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

Congressional research reportJan 13, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and

Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

(name redacted)

Specialist in National Defense

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in Veterans Policy

January 13, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R42586

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), provides for the creation and

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

and supports the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Armed Forces Retirement Homes,

and Arlington National Cemetery. The bill also funds advance appropriations for veterans’

medical services.

President Barack Obama submitted his request to Congress for FY2013 appropriations on

February 13, 2012. For the appropriations accounts included in this bill, his request totaled $145.2

billion in new budget authority, divided into three major categories: Title I (military construction

and family housing) at $11.2 billion; Title II (veterans affairs) at $135.6 billion; and Title III

(related agencies) at $219.5 million. Of the total, $74.4 billion (49.9%) would be discretionary

appropriations, with the remainder considered mandatory. On May 15, the House Committee on

Appropriations reported a bill recommending appropriating $10.9 billion for Title I (less $235

million in funds rescinded from prior years), $135.4 billion for Title II, and $347 million for Title

III.

Military construction funding amounts requested by the President and enacted by Congress have

fallen off as the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round has reached

completion, although Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has requested statutory authority to carry

out two new BRAC rounds in 2013 and 2015. Funding support for military family housing

construction has also declined as the military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) continue

their efforts to privatize formerly government-owned accommodations.

Funding for the VA between FY2012 and FY2013 in the Administration request, H.R. 5854, and

S. 3215, reflects increases for mandatory veterans’ benefits and health care. The largest

percentage increases between FY2012 and FY2013 are for mandatory benefits, primarily

disability compensation and pension benefits.

The House Committee on Appropriations reported its FY2013 bill (H.R. 5854) on May 16, 2012

(H.Rept. 112-491), and passed the bill on May 31. The Senate received H.R. 5854 on June 5. The

Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its bill (S. 3215) on May 22 (S.Rept. 112-168), and

the bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Nevertheless, an

appropriation bill was not enacted before the end of FY2012, and government operations

continued under a continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 117, enacted September 28) that expired on

March 27, 2013. The day prior, the President enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 933, P.L. 113-6), which funded the government through the

remainder of FY2013. Division E of that act constituted the Military Construction and Veterans

Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the

Senate proposed an emergency supplemental appropriation that included additional military

construction and veterans funding.

Congressional Research Service

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

Because the appropriations by P.L. 113-6 reflected amounts for various accounts in excess of

those imposed by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), the law required that the

excess be reduced (“sequestered”) before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013. The

impact of sequestration on these appropriations is reflected in Table B-1 in Appendix B of this

report. All other tables display “pre-sequestration” amounts.

Congressional Research Service

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

Contents

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

Budget Control Act of 2011....................................................................................................... 1

Appropriation ............................................................................................................................ 2

Annual Appropriation.......................................................................................................... 2

Continuing Resolution......................................................................................................... 3

Final Appropriation for FY2013 ......................................................................................... 4

Supplemental Appropriation ............................................................................................... 4

National Defense Authorization ................................................................................................ 5

Title I: Department of Defense ........................................................................................................ 7

Military Construction ................................................................................................................ 7

Key Budget Issues ..................................................................................................................... 8

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ............................................................................. 8

Overseas Installations........................................................................................................ 13

Project Labor Agreements ................................................................................................. 17

Additional Objections in Statements of Administration Policy......................................... 19

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs ........................................................................................ 21

Agency Overview .................................................................................................................... 21

Appropriation Highlights......................................................................................................... 21

Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 24

American Battle Monuments Commission.............................................................................. 24

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ............................................................................. 25

Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) .................................................. 25

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)............................................................................... 25

Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2013 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

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

Table 2. Status of FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act ..................................................... 1

Table 3. Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Sandy ........................................................... 4

Table 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2006-FY2012 ................................. 21

Table 5. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012-FY2014 ................................ 22

Table 6. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,

FY2012-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 23

Table 7. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2012-FY2013 ...................................................... 25

Table A-1. Title I Military Construction Appropriations Accounts, FY2012-FY2013 .................. 27

Table A-2. OCO Military Construction Appropriations Act Counts, FY2011-FY2013 ................ 29

Table B-1. Impact of Sequestration on Various Appropriations Accounts..................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

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

Appendixes

Appendix A. Military Construction Appropriations, FY2011-FY2013 ......................................... 27

Appendix B. Sequestration Impact ................................................................................................ 30

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 36

Congressional Research Service

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

Status of Legislation

Table 1. Status of FY2013 Military Construction,Veterans Affairs, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act

(H.R. 5854, S. 3215, H.R. 933)

Committee

Markup

Conference

Report Approval

House

Senate

05/16/2012

05/22/2012

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

House

Senate

H.Rept.

112-491

05/31/2012

S.Rept.

112168

—

03/6/13

03/20/13

Public

Law

P.L.

113-6

Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).

Note: “Conference Report Approval” for both House and Senate reflect the passage of H.R. 933, the

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, of which the Military Construction, Veterans

Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act constitutes Division E. The explanatory statement for H.R. 933

from the House was printed in the March 6, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on p. H1029. The statement

from the Senate was printed in the March 11, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on p. S1287.

Table 2. Status of FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act

(H.R. 4310, S. 3254)

Committee

Markup

House

Senate

05/9/2012

05/22/2012

Conference

Report Approval

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

H.Rept.

112479

05/18/2012

S.Rept.

112173

12/12/2012

H.Rept.

112705

House

Senate

12/20/12

12/21/12

Public

Law

P.L.

112239

Source: CRS Legislative Information Service (LIS).

Budget Control Act of 2011

FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of

2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021.

The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit

reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012.1 The failure of

Congress and the President to enact deficit reduction legislation by that date triggered an

automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA, consisting of a combination of

sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, to begin on January 2, 2013. The

sequestration process for FY2013 required across-the-board spending cuts at the account and

program level to achieve equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a

percentage to be determined, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Section 302(a) of the act established budget goal enforcement mechanisms by amending the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. These amendments established the deadline for enactment of the Joint Select

Committee’s plan and included subsequent automatic reductions in available budget authority.

Congressional Research Service

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

Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922), as amended by

the BCA, by the Office of Management and Budget.

However, certain programs were exempt from sequestration, and special rules governed the

sequestration of others. For the most part, these provisions are found in Sections 255 and 256 of

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2

U.S.C. 900-922), as amended. Section 255 of BBEDCA, as amended in 2010 (P.L. 111-139),

specifically excludes from sequestration, among other programs, appropriations for all programs

administered by the VA. Nevertheless, Section 256(e) of BBEDCA appears to allow a maximum

2% reduction in budget authority for VA medical care for any fiscal year. This apparent

discrepancy between the two sections of the law raised questions about whether VA would be

totally exempt from sequestration or whether medical care would be subject to a maximum

permissible 2% reduction in budget authority. On April 23, 2012, OMB issued a letter stating that

“all programs administered by the VA, including Veterans’ Medicare Care, are exempt from

sequestration under Section 255(b).”

