricken by
recorded vote, 204-203 (H.Amdt. 411, Roll no. 413). The section would have barred the use of
military construction funds to enforce Executive Order 13502 (41 U.S.C. 251 note). This order
permits executive agencies to specify that “project labor agreements” (PLAs) be used on
construction costing $25 million or more. These PLAs are pre-hire collective bargaining

Congressional Research Service

1

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

agreements with labor organizations that establish the terms and conditions of employment on
specific construction projects.1 Another amendment, proposed on the floor, would have barred the
imposition of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards on military construction projects. The
motion was defeated in a recorded vote, 178-232 (H.Amdt. 413, Roll no. 414).2
H.R. 2055 was received in the Senate on June 15, 2011, and was referred to the Committee on
Appropriations. On June 30, the committee reported the bill as an amendment in the form of a
substitute (S.Rept. 112-29). A motion to proceed to consideration of the measure was made on
July 11 (Congressional Record, S4478). Cloture on the motion to proceed was invoked on July 13
by yea-nay vote, 89-11 (Recorded Vote No. 109), and H.R. 2055 was laid before the Senate by
unanimous consent on July 14. A number of additional amendments were considered during
debate, and H.R. 2055, as further amended was passed by yea-nay vote, 97-2 (Record Vote No.
115). The Senate insisted on its amendment and appointed conferees.

Continuing Appropriations
Failing enactment of H.R. 2055 before the beginning of FY2012, Congress passed, and the
President signed, a series of temporary funding bills the generally continued funding for military
construction projects at levels consistent with those enacted for FY2011.3 Thus far, five
continuing resolutions have been enacted, including the First FY2012 Continuing Resolution
(H.R. 2017, P.L. 112-33, through October 4, 2011), the Second FY2012 Continuing Resolution
(the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, H.R. 2608, P.L. 112-36, through November 18, 2011),
the Third FY2012 Continuing Resolution (the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2012, H.R. 2112, P.L. 112-55, through December 16, 2011), the Fourth
Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 94, P.L. 112-67, through December 17, 2011) and the Fifth
Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 95, through December 23, 2011). The third act, because it
funded the Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and Science, and Transportation/HUD appropriations
for the entire fiscal year, was commonly referred to as the “Minibus.”4
Sections 102 and 110 of P.L. 112-33 stipulate, in part, that
no appropriations or funds made available [to] ... the Department of Defense shall be used
for ... the initiation, resumption, or continuation of any project ... for which appropriations,
funds, or other authority were not available during fiscal year 2011.... This Act shall be
implemented so that only the most limited funding action of that permitted in the Act shall be
taken in order to provide for continuation of projects and activities.

This language continued in effect through the subsequent four temporary funding acts, preventing
the initiation of any new military construction project during the time that these statutes remained
in effect.
1

For more information on project labor agreements, see CRS Report R41310, Project Labor Agreements, by (name r
edacted).
2
Broader discussions of the use of Davis-Bacon wage rates can be found in CRS Report R40663, The Davis-Bacon Act
and Changes in Prevailing Wage Rates, 2000 to 2008, by (name redacted), and CRS Report 94-408,
The Davis-Bacon
Act: Institutional Evolution and Public Policy, by (name redacted).
3
For a comprehensive discussion of continuing resolutions, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest
Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
4
The term “minibus” in the appropriations context is a play on the standard term for an appropriations bill that
incorporates all of the normal appropriations bills into a single piece of legislation, an “omnibus” act.

Congressional Research Service

2

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Use of H.R. 2055 as a “Megabus”
On December 7, 2011, Representative Hal Rogers, chair of the House Committee on
Appropriations, asked unanimous consent that the House disagree with the Senate amendment to
H.R. 2055. The motion was accepted without objection, and the Speaker appointed conferees.
The conference began on December 8, 2011, and in their opening statements, conferees Senator
Daniel K. Inouye, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and Representative Harold
Rogers, his contemporary on the House committee, noted that the conference intended to pull the
nine FY2012 appropriations bills remaining to be enacted into an amended H.R. 2055 that would
be reported to both chambers for passage.5 Press coverage of the bill’s conference has used the
term “Megabus” to describe the anticipated resulting appropriations bill.6
During the conference, the draft bills for the following regular annual appropriations were added
to the text of H.R. 2055 as divisions within the basic bill:
•

Division A: Defense7

•

Division B: Energy and Water8

•

Division C: Financial Services9

•

Division D: Department of Homeland Security10

•

Division E: Interior and Environment11

•

Division F: Labor, Health and Human Services, Department of Education12

•

Division G: Legislative Branch13

•

Division H: Military Construction, Veterans Affairs

•

Division I: Department of State and Foreign Operations14

5

Press releases with the texts of both Members’ statements have been posted on the respective committees’ websites.
See, for example, Kerry Young, “House May Include CRs in ‘Megabus’,” CQ Today, December 8, 2011, p. 1.
7
Formerly H.R. 2219. See CRS Report R41861, Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations,
by (name redacted), for a detailed discussion of the issues related to the defense appropriation bill.
8
Formerly H.R. 2354. See CRS Report R41908, Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations, coordinated
by (name redacted), for a detailed discussion of the issues related to the energy and water appropriation bill.
9
Formerly H.R. 2434. See CRS Report R42008, Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations,
coordinated by (name redacted), for a detailed discussion of the issues related to the financial services appropriations bill.
10
Formerly H.R. 2017. See CRS Report R41982, Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations,
coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted), for a detailed discussion of the issues related to the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
11
Formerly H.R. 2584. See CRS Report R41896, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012
Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted), for a detailed di
scussion of the issues related to the interior and
environment appropriations bill.
12
Formerly H.R. 3070. See CRS Report R42010, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2012
Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted), for a detailed discussion of the issues related to the labor, HHS,
education appropriations bill.
13
Formerly H.R. 2551. See CRS Report R41870, Legislative Branch: FY2012 Appropriations, by (name redacted), for
a detailed discussion of the issues related to the legislative branch appropriations bill.
14
Formerly S. 1601, filed as a conference report under House Rule 500. See CRS Report R41905, State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations, by (name redacted) and Marian Leonardo
(continued...)
6

Congressional Research Service

3

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The conferees filed their report on December 15. The House agreed to the conference report by
the Yeas and Nays (296-121, Roll No. 941) on December 16, 2011, and the Senate followed suit
on December 17 by Yea-Nay vote (67-32, Record Vote No. 235) and sent a message of their
action to the House on the same day.
The bill was presented to the President on December 21, 2011. He signed it into law on December
23, whereupon it became P.L. 112-74.

