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, Departmental Administration, and the Cost Of War Toxic Exposures Fund. 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: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: Military personnel, veterans, and their families
Estimated Size: 31000000
- The bill provides fiscal year 2023 appropriations for military construction and related activities within the Department of Defense, affecting active duty military members and their families who will benefit from modernized and new facilities.
- It covers the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), impacting veterans receiving benefits through the Veterans Benefits Administration and health services via the Veterans Health Administration.
- The bill's coverage of the National Cemetery Administration and the American Battle Monuments Commission affects veterans and their families, particularly in terms of burial services and memorial maintenance.
- Allocation for the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims impacts veterans seeking legal redress for claims related to their military service.
- The Armed Forces Retirement Home serves aging military veterans, and appropriations will directly benefit this population.
- The Construction and Operation and Maintenance of Family Housing appropriations benefit military families, improving living conditions.
Reasoning
- The target population includes active duty military personnel, veterans, and their families who will benefit from improved facilities and services. However, within this population, the degree of impact varies based on individual circumstances such as service type, usage of VA services, residence in military housing, and involvement in legal claims processes.
- The budget constraints suggest that not all potential needs and enhancements can be fully addressed simultaneously. Prioritization will be necessary, likely focusing on those most directly engaged with the provided services such as those on active duty requiring housing, veterans heavily reliant on VA healthcare and services, and families using military facilities.
- Consideration is given to the diversity within the military-affiliated population, including age range, socioeconomic backgrounds, healthcare needs, and urban versus rural locations, each influencing how the policy may impact individual wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Army Officer (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding for VA healthcare is crucial for retired veterans like me.
- Living in Texas, I rely heavily on accessible VA facilities for my ongoing health needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Active Duty Marine (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved housing will make a significant difference for my family.
- Base improvements have been needed for a while.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired Veteran (Florida)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing funds for the retirement home can provide better services and facilities.
- I'm concerned about living standards at my age.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Veteran Affairs Case Worker (Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing the improvement in claim processes will be beneficial for my clients.
- The emphasis on healthcare and benefits processing is much needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Air Force Reserve (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect my life to change drastically, but the policy's focus on infrastructure is reassuring.
- It's positive to see reinvestment in reserves, even if indirect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Navy Personnel (North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The improvements to base facilities should allow for a better daily environment, which is good.
- I might see more impact if deployed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Navy, Veteran Advocate (Pennsylvania)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancements in the claims process accelerate veteran satisfaction.
- Veterans rely on these improvements for legal and health support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
VA Health Professional (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our hospital could use those funds, especially for mental health services.
- It's essential for veterans' long-term welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Army National Guard Member (Ohio)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see construction efforts for the guard's benefit.
- Yet impact largely felt in full active duty rather than guard specific.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Veteran Benefits Administrator (Georgia)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficiency in processing pensions aids many elderly veterans.
- Streamlined systems and resources are a necessity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $197000000000 (Low: $187000000000, High: $207000000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The appropriations are critical for maintaining and enhancing infrastructure necessary for military and defense readiness and veteran services.
- Spending of this magnitude may have short-term economic boosts in sectors directly receiving contracts such as construction and healthcare.
- Budgetary constraints in other areas of government spending might be necessary to accommodate this large-scale appropriations.
- Future appropriations should consider the ongoing operational and maintenance costs and the implications on long-term fiscal sustainability.