The failure of Congress and the President to enact deficit reduction legislation by January 15,

2012, also triggered a re-defining of the “security” and “non-security” categories of discretionary

spending. Under the new definitions, the “security” category is defined as spending in budget

function 050, which effectively includes defense and military construction, and the “nonsecurity” category is defined as all other spending.

The impact of sequestration on the appropriations accounts covered in this report, as calculated

by the Office of Management and Budget, are displayed in Table B-1.

Appropriation

Annual Appropriation

On February 14, 2012, President Barack Obama submitted to Congress his request for military

construction appropriations to support federal government operations during the fiscal year

beginning on October 1, 2012 (FY2013).

The House Committee on Appropriations introduced its Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2013 (H.R. 5854, H.Rept. 112-491) on May 23,

2012. The House began debate on May 31 (Congressional Record (CR) H3309-H3359) and

passed the bill on the same day by the Yeas and Nays, 407-12 (Roll No. 305). H.R. 5854 was

received in the Senate on June 5, 2012, read twice, and placed on the Legislative Calendar under

General Orders (Calendar No. 421).

Before the House took up debate on H.R. 5854, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) stating that the President’s senior advisors

would recommend a veto of the bill. Among the reasons cited relevant to military construction

were

•

the bill’s incremental funding of the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile

Complex in Romania, and

•

language governing the inclusion of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) in federal

construction projects.

Congressional Research Service

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

Issues cited in this SAP will be addressed later in this report.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations introduced its own draft of the bill (S. 3215, S.Rept.

112-168) on May 22. The bill was placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders

(Calendar No. 408).

No further action was taken on either of these bills.

Continuing Resolution

Representative Harold Rogers, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, introduced a

continuing appropriations resolution (H.J.Res. 117) to the House on September 10, 2012. After

referral to the House Committees on Appropriations and Budget, the resolution was brought to

the floor on September 13 for consideration under a closed rule (H.Res. 778). The House passed

the resolution that same day by recorded vote, 329-91 (Roll No. 579).

The resolution was received in the Senate on September 19 and was placed on the Senate

Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 511). The resolution was laid before

the Senate on September 20, 2012. Cloture on the resolution was invoked in the Senate on

September 22 by Yea-Nay vote, 62-30 (Record Vote No. 198). The measure passed the Senate

without amendment by Yea-Nay vote, 62-30 (Record Vote No. 199) that same day.

The resolution was presented to the President on September 25, and became P.L. 112-175 when

he signed it on September 28, 2012.

In general, a continuing resolution permits department operations to continue at the same monthly

rate as in previous enacted appropriations, though Section 101(c) of H.J.Res. 117 allowed that

rate to be increased over that of 2012 by 0.612%. Nevertheless, Section 102(a) of the Continuing

Appropriations Resolution stated

No appropriation or funds made available or authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the

Department of Defense shall be used for: (1) the new production of items not funded for

production in fiscal year 2012 or prior years; (2) the increase in production rates above those

sustained with fiscal year 2012 funds; or (3) the initiation, resumption, or continuation of any

project, activity, operation, or organization (defined as any project, subproject, activity,

budget activity, program element, and subprogram within a program element, and for any

investment items defined as a P-1 line item in a budget activity within an appropriation

account and an R-1 line item that includes a program element and subprogram element

within an appropriation account) for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not

available during fiscal year 2012.

The resolution expired on March 27, 2013.2

For more information on H.J.Res. 117 and continuing resolutions in general, see CRS Report R42782, FY2013

Continuing Resolutions: Analysis of Components and Congressional Action, by (name redacted), and CRS Report

R42647, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Final Appropriation for FY2013

On March 26, 2013, the day prior to the expiration of the continuing resolution then in effect, the

President enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 933,

P.L. 113-6), which funded the government through the remainder of FY2013. Division E of that

act constituted the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2013. Amounts appropriated to various accounts in P.L. 113-6 are displayed

in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table A-1, and Table A-2. Table B-1 indicates the subsequent

impact of sequestration on these appropriations accounts. A House explanatory statement for the

bill was printed in the March 6, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on page H1029. A Senate

explanatory statement was printed in the March 11, 2013, Congressional Record, beginning on

page S1287.

Supplemental Appropriation

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a Category 2 storm that struck the East Coast of the United

States during late October 2012, the President requested $47.4 billion in emergency supplemental

appropriations, including $259.9 million in military construction and veterans affairs funding.

The Senate has drafted a supplemental appropriations bill that could provide as much as $60.4

billion, of which $259.8 million would be devoted to military construction and veterans affairs.

Table 3 provides some detail on the funding requested.3 The measure eventually enacted as P.L.

113-2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, was introduced in the House on January 4,

2013, and passed by the Yeas and Nays: 241-180 (Roll No. 23) on January 15. The Senate agreed

on January 28 without amendment by Yea-Nay vote: 62-36 (Record Vote No. 4). The President

enacted the bill on January 29, 2013, as P.L. 113-2.

Table 3. Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Sandy

(thousands of dollars)

Appropriation Account

Request

P.L. 113-2

Note

24,235

Replace eight damaged

buildings at Sea Girt Army

National Guard Training

Center; Act required

detailed justification

documentation to

Congress for each project

before fund obligation

207,000

Renovation/repair at VA

Manhattan Medical Center

(flooded, closed)

Military Construction

Military Construction,

Army National Guard

Veterans Affairs

Construction, Major

For additional information regarding these emergency supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013

Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted), and CRS Report

R42892, Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental, coordinated by (name redac

ted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Appropriation Account

Request

P.L. 113-2

Note

National Cemetery

Administration

1,100

Repair of damage at

Beverly, NJ, Cypress Hills,

NY, and Long Island, NY,

veterans cemeteries

Medical Services

21,000

Replace equipment

destroyed at VA

Manhattan Medical Center

Medical Facilities

6,000

Repair/replace medical and

building equipment at VA

facilities throughout NY

IT Systems

531

Repair/replacement of

equipment at VA

Manhattan Medical Center

Total

259,866

259,800

Source: DVA Justification Documentation.

National Defense Authorization

Section 114 of Title 10, United States Code, requires that Congress authorize the appropriation of

funding to the Department of Defense (DOD) for certain purposes, including military

construction, as part of the annual appropriations cycle. This authorization is effected through the

enactment of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), of which one division

constitutes the Military Construction Authorization Act. While appropriations bills fall within the

jurisdiction of the two chambers’ Committees on Appropriations, writing the NDAA is the

responsibility of the Committees on Armed Services.

The House version of the NDAA for FY2013 (H.R. 4310) was introduced in the House on March

29, 2012. The House Committee on Armed Services reported its amendment of the bill on May 11

(H.Rept. 112-479, with a supplemental report, H.Rept. 112-479, Part 2, submitted on May 15).

