Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Congressional research reportFeb 25, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱ

ȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱ ǯȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ

ȱȱȱ¢ȱ

ȱȱȱ

¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱ

¢ȱŘśǰȱŘŖŖşȱ

ȱȱȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯǯȱ

řŚśśŞȱ

ȱȱȱ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

¢ȱ

Soon after it convened, the 111th Congress initiated H.R. 1, the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), otherwise known as the “economic stimulus.” Passed by both

chambers and enacted by President Barak Obama on February 17, 2009, the Act adds

approximately $4.3 billion to the $119.6 billion regular FY2009 appropriations for military

construction and veterans affairs accounts contained in Division E of the Consolidated Security,

Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009. The President’s request for

those funds and Congress’ disposition of the request are discussed in this report on pp. 2 through

9, below. The balance of the report discusses those parts of the President’s regular FY2009 budget

request covered by the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies

appropriations bill.

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

February 4, 2008, including $115.3 billion for programs covered in the regular Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill: $24.4 billion for Title I

(military construction and family housing); $90.8 billion for Title II (veterans affairs); and $183

million for Title III (related agencies). Compared with funding appropriated for FY2008

(emergency supplemental appropriations are pending), this represented increases for Title I of

$3.8 billion (18.3%), for Title II of $3.2 billion (3.6%), and for Title III of $16.7 million (10.1%).

The overall increase in appropriations between that requested for FY2009 and enacted for

FY2008 is $7.0 billion (6.4%).

The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reported their versions of the FY2009

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill on June 24 (H.R.

6559) and July 22 (S. 3301), 2008, respectively. The bill’s legislative path is laid out in detail in

the Regular Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations section of this report. The House committee

recommended appropriating $118.7 billion in new budget authority, $3.4 billion above the

President’s request. This included $24.8 billion for Title I, $400 million above the request and

$4.2 billion above the FY2008 enactment. The Senate committee recommended $119.8 billion,

including $24.7 billion for Title I. The Continuing Appropriations Act appropriated $119.6

billion, including $25.0 billion for Title I. In the area of veterans’ non-medical benefits,

mandatory spending is increasing as claims for disability compensation, pension, and

readjustment benefits increase due to a combination of several factors including the aging of the

veterans population and the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of the increase

in the number of claims, the average processing time for a disability claim in FY2007 was 183

days. To reduce the pending claims workload and improve processing time, funds were provided

in the FY2008 appropriation for hiring and training additional claims processing staff. In FY2008

mandatory spending was $44.5 billion, increasing to $46.0 billion in FY2009.

In terms of medical care afforded to veterans, similar to the past six years, the Administration has

included several cost sharing proposals including increase in pharmacy copayments and

enrollment fees for lower priority veterans. An additional proposal would bill veterans directly for

treatment of nonservice-connected conditions. The House Appropriations Committee draft bill

provides $40.8 billion for Veterans Health Administration for FY2009, a 9.6% increase over the

FY2008 enacted amount of $37.2 billion, and 4.1% above the President’s request of $39.2 billion.

The bill did not include any provisions that would give the Department of Veterans Affairs the

authority to implement fee increases.

ȱȱȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Most Recent Developments............................................................................................................. 1

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

Summary and Key Issues ................................................................................................................ 2

‘Economic Stimulus’ Funding................................................................................................... 2

Economic Stimulus Funding for Department of Defense ................................................... 5

Economic Stimulus Funding for Department of Veterans Affairs ...................................... 9

Regular Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations ............................................................................... 10

Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdiction Realignment, 110th Congress, 1st Session .......... 12

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 ....................................................................................... 12

Regular Appropriations..................................................................................................... 12

FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on Terror....................... 12

Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military Operations,

International Affairs, and Other Purposes...................................................................... 13

Executive Order 13457 ........................................................................................................... 14

Title I: Department of Defense...................................................................................................... 16

Military Construction .............................................................................................................. 16

Key Budget Issues................................................................................................................... 16

Construction Cost Inflation............................................................................................... 16

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)/Integrated Global Presence and Basing

Strategy (IGPBS)/Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR) ................................ 17

Repealing the BRAC Commission Mechanism................................................................ 19

“Growing the Force”......................................................................................................... 20

Overseas Initiatives........................................................................................................... 20

Other Issues....................................................................................................................... 22

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs ........................................................................................ 26

Agency Overview.................................................................................................................... 26

Key Budget Issues................................................................................................................... 29

Medical Care ........................................................................................................................... 30

Title III: Related Agencies............................................................................................................. 32

American Battle Monuments Commission ............................................................................. 32

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims............................................................................. 32

Department of Defense: Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses) .................................................. 33

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) .............................................................................. 33

Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Selected Websites .................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation................................... 17

ȱȱȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Table 1. Status of FY2009 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related

Agencies Appropriations (H.R. 6599, S. 3301, H.R. 2638) ....................................................... 1

Table 2. Status of FY2009 National Defense Authorization (H.R. 5658, S. 3001) ........................ 1

Table 3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1) .......................................... 3

Table 4. Second FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110-252) ................................................................ 13

Table 5. IGPBS/GDPR One-Time Implementation Costs............................................................. 19

Table 6. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2002-FY2008 ................................. 26

Table 7. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008-FY2009................................ 26

Table 8. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,

FY2008-FY2009 ........................................................................................................................ 28

Table 9. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2008-FY2009...................................................... 34

Table A-1. Appropriations: Military Construction Appropriations Accounts................................ 35

¡ȱ

Appendix A. DOD Military Construction Accounts ..................................................................... 35

Appendix B. Additional Resources ............................................................................................... 38

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 40

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................ 40

ȱȱȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱȱȱ

The President enacted H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2009, which included the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs

Appropriations Act, 2009, as its Division E on September 30 as P.L. 110-329.1

On January 26, 2009, Representative David R. Obey, chair of the House Committee on

Appropriations introduced H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA), which supplemented some military construction and veterans affairs appropriations

accounts. The bill was signed by the President on February 17 to become P.L. 111-5.

The first portion of the “Summary and Key Issues” section of this report, “‘Economic Stimulus’

Funding,” beginning on p. 2, discusses the $4.3 billion ARRA addition to military construction

and veterans affairs appropriations. This second portion, “Regular Fiscal Year 2009

Appropriations”, explains the regular FY2009 appropriations bill, includes a detailed description

of its legislative path, and begins on p. 9.

ȱȱȱ

Status of FY2009 Military Construction,

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations

(H.R. 6599, S. 3301, H.R. 2638)

Table 1.

Committee

Markup

House

Senate

06/24/08

07/17/08

House House Senate Senate

Report Passage Report Passage

H.Rept.

08/01/08

110-775

Committee

Markup

S.Rept.

09/27/08

Conf.

Report

—

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

—

110-428

Public

Law

P.L.

110-329

Table 2. Status of FY2009 National Defense Authorization

(H.R. 5658, S. 3001)

House

Senate

05/14/08

05/12/08

House House Senate Senate

Report Passage Report Passage

H.Rept.

110-652

05/22/08

S.Rept.

110-335

09/17/08

Conf.

Report

—

Conference Report

Approval

House

—

Senate

—

Public

Law

P.L.

110-417

Division A of the House amendment, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, extends appropriations for most

governmental operations through the passage of regular appropriations bills or March 6, 2009, at a rate consistent with

that provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). Division B is the Disaster Relief and

Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. Division C is the Department of Defense, 2009. Division D is the

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009.

ȱȱȱ

ŗȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

No official committee conferences were held for either the appropriations or authorization bills

before they were enacted. Rather, the appropriations bill was inserted as part of an amendment to

H.R. 2638, a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for FY2008 that had been

passed by both chambers but never enacted. The amended bill, renamed the Consolidated

Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009, was subsequently

passed by both houses without referral to committee and enacted.2

The authorization bill was passed and enacted via a different procedural route, but also without

recourse to conference. The authorization bill was subject to an exchange of amendments

between the houses, a method known as the “ping pong” procedure, before being cleared for the

White House.3

¢ȱȱ ¢ȱ ȱ

The first portion of this section examines those parts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 (H.R. 1, the ARRA, enacted on February 17, 2009, as P.L. 111-5) that touch on

military construction and veterans affairs appropriations accounts. The section’s second portion,

beginning on p. 9, discusses the regular FY2009 appropriations to these same accounts enacted on

September 30, 2008.

ȁȱȂȱȱ

On January 26, 2009, three weeks after the 111th Congress convened, Representative David

R. Obey, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, introduced H.R. 1, the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, also known as the “economic stimulus.” Title

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

accounts. The original bill was referred to the House Committees on Appropriations and Budget.

It was brought up for consideration on the floor on January 27 (Congressional Record, pp. H557H583, H620-H749). After debate and amendment, H.R. 1 was passed by the Yeas and Nays, 244188 (Roll no. 46).

The Senate received the bill on January 29. It was laid before the Senate by Unanimous

Consent on February 2, when Sen. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, proposed on behalf of Sen.

Daniel K. Inouye, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, to amend H.R. 1 by

substituting the text of S. 336, the chamber’s own version of the bill (Congressional Record S

1237-S1243, S1266-S1273). The Senate adopted several floor amendments before passing the bill

February 10 by a vote of 61-37 (Record Vote No. 61).

The House disagreed with the amendment on the same day and agreed to a conference with

the Senate by the Yeas and Nays (Roll no. 54, Congressional Record H1090-H1102). The

For an extended discussion for the procedure by which bills are amended between the chambers and enacted into law,

see CRS Report 98-812, Amendments Between the Houses, by (name redacted).

A detailed description of the ping pong method of legislating is laid out in CRS Report RL34611, Whither the Role of

Conference Committees: An Analysis, by (name redacted).

ȱȱȱ

Řȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Conference Committee filed its report (H.Rept. 111-16, Congressional Record H1307-H1516) on

February 12. The House agreed to the conference report on February 13 by the Yeas and Nays,

246-183-1 (Roll no. 70, Congressional Record H1587). In the Senate, a point of order was raised

against the emergency designation of the Act that was specified in the conference report.4 A

motion to waive was carried 60-38 (Record Vote No. 63), and the Senate agreed to the conference

report by a Yea-Nay vote of 60-38 (Record Vote No. 64) on February 13 (Congressional Record S

2288-S2313). The passed bill was presented to the President on February 16, 2009 and signed the

next day to become P.L. 111-5.