National Defense Authorization
Section 114 of Title 10, United States Code, requires that Congress authorize the appropriation of
funding to the Department of Defense (DOD) for certain purposes, including military
construction, as part of the annual appropriations cycle. This authorization is effected through the
enactment of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), of which one division
constitutes the Military Construction Authorization Act. While appropriations bills fall within the
jurisdiction of the two chambers’ Committees on Appropriations, writing the NDAA is the
responsibility of the Committees on Armed Services.
The NDAA for FY2012 (H.R. 1540) was introduced in the House on April 14, 2011. The House
Committee on Armed Services reported its amendment of the bill on May 17 (H.Rept. 112-78,
with a supplemental report, H.Rept. 112-78, Part 2, submitted on May 23). The House passed the
bill by recorded vote, 322-96 (Roll no. 375), on May 26, and the Senate received it on June 6,
2011.
The Senate version of the NDAA (S. 1253) was introduced to the Senate on June 22, 2011,
accompanied by its report (S.Rept. 112-26), and was placed on the legislative calendar under
general orders (Calendar No. 80). A second Senate version was of the FY2012 NDAA (S. 1867)
was introduced by Senator Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, was
introduced without report on November 15. Taken up two days later, S. 1867 was debated on
November 17 and 18 and again between November 28 and December 1, when its amended
version was passed 93-7 (Record Vote No. 218). The Senate then incorporated S. 1867 into the
House’s bill as an amendment and passed the amended H.R. 1540 by Unanimous Consent.
Insisting on its amendment, the Senate called for a conference and appointed conferees,
informing the House of its actions on December 5. By unanimous consent, the House disagreed
with the Senate amendment on December 7, agreed to a conference, and the Speaker
subsequently appointed conferees.15
The conferees filed their report (H.Rept. 112-329) on December 12. The House agreed to the
report by recorded vote (283-136, Roll No. 932) on December 14, and the Senate did the same by
Yea-Nay vote (86-13, Record Vote No. 230) the next day, sending a message on their action to the
House.

(...continued)
Lawson, for a detailed discussion of the issues related to the state-foreign operations appropriations bill.
15
For a detailed discussion of the NDAA, see CRS Report R41861, Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization
and Appropriations, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

4

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The bill was presented to the President on December 21, 2011. He signed it on December 31,
whereupon it became P.L. 112-81.

Title I: Department of Defense
Military Construction
The military construction appropriations account includes a number of appropriations
subaccounts:
•

Military Construction accounts provide funds for new construction, construction
improvements, and facility planning and design in support of active and reserve
military forces and DOD agencies.

•

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) is
the U.S. contribution to a common fund in which all NATO members participate
to defray the costs of construction (airfields, fuel pipelines, military headquarters,
etc.) needed to support major NATO commands.

•

Family housing accounts fund new construction, construction improvements,
federal government costs for family housing privatization, maintenance and
repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, and other expenses incurred
in providing suitable accommodation for military personnel and their families
where needed.

•

The DOD Housing Improvement Fund is the vehicle by which DOD provides the
seed money, both directly appropriated and transferred from other accounts,
needed to initiate public-private arrangements for the privatization of military
housing.

•

The Homeowners Assistance Fund aids federal personnel stationed at or near an
installation scheduled for closure or realignment who are unable to sell their
homes by allowing the Secretary of Defense to subsidize the sale or to purchase
homes outright. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5), or ARRA (the Stimulus Bill), permanently expanded eligibility for the
Homeowner Assistance Program to some classes of wounded and injured DOD
and Coast Guard personnel or their surviving spouses.16

•

The Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide, account provides
for the design and construction of disposal facilities required for the destruction
of chemical weapons stockpiles, as required under international treaty.

•

The Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 funds the remaining
environmental remediation requirements (including the disposal of unexploded
ordnance) arising from the first four base realignment and closure (BRAC)
rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995).

16
The ARRA also authorized the Secretary of Defense to extend HAP eligibility to some military personnel ordered to
change their permanent duty stations who found themselves having to sell their homes in a depressed housing market.
Eligibility under those provisions expired on September 30, 2010.

Congressional Research Service

5

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

•

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 the
Appendix to this report.

Key Budget Issues
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Completing the 2005 Round
September 15, 2011, is the statutorily mandated completion date for implementing all of the
recommendations made by the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (also
known as the BRAC Commission) and approved by President George W. Bush. Over the past six
years, the defense agencies and military departments have carried out a highly complex—and
often contentious—program of construction and movement to prepare new facilities at bases
gaining military missions, to wind down operations and close facilities no longer needed by the
military departments, and to transfer personnel and equipment to new locations. Though all
implementation actions save for environmental cleanup and disposal of surplus real property were
expected to be completed by the deadline, Congress has perceived that the military services may
not be able to fully implement some of the more complex commission recommendations in time.
Section 2704 of H.R. 1540, the House version of the NDAA for 2012, would permit the Secretary
of Defense to extend the completion of as many as seven recommendations for up to a year.17 The
Senate versions of the NDAA do not provide for such an extension.
In the detailed documentation submitted by DOD to accompany the President’s FY2011
appropriations request, DOD estimated that its one-time implementation costs for BRAC 2005
will total $34.5 billion.18
These cost estimates have increased over time as the military departments and DOD have
developed plans to carry out the various required BRAC actions. In requesting military
construction funds for FY2007, the first submission after the list of BRAC recommendations was
created, DOD estimated the total one-time implementation cost to implement the 2005 BRAC
round (the realignment and closure of a number of military installations on U.S. 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

17

The section specifies that the Secretary may not delegate this extension authority to any other person.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD Base Realignment and Closure, 2005, BRAC Commission Executive
Summary, Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Program Year 2011, Exhibit BC-02, BRAC Implementation Costs
and Savings, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 8, http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/
budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/BRAC%202005%20Executive%20Summary/
BRAC_2005_Exec_Sum_FY2011_PresBud_FINAL_26Jan10.pdf.
18

