Bill Overview
Title: Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023
Description: This bill provides FY2023 appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and related agencies. The bill provides appropriations to the Department of Defense (DOD) for military construction for the Army; the Navy and Marine Corps; the Air Force; Defense-wide agencies and activities; the Army and Air National Guard; and the Army, Navy, and Air Force Reserves. The bill also provides appropriations to DOD for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program; the Base Closure Account; Construction and Operation and Maintenance of Family Housing for the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps, the Air Force, and Defense-wide agencies and activities; the Family Housing Improvement Fund; and the Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund. Within the VA budget, the bill provides appropriations for the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, the National Cemetery Administration, and Departmental Administration. The bill provides appropriations for related agencies and programs, including the American Battle Monuments Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Cemeterial Expenses of the Army, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home. The bill also sets forth requirements and restrictions for using funds provided by this and other appropriations acts.
Sponsors: Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-23]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved with or reliant on military and veteran services globally
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill provides appropriations for the Department of Defense's military construction projects, impacting servicemembers in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, National Guard, and Reserves, whose facilities and housing may be improved.
- VA appropriations will impact all veterans using VA services, including those receiving health benefits, pensions, and burial services.
- Family housing improvements affect military families directly, as they may benefit from enhanced living conditions and better family support structures.
- The NATO Security Investment Program impacts international military collaboration efforts and indirectly affects global security frameworks relevant to all members of NATO.
- The Armed Forces Retirement Home benefits retired military personnel, a specific subsection of veterans, by potentially improving services and facilities.
Reasoning
- The target population includes active duty military personnel, reserve members, and veterans, as well as their families. The policy is likely to have varying impacts across different segments due to the diverse nature of the provided benefits.
- Active duty members and their families are expected to benefit from improved living conditions and better facilities, which may enhance their quality of life and overall wellbeing.
- Veterans who use VA health and benefits services could see improvements in service delivery due to increased funding, potentially raising their satisfaction and wellbeing.
- The policy's effect on wellbeing will vary based on how directly individuals are involved with or reliant on military and veteran services, with the most substantial improvements likely for those who are most directly affected.
- Given the budget limitations and the scope over 10 years, there's a focus on gradual and sustained improvements rather than immediate, sweeping changes.
Simulated Interviews
Active Duty Navy (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our base housing could certainly use an upgrade, and this funding might make family life more comfortable here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Army Veteran (Denver, CO)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in the VA administration could mean quicker service and better healthcare for us veterans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Army Reservist (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the new construction projects aren't just for active duty. Reservists need updated facilities too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
VA Nurse (Houston, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding might allow us to enhance medical services and resources, which is great news for staff and patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Veterans Benefits Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced funding could streamline processes and reduce wait times for benefit claims, benefiting many veterans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Military family housing improvements would significantly help us as we often move and face housing challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Active Duty Air Force (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Modernized facilities and accommodations would really boost morale on base.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Navy (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Armed Forces Retirement Home could really use upgrades to facilities and daily programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
VA Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased funding can translate to expansive VA projects, improving overall service quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Active Duty Marine Corps (Virginia Beach, VA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better construction and facilities would ease stress and improve living standards post-deployment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $127000000000 (Low: $115000000000, High: $135000000000)
Year 2: $129540000000 (Low: $117300000000, High: $137700000000)
Year 3: $132130000000 (Low: $119650000000, High: $140450000000)
Year 5: $137490000000 (Low: $124360000000, High: $146670000000)
Year 10: $148440000000 (Low: $134840000000, High: $158430000000)
Year 100: $127000000000 (Low: $115000000000, High: $135000000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill effects are highly contingent upon the resolutions of specific appropriations, hence potential variance in actual expenditures can be high.
- Inflation adjustments are necessary due to the time required for large construction projects and possible delays.
- The global geopolitical situation, particularly with NATO, might demand adjustments to appropriations annually.
- Oversight and efficient management in implementing military construction and VA policies are crucial to prevent budgetary overruns.