Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations
Updated February 4, 2008
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Analyst in Veterans Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division



The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation,
other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and
the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing
statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the
submission of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House Military
Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Senate Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues,
funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?P RDS_CLI _ITEM _ID=2349].



Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
The President submitted his FY2008 appropriations request to Congress on
February 5, 2007, including $105.2 billion for programs covered in this
appropriations bill: $21.2 billion for Title I (military construction and family
housing); $83.9 billion for Title II (veterans affairs); and $163 million for Title III
(related agencies). With no regular appropriation passed or enacted for FY2007, this
must be compared with the combined totals of the subsequent continuing resolutions
and emergency supplemental appropriations: $17.9 billion for Title I; $79.6 billion
for Title II; and $149 million for Title III. The request represented an increase of $3.2
billion (18.0%) in Title I, $4.4 billion (5.5%) in Title II, and $14 thousand (9.2%) in
Title III above the FY2007 enacted appropriations. The overall FY2008 request
exceeded the FY2007 appropriations by $7.6 billion, an increase of 7.8%.
The House passed its version of the FY2008 Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 2642, on June 15,
2007. The Senate passed an amended version on September 6. H.R. 2764, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted on December 27, 2007 as P.L.
110–161, included FY2008 funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
as Division I. The bill's legislative path is laid out in detail in the Enactment of the
Regular FY2008 Appropriation section of this report.
While appropriations for Title I activities has increased above FY2007, this is
not true across all appropriations accounts. Funds for military family housing in
FY2008 are less than those for FY2007, while construction for the active and reserve
military components and appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
actions exceed 2007-enacted amounts. Much of this addition can be attributed to the
recently authorized increase in end-strength of military ground forces and the onset
of construction required by the 2005 BRAC round.
In veterans’ non-medical benefits, mandatory spending for disability
compensation, pension, and readjustment benefits is increasing due to 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 FY2006 was 177 days. To reduce the pending claims workload and improve
the claims processing time, funds were provided in the FY2007 supplemental and in
the FY2008 appropriation for hiring and training additional claims processing staff.
While mandatory spending has increased by 19.6% between FY2006 and FY2008
(from $37.2 billion to $44.5 billion), mandatory spending has declined as a share of
the total VA appropriation (from 52.1% in FY2006 to 50.7% in FY2008).
In terms of medical care afforded to veterans, similar to the past five years, the
Administration has included several cost sharing proposals including increase in
pharmacy copayments and enrollment fees for lower priority veterans. The House
Appropriations Committee draft bill provides $37.1 billion for VHA for FY2008, a
9.1% increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $34.0 billion, and 7.3% above the
President’s request of $34.6 billion. The draft bill does not include any provisions
that would give VA the authority to implement fee increases. This report will be
updated as events warrant.



and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Area ofNameTelephoneE-Mail
Expertise
AcquisitionValerie Bailey Grasso7-7617vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Base ClosureDaniel H. Else7-4996delse@crs.loc.gov
Stephen Daggett7-7642sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Defense BudgetAmy Belasco7-7627abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Pat Towell7-2122ptowell@crs.loc.gov
Legal IssuesR. Chuck Mason7-9294rcmason@crs.loc.gov
Health Care;Richard A. Best, Jr.7-7607rbest@crs.loc.gov
Military
MilitaryDaniel H. Else7-4996delse@crs.loc.gov
Construction
MilitaryDavid F. Burrelli7-8033dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
PersonnelCharles A. Henning7-8866chenning@crs.loc.gov
Military
Personnel;Lawrence Kapp7-7609lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Reserves
Related AgenciesChristine Scott7-7366cscott@crs.loc.gov
Veterans AffairsChristine Scott7-7366cscott@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Affairs;Sidath Viranga7-0623spanangala@crs.loc.gov


Healthcare Panangala

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Status of Legislation................................................2
Summary and Key Issues............................................2th
Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdiction Realignment, 110 Congress..2
Executive Order 13457.........................................3
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007...............................5
Continuing Resolutions.....................................5
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on
Terror ..............................................5
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 1591 and
H.R. 2206)...........................................6
Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations......................................7
FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on
Terror ...............................................7
Enactment of the Regular FY2008 Appropriations....................8
Title I: Department of Defense......................................11
Military Construction..........................................11
Key Budget Issues............................................12
Base Realignment and Closure/Integrated Global Presence and
Basing Strategy (Global Defense Posture Realignment).......12
“Growing the Force”......................................15
Overseas Initiatives.......................................15
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs...............................17
Agency Overview.............................................17
Key Budget Issues............................................19
Medical Care ................................................21
Title III: Related Agencies..........................................23
American Battle Monuments Commission.........................23
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.........................24
Department of Defense - Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses)...........24
Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)..........................25
Appendix A. Consolidated Non-VA Funding Tables.....................27
Appendix B. Additional Resources...................................31
Budget .....................................................31
Selected Websites............................................31



Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005 Implementation.....13
List of Tables
Table 1a. Status of FY2008 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations (H.R. 2642, S. 1645, H.R. 3043, H.R. 2764)....2
Table 1b. Status of FY2008 National Defense Authorization (H.R. 1585,
S. 1547, H.R. 4986)...........................................2
Table 2. IGPBS/GDPR One-Time Implementation Costs..................14
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY2001-FY2007...17
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2006-FY2008..17
Table 5. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2006-FY2008..............25
Table 6. DOD Military Construction..................................27



Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Representative Chet Edwards, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies,
introduced the appropriations bill on June 11, 2007. The House passed the bill on
June 15 and sent it to the Senate. Senator Jack Reed proposed amendment of the bill
when it was brought to the floor on September 4. After debate and additional
amendment, the Senate adopted the measure on September 6. Conference on the bill
was held on November 5, when was incorporated into Division B of the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill (H.R. 3043). The House agreed to the revised bill on
November 6. Nevertheless, during subsequent Senate debate, Division B was
stripped after a point of order was raised.
The appropriations bill was combined with others and added to the State Foreign
Operations and Related Activities Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764) on December 17,
2007, to form Division I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2008. The Senate concurred with the House amendments and both chambers cleared
the bill for the White House on December 19. The President enacted the measure on
December 26, 2007 (P.L. 110-161).
A detailed description of the legislative path for the appropriations bill, the
accompanying national defense authorization bills, and several interim continuing
resolutions can be found in section of this report entitled Enactment of the Regular
FY2008 Appropriations.