Congressional Research Service

6

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

$32.0 billion. DOD’s FY2010 estimate for one-time implementation costs over the FY2006FY2011 period reached $34.2 billion.
Issues raised during the 2005 round of base closures and realignments have prompted the
inclusion of several additional BRAC-related provisions in the FY2012 appropriations and
authorization bills. Section 2505 of the House NDAA would heighten the emphasis on costs and
benefits in the future selection of bases to be closed or realigned and would eliminate the
exemption from congressional notification of closures for “reduction in force” that exists in
current statute. Section 2706 would add a requirement for future recommendations to include
among the evaluation criteria of future closures “the ability of the infrastructure (including
transportation infrastructure) of both the existing and receiving communities” and “the costs
associated with community transportation infrastructure improvements” needed to absorb
projected increased populations.
BRAC Commission Recommendation #160 provided for the closure of Umatilla Chemical Depot,
OR. Umatilla is one of several defense installations that have been demilitarizing (rendering safe)
chemical munitions in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty (CWCT). In
2005, the Secretary of Defense estimated that all work at Umatilla would be completed not later
than the end of the second quarter of FY2011 and recommended that Umatilla be closed during
the 2005 BRAC round. The commission, though, noting that international law in the form of the
CWCT requires completion of the demilitarization mission prior to the closure of the depot, and
anticipating slippage in the work schedule there, worded its recommendation to lend some
flexibility to the date of closure, stating that “[o]n completion of the chemical demilitarization
mission in accordance with Treaty obligations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR.”19
Nevertheless, with work at Umatilla now expected to continue beyond the September 15, 2011,
statutory limit on BRAC closure authority, the Department of the Army indicated its intention to
remove Umatilla from the BRAC closure process and transfer responsibility for disposal of the
property to the General Services Administration.20 Section 127 of the Senate-engrossed version of
H.R. 2055 would permit the Secretary of the Army to continue Umatilla’s closure under BRAC
authority.

Overseas Installations
Japan: The Futenma Replacement Facility, Redeployment within Japan, and
Marine Movement to Guam
As the result of intergovernmental agreements, Japan has undertaken the construction of a new air
facility in the Prefecture of Okinawa for the use of U.S. Marine Corps aviation units now
operating from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, near the prefecture capital of Naha.
Upon completion of the new station, the existing facility is to be returned to Japanese control.
The selection of a new site for the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) and other Japanese
domestic political considerations have delayed initiation of construction of the new facility.21
19

2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Report, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005, p. 239.
Richard Cockle, “Local Plan for Depot Suddenly is in Peril,” The Oregonian, July 10, 2011, Sunrise edition.
21
For additional information and analysis of U.S.-Japanese security relations, see CRS Report RL33436, Japan-U.S.
Relations: Issues for Congress, coordinated by (name redacted).
20

Congressional Research Service

7

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Nevertheless, the Japanese press recently announced agreement between the two national
governments on a potential site and runway configuration.22 These plans were formalized at a
joint U.S.-Japan ministerial meeting on June 21, 2011, though both governments concluded that
adherence to the original 2014 completion date would be impossible, announcing afterward that
the FRF would be completed “at the earliest possible date after 2014.”23 Nevertheless, the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, in its report on the NDAA for 2012, has expressed considerable
concern, stating that the “committee believes that the proposed plan for the relocation of Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, located on the island of Okinawa, has become untenable and
must be resolved sooner and more economically than the current plan will allow,” estimating that
“even under the most reasonable circumstances, the FRF ... would likely take at least 7 to 10
years to complete at a cost to the Government of Japan of approximately $5.0–10.0 billion
dollars.”24 That committee would direct the Secretary of Defense to report on the feasibility of
relocating Marine aviation assets from MCAS Futenma to the nearby Kadena Air Base instead of
to the projected new facility. In addition, Section 1079 of S. 1253, the Senate’s version of the
NDAA, would create an independent panel to assess U.S. force posture in East Asia and the
Pacific Region, emphasizing examination of the current plans for force realignments on Okinawa
and Guam.
The two governments have also agreed to move approximately 8,000 Marines from their present
garrisons in Okinawa to facilities in the U.S. Territory of Guam, approximately 1,400 miles to the
east. Japan has pledged to provide approximately $6 billion of the estimated $10 billion needed
for the relocation.25
Congress has criticized the pace of DOD planning for the move. During consideration of FY2011
appropriations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended deferring $464.6 million
in requested construction funding from overseas projects in Guam, Europe, Korea, and other
locations pending the completion of a DOD review of its global posture.26 Nevertheless, the
redeployment is inextricably linked to the FRF project. DOD is awaiting “tangible progress” on
the part of the Japanese in constructing the FRF before commencing the construction necessary to
house the Marines relocating from Okinawa.27
While noting that official DOD plans continued to adhere to a 2014 deadline for completion of
the Guam redeployment, the House Committee on Appropriations stated, “The Committee
remains supportive of the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam. At the
same time, the Committee has serious concerns about the Department of Defense’s (DOD) ability
to adequately fund and complete construction on time and within budget.”28 In its report on H.R.
22

“Minister Tells Okinawa Gov. of Plan to Proceed with Futenma Relocation,” Kyodo News, June 13, 2011.
William Wan, “U.S., Japan Agree to Delay Relocation of Air Base on Okinawa,” The Washington Post, June 22,
2011, p. A9.
24
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
report to accompany S. 1253, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 22, 2011, S.Rept. 112-26, p. 241.
25
Of this sum, the government of Japan has committed to provide $2.8 billion in cash, with the remainder taking the
form of recoverable financial instruments.
26
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010,
Report to accompany S. 3615, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 19, 2010, S.Rept. 111-226, p. 9.
27
Additional information on and analysis of the Marine relocation can be found in CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S.
Defense Deployments, by (name redacted).
28
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
(continued...)
23

Congressional Research Service

8

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

2055, the FY2012 military construction appropriation bill, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reiterated its concerns, stating that
Due to the lack of verifiable cost estimates for the Guam buildup, the failure of DOD to
submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive master plan for the
initiative, and continuing uncertainty over the ability of the Government of Japan to fulfill its
commitment to relocate United States troops on Okinawa, the Committee has deferred
funding for fiscal year 2012 military construction projects associated with the relocation of
United States Marines to Guam.29

