Military Quality of Life/VA (House) and Military Construction/VA (Senate): FY2006 Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Military Quality of Life/VA (House) and Military
Construction/VA (Senate): FY2006 Appropriations
Updated January 10, 2006
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Paul J. Graney
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

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 Quality of Life/VA (House) and Military
Construction/VA (Senate) Appropriations
Summary
The structure of the Committees on Appropriations underwent significant
change with the beginning of the 109^th Congress. As a result, jurisdictions over the
appropriations covered in this report, including military construction, military
housing allowances, military installation maintenance and operation, the Department
of Veterans Affairs, and other veteran-related agencies, rest in the House Committee
on Appropriations with the new Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and
Veterans Affairs. In the Senate Committee on Appropriations, jurisdiction for
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other veteran-related
agencies lies with the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
while military housing allowances and military installation maintenance and
operation are the responsibility of the Subcommittee on Defense. Authorization
jurisdictions lie with the two Committees on the Armed Services and Committees on
Veterans Affairs.
Key issues in congressional action to date include:
^!Military Construction: The changing structure of the Army, the
redeployment of troops from overseas garrisons to domestic bases,
and the current BRAC round have drawn committee attention during
the appropriation process. The report of the Commission on Review
of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States (the
Overseas Basing Commission), created by Congress, concluded that
the Department of Defense (DOD) plan for withdrawing forces from
long-standing garrisons in Europe and Asia is moving too fast and
that DOD has not engaged in substantive consultation with other
agencies whose operations would be affected by the changes. The
funding of the construction of military infrastructure in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi
Freedom (Iraq), whether continuing through emergency
supplemental appropriations or transitioning to the normal annual
appropriation cycle, has also been discussed in hearings.
^!Veteran Benefits: Entitlement spending is rising as the number of
beneficiaries is increasing, education benefits are being augmented,
and annual cost of living adjustments are being granted. Benefits
such as disability compensation, pensions, and education are
mandatory payments and constitute more than half ($36.6 billion) of
the VA appropriation of approximately $70 billion.
^!Veteran Medical Care: The Administration has again requested
legislative changes to increase certain co-payments and other cost-
sharing fees for veterans in lower priority categories. After VA
announced a shortfall of more than $1 billion from its FY2005
enacted appropriations for veterans health programs, $1.5 billion in
supplemental appropriations was added by P.L. 109-54.

Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Area ofNameTelephoneE-Mail
Expertise
AcquisitionDavid Lockwood7-7621dlockwood@crs.loc.gov
Base ClosureDaniel Else7-4996delse@crs.loc.gov
David Lockwood7-7621dlockwood@crs.loc.gov
Defense BudgetStephen Daggett7-7642sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Amy Belasco7-7627abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Health Care;Richard Best7-7607rbest@crs.loc.gov
Military
MilitaryDaniel Else7-4996delse@crs.loc.gov
Construction
MilitaryCharles Henning7-8866chenning@crs.loc.gov
PersonnelDavid Burrelli7-8033dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
MilitaryLawrence Kapp7-7609lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Personnel;
Reserves
Related AgenciesDaniel Else7-4966delse@crs.loc.gov
Veterans AffairsPaul Graney7-2290pgraney@crs.loc.gov
Veterans Affairs;Sidath Panangala7-0623spanangala@crs.loc.gov

Healthcare

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations (H.R. 2528)..............................1
Defense Authorization (H.R. 1815)............................1
Defense Appropriation (H.R. 2863)............................1
Status of Legislation................................................2
Summary and Key Issues............................................3
Realignment of Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdictions............3
House ...................................................3
Senate ...................................................3
Subsequent Agreement.....................................4
Title I: Department of Defense.......................................4
Military Construction...........................................4
Army Modularity..........................................4
Military Base Realignments and Closures.......................5
Overseas Military Bases....................................10
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom...........11
Other Defense Issues..........................................12
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Military Housing
Privatization .........................................12
Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita........................13
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs...............................13
Agency Mission..............................................14
Key Budget Issues............................................16
VA Cash Benefits........................................16
Medical Care............................................17
Title III: Related Agencies..........................................19
Independent Commissions......................................19
American Battle Monuments Commission.....................19
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.....................19
Cemeterial Expenses, Army.................................20
Armed Forces Retirement Home.............................20
Appendix A. Consolidated Funding Tables............................21
Appendix B. Additional Resources...................................31
Budget .....................................................31
Military Construction..........................................31
Veterans Affairs..............................................31
Hurricane Relief..............................................31
Selected Websites............................................32

List of Tables
Table 1a. Status of FY2006 Military Quality of Life/Veterans Affairs (House)
and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs (Senate)
Appropriations (H.R. 2528)......................................2
Table 1b. Status of FY2006 Defense Authorization(H.R. 1815, S. 1042).......2
Table 1c. Status of FY2006 Defense Appropriations(H.R. 2683).............2
Table 2. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY2001-FY2005 .............................................13
Table 3. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................14
Table 4a. DOD Military Construction.................................21
Table 4b. DOD Basic Allowance for Housing...........................24
Table 4c. DOD Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization........25
Table 4d. DOD Environmental Remediation............................25
Table 4e. DOD Health Program......................................26
Table 4f. DOD Totals.............................................26
Table 5a. VA Benefits.............................................27
Table 5b. VA Health Administration..................................28
Table 5c. VA Departmental Administration............................29
Table 5d. VA Totals...............................................29
Table 6. Related Agencies..........................................30
Table 7. Grand Total..............................................30

Military Quality of Life/VA (House) and
Military Construction/VA (Senate)
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations (H.R.
2528). The House Committee on Appropriations reported its Military Quality of
Life and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (H.R. 2528) on May 23, 2005 (H.Rept.
109-95). The House undertook consideration of the bill on May 26 and passed it the
same day. H.R. 2528 was received in the Senate on May 26, read twice and referred
to the Committee on Appropriations. On July 21, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported its amended version of the bill.¹ The Senate took up the
measure on September 22, 2005, passing it the same day with an amendment and an
amendment to the title. The House disagreed to the amendment on November 3 and
appointed conferees. The conferees filed a conference report (H.Rept. 109-305) on
November 17. Both House and Senate agreed to the conference report on November

18. The bill was signed by the President on November 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-114).

Defense Authorization (H.R. 1815). The House Committee on Armed
Services reported its version of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1815) on May
20 (H.Rept. 109-89). The House passed the bill on May 25. It was received in the
Senate, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June
6. The Committee discharged the bill on November 15. The Senate substituted the
language of S. 1042 and passed the amended bill by Unanimous Consent. The House
instructed its conferees on December 15. On December 16, the conferees agreed to
file their report (H.Rept. 109-360). The report was filed late on December 18 and was
taken up and passed by the House early the next morning. The Senate took up the
report on December 19, 2005. The bill was cleared for the White House on December

21 and was enacted by the President on January 3, 2006 (P.L. 109-163).