Status of Legislation
Table 1a. Status of FY2008 Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations
(H.R. 2642, S. 1645, H.R. 3043, H.R. 2764)1
Committee MarkupHouseHousePassageSenateSenatePassageConf.ReportConference ReportApprovalPublicLaw
Re por t (H.R. Re por t (H.R. (H.R. (H.R.
2642) 2642) 3043) 2764)House Senate H ouse Senate
6/6/076/13/07 H.Rept.110-186 6/15/07S.Rept.110-85 9/6/07 H.Rept.110-424 12/17/07 12/18/07 P.L. 110-161
Table 1b. Status of FY2008 National Defense Authorization
(H.R. 1585, S. 1547, H.R. 4986)
Committee MarkupHouseHousePassageSenateSenatePassageConf.ReportConference ReportApprovalPublic
Re por t (H.R. Re por t (H.R. (H.R. LawHouse Senate H ouse Senate

1585)1585)1585)


5/9/07 5/24/07 H.Rept.110-1465/17/07S.Rept.110-7710/1/07 H.Rept.110-477 12/12/07 12/14/07 P.L. 110-181
Summary and Key Issues
Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdiction Realignment,
110th Congress
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.
Non-construction quality-of-life defense appropriations that had been consideredth
in the House version of this appropriations bill during the 109 Congress, including
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization, Basic Allowance for
Housing, Environmental Restoration, and the Defense Health Program, were


1 Joined with Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 3043) on November 5, 2007.
That bill was vetoed by the President on November 13, whereupon the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act was incorporated
into the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (H.R. 2764) as Division I. The bill’s
joint explanatory statement is published in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2007,
on pages H15741-16644.

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.
Executive Order 13457
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 are 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, those 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.2
The impact of E.O. 13457 on the current 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


2 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].

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 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).3 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.4 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?


3 Legal interpretation in this section has been assisted by CRS Legislative Attorney R.
Chuck Mason.
4 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.

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007
Continuing Resolutions. The 109th Congress was unable to pass H.R. 5385,
the Military Construction, Military Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. In the absence of an annual appropriation,
Fiscal Year 2007 funding for all of the accounts included in that bill was sustainedth
by a series of continuing resolutions that spanned the final weeks of the 109
Congress and the initial weeks of the first session of the 110th Congress. Div. B of
H.R. 5631 (P.L. 109-289), the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2007, continued appropriations for a variety of activities, including those
covered by H.R. 5385, from the beginning of Fiscal Year 2007 through November
16, 2006, using various formulas.5 In general, these equated to the lowest of the
House-passed, Senate-passed, or last-enacted funding levels.
H.J.Res. 100 (P.L. 109-369) continued appropriations through December 18,

2006.


H.J.Res. 102 (P.L. 109-383) continued appropriations through February 15,

2007.


H.J.Res. 20 (P.L. 110-5) was passed by the 110th Congress and enacted on
February 15, 2007. It incorporated the previous continuing resolutions and extended
them, with some modification to military construction and veterans benefits, through
the end of Fiscal Year 2007 (September 30, 2007).
Additional information regarding the recent history of and practices regarding
continuing resolutions can be found in CRS Report RL30343, Continuing
Appropriations Act: Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter, and CRS
Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by Robert
Keith.
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on
Terror. As part of his Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, President George W. Bush
included a recommendation for an additional $93.4 billion emergency supplemental
appropriation to support what the Administration terms the Global War on Terror
(GWOT). As stated in the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Appendix (Additional FY2007
and FY2008 Proposals), the included military construction funds would be “used to
build urgent facilities needed for the Global War on Terror, including buildings,
perimeter fences and barriers, secure fuel facilities, and roads to improve the force
protection and safety of U.S. military forces. The funds would also be used to
construct theater-located operations facilities needed to improve the capabilities of
combat forces. In addition, the funds would cover the cost of housing, maintenance,


5 See Div. B, Sec. 101(b) — (e) of the act.

and training infrastructure needed to support an expansion of Army and Marine
Corps ground combat forces.”6
This supplemental request asked to add $1.38 billion to the FY2007 Army
military construction account, $412.5 million to the FY2007 Navy and Marine Corps
military construction account, and $60.2 million to the FY2007 Air Force military
construction account.
Supplementary budget documentation forwarded by DOD distributed the
funding along three main functions: “Continuing the Fight,” “Reconstituting the
Force,” and “Enhancing Ground Forces.” Military construction was included in the
first and the last of these.
Under “Continuing the Fight,” DOD indicated that approximately $980.0
million would be devoted to the construction and improvement of facilities in Iraq
and Afghanistan in direct support of ground force military operations. The Navy
would spend $85.1 million for facilities in Djibouti and at Naval Station
Guantanamo, Cuba, and the Air Force would use $60.2 million to improve airfield
facilities in Afghanistan.
Approximately $100 million of military construction under “Enhancing Ground
Forces”was intended to accelerate the transition of existing Army and Marine units
into two Brigade Combat Teams (Army) and a single Regimental Combat Team
(Marine). The remaining construction funding, approximately $729 million, would
build housing and maintenance and training facilities for 92,000 new troops to be
added to Army and Marine end strength by the end of 2012 (See “Growing the
Force” under Military Construction Key Budget Issues below).7
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 1591 and H.R. 2206).
Representative David R. Obey, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations,
introduced an emergency supplemental bill (H.Rept. 110-60) on March 20, 2007. The
bill passed the House on Friday, March 23, and was received in the Senate on the
same day. It was laid before the Senate on the following Monday, March 26,
whereupon Senator Robert C. Byrd, chair of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, offered the text of a similar bill, S. 965 (S.Rept. 110-37), as an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Senate debate continued through March 29,

2007, when the chamber passed the bill with amendment and requested a conference.


The Conference Committee filed its report on April 24, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-107). The
amended H.R. 1591 passed both houses by April 26, and was presented to the
President on May 1, 2007. The President vetoed the bill.


6 The quotation is taken from pg. 1161. The appendix is available on the World Wide Web
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/].
7 For a comprehensive discussion of the FY2007 GWOT Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations request, see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, et al.

Mr. Obey introduced a new bill (H.R. 2206) on May 8, 2007, that was passed
on May 10. The Senate passed an amended bill on May 17. A newly conferenced bill
was passed by both houses on May 24 and presented to the President the next day.
He signed it on May 25, 2007 (P.L. 110-28). Funding provided by the emergency
appropriation is noted in the tables located in Appendix A to this report.
One significant effect of this supplemental appropriation was its impact on
funding to implement the 2005 BRAC round. DOD had requested approximately
$5.6 billion in FY2007 to begin a number of construction projects in anticipation of
facility and troop movements. When the new fiscal year began on October 1, 2006,
these projects could not be initiated. The continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 20)
provided partial funding by appropriating $2.5 billion for BRAC 2005 activities. P.L.
110-28 appropriated the remaining $3.1 billion to fund BRAC to the originally
requested level.
Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations
Representative David R. Obey, chair of the House Committee on
Appropriations, introduced on September 25, 2007, a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 52)
making continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008. The resolution would
provide funds needed to continue federal operations through November 16 at the
rates provided in the applicable appropriations acts for Fiscal Year 2007. The House
agreed by the Yeas and Nays (404 - 14) to an amended resolution on September 26
(Roll No. 911, CR H10913-20). The Senate passed the measure without amendment
by a Yea-Nay vote (94 - 1) on the following day (Record Vote No. 355, CR S12255-

58), and the President signed it on November 13 (P.L. 110-92).