This included two major Navy projects, a $77.2 million improvement of water utility services to
the planned cantonment area at Finegayan and a $78.6 million increment for the development of
utility services to the north ramp area on Andersen Air Force Base, a site used by the Navy and
planned to host Marine aviation units moved from Japan. The Senate version of the NDAA would
also strike the requested funding for these construction projects.
The House version of the NDAA, H.R. 1540, authorized full funding of both construction
projects. Nevertheless, Section 2208 of S. 1253, the Senate’s version of the NDAA for 2012,
would have barred the obligation or expenditure of any appropriated funds or funds provided to
the United States by the government of Japan to implement the Marine relocation to Guam until
the Commandant of the Marine Corps provided to the congressional defense committees his
“preferred force lay-down” in the Pacific Region and the Secretary of Defense provided a master
construction plan supporting that lay-down, certified that “tangible progress” had been made on
the relocation of MCAS Futenma, and provided an interagency plan for the work necessary on
Guam’s non-military facilities to prepare for the relocation. This provision was carried into S.
1867 and the subsequent amendment of H.R. 1540.
At the end of bilateral consultations between the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
their Japanese counterparts on June 21, 2011, the Department of State issued a press release
stating, in part, “The Ministers noted that completion of the FRF and the Marine relocation will
not meet the previously targeted date of 2014 and confirmed their commitment to complete the
above projects at the earliest possible date after 2014 in order to avoid the indefinite use of the
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, while maintaining Alliance capabilities.”30

South Korea: Tour Normalization and Relocation
Since the Armistice on the Korean Peninsula ended combat in 1954, U.S. ground forces have
been concentrated in a number of forward bases distributed along the demarcation line between
South Korea and North Korea, with a major headquarters complex at Yongsan, adjacent to the
capital of Seoul.
(...continued)
Related Agencies, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012, report,
together with Minority Views, to accompany H.R. 2055, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 31, 2011, H.Rept. 112-94
(Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 15.
29
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, 2012,
report to accompany H.R. 2055, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 30, 2011, S.Rept. 112-29 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 9.
30
“Security Consultative Committee Document Progress on the Realignment of US Forces in Japan,” Department of
State Press Release, June 21, 2011.

Congressional Research Service

9

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Following agreements between South Korea and the United States, the headquarters of U.S.
Forces, Korea (USFK) and U.S. Army and Air Force units are being concentrated into two large
military communities centered on Osan Air Base and Camp Humphreys, south of the capital.
Additionally, tours of duty for military personnel are being lengthened, and servicemembers will
soon be permitted to bring their families with them, significantly increasing the size of those
communities. In its May 2011 report on the military posture in Asia, the GAO noted that it
obtained DOD cost estimates that total $17.6 billion through 2020 for initiatives in South
Korea, but DOD cost estimates are incomplete. One initiative, to extend the tour length of
military service members and move thousands of dependents to South Korea ... could cost
DOD $5 billion by 2020 and $22 billion or more through 2050, but this initiative was not
supported by a business case analysis that would have considered alternative courses of
action and their associated costs and benefits. As a result, DOD is unable to demonstrate that
tour normalization is the most cost-effective approach to meeting its strategic objectives.
This omission raises concerns about the investments being made in a $13 billion construction
program at Camp Humphreys, where tour normalization is largely being implemented.31

The House Committee on Appropriations expressed its views on the issue of “tour normalization”
in its report on the military construction appropriations bill, stating
The Department of Defense has taken on an arduous and expensive task to normalize
deployments to Korea by establishing a two-year tour for single members of the service and
three-year tours for married servicemembers to include their families. The task will require
great investment in military construction for schools, family housing and child development
centers just to name a few. The Committee is concerned that this investment may be an
expense that the United States should not incur. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the Committee on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this
Act the total cost and plan for Tour Normalization in Korea.32

The Senate Committee on Appropriations voiced its concerns with both tour normalization and
the redeployment of U.S. forces on the peninsula in its report on H.R. 2055.
This lack of a business case analysis ... raises concerns about the investments being made in
a $13,000,000,000 construction program at Camp Humphreys, Korea, to accommodate the
relocation of United States troops south of Seoul and the first phase of tour normalization.
Full tour normalization would require additional land, housing, schools and other facilities at
Camp Humphreys, which would require a revised master plan for the base and would likely
require changes to the current construction program. Given the extent of construction
currently underway at Camp Humphreys, any substantive change in the plan could impact
efficiency and drive up costs considerably.... No funding was requested in the fiscal year
2012 budget for military construction related to tour normalization in Korea, but the
Committee will expect detailed cost information and a completed business case analysis,
approved by the Secretary of Defense, for the strategic objectives that to this point have
driven the decision to implement tour normalization, before approving any funding requests
in future years. This business case analysis should clearly articulate the strategic objectives,
identify and evaluate alternative courses of action to achieve those objectives, and
recommend the most cost-effective alternative.33
31
GAO-11-316, frontispiece. Additional details on the relocation of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula may be found
in CRS Report R41481, U.S.-South Korea Relations, coordinated by (name redacted).
32
H.Rept. 112-94, pp. 21-22.
33
S.Rept. 112-29, pp. 8, 10.

Congressional Research Service

10

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Finally, the Senate Committee on Armed Services included Section 2113 into S. 1253, its version
of the NDAA for FY2012, which would bar any funds from being obligated or expended in
support of tour normalization until DOD’s Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
(CAPE) conducts an appropriate analysis of alternatives to the program being pursued by the
Army, the Secretary of the Army submits a master plan detailing the schedule and costs for the
needed facility and infrastructure construction, and subsequent legislation authorizes such
obligation. This section was carried over into S. 1867 and thence into the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1540.