The House began debate of the bill on May 16 and passed it by recorded vote, 299-120 (Roll no.

291), on May 18. H.R. 4310 was received in the Senate on June 19 and referred to the Committee

on Armed Services.

In its SAP on H.R. 4310, issued on May 15, 2012, OMB cited a number of objections to the

legislation and stated that “If the cumulative effects of the bill impede the ability of the

Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources, the

President’s senior advisors would recommend to the President that he veto the bill.” Among the

issues cited in its statement, OMB noted

•

the bill’s prohibition on the use of funds to propose or plan for additional rounds

of BRAC;

•

language that would effectively freeze certain Air Force command structures,

capabilities, and functions as they existed in 2011;

•

reductions in the funding authorized for construction of the Aegis Ashore Missile

Defense Complex in Romania and requirement for new missile defense

construction on the U.S. East Coast;

Congressional Research Service

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

•

the absence of an authorization for two new base closure (BRAC) rounds; and

•

the inclusion of language enabling retroactive DOD liability for environmental

conditions at military installations closed outside the BRAC process after

October 24, 1988.4

Each of these issues will be expanded upon in subsequent sections of this report.

The Senate version of the NDAA (S. 3254) was introduced to the Senate on June 4, 2012,

accompanied by its report (S.Rept. 112-173), and was placed on the legislative calendar under

general orders (Calendar No. 419).

In its Statement of Administration Policy on S. 3254, issued on November 29, 2012, the Office of

Management and Budget expressed a number of serious concerns with S. 3254, citing provisions

that “(1) depart from the President’s FY2013 Budget request; (2) constrain the ability of the

Armed Forces to carry out their missions consistent with the new defense strategy; and (3) limit

key authorities of the Executive.” Among other concerns, the Administration objected to “Title

XVII, which would place limitations on funding to be used to divest, retire, or transfer units of the

Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve, in addition to creating a commission to study the

appropriate makeup of the Air Force”; to “the limitations imposed by section 2208 on the

obligation and expenditure of United States and Government of Japan funds to implement the

realignment of the U.S. Marine Corps units from Okinawa.” If presented to the President as then

drafted, “the President’s senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.”

The Senate received H.R. 4310 on June 19 and referred the bill to the Committee on Armed

Services. The committee discharged the bill by Unanimous Consent on December 4, 2012, and

the measure was laid before the floor. The Senate then struck all after the bill’s Enacting Clause

and substituted the language of S. 3254, sending an appropriate message to the House on its

actions.

Upon receipt of H.Res. 829, which objected to the bill as amended, the Senate reintroduced the

bill to the floor on December 12 and vitiated its previous passage, amended the bill, and agreed to

the amendment by unanimous consent. The chamber then passed H.R. 4310.

The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference. The House disagreed with the

Senate amendment on December 13 and agreed to a conference. The conference committee filed

its report (H.Rept. 112-705) on December 18, 2012. The House agreed to the report by the Yeas

and Nays: 315-107 (Roll No. 645). The Senate agreed to the conference report by Yea-Nay vote:

81-14 (Record Vote No. 229) on December 21. The President signed the bill on January 2, 2013,

enacting it as P.L. 112-239.

Statements of Administration Policy may be found online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative-affairs.

Congressional Research Service

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

Title I: Department of Defense

Military Construction

The military construction appropriations account includes a number of appropriations

subaccounts:

•

Military Construction accounts provide funds for new construction, construction

improvements, and facility planning and design in support of active and reserve

military forces and DOD agencies.

•

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) is

the U.S. contribution to a common fund in which all NATO members participate

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

etc.) needed to support major NATO commands.

•

Family housing accounts fund new construction, construction improvements,

federal government costs for family housing privatization, maintenance and

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

in providing suitable accommodation for military personnel and their families

where needed.

•

The DOD Housing Improvement Fund is the vehicle by which DOD provides the

seed money, both directly appropriated and transferred from other accounts,

needed to initiate public-private arrangements for the privatization of military

housing.

•

The Homeowners Assistance Fund aids federal personnel stationed at or near an

installation scheduled for closure or realignment who are unable to sell their

homes by allowing the Secretary of Defense to subsidize the sale or to purchase

homes outright. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.

111-5), or ARRA (the Stimulus Bill), permanently expanded eligibility for the

Homeowner Assistance Program to some classes of wounded and injured DOD

and Coast Guard personnel or their surviving spouses.5

•

The Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide, account provides

for the design and construction of disposal facilities required for the destruction

of chemical weapons stockpiles, as required under international treaty.

•

The Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 funds the remaining

environmental remediation requirements (including the disposal of unexploded

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

rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995).

•

The Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 provides funding for the

military construction, relocation, and environmental requirements of the

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

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

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

Presence and Basing Strategy/Global Defense Posture Realignment (military

construction only).

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

Appendix A to this report.

Key Budget Issues

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

Completing the 2005 BRAC Round

The Department of Defense has completed implementation of the recommendations made by the

2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (also known as the BRAC

Commission) and approved by President George W. Bush. Since the President approved the

commission’s recommendations on September 15, 2005, the defense agencies and military

departments have carried out a highly complex—and often contentious—program of construction

and movement to prepare new facilities at bases gaining military missions, to wind down

operations and close facilities no longer needed by the military departments, and to transfer

personnel and equipment to new locations.6 In the detailed documentation submitted by DOD to

accompany the President’s FY2011 appropriations request, DOD estimated that its one-time

implementation costs for BRAC 2005 totaled $34.5 billion.7

The House version of the NDAA (H.R. 4310) contains a provision (Section 2711) that would

establish a single “Department of Defense Base Closure Account” on the books of the Treasury

that would consolidate all existing BRAC Treasury accounts (including the Defense Base Closure

Account funding the 1988 BRAC round; the Defense Base Closure Account 1990 funding the

1991, 1993, and 1995 BRAC rounds; and the Defense Base Closure Account 2005 funding the

2005 BRAC round). This account would constitute the sole source of federal funding for

•

environmental restoration and mediation, property management and disposal and

caretaker costs incurred at military installations closed or realigned under the

various BRAC rounds;

•

supervision, inspection, overhead, engineering, and design of military

construction projects and subsequent claims undertaken before September 30,

2013, as part of any BRAC round; or

Perhaps the last implementation action, the movement of staff of the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery

from its long-standing location at the original Naval Observatory between the Department of State headquarters and the

United States Institute of Peace on 23rd Street in the District of Columbia to a new Defense Health Headquarters in

Falls Church, VA, began on May 30, 2012. For more information on the decision to create this new tri-service medical

headquarters, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Needs to Address the Expected Benefits, Costs, and

Risks for Its Newly Approved Medical Command Structure, GAO-08-122, October 12, 2007,

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-122.

Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD Base Realignment and Closure, 2005, BRAC Commission Executive

Summary, Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Program Year 2011, Exhibit BC-02, BRAC Implementation Costs

and Savings, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 8, http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/

budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/BRAC%202005%20Executive%20Summary/

BRAC_2005_Exec_Sum_FY2011_PresBud_FINAL_26Jan10.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

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

•

recording, adjustment, and liquidation of obligations properly chargeable to the

former BRAC accounts.

The Senate version of the NDAA (S. 3254) contains no such provision.

Requesting New BRAC Rounds

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced on January 26, 2012, that the President would

request congressional authorization to carry out two new BRAC rounds, in 2013 and 2015.8

Citing his belief that impending military troop reductions could similarly reduce the need for

infrastructure to support them, the Secretary concluded that

The best approach to reducing that infrastructure politically on Capitol Hill has been to work

it through the BRAC process and to develop an approach whereby, you know, we would

submit recommendations, the commission would look at those recommendations and then

make a complete presentation to the Congress, and it would be voted up or down with one

vote. So obviously, the BRAC process provides that kind of process. 9

The President submitted his recommendation for the necessary legislative language to Congress

on March 28, 2012. The proposed legislation, titled “the Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 2012,” would authorize a process closely resembling the one that evolved in the enactment

and subsequent amendment of the similarly titled act of 1990.10 That process required the

Secretary of Defense to undertake a detailed analysis of the infrastructure requirements of the

nation’s future military forces and an assessment of the infrastructure inventory on hand to meet

those requirements. The Secretary then formulated a series of recommended actions by which the

infrastructure inventory could be brought into line with those projected future needs.

These recommendations were submitted to an independent commission whose members were

appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That commission and its staff then

assessed the adequacy of those recommendations, using the supporting data provided by DOD

and additional information accepted from the public, gained through site visits, and gathered

through public hearings. The commission was given limited power to revise or reject the

Secretary’s recommendations or to create its own. The commission then submitted the adjusted

list of recommendations to the President for approval.

The governing statute gave the President only three options for disposing of the commission’s

recommendations list: reject it, return it for revision, or approve it. He was not empowered to

amend the recommendation list. Once the President approved the list, the governing statute gave

Congress up to 45 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval that would halt the BRAC

process. This resolution would be considered under an expedited legislative process and the

President would have to enact it for there to be any legal effect. Otherwise, the statute required

Secretary Leon E. Panetta was a Member of Congress representing the area around Monterey, California, between

1977 and 1993, when he resigned in order to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. A major

military installation in his district, Fort Ord, was recommended by the Army for closure in the 1991 BRAC round,

experienced a partial closure in the 1993 round and was fully closed in the 1995 round.

See Department of Defense, “Major Budget Decisions Briefing from the Pentagon,” press release, January 26, 2012,

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4962.

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, is codified as 10 U.S.C. 2687.

Congressional Research Service

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

the Secretary to implement all recommendations within six years of the date of presidential

approval.

Sunset provisions were written into the law, in both its first iteration in 1990 and in its

reauthorization in late 2001.11 The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, which

authorized three BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, terminated the 1990 BRAC Commission

on December 31, 1995. The 2001 reauthorization terminated the 2005 BRAC Commission on

April 15, 2006.12 Therefore, these acts created special, temporary processes by which domestic

military installations could be closed, or their missions and manning could be significantly

adjusted. In fact, Section 2909 of the act specified that between November 5, 1990 (the original

date of enactment), and April 15, 2006, “this part shall be the exclusive authority for selecting for

closure or realignment, or for carrying out any closure or realignment of, a military installation

inside the United States,” thereby supplanting the permanent authorities found elsewhere in

statute and discussed in the following section of this report.

The President’s recommendation for two new BRAC rounds preserves the established BRAC

process essentially as seen in the single 2005 round and combines it with creation of a multiround commission as seen in the 1991-1995 rounds. Under the new recommendation, the new

BRAC Commission would terminate on April 15, 2016.

However, the President’s legislative request did not appear in either the House or the Senate

committee-reported drafts of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013.

The version of the NDAA reported by the House Committee on Armed Services (H.R. 4310)

contained a provision (Section 2713) that would prohibit the use of any appropriations authorized

under the bill to be used to propose, plan for, or execute an additional BRAC round.

The Senate Committee on Armed Services noted in the report on its version of the NDAA

testimony from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Dr.

Dorothy Robyn. During a March 2012 hearing, Dr. Robyn had stated that the 2005 BRAC round

had eliminated only a small percentage of the excess infrastructure carried by DOD. The

committee further noted that senior Army officials had been quoted expressing no interest in

another BRAC round and that senior Air Force officers had been quoted as saying that the Air

Force has too many bases, despite the fact that few Air Force installations had been recommended

for closure during BRAC 2005. The committee directed the Comptroller General to conduct a

review of the systems and processes used by DOD to identify the extent to which bases or

facilities are excess to needs and report his findings to the congressional defense committees by

May 7, 2013.13

The original act was enacted as Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L.

101-510). The authorization for the 2005 BRAC round was enacted at Title XXX of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-107).

The text of the act may be found as a note to Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 2687.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,

report to accompany S. 3254, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 4, 2012, S.Rept. 112-173 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp.

272-273.

Congressional Research Service

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

Permanent Authorities to Close or Realign Military Installations

The Constitution shares the authority to direct, regulate, and govern the nation’s federal military

establishment between the executive and legislative branches of government. Article I, Section 8,

grants Congress the power

•

To raise and support Armies ...;

•

To provide and maintain a Navy;

•

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

•

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

•

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for

governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United

States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and

the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by

Congress.

Article II, Section 2, creates the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the

United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the

United States.”

Thus, the fundamental compact that called the United States into being empowered Congress to

create the nation’s military forces and appointed a President as their commander, with the

authority to deploy and employ them as necessary for national defense. This arrangement

constructs a natural tension between the two.

This tension, at least with respect to DOD real property management, rose dramatically during the

1960s and 1970s when the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Administrations undertook to trim

the infrastructure created during World War II and the early years of the Cold War. Congressional

resistance to military base closures and reductions in operational activity came to a head in 1965

when President Lyndon B. Johnson vetoed a military construction authorization bill because it

contained a provision increasing congressional control over military base realignments.14

The veto delayed by a decade a return to the issue. The military construction authorization bill for

Fiscal Year 1977 (H.R. 12384) sent to President Gerald R. Ford contained language that would

impose a delay of one year on the proposed closure or major realignment of military installations

that would affect a specified number of DOD civilian employee positions. President Ford vetoed

the bill on July 2, 1976. Congress subsequently passed a new bill (H.R. 14846) that was identical

except that the advance notification to congressional armed services committees was reduced to

60 days.15 This new bill was enacted as P.L. 94-431, but its provisions expired at the end of

FY1977. The following year, the Senate Committee on Armed Services inserted language into its

military construction authorization bill (S. 1474) making those restrictions permanent. The

(name redacted), “Ford Vetoes Military Constr

uction Bill Over Base Closings Issue,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly

Edition, July 10, 1976, p. 1829.