Division B of the FY2008 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116,
enacted November 13, 2007) continued government funding through December 14,
2007. This cycle repeated during December. Representative Obey introduced
H.J.Res. 69, which would continue P.L. 110-92 through December 21. This measure
passed both chambers on the following day, by the Yeas and Nays in the House (385-
27, Roll no. 1162, CR H15438) and by Unanimous Consent in the Senate. The
President signed the resolution into law on December 14.
FY2008 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global War on
Terror. In February 2007, coincident with its annual request for FY2008
appropriations, the Department of Defense submitted an supplemental request for
$141.7 billion in funding dedicated primarily, but not exclusively, to support ongoing
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This request was enhanced in July 2007
by an additional $5.3 billion for the procurement of additional Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, increasing the total FY2008 supplemental
request to $147.0 billion.8 In October 2007, the Administration again amended the


8 See CRS Report RS22707, Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert for an examination of the issues
surrounding MRAP procurement.

supplemental request with an additional $42.3 billion, bringing the FY2008
supplemental total to $189.3 billion.
Construction funding was requested in the amended supplemental request,
spread across several disparate initiatives both directly and indirectly associated with
ongoing military operations.
Those new or upgraded operational facilities for which funds were requested
included airfield and maintenance enhancements in Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and
Iraq. New or replacement communications and operations centers were designated
for Kuwait and Qatar. There was a request for a new headquarters and associated
facilities for a Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and
a special operations logistics warehouse in Qatar. Construction associated directly
with ongoing military operations included enhanced overhead cover for several
existing facilities at various sites in Iraq and road construction and paving in
Afghanistan intended to deter the use of Improvised Explosive Devices or to route
military road traffic around congested areas.
Other construction was intended to support the expansion of U.S. ground forces
by accelerating the creation of facilities to house two new Army Brigade Combat
Teams and one new Marine Corps Regimental Combat Team. These new units are
expected to require facilities at Ft. Riley, KS, Ft. Knox, KY, and Marine Corps Bases
Camp Pendleton, CA, and Lejeune, NC, and Twentynine Palms, CA.
Further funding was requested to accelerate the replacement of the Walter Reed
Army Medical Center in the District of Columbia with a new Walter Reed National
Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) at the site of the current National Naval
Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, and a new community hospital at Ft. Belvoir, VA.
This is part of one of the recommendations made by the 2005 Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission (commonly referred to as the 2005 BRAC
Commission) and approved by the President. The new facilities are scheduled to open
during May 2011. The emergency appropriation request added $416 million to the
project in order to complete the Ft. Belvoir hospital in August 2010 and the
WRNMMC in May 2010.
Additional medical-related projects for which funding was requested in the
supplemental included a $21 million addition to and renovation of the Burn
Rehabilitation Unit at the Brooke Army Medical Center, Ft. Sam Houston, TX, and
$138.1 million for the construction of various Barracks and Transitioning Warrior
Support Complexes for the use of injured service members and their families.9
Enactment of the Regular FY2008 Appropriations
The House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies marked its draft of the


9 This construction is in addition to that required by a BRAC Commission recommendation
consolidating the medical operations of Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force
Base and Brooke into the San Antonio Military Medical Center.

appropriations bill on May 22, 2007, recommending a total Fiscal Year 2008
appropriation of $109.2 billion. The full Committee marked the bill on June 6.
Representative Chet Edwards, chair of the subcommittee, introduced the bill on June
11 (H.R. 2642, H.Rept. 110-186). After agreeing to floor amendment, the House
passed the bill by the Yeas and Nays (409 - 2, Roll no. 498, CR H6565) on June 15
and sent it to the Senate, where it was received on June 18. Senate appropriations
subcommittee markup of its own original bill occurred on June 13, with full
committee markup on June 14. Senator Jack Reed introduced that bill (S. 1645,
S.Rept. 110-85, Calendar No. 205) on June 18, 2007. H.R. 2642 was laid before the
Senate on September 4, when Senator Reed proposed its amendment by substituting
the text of S. 1645. A number of additional amendments were proposed during the
ensuing floor debate prior to its adoption by Yea-Nay vote on September 6 (92 - 1,
Record Vote No. 316, CR 9/7/2007 S11271-11278). Conference on the bill was held
in early November, when the conferees folded the bill into Division B of the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill (H.R. 3043, H.Rept. 110-424). The joint bill
would have appropriated $715 billion, of which $606.4 billion was devoted to Labor-
HHS-Education and $109.2 billion was designated for Military Construction/VA and
Related Agencies.10 The House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 3043 late on
November 6 by the Yeas and Nays (269-142, Roll no. 1050, CR H13198). During
Senate debate on November 7, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison raised a point of order
against the inclusion of Division B under Senate Rule XXVIII, para. 3.11 A motion
to waive the rule was rejected by the Yeas and Nays (47-46, Record Vote No. 404,
CR S14028-14044), and the Division B was stricken from the bill.12
On November 7, Representative Roger F. Wicker, ranking member on the
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the
House Committee on Appropriations, introduced H.R. 4104, a stand-alone version
of the bill.13 The bill was referred to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Budget. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, ranking member of the equivalent
subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, introduced a similar bill,


10 For a discussion of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, see CRS Report
RL34076, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2008 Appropriations, by
Pamela W. Smith, Gerald Mayer, Rebecca R. Skinner.
11 Rule XXVIII addresses conference committees, their reports, and meetings. Para. 3
requires that in any case in which a disagreement to an amendment in the nature of a
substitute has been referred to conferees: (1) it shall be in order for the conferees to report
a substitute on the same subject matter; (2) the conferees may not include in the report
matter not committed to them by either House; and (3) the conferees may include in their
report in any such case matter which is a germane modification of subjects in disagreement.
A violation of the rule permits a point of order to be raised. For a detailed discussion ofth
changes in Senate rules for the 110 Congress, which includes Rule XXVII, see CRS Reportth
RS22733, Senate Rules Changes in the 110 Congress Affecting Restrictions on the Content
of Conference Reports, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
12 The amended H.R. 3043 was then passed by the Senate by the Yeas and Nays (56-37,
Record Vote No. 405) and sent to the House, where the Senate amendment was agreed on
November 8 by the Yeas and Nays (274-141, Roll no. 1075) and sent to the President.
13 Mr. Wicker’s introductory remarks on November 8, 2007, are found in the Congressional
Record on pages CR H13301-13302.