Europe: Consolidation within Germany and Troop Redeployment to the
United States
Army and Air Force personnel in the Federal Republic of Germany are being consolidated into
two large military communities centered at Kaiserslautern (known to many servicemembers as
“K-Town”) in the country’s southwest near Frankfurt, and Grafenwöhr-Vilseck in eastern Bavaria
near the Czech border. For the past several years, military construction supporting this relocation
has been concentrated in these areas.
A significant portion of the combat power remaining in the Army portion of EUCOM was
scheduled to redeploy to new posts in the southwestern United States as part of an ongoing
defense-wide reevaluation of troop garrisoning strategy, but the Secretary of Defense agreed to
reconsider the movement of two brigade combat teams (BCT) from Germany to the United States
after the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review reconsidered the U.S. interest in supporting
NATO.34
The President’s FY2012 request includes $563 million for construction in Germany. It includes
$249 million for Army construction of the relocated European Army and Air Force Exchange
Central Distribution Facility (later not funded in the House version of the appropriations bill),35
various training and communications facilities, barracks, and family housing. The DOD
Education Agency (DODEA) is requesting $207 million to build, expand, or replace elementary,
middle, and high schools at several locations. The Tricare Management Agency plans to replace
the military medical center at Rhine Ordnance Barracks at a total cost of $1.2 billion and is
requesting $71 million for the first increment of funding.36 The Air Force is asking for $35
million to build a new airman’s dormitory at Ramstein Air Base, and the Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA) is asking for $2.4 million to upgrade its facility serving the U.S. Army
headquarters near Stuttgart.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations took note of the potential impact of efficiency
initiatives announced by the Secretary of Defense during August of 2010 when it wrote,
34
Jason Sherman, “QDR Reconsidering Plan to Move Two Brigades from Europe to U.S.,” Inside the Pentagon,
August 13, 2009, vol. 25, no. 32.
35
The current Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) distribution facility at Giessen, Germany, is being
closed and its operations are to be transferred to newly rehabilitated facilities at Germersheim. The Giessen site is being
returned to the government of Germany.
36
Rhine Ordnance Barracks, part of the Kaiserslautern Military Community, is a major deployment terminus for U.S.
forces stationed in the European Central Region. Located adjacent to Ramstein Air Base and near major ammunition
storage sites, the barracks will act as a major outfitting and processing station for any unit being deployed from the
region on a military operation.

Congressional Research Service

11

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The Committee remains concerned with the United States Army transformation and
realignment plans in Europe. This year, DOD announced the restructuring of headquarters
commands in Europe from four-star to three-star staff billets to reduce overhead as part of
the Secretary of Defense’s efficiency initiative. Subsequently, the Army announced its
decision to reduce Army Brigade Combat Teams [BCTs] in Europe from four to three after
2015. In light of these developments, the Army continues to have challenges articulating its
long term plans and justification for its forces and installations in Europe. ... In order to
better understand future requirements for military construction in Germany, the Committee
directs that no later than 90 days after enactment of this act, the Army and European
Command provide a report on installations and properties in Germany that they intend to
return to the host nation.37

In passing H.R. 2055, the Senate adopted an amendment (Section 129 of the bill as engrossed by
the Senate) that prevents any military construction funding from being expended at the Army
garrisons in Grafenwöhr or Baumholder, Germany, “until the Secretary of the Army submits to
Congress, in writing, a report on installations and properties in Germany that the Army intends to
return to the host nation” and identifies the BCT to be moved to the United States.

Extension of Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds for
Military Construction
The various Senate versions of the NDAA include a provision (Section 2802) that extends for a
year the Secretary of Defense’s authority to use up to $200 million in O&M funds from the
defense appropriation for the construction of facilities in the geographic areas of responsibility of
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and those areas on the continent of Africa formerly
under CENTCOM responsibility. For construction in Afghanistan, the Secretary may use up to an
additional $300 million in O&M funding for construction if he certifies the need. Congress
originally granted this authority in FY2004 and has renewed it for each subsequent year.38

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2005-FY2011
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2005
VA

65.84

FY2006
71.46

FY2007
79.55

FY2008
88.11

FY2009
95.95

FY2010
122.99

FY2011
120.64

Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the appropriations committees accompanying the appropriations
bills for the years noted above. FY2010 includes $13.4 billion in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 111-212.
FY2011 reflects 0.2% reductions required by P.L. 112-10.

37

S.Rept. 112-29, p. 14.
More detailed discussions of this so-called “Section 2808” or “Contingency Construction Authority” are laid out in
CRS Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs,
coordinated by (name redacted) and CRS Report R41345,
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies:
FY2011 Appropriations, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
38

Congressional Research Service

12

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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
nonservice-connected disability; vocational rehabilitation for disabled veterans; medical care; life
insurance; home loan guarantees; burial benefits; and educational and training benefits to help in
the transition of active servicemembers to civilian life. As shown in Table 3, VA appropriations
for benefits and services have increased from $65.84 billion in FY2005 to $120.64 billion in
FY2011.

Appropriation Highlights
The FY2012 budget submitted by the Administration called for funding the VA at a level of
$128.27 billion for FY2012 (see Table 4). This is an increase of $7.63 billion, or 6.3%, compared
to the FY2011-enacted appropriation (including the 0.2% reductions required by P.L. 112-10).
In addition to the request for FY2012, as required by law, the Administration requested $52.54
billion in advance FY2013 funding for VA medical care.

H.R. 2055, as passed by the House, provides total funding for the VA of $127.80 billion for
FY2012 (of which $50.61 billion was advance funding), and advance funding for FY2013 of
$52.54 billion. As passed by the Senate, H.R. 2055 provides total VA funding of $128.09 billion
for FY2012 (of which $50.61 billion was advance funding), and advance funding for FY2013 of
$52.54 billion. Both the House passed and Senate Appropriations Committee versions of H.R.
2055 provides lower administration funding than the Administration request for FY2012, and
separated the General operating expenses category into two separate categories: General
administration; and General operating expenses, VBA (Veterans Benefits Administration).
The Conference Agreement for H.R. 2055, as passed by both the House and Senate, provides
$122.23 billion for FY2012 (of which $50.61 was advance funding), and advance funding for
FY2013 of $52.54 billion.
As shown in Table 5, mandatory funding is higher than discretionary funding for the VA. In the
FY2011 appropriation, mandatory funding was 53.3%, while for FY2012 mandatory funding is
54.4% of total funding for the VA in the House-passed version of H.R. 2055, and 54.3% in the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2055. For the Conference Agreement for H.R. 2055, as passed by
both the House and Senate, 52.2% of total funding for FY2012 is mandatory funding. For
FY2013, all of the advance funding is discretionary funding.