Defense Appropriation (H.R. 2863). The House Committee on
Appropriations reported an original measure on June 10, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-119).
The House undertook consideration of the bill on June 20 and passed it the same day.
The Senate received the bill on June 21, referred it to the Committee on
Appropriations, and reported it with an amendment in the nature of a substitute

¹ The House version of the appropriation bill included military construction, military
housing allowances, military installation maintenance and operation, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and other veteran-related agencies, while the Senate amendment did not
address military housing allowances or military installation maintenance and operation. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations made an amendment in the form of a substitute.

without written report on June 28, 2005. The measure was laid before the Senate on
September 29, at which time the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, Senator
Ted Stevens (AK) filed a written report (S.Rept. 109-141). The Senate passed an
amended version of the bill on October 7, 2005, and insisted on a conference. On
December 14, the House agreed to the conference. The conference filed its report
(H.Rept. 109-359) with the House early on December 19, where it was passed within
an hour. The Senate received the report the same day. The Senate introduced and
passed a concurrent resolution (S.Con.Res. 74) that would correct the bill’s
enrollment by striking Division C, which in part removed restrictions on drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). A unanimous-consent agreement
stipulated that Senate agreement to the conference report would be vitiated should
the House not agree to S.Con.Res. 74. The Senate then agreed to the conference
report by unanimous vote on December 21, 2005, clearing the bill for the White
House, and a message on Senate action was sent to the House on December 22. The
bill was enacted as P.L. 109-148 on December 30, 2005.
Status of Legislation
Table 1a. Status of FY2006 Military Quality of Life/Veterans
Affairs (House) and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs
(Senate) Appropriations (H.R. 2528)
Committee MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Conference ReportApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t Law
House Senate H ouse Senate
5/25/05 7/21/05 H.Rept.109-95 5/26/05 S.Rept.109-105 9/22/05 109-305 11/18/ 05 11/18/05 109-114
Table 1b. Status of FY2006 Defense Authorization
(H.R. 1815, S. 1042)
Committee MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Conference ReportApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawHouse Senate H ouse Senate
5/18/055/12/05H.Rept.109-895/25/05S.Rept.109-6911/15/05H.Rept.109-36012/19/0512/21/05 109-163
Table 1c. Status of FY2006 Defense Appropriations
(H.R. 2683)
Committee MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Conference ReportApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t Law
H ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e

6/10/05 9/28/05 H.Rept.109-119 6/20/05 S.Rept.109-141 10/7/05 H.Rept.109-359 12/19/05 12/19/05 109-148

Summary and Key Issues
Realignment of Appropriations Subcommittee Jurisdictions
House. During the last week of January 2005, Representative Jerry Lewis,
chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, proposed a significant
reorganization of the Committee’s subcommittee structure and realignment of
subcommittee jurisdictions. In the resulting redistribution of subcommittee
responsibilities, the Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development (VA-HUD) and Military Construction were eliminated and some of
their responsibilities were assigned to a new Subcommittee on Military Quality of
Life and Veterans Affairs under the chairmanship of Representative James T. Walsh.
The new subcommittee was given jurisdiction for appropriations to the
following accounts:
^!Department of Defense: Military Construction, Army, Navy
(including Marine Corps), Air Force, Defense-wide, and Guard and
Reserve Forces, Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization, Army, Navy (including Marine Corps), Air Force,
and Guard and Reserve Forces, Chemical Demilitarization
Construction, Defense-wide Military Family Housing Construction
and Operation and Maintenance, Army, Navy (including Marine
Corps), Air Force, and Defense-wide Family Housing Improvement
Fund, Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund,
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Basic Allowance for Housing, Army,
Navy (including Marine Corps), Air Force, and Guard and Reserve
Forces, Environmental Restoration Accounts, Base Realignment and
Closure Account, NATO Security Investment Program, Defense
Health Program Account.
^!Department of Veterans Affairs
^!Related Agencies: American Battle Monuments Commission, Armed
Forces Retirement Home, Cemeterial Expenses, Army (DOD), Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Senate. The Senate Committee on Appropriations undertook its own
reorganization under the chairmanship of Senator Thad Cochran. In the ensuing
reassignment of responsibilities, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development was dissolved. The Subcommittee on Military
Construction retained its responsibility for military construction appropriations and
absorbed additional appropriation obligations for Veterans Affairs, the American
Battle Monuments Commission, Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Arlington National
Cemetery), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Selective Service
Commission. Other appropriation accounts did not transfer.

The reconstituted subcommittee continued under the chairmanship of Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchinson and was renamed the Subcommittee on Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs.
Subsequent Agreement. House and Senate appropriators disagreed over
whether to include several of the accounts governed by differing jurisdictions
between the chambers (i.e., Defense Health Program, Basic Allowance for Housing).
During the weeks before conferencing, these differences were resolved when the
House agreed to follow Senate preferences and place the disputed accounts in the
Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) with the understanding that consideration²
will alternate annually between House- and Senate-preferred structures.
Title I: Department of Defense
Military Construction
Army Modularity. All of the military operating forces are undergoing
significant structural reorganization as part of the Department of Defense
transformation effort. The Army may be undertaking the most profound of these
initiatives as Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker guides its transition from an³
organization based on the division to one based on the smaller, lighter brigade. The
Army has traditionally placed divisions in garrison as a unit.
One of the implications of breaking up the division into a number of smaller
brigades could be to increase the number of installations that could be candidates as
new garrisons. On July 27, the Department of Defense announced locations that will⁴
host 44 of the Army’s new “Modular Brigade Combat Teams” (MBCT).
The Senate Appropriations Committee noted in its report (S.Rept. 109-105) that
the Army’s change in organization is intertwined with two other initiatives, Military
Base Realignment and Closure, and the redeployment of 60,000 - 70,000 troops from
overseas garrisons to posts in the United States and its territories over the next
decade. The Committee drew the attention of the Army to its expectations that the
service would be requesting funding adequate to enable all three to be carried out
simultaneously.

² See Tim Starks, “Bill Targets Veterans’ Funding Shortfall,” CQ Weekly (November 18,

2005), p. 3136.

³ The division usually consists of three or four brigades.
⁴ Unattributed, “Army Unveils Active Component Brigade Combat Team Stationing,” U.S.
Department of Defense Press Release, July 27, 2005. These consist of 37 regular MBCTs,
6 so-called “Stryker” MBCTs (organized around the Stryker Light Armored Vehicle III), and
one MBCT (-) (a light formation stationed at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin,
California).

Military Base Realignments and Closures.⁵ The 2005 round of Base
Realignment and Closures (BRAC), authorized by Congress in December 2001 as
Title XXX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, came to
full maturity during 2005 with the appointment of the nine-member BRAC
Commission (officially known as the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission of 2005) in early April, the creation of its supporting staff in early May,
the release of the Department of Defense List of Recommended BRAC Actions to
the Commission on May 13, and the initiation of a series of Commission hearings in
Washington and around the country.
The Commission presented its own list of recommended BRAC actions to the
President on September 8, 2005. The President approved these recommendations and
so notified Congress on September 15, 2005.
Under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 USC 2687
note), as amended, Congress had a maximum of 45 days from receipt of the
President’s list to pass a joint resolution disapproving the list. Two such resolutions
were introduced on September 20, 2005, H.J.Res. 64 by Representative Harold E.
Ford, Jr., of Tennessee, and H.J.Res. 65 by Representative Ray LaHood, of Illinois.
H.J.Res. 65 came to the floor on October 27 and failed on a recorded vote of 85-324⁶
(Roll no. 548).
The 2005 round marked the fifth time that a commission took part in
determining which military installations are to be closed or significantly reduced in
scope. The first, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, was chartered by,
and reported its recommendations to, the Secretary of Defense. All subsequent
commissions were created by Congress in the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, as amended. Three subsequent rounds (in 1991, 1993, and
1995) were authorized by Congress in the original legislation. The 2005 round was
authorized in an amendment to the original law.

⁵ CRS products that discuss the BRAC process in greater detail include CRS Report
RL32216, Military Base Closures, Implementing the 2005 Round by David E. Lockwood,
CRS Report RS22291, Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission
Report and Proposed Legislation by Daniel Else and David E. Lockwood, and CRS Report
RL33092, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Property Transfer and Disposal by
Aaron Flynn. These and other BRAC-related products, including online video and
videotapes of CRS seminars are most easily found through the CRS web page under Current
Legislative Issues: Defense and then Military Base Closures or through the Multimedia
Library in the web page’s left-hand sidebar.
⁶ On September 29, 2005, the House adopted rule H.Res. 469, providing for consideration
of H.J.Res. 68, making continuing appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2006. Section 3 of the
rule barred rank and file House Members from making the motion to proceed to the
consideration of a joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the BRAC. H.Res.
469 stated, “A motion to proceed pursuant to section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 shall be in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his
designee.” For more information on legislative procedure pertaining to the recommendations
of the BRAC Commission, see CRS Report RS22144, “Fast Track” Congressional
Consideration of Recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Commission, by Christopher M. Davis.