Title X of Division A of the versions of the ARRA passed by the House and Senate each

included budget authority destined for military construction and veterans affairs appropriations

accounts. The amounts recommended and enacted for these accounts are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1)

(budget authority in $ millions)

Account

Department of Defense

Military Construction, Army

Military Construction, Navy

and Marine Corps

Military Construction, Air

Force

Military Construction,

Defense-Wide

Military Construction, Army

National Guard

Military Construction, Air

National Guard

Military Construction, Army

Reserve

Military Construction, Navy

Reserve

Military Construction, Air

Force Reserve

Family Housing

Construction, Army

Family Housing Operation

and Maintenance, Army

Family Housing

Construction, Air Force

House

Senate

Enacted

$920.000

$350.000

$637.875

$990.092

$180.000

$280.000

$871.332

$180.000

$3750.000

$118.560

$1,450.000

$140.000

$150.000

$50.000

$70.000

$110.000

$50.000

$100.000

—

$30.000

—

$60.000

—

$34.570

$34.507

—

$3.932

—

$80.100

S.Con.Res. 21 of the 110th Congress, Sec. 201(a)(5)(A), relates to Pay-as-You-Go points of order in the Senate. The

provision permits points of order to be raised in the Senate against consideration of certain measures of “direct

spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit” as measured

against the “baseline surplus or deficit used for the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.”

ȱȱȱ

řȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Account

Family Housing Operation

and Maintenance, Air

Force

Homeowners Assistance

Fund

Department of Defense

Base Closure Account

1990

Department of

Defense Total

Department of Veterans

Affairs

National Cemetery

Administration

Veterans Health

Administration

Medical Support and

Compliance

Medical Facilities

Departmental

Administration

General Operating

Expenses

Information Technology

Systems

Office of Inspector

General

Construction, Major

Projects

Construction, Minor

Projects

Grants for Construction

of State Extended Care

Facilities

Department of

Veterans Affairs Total

House

Senate

Enacted

—

$16.461

—

$410.973

$555.000

$300.000

—

$6000.000

$3423.895

$2,880.000

$50.000

$64.961

$50.000

—

$5.000

—

$950.000

$1370.459

$1,000.000

—

$1.125a

$150.000

—

$195.000a

$50.000

—

$4.400

$1.000

—

$1105.333

—

$939.836

—

$257.986

$150.000

$1000.000

$3944.100a

$1,401.000

—

$60.300

—

$7000.000

$7428.295

$4,281.000

Related Agency

Department of DefenseCivil

Cemeterial Expenses,

Army

Salary and Expenses

Total, Department of

Defense, Department

of Veterans Affairs,

and Related Agencies

ȱȱȱ

Śȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1) as enrolled by the House, amended in the

Senate, and approved by both chambers and enacted by the President.

a. Does not include additional appropriations associated with economic recovery payments: $100,000 for

information technology; $7.1 million for general operating expenses; and the increase in the compensation

and pension account for the payments.

Source:

The House and Senate versions of H.R. 1 differed not only in the allocation of funds across broad

appropriations accounts, but also in their specificity on the use of funds within individual

appropriations accounts. In addition, the Senate amendment to H.R. 1 and the enacted bill

addressed a number of non-appropriations issues. These will be discussed in detail in the sections

that follow.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱ

The House version of the bill would have appropriated $920 million, made available without time

limitation for construction projects not otherwise authorized.5 Of this sum, $600 million would

have been designated for training and recruitment troop housing (barracks), $220 million for

permanent party troop housing (barracks), and $100 million for on-post child development

centers.

The Senate amendment would have appropriated $637.9 million to this account, available for

obligation through Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, for which $84.1 million would be dedicated to child

development centers, $481 million to the construction of warrior transition complexes, and $42.4

million for building and equipping medical and dental clinics.

The Act appropriated $180 million, available through FY2013 for projects in the United States

not otherwise authorized, with $80 million devoted to child development centers and $100

million dedicated to warrior transition complexes.6 In this and other military construction

provisions, Congress instructed the Secretary of Defense to submit an expenditure plan for the

funds provided to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the bill’s enactment.

¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ

The House bill would have appropriated $350 million, again without time limitation on its

obligation, of which $170 million would have built sailor and Marine housing and $180 million

would have constructed child development centers.

The Senate version would have appropriated $990.1 million, available through FY2013. $172.8

million of this amount would have been dedicated to child development centers, $174.3 million

would have constructed barracks, $125 million would have replaced health clinics, and $494.4

million would have been used for energy conservation and alternative energy projects.

In stating that the funds are to be used only for projects not otherwise authorized, the bill would restrict their use to

accelerating construction that has been planned but has not yet requested, or for additional construction not yet planned.

For additional information regarding the care of members of the armed forces wounded in current operations, see

CRS Report RL34371, "Wounded Warrior" and Veterans Provisions in the FY2008 National Defense Authorization

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

ȱȱȱ

śȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

The enacted version appropriated $280 million, available through FY2013 for projects in the

United States not otherwise authorized. $100 million was dedicated to troop housing, $80 million

was targeted at child development centers, and $100 million was to be used for energy

conservation and alternative energy projects.

¢ȱǰȱȱȱ

The House would have provided $280 million without time limit for projects not otherwise

authorized. $200 million of this would have been dedicated to airmen housing, and $80 million

would have built child development centers.

The Senate amendment would have appropriated $871.3 million to the Air Force for construction

obligations through FY2013. $18.1 million would have been be dedicated to child development

centers, $612.2 million would have constructed Air Force dormitories (barracks), and $138.1

million would have constructed health clinics.

The enacted version appropriated $180 million available through FY2013 for projects within the

United States not otherwise authorized. $100 million was designated for troop housing, and the

remainder was devoted to child development centers.

¢ȱǰȱȬȱ

The House bill would have appropriated $3,750 million ($3.8 billion) for the construction of

hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, without time limitation and in addition to those

otherwise authorized by law.7

The Senate version would have provided $118.6 million to the account for use in the Energy

Conservation Investment Program through FY2013.

The enacted version appropriated $1,450 million ($1.4 billion), available through FY2013 for

projects in the United States not otherwise authorized. Of this, $1,330 million was dedicated to

the construction of hospitals, and $120 million went to the Energy Conservation Investment

Program.

¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱȱ ȱ

The House bill would have added $140 million, without time limitation, for projects not

otherwise authorized.

The Senate bill would have appropriated $150 million, available through FY2013, for the

construction of readiness centers not otherwise authorized.

Military medical facilities are managed by the TRICARE Management Agency (TMA), a defense agency not

associated with any military department. Funds for the construction of these facilities are usually drawn from the

Defense-wide appropriations account.

ȱȱȱ

Ŝȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

The enacted version appropriated $50 million, available through FY2013, for projects not

otherwise authorized. The Act directed the Secretary of Defense to consult with the Director of

the Army National Guard before submitting the required expenditure plan.

¢ȱǰȱȱȱ ȱ

The House bill would have appropriated $70 million without time limit for construction not

otherwise authorized.

The Senate bill would have provided $110 million, available through FY2013 for projects not

otherwise authorized.

The enacted version appropriated $50 million, available through FY2013, for construction

projects not otherwise authorized. The Act directed the Secretary of Defense to consult with the

Director of the Air National Guard before submitting the required expenditure plan.

¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱǰȱȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱȱȱ

The House version of H.R. 1 would have appropriated $100 million, $30 million, and $60

million, respectively, to these accounts, all without time limitation, for the construction of

projects not otherwise authorized.

The Senate bill had no such provision.

The enacted version had no such provision.

¢ȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱ

The House bill contained no such appropriations.

The Senate amendment would have provided $34.6 million to the Army and $80.1 million to the

Air Force for the construction military family housing is not otherwise authorized. These funds

would have been available through FY2013. It would have also added $3.9 million to Army

accounts and $16.5 million to Air Force accounts for the operation and maintenance of military

family housing and minor construction in the United States through FY2013.

The enacted version provided $34.5 million to the Army Family Housing Construction account,

but otherwise appropriated sums identical to those the Senate amendment.

ȱȱȱ

The House bill did not address the Homeowners Assistance Fund (HAF).

The Senate bill would have appropriated $411 million to the Fund to remain available until

expended.

ȱȱȱ

ŝȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

The enacted version appropriated $555 million to the Fund, available until expended, and

required the Secretary of Defense to report quarterly on the expenditure of HAF funds made

available under any provision of law.

The Homeowners Assistance Program [HAP] Fund provides funds to assist eligible military

personnel and civilian federal employee homeowners who sustain a loss on the sale of their

primary residence due to a declining residential real estate market attributable to the closure or

realignment of a military installation. There have been five so-called Base Realignment and

Closure (BRAC) rounds, in 1988, 1991, 1993,1995, and 2005.

Program expenses include payments to homeowners for losses on private sales; cost of judicial

foreclosure; property acquisition by liquidating and/or assuming outstanding mortgages; partial

payment of homeowners’ lost equity on government acquisitions; retirement of debt after sale of

properties when the government assumes mortgages; and administrative expenses. It was created

by Section 1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and is

codified as 42 U.S.C. §3374.

This assistance has been offered during every BRAC round. Nevertheless, the eligibility criteria

are restrictive and include a requirement that the Secretary of Defense determine that a sale was

forced where “there is no present market for the sale of such property upon reasonable terms and

conditions.”8 Section 1001 of the Senate amendment would have temporarily expanded eligibility

by removing the need for the Secretary to make such a finding for properties were purchased

before July 1, 2006 and were being sold pursuant to a base closing or realignment in the 2005

BRAC round. This expansion would have applied to properties sold before September 12, 2012

or some earlier date designated by the Secretary.

Another clause in the bill would have permanently expanded eligibility for DOD acquisition or

loss reimbursement upon the sale of or foreclosure on the primary residences of certain wounded,

injured, or ill members of the Armed Forces undergoing a medically mandated transition to

civilian life or similarly afflicted civilian employees of the Department of Defense or the United

States Coast Guard, or their surviving spouses.

The Senate amendment would also have extended a temporary eligibility for such assistance to

certain members of the Armed Forces permanently reassigned to distant duty stations during the

specified mortgage crisis, defined in the bill as extending from February 1, 2006 through

September 30, 2012, or earlier if so determined by the Secretary of Defense.

All of these expansions and extensions were included within the enacted Act.

ȱȱ¢ȱȱ

Within Subtitle E of Title I of Division B of H.R. 1, Section 1401(a) of the ARRA allowed the

issuer of certain financial instruments to designate areas “economically distressed by reason of

the closure or realignment of a military installations pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990” as “recovery zones.” Such zones were made eligible for the issuance of

Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and Recovery Zone Facility Bonds that qualify

for certain special tax considerations.

42 U.S.C. § 3374(a)(3).

ȱȱȱ

Şȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

H.R. 1 as passed by the House provides a total of $1 billion for the VA, while the Senate

amendment (S.Amdt. 98) provides a total of $3.9 billion for the Department (see Table 3). The $1

billion provided under H.R. 1 would fund non-recurring maintenance and energy conservation

projects in VA medical facilities and monument and memorial repairs in VA national cemeteries.

Of the $1 billion provided in the Housed-passed measure, $950 million is allocated to the medical

facilities account and $50 million to the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). H.R. 1 as

passed by the House does not specify which VA medical centers or national cemeteries would

receive funding; however, the bill language calls for an expenditure plan from the VA within 30

days of enactment.