Congressional Research Service

13

Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2011-FY2013
(billions of dollars)
FY2011 Enacted
Program
Compensation and pensions
Readjustment benefits
Insurance and indemnities
Housing programs (net,
indefinite)b
Housing programs administration
Total, Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA)
National Cemetery
Administration
Total, National Cemetery
Administration (NCA)
Medical Services
Advance appropriations
Rescission
Contingency Fund
Medical support and compliance
Advance appropriations
Medical facilities
Advance appropriations
Medical and prosthetic research
Medical Care Collection Fundc
(Offsetting receipts)
(Appropriations - indefinite)
Total, Veterans Health
Administration (VHA)
Total, VHA advance appropriations
Total, VHA non-advance
appropriations
Available to VHA (includes
collections)

CRS-14

FY2011a
53.978
10.396
0.078
-0.145

FY2012

Administration
Request
FY2013
FY2012
Advance
58.067
11.011
0.100
0.320

H.R. 2055 (House)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance
58.067
11.011
0.100
0.320

H.R. 2055 (Senate)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance
58.067
11.011
0.100
0.320

FY2012 Enacted (P.L.
112-74, Div. H)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance
51.238
12.108
0.100
0.320

0.165
64.472

0.155
69.653

0.155
69.653

0.155
69.653

0.155
63.921

0.250

0.251

0.251

0.251

0.251

0.250

0.251

0.251

0.251

0.251

37.062

39.650
39.650
-0.713
0.953
5.535

5.262
5.535
5.714
5.426

52.011

5.535

5.441

50.611
0.509
54.686

5.535

5.441

50.611
0.531
54.468

5.535
5.746
5.426
5.441

0.581
-3.326
3.326
51.192
51.192
52.541

41.354

5.746
5.426

0.531
-3.326
3.326
51.142
51.142
52.541

39.650
41.354

5.746
5.426

0.509
-3.326
3.326
51.360
51.360
50.611

39.650
41.354

5.746
5.426

0.580
-3.393
3.393
48.618
48.618
48.038
0.580

39.650
41.354

50.611
0.581
54.518

5.441
0.581
-3.326
3.326
51.192
51.192

52.541

50.611
0.581
54.518

52.541

FY2011 Enacted
Program
General operating expensesd
General administration
General operating expenses,
VBA
Information technology
Inspector General
Construction, major projects
Construction, minor projects
Grants for state extended care
facilities
Grants for state veterans
cemeteries
Total, Departmental Administration
Total, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Total, VA advance
appropriations
Total, VA non-advance
appropriations

FY2011a

FY2012

2.529

Administration
Request
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

H.R. 2055 (House)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

H.R. 2055 (Senate)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

FY2012 Enacted (P.L.
112-74, Div. H)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

2.467
0.401
2.020

0.431
2.019

0.417
2.019

2.994
0.109
1.074
0.467
0.085

3.161
0.109
0.590
0.550
0.085

3.025
0.109
0.590
0.475
0.085

3.161
0.112
0.590
0.550
0.085

3.111
0.112
0.590
0.482
0.085

0.046

0.046

0.046

0.046

0.046

7.303

7.008

6.751

6.994

6.862

120.642

128.273

127.797

128.091

122.226

48.038
72.604

50.611

50.611

52.541

77.662

50.611
77.186

52.541

50.611
77.480

52.541

50.611

52.541

71.615

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on reports of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) report on 0.2% reductions required by P.L. 112-10. Information for the Conference Report on H.R. 2055 is from H.Rept. 112-331, Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2055.
Notes: Table shows appropriation amount (new budget authority), and not total budget authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Total budget authority for
the VA is the amount of money the VA can spend or obligate to spend by law, and has several forms including appropriations; authority to borrow; contract authority; and
authority to spend from offsetting collections. For more information see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, coordinated by (name redacted)
a.

Amounts include the 0.2% across-the-board reductions required by P.L. 112-10.

b.

Negative budget authority is the result of combining the loans subsidy payments needed with the offsetting receipts expected to be collected. Includes Vocation
Rehabilitation loans.

c.

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

d.

Beginning with FY2012, H.R. 2055 splits the General operating expenses category into General administration and General operating expenses, VBA (Veterans Benefit
Administration

CRS-15

Table 5. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2011-FY2013
(billions of dollars)
FY2011 Enacted
FY2011a
Mandatory
Benefits (VBA)
Discretionary
Medical (VHA)
Advance appropriations
National Cemetery
Administration (NCA)
Departmental administration
Housing administration (VBA)
Total, discretionary
Discretionary, advance
appropriations
Total, Department of Veterans
Affairs
Total, VA advance
appropriations
Percentages of Total:
Mandatory
Discretionary

FY2012

64.306

Administration
Request
FY2013
FY2012
Advance
69.497

48.618

69.497

51.360
50.611

H.R. 2055 (House)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

69.497

51.142
52.541

H.R. 2055 (Senate)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

63.765

51.192
52.541

FY2012 Enacted (P.L.
112-74, Div. H)
FY2013
FY2012
Advance

51.192
52.541

52.541

0.250

0.251

0.251

0.251

0.251

7.303
0.166
56.336

7.008
0.156
58.775

6.751
0.156
58.300

6.994
0.156
58.594

6.862
0.156
58.461

50.611
120.642

52.541
128.273

50.611

53.3%
46.7%

100.0%

52.541
127.797

52.541

54.2%
45.8%

100.0%

52.541
128.091

52.541

54.4%
45.6%

100.0%

52.541
122.226

52.541

54.3%
45.7%

100.0%

52.541

52.2%
47.8%

100.0%

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on reports of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, and Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) report on 0.2% reductions required by P.L. 112-10. Table shows appropriation amount (new budget authority), and not total budget authority for the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Total budget authority for the VA is the amount of money the VA can spend or obligate to spend by law and has several forms,
including appropriations; authority to borrow; contract authority; and authority to spend from offsetting collections. For more information see CRS Report 98-721,
Introduction to the Federal Budget Process. Information for the Conference Report on H.R. 2055 is from H.Rept. 112-331, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2055.
Notes: Table shows appropriation amount (new budget authority), and not total budget authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Total budget authority for
the VA is the amount of money the VA can spend or obligate to spend by law, and has several forms including appropriations; authority to borrow; contract authority; and
authority to spend from offsetting collections. For more information see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, coordinated by (name redacted)
a.

CRS-16

Amounts include the 0.2% across-the-board reductions required by P.L. 112-10.

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Title III: Related Agencies
American Battle Monuments Commission
The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) is responsible for the maintenance and
construction of U.S. monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in battle of
U.S. Armed Forces since the nation’s entry into World War I; the erection of monuments and
markers by U.S. citizens and organizations in foreign countries; and the design, construction, and
maintenance of permanent cemeteries and memorials in foreign countries. The commission
maintains 24 cemeteries and 25 memorials in foreign countries and on U.S. soil.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by the Veterans’ Administration
Adjudication Procedure and Judicial Review Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-687). The court is an
independent judicial tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals. It has the authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret
constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions; and determine the meaning or applicability of
the terms of an action by the VA. It is authorized to compel action by the VA. It is authorized to
hold unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful and set aside decisions, findings, conclusions, rules
and regulations issued or adopted by the VA or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.39

Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses)
The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the administration, operation, and maintenance of
Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. In
addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of approximately
3,100 non-funeral ceremonies each year and has approximately 4 million visitors annually. The
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2055 requires that the executive director of Arlington Cemetery
report to Congress within 90 days of enactment on the detailed plan, and timetable, for
modernization of the information technology system, including burial records.

