Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional research reportMay 17, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Defense:
FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
(name redacted)
Specialist in National Defense
May 17, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42607
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
President Obama requested $613.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of
Defense in Fiscal Year 2013, which is $31.8 billion less than had been appropriated for the
agency in FY2012. The end of U.S. combat in Iraq and the declining tempo of operations in
Afghanistan accounted for the bulk of the overall reduction: The budget request for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO)—DOD activities in those two countries—was $88.5 billion,
which is $26.6 billion less than was provided for those operations in FY2012.
However, the Administration’s $525.4 billion request for DOD’s so-called “base budget”—funds
for all DOD activities other than OCO—was $5.2 billion less than was provided for FY2012 and
$45.3 billion less than the FY2013 base budget the Administration had projected a year earlier, in
February of 2011. The proposed reduction in the base budget—and planned reductions of more
than $50 billion per year through FY2021, compared with the FY2011 projection—reflected the
Administration’s effort to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget Control Act (BCA)
of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). All told, the Obama Administration’s February
2012 projection would reduce DOD budgets by $486.9 billion over a 10-year period (FY2012FY2021), compared with its February 2011 plan. (See “
FY2013 Defense Budget Overview.”)
According to the Administration, the FY2013 DOD budget request was consistent with the initial
spending caps set by the BCA. However, both H.R. 4310, the version of the FY2013 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House on May 18, 2012, and H.R. 5856, the
companion DOD appropriations bill for FY2013, reported by the House Appropriations
Committee on May 25, 2012, exceeded the Administration request for those bills —by $3.7
billion in the case of the authorization bill and by $3.1 billion in the case of the appropriation bill.
On the other hand, S. 3254, the version of the NDAA reported June 4, 2012, by the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and the version of the DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5856) reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2, 2012, kept FY2013 DOD funding within the
initial BCA caps.
Neither the House nor the Senate considered either an NDAA or a DOD appropriations bill for
FY2013 that conformed to the lowered BCA caps on defense spending.
The compromise version of the authorization bill (H.R. 4310), enacted on January 2, 2013 as P.L.
112-239, would authorize $544.9 billion for DOD’s base budget—roughly splitting the difference
between the House and Senate bills—and would authorize $88.5 billion for war costs.
In general terms, the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the first DOD
appropriations bill for FY2013 (H.R. 5856) paralleled the House and Senate versions of the
FY2013 NDAA, respectively. However, the Senate did not act on that bill. For nearly the first six
months of FY2013, DOD and other federal agencies had been funded by a continuing resolution
(H.J.Res. 117; P.L. 112-175). On March 21, 2013, Congress sent to the White House H.R. 933,
the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, which the President signed into law (P.L.
113-6) on March 26, 2013. Division C of that legislation is the Department of Defense
Appropriations bill for FY2013 (See “DOD Appropriations Overview”). Although the amount
provided by that section of the bill was $287.4 million more than the Administration’s request for
programs covered by that division of H.R. 933, the overall level of DOD funding provided by
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
H.R. 933 (including funds provided for military construction in Division E) exceeded the request
by $323.8 million.
Since the total DOD funding level for FY2013 of $607.7 billion exceeds the BCA spending cap,
that law requires that DOD funds be reduced (or “sequestered) by $35.0 billion before the end of
the fiscal year. As of May 15, 2013, the Administration has not allocated the required reduction
among specific DOD programs. All FY2013 appropriations amounts cited in this report reflect the
amounts appropriated by H.R. 933 prior to sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Legislative Action....................................................................................................... 1
Status of Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 1
FY2013 Defense Budget Overview ................................................................................................. 2
Base Budget Highlights ................................................................................................................... 5
New Strategic Guidance ............................................................................................................ 5
Force Structure, Readiness ........................................................................................................ 6
Military Personnel Issues .......................................................................................................... 7
Pay Raise ............................................................................................................................. 8
TRICARE Pharmacy Fees .................................................................................................. 8
Modernization............................................................................................................................ 8
Overseas Contingency Operations Highlights ................................................................................. 9
Bill-by-Bill Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act ................................................................................ 10
NDAA: The Broad Outlines .............................................................................................. 12
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization) ............................................................................... 15
Proposed Reductions in Personnel and Force Structure .................................................... 16
Ground Combat Equipment (Authorization) ........................................................................... 21
Naval Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................................... 22
Aircraft and Long-Range Strike Systems (Authorization) ...................................................... 24
Ballistic Missile Defense (Authorization) ............................................................................... 25
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Enhancement ................................................ 26
MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System) Authorization .................................... 26
Commercial Satellite Export Rules ................................................................................... 27
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees .............................................................................. 27
Smith-Mundt Act ..................................................................................................................... 29
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 30
Senate Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 34
FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill ................................................................................................. 36
DOD Appropriations Overview ............................................................................................... 36
Proposed Administration Savings and Congressional Response....................................... 38
Congressional Initiatives ................................................................................................... 40
Funding Offsets ................................................................................................................. 41
Military Personnel and Force Structure (Appropriations) ....................................................... 43
Reduction in Personnel Transfers ...................................................................................... 45
Depot Maintenance ‘Carryover’ .............................................................................................. 45
TRICARE Fee Increases and Cost Savings ............................................................................. 46
Ground Combat Systems Appropriations ................................................................................ 47
Naval Systems Appropriations ................................................................................................ 48
Aircraft Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 49
Missile Defense Appropriations .............................................................................................. 50
OCO Funding: Afghanistan and Related Activities ................................................................. 51
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 52
Senate Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 55
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-FY2013................................................. 3
Figure 2. Obama Administration DOD Budget Projections: February 2011 and February
2012 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. OCO Funding by Country .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. U.S. Troop Level by Country ......................................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; S. 3254) .................................. 1
Table 2. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856; H.R. 933)................................................. 1
Table 3. FY2013 National Defense Budget Function (050): Administration Request .................... 2
Table 4. FY2013 DOD Discretionary Budget Authority: February 2011 Projection and
February 2012 Request ................................................................................................................. 6
Table 5. Active Military End Strength ............................................................................................. 7
Table 6. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; S. 3254) ................................ 11
Table 7. Selected Administration Budget Initiatives...................................................................... 12
Table 8. Selected Congressional Funding Increases ...................................................................... 14
Table 9. Selected Funding Offsets ................................................................................................. 15
Table 10. Current and Proposed FY2013 End-Strength for Active and Reserve
Component Forces ...................................................................................................................... 16
Table 11. FY2013 Missile Sub R&D Funding ............................................................................... 24
Table 12. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2013 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 4310) .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 13. Selected Senate Floor Amendments to FY2013 National Defense Authorization
Act (S. 3254)............................................................................................................................... 34
Table 14. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856) ............................................................. 37
Table 15. Administration Budget Reduction Initiatives and Congressional Reversals .................. 38
Table 16. Selected Congressional Actions ..................................................................................... 40
Table 17. Selected Funding Offsets ............................................................................................... 42
Table 18. OCO Funding Highlights in FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5856,
H.R. 933) .................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 19. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R.
5856) ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 20. Selected Senate Floor Amendments to FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R.
933) ............................................................................................................................................. 55
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding
Authorization .............................................................................................................................. 56
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 59
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Authorization .............................................................................................................................. 62
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 64
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................................. 66
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 68
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization ............... 70
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation .............. 71
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................................. 72
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 76
Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Program Funding Tables ............................................................................ 56
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 80
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 80
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Legislative Action
On March 21, 2013, Congress sent to the White House H.R. 933, the Consolidated and
Continuing Appropriations Act, which the President signed into law (P.L. 113-6) on March 26,
2013. Division C of that legislation was a fully detailed DOD appropriations act for FY2013 that
provided $597.1 billion for programs funded by that bill.
Including funds provided for military construction in Division E of H.R. 933, the bill provided a
total of $607.7 billion in discretionary budget authority for DOD. This is $323.8 million less than
the Administration’s request, but exceeds the funding cap set by the BCA and thus triggers a
sequestration of up to $35.0 billion. The Administration had not allocated that reduction among
specific DOD appropriations accounts as of May 15, 2013.
Status of Legislation
Table 1. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; S. 3254)
Subcommittee
Markup
Conference Report
Approval
House
Passage
H.R.
4310
Senate
Report
S. 3254
Senate
Passage
H.R.
4310
Conf.
Report
H.R. 4310
House
Senate
Public
Law
House
Senate
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
House
Report
H.R. 4310
4/26-27/
5/22-23/
5/9/2012
5/18/2012
6/4/2012
12/4/2012
12/18/2012
12/30/2012
12/21/2012
1/2/2013
2012
2012
H.Rept.
112-479
299-120
S.Rept.
112-173
98-0
H. Rept.
112-705
315-107
81-14
P.L. 112239
Table 2. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856; H.R. 933)
Subcommittee
Markup
H.R. 5856
Senate
House
Report
H.R. 5856
House
Passage
H.R. 5856
Senate
Report
H.R.