Several BRAC-related issues arose during the formulation and consideration of
the list of recommendations, as indicated below.
Recommendations Regarding the National Guard. The list of
recommended BRAC actions released by the Department of Defense on May 13
included a significant number that affected Reserve Component (Reserves and
National Guard) sites. Among its other recommendations, the DOD suggested the
deactivation of the 111^th Fighter Wing (Pennsylvania Air National Guard) and the^rd
distribution of the aircraft assigned to the 183 Fighter Wing (Illinois Air National
Guard) from the Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport Air Guard Station in Springfield,^nd
Illinois, to the Ft. Wayne International Airport Air Guard Station and the 122
Fighter Wing (Indiana Air National Guard) in Ft. Wayne, Indiana.
On July 11, Governor Edward D. Rendell, Senator Arlen Specter, and Senator
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, naming the Secretary of Defense as defendant. The^th
governor complained that the recommendation to deactivate the 111 Fighter Wing
without his consent constituted a change in organization of a National Guard unit
barred by federal statute. The governor requested that the court issue “a Declaratory
Judgment declaring that Secretary Rumsfeld may not, without first obtaining
Governor Rendell’s approval, deactivate the 111th Fighter Wing.”
On July 21, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of Illinois, naming the Secretary of Defense and each
of the BRAC Commissioners as defendants. His complaint, in part, claimed that the
distribution of aircraft from Springfield to Ft. Wayne constituted a realignment,
withdrawal, or relocation of Illinois Air National Guard units, and that this violated
various provisions in both Title 10 (Armed Forces) and Title 32 (National Guard) of
the United States Code. He asked that the court declare that the “realignment of the
183^rd Fighter Wing as proposed by defendant Rumsfeld without the consent of the
Governor of the State of Illinois is prohibited by federal law ... .”
Several other states initiated similar legal actions. All contended that the
Secretary of Defense was required by law to obtain the consent of the respective state⁷
governors before recommending these actions.
Requested Funding for BRAC Accounts. The appropriation request for
Fiscal Year 2006 is split between two Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Accounts, one for 1990 and one for 2005.
The BRAC 1990 account is the consolidation of what had been four separate
accounts, one for each of the previous BRAC rounds. Because all of the
recommended BRAC actions from those rounds were completed in 2001, the BRAC
1990 account is devoted to funding the continuing environmental remediation
required on the federal property deemed excess during those rounds but not yet

⁷ For additional information regarding judicial review of military base closure
recommendations, see CRS Report RL32963, The Availability of Judicial Review Regarding
Military Base Closures and Realignments, by Ryan J. Watson.

conveyed to non-DOD ownership. $246 million was appropriated to this account for
FY2005. The President requested almost $378 million in new budget authority for
this account for FY2006. The House supported that request, and the Senate increased
it to nearly $403 million. The amount enacted was slightly less than $255 million.
The BRAC 2005 account will fund the many realignment and closure actions,
to include the movement of units and equipment, the construction of new
infrastructure at receiving installations, and the realignment and closure of property
deemed excess in the current BRAC round. The implementation of all enacted
BRAC actions in the 2005 round must begin not later than two years and be
completed not later than six years from the date of enactment. During previous
BRAC rounds, appropriations tended to rise sharply during the first few years,
peaking during the third or fourth year. They then gradually fell off as movement and
construction activity was replaced by environmental remediation and land transfer
to other agencies and local redevelopment authorities.
The BRAC 2005 appropriations account was established to fund the first year
of realignment and closure activity. The President made his first appropriation
request of $1.88 billion. The House approved an appropriation of only $1.57 billion,
and the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended only $1.50 billion. In its
report to the Senate (S.Rept. 109-105), the Committee noted that the President’s
funding request had indicated his intention to retain some of the requested funding
as unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. The Committee cited this as its rationale
for reducing the appropriation. The Conference recommended $1.50 billion.
Environmental Remediation on Closed Military Bases. A significant
portion of land rendered surplus during previous BRAC rounds remains the property
of the Department of Defense. The principal reason for this is the Department’s
enduring responsibility for property cleanup prior to transferring title.
In its report (H.Rept. 109-95), the House discussed the current situation at the
former Ft. Ord, where large tracts remain in DOD hands, but where the Department
has begun to take an innovative approach to speeding the transfer of remaining
property.
The Committee is aware that the Army and the re-use authority at the former Fort
Ord have begun discussions to develop creative means to transfer the remaining
surplus land at the base to the re-use authority prior to the completion of clean
up activities at the site. The Committee encourages the Army and the re-use
authority to explore the use of an environmental services cooperative agreement.
Such an arrangement would allow the Army to transfer the land immediately but
guarantee the re-use authority access to funds to pursue clean up through third
parties.
Attempt to Reopen the Airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base,
Montana. Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana had once hosted both an
intercontinental ballistic missile wing and an air refueling wing of KC-135 tanker
aircraft. The 1995 BRAC Commission recommended that “all fixed-wing aircraft
flying operations at Malmstrom AFB will cease and the airfield will be closed,” an
action that was subsequently carried out. A provision, Sec. 1942, inserted into the

text of H.R. 3, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2005” prior to the filing of the bill’s conference report (H.Rept. 109-203) on
July 28, 2005, provided for the reopening of the airfield, stating that, “Not later than
60 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall
— (1) open the airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; and (2) enable
flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.”
The House subsequently drafted and passed H.Con.Res. 226, which amended
the conference report to remove Sec. 1942. The Senate agreed to the resolution on
July 29.
Conditional Recommendations. During the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds,
the Secretary of Defense and/or the BRAC Commissions often “redirected”
recommendations made during earlier rounds. For example, during the 1995 BRAC
round, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the Commission “change the
receiving sites for ‘squadrons and related activities at NAS (Naval Air Station)
Miramar’ specified by the 1993 Commission ... from ‘NAS Lemoore and NAS
Fallon’ to ‘other naval air stations, primarily NAS Oceana, Virginia, NAS North
Island, California, and NAS Fallon, Nevada.’”
Subsequent reconsideration was not possible in the 2005 round, so the
Commission drafted several “conditional” recommendations. The two most
significant of these concerned Cannon Air Force Base, near Clovis, New Mexico, and
Naval Air Station Oceana, in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. Cannon Air Force Base occupies
more then 4,500 acres of open land near the town of Clovis in eastern New Mexico.
Approximately 2,400 military and 400 DoD civil service employees work at the
installation, supported by an estimated 2,000 indirect civilian workers. The base hosts
the 27^th Fighter Wing, an active duty F-16 unit composed of the 522^nd, 523^rd, 524^th,^th
and 428 Fighter Squadrons. It and the nearby Melrose Air Force Range support the
operations and training of active duty Air Force, Air National Guard, and other U.S.
and allied aircrew.
The Secretary of Defense recommended that Cannon be closed and its aircraft
be distributed to other units, actions that would eliminate approximately 20% of the
local employment base. Instead of including this recommendation in its own list, the
BRAC Commission realigned Cannon, directing the Air Force to redistribute the
aircraft based there according to its own master allocation plan, but keeping the base
open by retaining an enclave on the site and instructing the Secretary of Defense to
“seek other newly-identified missions with all military services for possible
assignment” to Cannon. The recommendation was conditional in the sense that,
should no new mission be identified and assigned by December 31, 2009, Cannon
shall be closed. During early December 2005, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael
Moseley informed Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman that the service was
working on finding that new mission.⁸

⁸ Leslie Linthicum, “Air Force Has New Idea for Cannon,” Albuquerque Journal, December
(continued...)

Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia. NAS Oceana is a Navy Master Jet Base
and home to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet inventory of F-14 fighters and F/A-18 strike
fighters. The Secretary of Defense made no recommendation regarding NAS Oceana.
Nevertheless, the Commission was concerned that decades of real estate development
near the air station could threaten the training and operation of the Navy’s air fleet
and the safety of the station’s surrounding population. It therefore recommended that
Oceana be realigned “by relocating the East Coast Master Jet Base to Cecil Field,
Florida, if the Commonwealth of Virginia and the municipal governments of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, and Chesapeake, Virginia, fail to enact and enforce legislation to
prevent further encroachment of Naval Air Station Oceana by the end of March
2006.” The Commission added other conditions predicated on actions by the State
of Florida and the City of Jacksonville, the location of the former NAS Cecil Field,
a Navy jet base closed during a previous BRAC round. After facing opposition from
community groups, John Peyton, the mayor of Jacksonville, withdrew his support for
the plan to reopen NAS Cecil Field.⁹ Nevertheless, the City of Virginia Beach has
continued its actions to meet the BRAC Commission’s conditions for retaining the
Master Jet Base at Oceana.¹⁰
Commission-recommended Legislation. Current statute does not authorize
a future BRAC round. Anticipating the need for a future reconfiguration of DoD
infrastructure, Annex R to the 2005 Commission’s report suggested legislation
focused on monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the 2005 round,
preparing for a potential new BRAC round in 2014-2015, and creating new processes
for transferring problematic properties out of the DoD inventory and expediting their
redevelopment. These recommendations are discussed in CRS Report RS22291,
Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report and
Proposed Legislation, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood.
Expansion of DoD Activity at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. As the result of a
number of realignment and closures at other defense installations, Ft. Belvoir, located
near Alexandria, Virginia, will add approximately 21,300 military, civilian, and
contractor positions to the 16,700 currently existing on and around the post. The
magnitude of this increase has led some observers to express concern that the
surrounding transportation infrastructure will be unable to accommodate the expected
large increase in vehicular traffic.
In an effort to upgrade certain roads and highways adjacent to Ft. Belvoir,
Representatives Tom Davis (VA/11) and Jim Moran (VA/08) introduced H.R. 4457
on December 7, 2005. The bill would direct the Secretary of Defense and Secretary
of Transportation to certify these roads as important to the national defense, pursuant
to 23 USC 210. If enacted, this certification would make the identified thoroughfares

⁸ (...continued)

9, 2005, pg. B3.

⁹ Louis Hansen, “Jacksonville Mayor Withdraws Funding for Reopening Cecil Field,” The
Virginian-Pilot, October 7, 2005.
¹⁰ The Associated Press, “Virginia Beach Council Considers Plan to Save Oceana Jets,”
Associated Press Newswires, December 20, 2005, 12:33.

part of the Defense Access Road Program, which could render them eligible to
benefit from military construction appropriations.
Overseas Military Bases. The six-member Commission on Review of
Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States, created by Congress in Sec.

128 of the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (H.R.

2559, P.L. 108-132), released its draft report on May 9, 2005. The Commission,

commonly referred to as the “Overseas Basing Commission” (OBC), was given the
task to “conduct a thorough study of matters relating to the military facility structure
of the United States overseas.” In this, the Commission’s effort paralleled in part a¹¹
Department of Defense examination of its installations worldwide.
The Commission was also enjoined to “submit to the President and Congress
a report which shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and
administrative actions as it considers appropriate ... [and] the report shall also include
a proposal by the Commission for an overseas basing strategy for the Department of
Defense in order to meet the current and future mission of the Department.”
During the period of the OBC study, the President announced that between
60,000 and 70,000 military personnel based in overseas garrisons would, over the
ensuing decade, be redeployed to garrisons located within the United States and its
territories. The military services were continuing the process of organizational
transformation, while the DOD was drawing up its list of recommended actions for
submission to the BRAC Commission. After weighing these and other factors, the
OBC stated:
The Commission found that the overseas basing structure cannot be viewed in
isolation from a myriad of other security-related considerations. Its feasibility
and effectiveness can only be evaluated in context with all other aspects of
national security mentioned elsewhere in this Report. We believe that at some
time too much activity in too short a time threatens to change transformation into
turbulence. We have concluded that we are doing too much too fast and a
reordering of the steps is necessary. We call, therefore, for a process of¹²
deliberation and review to accompany the zeal and aggressiveness to act.
The report highlighted several issues of potential interest to Congress, including
the ability of U.S. military bases to absorb the influx of personnel and their families
from overseas, the interaction between BRAC, service transformation, and the DOD

¹¹ This is known as the DOD Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS).
¹² Report of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United
States (Draft), May 9, 2005, p. viii. Following publication of the May 9 report, the
Department of Defense advised the Commission of its concerns that certain information in
the report might have a deleterious impact on the Department’s activities. In response, the
Commission edited those passages to remove any such information. In so doing, the
Commission determined that the changes in the report had no affect on the conclusions and
recommendations of the report. The revised report to the President and Congress was
published on June 5, 2005, and can be downloaded from the Commission’s website,
[http://www.obc.gov]. The Commission’s final report will be published by August 15, 2005.

plan for continuing bases on foreign soil, and the amount of military construction that
will be required to support that continuing presence.
Since the publication of the Commission’s draft report, the Department of
Defense announced that 11 military installations in Germany will be returned to full
German national control during FY2007. Two additional facilities in Würzburg,
Würzburg Hospital and Leighton Barracks, will be returned to German control at
some later, as yet unspecified, date.¹³
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Fiscal¹⁴
Year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation request included $1.0 billion
to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through military construction in these
and surrounding countries. This was added to the $912 million that had been
appropriated for the same purpose in all other emergency supplemental
appropriations enacted since September 11, 2001. These requests highlight several
matters, some of which may be of interest to Congress, such as:
^!whether the $2.2 billion in funding in support of military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan signals a longer-term U.S. presence in the
region or is primarily for short-term improvements to facilities for
U.S. troops;
^!whether Congress has received sufficient information to evaluate
these projects;
^!whether current authorities that give DOD additional flexibility to
fund unanticipated needs in military construction give Congress
adequate tools for oversight; or
^!whether DOD’s decisions to rely primarily on supplemental rather
then regular military construction funding and military construction
rather than Operation and Maintenance funding for projects in Iraq
and Afghanistan are appropriate and ensure congressional¹⁵
oversight.
Military forces of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) operate from
installations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide support from locations in many of
the states bordering the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Political
unrest in the Kyrgyz Republic during April 2005 precipitated press reports describing
assurances given by the interim Prime Minister of the country, Kurmanbek Bakiyev,
to the United States that continued use of the Manas Air Base, near the capital of

¹³ “U.S. to Return 11 Bases to Germany Within Two Years,” State Department Press
Releases and Documents, July 29, 2005.
¹⁴ H.R. 1268, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, enacted May 11, 2005 (P.L. 109-13).
¹⁵ For more detailed information, see CRS General Distribution Memorandum, Military
Construction in Support of Afghanistan and Iraq, by Amy Belasco and Daniel Else, dated
April 21, 2005.

Bishkek, was assured.¹⁶ Soon after his victory in July, now-acting President Bakiyev
called for a reexamination of U.S. use of the airbase.¹⁷ The government of
Uzbekistan has echoed this sentiment for reconsidering continued U.S. use of Karshi-
Khanabad Air Base (also known as “K-2”) in that country. The Secretary of Defense
visited the region in late July for discussions with the various governments.¹⁸
Nevertheless, on Friday, July 29, 2005, the government of Uzbekistan delivered
a message to the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent giving the U.S. 180 days to cease
operations at Khananabad.¹⁹
Other Defense Issues
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Military Housing
Privatization. During the late 1990s, the Department of Defense undertook an
initiative to eliminate substandard housing for military personnel. This initiative took
two distinct paths, increasing the housing allowance paid to service personnel who
reside in commercial housing (owning or renting apartments and houses) and
upgrading government-furnished housing at military installations.
The original target date of 2010 for ensuring adequate housing for all was later
revised forward to 2007 for personnel stationed within the United States and 2009²⁰
for personnel stationed overseas. This was possible because the Department has
been able to gradually increase the housing allowance paid to troops (the Basic
Allowance for Housing), making off-base commercial housing affordable for a
greater percentage of active duty personnel. The Department has also been able to
effectively utilize a number of special authorizations granted by Congress to enter
into public-private partnerships with commercial real estate developers to improve,
increase capacity, and privatize family housing at some military installations.