S. 2363, on November 15, which was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar
under General Orders. These followed the October 31 introduction of H.Res. 786 by
Representative Phil Gingrey, which would amend House rules to require that general
appropriations for military construction and veterans’ affairs be considered as stand-
alone measures.14
On September 25, 2007, Representative David R. Obey introduced H.J.Res. 52
(P.L. 110-92), a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for FY2008
through November 16, 2007. The House passed the measure on September 27, the
Senate did the same the following day.15 The resolution was enacted by presidential
signature on September 29. Division B of the FY2008 DOD Appropriations Act
(H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116, enacted November 13, 2007) continued government
funding through December 14, 2007. This cycle repeated during December.
Representative Obey introduced H.J.Res. 69, which continued P.L. 110-92 through
December 21. This measure passed both chambers, by the Yeas and Nays in the
House (385-27, Roll no. 1162, CR H15438-15440) and by Unanimous Consent in the
Senate on December 13 (CR S15432) . The President signed the bill the following
day (P.L. 110-137).
The appropriations bill was combined with others and added to the State Foreign
Operations and Related Activities Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764) on December 17,
2007, to form Division I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2008. H.R. 2764 was originally reported to the House by the Committee on
Appropriations on June 18 and passed on June 22, 2007. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations substituted its own language and reported the amended bill on July
20. Senate floor debate and further amendment of the bill took place on September
6, when the measure passed and conference was requested. The House agreed to the
Senate amendment, added the consolidated appropriations language, and renamed the
bill on December 17 (1st House Amendment, Roll no. 1171, CR H15725; 2nd House
Amendment, Roll no. 1172, CR H15715-15716;). The Senate concurred with the
House amendments on December 18 (Record Votes No. 439, CR S15861-15863, and
441, CR S15888). The House agreed to the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment on December 19, clearing the bill for the White
House. The President enacted the measure on December 26, 2007 (P.L. 110-161).16
Military construction appropriation authorization is effected in the annual
National Defense Authorization Act. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R.


14 H.R. 4104 was referred to the Committees on Appropriations and Budget, while H.Res.
786 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, where they remained throughout the
session. S. 2363 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders
(Calendar No. 511) on November 16, 2007.
15 The resolution passed in the House on the Yeas and Nays (404 - 14 (Roll no. 911, CR
H10918-10919) and in the Senate on a Yea-Nay Vote (94 - 1. Record Vote No. 355, CR
S12255-12258).
16 The House agreed by the Yeas and Nays (272 - 142, Roll No. 1186, CR H16901-16913).

1585, H.Rept. 110-146 and 110-146, Part II) on May 17, 2007.17 It was received in
the Senate on June 5. The Senate Committee on Armed Services introduced its bill
(S. 1547, S.Rept. 110-77) on June 5.18 The Senate took up H.R. 1585 on September
17, substituted its own language as an amendment, passing it on October 1 and
appointing conferees.19 The conferees filed their conference report (H.Rept. 110-477)
on December 6. The House agreed the report by the Yeas and Nays (370-49, Roll no.

1151, CR H15368) on December 12. The Senate did the same by Yea-Nay Vote (90-


3, Record Vote No. 433, CR S15598-15619) on December 14. The cleared bill was
presented to the President on December 19, who vetoed it on December 28.
The chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, Representative Ike
Skelton, introduced a new measure (H.R. 4986) on January 16, 2008, on which the
House voted to suspend the rules and pass the measure by the Yeas and Nays (369-
46, Roll no. 11, CR H76-257). The Senate received the bill on January 22, passing
it by Yea-Nay Vote (91-3, Record Vote No. 1, CR S54-57). The new bill was
presented to the President on January 24, 2008, and enacted on January 28 (P.L. 110-

181).


Title I: Department of Defense
Military Construction
Military construction accounts provide funds for new construction, construction
improvements, planning and design, and host nation support of active and reserve
military forces and 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 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


17 House passage was by the Yeas and Nays (397 - 27 Roll No. 373, CR H5353).
18 The Senate committee usually introduces several related defense authorization bills, a
general authorization and one each to authorized military activities, military construction,
and defense activities of the Department of Energy. S. 1549, the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, was introduced on June 5, 2007. An umbrella bill,
S. 1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008, includes military construction
as its Division B (Military Construction Authorizations) and was introduced the same day,
and it is this bill that will be tracked in this report.
19 Senate passage used a Yea-Nay Vote (92 - 3, Record Vote No. 359, CR 10/3/2007
S12562-12691). For details on the FY2008 defense authorization, see CRS Report RL33999,
Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations, by Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, and
Amy Belasco.

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 (military construction only).
Key Budget Issues
Several issues regarding military construction funding may be of interest to
some Members in their consideration of the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriation request.
Funding of the various accounts included under Title I (Department of Defense) is
listed in Table 6 of Appendix A to this report.
Base Realignment and Closure/Integrated Global Presence and
Basing Strategy (Global Defense Posture Realignment).
Cost of Implementation. In its appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2007,
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
(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.20
Between the submission of that request in February 2006 and submission of the
Fiscal Year 2008 BRAC funding request, 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 Fiscal Years 2008-2011. Figure 1 compares DOD BRAC 2005
new budget authority requirement estimates made for Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal
Year 2008.21


20 The DOD Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) has been renamed the
Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR).
21 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 budget-related terms such as “new budget authority,”
can be found in CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tysziewicz
and Stephen Daggett.

Figure 1. New Budget Authority Estimates, BRAC 2005
Implementa ti on


10,000
8,174 7,912
8,000
5,626 5,4736, 0 00
5,6965,626
4,000
1,502 2,071
2,9962, 0 00
1,489 1,563 484
0
20 06 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 09 20 10 20 11
Fiscal Year
FY2007 EstimateFY2008 Estimate
Sources: DOD Budget Justification Documents for FY2007 and FY2008
One response to the overall rise in estimated costs was the introduction of
twinned bills, H.R. 3254 and S. 1902, the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection (BRAC
COP) Act of 2007 in late July 2007.22 The proposed legislation is modeled on the
Nunn-McCurdy amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1982, which potentially terminates weapon acquisition programs whose costs
grow by more than 25%. These bills would require the Secretary of Defense to revise
the business plan for any approved recommendation in the 2005 round that requires23
major base closure or realignment for which costs have grown by 25% or more. The
Secretary would then submit a recommendation to the President on whether to
continue with implementation of the recommendation. Congress would be
empowered to disapprove the recommendation in a process similar to that specified
in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 for disapproving the
original recommendation list.
Increased funding to accelerate the replacement of the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center in the District of Columbia with a new Walter Reed National
Military Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, and a community hospital at Ft. Belvoir,
22 Both bills were referred to their respective Committees on Armed Services, where they
remain..
23 DOD requires the responsible military departments and agencies to write a business plan
for each approved BRAC Commission recommendation. These plans detail costs,
movements, and other necessary actions. The proposed legislation defines a “major base
closure or realignment” as one requiring $150 million or more in military construction and
overall one-time implementation costs of $300 million or more. For more information on
DOD BRAC business plans, see CRS Report RL33766, Military Base Closures and
Realignment: Status of the 2005 Implementation Plan, by Kristine E. Blackwell.