5856
House
Passage
H.R. 933
Senate
Passage
H.R. 933
House
agreed
to
Senate
amdts.
H.R. 933
5/8/2012 7/31/2012
5/25/2012
7/19/2012
8/2/1012
3/6/2013
3/20/2013
3/21/2013
3/26/2013
H.Rept. 112493
326-90
S.Rept.
112-196
267-151
73-26
318-109
P.L. 113-6
House
Congressional Research Service
Public
Law
1
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2013 Defense Budget Overview
The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget request, submitted to Congress on February 13,
2012, included $646.97 billion for the so-called “national defense” function of the federal budget
(budget function 050). This included funding for global operations of the Department of Defense
(DOD), defense-related nuclear programs conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE), and
other defense-related activities.
For discretionary DOD budget authority, the request included $613.93 billion, of which $525.45
billion is for “base” defense budget costs—that is, day-to-day operations other than war costs—
and the remaining $88.48 billion was for “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO)—that is,
military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The function 050 total also included
discretionary budget authority of $17.98 billion for DOE defense-related programs (dealing with
nuclear weapons and warship powerplants), $4.75 billion for FBI national security programs, and
$2.42 billion for a number of smaller accounts, including selective service and civil defense
(Table 3).
Table 3. FY2013 National Defense Budget Function (050): Administration Request
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
discretionary
Department of
Defense
Base
Budget
(budget sub-function
051)
TRICARE-for-Life
accrual payment
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
DOD total
Atomic Energy
Defense Programs
(Dept. of Energy)
(budget sub-function
053)
Defense-related
Activities
(budget sub-function
054)
6.85
518.77
-0.69
525.45
6.16
88.48
613.93
Occupational illness compensation and
other
17.98
Department of Energy total
17.98
Grand Total: National Defense
88.48
6.16
1.17
4.75
CIA Retirement Fund
Other
531.61
620.09
1.17
Other Energy Department defense
programs
FBI defense-related
TOTAL
6.68
Concurrent Receipt accrual
payment
Other DOD Base Budget (incl.
offsetting receipts)
mandatory
19.15
4.75
0.51
0.51
2.42
0.06
2.48
639.08
7.90
646.97
Source: House Armed Services Committee, Conference Report on H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2013, “National Defense Budget Authority Implication,” pp. 687-88.
Notes: This table is an inclusive summary of all budget authority for activities encompassed in the National
Defense budget function (Function 050) that would result from President Obama’s proposed FY2013 budget. It
includes discretionary and mandatory funding for military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD),
defense-related nuclear activities of DOE and defense-related activities by other agencies, such as FBI counterintelligence work. The amounts summarized by the table include some funds that are not covered by the annual
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
legislation that authorizes and appropriates funds for DOD, the bills that are the focus of this report. The table’s
mandatory budget authority amounts are estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
The Administration’s proposed DOD budget called for the third consecutive annual decrease in
total DOD funding (including OCO) since FY2010. Most of that decline reflected the decrease in
OCO spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, while the decline in war costs
accounted for most of this reduction, the President’s FY2013 request also would have reduced the
base budget (in current dollars) for the first time since 1996. The base budget request was $5.2
billion less than was appropriated for the base budget in FY2012 and $45.3 billion less than the
FY2013 request the Administration had projected in February 2011 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-FY2013
(amounts in billions of dollars)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
request
45
Reduction from the February
2011 plan
Iraq
132
145
94
62
45
10
3
Afghanistan
34
39
52
100
114
105
86
Base Budget
431
479
513
528
528
531
525
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, Figures 1-2 and 6-2,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
That reduction from the previously planned FY2013 request—and additional planned reductions
of more than $50 billion per year compared to DOD’s February 2011 budget projections through
FY2021—reflected the Administration’s plan to reduce federal spending as required by the
Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Compared with the
long-range spending plan published by DOD in February 2011, the February 2012 plan reduced
DOD base budgets by $259.4 billion from FY2012 through FY2017 (Figure 2). For the 10-year
period covered by the BCA (FY2012-FY2021), the Administration’s revised spending plan
reduced DOD budgets by a total of $486.9 billion.
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 2. Obama Administration DOD Budget Projections:
February 2011 and February 2012
(amounts in billions of dollars)
640.0
620.0
600.0
580.0
560.0
540.0
520.0
500.0
480.0
460.0
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
DOD February 2011 Plan
528.2
553.0
570.7
586.4
598.2
610.6
621.6
DOD February 2012 Plan
528.2
530.6
525.4
533.6
545.9
555.9
567.3
Source: DOD Comptroller, Budget Briefing, FY2012 Budget Request (slide 4), available at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request.pdf.
Note: The graph’s truncated vertical axis highlights differences between the two plans, but might appear to
exaggerate their magnitude. Under the 2012 plan, the FY2017 budget would be 9.57% lower than had been
planned in 2011.
Further reductions in DOD base budgets over the next 10 years may be in store as a result of the
BCA. In addition to the $900 billion worth of deficit reduction in FY2012-FY2021 (counting
both defense and non-defense spending) that results from the BCA, the act also requires
additional deficit reduction measures totaling $1.2 trillion through FY2021 (which would result in
a total deficit reduction through FY2021 of $2.1 trillion).
In FY2013, the BCA requires an across the board cut in budget authority (or “sequester”) that
would be levied against almost all discretionary spending. For the National Defense budget
function (of which the DOD budget comprises more than 95%), some $59 billion—about 10%—
would be cut from the Administration’s budget request, with equal percentages cut from each
program, project and activity. In subsequent years, the BCA sets lowered spending caps to
achieve the required savings. Each year, to the extent that Congress appropriates more than the
caps allow, the Administration would sequester funds through across-the-board cuts to ensure that
the required savings are achieved. If the sequestration process and the lowered spending caps
remain law, the Administration’s February 2012 projection for defense budgets over the next 10
years would be cut by an additional $515 billion—about 9%.
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Long-Term Budget Issues
For additional analysis of the potential impact on DOD of potential further budget reductions as part of the deficit
reduction measures mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), see CRS Report R42489, FY2013
Defense Budget Request: Overview and Context, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
Base Budget Highlights
The Obama Administration presented its FY2013 DOD budget plan both as an effort to address
the long-term spending limits set by the BCA and as an opportunity to refocus U.S. defense
planning as DOD winds down large-scale deployments of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Administration preceded the announcement of its FY2013 budget request with the
publication on January 5, 2012, of new “strategic guidance,” which, it said, took account of both
the new budgetary and strategic environments.1
New Strategic Guidance
The January 2012 strategic guidance postulates that active-duty ground forces no longer will be
sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which required an Army and Marine Corps capable of maintaining a constantly rotating overseas
deployment of upwards of 100,000 troops.
Under this approach, U.S. forces will be shaped and sized to conduct a campaign to defeat a
major aggression—a combined arms campaign involving air, sea, and land forces and including a
large-scale ground operation—and, simultaneously, another campaign intended to block an attack
in some other area by a second adversary.2
The January 2012 strategic guidance also calls for DOD to put a higher priority on deploying U.S.
forces to the Pacific and around Asia while scaling back deployments in Europe. For example, the
Administration planned to withdraw and disband two of the four Army brigade combat teams
currently stationed in Germany while maintaining a rotating force of up to 2,500 Marines in
northern Australia. It also planned to station littoral combat ships in Singapore and smaller patrol
craft in Bahrain. Because of the distances from land bases to which U.S. forces have access,
operations in the Asia-Pacific region would rely heavily on air and naval forces. Accordingly,
many observers expect a shift of DOD resources toward naval and air forces at the expense of
ground formations.
Some question the Administration’s claim of a “pivot” toward Asia, citing its plan to retire some
older, long-range cargo planes and to cut a total of $13.1 billion from projected shipbuilding
budgets for FY2013-FY2017. But the Administration cites its decisions to retain in service 11
aircraft carriers and to add other ships to its shipbuilding plan as proof of its refocused
commitment on the Pacific region, where long operational distances are the rule.
1
DOD, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012,
http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf.
2
Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
New Strategic Guidance and the ‘Pivot to the Pacific’
For further analysis of the Obama Administration’s new Strategic Guidance, issued in January 2012, see CRS Report
R42146, In Brief: Assessing DOD’s New Strategic Guidance, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). For additional analysis of
the Administration’s increased emphasis on Asia and the Pacific region as the focus of U.S. military and diplomatic
attention, see CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia,
coordinated by (name redacted).