¹⁶ Greg Jaffe, “Kyrgyz Leader Assures U.S. on Use of Air Base,” Wall Street Journal, April

15, 2005, p. 8.

¹⁷ See CRS Report RL32864, Coup in Kyrgyzstan: Developments and Implications, and CRS
Report 97-690, Kyrgyzstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol, for
more information on developments in the Kyrgyz Republic.
¹⁸ Unattributed, “U.S. Struggles to Defend Bases in Central Asia,” Agence France Presse,
July 18, 2005, 03:34, and Unattributed, “Rumsfeld Due in Kyrgyzstan for Talks on U.S.
Airbase,” Agence France Presse, July 25, 2005, 07:56.
¹⁹ The U.S. government is reported to have paid approximately $15 million since late 2001
to lease facilities at the airbase. While the U.S. has sought to renew the lease, the
government of President Islam Karimov has been the target of international criticism since
reports of the killing of large numbers of civilians by government troops in the city of
Andijan during May. Nick Paton, “Uzbekistan Kicks U.S. Out of Military Base,” The
Guardian, August 1, 2005. Additional information on developments relating to U.S.
relations in the area can be found in CRS Report RS22295, Uzbekistan’s Closure of the
Airbase at Karshi-Khanabad: Context and Implications, and CRS Report RS22161, Unrest
in Uzbekistan: Context and Implications, by Jim Nichol.
²⁰ The Department of Defense has been careful to point out that these target dates refer to
the signing of contracts for the construction of adequate housing and not the appearance of
the housing itself.

Department of Defense Health Care. The House Committee on
Appropriations report on the appropriations bill highlighted issues of importance to
veterans undergoing continuing health care as they transition from active duty to
veteran status through reversion to inactive reserve status or retirement. In particular,
the Committee encouraged the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs to pursue initiatives to render their currently incompatible electronic
information systems interoperable so that health-related data can follow the veteran
from one department to the other.
Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. During August and September
2005, two powerful hurricanes swept through the nation’s Gulf Coast region. In
response to the subsequent widespread destruction, the 109th Congress completed
action on two separate emergency supplemental appropriations bills (P.L.
109-61/H.R. 3645 and P.L. 109-62/H.R. 3673), which together provided $62.3
billion for emergency response and recovery needs. Of the combined amount
provided in the two measures, $60 billion was appropriated for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide emergency food, shelter, and
medical care to areas stricken by the hurricane and other disasters. In addition, $1.9
billion was appropriated to the Department of Defense to pay for damage to its
facilities and personnel evacuation costs, and $400 million to the Army Corps for
damaged flood control projects. On October 28, 2005, the Administration requested
the reallocation of $17.1 billion appropriated for FEMA use, primarily to pay for
restoring damaged federal facilities, and submitted a rescission request of $2.3 billion
from 17 accounts to pay for some of the disaster costs.
For detailed information regarding these appropriations, see CRS Report
RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief,
by Keith Bea, and CRS Report RL33197, Reallocation of Hurricane Katrina
Emergency Appropriations, by Amy Belasco. The CRS has prepared a number of
other products detailing the hurricanes’ impact and the federal response. Copies can
be obtained via download from the CRS website or by visiting the CRS Product
Distribution Center adjacent to the LaFollette Congressional Reading Room in the
James Madison Building of the Library of Congress.
Title II: Department of Veterans Affairs
Table 2. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY2001-FY2005
(budget authority in billions)
F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2005
VA$47.95 $52.38 $58.10$61.84$65.84
^Source: ^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^s^h^owⁿ^{are f}^r^om^reports^of^th^{e A}^ppropriatⁱ^o^ns^C^o^m^m^ittees^accom^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^th^e
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^{ills f}^o^r^th^{e f}^o^llo^wⁱⁿ^g^y^ear^s.

Agency Mission
Federal policy toward veterans recognizes the importance of their service to the
nation and the effect that service may have on their subsequent civilian lives. 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 dependents and beneficiaries. The three primary organizations in VA that
work together to accomplish this mission are the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). The benefits provided include compensation for disabilities
sustained or worsened as a result of active duty military service; pensions for totally
disabled, poor war veterans; cash payments for certain categories of dependents
and/or survivors; education, training, rehabilitation, and job placement services to
assist veterans upon their return to civilian life; loan guarantees to help them obtain
homes; free medical care for conditions sustained during military service as well as
medical care for other conditions, much of which is provided free to low income
veterans; life insurance to enhance financial security for their dependents; and burial
assistance, flags, grave-sites, and headstones when they die.
Table 3. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs,
FY2005-FY2006
(budget authority in billions)
ProgramFY2005 enactedFY2006 requestFY2006 HouseFY2006 SenateFY2006 Conf
Compens., pension, burial$32.608$33.413$33.413$33.413$33.898
Readjustment benefits2.5563.2143.2143.2143.309
Insurance/indemnities 0.044 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
Housing prog.(net, indef.)-0.100-0.047-0.047-0.047-0.047
Subtotal: Mandatory 35.10836.62636.62636.62637.206
Med. services19.31719.99520.99521.33121.322
Emerg. funding1.538^a1.977—1.9771.225
Emerg. funding — 0.225——0.225
(P.L. 109-148)
Med. administration4.6674.5184.1352.8582.858
Emerg. funding0.002 — ———
(P.L. 108-324)
Information technology———1.457—
Medical facilities3.7153.2983.2983.2983.298
Emerg. funding0.047————
(P.L. 108-324)
Med., prosthetic research0.4020.3930.3930.4120.412
Med. care cost collect.^b
(offsetting receipts)-1.986-2.170-2.170-2.170-2.17
(approps. indefinite)1.9862.1702.1702.1702.17

ProgramFY2005 enactedFY2006 requestFY2006 HouseFY2006 SenateFY2006 Conf
Subtotal: Med. programs &29.68930.40628.82131.33329.341
admin. (appropriations)
Total available to31.67532.57630.99133.50331.511
VHA
Gen. admin. exp. (total)1.3141.4191.4121.4191.411
Emerg. funding0.001————
(P.L. 108-324)
Emerg. funding — 0.025——0.025
(P.L. 109-148)
Information technology————1.214
Nat’l Cemetery Admin.0.1480.1560.1560.1560.156
Emerg. funding (P.L.^c ————

108-324)

Emerg. funding — ^d ——^d
(P.L. 109-148)
Inspector General0.0690.0700.0700.0700.070
Construction 0.684 0.816 0.816 0.816 0.806
Emerg. funding0.036————
(P.L. 108-324)
Emerg. funding — 1.157——0.369
(P.L. 109-148)
Grants; state facilities0.104 —0.0250.1040.085
State veteran cemeteries0.0320.0320.0320.0320.032
Housing & other loan0.1540.1550.1550.1550.155
admin.
Gen. prov. — Emerg. — 0.003——0.003
funding
(P.L. 109-148)
Subtotal: Discretionary32.23134.23931.48734.08533.666
Total: (VA) $67.339$70.864$68.112$70.711$70.872
^Source:^T^a^bl^{e prepared by}^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce bas}^e^{d on}^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{95, S}^.^R^e^pt^.^109-
^{105, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{188, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{305 an}^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^359.
^{a. In}^cl^ud^e^s^s^upplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e Military}^C^oⁿ^s^tru^c^tion^A^ppropriation^s^an^{d Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^H^u^rri^can^{e S}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,^{2005 (P.L}^{. 108-}^{324) an}^{d f}^r^om^t^h^e^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of
^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^{or, En}^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^,^an^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,^{2006 (P.L}^{. 109-}^54).
^b.^Medical^C^a^{re C}^o^llection^s^Fuⁿ^d^(MC^C^F^{) receipts}^ar^e^res^t^ored^{to th}^{e VHA}^as^anⁱⁿ^defⁱⁿ^{ite bu}^dg^et
^au^th^o^r^ity^eq^u^a^{l to}^th^{e r}^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^co^llected^.
^{c. $50,000.}
^{d. $200,000.}

