Friday, March 23, 2012
Veterans Affairs: A Preliminary Analysis of the FY2013 Budget Proposal
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
Sidath Viranga Panangala
Specialist in Veterans Policy
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits and services to veterans who meet certain eligibility criteria. These benefits and services include hospital and medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, assistance to homeless veterans, home loan guarantees, administration of life insurance as well as traumatic injury protection insurance for servicemembers, and death benefits that cover burial expenses.
This report provides a preliminary analysis of the President’s budget request for FY2013 for the programs administered by the VA. For FY2013, the Administration is requesting approximately $140.3 billion for the VA, an increase of $13.4 billion over FY2012 budget authority. This amount includes approximately $64.0 billion in discretionary funds and approximately $76.4 billion in mandatory funding.
The FY2013 budget request for VA medical care programs is $56.3 billion, with a FY2014 request of advance appropriations of $54.5 billion. This report is not an exhaustive discussion of VA’s budget request for FY2013. A full CRS report on FY2013 VA budget and appropriations issues is planned after initial congressional consideration of appropriations legislation.
Date of Report: March 14, 2012
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R42408
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN) Homeporting at Mayport: Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget defers the Navy’s plan to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) at Mayport, FL. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget and the FY2013- FY2017 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) contain no funding for Military Construction (MilCon) projects required to homeport a CVN at Mayport. The Navy states: “Although the FY 2013 budget does not contain a construction project supporting the homeporting of a CVN in Mayport, FL, the Department [of the Navy] is committed to the requirement and policy to strategically disperse CVNs on each coast. This is a deferral at this time due to fiscal constraints.”
The Navy’s five Atlantic Fleet CVNs are all homeported at Norfolk, VA. The Navy wants to establish a second Atlantic Fleet CVN home port by homeporting a CVN at Mayport. Prior to the submission of the FY2013 budget, Navy plans called for having Mayport ready to homeport a CVN in 2019. Transferring a CVN from Norfolk to Mayport would shift from Norfolk to Mayport the local economic activity associated with homeporting a CVN, which some sources estimate as being worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The Navy’s desire to homeport a CVN at Mayport is an issue of strong interest to certain Members of Congress from Florida and Virginia. Certain Members of Congress from Florida have expressed support for the Navy’s desire to homeport a CVN at Mayport, arguing (as have DOD and the Navy) that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are worth the costs associated with moving a CVN to Mayport. Certain Members of Congress from Virginia have expressed skepticism regarding, or opposition to, the Navy’s desire to homeport a CVN at Mayport, arguing that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are questionable or uncertain, and that the funding needed to Ns are questionable or uncertain, and that the funding needed to implement the proposal could achieve greater benefits if it were spent on other Navy priorities.
Date of Report: February 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 79
Order Number: R40248
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Specialist in Naval Affairs
The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget defers the Navy’s plan to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) at Mayport, FL. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget and the FY2013- FY2017 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) contain no funding for Military Construction (MilCon) projects required to homeport a CVN at Mayport. The Navy states: “Although the FY 2013 budget does not contain a construction project supporting the homeporting of a CVN in Mayport, FL, the Department [of the Navy] is committed to the requirement and policy to strategically disperse CVNs on each coast. This is a deferral at this time due to fiscal constraints.”
The Navy’s five Atlantic Fleet CVNs are all homeported at Norfolk, VA. The Navy wants to establish a second Atlantic Fleet CVN home port by homeporting a CVN at Mayport. Prior to the submission of the FY2013 budget, Navy plans called for having Mayport ready to homeport a CVN in 2019. Transferring a CVN from Norfolk to Mayport would shift from Norfolk to Mayport the local economic activity associated with homeporting a CVN, which some sources estimate as being worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The Navy’s desire to homeport a CVN at Mayport is an issue of strong interest to certain Members of Congress from Florida and Virginia. Certain Members of Congress from Florida have expressed support for the Navy’s desire to homeport a CVN at Mayport, arguing (as have DOD and the Navy) that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are worth the costs associated with moving a CVN to Mayport. Certain Members of Congress from Virginia have expressed skepticism regarding, or opposition to, the Navy’s desire to homeport a CVN at Mayport, arguing that the benefits in terms of mitigating risks to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet CVNs are questionable or uncertain, and that the funding needed to Ns are questionable or uncertain, and that the funding needed to implement the proposal could achieve greater benefits if it were spent on other Navy priorities.