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)
The Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund provides funds to operate and maintain the
Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC (also known as the United States Soldiers’
and Airmen’s Home), and the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS (originally
located in Philadelphia, PA, and known as the United States Naval Home). These two facilities
provide long-term housing and medical care for approximately 1,600 needy veterans. The
Gulfport campus was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005, and
residents of the facility were transferred to the Washington, DC, location immediately after the
39

For more information on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, see CRS Report RS22561, Veterans Affairs:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—Judicial Review of VA Decision Making, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

17

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

storm. The rebuilding of the Gulfport facility was completed, with residents returning, on October
4, 2010.
The appropriation for the AFRH facilities is normally all from the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Trust Fund. The trust fund is maintained through gifts, bequests, and a $0.50 per month
assessment on the pay of active duty enlisted military personnel and warrant officers.
For FY2012, the Conference Agreement on H.R. 2055 includes $14.62 million (as a general fund
transfer) for repairs to the Washington, DC campus as a result of damage incurred due to the
earthquake on August 12, 2011.
Table 6 shows the FY2011 enacted appropriations, the Administration request, and H.R. 2055
funding for FY2012 for each of the related agencies.
Table 6. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2011-FY2012
(thousands of dollars)

FY2011
Enacted
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)
Salaries and expenses
64,072
Foreign currency fluctuations account
20,168
Total, ABMC
84,240

Administration
Request

H.R.
2055
(House)

H.R.
2055
(Senate)

FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 11274, Div. H)

61,100
16,000
77,100

61,100
16,000
77,100

61,100
16,000
77,100

61,100
16,000
77,100

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

27,560

55,770

30,770

30,770

30,770

Army Cemeterial Expenses

45,010

45,800

45,800

45,800

45,800

69,058
2,000

65,700
2,000

65,700
2,000

65,700
2,000

71,058

67,700

67,700

67,700

65,700
2,000
14,630
82,330

227,868

246,370

221,370

221,370

236,000

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)
Operation and maintenance
Capital program
General Fund
Total, AFRH
Total, All Related Agencies

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on reports of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report on 0.2% reductions
required by P.L. 112-10. Information for the Conference Report on H.R. 2055 is from H.Rept. 112-331, Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 Conference Report to Accompany H.R.
2055.
a.

Amounts include the 0.2% across-the-board reductions required by P.L. 112-10.

Congressional Research Service

18

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Appendix. Military Construction Appropriations,
FY2010-FY2012
Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)

FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)

FY2011 FullYear
Continuing
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-10,
Div B,
Title X)

Military
Construction,
Army

3,719,419

Rescissions

FY2012
Request

FY2012
House Bill
(H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Senate
Bill (H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-74,
Div. H)

3,787,598

3,235,991

3,141,491

3,066,891

3,006,491

-33,000

-263,000

—

-100,000

—

—

Reduction

-230,000

-7,575

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

3,456,419

3,517,023

3,235,991

3,041,491

3,066,891

3,006,491

Military
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps

3,769,003

3,303,611

2,461,547

2,461,547

2,187,622

2,112,823

Rescissions

-51,468

-61,050

—

-25,000

—

—

Reduction

-235,000

-6,607

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

3,482,535

3,235,954

2,461,547

2,436,547

2,187,622

2,112,823

Military
Construction, Air
Force

1,450,426

1,106,995

1,364,858

1,279,358

1,227,058

1,227,058

Rescissions

-130,768

-121,700

—

-32,000

—

—

Reduction

—

-2,214

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

1,255,567

983,081

1,364,858

1,247,358

1,227,058

1,227,058

Military
Construction,
Defense-wide

3,093,679

2,873,062

3,848,757

3,665,157

3,380,917

3,431,957

Rescissions

-151,160

-148,500

—

-131,400

—

—

Reduction

—

-5,746

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

2,942,519

2,718,816

3,848,757

3,533,757

3,380,917

3,431,957

Total, Active
Components

11,137,040

10,454,874

10,911,153

10,259,153

9,862,488

9,778,329

Military
Construction,
Army National
Guard

582,056

873,664

773,592

773,592

773,592

773,592

Rescissions

-33,000

—

—

—

—

—

Account

Congressional Research Service

19

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)

FY2011 FullYear
Continuing
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-10,
Div B,
Title X)

—

Total New BA

FY2012
Request

FY2012
House Bill
(H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Senate
Bill (H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-74,
Div. H)

-1,747

—

—

—

—

549,056

871,917

773,592

773,592

773,592

773,592

Military
Construction, Air
National Guard

371,226

194,986

116,246

116,246

116,246

116,246

Rescissions

-7,000

—

—

—

—

—

Reduction

—

-390

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

364,226

194,596

116,246

116,246

116,246

116,246

Military
Construction,
Army Reserve

431,566

318,175

280,549

280,549

280,549

280,549

—

-636

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

431,566

317,539

280,549

280,549

280,549

280,549

Military
Construction,
Navy Reserve

125,874

61,557

26,299

26,299

26,299

26,299

—

-123

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

125,874

61,434

26,299

26,299

26,299

26,299

Military
Construction, Air
Force Reserve

112,269

7,832

33,620

33,620

33,620

33,620

—

-16

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

112,269

7,816

33,620

33,620

33,620

33,620

Total, Reserve
Components

1,582,991

1,453,302

1,230,306

1,230,306

1,230,306

1,230,306

Total, Military
Construction

12,720,031

11,908,176

12,141,459

11,489,459

11,092,794

11,008,635

(Appropriations)

13,655,518

12,527,480

12,141,459

11,777,859

11,092,794

11,008,635

(Rescissions)

-406,396

-594,250

—

-288,400

—

—

(Reductions)

-529,091

-25,054

—

—

—

—

NATO Security
Investment
Program

197,414

258,884

272,611

272,611

272,611

247,611

—

-518

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

197,414

258,366

272,611

272,611

272,611

247,611

Family Housing
Construction,
Army

273,236

92,369

186,897

186,897

186,897

176,897

Account
Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Congressional Research Service