Force Structure, Readiness
Pursuant to the Administration’s January 2012 strategic guidance, DOD plans to eliminate or
retire several major combat units and weapons systems by FY2017. Among these are
•
At least 8 of the Army’s 45 active-duty brigade combat teams;
•
Six of the Marine Corps’s 41 battalion landing teams;
•
Seven cruisers from among the Navy’s current fleet of 101 surface warships;
•
Two of the Navy’s 30 amphibious landing ships;
•
Six of the 61 fighter and ground-attack squadrons in the Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, and Air National Guard;
•
27 early-model C-5A cargo planes out of a total fleet of 302 long-range, widebody C-5 and C-17 cargo jets;
•
The entire fleet of C-27 mid-sized cargo planes, currently operated by the Air
Force but desired by the Army to deliver supplies to troops in forward positions;
and
•
The entire fleet of “Block 30” Global Hawk surveillance drones, which DOD
officials said had proven to be more expensive than the U-2 aircraft they had
been slated to replace.
On the other hand, the Administration says its plan would maintain the remaining force at a high
level of readiness. Compared with the February 2011 plan, the Operation and Maintenance
request for FY2013 was reduced by 3%, one-fifth as large as the 15% reduction imposed on the
Procurement accounts (Table 4).
Table 4. FY2013 DOD Discretionary Budget Authority:
February 2011 Projection and February 2012 Request
(amounts in billions of current year dollars)
Projected
FY2013
Request
Feb. 2011
Actual
FY2013
Request
Feb. 2012
Difference
($)
Difference
(%)
- Military Personnel
141.82
135.11
-6.71
-4.7%
- Operation and Maintenance
197.21
208.76
+11.55
+5.9%
- Procurement
104.53
98.82
-5.70
-5.5%
Appropriations Title
Base Budget
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Projected
FY2013
Request
Feb. 2011
Actual
FY2013
Request
Feb. 2012
Difference
($)
Difference
(%)
- RDT&E
71.38
69.41
-1.97
-2.8%
- Military Construction
11.37
9.57
-1.79
-1.6%
- Family Housing
1.68
1.65
-0.03
-1.9%
- Revolving and Management Funds
2.64
2.12
-0.52
-19.7%
Subtotal: Base Budget
530.62
525.45
-5.18
-1.0%
Subtotal: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
115.08
88.48
-26.60
-23.1%
Total
645.71
613.93
-31.78
-4.9%
Appropriations Title
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, Table 8-1,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Notes: The “Military Personnel” amounts include accrual payments into the budget account that funds
TRICARE-for-Life, which is the program that allows military retirees who are eligible for Medicare to remain
enrolled in DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance program. TRICARE-for-Life funds are not provided by the annual
defense appropriations but rather by permanent law, according to calculations by DOD actuaries.
Military Personnel Issues
The Administration plans to reduce the size of the active-duty force—slated to be 1.42 million at
the end of FY2012—by 21,600 personnel in FY2013 and by a total of 102,400 by the end of
FY2017. Consistent with the new policy of avoiding prolonged, large-scale peacekeeping
operations, most of that multi-year reduction—92,000 out of the 102,400—would come from the
Army and Marine Corps. In effect, this plan would remove from the force the 92,000 personnel
that were added to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 2007 to sustain deployments to Iraq
and Afghanistan. However, in 2017—when the proposed reductions would be complete—each of
those two services still would be larger than it had been before the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 (Table 5).
Table 5. Active Military End Strength
FY2001
FY2012
FY2013
Proposed
FY2017
Proposed
Army
480,801
562,000
552,100
490,000
Navy
377,810
325,700
322,700
319,500
Marine Corps
172,934
202,100
197,300
182,100
Air Force
353,571
332,800
328,900
328,600
Total
1,385,116
1,422,600
1,401,000
1,320,200
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, Figures 4-2,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Pay Raise
The FY2013 budget request included a 1.7% increase in service members’ “basic pay,” an amount
based on the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), which is a survey-based
estimate of the rate at which private-sector pay has increased. After providing an equal increase in
basic pay for FY2014, the Administration plan would provide basic pay raises less than the
anticipated ECI increase in the following three years: 0.5% below ECI for FY2015, 1.0% below
for FY2016, and 1.5% below for FY2017.
The Administration maintained that budgetary limits require some reduction in the rate of
increase of military compensation in order to avoid excessive cuts in either the size of the force or
the pace of modernization. However, it promised that no service member would be subjected to
either a pay freeze or a pay cut. Moreover, proposed reductions in the size of the annual military
pay raise would not begin until FY2015, thus allowing service members and their families to plan
for the change. Over the five-year period (FY2013-FY2017), the Administration projected that
savings from its planned schedule of military compensation would total $16.5 billion.
According to DOD officials, although military compensation accounts for about one-third of
DOD’s budget, the savings that would result from the proposed changes in compensation would
account for less than 10% of the total that the Administration’s budget would slice from the
February 2011 DOD budget projection for FY2012-FY2021 (Table 4).
TRICARE Pharmacy Fees
The Administration also proposed a variety of fee increases for the 9.65 million beneficiaries of
TRICARE, DOD’s medical insurance program for active-duty, reserve-component, and retired
service members and their dependents and survivors. According to DOD, the overall cost of the
Military Health Program, which totaled $19 billion in FY2001, had more than doubled to $48.7
billion in FY2013. The FY2013 request assumes $1.8 billion in savings as a result of the
Administration’s proposed fee increases, which are controversial and which Congress would have
to approve in law.
Many of the proposed fees and fee increases would apply only to working-age retirees and would
be “tiered” according to the retiree’s current income. The package also includes pharmacy copays intended to provide an incentive for TRICARE beneficiaries to use generic drugs and mailorder pharmacy service. Future changes in some of the propose fees and in the “catastrophic cap”
per family would be indexed to the National Health Expenditures (NHE) index, a measure of
escalation in medical costs calculated by the federal agency that manages Medicare.
Modernization
Compared with the FY2013 budget that DOD projected in February of 2011, the actual FY2013
request for procurement and R&D accounts was 12.5% lower. Proportionally, that reduction is
more than twice as large as the reduction in the combined accounts for military personnel and
operation and maintenance (down 4.7%).
Measured in constant dollars, DOD’s combined procurement and R&D budget in FY2010 was
60% higher than it had been in FY2001. Accordingly, some argue that DOD can afford to rein in
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
its spending on acquisition while it lives off the capital stocks built up and modernized during the
decade of budget increases that followed the terrorist attacks of 2001.3
But others contend that much of the procurement spending during that decade was for (1) items
peculiarly relevant to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; (2) items needed to replace equipment
destroyed in combat or worn out by the high tempo of operations in a region that is particularly
stressful on machinery and electronics; or (3) modifications to existing planes, tanks, and ships.
While modifications can improve the effectiveness of existing platforms, they cannot nullify in
the long run the impact of age and design obsolescence.4
The Administration emphasizes that it is prioritizing among weapons programs in deciding where
to make cuts in previously planned spending and that it is sustaining funding for high-priority
programs, such as the development of a new, long-range bomber for which its plan budgets $292
million in FY2013 and more than $5 billion over the FY2014-FY2017 period.
Compared with DOD’s February 2011 plan for procurement and R&D funding, the program
announced in February 2013 would save $24 billion in FY2013 and a total of $94 billion over
FY2013-FY2017. Procurement of some items would be terminated outright, before the originally
planned total number was acquired (e.g., the Army’s new 5-ton trucks—designated FMTV—
terminated for a total savings of $2.2 billion over five years, and a new Air Force weather
satellite, terminated for a total savings of $2.3 billion).
But DOD plans to achieve most of the savings in procurement from “restructuring” programs,
that is, from slowing the timetable for moving from development into production or slowing the
rate of production. The department justifies some of its proposed reductions on grounds of factof-life delays in specific programs. In other cases, it contends that it is an “acceptable risk” to
forego (or delay) acquisition of a particular capability.
Overseas Contingency Operations Highlights
The Administration’s $88.5 billion request for FY2013 war costs (OCO) amounts to $26.6 billion
less than Congress appropriated for war costs in FY2012. This reduction reflects:
•
the cessation of U.S. combat operations in Iraq by the end of the first quarter of
FY2012; and
•
the reduction of the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, by the end of FY2012,
to 68,000 personnel, thus ending the “surge” into that country of 33,000
additional U.S. troops announced by President Obama on December 1, 2009.
3
See, for example, Stimson Center, “What We Bought: Defense Procurement from FY01 to FY10,” by (name re
dacted), October 2011.