Of the total $3.9 billion provided under the Senate amendment $5 million would be for the

medical support and compliance account and would be used for energy conservation initiatives in

throughout the VA health care system. Moreover the Senate amendment provides approximately

$1.4 billion for the non-recurring maintenance projects in VA medical centers, and $64.7 million

for NCA for monument and memorial repairs. Unlike H.R. 1, the Senate amendment provides

funding for the following accounts: general operating expenses, information technology, Office of

the Inspector General (OIG), construction major and construction minor accounts as well as for

grants for construction of state extended care facilities (see Table 3 for specific amounts for each

of these accounts). In total the Senate amendment provides $2.9 billion above the House-passed

version of H.R. 1.

ȱȱȱ

The Senate amendment (S.Amdt. 98) includes an administrative provision to provide a one-time

payment to Filipino veterans who served in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines,

Recognized Guerrilla Forces, and New Philippine Scouts. The payment would be $15,000 for

U.S. citizens and $9,000 for non-U.S citizens. Payments would be made from the Filipino

Veterans Equity Compensation Fund and are subject to funds being made available

(appropriated). P.L. 110-329 appropriated $198 million for the Filipino Veterans Equity

Compensation Fund. The provision in S.Amdt. 98 is similar to H.R. 6897 that was passed by the

House on September 23, 2008.9

ȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ

The ARRA contained a provision to make one-time payments, called economic recovery

payments, of $250 to certain beneficiaries of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income,

Railroad Retirement, and certain VA programs (disability compensation, pension, dependency and

indemnity compensation, and special payments to disabled children of certain veterans).

Individuals who are beneficiaries or more than one of these programs will only receive one

payment. For appropriation purposes, each agency (Social Security Administration, Railroad

Retirement Board, and the VA) has funds appropriated necessary to make the payments

associated with their beneficiaries. For the VA, these funds are to be appropriated to the

compensation and pension account. In addition, the VA is appropriated $100,000 for the

For further information see CRS Report RL33876, Overview of Filipino Veterans’ Benefits, by (name redacted), (name r

edacted), and (name redacted)

ȱȱȱ

şȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

information technology account, and $7.1 million for the general operating expense account for

administrative costs to provide the one-time economic recovery payments. Table 3 does not

reflect the additional appropriations associated with the economic recovery payments.

The remainder of this section discusses the regular FY2009 appropriations enacted on September

30, 2008, as Division E of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2638, P.L. 110-329).

ȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

The President submitted his FY2009 appropriations request to Congress on February 4, 2008. The

House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,

and Related Agencies, chaired by Representative Chet Edwards (17th Congressional District of

Texas), began its series of hearings on February 14 by addressing requested appropriations for the

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Subsequent hearings focused on the small agencies

funded by the appropriation, the DVA’s Office of Inspector General, veterans’ medical care,

military construction for the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense, the Central,

European, and Pacific combatant commands, and DVA’s use of information technology. House

subcommittee hearings ended on April 10 with the European Command presentation.10

The Senate subcommittee, chaired by Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota), held two hearings.

The first, concerned with the DVA request, convened on April 10. The second, on military

construction, took place on April 24, 2008.

The House subcommittee marked its bill on June 12, adopting the mark by voice vote. The full

committee mark took place on June 24, 2008, and was also adopted by voice vote. Representative

Chet Edwards, subcommittee chair, introduced the bill (H.R. 6599, H.Rept. 110-775) on July 24,

2008 (Congressional Record, p. H7163), when it was placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar

No. 494).

The House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1384, its rule on consideration of H.R. 6599, on the

evening of Tuesday, July 29, which allowed both one hour of general debate and amendment of

the bill.11 The House passed H.Res. 1384 on July 31.

The House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, with Representative Earl Pomeroy

(ND/AL) acting as Chair, to debate H.R. 6599. Representative Rob Bishop (UT/01) offered an

amendment to insert into the bill a new Division B, the “American Energy Act.”12 Mr. Edwards

(TX) raised a point of order under House Rule XXI, asserting that the amendment would

constitute legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order. Debate

continued until 1:06 am on the morning of August 1 with the Committee of the Whole debating

amendments and adopting a number of them.13

The Related Agencies funded by this appropriation include the American Battlefield Monuments Commission, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home

National Cemetery, and the Armed Forced Retirement Home.

The rule permitted only those amendments that had been printed in the Congressional Record on or before July 30,

2008, save those pro forma amendments offered for the purposes of floor debate.

H.Amdt. 1150, numbered 24 as printed in the Congressional Record, 8/1/2008, pp. H7724-H7742.

Amendments adopted during the July 31-August 1 debate: $7 million of appropriated funds for installing alternative

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

ŗŖȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Debate continued later in the morning of August 1 when the Committee of the Whole again took

up H.R. 6599 as unfinished business. Several additional amendments were considered, with one

being adopted, before the House rose from the Committee of the Whole at 10:13 am to report the

bill.14

After the House adopted the amended bill, Representative Jerry Lewis (CA/41) moved to

recommit the bill to the committee with instructions to insert a section enacting H.R. 6566, the

American Energy Act. Mr. Edwards (TX) raised a point of order against the motion, stating that

the motion to recommit constituted legislation in an appropriations bill. The point of order was

sustained by the Chair. Representative John E. Peterson (PA/05) appealed the ruling, and Mr.

Edwards moved to table the motion to appeal. The House agreed to table the motion to appeal by

recorded vote, 230-184 (Roll no. 562). The House passed H.R. 6599 on August 1, 2008, by the

yeas and nays, 409-4 (Roll no. 563).15

The Senate subcommittee polled out its version of the appropriations bill. The full committee

ordered the bill to be reported out favorably without amendment on July 17 by a vote of 29-0.

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

July 22 (Congressional Record, p. S7030), when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar

under General Orders (Calendar No. 892).

Early press accounts suggested that a number of appropriations bills, this included, could be held

until the 111th Congress convenes in January 2009.16 Nevertheless, a version of the bill was

incorporated on September 24, 2008, into Division E of an amendment to the Senate amendment

of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, that was

subsequently retitled the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2009. The House agreed to the amendment by the yeas and nays, 370-58-1

(Roll no. 632) on September 24, 2008 (Congressional Record, pp. H9231-H9305). The Senate

considered the House-amended bill on Friday, September 26, and passed the measure on

Saturday, September 27 by yea-nay vote, 78-12 (Record Vote Number 208, Congressional

Record, p. S9965), clearing it for the White House. The President signed the bill into law (P.L.

110-329) on September 30, 2008.

(...continued)

fueling stations at 35 medical facility campuses (Rep. Steve Buyer, IN/04); prohibition of use of funds to enforce 42

U.S.C. §17142, which prohibits federal procurement of alternative of synthetic fuels unless their life cycle greenhouse

gas emissions would be less than those produced by conventional fuels (Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX/05); prohibition of

use of funds to enforce Sec. 2703 of P.L. 109-234 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the

Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006), which directed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to clean up

and transfer all Department land parcels in Gulfport, MS, to the city (Rep. Gene Taylor, MS/04); to prohibit use of

funds for a project or program named for an individual then serving as a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or

Senator of the U.S. Congress (Rep. Michael T. McCaul, TX/10); prohibition use of funds during FY2009 to carry out

38 U.S.C. §111(c)(5), which directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to adjust retroactively the dollar amounts

deducted from allowances paid to veterans for beneficiary (rehabilitation, counseling, treatment, care, etc.) travel when

the basic rate is changed (Rep. Bart Stupak, MI/01); prohibition of the use of funds to modify standards applied to

veteran special monthly pension entitlement determinations (Rep. Zach Wamp, TN/03); and prohibition of use of funds

to enforce Sec. 3 of Veterans Health Administration Directive 2008-025, Voting Assistance for VA Patients, which cites

the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326) and potential facility disruptions in banning voter registration drives at VA

medical facilities (Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, CT/05).

The adopted amendment, proposed by Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA/11) would prohibit the use of funds to take private

property for public use without just compensation.

See Congressional Record, pp. H7793-H7794 of August 1, 2008.

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

ȱȱȱ

ŗŗȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱǰȱȱ

ŗŗŖȱǰȱŗȱȱ

With the opening of the 110th Congress, the House and Senate brought the responsibilities of their

appropriations subcommittees more closely into alignment. On the House side, this resulted in a

new alignment of jurisdictions and the renaming of several subcommittees.

As a result, non-construction quality-of-life defense appropriations that had been considered in

the House version of this appropriations bill during the 109th Congress, including Facilities

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization, Basic Allowance for Housing, Environmental

Restoration, and the Defense Health Program, were transferred to the jurisdiction of the House

Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. The former Subcommittee on Military

Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies became the Subcommittee on Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, mirroring its counterpart in the Senate.

ȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ

ȱȱ

The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R.

2642) was introduced in the House on May 22, 2007. Passed by the House on June 15,it was

extensively amended by the Senate and adopted on September 6. A conference convened in early

November, when the bill was inserted into the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (H.R.

3043) as its Division B. Division B was struck from H.R. 3043 on November 7, 2007, when a

point of order was raised on the Senate floor.17

The appropriations bill was eventually bundled with others and added to the existing State

Foreign Operations and Related Activities appropriations bill (H.R. 2764) as Division I of what

then became the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. H.R. 2764 was enacted by

the President on December 26, 2007, as P.L. 110-161. H.R. 2642 was later amended to become

the Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military Operations, International Affairs,

and Other Purposes (see below).

ŘŖŖŞȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ

In February 2007, coincident with its annual request for FY2008 appropriations, DOD submitted

a supplemental request for $141.7 billion dedicated primarily, but not exclusively, to funding

continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additional requests transmitted to

Congress in July and October 2007 brought total supplemental funding to $189.3 billion.18

Federal funding through the first several months of FY2008 was sustained by a series of continuing resolutions. For

more detailed discussion of the legislative history of FY2008 appropriations, see CRS Report RL34038, Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and

(name redacted).

For further information, see CRS Report RL34278, FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global War on Terror

Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes, by (name redacted) et al.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŘȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Some construction was covered by these funds. These included new or upgraded facilities in

direct support of military units deployed in Kygyzstan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar.

Additional construction funds were dedicated to building a new headquarters in Djibouti, Africa,

and facilities at a number of installations across the United States. Funding for the realignment of

Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District of Columbia, part of the implementation of the

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, and an addition to the Burn Rehabilitation

Unit at the Brooke Army Medical Center, Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, was also part of the

supplemental request.

ȱŘŖŖŞȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ

ȱǰȱȱȱȱ

H.R. 2642, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

was reintroduced to the House in mid-May 2008 and reconstituted as a second supplemental

appropriation for FY2008. After debate and amendment by both chambers, the supplemental

appropriation was presented to the President on June 27, 2008, and signed into law on June 30 as

P.L. 110-252.19

The act provides additional funds for a number of accounts related to military construction and

veterans’ affairs, as delineated in Table 4.20

Table 4. Second FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110-252)

(budget authority in thousands of $)

Account

Military Construction, Army

Military Construction, Army (barracks improvement)

Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

Military Construction, Air Force

Military Construction, Defense-Wide

Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005

Request

Enacted

1,486,100

1,108,200

200,000

355,907

399,627

890,921

11,766

1,278,886

360,257

409,627

27,600

11,766

1,202,886

Total, Military Construction

3,498,236

4,245,307

General Administration Expenses

Information Technology Systems

Construction

100,000

20,000

396,377

100,000

20,000

396,377

516,377

Total, Veterans Affairs

For additional information, see CRS Report RL34451, FY2008 Spring Supplemental Appropriations and FY2009

Bridge Appropriations for Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes (P.L. 110-252), by (name re

dacted) et al.

Amounts are drawn from the legislation. Most of these funds may be obligated through September 30, 2009 (i.e.,

throughout FY2009). Some construction funding remains available through September 30, 2012, while the remainder is

so-called “no year” dollars, which are available until expended.

ȱȱȱ

ŗřȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

¡ȱȱŗřŚśŝȱ

Congress typically funds this act by appropriating directly to broadly defined appropriations

accounts, such as Military Construction—Army or Family Housing—Air Force. These

appropriations have typically been stated within the statutory language of the act itself.

Nevertheless, within the budget documentation that the President submits to Congress each year

are hundreds of detailed justifications for individual construction projects at specified locations

for stated purposes in established funding amounts. The appropriations and authorization

committees consider each of these as individual requests and indicate their approval, disapproval,

or additions to the project lists in the explanatory statements reported to their respective

chambers. While it is generally recognized by legal experts that statutory language (provisions

stated in the body of legislation passed by Congress and enacted by the President) carries the full

weight of law, the legal standing of statements contained within what is generally considered

supporting language, such as explanatory statements written into reports to the chambers by

members of committees, is less clear.

On January 29, 2008, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13457, titled

“Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks.” In that

E.O., the President stated, in part, that:

For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive

agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in

any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or

other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of

Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency

has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit

under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.21

The impact of E.O. 13457 on appropriation or implementation practices of either the executive or

the legislative branches is unclear. For example, the order states that “executive agencies should

[emphasis added] not commit, obligate, or expend funds ...” under certain circumstances. In law,

“should” is interpreted as non-binding guidance to those to whom it is addressed. However, in a

subsequent section of the E.O., the President directs that “the head of each agency shall

[emphasis added] take all necessary steps ...” to implement the policy according to certain criteria

that he then lays out. It should be noted that “shall” is a much stronger, directive term. The E.O.

applies only to appropriations enacted after January 29, 2008, and will therefore not affect any

existing or prior-year appropriation.

The E.O. does not appear to bar the implementation of congressionally directed funding in cases

where spending is “required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program,

activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based

decisionmaking.” Examples of such a situation have existed where particular construction

projects have been directed in the text of previously enacted authorization acts. The President’s

The President defines “earmark” as “funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the

purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents

otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise

curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the

funds allocation process.” The full text of E.O. 13457 can be found online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

releases/2008/01/20080129-5.html.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŚȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

order also allows agency heads to “consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or

staff of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry out any

earmark” when “such views are in writing....”

In addition, the definition of an “earmark” written into the E.O. may reduce somewhat the clarity

of exactly what spending is to be avoided. That definition states that earmarks are “purported

congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) [that]

circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the

location or recipient” (emphasis added).22 While much of the E.O. stresses the necessity of

adhering to the letter of the law, this definition could be interpreted as preventing an agency from

observing some statutory text.

More generally, the E.O. may raise a number of other questions regarding future expenditure of

appropriated funds. Two examples are suggested below.

1. There are instances where a construction project is not stated within the statutory

text of the law in question, but rather is referenced in the text of another. An

example might be a statutory requirement for the Department of Veterans Affairs

to construct a number of cemeteries for the use of veterans at specified locations

for which appropriations are not provided until a number of years later.23 Would

the E.O. bar the initiation of construction until such a statutory link is found and

proven to unambiguously cover each project?

2. The E.O. grants agency heads the authority to accept congressionally directed

funding when a project has “merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based

decisionmaking,” or when considering “the views of a House, committee,

Member, officer, or staff of the Congress ... when such views are in writing....”

Do these provisions constitute a broad discretion on the part of agency heads to

accept congressional guidance on spending?

In drafting its version of the FY2009 appropriations bill, the House committee clarified the status

of congressionally directed spending within the context of the Executive Order by referencing the

list of construction projects within the statute. For each appropriation account for which specific

construction projects are identified in the committee report, the proposed legislation states, “That

the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be for the projects and activities, and in the

amounts, specified under the headings ... in the table entitled ... in the report of the Committee on

Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany this bill.”24

Legal interpretation in this section has been assisted by CRS Legislative Attorney (name redacted).

Other instances where text outside of an appropriations act may be considered as legally binding can occur when

Congress incorporates language such as “shall be effective as if enacted by law,” or “in accordance with” into statute.

In the FY2009 House bill, the referenced accounts include Military Construction, Army; Military Construction,

Navy; Military Construction, Air Force; Military Construction, Defense-Wide; Military Construction, Army National

Guard; Military Construction, Air National Guard; Military Construction, Army Reserve; Military Construction, Navy

Reserve; Military Construction, Air Force Reserve; Family Housing Construction, Army; Family Housing

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps; Family Housing Construction, Air Force; and Chemical Demilitarization

Construction, Defense-Wide.

ȱȱȱ

ŗśȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱ Ǳȱȱȱȱ

¢ȱȱ

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

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

of Defense agencies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program

(NSIP) is the U.S. contribution to defray the costs of construction (airfields, fuel pipelines,

military headquarters, etc.) needed to support major NATO commands. Family housing accounts

fund new construction, construction improvements, federal government costs for family housing

privatization, maintenance and repair, furnishings, management, services, utilities, and other

expenses incurred in providing suitable accommodation for military personnel and their families

where needed.

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

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

Assistance Fund provides relief to federal personnel stationed at or near an installation scheduled

for closure or realignment who are unable to sell their homes. The Chemical Demilitarization

Construction, Defense-Wide, account provides for the design and construction of disposal

facilities required for the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. The Base Realignment and

Closure Account 1990 funds the remaining environmental remediation requirements (including

the disposal of unexploded ordnance) arising from the first four base realignment and closure

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

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

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

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

¢ȱȱ ȱ

Several issues regarding military construction funding may be of interest to some Members in

their consideration of the FY2009 appropriation request. Funding of the various accounts

included under Title I (Department of Defense) is listed in Appendix A to this report.

ȱȱ ȱ

Military construction appropriations legislation often permits budget authority obligations (the

ability of agencies to obligate funding) to continue for as many as five years after the

appropriation is enacted. The House committee noted that inflation and the cost of construction

over such a lengthy period could significantly affect the accuracy of cost estimates submitted by

DOD. The committee directed DOD to increase the accuracy of its inflation estimates and report

on the baseline inflation rate used in the creation of its 2010 budget request, comparing it with

similar calculations used by other agencies.

Neither the Senate committee nor the Continuing Appropriations versions of the report contain

such language.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŜȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱǻǼȦ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ

¢ȱǻ ǼȦ ȱȱȱȱǻ Ǽȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

In its appropriations request for FY2007, DOD estimated that the total one-time implementation

between 2006 and 2011 of the 2005 BRAC round (the realignment and closure of a number of

military installations on United States territory) and the Integrated Global Presence and Basing

Strategy (IGPBS, the redeployment of 60,000 - 70,000 troops and their families from overseas

garrisons to bases within the United States) would cost $17.9 billion.25

Between the submission of that request in February 2006 and submission of the FY2008 BRAC

funding request a year later, DOD advanced its planning for the execution of all military

construction, movement of facilities, and relocation of personnel necessary to carry out the

approved recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission. This revision caused the estimate of

one-time implementation cost to rise to more than $30.7 billion, due principally to significantly

higher implementation cost estimates for FY2008-FY2011. The same estimate made by DOD in

February 2008 for the FY2009 appropriations request rose again, now totaling $32.0 billion.

Figure 1 compares DOD BRAC 2005 new budget authority requirement estimates made for

FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009.26

New Budget Authority ($Million)

Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation

10,000

9,000

8,000

9,065

8,174

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

5,623

5,626

7,912

5,473

5,696

5,558

2,996

1,502

2,071

2,104

1,563

1.489

484

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiscal Year

FY 2007 Es t.

Source:

FY 2008 Es t.

FY 2009 Es t.

DOD Budget Justification Documents for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009

The DOD Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) has been renamed the Global Defense Posture

Realignment (GDPR).

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2008,

Department of Defense, March 2007. A thorough discussion of the defense budget, including definition of budgetrelated terms such as “new budget authority,” can be found in CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted).

ȱȱȱ

ŗŝȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Although the BRAC 2005 account pays for buildings, moving, cleanup, and the like, the most

significant factor driving implementation cost estimates for the peak years (originally FY2007

and FY2008, and later FY2008 and FY2009) is military construction. This wavelike cost profile

is characteristic of BRAC rounds and is produced by the combined effects of the six-year

statutory deadline for completing BRAC implementation and the need to commit funds for the

execution of construction contracts at least two to three years before new building can be

accepted and occupied.

BRAC 2005 appropriations requests had usually been funded fully by Congress, either through

regular appropriations, omnibus appropriations, continuing resolutions, or emergency

supplemental appropriations. The Senate committee’s recommendation for FY2009, though,

would have reduced the appropriation by $73.7 million, or 1% of the President’s request, in order

to increase funding for the construction of a missile defense radar site in Poland. The Continuing

Appropriations bill (H.R. 2638) appropriated $8.7 billion to the BRAC 2005 account, a reduction

of roughly $300 million from the President’s request.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Under current statute, the Secretary of Defense is required to report annually to Congress

schedules and descriptions of actions undertaken to implement the closures and realignments

required by the 2005 BRAC round. Implementation of all BRAC closure and realignment actions

is to be completed by September 15, 2011. Section 2711 of the House amendment to the NDAA

(S. 3001) would end the reporting requirement, which is currently indefinite, with the DOD

budget submission for FY2016.

ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ

The main campus of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in the District of

Columbia is scheduled to close during the 2005 BRAC round, with the majority of its functions

being transferred to other installations.27 Section 2721 of the original House version of the

Duncan Hunter NDAA (H.R. 5658) would have limited the construction of facilities needed to

house those functions until the Secretary of Defense certified that 90% of construction design, an

independent cost estimate, and a milestone schedule for the proposed realignment were complete.