20

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)

FY2011 FullYear
Continuing
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-10,
Div B,
Title X)

—

Total New BA
Family Housing
Ops and Debt,
Army

FY2012
Request

FY2012
House Bill
(H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Senate
Bill (H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-74,
Div. H)

-185

—

—

—

—

273,236

92,184

186,897

186,897

186,897

176,897

523,418

518,140

494,858

494,858

494,858

493,458

—

-1,036

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

523,418

517,104

494,858

494,858

494,858

493,458

Family Housing
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps

146,569

186,444

100,972

100,972

100,972

110,972

—

-373

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

146,569

186,071

100,972

100,972

100,972

110,972

Family Housing
Ops and Debt,
Navy and Marine
Corps

368,540

366,346

367,863

367,863

367,863

367,863

—

-733

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

368,540

365,613

367,863

367,863

367,863

367,863

Family Housing
Construction, Air
Force

66,101

78,025

84,804

84,804

84,804

60,042

—

-156

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

66,101

77,869

84,804

84,804

84,804

60,042

Family Housing
Ops and Debt, Air
Force

502,936

513,792

404,761

404,761

404,761

429,523

—

-1,028

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

502,936

512,764

404,761

404,761

404,761

429,523

Family Housing
Construction,
Defense-Wide

2,859

—

—

—

—

—

Family Housing
Ops and Debt,
Defense-Wide

49,214

50,464

50,723

50,723

50,723

50,723

—

-101

—

—

—

—

49,214

50,363

50,723

50,723

50,723

50,723

Account
Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Reduction

Reduction
Total New BA

Congressional Research Service

21

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)

FY2011 FullYear
Continuing
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-10,
Div B,
Title X)

DOD Family
Housing
Improvement
Fund

2,600

Reduction

FY2012
Request

FY2012
House Bill
(H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Senate
Bill (H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-74,
Div. H)

1,096

2,184

2,184

2,184

2,184

—

-2

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

2,600

1,094

2,184

2,184

2,184

2,184

Homeowners
Assistance Fund

323,225

16,515

1,284

1,284

1,284

1,284

—

-33

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

323,225

16,482

1,284

1,284

1,284

1,284

Total, Family
Housing

2,258,698

1,819,544

1,694,346

1,694,346

1,694,346

1,682,946

(Appropriations)

2,258,698

1,823,191

1,694,346

1,694,346

1,694,346

1,682,946

0

-3,647

0

0

0

0

151,541

124,971

75,312

75,312

75,312

75,312

—

-250

—

—

—

—

151,541

124,721

75,312

75,312

75,312

75,312

BRAC,1990

496,768

360,474

323,543

323,543

323,543

323,543

Rescissions

—

—

—

-100,000

—

—

Reduction

—

-721

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

496,768

359,753

323,543

223,543

323,543

323,543

BRAC,2005

7,455,498

2,354,285

258,776

258,776

258,776

258,776

Rescissions

—

-232,363

—

—

—

—

Reduction

—

-4,709

—

—

—

—

Total New BA

7,455,498

2,117,213

258,776

258,776

258,776

258,776

Total, BRAC

7,952,266

2,476,966

582,319

482,319

582,319

582,319

(Appropriations)

7,952,266

2,714,759

582,319

582,319

582,319

(Rescissions)

—

-232,363

—

-100,000

—

—

(Reductions)

—

-5,430

—

—

—

—

Account

Reduction

(Reductions)
Chemical
Demilitarization
Construction,
Defense-wide
Reduction
Total New BA
Base
Realignment
and Closure

Rescissions
(Sec. 131)

Congressional Research Service

22

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)

FY2011 FullYear
Continuing
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-10,
Div B,
Title X)

Military
Construction,
Army

—

Military
Construction,
Navy and Marine
Corps

FY2012
Request

FY2012
House Bill
(H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Senate
Bill (H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Enacted
(P.L. 112-74,
Div. H)

—

—

—

—

-100,000

—

—

—

—

—

-25,000

Military
Construction, Air
Force

—

—

—

—

—

-32,000

Military
Construction,
Defense-Wide

—

—

—

—

—

-131,400

—

—

—

—

—

-258,776

Grand Total,
Title I

23,279,950

16,587,773

14,766,047

14,014,047

13,717,382

13,049,647

(Appropriations)

24,215,437

17,449,285

14,766,047

14,402,447

13,717,382

13,596,823

(Rescissions)

-406,396

-826,613

—

-388,400

—

-547,176

(Reductions)

-529,091

-34,899

—

—

—

—

Account

Rescissions
(Sec. 132)
Base Realignment
and Closure, 2005

Source: H.Rept. 111-366; P.L. 112-10; DOD Budget Justification Material, FY2012; H.R. 2055; S.Rept. 112-29,
H.Rept. 112-331.

Congressional Research Service

23

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)

FY2010
Enacted
(P.L.
111-117)

FY2011 FullYear
Continuing
Appropriation
(P.L. 112-10,
Div B, Title X)

Military Construction,
Army

924,484

Military Construction,
Army (Emergency)
Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps

FY2012
Request

FY2012
House
Bill
(H.R.
2055)

FY2012
Senate
Bill
(H.R.
2055)

981,346

—

—

—

80,000

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

189,703

Military Construction,
Air Force

474,500

195,006

—

—

—

—

Military Construction,
Air Force (Emergency)

—

—

—

—

—

—

Military Construction,
Defense-wide

—

46,500

—

—

—

—

Military Construction,
Defense-wide
(Emergency)

—

—

—

—

—

—

1,398,984

1,222,852

—

—

—

0

Account

Grand Total,
Title IV

FY2012
Enacted (P.L.
112-74, Div. H)

Rescission (P.L. 111117)

-269,703

(Appropriations)

269,703

(Rescissions)

-269,703

Source: H.Rept. 111-366; P.L. 112-10; DOD Budget Justification Material, FY2012; H.R. 2055; S.Rept. 112-29,
H.Rept. 112-331.
Note: Title IV includes three Army projects for Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, and five Navy projects for Bahrain
and Djibouti. Funding for these projects was requested in Title I (Military Construction). The conference
agreement provides the requested funding in Title IV, rescinding appropriations from the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-117).

Congressional Research Service

24

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in National Defense
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)
Specialist in Veterans Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)
Specialist in Social Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

25

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
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41939. Public record. Not legal advice.