4
See, for example, American Enterprise Institute, “The Past Decade of Military Spending: What We Spent, What we
Wasted, and What We Need,” by Mackenzie Eaglen, January 24, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 3. OCO Funding by Country
Figure 4. U.S. Troop Level by Country
200
200
180
160
150
140
120
100
thousands of
troops
100
thousands
of troops 80
60
50
40
0
20
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
148
Iraq
Afghanistan 39
94
52
62
45
10
100 114 105
3
86
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2013 Budget
Request Overview, Figure 6-2,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2
013_Buget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
0
Iraq
Afghanistan
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
154
33
141
44
96
84
47
98
5
90
0
68
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2013 Budget
Request Overview, Figure 6-2,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2
013 _Buget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
The OCO budget request assumed that 68,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through the
end of FY2013, although President Obama has said that, after the number had been drawn down
to 68,000 by the summer of 2012, it would continue to decline “at a steady pace.” 5
On September 20, 2012, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the President’s goal
of reducing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 68,000 had been met.6
Bill-by-Bill Analysis
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act
The compromise final version of the FY2013 NDAA, signed by the President on Jan. 2, 2013
(P.L. 112-239), authorized $648.7 billion for DOD and defense-related nuclear activities of DOE,
which amounts to $1.7 billion more than the administration requested.
For DOD’s base budget, the final bill would authorize $527.5 billion, practically splitting the
difference between the $528.6 billion that would have been authorized by the House-passed
version of the bill, and the $525.8 billion that would have been authorized by the Senate-passed
version. The final bill made a slight reduction to the amount requested for war costs and larger—
though still relatively small—reduction to the amount requested for Energy Department nuclear
programs (Table 6).
5
President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on the Way Forward in Afghanistan, Washington, DC, June 22,
2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/22/remarks-president-way-forwardafghanistan.
6
DOD News Release, No. 766-12, “Statement from Secretary Panetta on Recovery of Surge Forces in Afghanistan,”
Sept. 20, 2012, http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15580.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 6. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; S. 3254)
(amounts of discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Administration
Request
FY2013
House-passed
H.R. 4310
FY2013
Senatepassed
H.R. 4310a
FY2013
Conference
Report on
H.R. 4310
Base Budget
Procurement
97,432
99,122
96,959
98,398
Research and Development
69,408
70,387
69,286
69,938
Operations and Maintenance
174,939
175,082
174,778
175,569
Military Personnel
135,112
135,727
135,112
135,758
Defense Health Program and
Other Authorizations
37,228
37,458
37,739
37,405
Military Construction and
Family Housing
11,223
10,838
10,559
10,413
Commission on the Structure
of the Air Force
1,400
Subtotal:
DOD Base Budget
525,342
528,614
525,839
527,482
Atomic Energy Defense
Activities (Energy Dept.)
17,779
18,143
17,348
17,384
TOTAL: FY2013 Base
Budget
543,121
546,757
543,187
544,866
Subtotal: Overseas
Contingency Operations
88,482
88,482
88,182
88,479
631,603
635,259
631,369
633,345
7,474
7,474
7,474
7,474
Total: FY2013 National
Defense Discretionary Budget
Authority implications of the
bill
639,077
642,713
638,843
640,819
FY2013 Mandatory National
Defense Funding
7,891
7,891
7,891
7,858
Grand Total FY2013
National Defense Budget
Authority implications of
the bill
646,968
650,579
646,734
648,677
GRAND TOTAL:
FY2013 NDAA
National Defense
Discretionary Funding not
covered by this bill
Source: H.Rept. 112-479, House Armed Services Committee, Report on H.R. 4310, National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2013, pp. 10-19; S.Rept. 112-173, Senate Armed Services Committee, Report on S.
3254, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, pp. 4-8; H.Rept. 112-705, Conference report on H.R.
4310, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, pp. 682-87.
Notes: The amounts requested and authorized in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is
less than the total National Defense Budget because defense-related activities conducted by agencies other than
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
DOD and the Energy Department—for example, the FBI’s counterintelligence activity—are not covered by the
bill and because certain DOD activities do not require annual authorization.
a.
The version of the bill debated by the Senate was S. 3254, which had been reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Immediately after the Senate passed that bill on December 4, 2012 by a vote of 98-0, it
agreed by unanimous consent to substitute the text of that bill for the text of the House-passed H.R. 4310.
Thereupon, the Senate passed the amended H.R. 4310 by voice vote, setting the stage for a House-Senate
conference on that measure.
NDAA: The Broad Outlines
Compared with annual defense authorization bills enacted in the previous decade, both H.R. 4310
as passed by the House and S. 3254 as passed by the Senate would make relatively few additions
to the authorization levels proposed by the Administration for specific programs. This reflects the
stringent bars against “earmarks” currently observed in both the House and the Senate.
Proposed Administration Savings
The House-passed version of H.R. 4310 would have added to the request more than $4 billion to
cover the cost of overturning some of the Administration’s more high-profile efforts to reduce
DOD spending. The Senate-passed bill would have taken similar action to reverse two of the
initiatives—disbanding several squadrons of airplanes in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and
Air National Guard; and deferring production of an attack submarine. However, the Senate bill
supported, wholly or in part, several of the Administration’s other proposed DOD spending cuts.
As enacted, the enacted FY2013 NDAA steered a middle course between the House and Senate
versions. (See Table 7.)
Table 7. Selected Administration Budget Initiatives
Selected
Administration
proposals
Disband 7 Air Force and
Air National Guard
squadrons; Retire 303
aircraft. Cancel planned
procurements of Global
Hawk Block 30
surveillance drones and
C-27 medium-sized
cargo planes; Retire
Global Hawk 30s and C27s in service.
House-passed Bill
Senate-passed Bill
Conference Report
Adds authorization for
$1.10 billion and 7,816
personnel (active duty and
reserve components) to
retain the current force
structure and continue
Global Hawk Block 30
operations.
Freezes current force
structure; prohibits
retirement of aircraft from
National Guard or Air
Force Reserve; adds $1.4
billion to cover the cost of
maintaining status quo;
creates commission to
recommend future force
structure of Air Force. In
effect, cancels $544 million
authorized for Global
Hawk Block 30 in prior
years, directing that those
funds be substituted for
new budget authority to
help fund the FY2013
budget.
Adds $636 million and
5,040 personnel (active
duty and reserve
components) to retain the
current force structure and
to continue Global Hawk
Block 30 operations
through 2014, but would
not flatly prohibit changes;
creates commission to
recommend USAF force
structure over the longterm.
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Selected
Administration
proposals
House-passed Bill
Senate-passed Bill
Conference Report
Retire seven Aegis
cruisers and two LSDtype amphibious landing
ships, with four cruisers
slated for retirement in
FY2013 and the other
ships in FY2014.
Prohibits retirement of any
of the ships, except for one
cruiser damaged in
grounding, and adds $638
million to continue
operating and maintaining
three of the four cruisers
that the budget would
retire in FY2013.
Expresses sense of
Congress that all the ships’
operational capability
should be maintained; adds
no funds, for this purpose
Adds $629 million to keep
in service all four cruisers
slated for retirement in
FY2013; requires a detailed
report on repairs and
would be required for the
damaged cruiser (USS Port
Royal) to remain in service.
Increase various
TRICARE fees, reducing
the FY2013 budget
requirement by $1.8
billion.
Adds $1.21 billion to
replace funds the
Administration had planned
to obtain from fee changes
which the House bill would
not authorize; allows some
requested increases.
Adds $452 million to
replace funds the
Administration had planned
to obtain from fee changes
which the bill would not
authorize; allows larger
number of requested
increases.
Adds $1.12 billion to
compensate for not
authorizing several of the
proposed fee changes;
allows some increase in
pharmacy co-pays plus
other fee increases
previously authorized by
law.
Slow design of new
ballistic missile sub,
reducing FY2013 funding
by more than half ($640
million) from earlier
projection.
Adds $374 million to fund
ship design at earlier
projected level; No
addition to restore funds
cut from nuclear reactor
design.
n/c
n/c
Buy components to
support purchase of one
Virginia-class submarine
in FY2014 rather than
two, reducing FY2013
funding by more than
40% ($667 million).
Adds $778 million to allow
funding two subs in
FY2014.
Adds $778 million to allow
funding two subs in
FY2014.
Adds $778 million to allow
funding two subs in
FY2014.
Slow development of
Army’s Ground Combat
Vehicle reducing FY2013
funding by two-thirds
($1.3 billion) from
earlier projection.
n/c
n/c
n/c
Note: The notation n/c (no change) signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed policy.
Other Increased Weapons Spending
The House-passed version of the FY2013 NDAA would have authorized $2.1 billion more than
was requested for several programs for which Congress typically adds to the annual budget
request. The Senate-passed version would have added about one-fifth as much. (See Table 8.)
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 8. Selected Congressional Funding Increases
Selected
Administration
Proposals
House-passed Bill
Senate-passed Bill
Conference Report
Request $903 million to
continue upgrading
Ballistic Missile Defense
system deployed in
Alaska and California to
intercept intercontinental missiles;
Also request $461
million for THAAD
interceptor missiles and
$217 million for a TPY-2
anti-missile radar.
Adds $357 million to
deploy additional
interceptor missiles in
Alaska and $103 million to
begin work on an East
Coast site for additional
interceptors; Also adds
$127 million for additional
THAAD missiles and $170
million for a second radar.