Section 2721 of the amended NDAA (S. 3001) would create a panel of healthcare and facility

design experts to review the plans for the new National Military Medical Center at Bethesda,

Maryland, advise the Secretary of Defense on their adequacy, and recommend to the Secretary

any changes needed to ensure that the resulting facilities are “world-class.” Under the amended

section, the Secretary would report to congressional defense committees on the recommendations,

prepare a cost estimate for the closure of WRAMC, construction of replacement facilities, and

relocation of functions, and create a milestone schedule for its execution. Planned construction

activity would not be impeded.

For detailed information on the realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, see CRS Report RL34055, Walter

Reed Army Medical Center: Realignment Under BRAC 2005 and Options for Congress, by (name redacted) and JoAnne

O’Bryant.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŞȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ

The one-time implementation costs to carry out the President’s redeployments to new garrisons

on United States territory are included within the BRAC 2005 cost estimate. Table 5 displays

DOD cost during the six-year BRAC implementation. This shows that $495.3 million of the $9.1

billion (5.5%) of the FY2009 BRAC 2005 appropriation request is devoted to the IGPBS/GDPR

redeployment.28

Table 5. IGPBS/GDPR One-Time Implementation Costs

(budget authority in millions of $)

BRAC 2005

Subaccount

Military

Construction

Environment

Ops. & Maint.

Other

Budget Request

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

Total

344.6

881.8

682.7

439.0

272.0

0.0

2,612.1

0.8

6.7

0.0

352.0

0.0

20.1

14.3

916.1

0.0

67.2

26.2

776.1

0.0

55.9

8.4

495.3

0.0

57.4

16.5

345.9

0.0

134.8

8.8

143.6

0.8

342.1

74.1

3,029.0

DOD FY2009 Army Budget Justification Documentation.

Note: The Department of the Army segregates funds into One-Time Implementation Costs, Recurring Costs,

One-Time Savings, and Recurring Savings in calculating the net cost of IGPBS/GDPR. This table presents only

One-Time Implementation Costs. Budget Request may not add precisely due to rounding.

Source:

ȱȱȱȱȱ

Section 2711 of the original House version of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization

Act for FY2009 (H.R. 5658) would have repealed the President’s authority to appoint an

independent commission to recommend the closure or realignment of military installations.29

Under current law, the Secretary of Defense must submit to such a commission any

recommendations he may have regarding the reduction of civilian employment at or the closure

of military installations.30 This panel, often referred to as the BRAC Commission, is empowered

to accept, reject, or amend the Secretary’s recommendations, or it may draft its own. Once the

Commission has finalized its list of recommended actions and gained the President’s approval,

Congress may halt the implementation of these actions by passing a joint resolution of

disapproval.31 Otherwise, the Secretary of Defense is required to carry out the approved

recommendations not later than six years from the date of presidential approval.

IGPBS/GDPR is wholly funded by the Department of the Army BRAC 2005 account.

The President’s authority to appoint a commission or initiate a base closure round has expired. Any future closure

round will require specific congressional authorization.

10 USC §2687 sets certain thresholds for the magnitude such a reduction before commission action is triggered.

For additional information on the base closure process, see CRS Report RS22061, Military Base Closures: The 2005

BRAC Commission, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); CRS Report RL33766, Military Base Closures and

Realignment: Status of the 2005 Implementation Plan, by (name redacted); CRS Report RS22291,

Military Base

Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report and Its Additional Proposed Legislation, by (name redacted)

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

ŗşȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Section 2711 would, if enacted, have eliminated the independent commission from the base

closure process. Under the revised procedure, the Secretary of Defense would have submitted a

list of recommended closures and realignments directly to President for his approval. The

approved list would still have been subject to a congressional joint resolution of disapproval.

The provision was not included in the House amendment to the Senate amendment of the NDAA

(S. 3001) and was therefore not enacted.

ȃ ȱȱȄȱ

DOD is planning to increase the end strength of the regular Army by 65,000 soldiers and Marine

Corps by 27,000 Marines and the Army National Guard and Army Reserves by an additional

9,200 citizen-soldiers by 2012. This will require additional military construction to accommodate,

train, and house these personnel and their families.

DOD requested more than $3.7 billion in FY2007 emergency supplemental and FY2008 military

construction appropriations to support this increase. The Congressional Budget Office has

estimated that the additional military construction cost between 2007 and 2013 of these soldiers

and Marines will total $15.7 billion, with the bulk of the appropriations required during FY2008FY2010.32

ȱ ȱ

While redeploying a number of troops to the United States, DOD is also renegotiating the

location and garrisoning of a number of its remaining overseas installations. These efforts are

principally focused on the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Japan.

In addition, a number of new, relatively austere, installations are being created in eastern Europe

and in the Pacific, Central, and Southern Command areas. In Germany, U.S. forces are continuing

to consolidate at existing installations in the south of the country, while the installation near

Vicenza, Italy, is being expanded in anticipation of the deployment of a modular brigade. U.S.

forces in the Republic of Korea are in the process of shifting from sites immediately along the

Demilitarized Zone, at the frontier between that nation and the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea (DPRK), and from a large headquarters garrison in the capital of Seoul to expanded

facilities further to the south. While the bulk of construction cost will be borne by the Korean

government, this initiative could require as much as $750 million in U.S. construction funding to

complete.

ȱȱǻ Ǽȱ

The creation of Africa Command (AFRICOM) under U.S. Army Gen. William E. “Kip” Ward,

currently scheduled to become operational on October 1, 2008, may soon require the construction

(...continued)

and (name redacted); CRS Report RL30051,

Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, by (name red

acted); or CRS Report 97-305,

Military Base Closures: A Historical Review from 1988 to 1995, by (name red

acted) and (name redacted).

Letter from Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate

Committee on Armed Services, April 16, 2007, p. 8.

ȱȱȱ

ŘŖȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

of a number of minimally manned or unmanned “cooperative security locations” at critical sites

across the continent.33 Both appropriations committees noted that the Administration’s decision to

stand up AFRICOM operations has not been accompanied by a clearly enunciated plan for the

creation of facilities on the continent to receive U.S. military forces, nor as the location of

AFRICOM’S permanent headquarters and announced.34

DOD and the Government of Japan have agreed to move approximately 8,000 Marines and 9,000

of their family members from bases on Okinawa to new facilities in the U.S. territory of Guam.

The construction costs associated with this move have been estimated at $10 billion, and Japan

has agreed to underwrite 60% of this expense. The Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force

have separately initiated their own increase in presence on Guam, which is expected to add

personnel and family members to this total over the next several years. These moves onto the

island are expected to be complete by 2014 and will increase the military-associated population

from 14,000 to approximately 39,000. Based on the most recent estimates of the territorial

population of approximately 175,000, the post-2014 military community could represent as much

as 22% of the island’s inhabitants.35

DOD has estimated that approximately $3 billion will be needed for military construction on

Guam. Nevertheless, as in the AFRICOM case, all appropriations committees noted that DOD has

not yet finalized the construction needed to support the island’s force buildup.

Section 2824 of the House-passed version of the Senate’s NDAA (S. 3001) would establish a new

Treasury account, the “Support for United States Relocation to Guam Account,” to accept the

Japanese contributions to the realignment of military installations and relocation of U.S. military

personnel to Guam.36 The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to report annually

on each military construction project requested for the relocations to Guam from Japanese

territory and as part of the general military buildup in the Territory.

DOD defines and ranks its overseas installations by a three-tier system. A Cooperative Security Location (CSL) is

“A facility located outside the United States and U.S. territories with little or no permanent U.S. presence, maintained

with periodic Service [sic], contractor, or host-nation support. Cooperative security locations provide contingency

access, logistic support, and rotational use by operating forces and are a focal point for security cooperation activities.”

A Forward Operating Site (FOS) is more substantial, being “A scaleable location outside the United States and U.S.

territories intended for rotational use by operating forces. Such expandable ‘warm facilities’ may be maintained with a

limited U.S. military support presence and possibly pre-positioned equipment. Forward operating sites support

rotational rather than permanently stationed forces and are a focus for bilateral and regional training.” The Main

Operating Base (MOB) is “A facility outside the United States and U.S. territories with permanently stationed

operating forces and robust infrastructure. Main operating bases are characterized by command and control structures,

enduring family support facilities, and strengthened force protection measures.” Joint Publication 1-02, Department of

Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, April 12, 2001 (as amended through May 30, 2008). This

publication is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.

General Ward is currently the deputy commanding general of U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and is

functioning as AFRICOM’s commander from USEUCOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Additional information

on the new Africa Command can be found in CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the

Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, by Lauren Ploch.

If the same percentage were projected on the entire U.S. population of approximately 350 million, the U.S. military

community would number 78 million. Actual active-duty military personnel and their families number less than 4

million.

The law authorizing the acceptance of foreign contributions is found at 10 U.S.C. §2350k, “Relocation within Host

Nation of Elements of Armed Forces Overseas.”

ȱȱȱ

Řŗȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱ ȱȱ

The Government Accountability Office addressed DOD planning for overseas installations in a

report completed in September 2007.37 The report concluded that although DOD had updated its

overseas master plans, which lay out projected infrastructure requirements at overseas military

installations, the Department had not sufficiently incorporated into its calculations the “residual

value” of property being returned to host nations for reuse.38 GAO also noted that neither DOD

nor the military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) had yet finalized the number or

makeup of forces being transferred to Guam from Japan and the United States. This meant that

the housing, training and operational requirements, and community impact of significant force

relocation could not be estimated.39

Since FY2004, the Senate committee has required DOD to submit an annual master plan for its

installations overseas. Citing the continuing military operations in Southwest Asia, troop

relocations within and from Europe and Korea, and the creation of AFRICOM, the committee

included an extension of the existing reporting requirement in the language of its report.

ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱÛȱ¢ǰȱǰȱȱ

ȱȱ

During the mid-1980s, the Department of the Army acquired approximately 250,000 acres of land

near Ft. Carson, CO, for use as a training site. Approximately half of the land was obtained

through open purchase, with the remainder acquired through condemnation proceedings.40

As part of the Global Rebasing effort, roughly 10,000 soldiers will redeploy to Ft. Carson from

garrisons currently located overseas.41 In addition, the Army is in the process of transforming its

fundamental combat organization from one based on the division (usually made up of three

brigades) into one based on the “modular Brigade Combat Team” (BCT), which emphasizes

tactics based on unit speed of movement and maneuverability. The Army has estimated that each

BCT requires at least 95,000 acres of land for optimal training and has planned to base four such

BCTs at Ft. Carson.

Government Accountability Office, Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans are Improving, but DOD Needs

to Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military Buildup on Guam (GAO-07-1015), September 12,

1007.

GAO stated that compensation received for the residual value of returned real property could affect overseas

construction funding requirements.