Key Budget Issues
The budget submitted by the Administration in February 2005 called for funding
VA at a level of $66.5 billion dollars for FY2006. More recent estimates by VA of
amounts required for both mandatory and discretionary medical care spending have
raised this to $69.5 billion. This would be an increase of $2.1 billion, or 3.1%, over
the FY2005 total including the supplemental appropriations noted in Table 3 above.
Both the House and the Senate passed their versions of the budget resolution for
FY2006 on March 17, 2005. The overall budget function 700 for veterans benefits
and services addressed in the budget resolution is broader than just the Department
of Veterans Affairs and includes money that will be appropriated in other bills for
other departments as well. The House-passed resolution (H.Con.Res. 95)
recommended $68.9 billion in new budget authority for veterans benefits and
services, including an increase of $297 million in discretionary spending over the
Administration’s request. The Senate version (S.Con.Res. 18) was amended to
provide $69.0 billion for the veterans budget function. The final budget resolution
approved by both houses on April 28, 2005, included $69.0 billion for the veterans
budget function in FY2006.
H.R. 2528, as approved by the House Appropriations Committee on May 18,
2005 and by the House on May 26, 2005, would have provided a total of $68.1
billion for the VA budget with $31.5 billion of the bill’s $85.2 billion 302(b)
allocation going for VA discretionary spending. The Senate Appropriations
Committee approved its version of H.R. 2528 on July 21, 2005, and the Senate
passed the bill on September 22, 2005. This bill would have provided a total of
$70.7 billion for VA including $34.1 billion in new budget authority for discretionary
spending. The final conference report provides $37.2 billion in mandatory funding
and $33.0 billion in discretionary funding for a total of $70.2 billion.
VA Cash Benefits. Since spending for the VA cash benefit programs is
mandatory as noted above, the amounts requested in the budget are based on
projected caseloads. Eligibility requirements and benefit levels are specified in law.
While the total number of veterans is declining, the number receiving benefits is
increasing. VA entitlement spending, mostly service-connected compensation,
pensions, and readjustment (primarily education) payments, reached $32.7 billion in
FY2004 and is projected to reach $35.1 billion in FY2005 and $37.2 billion in
FY2006. In addition to the increased number of beneficiaries, much of the projected
increases in recent years result from cost-of-living adjustments for compensation
benefits and from liberalizations to the Montgomery GI Bill, the primary education
program.
Out of concern for the disparity in the amounts of disability compensation
awarded to veterans living in different regions of the country, the Senate passed an
amendment on September 22, 2005, to instruct the Department of Veterans Affairs
to conduct a veterans disability compensation information campaign in states with
an average annual disability compensation payment of less than $7,300. The
conference report included this provision in §228.

Medical Care. On July 26, 2005, the conferees of the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, 2006 (H.R. 2361,
H.Rept. 109-188) provided $1.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for veterans
medical services for FY2005, with carryover authority for FY2006 as well. This
action was taken by Congress in response to the FY2005 budget shortfall of more
than $1 billion announced by the Administration.²¹ None of the supplemental²²
appropriations would be contingent upon an emergency declaration. The House
adopted the conference agreement on July 28, 2005, and the Senate adopted the
conference agreement a day later. The Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, 2006 (P.L.109-54), was signed into law on
August 2, 2005.
The President’s FY2006 budget requested $28.2 billion for VHA: $20.0 billion
for medical services, $4.5 billion for medical administration, $3.3 billion for medical
facilities, and $393 million for medical and prosthetic research. On July 14, 2005,
the Administration requested an additional $2.0 billion for medical services for
FY2006, bringing the total request for VHA to $30.2 billion. VHA medical care
collections (e.g., copays, third-party insurance payments) for FY2006 are expected
to be $2.2 billion.
The House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) called for $31.7 billion in
discretionary budget authority for FY2006, most of which would be for VA medical²³
care programs. The Senate budget resolution (S.Con.Res 18) did not provide a
separate amount for discretionary budget authority for VA programs.
In its budget submission to Congress, the Administration is proposing several
legislative changes. The major proposals are: to assess an annual enrollment fee of
$250 for all veterans in Priority Groups 7 and 8;²⁴ to increase pharmacy co-payments
from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply of prescriptions paid by Priority 7 and 8 veterans;
to suspend grants to fund construction and renovation of state extended care facilities
for a period of one year; to provide per diem payments to state veterans nursing
homes only for the care of service-connected and catastrophically disabled veterans

²¹ On June 23, 2005, at a hearing of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, the
Administration announced that the increased medical care cost for FY2005 was about $1
billion more than the FY2005 enacted amount.
²² By not designating funding as an emergency requirement the bill would exceed the
funding levels agreed by the House and Senate in the FY2005 Budget Resolution
(H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept.108-498).
²³ U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget,
Fiscal Year 2006, report to accompany H.Con.Res 95, 109^th Cong., 1^st sess., March 11, 2005,
p.38.
²⁴ Priority Group 7 veterans have incomes above $25,843 for a single veteran and below the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) geographic means test level.
Priority 8 veterans are those with incomes above $25,843 for a single veteran and above the
HUD geographic means test. The HUD geographic means test is established at a local level
such as county. For a listing of geographic means test levels see:
[http://www.va .gov/healthe ligibility/costs/docs/GMT _Income_T hresholds_2004.pdf.]

with special needs;²⁵ to authorize payment for insured veteran patients’ out-of-pocket
expenses for emergency services if their emergency care is obtained outside of the
VA health care system; to exempt former Prisoners of War (POWs) from
co-payments for extended care services; and to exempt co-payment requirements for
hospice care provided in any VA setting. Many of these same proposals were offered
in the Administration’s budgets for FY2004 and FY2005 and rejected by Congress.
S. 1182 as reported out of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on September 22,
2005, would authorize payment for insured veteran patients’ out-of-pocket expenses
for emergency services if their emergency care is obtained outside of the VA health
care system.
The House passed its version of H.R. 2528 (H.Rept. 109-95) making
appropriations for Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies for FY2006 (MIL-QUAL appropriations bill). Among other things, this
bill appropriated $28.8 billion for VHA. H.R. 2528 provided $21.0 billion for
medical services, $4.1 billion for medical administration, $3.3 billion for medical
facilities, and $393 million for medical and prosthetic research. Under the House-
passed version of H.R. 2528, the total amount of funds available for VHA would be
$31.0 billion, including $2.2 billion in collections (copays and third-party insurance
payments). The MIL-QUAL appropriations bill did not authorize any of the fee
increases proposed by the President.
On September 22, 2005, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2528 (S.Rept.109-
105), making appropriations for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies for FY2006 (MIL-CON appropriations bill). Among other things,
this bill appropriated $31.3 billion, for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
programs. This is $1.2 billion more than the Administration’s request for FY2006
and $2.5 billion more than the House-passed version of this bill. The MIL-CON
appropriations bill appropriated $23.3 billion for medical services, of this amount
almost $2 billion has been designated as an emergency appropriation.²⁶ Furthermore,
the MIL-CON appropriations bill appropriated $2.9 billion for medical
administration, $3.3 billion for medical facilities, $412 million for medical and
prosthetic research, and $1.5 billion for information technology programs. Under the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2528, the total amount of funds available for VHA
would be $33.5 billion, including $2.2 billion in collections (copays and third-party
insurance payments). The MIL-CON appropriations bill did not recommend any of
the fee increases proposed by the President.
On November 30, 2005, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L.109-114) was signed into law. This act provides
$29.1 billion, for VHA. P.L.109-114 appropriated $22.5 billion for medical services,

²⁵ State veterans nursing homes will receive per diem payments for Priority Groups 1-4
veterans who have catastrophic disabilities and who need short-term care (less than 90
days), as well as those who need long-term maintenance care. For Priority Group 4 veterans
who are not catastrophically disabled, and for Priority Groups 5-8 veterans, state veterans
nursing homes will be reimbursed only for short-term care.
²⁶ By designating funding as an emergency requirement, it is not subject to enforcement
procedures under the congressional budget process.

of this amount $1.2 billion has been designated as an emergency appropriation
Furthermore, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act,

2006, appropriated $2.9 billion for medical administration, $3.3 for medical facilities,

and $412 million for medical and prosthetic research. Under P.L 109-114, the total
amount of funds available for VHA would be $31.2 billion, including $2.2 billion in
collections.
For a more detailed discussion of the VA medical care budget, see CRS Report
RL32975, Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2006 Appropriations, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala.
Title III: Related Agencies
Independent Commissions
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 military cemetery
memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24 military memorial
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 is presently charged with
erecting an Interpretive Center at the Normandy American Cemetery, Normandy,
France.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims was established by the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988.
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 Department of Veterans Affairs (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
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations drew special attention to the Court’s
efforts to implement an electronic case management system.