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

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

provisions survived conference and were enacted as Section 612(a) of P.L. 95-82 on August 1,

1977.

That statutory restriction on the President’s authority was codified as Section 2687 of Title 10 of

the United States Code (10 U.S.C. §2687). Amended a number of times over the years (most

recently in P.L. 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012), the statute

retains its essential elements, barring any action to close a military installation at which at least

300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or to realign one involving a reduction by

more than 1,000, or by more than 50%, in the number of civilian employees authorized to be

employed, at the time the Secretary of Defense or the military department concerned makes his

decision unless he

•

notifies the Committees on Armed Services as part of an annual appropriation

authorization request;

•

includes with that notification an evaluation of the fiscal, local economic,

budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of such

closure or realignment and the criteria used to reach that decision; and

•

waits for a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days, whichever is

longer.16

The section imposes some additional requirements on the Secretary if he determines, in the

course of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.), that a significant transportation impact will occur as a result of his action.

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 created a new restriction on the ability of the Secretaries to

change the operational activity at a military installation through the codification of 10 U.S.C. 993.

While 10 U.S.C. 2687 keys on the civilian personnel positions affected by a closure or

realignment, this statute requires the Secretary concerned to notify Congress of any plan to reduce

by more than 1,000 the members of the Armed Forces assigned to duty at a military installation.

The provision bars the Secretary from taking any irrevocable action regarding such a reduction

until

•

he notifies the Committees on Armed Services,

•

he submits a justification for the reduction and an evaluation of the local strategic

and operational impact of such reduction, and

•

a period of 21 days has passed following notification (14 days if submitted

electronically).17

Therefore, neither the President nor his defense secretaries require specific authorization from

Congress before initiating the closure or realignment of a domestic military installation.

The statute waives these requirements if the President certifies to Congress that such closure or realignment must be

implemented for reasons of national security or a military emergency.

The statute is waived if the realignment is undertaken pursuant to a base closure law or if the President certifies to

Congress that such closure or realignment must be implemented for reasons of national security or a military

emergency.

Congressional Research Service

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

Overseas Installations

Europe: Consolidation within Germany and Troop Redeployment to the United

States

Army and Air Force personnel in the Federal Republic of Germany are being consolidated into

two large military communities centered at Kaiserslautern (known to many servicemembers as

“K-Town”) in the country’s southwest near Frankfurt, and Grafenwöhr-Vilseck in eastern Bavaria

near the Czech border. For the past several years, military construction supporting this relocation

has been concentrated in these areas.

A significant portion of the combat power remaining in the Army portion of EUCOM was

scheduled to redeploy to new posts in the southwestern United States as part of an ongoing

defense-wide reevaluation of troop garrisoning strategy, but the Secretary of Defense agreed to

reconsider the movement of two brigade combat teams (BCT) from Germany to the United States

after the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review reconsidered the U.S. interest in supporting

NATO.18 Nevertheless, in a May 7, 2012, press release, DOD announced that the U.S. military

presence in Europe would be reduced by approximately 15% over the coming decade. As part of

that plan, a number of units will be recalled and inactivated, including

•

two of the four Army brigade combat teams currently garrisoned in Germany, the

170th and 172nd Infantry Brigades, by FY2014;

•

the Air Force’s 81st Fighter Squadron (A-10 aircraft) during FY2013;

•

the Air Force’s 603rd Air Control Squadron in FY2013; and

•

the Army’s 5th Corps Headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, into which U.S.

Army Europe headquarters will move from Heidelberg; plus

•

approximately 2,500 additional Army personnel over the course of the next five

years.

Two heavy brigade combat teams will remain in garrison in Germany—the 173rd Airborne

Brigade Combat Team at Vicenza, Italy, and 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment at Vilseck, Germany.

Though the overall number of U.S. personnel permanently garrisoned in Europe will be drawn

down, the U.S. presence is planned to be reconfigured to include

•

a rotational U.S.-based heavy brigade combat team to support the NATO

Response Force;19

•

a battalion-size element from the rotational brigade to participate in joint

exercises and operations;

•

four ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers to be home-ported in Rota,

Spain;

Jason Sherman, “QDR Reconsidering Plan to Move Two Brigades from Europe to U.S.,” Inside the Pentagon,

August 13, 2009, vol. 25, no. 32.

A “rotational” unit is not placed in permanent garrison, but rather deploys temporarily from its garrison to a forward

location for a specific purpose, returning to its garrison when that task is completed.

Congressional Research Service

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

•

a squadron of new V-22 aircraft to be based in Europe to support special

operations;

•

a small aviation detachment in Poland to support rotational deployments of F-16

and C-130 units as they promote interoperability with Polish air forces;

•

a ground-based radar in Turkey (part of a missile defense deployment); and

•

additional Special Forces units stationed in Germany.20

The President’s FY2013 request includes $243 million for construction in Germany. It includes

$2.4 million for an upgrade to a Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) facility at Patch

Barracks (Stuttgart), $61.4 million to replace an elementary school at the garrison in Vogelweh,

another $52.2 million to add to a high school in Wiesbaden, and $127.0 million for the second

funding increment of a $1.2 billion replacement project for the medical center at the Rhine

Ordnance Barracks in the Kaiserslautern Military Community.21

Japan: The Futenma Replacement Facility, Redeployment within Japan, and

Marine Movement to Guam

As the result of intergovernmental agreements, Japan has undertaken to construct a new air

facility in the Prefecture of Okinawa for the use of U.S. Marine Corps aviation units now

operating from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, near the prefecture capital of Naha.

Upon completion of the new station, the existing facility is to be returned to Japanese control.

The selection of a new site for the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) and other Japanese

domestic political considerations have delayed initiation of construction of the new facility.22

Nevertheless, the Japanese press recently announced agreement between the two national

governments on a potential site and runway configuration.23 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.”24

In its report on military construction for FY2013, the Senate Committee on Appropriations noted

these changes, stating

Nowhere is the evolving nature of United States force posture overseas more apparent than

in the Pacific Area of Operation [AOR]. For the past 6 years, the Department has been

Unattributed, “Force Changes in Europe to Preserve Strategic Edge,” Department of Defense Press Releases, May 7,

2012.

Rhine Ordnance Barracks, part of the Kaiserslautern Military Community, is a major deployment terminus for U.S.

forces stationed in the European Central Region. Located adjacent to Ramstein Air Base and near major ammunition

storage sites, the barracks will act as a major outfitting and processing station for any unit being deployed from the

region on a military operation. The new medical center will replace the existing Landstuhl Regional Medical Center

located several miles distant.

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).

“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.