Guam’s population is currently estimated at approximately 173, 400, or roughly 30% of that of the District of

Columbia on land area of 212 sq. mi., or about one-eighth (13.7%) that of the State of Rhode Island. DOD reported that

2,828 active duty military personnel, predominantly Air Force, were stationed in the territory as of June 27, 2007. The

movement of more than 17,000 military personnel and family members is therefore likely to have a significant impact

on surrounding communities.

Testimony offered by Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment Keith Eastin to the Senate

Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs on May 9, 2006.

The Department of Defense has reported that as of September 30, 2006, 14,026 military personnel were based at Ft.

Carson. See DOD Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2007 Baseline, pg. DOD-44.

ȱȱȱ

ŘŘȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

This increase in training need led the Army to consider a significant expansion of the Piñon

Canyon Maneuver Training Area. As of mid-2006, the Department of the Army expected to

acquire an additional 418,000 acres.

The proposed move generated concerns among local landowners that public condemnation might

again be employed to acquire properties for incorporation into the site. The question of whether

eminent domain, or condemnation, was being considered by DOD was put to Philip Grone, the

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, by Senator Wayne Allard

(CO) at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military

Construction and Veterans Affairs on March 22, 2007. Mr. Grone stated that the Department

would “always prefer to work with willing sellers. But I would not desire to rule out any legally

available tool.”

Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 contained a provision that

required the Secretary of the Army to conduct an analysis of the sufficiency of existing training

facilities at Ft. Carson to support the current and future training needs of units currently stationed

and planned to be stationed at the post and to report the results to Congress.42 An amendment to

the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, which funded military construction and DOD

land acquisition, stipulated that, “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in

this Act may be used for any action that is related to or promotes the expansion of the boundaries

or size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.”43 Identical language appears in Section

127 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009, as passed by the

House. The same Section 127 is retained in Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act

(H.R. 2638).

In its report to Congress on Piñon Canyon, the Department of the Army has indicated that its

current assessment of need for training land at Ft. Carson may not exceed an additional 100,000

acres.44

¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Section 2808 of the NDAA for 2004 (P.L. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1723) permitted the Secretary of

Defense to use Operation and Maintenance funds for construction projects outside of the United

States if the construction (1) was needed for urgent military operational requirements of a

temporary nature; (2) was not located at a military installation where the U.S. was expected to

have a long-term presence; (3) would not be used by the U.S. after operations ended; and (4) was

the minimum needed to meet the temporary requirements.45

Both the original House and Senate bills would have extended this authority for an additional

year, through FY2009. Section 2806 of the House-passed version of the Senate bill (S. 3001)

would extend the authority through FY2009 but would restrict its use to U.S. Central Command

See National Defense Authorization Act, 2008 (H.R. 4986, P.L. 110-181), Sec. 2831.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161), Division I, Sec. 409. The amendment was

proposed by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (CO/04).

“Army Takes Public Comments on Pinon Canyon Report,” Associated Press Newswires, 17:26, August 15, 2008.

The original authorization was amended and extended beyond FY2004 by Sec. 2810 of P.L. 108-375, Sec. 2809 of

P.L. 109-163, Sec. 2802 of P.L. 109-364, and Sec. 2801 of P.L. 110-181.

ȱȱȱ

Řřȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

(USCENTCOM) and Africa Command (USAFRICOM) Areas of Responsibility in Central Asia

and continental Africa. In addition, the bill would exempt construction in Afghanistan from the

prohibition on the use of funds to support the long-term presence of U.S. military forces.

¢ȱ ȱ£ȱ

Since the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense has exercised a number of congressionally

granted special authorizations to privatize military family housing at military installations. To

date, approximately 87 housing projects have been initiated in which the title to family housing

serving a number of installations has been transferred from DOD to private joint ventures under

agreements to construct, maintain, and manage the sites for up to 50 years.46

During 2006 and 2007, American Eagle Communities, a major developer in family housing

projects at several installations, found itself unable to raise the capital needed to continue

construction and operation.47 Although other contractors eventually assumed responsibility for

completing the existing contracts, the Senate version of the NDAA (Section 2803) would have

increased the responsibilities of the various Secretaries for project oversight and reporting to the

Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) and would have set thresholds on the

qualifications of contractors allowed to participate. Another provision in the Senate bill (Section

2805) would have required the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a cost-benefit analysis to

Congress regarding the proposed dissolution of one of the affected joint ventures, Patrick Family

Housing LLC at Patrick AFB, Florida, before taking any action. Section 2805 of the Houseamended version of S. 3001 retains these provisions.

ȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ

Both House and Senate versions of the NDAA would authorize the department Secretaries to

lease housing on a military installation in the National Capital Region to the Secretary of

Defense. Proposed by DOD, this move is characterized as a cost-effective alternative to the

periodic installation, maintenance, and protection in private homes of the DOD communications

equipment and security devices and detail of personnel needed by the Secretary of Defense in

pursuit of his duties. The bills differ in their method of calculating the requisite rent to be paid by

the Secretary.

The House-amended version of S. 3001 retains this provision in Section 2804 and would set the

rent to be paid by the Secretary at 105% of the basic housing allowance paid to the current

highest-ranking member of the military services, a general or admiral in the grade of 0-10 with

family, assigned to the installation where the housing is located.48

For additional information on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, see CRS Report RL31039, Military

Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).

Projects for privatized housing which American Eagle participated served AFB, Georgia, Little Rock AFB,

Arkansas, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, and Patrick AFB, Florida, plus a number of Army and Navy installations.

Housing allowance rates are set with and without family (dependents) for each installation and geographic area

where military members are assigned to duty. For more information on this Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), see

CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by (name redacted).

ȱȱȱ

ŘŚȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱ

23 U.S.C. 210 authorizes DOD to make appropriated funds “available, without regard to

apportionment among the several States, for paying all or any part of the cost of the construction

and maintenance” of certain roads, “bridges, tubes, and tunnels leading to military reservations, to

defense industries and defense industry sites, and to the sources of raw materials” when

designated by the Secretary of Defense as being “important to the national defense.”49 This

authority, embodied in the Defense Access Road (DAR) Program, permits DOD to assess road

improvement needs, request the necessary appropriation, and partner with the Office of Federal

Lands Highway, Federal Highway Administration, in the Department of Transportation and the

appropriate agency that would administer the construction project.

The current BRAC round and the Global Defense Posture Realignment are expected to

substantially increase the military populations at a number of installations across the country.

Some communities are anticipating significant strain to be imposed on the local transportation

infrastructure serving these sites. The House version of the NDAA would amend the statute to

require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a transportation “needs assessment” at installations

where a significant transportation impact is anticipated. The Senate version contained no such

legislative language, but the committee report singled out the program as an item of special

interest and would have directed the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation to review the

criteria by which an improvement project is deemed eligible for DAR funding and report their

findings to Congress.

Section 2814 of the enacted version of S. 3001 retained the House language, amending 23 U.S.C.

210 to require transportation needs assessments and directed the Secretary of Defense to report to

the relevant congressional committees any significant transportation impacts resulting from DOD

activities since January 1, 2005.

ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ¢ȱ

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NASJRB) Willow Grove is located in Horsham, PA, a

suburb of Philadelphia, and is scheduled to close as part of the 2005 BRAC round. Section 8115

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2638, P.L. 110-329) provides for all

Department of the Navy property at the site to be transferred at no cost from the Secretary of the

Navy to the Secretary of the Air Force as the Horsham Joint Interagency Installation and renamed

“Pitcairn-Willow Grove Field.” The Secretary of the Air Force will then transfer Pitcairn-Willow

Grove Field and all excess Air Force property at the former NASJRB to the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania for use as the Horsham Joint Interagency Installation.

The section further provides that the property shall return to the Department of Defense should it

cease being used as the Horsham Joint Interagency Installation. It may not be reconveyed by the

Commonwealth.

23 U.S.C. 210(a).

ȱȱȱ

Řśȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱ Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ

Table 6. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2002-FY2008

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

52.38

58.10

61.84

65.84

71.46

79.55

88.11

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

bills for the following years.

Source:

¢ȱ ȱ

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 6, VA appropriations

for benefits and services has increased from $52.38 billion in FY2002 to $88.11 billion in

FY2008.

Table 7.

Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008-FY2009

(budget authority in billions of $)

Program

Compensation and pensions

Readjustment benefits

Insurance and indemnities

Housing programs

(net, indefinite)a

Housing programs

administration

Total, Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA)

National Cemetery

Administration

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Total, National Cemetery

Administration (NCA)

Medical Servicesb

ȱȱȱ

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

Request

FY2009

House

(H.R. 6559)

FY2009

Senate

(S. 3301)

FY2009

Enacted

(H.R. 2638)

41.236

3.300

0.041

-0.090

43.112

3.087

0.042

-0.243

43.112

3.087

0.042

-0.243

43.112

3.833e

0.042

-0.243

$43.112

3.833e

0.042

-0.243

0.155

0.158

44.643

46.155

46.901

0.167

0.181

0.240

0.230

0.195

0.181

0.240

0.230

27.168

34.076

30.854

35.590

30.970

0.028

ŘŜȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Program

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Medical support and

compliance

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Medical facilities

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Medical and prosthetic

research

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Medical Care Collection

Fund

(Offsetting receipts)

(Appropriations indefinite)

Total, Veterans Health

Administration (VHA)

Available to VHA (includes

collections)c

General operating expensesd

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Information technology

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Inspector General

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Construction, major projects

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Construction, minor projects

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Grants for state extended

care facilities

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

ȱȱȱ

FY2009

House

Senate

Enacted

Request

(H.R. 6559)

(S. 3301)

(H.R. 2638)

4.400

4.450

3.592

0.508

4.661

5.029

4.961

5.029

0.411

0.442

0.500

0.527

0.510

-2.414

2.414

-1.879

1.879

-2.544

2.544

-2.544

2.544

-2.544

2.544

37.201

39.179

40.783

41.078

40.959

39.615

41.058

43.327

43.622

43.503

1.472

0.233

1.700

1.802

1.779

1.802

1.859

0.127

2.442

2.492

2.471

2.489

0.073

0.008

0.077

0.088

0.094

0.088

0.727

0.738

0.582

0.923

1.218

0.923

0.233

0.397

0.329

0.991

0.729

0.742

0.085

0.165

0.250

0.175

FY2008

Enacted

1.937

3.442

0.075

0.069

0.080

Řŝȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

FY2009

House

Senate

Enacted

Request

(H.R. 6559)

(S. 3301)

(H.R. 2638)

0.032

0.045

0.042

6.072

5.246

6.507

6.583

6.261

88.112

90.761

93.685

94.793

94.351

FY2008

Program

Grants for state veterans

cemeteries

Contingent emergency

(P.L. 110-161)

Total, Departmental

Administration

0.008

Total, Department of

Veterans Affairs

Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.

a. This negative budget authority is the result of combining the loan subsidy payments estimated to be needed

during FY2006 with the offsetting receipts expected to be collected.

b. The FY2009 request and S. 3301 combine medical services and medical support and compliance.

c. Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget authority

equal to the revenue collected.

d. Does not reflect a transfer in the FY2008 omnibus of $6 million of general operating expenses to maintain

funding for payments to state approving agencies at the FY2007 levels.

e. Includes funding for new education benefit provided in P.L. 110-252.