VA, is addressed in the section above on the FY2008 Emergency Supplemental
Request for the Global War on Terror.
Closing Ft. Monmouth, NJ. Two bills focused on the recommendation to
close Ft. Monmouth, NJ, an installation devoted primarily to Army communicationsth
and electronics research, have been introduced in the 110 Congress. These bills,
S. 1835 and H.R. 3097, would ban funding of the transfer of personnel and functions
from Ft. Monmouth until the Comptroller General completes an audit of a report on
the impact of those moves. The requirement for the Secretary of Defense to prepare
such a report, which is to ascertain whether the moves will adversely affect the
Global War on Terror, was included in the recommendation to close drafted by the
BRAC Commission and approved by the President, though no time limit was placed
on its submission. Both bills have been referred to the respective Committees on
Armed Services.
Force Redeployment to United States Territory. 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 2
displays DOD cost during the six-year BRAC implementation. This shows that
$756.9 million of the $8.2 billion (9.2%) of the FY2008 BRAC 2005 appropriation
request is devoted to the IGPBS/GDPR redeployment.24
Table 2. IGPBS/GDPR One-Time Implementation Costs
($ in millions)
BRAC 2005FY2006FY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011Total
Suba cco unt
Militar y 344.6 744.9 635.6 488.7 334.0 0 .0 2,547.8
Co nstr uc tio n
Environment 0 .8 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .8
Ops. &6.721.545.729.124.411.4138.7
Maint.
Other 0 .0 28.0 75.6 42.6 63.6 20.4 230.3
Budget 352.0 794.4 756.9 560.4 422.0 31.8 2 ,917.5
Re q ue s t
Source: DOD FY2008 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.
Continuing resolution. Section 139 of the September continuing resolution
(H.J.Res. 52) appropriated $5.6 billion to the BRAC 2005 account to support BRAC
implementation through November 16, 2007.


24 IGPBS/GDPR is wholly funded by the Department of the Army BRAC 2005 account. The
Army has requested $3.3 billion for its BRAC 2005 account, indicating that the
redeployment of overseas troops represents approximately 23% of Army BRAC
requirements in FY2008

“Growing the Force”. DOD has recommended increasing 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
over the next five years. This will require additional military construction to
accommodate, train, and house these personnel and their families.
DOD requested more than $3.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2007 emergency
supplemental and Fiscal Year 2008 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 Fiscal Years

2008-2010.25


In its report on the Military Construction/VA bill, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations noted that DOD has “yet to provide a comprehensive plan detailing
the scope and cost of the total military construction requirement associated with the
initiative, nor has it provided an explanation of the criteria on which stationing
decisions were based.” The Committee noted that P.L. 110-28 directed the Secretary
of Defense to provide Congress with a “Grow the Force” stationing plan and urged
him to do so without delay.26
Funding to accelerate the building of facilities to house, train, and operate two
new Army Brigade Combat Teams and one new Marine Corps Regimental Combat
Team is discussed in the above section on the FY2008 Emergency Supplemental
Request for the Global War on Terror.
Overseas Initiatives. 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. Funding is being requested for the
construction of “enduring” sites in the Central Command area of responsibility
(Afghanistan and Djibouti). The House Committee on Appropriations noted that the
establishment of a new Africa Command (AFRICOM) may create the need for future
military construction on that continent.
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.
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


25 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.
26 S.Rept. 110-85, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2008, June 18, 2007, p. 12.

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. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations expressed concern that the expansion of U.S. forces stationed in
the territory, redeployed from Okinawa and transferred from bases in the United
States, will require efficient use of the limited available land on the island.27
The Government Accountability Office addressed this issue in a report
completed in September 2007.28 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.29 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.30
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.


27 Ibid., p. 14.
28 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.
29 GAO stated that compensation received for the residual value of returned real property
could affect overseas construction funding requirements.
30 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.

Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY2001-FY2007
(budget authority in billions)
F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006 F Y 2007
VA$47.95$52.38 $58.10 $61.84$65.84$71.46 $79.55
Source: Amounts shown are from reports of the Appropriations Committees accompanying the
appropriations bills for the following years.
Agency Overview
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers directly, or in conjunction
with other federal agencies, programs that provide benefits and other services to
veterans and their spouses, dependents and beneficiaries. The VA has three primary
organizations to provide these benefits: the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). Benefits available to veterans include service-connected
disability compensation; a pension for low-income veterans who are elderly or have
a nonservice-connected disability; vocational rehabilitation for disabled veterans;
medical care; life insurance; home loan guarantees; burial benefits; and educational
and training benefits to transition active servicemembers to civilian life.
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2006-FY2008
(budget authority in billions)
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
ProgramFY2006 FY2007 FY2008 HouseSenateOmnibus
EnactedEnactedRequest(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
To tal 71.458 79.551 83.904 87.697 87.501 87.595
Mandatory
Compensation, pensions, burial33.89838.00741.23641.23641.23641.236
Readjustment benefits3.3093.2623.3003.3003.3003.300
I nsur a nce/ind e mnities 0 .0 4 6 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 1a
Housing programs (net, indefinite)-0.047-0.034-0.091-0.091-0.091-0.091
Subtotal: Mandatory 37.20641.28544.48744.48744.48744.487
Discretionary
Medical services21.32225.51827.16829.03129.10427.168
Emergency funding1.225
Emergency funding (P.L. 109-148)0.225
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28)0.401d
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.1.937
2764)
Medical administration2.8583.1783.4423.5113.5173.442
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28)0.250
Emergency funding (H.R. 2764)0.075
Medical facilities3.2983.5703.5924.1004.0923.592



FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
ProgramFY2006 FY2007 FY2008 HouseSenateOmnibus
EnactedEnactedRequest(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28) 0.595
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.508
2764)
Medical & prosthetic research0.4120.4140.4110.4800.5000.411
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28)0.033
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.069
2764)
Medical Care Collection Fundb
(offsetting receipts)-2.170-2.329-2.414-2.414-2.414-2.414
(appropriations - indefinite)2.1702.3292.4142.4142.4142.414
Subtotal: Medical programs &29.34134.02434.61337.12237.21337.201
administration (appropriations)
Total available to VHA31.51136.35337.02739.53639.62739.615
Contingent emergency funding2.589
(H.R. 2764)
General administration expensee1.4111.4811.4721.5991.6121.472
Emergency funding (P.L. 109-148)0.025
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28) 0.083
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.133
2764)
Information technology1.2141.2141.8591.8591.8981.859
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28)0.035
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.107
2764)
National Cemetery Administration0.1560.1610.1670.1700.2180.167 c
Emergency funding (P.L. 109-148)
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.028
2764)
Inspector General0.0700.0710.0730.0770.0890.073
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.008
2764)
Co nstructio n 0 .806 0.598 0.961 2.026 1.479 0.961d
Emergency funding total0.9550.392
Emergency funding (P.L. 109-148)0.369
Emergency funding (P.L. 109-234)0.586
Emergency funding (P.L. 110-28)0.0000.392d
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.739
2764)
Grants for state extended care facilities0.0850.0850.0850.1650.2500.085
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.080
2764)
Grants for state veterans cemeteries0.0320.0320.0320.0370.1000.032
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.0.008
2764)
Housing & other loan program0.1550.1550.1560.1560.1560.156
ad ministr a tio n
Disaster compensation (P.L. 106-148)0.003
Subtotal: Other Discretionary4.9124.2414.8046.0885.8015.907
Contingent emergency funding (H.R.1.103
2764)
Subtotal: Discretionary34.25238.26539.41743.21043.01443.108



FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
ProgramFY2006 FY2007 FY2008 HouseSenateOmnibus
EnactedEnactedRequest(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
Contingent emergency funding3.691
(H.R. 2764)
Source: 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. Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) receipts are restored to the VHA as an indefinite budget authority equal to
the revenue collected.
c. $200,000.
d. Reflects a transfer in the FY2008 omnibus of $66 million from medical services to major construction in FY2007
emergency funding under P.L. 110-28.
e. 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.
Key Budget Issues
The FY2008 budget submitted by the Administration in February 2007 called
for funding VA at a level of $83.9 billion for FY2008 (see Table 4). This would be
an increase of $4.4 billion, or 5.5%, over the FY2007 appropriation (including the
supplemental).
One of the key issues for VA non-medical benefits has been the size of the
disability claims workload and the average time (177 days in FY2006)31 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. In addition, the conference report for the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2008 (H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116)
directed the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to report
to Congress by January 15, 2008 on plans to update the Disability Evaluation
System.32


31 Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2008 Budget Submission, Summary - Volume 4, pg.

1-22.


32 The Disability Evaluation System is one component of the process used by the
Department of Defense to determine if a servicemember is unfit for duty due to injuries or
illness. For more information on the transition process for injured servicemembers, see CRS
Report RL33991, Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers, by Christine Scott,
Sidath Viranga Panangala, Sara A. Lister, and Charles A. Henning.

Both the House-passed appropriation bill, H.R. 2642, and the Senate Committee
appropriation bill would have provided:
!additional funds for claims processing by including full-year funding
for the personnel hired with P.L. 110-28 funding, and providing
funding for the additional claims processing personnel proposed in
the FY2008 budget request; and
!funds for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for certain VA
benefits including compensation benefits — i.e., disability
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation (the
COLA is equal to the COLA applied to Social Security benefits).
The FY2008 Omnibus (H.R. 2764) provides $124.2 million for the hiring of
additional claims processors and $2.0 million for leasing office space for the new
hires. Additional funds are 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.
The House-passed appropriation bill, H.R. 2642, included an increase of $1.01
billion above the FY2007 appropriation for major construction, with no specific
projects designated at this time. The Senate Committee appropriation bill, S. 1645,
provided an increase of $328.4 million for major construction. The FY2008
Omnibus provides an increase of $604.1 million for major construction (after a
transfer among accounts of $66.0 million in emergency funding provided for
FY2007), with $341.7 million of the total as contingent funding.
The House-passed appropriation bill, H.R. 2642, included an increase (above
the FY2007 enacted level with the additional funding provided by P.L. 110-28) of
$0.9 million in minor construction, with the requirement that the VA submit an
expenditure plan for the total funding for minor construction ($615.0 million) within
30 days of enactment. The Senate Committee appropriation bill, S. 1645, provided
an increase (above the FY2007 enacted level with the additional funding provided
by P.L. 110-28) of $226.5 million for minor construction, including funding for
deficiencies identified in the VA’s rolling facilities condition assessments and to
begin modernizing research facilities. The FY2008 Omnibus provides a total of
$630.5 million for minor construction, an increase of $105.6 million from the
FY2007 level, with $397.1 million of the total as contingent funding.
The House passed appropriation bill, H.R. 2642, provided an increase of $80.0
million in grants for construction of state extended care facilities, while the Senate
Committee appropriation bill, S. 1645, provided an increase of $165.0 million. The
FY2008 Omnibus provides an increase of $80.0 million in grants for construction of
state extended care facilities, with all of the increase ($80.0 million) as contingent
funding..



Medical Care33
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 FY2007, VHA operated 155
medical centers, 135 nursing homes,34 717 ambulatory care and community-based
outpatient clinics (CBOCs),35 and 209 Readjustment Counseling Centers (Vet
Centers).36 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).37 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 FY2008 is $34.6
billion, a 1.7% increase in funding compared to the FY2007 enacted amount. The
total amount of funding that would be available for VHA under the President’s
budget proposal for FY2008, including third-party collections, is approximately
$37.0 billion. For FY2008, the Administration is requesting $27.2 billion for
medical services, a $1.2 billion, or 4.6%, increase in funding over the FY2007
enacted amount. The Administration’s budget proposal is also requesting $3.4
billion for medical administration, $3.6 billion for medical facilities, and $411
million for medical and prosthetic research.
As in FY2003, FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007, the Administration
has included several cost sharing proposals. The first proposal is the tiered annual


33 For detailed information on the veterans’ medical care budget, see CRS Report RL34063,
Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2008 Appropriations, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.
34 Data on the number of hospitals and nursing homes includes facilities damaged by
Hurricane Katrina. The data are current as of December 1, 2006.
35 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. VA plans to activate 38 new CBOCs
in FY2007 and FY2008.
36 On February 7, 2007, the Department announced that it will be establishing 23 new
centers in communities across the nation during 2007 and 2008. New Vet Centers will be
located in Montgomery, Alabama; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Modesto, California; Grand
Junction, Colorado; Orlando, Fort Myers, and Gainesville, Florida; Macon, Georgia;
Manhattan, Kansas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Cape Cod, Massachusetts; Saginaw and Iron
Mountain, Michigan; Berlin, New Hampshire; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Binghamton,
Middletown, Nassau County and Watertown, New York; Toledo, Ohio; Du Bois,
Pennsylvania; Killeen, Texas; and Everett, Washington. During 2007, VA plans to open
facilities in Grand Junction, Orlando, Cape Cod, Iron Mountain, Berlin and Watertown. The
other new Vet Centers are scheduled to open in 2008.
37 For further information on CHAMPVA, see CRS Report RS22483, Health Care for
Dependents and Survivors of Veterans, by Jacqueline Rae Roche and Sidath Viranga
Panangala.

enrollment fee for all enrolled Priority Group 7 and Priority Group 8 veterans, which
is 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 increase government revenue by $138 million beginning in
FY2009, and by $526 million over five years.
The Administration is proposing to increase 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.38 The Administration put forward this proposal in its FY2004,
FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007 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 estimates
that this proposal would increase government revenue by $311 million beginning in
FY2008, and by $1.6 billion over five years.
Lastly, the Administration is proposing 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 proposes eliminating this practice. According to the VA, this
proposal would increase government revenue by $44 million beginning in FY2008,
and by $217 million over five years.
It should be noted that compared to previous budget proposals, the FY2008
budget proposals if implemented would deposit 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.39 The President’s budget request amount for medical services
does not reflect these legislative proposals.
On June 15, 2007, the House passed its version of the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for FY2008 (H.R. 2642, H.Rept. 110-186).
H.R. 2642 provides $37.1 billion for the VHA for FY2008. This amount includes
$29.0 billion for medical services, $1.9 billion (6.9%) above the President’s request