Adds $100 million for
THAAD.
Adds $75 million to the
defense against
intercontinental missiles,
none of it earmarked for
East Coast site, but
requires DOD to evaluate
three additional interceptor
launch sites in U.S., two of
which must be on the East
Coast; Also adds $163
million for a second TPY-2
radar, but no additional
funds for THAAD.
Request $100 million to
continue development of
three Israeli missile
defense systems.
Adds $168 million for
those three Israeli systems
and an additional $680
million for the Israeli “Iron
Dome” system designed to
intercept short-range
rockets and artillery shells.
Adds $100 million for the
three Israeli systems and an
additional $210 million for
“Iron Dome.”
Adds $168 million for the
three Israeli systems and an
additional $211 million for
“Iron Dome.”
Phase out upgrades to
Abrams tanks and
Bradley troop carriers
preparatory to shutting
down those production
lines from 2014 until
2017, when new
upgrade programs
would begin.
Adds $320 million to
continue Abrams and
Bradley upgrades and $62
million for tank recovery
vehicles that would provide
additional work for the
armored vehicle industrial
base.
Adds $91 million to
continue Abrams upgrades
and $123 million for tank
recovery vehicles.
Adds $276 million to
continue Abrams and
Bradley upgrades and $62
million for tank recovery
vehicles.
Note: The notation n/c (no change) signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed policy.
Funding Offsets
As is customary in annual NDAAs, both the House-passed H.R. 4310 and the Senate committee’s
S. 3254 would offset some or all of their proposed additions to the budget request with some
relatively large proposed reductions within certain programs. Moreover—as usual—the House
and Senate Armed Services Committees that drafted the two bills said that some of their proposed
reductions would have no adverse impact on DOD. For example, each bill would reduce the total
amount authorized by upwards of $1.5 billion on the grounds that funds appropriated in prior
years but not spent could be used in lieu of the same amount of new budget authority to cover
part of the FY2013 budget. (See Table 9.)
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 9. Selected Funding Offsets
Selected
Administration
Proposals
House-passed Bill
Senate-passed Bill
Conference Report
Missile Defense
Programs
Cuts the entire $400.9
million requested for
MEADS missile defense
system, a joint project of
the U.S., German, and
Italian governments.
Cuts the entire $400.9
million requested for
MEADS; also cuts $247.4
million (of $297.4 million
requested) for Precision
Tracking Space System
(PTSS) missile tracking
program.
Cuts the entire MEADS
request ($400.9 million);
also cuts $55 million from
PTSS and $25 million (of
$59 million requested) for
a space-based missile
tracking program
designated Advanced
Remote Sensor Technology
(ARST).
Aid to Afghanistan
($6.55 billion) and to
other governments
collaborating with U.S.
policy in Afghanistan
thru Coalition Support
Funds ($1.75 billion).
Cuts a total of $1.00 billion
from the request, including
$650 million from Coalition
Support Funds and $200
million from Commanders
Emergency Response
Program (CERP).
Cuts a total of $250 million
from the request, including
$200 million from
Commanders Emergency
Response Program (CERP)
and $50 million from the
Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund.
Cuts a total of $350 million
from the request including
$200 million from CERP,
$50 million from the
Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund and $100 million from
Coalition Support Funds.
$911.0 million request
to decommission the
nuclear-powered carrier
USS Enterprise.
Cuts $470.0 million that
would not be needed until
FY2014, directing the Navy
to fund the project on a
year-by-year basis.
n/c
n/c
$463.0 million request
for Energy Department
contribution to fund for
environmental cleanup
at U.S. uranium
enrichment facilities.
n/c
Cuts the entire amount on
grounds that payments
must be authorized by
legislation outside
jurisdiction of Armed
Services Committee.
Cuts the entire request for
$463.0 million.
[not applicable]
Cut a total of $2.80 billion
that House Armed Services
Committee said would
have no adverse effect
either because the funds
would not be needed in
FY2013 or because funds
left over from prior
budgets could be used.
Cut a total of $2.37 billion
that Senate Armed Services
Committee said would
have no adverse effect
either because the funds
would not be needed in
FY2013 or because funds
left over from prior
budgets could be used.
Cut a total of $2.55 billion
that House and Senate
negotiators said would
have no adverse effect
either because the funds
would not be needed in
FY2013 or because funds
left over from prior
budgets could be used.
Note: The notation n/c (no change) signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed policy.
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization)7
Like the version of H.R. 4310 passed by the House and S. 3254 as passed by the Senate, the
enacted version of H.R. 4310 authorizes a 1.7% military pay raise, as requested.
7
For congressional action relevant to military personnel issues in the FY2013 DOD appropriations bill, see “Military
Personnel and Force Structure (Appropriations).”
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Military Personnel Policy Issues
For more detailed analysis of military personnel issues dealt with in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act,
see CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated
by (name redacted).
Proposed Reductions in Personnel and Force Structure
In their respective reports on the FY2013 NDAA, the Armed Services Committees of the House
and Senate each expressed concern that the Administration’s plan to reduce the Army and Marine
Corps by a total of 92,000 by the end of FY2017 may cut too deep. However, both bills approved
the Administration’s proposed reductions in the number of active-duty personnel for the Army,
Navy, and Marine Corps in FY2013 and the final version of the bill did the same. (Table 10).
Table 10. Current and Proposed FY2013 End-Strength
for Active and Reserve Component Forces
H.R. 4310
passed by the
House
Service
FY2012
Authorized
FY2013
Request
number
authorized
change
from
request
S. 3254
passed by the
Senate
number
authorized
change
from
request
number
authorized
change
from
request
ACTIVE FORCES
Army
562,000
552,100
552,100
0
552,100
0
552,100
0
Navy
325,700
322,700
322,700
0
322,700
0
322,700
0
Marine
Corps
202,100
197,300
197,300
0
197,300
0
197,300
0
Air
Force
332,800
328,900
330,383
+1,483
329,597
+697
329,460
+560
TOTAL
Active
Forces
1,422,600
1,401,000
1,402,483
+1,483
1,401,697
+697
1,401,560
+560
SELECTED RESERVE
Army
National
Guard
358,200
358,200
358,200
0
358,200
0
358,200
0
Army
Reserve
205,000
205,000
205,000
0
205,000
0
205,000
0
Navy
Reserve
66,200
66,200
66,200
0
66,200
0
66,200
0
Marine
Corps
Reserve
39,600
39,600
39,600
0
39,600
0
39,600
0
Air
National
Guard
106,700
101,600
105,005
+4,405
106,435
+4,835
105,700
+4,100
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2012
Authorized
FY2013
Request
H.R. 4310
passed by the
House
S. 3254
passed by the
Senate
Air
Force
Reserve
71,400
70,500
72,428
+1,928
72,428
+1,928
70,880
+380
TOTAL
Selected
Reserve
847,100
837,400
843,733
+6,333
844,163
+6,763
841,880
+4,480
Service
Note: The “Selected Reserve” are those reservists enrolled in units that assemble for drill periods a certain
number of times annually, including one period of two weeks duration. Service members enrolled in other
reserve categories do not participate in regular drills.
Air Force Cuts
The House and Senate versions of the bill each contained provisions that would block the
Administration’s proposal to disband several Air Force units and retire more than 300 aircraft. In
testimony before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on March 14, 2012, Air Force
Secretary Michael Donley said he would defer the proposed changes. In a June 22, 2012, letter to
then-Senate Defense Subcommittee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Defense Secretary Panetta went
further, saying he would defer any changes to the force structure of the Air Force—including
some that had been authorized and funded in prior budgets—until Congress completes work on
the FY2013 budget.
The House-passed bill authorized 7,030 personnel more than requested for the Air Force and its
associated reserve components in order to staff units that had been slated for disbanding. H.R.
4310 would add to the request $699.2 million to continue operating those units, plus $400.4
million to continue purchasing C-27 cargo planes and RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk
reconnaissance drones. The Administration had proposed mothballing the C-27s and Block 30
Global Hawks already in hand and terminating plans to buy more of each.8
The Senate-passed bill authorized 8,246 more personnel than had been requested for the Air
Force and associated reserve components. S. 3254 also includes provisions that would add to the
budget request a total of $1.40 billion to maintain the status quo pending recommendations by a
National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force that the bill would establish (Sections
1701-1709). However, the Senate bill did not challenge the Administration’s proposal to dispose
of the C-27s and Global Hawk Block 30s. In fact, it rescinded $544 million appropriated for
Global Hawk in prior years, using those funds instead to cover some of the cost of the FY2013
budget.
The conference report on H.R. 4310 adds to the budget request a total of $636 million and 5,040
personnel (active duty and reserve components) to retain the current force structure and to
continue operating C-27s and Global Hawk Block 30s. However, the enacted version of the bill
would not flatly prohibit changes to the current force structure. It also mandated creation of a
commission to make recommendations about USAF force structure over the long-term (Sections
361-367).