Does not include the $198 million appropriation provided in H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) for the Filipino

Veterans Equity Compensation Fund that would be established by H.R. 6897, which passed the House on

September 23, 2008.

Source:

Table 8. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations:

Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008-FY2009

(budget authority in billions of $)

FY2009

FY2008

FY2009

House

Senate

Enacted

Request

(H.R. 6559)

(S. 3301)

(H.R. 2638)

44.488

45.998

46.744

$46.744

37.201

0.195

39.179

0.181

40.783

0.240

41.078

0.230

40.959

0.230

6.072

5.246

6.507

6.583

6.261

0.155

0.158

43.624

44.763

47.687

48.049

47.607

Mandatory

Benefits (VBA)

Discretionary

Medical (VHA)

National Cemetery

Administration

(NCA)

Departmental

administration

Housing

administration

(VBA)

Total, discretionary

ȱȱȱ

ŘŞȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

FY2009

FY2008

FY2009

House

Senate

Enacted

Request

(H.R. 6559)

(S. 3301)

(H.R. 2638)

88.112

90.761

93.685

94.793

94.351

Mandatory

50.5%

50.7%

49.1%

49.3%

49.5%

Discretionary

49.5%

49.3%

50.9%

50.7%

50.5%

Total, Department of

Veterans Affairs

Percentages of Total

Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.

a. Does not include the $198 million appropriation provided in H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) for the Filipino

Veterans Equity Compensation Fund that would be established by H.R. 6897, which passed the House on

September 23, 2008.

Source:

¢ȱȱ ȱ

The FY2009 budget submitted by the Administration in February 2008 called for funding VA at a

level of $90.8 billion for FY2009 (see Table 8). This would be an increase of $2.6 billion, or

3.0%, over the FY2008 appropriation (including the contingent emergency and supplemental

funding).

One of the key issues for VA non-medical benefits has been the size of the disability claims

workload and the average time (183 days in FY2007)50 to process claims. The U.S. Troop

Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007

(P.L. 110-28) provided additional funding to the VA for resources to address the large number of

pending claims and shorten processing times. P.L. 110-28 provided an additional $60.75 million

for hiring and training of additional claims processing personnel, and $20.0 million for

information technology to support claims processing.

The FY2008 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161) provided $124.2 million for the hiring of additional claims

processors and $2.0 million for leasing office space for the new hires. Additional funds were also

provided to the Board of Veterans Appeals ($3.7 million) and the Office of General Council ($3.2

million) for additional personnel to handle the increase in the number of appeals.

As shown in Table 7, H.R. 6559 provides $93.7 billion in FY2009 funding for the VA, an

increase of $5.6 billion, or 6.3%, above the FY2008 appropriation (including the contingent

emergency and supplemental funding). S. 3301 provides $94.8 billion in FY2009 funding for the

VA, an increase of $6.7 billion, or 7.6%. H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) provides $94.4 billion in

FY2009 funding for the VA, an increase of $6.2 billion or 7.1% over the FY2008 enacted level.

All of the FY2009 funding bills also provide a large increase in FY2009 funding relative to the

FY2008 appropriation for several programs including medical support; medical facilities; and

information technology.

As shown in Table 8, there is an almost equal split between mandatory and discretionary funding

for the VA. In the FY2008 appropriation, mandatory funding was only slightly above

Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008 Budget Submission, Summary - Volume 3, pg. 4B-6.

ȱȱȱ

Řşȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

discretionary funding. For H.R. 6559, S. 3301, and H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) discretionary

funding is slightly above mandatory funding.

ȱȱ

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a direct service provider of primary care,

specialized care, and related medical and social support services to veterans through an integrated

health care system. In FY2008, VHA operated 153 medical centers, 135 nursing homes, 795

ambulatory care and community based outpatient clinics (CBOCs),51 and 232 Readjustment

Counseling Centers (Vet Centers).52 VHA also pays for care provided to veterans by independent

providers and practitioners on a fee basis under certain circumstances. Inpatient and outpatient

care is provided in the private sector to eligible dependents of veterans under the Civilian Health

and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).53 In addition, VHA

provides grants for construction of state-owned nursing homes and domiciliary facilities, and

collaborates with the Department of Defense (DOD) in sharing health care resources and services.

The total amount requested by the Administration for VHA for FY2009 was $39.2 billion, a $2.0

billion increase in funding compared to the FY2008 enacted amount. The total amount of funding

that would have been available for VHA under the President’s budget proposal for FY2009,

including third-party collections, was approximately $41.1 billion. For FY2009, the

Administration requested $34.1 billion for medical services, an approximately $5.0 billion,

or17%, increase in funding over the FY2008 enacted amount. However, it should be noted that

this amount included funding for the medical administration account which the Administration

proposed to consolidate with the medical services account. The President’s budget also requested

$4.6 billion for medical facilities, and $442 million for medical and prosthetic research.

As in FY2003, FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 the Administration included

several cost sharing proposals. The first proposal was the tiered annual enrollment fee for all

enrolled Priority Group 7 and Priority Group 8 veterans, which was structured to charge $250 for

veterans with family incomes from $50,000 to $74,999; $500 for those with family incomes from

$75,000 to $99,999; and $750 for those with family incomes equal to or greater than $100,000.

According to the VA, this proposal would have increased government revenue by $129 million

beginning in FY2010, and by $514 million over five years.

Data on the number of CBOCs differ from source to source. Some count clinics located at VA hospitals while others

count only freestanding CBOCs. The number represented in this report excludes clinics located in VA hospitals. On

June 26, 2008, VA announced that it would be establishing 44 new CBOCs in FY2008 and FY2009. The new CBOCs

are to be located in: Marshall County, and Wiregrass, AL; Matanuska-Susitna Borough area, AK; Ozark, and White

County, AR; East Bay-Alameda County area, CA; Summerfield, FL; Baldwin County, Coweta County, Glynn County,

and Liberty County, GA; Miami County, and Morgan County, IN; Wapello County, IA; Lake Charles, Leesville,

Natchitoches, St. Mary Parish, and Washington Parish, LA; Lewiston-Auburn area, ME; Douglas County, and

Northwest Metro, MN; Franklin County, MO; Rio Rancho, NM; Robeson County, and Rutherford County, NC; Grand

Forks County, ND; Gallia County, OH; Altus, Craig County, Enid, and Jay, OK; Giles County, Maury County, and

McMinn County, TN; Katy, Lake Jackson, Richmond, Tomball, and El Paso County, TX; Augusta County, Emporia,

and Wytheville, VA; and Greenbrier County, WV.

New Vet Centers in 2008 are located in: Montgomery, AL; Fayetteville, AR; Modesto, CA; Grand Junction, CO;

Fort Myers, Melbourne, and Gainesville, FL; Macon, GA; Manhattan, KS; Baton Rouge, LA; Cape Cod, MA; Saginaw

and Escanaba, MI; Berlin, NH; Las Cruces, NM; Binghamton, Middletown, Nassau County and Watertown, NY;

Toledo, OH; Du Bois, PA; Killeen, TX; and Everett, WA.

For further information on CHAMPVA see CRS Report RS22483, Health Care for Dependents and Survivors of

Veterans, by (name redacted) and Susan Janeczko.

ȱȱȱ

řŖȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

The Administration also proposed increasing the pharmacy copayments from $8 to $15 for all

enrolled Priority Group 7 and Priority Group 8 veterans, whenever they obtain medication from

VA on an outpatient basis for the treatment of a nonservice-connected condition.54 The

Administration put forward this proposal in its FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007 and FY2008

budget requests as well, but did not receive any approval from Congress. At present, veterans in

Priority Groups 2-8 pay $8 for a 30-day supply of medication, including over-the-counter

medications. The VA estimated that this proposal would have increased government revenue by

$334 million beginning in FY2009, and by $1.6 billion over five years.

Lastly, the Administration proposed to bill veterans directly for treatment associated with

nonservice-connected conditions. Presently, VA uses third-party collections to satisfy veterans’

first party debt; that is, if VA treats an insured veteran for a nonservice-connected disability, and

the veteran is also determined by VA to have copayment responsibilities, VA will apply each

dollar collected from the insurer to satisfy the veteran’s copayment debt related to that treatment.

The Administration proposed to eliminate this practice. According to the VA, this proposal would

have increased government revenue by $44 million beginning in FY2009 and by $215 million

over five years. The President’s budget request for medical services did not reflect these

legislative proposals.

Compared to previous budget proposals, the FY2009 budget proposals if implemented would

have deposited all collections in the U.S. Treasury and not in the Medical Care Collections Fund

(MCCF) as is the current practice with regard to collections.55

The House Appropriations Committee-passed version of the Military Construction and Veterans

Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2009 provided $40.7 billion for the VHA for FY2009. This

amount included $30.9 billion for medical services, $1.8 billion (6%) over the FY2008 enacted

amount of $29.1 billion. The Committee-passed measure also included $4.4 billion for medical

support and compliance (previously known as medical administration), $883 million (25%) above

the FY2008 enacted amount of $3.5 billion; $5.0 billion for medical facilities, a 7.8% increase

over the President’s request of $4.7 billion; and $500 million for medical and prosthetic research,

a 13.1% increase over the President’s request of $442 million. The House-passed version of the

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2009 did not include any

bill language authorizing fee increases as requested by the Administration’s budget proposal for

VHA for FY2009.

Of the amount recommended by the House Appropriations Committee for the medical services

account, $3.8 billion was for specialty mental health care, $584 million was for the substance

abuse program, $568 million was to increase the number of Priority 8 enrollment by 10 percent,

and $100 million was to increase the mileage reimbursement rate from 28.5 cents a mile to 41.6

cents a mile.

The term “service-connected” means, with respect to disability, that such disability was incurred or aggravated in the

line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. VA determines whether veterans have service-connected

disabilities, and for those with such disabilities, assigns ratings from 0 to 100% based on the severity of the disability.

Percentages are assigned in increments of 10%.

VA deposits into MCCF copayments collected from veterans obligated to make such payments for either medical

services or inpatient pharmacy benefits for outpatient medication, and third-party insurance payments from serviceconnected veterans for nonservice-connected conditions. These collected funds do not have to be spent in any particular

fiscal year and are available until expended.

ȱȱȱ

řŗȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

The Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of the Military Construction and

Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2009 recommended $41.1 billion (excluding

collections) for VHA for FY2009. This was a 4.8% increase over the FY2009 request, and $294

million above the House Appropriations Committee-recommended amount. The Senate

Appropriations Committee concurred with the President’s proposal to merge the medical services

account with the medical administration account.