Congressional Research Service

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

struggling to implement a PACOM strategy that called for the relocation of 8,500 U.S.

marines from Okinawa to Guam, construction of a new U.S. military base in Okinawa, and

tour normalization in Korea, by which unaccompanied tours would be migrated to permanent

tours to include all military personnel and their families. Today, that strategy has been turned

on its head.

In the past year, the administration has decided to limit the number of U.S. marines

scheduled to relocate from Okinawa to Guam, re-negotiate the relocation plan with the

Government of Japan, de-link Guam relocation from the timing of construction of a new

U.S. military base in Okinawa, and scrap future tour normalization for Korea. Instead, the

Administration has proposed a new strategic plan for the Pacific AOR that provides for U.S.

rotational forces in Australia, Singapore, and the Philippines, a reduced presence of U.S.

marines permanently based in Guam, and a planned shift of 2,500 marines from Okinawa to

Hawaii. These changes have profound implications for military construction requirements in

the PACOM AOR. As the Department continues to refine its military construction

requirements to adapt to this new strategy, the Committee looks forward to a revised and

comprehensive basing plan that will encompass these changes. In the interim, the Committee

has deferred funding additional military construction related to the relocation of U.S. marines

to Guam.25

The House Committee on Armed Services recommended that the Secretary of Defense be

temporarily authorized to use operation and maintenance funds to assist the Government of Guam

in its preparations to supply the additional municipal services and facilities needed to

accommodate the Marine redeployment. The committee also recommended that the creation of a

firing range on Guam be prohibited until DOD certifies that the range is required to meet a

national security need.

The Senate Committee on Armed Services noted that the President’s request for defense operation

and maintenance funding included $139.4 million for DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment that

was intended for “socioeconomic and water/wastewater infrastructure improvements” on Guam

related to the Marine relocation. Citing the ongoing reevaluation of the project, the committee

assessed that the request precedes the actual need and recommended against this funding.26

In addition, the committee expressed its unease with the level of uncertainty manifested in Guam

relocation planning.

The committee remains concerned with the lack of comprehensive cost and schedule data

associated with this important U.S. force posture issue. The strategic implications of the

realignment are the subject of an ongoing independent assessment commissioned by the

Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess

the costs associated with the revised plan to realign marines in the Asia-Pacific region as set

forth in the joint statement of the United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee dated

April 27, 2012. The assessment shall identify and assess costs associated with the initiatives’

projected movement of marines to Guam, Hawaii, and Australia. To the extent possible, the

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

Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013, report to accompany S. 3215, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2012, S.Rept. 112168 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 12-13.

S.Rept. 12-173, p. 86.

Congressional Research Service

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

assessment shall distinguish between costs that are known, costs that are estimated, and costs

that are not yet known and cannot yet be estimated. The assessment should also include an

estimate of the recurring annual costs of the moves that will affect future budgets for the

Department of the Defense, including costs for the sustainment of forces, base operating

support, and other operations and maintenance requirements.27

South Korea: Tour Normalization and Relocation

Since the Armistice on the Korean Peninsula ended combat in 1954, U.S. ground forces have

been concentrated in a number of forward bases distributed along the demarcation line between

South Korea and North Korea, with a major headquarters complex at Yongsan (or Yongsan-gu), a

district within the capital of Seoul.

Following agreements between South Korea and the United States, the headquarters of U.S.

Forces, Korea (USFK) and U.S. Army and Air Force units are being concentrated into two large

military communities centered on Osan Air Base and Camp Humphreys, south of the capital.

Additionally, tours of duty for military personnel are being lengthened, and servicemembers will

soon be permitted to bring their families with them, significantly increasing the size of those

communities. In its May 2011 report on the military posture in Asia, the GAO noted that it

obtained DOD cost estimates that total $17.6 billion through 2020 for initiatives in South

Korea, but DOD cost estimates are incomplete. One initiative, to extend the tour length of

military service members and move thousands of dependents to South Korea ... could cost

DOD $5 billion by 2020 and $22 billion or more through 2050, but this initiative was not

supported by a business case analysis that would have considered alternative courses of

action and their associated costs and benefits. As a result, DOD is unable to demonstrate that

tour normalization is the most cost-effective approach to meeting its strategic objectives.

This omission raises concerns about the investments being made in a $13 billion construction

program at Camp Humphreys, where tour normalization is largely being implemented.28

As a prelude to action on the FY2013 bill, House Committee on Appropriations first expressed its

views on the issue of “tour normalization” in its report on the FY2012 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.29

The Senate Committee on Appropriations voiced its concerns with both tour normalization and

the redeployment of U.S. forces on the peninsula in its report on H.R. 2055, which appropriated

military construction funds for FY2012.

Ibid., p. 257. The report would be due to the committees on armed services by March 1, 2013.

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).

H.Rept. 112-94, pp. 21-22.

Congressional Research Service

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

This lack of a business case analysis ... raises concerns about the investments being made in

a $13,000,000,000 construction program at Camp Humphreys, Korea, to accommodate the

relocation of United States troops south of Seoul and the first phase of tour normalization.

Full tour normalization would require additional land, housing, schools and other facilities at

Camp Humphreys, which would require a revised master plan for the base and would likely

require changes to the current construction program. Given the extent of construction

currently underway at Camp Humphreys, any substantive change in the plan could impact

efficiency and drive up costs considerably.... No funding was requested in the fiscal year

2012 budget for military construction related to tour normalization in Korea, but the

Committee will expect detailed cost information and a completed business case analysis,

approved by the Secretary of Defense, for the strategic objectives that to this point have

driven the decision to implement tour normalization, before approving any funding requests

in future years. This business case analysis should clearly articulate the strategic objectives,

identify and evaluate alternative courses of action to achieve those objectives, and

recommend the most cost-effective alternative.30

Finally, the Senate Committee on Armed Services incorporated into S. 1253, its version of the

NDAA for FY2012, Section 2113, which would bar any funds from being obligated or expended

in support of tour normalization until

•

DOD’s Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) conducts

an appropriate analysis of alternatives to the program being pursued by the Army,

•

the Secretary of the Army submits a master plan detailing the schedule and costs

for the needed facility and infrastructure construction, and

•

subsequent legislation authorizes such obligation.

This provision had originally been enacted as Section 2111 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).

Section 2107 of the House version of the NDAA for FY2013 (H.R. 4310) continues this

prohibition on funds in support of tour normalization through FY2013, while the Senate bill (S.

3254) contains no such provision. Nevertheless, Senator Carl Levin, chair of the Senate

Committee on Armed Services, while discussing defense budget cuts at a public forum, was

quoted at a National Press Club forum on national security as saying, “We cannot afford to be

spending – I believe it was a figure like $10,000 a month for family housing that was planned in

order to have families – more families come over and be with our troops in Korea. We cannot

afford that.”31

Project Labor Agreements

In construction projects, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are arrangements between the

contractors and labor organizations arrived at before hiring that establish employment terms and

conditions for a specific construction project. PLAs have been used in public construction

projects since the 1930s. In issuing Executive Order (E.O.) 13502 on February 6, 2009, President

Barack Obama directed that, under certain circumstances, “In awarding any contract in

S.Rept. 112-29, pp. 8, 10.