8
The Administration’s proposal to abandon the Block 30 version of the Global Hawk has no effect on other versions of
the Global Hawk long-range, unmanned aircraft used by DOD.
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Ship Retirements
The House-passed version of H.R. 4310 would have barred the Navy from laying up six of the
seven Aegis cruisers and either of the two amphibious landing ships slated for earlier-thanplanned retirement as a cost-saving measure in the budget request. It would allow the Navy to
retire, as requested, the one cruiser, the USS Port Royal, although that ship—commissioned in
1994—is the newest of the Aegis cruisers and one of the few that has been modified to shoot
down ballistic missiles. The ship sustained structural damage when it ran aground off Honolulu in
2009.
The House bill also would have authorized an additional $638 million to continue operating and
upgrading the three cruisers slated for retirement in FY2013. However, the bill would approve a
reduction in Navy end-strength from 325,700 to 322,700, as requested. The Armed Services
Committee said the Navy could man the three ships even after absorbing that reduction.
The Senate version of the bill included a provision expressing the sense of Congress that the
“operational capability” of all the ships slated for early retirement should be retained. However,
the Senate bill added no funds to the request.
The conference report on H.R. 4310 included a provision (Section 354) barring the use of funds
to retire (or prepare for retirement) any of the cruisers or amphibious ships. It also added to the
requested authorization $629 million for the operation and upgrade of all four of the cruisers,
including the Port Royal and directed the Navy to prepare a detailed report on the how the
damaged ship could be brought up to par.
Army and Marine Corps Drawdown9
The Armed Services Committees of both the House and Senate, in their reports on their respective
versions of the defense authorization act, expressed concern over the Administration’s plan to cut
a total of 92,000 active-duty personnel from the Army and Marine Corps by the end of FY2017.
Although both the House and Senate versions of the bill authorized the portion of that long-term
reduction that the Administration proposed for FY2013 (approving cuts of 9,900 from the Army
and 4,800 from the Marine Corps), the two committees expressed concern about the pace of the
reductions while U.S. ground forces still are deployed in combat operations in Afghanistan. The
Senate committee warned that the reduction could undermine morale by reducing “dwell-time”—
that is, the period during which soldiers and Marines are stationed at their home bases between
overseas deployments.10
The House bill included a provision (Section 403) that would have limited the number of
personnel that could be cut in any one year from 2014 through 2017 to 15,000 from the Army and
5,000 from the Marine Corps. In its Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the bill, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said this provision would slow its planned drawdown
9
For additional background, see CRS Report R42493, Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted).
10
H.Rept. 112-479, p. 145, and S.Rept. 112-173, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
in ground forces, thus increasing military personnel and health care costs by more than $500
million in 2014 and by a total of $1.9 billion through 2019.11
S. 3254 included no such provision, but in its report to accompany the bill, the Senate Armed
Services Committee directed DOD to include with each of its annual budget requests for FY2014FY2017 two items relevant to this issue:12
•
A prediction of the ratio of “dwell time” to deployment time for active and
reserve component personnel that would result from the personnel reductions
proposed in that budget; and
•
An assessment of whether the proposed reductions could be reversed within one
year, if unforeseen contingencies led to the deployment of more forces than the
budget request had assumed.
The conference report on H.R. 4310 reiterated the Armed Services Committees’ concern
about the wisdom of cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps while troops remain
engaged in Afghanistan. The final version of the bill also included a provision (Section
403) mirroring the House provision that allows a the active-duty manpower of the Army
and Marine Corps to be reduced by no more than 15,000 and 5,000 respectively in each
fiscal year from 2014 through 2017.
TRICARE
Neither the House-passed H.R. 4310 nor the Senate-passed S. 3254 would have authorized most
of the Administration’s proposed new fees and fee increases for TRICARE beneficiaries and for
retirees who benefit from the so-called TRICARE-for-Life program. Specifically, neither
chamber’s version of the FY2013 NDAA would have authorized proposals to
•
raise TRICARE-for-Life premiums for military retirees using a three-tier model
linking the size of each beneficiary’s increase to the amount of his or her military
retired pay;
•
link increases in TRICARE’s so-called “catastrophic cap”—the maximum
amount a family would have to pay in a single year—to increases in the federal
government’s National Health Expenditure index; and
•
increase the annual enrollment fees for the TRICARE Prime plan and introduce
enrollment fees for the other TRICARE plans, including TRICARE-for-Life.
The House bill (Section 718) would have allowed increases in the TRICARE pharmacy copayments for brand-name and non-formulary drugs, but at a lower rate than current law would
allow. This section of the bill further provided that, beginning in 2014, pharmacy co-payments
would be indexed to the annual retiree cost-of-living adjustment. It also directed the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a pilot program that would use the national mail-order pharmacy program to
refill prescription maintenance medications for each TRICARE-for-Life beneficiary (Section
717). All told, the House-passed bill would have added $1.21 billion to the amount requested in
11
Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4310—National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2013,”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf.
12
S.Rept. 112-173, pp. 99-100.
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
the budget to compensate for savings the Administration had anticipated would result from the
proposed TRICARE changes the House bill would not make.
S. 3254 would have allowed the proposed increase in TRICARE pharmacy co-payments at the
rate allowed by current law. It also would have authorized $452 million more than was requested
for DOD’s health care program to compensate for savings projected to have resulted from
TRICARE changes the bill would not authorize.
The conference report on H.R. 4310, as enacted, Section 712 would set new cost-sharing rates
under the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for fiscal year 2013 in statute, and would in
fiscal years 2014 through 2022 limit any annual increases in pharmacy copayments to increases in
retiree cost of living adjustments. Beyond fiscal year 2022, the Secretary of Defense would be
authorized to increase copayments as the Secretary considers appropriate.13
Abortion
As enacted, the conference report included (Section 704) a provision of the Senate-passed bill
authorizing the use of DOD funds to provide abortions in the case of pregnancies resulting from
rape or incest.
Same-Sex Marriage
The House bill included a provision (Section 537) that would prohibit the use of DOD facilities
for any marriage or “marriage-like” ceremony unless the ceremony involves the union of one man
and one woman. The bill also included a provision (Section 536) that would prohibit any military
chaplain from being required to perform any duty or religious ceremony contrary to the chaplain’s
conscience or religious beliefs. The provision also would have barred any adverse personnel
action against a chaplain on the basis of his refusal to comply with any order prohibited by the
section.
The enacted version of H,R, 4310 dropped the prohibition on same-sex marriages in DOD
facilities, but included in Section 533 a modified version of the House provision allowing
chaplains to refuse to officiate at such ceremonies on grounds of conscience or religious belief.
Women in Combat Roles14
In a February 2012 report mandated by Section 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2011,15 DOD announced its intention to relax several policies that
restricted women from assignment to ground combat units and their associated support units. One
of those announced changes was the development of “gender-neutral physical standards for
occupational specialties closed [to women] due to physical requirements.” The enacted version of
13
For additional detail on TRICARE-related provisions of the FY2013 NDAA as enacted, see CRS Report R42651,
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by (name redacte
d).
14
For additional background, see CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
15
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R), Report to Congress on the Reviews of
Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces, February, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
H.R. 4310 included a provision (Section 524), incorporated from the House-passed version of the
bill, requiring DOD to report to Congress on the feasibility of developing such “gender-neutral”
standards.
The House Armed Services Committee noted, in its report on the bill, that counterinsurgency
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan “place female service members in direct combat action with
the enemy.” Noting that some women who had been deployed in that theater were critical of the
body armor currently issued to U.S. troops (which was designed for male body morphology), the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to assess the need for body armor tailored to female
body types.16
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report on S. 3254, called the policy changes
announced in DOD’s February 2012 report “a small step in the right direction,” but urged DOD to
further relax current restrictions on the assignment of female service personnel, saying: “By
limiting their use of the talents of female service members, the Department [of Defense] and the
services are handicapping efforts to field the highest quality force possible.” The Senate
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to report by February 1, 2013, on its implementation
of the policy changes announced in the February report and to “make recommendations for
regulatory and statutory change that the Secretary considers appropriate to increase service
opportunities for women in the armed forces.” 17
Ground Combat Equipment (Authorization)18
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected ground force equipment is
summarized in Table A-3. Following are highlights:
M-1 Tanks, Bradley Troop Carriers, Hercules Tank Recovery Vehicles
As part of DOD’s strategic reorientation,19 the Army plans to dissolve at least 8 of its 47 activeduty brigade combat teams (BCTs),20 including at least 2 of its 15 so-called “heavy” BCTs—units
equipped with dozens of M-1 Abrams tanks and Bradley armored troop carriers. The Army has
not decided the final number of active BCTs it wants to retain; how many of that number will be
heavy BCTs; or the number of tanks, Bradleys, and other armored combat vehicles in each heavy
unit.