Date of Report: February 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 79
Order Number: R40248
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Military Construction: A Snapshot of the President’s FY2013 Appropriations Request
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
On February 13, 2012, President Barack Obama forwarded his Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget request to Congress, including $11.2 billion for military construction appropriations. The military construction appropriation, which since the 109th Congress has been combined with appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and a number of small, related agencies, has funded the building of new infrastructure worldwide for the operational and training use active and reserve armed forces, the construction and operation of housing for service members and their families, and facilities for the demilitarization of obsolete chemical munitions, as required by international treaty obligations. It has also paid the U.S. contribution to the common infrastructure fund for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the environmental remediation of defense real property declared surplus since 1988 under the various rounds of base closures and realignments, commonly referred to as BRAC.
The President’s request reflects some marked changes from appropriations requested in recent years, likely reflecting decisions being made within the Pentagon on the shape and structure of the future military force. The Department of Defense (DOD) is undergoing a review of its strategy for national defense and plans to reduce force end strength over the next several years. Construction funding requested for active duty forces aggregates to $7.7 billion, down from the $10.9 billion requested for FY2012 and $9.8 billion appropriated for that year. Reserve component construction (including the Army and Air National Guards) requested is reduced from $1.2 billion for FY2012 to $1.0 billion for FY2013. The request for military family housing remains steady at $1.7 billion, and funding requested for BRAC has shrunk from $582 million to $476 million, reflecting the end of the implementation period for the 2005 BRAC round of base closures and realignments in September 2011.
Date of Report: February 28, 2012
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R42376
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Specialist in National Defense
On February 13, 2012, President Barack Obama forwarded his Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget request to Congress, including $11.2 billion for military construction appropriations. The military construction appropriation, which since the 109th Congress has been combined with appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and a number of small, related agencies, has funded the building of new infrastructure worldwide for the operational and training use active and reserve armed forces, the construction and operation of housing for service members and their families, and facilities for the demilitarization of obsolete chemical munitions, as required by international treaty obligations. It has also paid the U.S. contribution to the common infrastructure fund for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the environmental remediation of defense real property declared surplus since 1988 under the various rounds of base closures and realignments, commonly referred to as BRAC.
The President’s request reflects some marked changes from appropriations requested in recent years, likely reflecting decisions being made within the Pentagon on the shape and structure of the future military force. The Department of Defense (DOD) is undergoing a review of its strategy for national defense and plans to reduce force end strength over the next several years. Construction funding requested for active duty forces aggregates to $7.7 billion, down from the $10.9 billion requested for FY2012 and $9.8 billion appropriated for that year. Reserve component construction (including the Army and Air National Guards) requested is reduced from $1.2 billion for FY2012 to $1.0 billion for FY2013. The request for military family housing remains steady at $1.7 billion, and funding requested for BRAC has shrunk from $582 million to $476 million, reflecting the end of the implementation period for the 2005 BRAC round of base closures and realignments in September 2011.
Date of Report: February 28, 2012
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R42376
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Friday, March 2, 2012
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues
Amy F. Woolf
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
During discussions about the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, Congress reviewed and discussed the plans for maintaining and modernizing U.S. strategic nuclear forces. Although the United States plans to reduce the number of warheads deployed on its long-range missiles and bombers, consistent with the terms of the New START Treaty, it also plans to develop new delivery systems for deployment over the next 20-30 years. As a result, the 112th Congress will continue to review these programs during the annual authorization and appropriations process.
During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer-range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. That number has declined to less than 6,000 warheads today, and is slated to decline to 1,550 warheads by the year 2017 if the New START Treaty enters into force.