Unattributed, “Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Participates in a Discussion on National Security at the National Press

Club,” Political Transcripts by CQ Transcriptions, June 12, 2012.

Congressional Research Service

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

connection with a large-scale construction project, or obligating funds pursuant to such a contract,

executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis, require the use of a project labor agreement

by a contractor.” Later in the E.O., the President stipulated that

This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any

construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project labor agreement in

circumstances not covered by this order, including leasehold arrangements and projects

receiving Federal financial assistance. This order also does not require contractors or

subcontractors to enter into a project labor agreement with any particular labor

organization.32

That notwithstanding, Section 517 of the House-passed version of the military construction

appropriation (H.R. 5854) states

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by any Government authority or

agent thereof awarding a construction contract on behalf of the Government, in any

solicitations, bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents, to

require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to

agreements with one or more labor organizations; nor shall such funds be used to

discriminate against or give preference to such bidders, offerors, contractors, or

subcontractors based on their entering or refusing to enter into such agreements. The

previous sentence does not apply to construction contracts awarded before the date of the

enactment of this Act.

A floor amendment to the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2013,

proposed by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD/06), would amend Section 2852 of Title 10,

United States Code to forbid contracting officers of the Department of Defense or any military

department from requiring or prohibiting contractors from entering into or adhering to PLAs or to

discriminate against or give preference to bids or contractors based on such agreements. This

provision was adopted by recorded vote, 211-209, on May 19, 2012 (Roll No. 267), and

subsequently precipitated the OMB objection in the Statement of Administration Policy on the

bill.33

Extension of Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds for

Military Construction

Both of the Committees on Armed Services reported versions of the NDAA for FY2013 that

include a provision (Section 2803) that extends for a year the Secretary of Defense’s authority to

use up to $200 million in O&M funds from the defense appropriation for the construction of

facilities in the geographic areas of responsibility of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and

those areas on the continent of Africa formerly under CENTCOM responsibility. For construction

in Afghanistan, the Secretary may use up to an additional $300 million in O&M funding for

construction if he certifies the need. Congress originally granted this authority in FY2004 and has

renewed it for each subsequent year.34

Executive Order 13502, “Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects,” 74 Federal Register

6893, February 11, 2009.

Frances Symes, “Labor Dustup,” CQ Budget Tracker Newsletter, May 31, 2012.

More detailed discussions of this so-called “Section 2808” or “Contingency Construction Authority” are laid out in

CRS Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

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

Additional Objections in Statements of Administration Policy

The Administration also raised concerns over incremental funding of construction projects, noted

in the SAP regarding H.R. 5854 (the military construction appropriation), and the restructuring of

Air Force Reserve Component command and infrastructure, cited in the SAP on S. 3254 (the

Senate committee’s NDAA).

Incremental Funding of Construction Projects

Congress funds governmental activity by providing “budget authority,” making funds available to

agencies from the Treasury for designated purposes. For military construction, this budget

authority is requested and provided at 100% of the amount estimated to finish a complete

construction project. At times, though, a large-scale project may require more budget authority

than is prudent to commit in a single fiscal year. At this point, the project may be broken up into

“phases” or it may be funded “incrementally.”

Phased construction requires the completion of a usable structure at the end of each phase. So, for

example, a large hospital may be built in phases, with each phase yielding a usable wing and the

final phase completing the structure. Incremental funding does not require a usable structure.

Funding, rather than construction, is staged.

This has led to controversy between the executive and legislative branches. The typical executive

position has held that full budget authority should be allocated to projects when requested, while

appropriators have suggested that this practice could over-commit limited budget authority in a

given fiscal year to a few large projects to the detriment of other needed construction. Therefore,

Congress has proven more receptive to incremental construction than the executive. This is

reflected in a statement found in the report accompanying the Senate committee version of the

military construction appropriation (S. 3215):

In general, the Committee supports full funding for military construction projects. However,

it continues to be the practice of the Committee to provide incremental funding for certain

large projects, despite administration policy to the contrary, to enable the services to more

efficiently allocate military construction dollars among projects that can be executed in the

year of appropriation. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends incremental funding

for the following projects: High Performance Computing Center, increment 2, Fort Meade,

Maryland; U.S. STRATCOM Replacement Facility, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; Cadet

Barracks, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York; Hospital Replacement, Fort Bliss,

Texas; and Explosives Handling Wharf 2, Kitsap, Washington.35

(...continued)

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).

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

and Related Agencies, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2013, report

to accompany S. 3215, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2012, S.Rept. 112-168 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 7.

Congressional Research Service

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

Air Force Reserve Component Command and Infrastructure

Section 1701 through Section 1709 of the Senate-reported version of the NDAA would create a

“National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.” This eight-member commission,

appointed by the chairs of the armed services committees and the President, and would study and

report on the force structure needed to support certain goals. In order to prevent the Air Force

from taking any actions that could preclude any potential commission findings or

recommendations, the bill would prevent the expenditure of any FY2013 funding to remove, or

prepare to remove, any Air Force aircraft from the Reserve Component units to which they were

assigned as of May 31, 2012 (except C-5A aircraft under certain conditions). The bill would then

authorize the appropriation of $1.4 billion “for the purpose of freezing Air Force structure in

place or as planned.”36 If enacted, this provision would retain at their current locations all Reserve

Component aircraft through the end of FY2013. The commission’s report would be produced not

later than March 31, 2013.

During the past several months, the Secretary of the Air Force has announced his intention to

transfer the aircraft assigned to several reserve component (Air Force Reserve and Air National

Guard) units and, in some instances, close their associated installations. In each case, the

Secretary has insisted that these installations do not fall within the parameters of 10 U.S.C. 2687,

the permanent base closure statute, which imposes limitations on actions to close or realign

installations where a certain number of authorized civilian personnel actions would be affected. In

Section 2704 of the bill, the committee charges the Comptroller General with submitting a report

to the congressional defense committees that would include the “objective criteria to be used by

the Department of Defense to make decisions relating to realignments of units employed at

military installations that are not covered by the requirements of section 2687 of title 10, United

States Code, and closures of military installations that are not covered by such requirements.”

Of more immediate effect, the section would bar any action prior to October 1, 2013, that “would

result in a military installation covered under paragraph (1) of section 2687(a) of title 10, United

States Code, to no longer be covered by such paragraph.” The cited subsection brings under the

statute “the closure of any military installation at which at least 300 civilian personnel are

authorized to be employed.” This refers to a change in the authorized civilian manning at any

military installation currently exceeding 300 positions that would result in an authorization below

that number. The closure of installations falling within Section 2687 requires notification to

Congress at the time of the annual defense budget request with an accompanying detailed

justification for the closure and a wait of a certain number of days before implementation. This

provision could prevent certain actions that would have the effect of sidestepping this

requirement. Nevertheless, because the Secretary has consistently maintained that the civilian

manning at each of the installations slated for closure already does not meet Section 2687 levels,

this proposed section by itself may not materially affect those closures.