Cemeterial Expenses, Army. 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.
In increasing the amount requested by the President for this account, the House
suggested that the funding be used to speed the entry into electronic form of cemetery
record data now existing only in paper-based records.
Armed Forces Retirement Home. The Armed Forces Retirement Home
account provides funds to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home
in Washington, DC (also known as the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home),
and the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS (originally located in
Philadelphia, PA, and known as the United States Naval Home). These two facilities
provide long-term housing and medical care for approximately 1,600 needy veterans.

Appendix A. Consolidated Funding Tables
Table 4a. DOD Military Construction
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Re que s t House Senate Conf .
onstruction, Army1,981,0841,479,8411,652,5521,640,6411,775,260
Rescissions (18,976) — — — (19,746)
Emergency Appropriation (P.L 109-13)847,191————
Tot a l 2,809,299 1,479,841 1,652,552 1,640,641 1,755,514
onstruction, 1,069,947 1,029,249 1,109,177 1,045,882 1,157,141
Rescissions (24,000) — — (92,354) (50,037)
Emergency Approps.138,800————
(P.L. 108-324)
Additional Approps.(4,350)————
(P.L. 108-447, Div. J)
Emergency Appropriation (P.L 109-13)139,880————
a l 1,320,277 1,029,249 1,109,177 953,528 1,107,104
onstruction, Air Force866,3311,069,6401,171,3381,209,1281,288,530
Rescission (21,800) — — — (29,100)
Emergency Appropriation (P.L 109-13)140,983————
Tot a l 985,514 1,069,640 1,171,338 1,209,128 1,259,430
onstruction, Defense-wide686,0551,042,730976,6641,072,1651,008,855
Rescission (22,737) — — — (20,000)
Tot a l 663,318 1,042,730 976,664 1,072,165 988,855
ctive components5,778,4084,621,4604,909,7314,875,4625,110,903
onstruction, 446,748327,012410,624467,146523,151
onstruction, 243,043 165,256 225,727 279,156 316,117
Rescission (5,000) — — — (13,700)
Tot a l 238,043 165,256 225,727 279,156 302,417
onstruction, Army Reserve92,377106,077138,425136,077152,569
Emergency Approps. (P.L. 108-324)8,700————
Tot a l 101,077 106,077 138,425 136,077 152,569

Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Re que s t House Senate Conf .
onstruction, Naval Reserve44,24645,22645,22646,67646,864
Rescion ————(16,560)
Additional Approps. (P.L. 108-447, Div. 4,350————
J)
Tot a l 48,596 45,226 45,226 46,676 30,304
onstruction, Air Force Reserve123,97779,260110,84789,260105,883
Rescion ————(13,815)
Tot a l 123,977 79,260 110,847 89,260 92,068
eserve components958,441722,831930,8491,018,3151,100,509
tal, Military Construction6,736,8495,344,2915,840,5805,893,7776,211,412
Appropriations (5,553,808) (5,344,291) (5,840,580) (5,986,131) (6,374,370)
Emergency appropriations(1,275,554)————
Rescissions (-92,513) — — (-92,354) (-162958)
r ogram 165,800 206,858 206,858 206,858 206,858
Rescission (5,000) — — — (30,000)
Tot a l 160,800 206,858 206,858 206,858 176,858
ily Housing Construction, Army636,099549,636549,636549,636549,636
Rescission (21,000) — — — (16,000)
Tot a l 615,099 549,636 549,636 549,636 533,636
ily Housing O and M, Army926,507812,993803,993812,993803,993
Emergency Approps.1,200————
(P.L. 108-324)
Tot a l 927,707 812,993 803,993 812,993 803,993
ily Housing Construction, Navy and139,107218,942218,942218,942218,942
orps
Rescission (12,301) — — — —
Tot a l 126,806 218,942 218,942 218,942 218,942
ily Housing O and M, Navy and Marine696,304593,660588,660593,660588,660
ps
Emergency Approps.9,100————
(P.L. 108-324)
Tot a l 705,404 593,660 588,660 593,660 588,660
ily Housing Construction, Air Force846,9591,251,1081,236,2201,142,6221,101,887
Rescission (45,171) — — — (43,900)
Tot a l 801,788 1,251,108 1,236,220 1,142,622 1,057,987

Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Re que s t House Senate Conf .
ily Housing OP and M,853,384766,939755,319766,939766,939
orce
Emergency Approps. (P.L. 108-324)11,400————
Tot a l 864,784 766,939 755,319 766,939 766,939
ily Housing Construction, Defense-wide49————
ily Housing O and M,49,57546,39146,39146,39146,391
fense-wide
ily Housing Improvement Fund2,5002,5002,5002,5002,500
Rescission (19,109) — — — —
Tot a l (16,609) 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
amily Housing4,074,6034,242,1694,201,6614,133,6834,019,048
Appropriations (4,150,484) (4,242,169) (4,201,661) (4,133,683) (4,078,948)
Emergency Appropriations(21,700)————
Rescission (-97,581) — — — (-59,900)
emical Demilitarization Construction,81,886————
ense-wide
se Realignment and Closure
BRAC, 1990246,116377,827377,827377,827254,827
BRAC, 2005—1,880,4661,570,4661,504,4661,504,466
Emergency Appropriation (P.L. 108-324)50————
Tot a l 246,166 2,258,293 1,948,293 1,882,293 1,759,293
neral Provision (Sec. 128)—65,00065,000——
New Budget Authority11,300,30412,116,61112,262,39212,116,61112,166,611
A p p r o p r i a t i o n s (10,198,094) ( 12,116,611) (12,262,392) (12,208,965) (12,419,469)
Emergency Appropriations(1,297,304)————
Rescissions (-195,094) — — (-91,354) (-252,858)

Table 4b. DOD Basic Allowance for Housing
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Basic Allowance for Housing
Army 3,341,882 3,945,392 3,945,392 3,945,392 3,945,392
Navy 3,471,251 3,592,905 3,592,905 3,592,905 3,592,905
Marine Corps1,053,5731,179,0711,179,0711,179,0711,179,071
Air Force3,010,7703,240,1133,240,1133,240,1133,240,113
Army National434,073453,690453,690453,690453,690
Guard
Div. B, Ch. 2*—32,294——32,294
Air National214,151248,317248,317248,317248,317
Guard
Div. B, Ch. 2*—10,289——10,289
Army Reserve290,117310,566310,566310,566310,566
Div. B, Ch. 2*—361——361
Naval Reserve202,282191,338191,338191,338191,338
Div. B, Ch. 2*—1,053——1,053
Marine Corps38,94540,60940,60940,60940,609
Reserve
Air Force59,78171,28671,28671,28671,286
Reserve
Div. B, Ch. 2*—85——85
Tot a l 12,116,825 13,317,369 13,273,287 13,273,287 13,317,369
*: Division B (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and
Pandemic Influenza, 2006), Chapter 2 (Department of Defense — Military), of the Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H.R. 2863).