Under the proposed new account structure the Committee recommended $35.6 billion for the

medical services account, a 4.4% ($1.5 billion) increase over the FY2009 request. S. 3301, as

marked up by the Committee, also provided $5.0 billion for medical facilities. This was a 21%

increase compared to the FY2008 enacted amount, 6.4% above the FY2009 request, and $68

million below the House Committee-recommended amount. The Senate marked up MILCON-VA

appropriations bill also provided $527 million for the medical and prosthetic research account.

This was a 19.2% increase over the FY2009 request, and 9.8% above the FY2008 enacted

amount.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2638, P.L. 110329) provides approximately $41.0 billion (excluding collections) for VHA for FY2009. Funding

levels for the medical services, medical support and compliance, medical facilities, and medial

and prosthetic research accounts remained closer to the House-approved amounts. P.L. 110-329

provides $375 million to increase Priority Group 8 enrollment. It also includes an additional $133

million to increase the beneficiary travel reimbursement mileage rate to 41.5 cents per mile while

freezing the deductible at current levels.

Ǳȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱ

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, 22 separate monuments and markers in foreign countries, and three

memorials on U.S. soil.

The ABMC was responsible for the planning and construction of the World War II Memorial on

the Mall in Washington, DC. Though the National Park Service assumed responsibility for the

operation and maintenance of the Memorial at its dedication, the ABMC retains a fiduciary

responsibility for the remaining public contributions given for its construction. The ABMC also

undertook construction of an Interpretive Center at the Normandy American Cemetery in

Normandy, France, to commemorate the World War II Allied invasion of France on June 6, 1944,

and the subsequent land battles in Europe. The new facility opened on June 6, 2007.

ǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

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

ȱȱȱ

řŘȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court’s major operational initiative is to continue and develop plans, with the General Services

Administration, for a Veterans’ Courthouse and Justice Center.

ȱȱǱȱȱǻ¢ȱȱ¡Ǽȱ

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

3,200 non-funeral ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.

The FY2008 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161) included additional funds in FY2008 for realignment of

government-issued headstones, construction of a heavy equipment storage facility, and funds for

costs not included in the budget request related to the relocation of utilities at Arlington Cemetery.

ȱȱȱ ȱǻ Ǽȱ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completion date in 2010.

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

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

the pay of active duty enlisted military personnel and warrant officers. The FY2008 Omnibus

(P.L. 110-161) provided $800,000 in general funds for the study of the long-term viability of the

trust fund.

The budget request for FY2009 includes funds for renovation of the Scott Dormitory Building for

residents on the D.C. campus. The renovations are scheduled to begin in 2010, so the new

Gulfport facility can be used to house the D.C. residents displaced by the renovations.

Table 9 shows the FY2008 enacted appropriations, the FY2009 request, and the appropriations

provided in H.R. 6559, S. 3301, and H.R. 2638 (P.L. 110-329) for each of the related agencies.

ȱȱȱ

řřȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Table 9.

Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2008-FY2009

(budget authority in thousands of $)

FY2009

FY2008

FY2009

House

Senate

Enacted

Request

(H.R. 6559)

(S. 3301)

(H.R. 2638)

American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)

Salaries and expenses

44.600

Foreign currency

11.000

fluctuations account

64.570

0.000

55.470

17.100

59.470

17.100

$59.470

17.100

Total, ABMC

64.570

72.570

76.570

23.975

73.975

23.975

30.975

31.230

42.230

36.730

63.010

55.600

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses

22.717

Army Cemeterial Expenses

Salaries and expenses

31.230

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)

Operation and

55.724

maintenance

General Fund

0.800

Appropriation

Total, AFRH

56.524

Total, All Related Agencies

166.071

182.785

240.785

205.785

$207.285

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

Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.

ȱȱȱ

řŚȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

¡ȱǯ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ

Table A-1. Appropriations: Military Construction Appropriations Accounts

(budget authority in $000)

Account

Military Construction, Army

Rescissions

Emergency Approps.

(P.L. 110-252)

Total

Military Construction,

Navy and Marine Corps

Rescissions

Emergency Approps.

(P.L. 110-252)

Total

Military Construction,

Air Force

Rescissions

Emergency Approps.

(P.L. 110-252)

Total

Military Construction,

Defense-wide

Rescissions

Emergency Approps.

(P.L. 110-252)

Total

Total, Active

components

Military Construction,

Army National Guard

FY2007

Enacted

FY2008

Enacted

FY2009

House

Senate

FY2009

FY2009 Committee Committee

Enacted

Request (H.R. 6659)

(S. 3301) (H.R. 2683)

3,330,031

—

3,936,583

(8,690)

4,615,920

—

4,801,536

(51,320)

4,561,561

(65,120)

4,692,648

(51,320)

—

1,108,200

—

3,330,031

5,036,093

4,615,920

4,750,216

4,496,441

4,641,328

1,565,407

2,198,394

3,096,399

3,280,809

3,159,191

3,333,369

—

(10,557)

—

355,907

—

1,565,407

2,543,744

3,096,399

3,208,809

3,159,191

3,333,369

1,154,756

1,159,747

934,892

976,524

1,058,694

1,117,746

—

(10,470)

—

(17,681)

(8,080)

(20,821)

—

399,627

—

1,154,756

1,548,904

934,892

958,843

1,050,614

1,096,925

1,135,846

1,609,596

1,783,998

1,614,450

1,688,270

1,695,204

—

(10,192)

—

(3,589)

—

(3,589)

—

890,921

—

1,135,846

2,490,325

1,783,998

1,610,861

1,688,270

1,691,615

7,186,040

11,619,066

10,431,209

10,600,729

10,394,516

10,763,237

473,000

536,656

539,296

628,668

660,669

736,317

—

(1,400)

473,000

536,656

539,296

628,668

659,269

734,917

126,000

287,537

34,374

142,809

180,286

242,924

166,000

148,133

281,687

282,607

357,387

282,607

43,000

64,430

57,045

61,045

57,045

Rescissions

Total

Military Construction,

Air National Guard

Military Construction,

Army Reserve

Military Construction,

Naval Reserve

ȱȱȱ

řśȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

Account

Military Construction,

Air Force Reserve

FY2007

Enacted

FY2008

Enacted

45,000

28,359

19,265

30,018

29,915

36,958

—

(3,069)

—

45,000

25,290

19,265

30,018

29,915

36,958

853,000

1,062,046

931,667

1,141,147

1,287,902

1,354,451

8,039,040 12,681,112 11,362,876

11,741,876

11,682,418

12,117,688

Rescissions

Total

Total, Reserve

components

Total, Military

Construction

NATO Security

Investment Program

Family Housing

Construction, Army

Rescissions

Total

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Army

Family Housing

Construction, Navy and

Marine Corps

Emergency Approps.

(P.L. 110-252)

Total

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Navy and Marine

Corps

Family Housing

Construction, Air Force

Rescissions

Total

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Air Force

Family Housing

Construction, Defensewide

Rescissions

Total

Family Housing Ops and

Debt, Defense-wide

DOD Family Housing

Improvement Fund

Homeowners Assistance

Fund

FY2009

House

Senate

FY2009

FY2009 Committee Committee

Enacted

Request (H.R. 6659)

(S. 3301) (H.R. 2683)

328,111

201,400

240,867

218,867

240,867

230,867

595,362

424,400

678,580

646,580

678,580

646,580

—

595,362

(4,559)

419,841

—

678,580

—

646,580

—

678,580

—

646,580

718,816

731,920

716,110

721,110

716,110

231,733

293,129

382,778

381,073

380,123

—

11,766

—

231,733

304,895

382,778

—

308,123

503,165

371,404

376,062

381,062

376,062

1,222,399

327,747

395,879

—

1,222,399

(15,000)

312,747

—

395,879

—

395,879

—

395,879

—

395,879

795,162

688,335

599,465

594,465

604,465

594,465

9,000

—

9,000

—

(6,040)

47,957

48,848

49,231

—

500

850

—

4,500

ȱȱȱ

řŜȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

FY2008

Enacted

2,878,450

FY2009

House

Senate

FY2009

FY2009 Committee Committee

Enacted

Request (H.R. 6659)

(S. 3301) (H.R. 2683)

3,203,455

3,166,455

3,216,750

3,157,760

104,176

134,278

144,278

137,393

5,622,872

295,689

7,235,591

393,377

9,065,386

473,377

9,065,386

468,377

8,991,700

458,377

8,765,613

—

1,278,886

—

5,760,265

8,810,166

9,458,763

9,538,763

9,460,077

9,223,990

—

28,000

—

147,000

—

200,000

—

18,382,010

24,875,344

24,400,239

24,800,239

24,744,390

25,049,583

FY2007

Account

Enacted

Total, Family Housing 4,123,594

Chemical

Demilitarization

131,000

Construction,

Defense-wide

Base Realignment and Closure

BRAC, 1990

BRAC, 2005

Emergency Approps.

(P.L. 110-252)

Total, BRAC

Air National Guard Fire

Stations (Sec. 131)

Army National Guard

Aviation and Training

(Sec. 132)

Emergency

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

Improvements

Grand Total, MilCon

& FHa

Note:

Figures do not include amounts added in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1).

ȱȱȱ

řŝȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

¡ȱǯ ȱȱ

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

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

Veterans Affairs

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

al..

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

and Susan Janeczko.

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

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

dacted).

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

(name redacted).

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

dacted).

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

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

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

2008, by (name redacted).

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

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

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

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

acted).

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

d) .

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

, and (name redacted).

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

cted) and (name redacted).

ȱȱȱ

řŞȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

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

(name redacted).

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

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

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

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

ȱȱ

House Committee on Appropriations

http://appropriations.house.gov/

Senate Committee on Appropriations

http://appropriations.senate.gov/

House Committee on Armed Services

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

Senate Committee on Armed Services

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

House Committee on Veterans Affairs

http://veterans.house.gov/

Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs

http://veterans.senate.gov/

CRS Appropriations Products Guide

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

Congressional Budget Office

http://www.cbo.gov/

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC Commission)

http://www.brac.gov

Government Accountability Office

http://www.gao.gov/

ȱȱȱ

řşȱ

¢ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǱȱŘŖŖşȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

(name redacted)

Specialist in National Defense

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

(name redacted)

Analyst in Veterans Policy

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

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

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

¢ȱ¢ȱȱ

Area of Expertise

Name

Phone

Acquisition

name redacted

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

7-....

redacted@crs.loc.gov

Base Closure

Defense Budget

Legal Issues

Health Care; Military

Military Construction

Military Personnel

Military Personnel; Reserves

Related Agencies

Veterans Affairs

Veterans Affairs; Healthcare

ȱȱȱ

7-....

E-mail

ŚŖȱ

EveryCRSReport.com

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

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

issues that may come before Congress.

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

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

the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

otherwise use copyrighted material.

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

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

connection with CRS' institutional role.

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

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