38 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%.
39 VA deposits 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 service-connected veterans for nonservice-connected
conditions into MCCF. These collected funds do not have to be spent in any particular
fiscal year and are available until expended.

and $3.0 billion (11.7%) over the FY2007 enacted amount of $26.0 billion. H.R.
2642 also includes $3.5 billion for medical administration, $69 million above the
Administration’s request of $3.4 billion; $4.1 billion for medical facilities, a 14%
increase over the President’s request; and $480 million for medical and prosthetic
research, a 17% increase over the President’s request of $411 million. The House-
passed version of H.R. 2642 did not include any bill language authorizing fee
increases as requested by the Administration’s budget proposal for VHA for FY2008.
Of the amount recommended for the medical services account, H.R. 2642
includes bill language stipulating $2.9 billion for speciality mental health care, $130
million for the homeless veterans grant and per diem program, $429 million for the
substance abuse program, and $100 million for the blind rehabilitation services.
On June 14, 2007, the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved its
version of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for
FY2008 (S. 1645, S. Rept.110-85). S. 1645, as reported, provides a total of $37.0
billion for VHA. This amount includes $29.0 billion for medical services, a $3
billion (11.5%) increase over the FY2007 enacted amount, and $1.8 billion over the
FY2008 budget request; and $3.6 billion for medical administration, $200 million
above the FY2008 Administration’s request. Furthermore, S. 1645, as reported,
provides $4.1 billion for medical facilities, a 14.0% increase over the FY2008
request, and 1.7% less than the FY2007 enacted amount; and $500 million for
medical and prosthetic research. The Committee did not recommend any fee
increases as requested by the Administration’s budget proposal for VHA for FY2008.
As stated previously, no funding for the VA was included in the final version
of H.R. 3043. If enacted, H.R. 3043 would have provided $37.2 billion for VHA for
FY2008, this is, $2.6 billion above the Administration’s request for FY2008. This
amount includes $29.1 billion for medical services, which is almost $2 billion above
the President’s request. The amount appropriated for medical services includes an
additional $125 million to increase the beneficiary travel reimbursement mileage rate
to 28.5 cents per mile; an additional $70 million for substance abuse services; an
additional $12.5 million for expanded outpatient services for the blind; and an
additional $15 million for Vet Centers. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 110-424)
also stipulates that of the total amount appropriated for medical services, not less
than $2.9 billion shall be expended for specialty mental health care, and not less than
$130 million shall be expended for the homeless grants and per diem program.
Title III: Related Agencies
American Battle Monuments Commission
The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) is responsible for the
maintenance and construction of U.S. monuments and memorials commemorating
the achievements in battle of U.S. armed forces since the nation’s entry into World
War I; the erection of monuments and markers by U.S. citizens and organizations in
foreign countries; and the design, construction, and maintenance of permanent
cemeteries and memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24



cemeteries and 25 monuments, memorials, and markers in 15 countries, including
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 has undertaken the 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.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by the
Veterans’ Administration Adjudication Procedure and Judicial Review Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-687). The Court is an independent judicial tribunal with exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. It has the
authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret constitutional, statutory,
and regulatory provisions; and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms
of an action by the VA. It is authorized to compel action by the VA. It is authorized
to hold unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful and set aside decisions, findings,
conclusions, rules and regulations issued or adopted by the VA or the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals.
The Court currently occupies leased facilities near Judiciary Square in the
District of Columbia and is searching for a permanent location. The Court’s major
operational initiative is its transition to an electronic case filing system, which is also
funded through this appropriation.
Department of Defense - Civil (Army Cemeterial Expenses)
The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the administration, operation and
maintenance of Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home
National Cemetery. In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery,
Arlington is the site of approximately 3,100 non-funeral ceremonies each year and
has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually.
Both the House-passed appropriation bill, H.R. 2642, and the Senate Committee
appropriation bill, S. 1645, included additional funds in FY2008 for realignment of
government-issued headstones and the construction of a heavy equipment storage
facility. The Senate Committee appropriation bill, S. 1645, also included additional
funds for costs not included in the budget request related to the relocation of utilities
at Arlington Cemetery. The FY2008 Omnibus includes funds above the budget
request for ate Committee appropriation bill, S. 1645, 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.



Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)
The Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund provides funds to operate and
maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC (also known as the
United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home), and the Armed Forces Retirement
Home in Gulfport, Mississippi (originally located in Philadelphia, PA, and known
as the United States Naval Home). These two facilities provide long-term housing
and medical care for approximately 1,600 needy veterans. The Gulfport campus,
encompassing a 19-story living accommodation and medical facility tower, was
severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August, 2005, and is not
currently in use. Residents of the facility were transferred to the Washington, DC,
location immediately after the storm. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was
signed between the AFRH and the General Services Administration (GSA) for the
rebuilding of the Gulfport facility, with a targeted completion date in 2010.
The appropriation for the AFRH facilities is from the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Trust Fund. The trust fund is maintained through gifts, bequests, and a $0.50
per month assessment on the pay of active duty enlisted military personnel and
warrant officers.
The FY2008 budget request includes a $5.1 million federal fund contribution
to the trust fund, and $800,000 for a study of the long-term viability of the trust fund.
The House-passed appropriation bill, H.R. 2642, did not include the federal
contribution, but did include $800,000 for the study. The Senate Committee
appropriation bill, S. 1645, provided the general fund transfer of $5.1 million to the
trust, and $800,000 in general funds for the study. The FY2008 Omnibus provides
$800,000 in general funds for the study of the long-term viability of the trust fund.
Table 5. Appropriations: Related Agencies, FY2006-FY2008
(budget authority in thousands)
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
AccountFY2006enactedFY2007enactedFY2008requestHouseSenate Omnibus
(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and$35,888$37,000 $42,100 $43,470$45,600 $44,600
expenses
Foreign currency 15,098 5,000 11,000 11,00011,00011,000
fluc tuatio ns
Total50,98642,00053,10054,47056,600 55,600
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and 18,607 20,189 21,217 21,39724,217 22,717
expenses
Department of Defense-Civil
Army cemeterial28,76030,00026,89230,59231,865 31,230
expenses
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Operations and 56,463 55,991 55,724 55,72455,724 55,724
ma intena nc e
Capital program 1,236 1,236————



FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
AccountFY2006enactedFY2007enactedFY2008requestHouseSenate Omnibus
(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
5,900 800 5,900 800
65,800 —————
Total299,49957,22761,62456,52461,624 56,524
Total, related$397,852$149,146$162,833$162,983$174,306 $166,071
agencies
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on reports of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, various fiscal years.