S.Rept. 112-173, p. 246.

Congressional Research Service

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

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs

Table 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2006-FY2012

(budget authority in billions of dollars)

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

71.46

79.55

88.11

95.95

122.99

120.64

122.23

Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the appropriations committees accompanying the appropriations

bills for the years noted above. FY2010 includes $13.4 billion in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 111-212.

FY2011 reflects 0.2% reductions required by P.L. 112-10.

Agency Overview

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

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

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

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

National Cemetery Administration (NCA). Benefits available to veterans include 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 4, VA appropriations

for benefits and services have increased from $71.46 billion in FY2006 to $122.23 billion in

FY2012.

Appropriation Highlights

The FY2013 budget submitted by the Administration called for funding the VA at a level of

$135.87 billion for FY2013 (see Table 5). This is an increase of $13.65 billion, or 11.2%,

compared to the FY2012-enacted appropriation (P.L. 112-74).

In addition to the request for FY2013, as required by law, the Administration requested $54.46

billion in advance FY2014 funding for VA medical care.

The differences between the Administration request and P.L. 113-6 are that P.L. 113-6 includes

slightly less funding for Medical Services than requested, and slightly more funding than

requested for General Administration and Office of the Inspector General.

As shown in Table 6, mandatory funding is higher than discretionary funding for the VA. In the

FY2012 appropriation, mandatory funding was 52.2%, while for FY2013 mandatory funding is

54.4% of total funding for the VA in P.L. 113-6. All advance funding for VA medical care is

discretionary funding.

Congressional Research Service

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

Table 5. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012-FY2014

(billions of dollars)

FY2012 Enacted

FY2013

Advance

Administration

Request

FY2014

Advance

Program

FY2012

Compensation and pensions

51.238

61.741

60.600

Readjustment benefits

12.108

12.607

12.023

Insurance and indemnities

0.100

0.105

Housing programs (net, indefinite)

0.320

0.186

Housing programs administration

0.155

0.158

Total, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)

63.921

74.797

73.072

National Cemetery Administration

0.251

0.258

0.001

Disaster Relief, P.L. 113-2

FY2013

P.L. 113-6a

FY2013

Total, National Cemetery Administration (NCA)

0.251

0.259

Medical Services

39.650

41.519b

41.509

Advance appropriations

41.354

Disaster Relief, P.L. 113-2

Medical support and compliance

5.535

Advance appropriations

Medical facilities

43.557

5.426

Advance appropriations

0.021

5.746

6.033

5.441

Disaster Relief, P.L. 113-2

43.557

0.021

5.746

6.033

5.441

4.872

0.006

Medical and prosthetic research

0.581

0.583

Medical Care Collection Fundc

-3.326

-2.527

(Offsetting receipts)

3.326

2.527

(Appropriations - indefinite)

51.192

53.316

53.306

Total, Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

51.192

53.316

53.306

Total, VHA advance appropriations

50.611

Total, VHA non-advance appropriations

0.581

0.775

-1.156

Available to VHA (includes collections)

54.518

55.843

55.833

General administration

0.417

0.425

General operating expenses, VBA

2.019

2.164

Information technology

3.111

3.327

0.001

52.541

FY2014

Advance

54.462

General operating expensesd

Disaster Relief, P.L. 113-2

Inspector General

0.112

0.113

0.115

Construction, major projects

0.590

0.532

0.207

Disaster Relief, P.L. 113-2

Congressional Research Service

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

FY2012 Enacted

Administration

Request

P.L. 113-6a

Construction, minor projects

0.482

0.608

Grants for state extended care facilities

0.085

Grants for state veterans cemeteries

0.046

Total, Departmental Administration

6.862

7.500

7.510

Total, Department of Veterans Affairs

122.226

135.872

134.147

Total, VA advance appropriations

50.611

Total, VA non-advance appropriations

71.615

52.541

54.462

83.331

54.462

79.685

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on the reports of the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees; tables published in the Congressional Record, January 15, 2013, p. H111 and

Senate Explanatory Statement for H.R. 933 published in the Congressional Record on March 11, 2013, pp.

S1586-S1587.

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)

Section 3004 of P.L. 113-6 is intended to eliminate any amount by which the new budget authority provided

in the Act exceeds the FY2013 discretionary spending limits in Section 251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayer

Relief Act of 2012. As enacted, this section provides two separate across-the-board rescissions—one for

nonsecurity budget authority and one for security budget authority—of 0%, to be applied at the program,

project, and activity level. The section requires the percentages to be increased if OMB estimates that

additional rescissions are needed to avoid exceeding the limits. Subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 113-6,

OMB calculated that additional rescissions of 0.032% of security budget authority, and 0.2% of nonsecurity

budget authority, would be required. This table does not include these additional rescissions.

The Administration requested additional funds of $165 million for FY2013 above the advanced appropriated

amount in P.L. 112-74.

Medical Care Collection Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

as an indefinite budget authority equal to the revenue collected.

Beginning with FY2012, the General operating expenses category is split into General administration and

General operating expenses, VBA (Veterans Benefit Administration).

For a discussion of VA health care appropriations, see CRS Report R42518, Veterans’ Medical

Care: FY2013 Appropriations, by (name redacted).

Table 6. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:

Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012-FY2014

(billions of dollars)

FY2012 Enacted

(P.L. 112-74)

FY2012

FY2013

Advance

Administration

Request

FY2013

FY2014

Advance

P.L. 113-6a

FY2013

FY2014

Advance

Mandatory

Benefits (VBA)

Congressional Research Service

63.765

74.638

72.913

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

FY2012 Enacted

(P.L. 112-74)

Administration

Request

P.L. 113-6a

51.192

53.316

53.306

Discretionary

Medical (VHA)

Advance appropriations

52.541

54.462

National Cemetery Administration (NCA)

0.251

0.259

Departmental administration

6.862

7.500

7.510

Housing administration (VBA)

0.156

0.159

Total, discretionary

58.461

61.234

Discretionary, advance appropriations

Total, Department of Veterans Affairs

52.541

122.226

Total, VA advance appropriations

54.462

135.872

52.541

54.462

134.147

54.462

Percentages of Total

Mandatory

52.2%

Discretionary

47.8%

54.9%

100.0%

45.1%

54.4%

100.0%

45.6%

100.0%

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on the reports of the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees; and Senate Explanatory Statement for H.R. 933 published in the

Congressional Record on March 11, 2013, pp. S1586-S.1587.