Table 4c. DOD Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization
Army 1,967,028 1,825,518 1,850,518 1,843,518 1,851,118
Navy 1,333,288 1,344,971 1,344,971 1,344,971 1,344,971
Marine Corps523,756553,960553,960553,960553,960
Air Force1,991,7101,815,7011,845,7011,858,4011,871,655
Defense-Wide 95,000 115,400 115,400 — 115,400
Army National Guard384,044391,544391,544401,544396,544
Air National Guard230,642169,791184,791169,791179,791
Army Reserve201,141204,370204,370204,370204,370
Naval Reserve73,41062,78867,78867,78867,788
Marine Corps Reserve12,12610,10510,10510,10510,105
Air Force Reserve53,05655,76455,76450,36450,364
Tot a l 6,865,201 6,549,912 6,624,912 6,504,812 6,646,066
Table 4d. DOD Environmental Remediation
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Environmental Restoration
Army 400,948 407,865 407,865 407,865 407,865
Navy 266,820 305,275 305,275 305,275 305,275
Air Force397,368406,461406,461406,461406,461
Defense-Wide 23,684 28,167 28,167 28,167 28,167
Formerly Used266,516221,921221,921271,921256,921
Defense Sites (FUDS)
Tot a l 1,355,336 1,369,689 1,369,689 1,419,689 1,404,689

Table 4e. DOD Health Program
(budget authority in $000)
F Y 2005 F Y 2006 House Senate Conf .
EnactedRequest
Defense Health Program
Operation and17,297,41919,247,13719,184,53719,345,08719,299,787
Maintenance
Procurement 367,035 375,319 355,119 377,319 379,119
Research and506,982169,156444,256515,556542,306
Development
Tot a l 18,171,436 19,791,612 19,983,912 20,237,962 20,221,212
Table 4f. DOD Totals
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Re que s t House Senate Conf .
Total, Department of Defense
New Budget Authority49,809,10253,145,19353,514,19253,552,36153,755,947
Appropriations (48,706,892) (53,145,193) (53,514,192) (53,644,715) (54,008,805)
Emerge ncy (1,297,304) — — — —
Appropriations
Rescissions (-195,094) — — (-92,354) (-252,858)

Table 5a. VA Benefits
(budget authority in $000)
Accou n t F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and Pensions32,607,68833,412,87933,412,87933,412,87933,897,787
Readjustment Benefits2,556,2323,214,2463,214,2463,214,2463,309,234
Veterans Insurance and44,38045,90745,90745,90745,907
Indemnities
Veterans Housing Benefit
Program Fund Program43,78464,58664,58664,58664,586
Account (Indefinite)
Credit Subsidy-144,000-112,000-112,000-112,000-112,000
Admi nistrative 152,842 153,575 153,575 153,575 153,575
Expenses
Vocational Rehabilitation4753535353
Loans Program Account
Admi nistrative 309 305 305 305 305
Expenses
Native American Veteran
Housing Loan Program566580580580580
Account
Tot a l 35,261,848 36,780,131 36,780,131 36,780,131 37,360,027

Table 5b. VA Health Administration
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Services19,316,99519,995,14120,995,14121,331,01121,322,141
Emerge ncy — 1,977,000 — 1,977,000 1,225,000
Appropriations
Emergency
Appropriations38,283 — — — —
(P.L. 108-324)
Emergency
Appropriations 1,500,000 — — — —
(P.L. 109-54)
Medical 4,667,360 4,517,874 4,134,874 2,858,442 2,858,442
Administration
Emergency
Appropriations 1,940 — — — —
(P.L. 108-324)
Information — — — 1,456,821 —
Technology
Medical Facilities3,715,0403,297,6693,297,6693,297,6693,297,669
Emergency
Appropriations 46,909 — — — —
(P.L. 108-324)
Medical and Prosthetic402,348393,000393,000412,000412,000
Research
Medical Care Cost
Recovery Collections:
Offsetting -1,985,984 -2,170,000 -2,170,000 -2,170,000 -2,170,000
Collections
Appropriations 1,985,984 2,170,000 2,170,000 2,170,000 2,170,000
(Indefinite)
Tot a l 29,688,875 30,180,684 28,820,684 31,332,943 29,115,252

Table 5c. VA Departmental Administration
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Departmental Administration
General Operating Expenses1,314,1551,418,8271,411,8271,418,8271,410,520
Emergency Appropriations545————
(P.L. 108-324)
Information Technology————1,213,820
National Cemetery Administration147,734156,447156,447156,447156,447
Emergency Appropriations50————
(P.L. 108-324)
Office of Inspector General69,15370,17470,17470,17470,174
Construction, Major Projects455,130607,100607,100607,100607,100
Construction, Minor Projects228,933208,937208,937208,937198,937
Emergency Appropriations36,343————
(P.L. 108-324)
Grants for Construction of State104,322—25,000104,32285,000
Extended Care Facilities
Grants for the Construction of31,74432,00032,00032,00032,000
State Veterans Cemeteries
Tot a l 2,388,109 2,493,485 2,511,485 2,597,807 3,773,998
Table 5d. VA Totals
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Total, Veterans Administration
New Budget67,338,83269,454,30068,112,30070,710,88170,249,277
Authority
Appropriations (65,714,762) (67,477,300) (68,112,300) (68,733,881) (69,024,277)
Emerge ncy (1,624,070) (1,977,000) — ( 1,977,000) (1,225,000)
Appropriations
VA Discretionary32,230,74832,828,68231,486,68234,085,26333,043,763
VA Mandatory35,108,08436,625,61836,625,61836,625,61837,205,514

Table 6. Related Agencies
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005 F Y 2006 House Senate Conf .
EnactedRequest
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and Expenses40,77135,25035,75036,25036,250
Foreign Currency11,90415,25015,25015,25015,250
Fluctuations
Tot a l 52,675 50,500 51,000 51,500 51,500
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and Expenses17,11218,29518,29518,79518,795
Department of Defense-Civil
Cemeterial Expenses,29,36328,05029,55028,55029,050
Army
Armed Forces Retirement
Home
Operation and57,16357,03357,03357,03358,251
Maintenance
Capital Program3,9681,2481,2481,2481,248
Tot a l 61,131 58,281 58,281 58,281 59,499
Total, Agencies160,281155,126157,126157,126158,844
Table 7. Grand Total
(budget authority in $000)
Account F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request House Senate Conf .
Grand Total, All Titles
New Budget Authority 117,308,215122,599,493121,626,492124,263,242124,005,224
Appropriations (114,581,935) (120,733,537) (121,783,618) (81,099,972) —
Emerge ncy (2,921,374) (1,977,000) — ( 1,977,000) —
Appropriations
Rescissions (-195094) — — (-92,354) —
^No^te:^Sen^a^t^e^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^ar^{e co}^m^bⁱⁿ^ed^f^r^o^m^th^{e Militar}^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^/^Veter^aⁿ^s^A^f^f^a^ir^{s an}^d^Def^eⁿ^s^e
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ills.

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.
Military Construction
CRS Report RL32924, Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations, by Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RS21822, Military Base Closures: DOD’s 2005 Internal Selection Process, by Daniel
H. Else and David E. Lockwood.
CRS Report RL32216, Military Base Closures: Implementing the 2005 Round, by David E.
Lockwood.
CRS Report RL30440, Military Base Closures: Estimates of Costs and Savings, by David E.
Lockwood.
CRS Report RL30051, Military Base Closures: Agreement on a 2005 Round, by David E.
Lockwood.
CRS Report RL32963, The Availability of Judicial Review Regarding Military Base Closures and
Realignments, by Ryan J. Watson
CRS Multimedia MM70068, Military Base Closures: DOD’s Internal 2005 BRAC Selection
Process, by Daniel H. Else and David E. Lockwood, available online at
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/sem_bc-040422.shtml] .
CRS Report RL32305, Authorization and Appropriations for FY2006: Defense, by Stephen Daggett.
Veterans Affairs
CRS Report RL32975, Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2006 Appropriations, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala.
CRS Report RL32961, Veterans’ Health Care Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Sidath Viranga
Panangala.
Hurricane Relief
CRS Report RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief, by
Keith Bea.

CRS Report RL33197, Reallocation of Hurricane Katrina Emergency Appropriations, by Amy
Belasco.
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/]