Appendix A. Consolidated Non-VA Funding Tables
Table 6. DOD Military Construction
(budget authority in $000)
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
AccountFY2006EnactedFY2007EnactedFY2008RequestHouseSenate Omnibus
(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
Military Construction,1,757,5072,017,3214,039,1974,070,9593,928,149 3,936,583
Army
Rescissions(19,746)(43,348)(8,690)
E me r ge nc y
Appropriations 1,255,890
(P.L. 110-28)
E me r ge nc y
Appropriations
(P.L. 110-28, By(6,250)
transfer, Army Sec.
3309)
Supplemental 187,100
Appropriatio n
Transfer 12,757
Total1,937,6183,229,8634,039,1974,070,9593,928,149 3,927,893
Military Construction,1,145,5701,130,8212,104,2762,125,1382,168,315 2,198,394
Navy and Marine Corps
Rescissions (50,037) (27,500)(5,862)(10,557)
E me r ge nc y
Appropriations 370,990
(P.L. 110-28)
Supplemental 335,989
Appropriation
Total1,431,5221,474,3112,104,2762,119,2762,168,315 2,187,837
Military Construction,1,275,6451,083,000912,109927,4281,048,518 1,159,747
Air Force
Rescissions (75,600) (2,694)(5,319)(10,470)
E me r ge nc y
Appropriations 43,300
(P.L. 110-28)
Supplemental 177,612
Appropriations
Transfer 6,434
Total1,384,091 1,123,606912,109922,1091,048,518 1,149,227
Military Construction, 998,766 1,127,0001,799,3361,806,9281,758,755 1,609,596
Defense-wide
Rescissions (20,000)(110,229)(7,592)(10,192)
Supplemental 65,600



FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
AccountFY2006EnactedFY2007EnactedFY2008RequestHouseSenate Omnibus
(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
Appropriatio ns
Transfer(6,434) —
Total1,037,932 1,016,7711,799,3361,799,3361,758,755 1,599,404
Total, Active components5,791,1636,844,5518,854,9188,911,6808,903,737 8,864,411
Military Construction, 517,919 473,000404,291439,291478,836 536,656
Army National Guard
Rescissions (120,000) (2,129)
Supplemental 704,371
Appropriation
Total1,102,290470,871404,291439,291478,836 536,656
Military Construction, 312,956 128,00085,51795,517228,995 287,537
Air National Guard
Rescission (13,700)
Supplemental 40,800
Appropriatio n
Total 340,056128,00085,51795,517228,995287,537
Military Construction, 151,043166,000119,684 154,684138,424 148,133
Army Reserve
Military Construction, 46,39543,00059,150 69,15059,150 64,430
Naval Reserve
Rescission (66,090)
Supplemental 144,402
Appropriatio n
Total 124,707 43,00059,15069,15059,15064,430
Military Construction, 104,824 45,00026,559 39,62827,559 28,359
Air Force Reserve
Rescissions (13,815) (3,069)(3,100) (3,069)
Total 91,009 45,00026,55936,559929,864 25,290
Total, Reserve1,809,105850,871695,201795,201929,864 1,062,046
com ponents
Total, Military7,600,2687,695,4229,550,1199,706,8819,833,601 9,962,657
Co nst r uct io n
NATO Security 204,789
Investment Program
Rescission (30,000)
Total, NSIP 174,789204,789201,400201,400201,400 201,400
Ford Island100———
Improvement Account
Family Housing 544,140 579,000419,400 419,400419,400 424,400
Construction, Army
Rescissions (16,000) (4,559)



FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
AccountFY2006EnactedFY2007EnactedFY2008RequestHouseSenate Omnibus
(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
Transfer(104,456) —
Total 423,684579,000419,400 419,400419,400419,841
Family Housing Ops and 795,953 671,311742,920 742,920742,920 731,920
Debt, Army
Transfer 20,618
Total 816,571671,311742,920742,920742,920731,920
Family Housing
Construction, Navy and 216,753 305,000298,329 298,329288,329 293,129
Marine Corps
Supplemental 48,889
Appropriation
Total 191,714305,000298,329298,329288,329293,129
Family Housing Ops and
Debt, Navy and Marine 582,773505,472371,404 371,404371,404 371,404
Co r p s
Supplemental 48,889
Appropriation
Total 631,662505,472371,404371,404371,404371,404
Family Housing
Construction, 1,090,8681,168,000362,747 362,747362,747 327,747
Air Force
Rescissions (43,900)(18,000)(15,000)
Supplemental 278,000
Appropriation
Transfer (36,819)
Total1,288,1491,150,000362,747362,747362,747 312,747
Family Housing Ops and 759,270 750,000688,335 688,335688,335 688,335
Debt, Air Force
Supplemental 47,019
Appropriatio n
Transfer (8,000)
Total 798,289750,000688,335688,355688,355688,355
Family Housing
Construction, Defense-9,000
wi d e
Family Housing Ops and 45,92749,00048,848 48,84848,848 48,848
Debt, Defense-wide
DOD Family Housing2,4762,475500500500 500
Improvement Fund
Permanent Indef58 —
Appropriatio n
Transfer227,104 —



FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
AccountFY2006EnactedFY2007EnactedFY2008RequestHouseSenate Omnibus
(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2642)(H.R. 2764)
Total 229,6372,475500500500500
Total, Family Housing4,425,6334,021,2582,932,4832,932,4832,922,483 2,866,724
Chemica l
Demilitarization131,00086,176 86,176104,176 104,176
Construction, Defense-
wide
Base Realignment and Closure
BRAC, 1990252,279252,279220,689 270,689320,689 295,689
BRAC, 20051,489,4562,489,4218,174,315 8,174,3508,174,315 7,235,591
E me r ge nc y
Appropriations 3,136,802
(P.L. 110-28)
T r ansfer 13,038
Total1,502,494 5,878,5028,395,0048,445,0048,495,004 7,531,280
Grand Total, MilCon &13,955,56317,930,97121,165,18221,371,94421,556,664 20,630,037
FH
Notes: Adjusted for House floor amendments prior to passage. Does not include FY2008 GWOT Supplemental.



Appendix B. Additional Resources
Budget
CRS Report RL30002, A Defense Budget Primer, by Mary T. Tyszkiewicz and
Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report 98-720, Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by Robert Keith and
Allen Schick.
Selected Websites
House Committee on Appropriations
[ http://appropriations.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.senat e.gov/]
House Committee on Armed Services
[ http://www.house.gov/hasc/]
Senate Committee on Armed Services
[http://armed-services.senat e.gov/]
House Committee on Veterans Affairs
[ h ttp://veterans.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
[http://vet erans.senate.gov/]
Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States
(Overseas Basing Commission)
[ http://www.obc.gov/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
CRS Multimedia Library
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/multimedialibrary.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/]