At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of 450 Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with between one and three warheads; they will all be reduced to only one warhead over the next few years. The Air Force has deactivated all 50 of the 10-warhead Peacekeeper ICBMs and 50 Minuteman III missiles. The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components. The Air Force had expected to begin replacing the Minuteman missiles around 2018, but has decided, instead, to continue to modernize and maintain the existing missiles, so that they can remain in the force through 2030.
The U.S. ballistic missile submarine fleet currently consists of 14 Trident submarines; each carries 24 Trident II (D-5) missiles. The Navy converted 4 of the original 18 Trident submarines to carry non-nuclear cruise missiles. The remaining submarines currently carry around 1,200 warheads in total; that number will decline as the United States implements the New START Treaty. The Navy has shifted the basing of the submarines, so that nine are deployed in the Pacific Ocean and five are in the Atlantic, to better cover targets in and around Asia. It also has undertaken efforts to extend the life of the missiles and warheads so that they and the submarines can remain in the fleet past 2020, and to begin design work on a new submarine.
The U.S. fleet of heavy bombers includes 19 B-2 bombers and 94 B-52 bombers. The B-1 bomber is no longer equipped for nuclear missions. The fleet will decline to around 60 aircraft in coming years, as the United States implements New START. The Air Force has also begun to retire the nuclear-armed cruise missiles carried by B-52 bombers, leaving only about half the B- 52 fleet equipped to carry nuclear weapons. The Air Force plans to procure both a new long-range bomber and a new cruise missile over the next 20 years.
The Obama Administration is completing a review of the size and structure of the U.S. nuclear force, and a review of U.S. nuclear employment policy, as it implements the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. It is also implementing the New START Treaty with Russia that will limit the number of deployed missiles and warheads in the U.S. strategic force. Congress will review the Administration’s plans for U.S. strategic nuclear forces during the annual authorization and appropriations process, and as it assesses U.S. plans under New START and possible future arms control treaties with Russia.
Date of Report: February 22, 2012
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: RL33640
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers
Valerie Bailey Grasso
Specialist in Defense Acquisition
Military uniforms are procured through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD). DLA is DOD’s largest combat support agency, providing worldwide logistics support for the United States (U.S.) military services, civilian agencies, and foreign countries. With headquarters in Fort Belvoir, VA, DLA operates three supply centers: DLA Aviation, DLA Land and Maritime, and DLA Troop Support. Military uniforms are procured through DLA Troop Support [formerly Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP)] in Philadelphia, PA.
DLA Troop Support is responsible for procuring nearly all of the food, clothing, and medical supplies used by the military, including about 90% of the construction materiel used by troops in the field, and repair parts for aircraft, combat vehicles, and other weapons system platforms. Within DLA Troop Support, the Clothing and Textile (C&T) Directorate supplies more than 8,000 different items ranging from uniforms to footwear and equipment. According to DLA Troop Support’s website, sales of goods exceeded $14.5 billion during 2009.
Legislative initiatives which may impact the procurement of military uniforms were enacted in several bills, among them: Section 822 of P.L. 112-81, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY)2012, which repealed the sunset provision of DOD’s authority to procure fire resistant rayon fiber from foreign sources used for the production of military uniforms, and P.L. 111-383, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011. Section 821 of P.L. 111-383 required the Comptroller General to submit reports to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, not later than March 15, 2011, that assessed the supply chain for the procurement of fire-resistant and fire-retardant fibers and materials for the production of military uniforms. This legislation reflected congressional concern that with the continued threat of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, all combat personnel were subject to the possibility of fire-related injuries. Thus vehicle and aircraft fires remained a significant force protection and safety threat, whether they occurred during ongoing combat operations or training for future deployment.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied the issue and submitted a report to Congress in June 2011. GAO found that an Austrian company was the sole source for fireresistant rayon fiber for the manufacture of fire-resistant uniforms for military personnel; that DOD had taken steps to identify and test alternative fire-resistant, fabric blends to meet current demands; that there was debate as to whether fire-resistant rayon’s flame resistant characteristics posed a superior advantage over other alternatives. GAO did not provide a recommendation.
Date of Report: February 23, 2012
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: RS20550
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