In its report on H.R. 4310, the House committee expressed concern that budget pressures might
induce the Army to eliminate too many heavy BCTs (which cost more to equip and operate than
other units). The panel also objected to DOD’s plan to shut down, from 2013 through 2016, the
production lines that upgrade M-1 tanks (in Lima, OH) and Bradleys (in York, PA).21 Under the
Administration’s plan, the two lines would reopen in 2017 to further modify tanks and Bradleys.
16
H.Rept. 112-479, pp. 56-58.
S.Rept. 112-173, pp. 117-18.
18
For congressional action on appropriations for ground combat systems, see “Ground Combat Systems
Appropriations.”
19
See “New Strategic Guidance,” above.
20
Brigade combat teams (BCTs), the Army’s basic combat units, comprising about 4,000 soldiers.
21
H.Rept. 112-479, pp. 24-26.
17
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
The House committee maintained that it was not clear either (1) that the planned temporary shutdowns would save very much, or (2) that the network of suppliers needed to support planned
future upgrades could be reconstituted after a three-year break. The panel also contended that
there was a need for additional upgraded combat vehicles and that pending Army decisions might
further increase the requirement. Accordingly, the House bill increased above the budget request
the amounts authorized for three of the Army’s heavy combat vehicles, authorizing
•
$255.4 million (an increase of $181.0 million) to convert older M-1As to the M1A2 SEP configuration, with improvements to night-vision equipment and other
components;
•
$288.2 million (an increase of $140.0 million) to upgrade Bradleys; and
•
$169.9 million to buy 51 Hercules tank recovery vehicles, designed to tow
damaged tanks to safety (an increase of $62.0 million and 20 vehicles).
The House committee also urged the Army to accelerate a program to equip its 1980s-vintage
Paladin mobile howitzers with a new chassis and a drive train adapted from the Bradley troop
carrier.
S. 3254 would have mirrored the House bill’s authorization of $255.4 million to convert older
tanks to the M-1A2 SEP configuration and also would have authorize the amount requested to
upgrade Bradleys but also would have authorized a total of $230.9 million for Hercules tank
recovery vehicles.22
The enacted version of H.R. 4310 added a total of $338.0 million to the requested authorization,
providing additional funding for Abrams upgrades and Bradley upgrades and for tank recovery
vehicles.
New Generation of Tactical Vehicles
The enacted version of the FY2013 NDAA, like the House and Senate versions, all approved the
amounts requested to develop a new generation of Army vehicles:
•
$639.9 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle, intended to replace the Bradley;
•
$74.1 million for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), intended to
replace the Vietnam War-vintage M-113 troop carrier now used in various roles,
including battlefield ambulance and supply hauler; and
•
$116.8 million for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), intended to succeed
the jeep-like “Humvee” (HMMWV).
Naval Systems (Authorization)23
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected naval systems is summarized in
Table A-5. Following are highlights.
22
The M88 Hercules is built from the chassis design of the M-1’s predecessor, the M60 Patton tank. It is, in essence, a
very large, heavy, and armored tow truck for tanks.
23
For congressional action on appropriations for naval systems, see “Naval Systems Appropriations.”
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Attack Submarines24
As requested, the enacted version of H.R. 4310—like the House and Senate versions of the
NDAA—authorized $3.22 billion for two Virginia-class attack submarines. But all three versions
of the NDAA also authorized $1.65 billion—about $778 million more than requested—for long
lead-time components to be used for an additional submarine to be procured in FY2014. (The
House bill would have added $778.0 million while the Senate bill and the enacted version of H.R.
4310 added $777.679 million.) The increase would allow the Navy to budget for two submarines
in FY2014—as had been assumed in DOD’s February 2011 budget projection—rather than one,
as is assumed in the budget projection published in February 2012.
Like the House and Senate bills, the final version of H.R, 4310 includes a provision (Section 122)
that would permit the use of a multi-year contract for procuring up to 10 Virginia-class attack
submarines in FY2014-FY2018, and the use of incremental funding25 in such a contract. The
Navy had requested authority for a multi-year contract to buy nine submarines during that period.
The service did not request authority to use incremental funding in the contract, but testified that
it wanted to find a way, if possible, to buy a second Virginia-class boat in FY2014 (which would
be the 10th boat in the multi-year contract), and that doing so would likely require the use of
incremental funding.
DDG-51 Aegis Destroyers26
Like the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, the enacted version of H.R. 4310 contains a
provision (Section 123) authorizing the Navy to sign a multi-year contract to buy 10 Aegis
destroyers in FY2013-FY2017. The Navy had requested authority for a multi-year contract to
procure nine of the ships in that period, but indicated in testimony that it hoped that bids
submitted for that contract might come in low enough to finance the procurement of a 10th ship.
As requested, all three versions of the NDAA would authorize $3.05 billion for two destroyers in
FY2013. The House bill would have authorized $581.3 million—$115 million more than
requested—for long lead-time components to be used for the additional (10th) ship. However the
Senate bill and the enacted version of H.R. 4310 authorized $466.3 million, as requested, for long
lead-time destroyer components.
24
For additional background, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
25
In general, Congress requires that DOD budgets for weapons procurement adhere to a “full funding” policy, under
which the entire procurement cost of a weapon or piece of equipment (except for certain “long lead-time” components)
is appropriated in the year in which the item is procured. Under “incremental funding,” a weapon's cost is divided into
two or more annual portions, or increments, that reflect the need to make annual progress payments to the contractor as
the weapon is built. Congress then approves each year's increment as part of its action on that year's budget. See CRS
Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke and (name redacted).
26
For additional background, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Ballistic Missile Submarines27
In February 2011, DOD projected a FY2013 budget request totaling $1.20 billion to continue
developing a new class of 12 missile-launching submarines, designated SSBN(X). These ships
are intended to replace the 14 Ohio-class subs built in the 1980s and 1990s, which are slated to
begin retiring in 2027. The first of the new subs was slated to begin construction in FY2019.
The Administration’s FY2013 budget request, unveiled in February 2012, would provide less than
half of the amount earlier projected for FY2013—$564.9 million—and would defer construction
of the first of the new ships until FY2021.
Table 11. FY2013 Missile Sub R&D Funding
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Projected
2/2011
Requested
2/2012
Housepassed
H.R. 4310
Senate
passed
S. 3254
Enacted
H.R. 4310
Ship design
857.495
483.095
857.495
483.095
483.095
Nuclear
reactor
design
347.095
81.817
81.817
81.817
81.817
Total
1,204.590
564.913
939.312
564.913
564.913
In its report on H.R. 4310, the House committee objected that, under the new schedule, the
number of missile subs in service would drop to 10 or 11 ships for a dozen years (2029-2041). It
added to the bill a provision (Section 121) requiring the Navy to maintain a force of at least 12
ballistic missile submarines. The House passed bill would have added $374.4 million to the
authorization requested to design the planned new sub, thus increasing that authorization to the
level that had been projected in 2011. The House bill would authorize the amount requested to
develop the new missile sub’s nuclear powerplant.
Like the Senate bill, the enacted version of H.R. 4310 authorized the amounts requested for
SSBN(X).
Aircraft and Long-Range Strike Systems (Authorization)28
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected aircraft and long-range strike
programs is summarized in Table A-9. Following are some highlights.
Long-Range Bombers, Strike Weapons
As requested, the authorized $291.7 million to continue developing a new, long-range bomber the
Air Force wants to begin procuring in the 2020s. The House rejected by a vote of 112-308 an
27
For additional background, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
28
For congressional action on appropriations for aviation systems, see “Aircraft Appropriations.”
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
amendment to its bill that would have delayed the program by 10 years and eliminated the
authorization for FY2013 funds (see H.Amdt. 1109 in Table 12).
The enacted version of H.R. 4310 incorporated a provision of the House-passed bill (Section 211)
requiring that the new bomber be equipped to carry nuclear weapons. According to the
conference report on the bill, the Senate accepted the House provision, “with the understanding
that the provision is consistent with the current Air Force plans.”
The enacted bill, like the House-passed and Senate-passed versions, also authorizes, as requested,
$110.4 million for development of a “conventional, prompt global strike” system designed to
place a precision-guided, non-nuclear warhead on a target anywhere in the world within minutes.
Like the House-passed version, the enacted version of H.R. 4310 authorized, as requested, a total
of $628.3 million to develop and install various modifications in B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers
currently in service. The Senate-passed bill, S. 3254, also would have authorized the requested
bomber modification funds except for $15.0 million cut from the $327.4 million B-2 request on
grounds of unspecified “efficiencies.”
Carrier-Based UAVs
The enacted version of H.R. 4310, like the House-passed and Senate-passed NDAAs, authorized
a total of $264.7 million for two programs aimed at developing a long-range, stealthy drone
aircraft to fly reconnaissance and attack missions from carriers. As requested, the Senate bill and
the enacted version authorized $142.3 million for the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)
project, which is intended to test the feasibility of the project, and $142.5 million for the
Unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) project, which is
intended to produce an operational weapon. The House-passed version of H.R. 4310 would have
cut $75 million from the amount requested for UCLASS and added the same amount to the
request for UCAV, requiring the Navy (in Section 212) to slow the former, more operationally
oriented program while it conducts additional research in the UCAS program.
Ballistic Missile Defense (Authorization)29
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Table A-1. Following are some highlights.
The enacted version of H.R. 4310 authorized $8.13 billion for programs managed by the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA), which is $394.1 million more than the Administration requested. The
bulk of the increase reflects authorization of additional funding for several Israeli defense systems
and for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), currently deployed in Alaska and
California which is intended to protect U.S. territory against a small number of missiles launched
from North Korea.
The House-passed version of H.R. 4310 would have added to the $7.74 billion MDA request an
authorization for an additional $1.31 billion. More than half that increase ($680 million) would be
authorized (Section 227) to be spent over several years to support Israel’s purchase and operation
29
For congressional action on appropriations for missile defense systems, see “Missile Defense Appropriations.”
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
of “Iron Dome” system, designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells. Another
major component of the House bill’s increase was a proposed addition of more than 50% ($460
million) to the $903.2 million requested for GMD, of which $103.0 million was to be spent
adding to the current missile defense sites in Alaska and California a third site, located on the East
Coast.
The Senate-passed version of the NDAA would have added $410 million to the MDA request,
including no additional funds for GMD and $210.0 million for Iron Dome in FY2013.
The final bill added to the request authorizations of $211.0 million for Iron Dome, $168.0 million
for other Israeli missile defense programs, and $75.0 million for GMD.
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Enhancement
The House-passed version of the NDAA would have required DOD to begin developing a plan
and a supporting environmental impact statement for putting into service by the end of 2015 an
anti-missile interceptor site on the East Coast. The plan was supposed to evaluate the
effectiveness from the proposed new site of various interceptor missiles including the three-stage
weapon currently deployed at the existing GMD sites in Alaska and California, a two-stage
version of the GMD missile, and several versions of the Navy’s SM-3 Standard missile.
The enacted version of H.R. 4310 includes a provision that is generally similar, but drops the
2015 deadline. Section 224 of the bill requires that DOD evaluate, and prepare an environmental
impact statement on three potential locations for a third GMD site, at least two of which are on
the East Coast. The provision also requires DOD to submit with its FY2014 budget request a
contingency plan for deploying GMD at one of the three sites evaluated.
The final version of the bill dropped a House provision that would have required GMD to be
tested against a target ICBM during 2013. Currently, such a test is scheduled for late 2015.
However, the enacted bill included a provision (Section 231) requiring DOD to report to
Congress on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of (1) testing the defense against an ICBM
sooner than currently planned and (2) conducting GMD flight tests at the rate of at least three
every two years.
MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System) Authorization
Neither the House-passed, Senate-passed nor final versions of the bill authorized any of the
$400.9 million requested to continue development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS), a program jointly funded by the United States, Germany, and Italy to develop a
mobile air and missile defense system for combat units in the field. The system would incorporate
the Patriot PAC-3 missile. Plans to procure MEADS as an operational system have been shelved,
but the three partner countries plan to continue the development program in hopes of harvesting
technologies that could be incorporated into other systems. Under the tri-national agreement
governing the program, the United States could incur significant costs if the program were
terminated.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
In addition, Section 221 of the enacted version of H.R. 4310 included a provision, which had
been included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, barring DOD from obligating or
expending funds for MEADS.30
Commercial Satellite Export Rules
The enacted version of H.R. 4310 contains a provision that would give the President more
flexibility than current law in deciding how to regulate the export of communications satellites
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act.31 Section 1261 of the FY2013 NDAA repeals a
provision of the FY1999 NDAA that had put “satellites and related items” on the U.S. Munitions
List (administered by the State Department) and thus prohibited their export to countries toward
which the United States maintains an arms embargo. By repealing that provision of the earlier
bill, H.R. 4310 gives the President discretion to designate satellites and related items, as “dual
use” items—i.e., equipment that could be used either for civilian or military purposes—which are
listed on the Commerce Control List and subject to less restrictive export controls administered
by the Commerce Department. The new law would retain the prohibition on satellite sales to or
launches by China, North Korea, and countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism (Cuba,
Iran, Sudan, Syria). Under the new law, a license application to export satellites and related items
to a country in which the United States maintains a comprehensive arms embargo will face a
presumption of denial, although not an outright prohibition.32
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees
The House-passed and Senate-passed versions of the FY2013 NDAA each contained provisions
relating to persons captured in the course of hostilities against Al Qaeda and associated forces,
including those detained at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Several of the
provisions in the House bill aimed to extend the effect or clarify the scope of detainee provisions
contained in the FY2012 NDAA while other provisions would have established new restrictions
on the transfer or release of detainees held by the United States in Afghanistan. The Senate bill
included provisions extending certain expiring restrictions on the handling of detainees that had
been enacted as part of the FY2012 bill.
Detainee Issues
For background and additional analysis of provisions of H.R. 4310 relating to detainees, see CRS Report R42143, The
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 and FY2013: Detainee Matters, by (name redacted) and (name redacte
d).
Following are summaries of selected detainee-related provisions of H.R. 4310, as enacted>
30
This provision was flatly contradicted by a provision of the subsequently enacted FY2013 Consolidated and FullYear Continuing Resolution. See below, “Missile Defense Appropriations” p. 62.
31
The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Title II of P.L. 94-329) is codified in 22 U.S.C. Ch. 39.
For additional information, see CRS Report R41916, The U.S. Export Control System and the President’s Reform
Initiative, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
32
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Military Trials for Foreign Terrorist Suspects
The enacted version of the bill did not include a provision, adopted during House consideration of
H.R. 4310, that would have required that a foreign national who (1) "engages or has engaged in
conduct constituting an offense relating to a terrorist attack" on a U.S. target, and who (2) is
subject to trial for the offense before a military commission, must be charged before a military
commission rather than in federal court.
Detainee Held at Guantanamo
Many provisions in the 2012 NDAA affecting detainees at Guantanamo were scheduled to expire
at the end of the fiscal year (though similar restrictions concerning the transfer of Guantanamo
detainees are found in appropriations enactments in effect beyond that date). The enacted version
of H.R. 4310 effectively extended several of these provisions through FY2013, including:
•
a blanket funding bar on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the country
(Section 1027);
•
a prohibition on using funds to construct or modify facilities to house these
detainees in the United States (Section 1022); and
•
restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries
(Section 1028).
A provision from the House bill (Section 1035) that was not retained would have barred any
Guantanamo detainee who is "repatriated" to the former U.S. territories of Palau, Micronesia, or
the Marshall Islands from traveling to the United States.
Detainees Held Elsewhere Abroad
The enacted version of H.R. 4310 establishes would new certification and congressional
notification requirements relating to the transfer or release of non-U.S. or non-Afghan nationals
held at the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan (Section 1025). It requires a report to be filed
within 120 days describing the "estimated recidivism rates and the factors that appear to
contribute to the recidivism of individuals formerly detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan,
Afghanistan, who were transferred or released, including the estimated total number of
individuals who have been recaptured on one or more occasion" (Section 1026).
The enacted version of the bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report regarding
the use of naval vessels to detain persons pursuant to the Congressionally passed Authorization of
the Use of Military Force (AUMF), and to notify Congress whenever such detention occurs
(Section 1024). In 2011, a Somali national reportedly was detained on a U.S. vessel for two
months and interrogated by military and intelligence personnel before being brought into the
United States to face criminal trial.33
33
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/in-somali-terror-suspects-case-administration-blendsmilitary-civilian-systems/2011/07/06/gIQAQ4AJ1H_story.html
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Detention of Persons in the United States:
Although the President has stated that the Administration would not indefinitely detain Americans
in the United States pursuant to the detention authorization in the FY2012 NDAA, that provision
has been controversial.
A provision of the Senate-passed FY2013 NDAA—which was not retained in the enacted version
of the bill—would have stipulated that authorizations to use force are not to be construed to
permit detention of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in the United States unless
Congress passes a law expressly authorizing such detention. An amendment to remove military
detention as an optional "disposition under the law of war" for persons in the United States was
proposed during the House debate on H.R. 4310 but was not adopted.
Instead, the enacted version of H.R. 4310 includes (Section 1029) a modified version of a
provision in the House-passed bill providing that nothing in the AUMF or in the 2012 NDAA is
to be construed as denying "the availability of the writ of habeas corpus" or denying "any
Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution"
with respect to persons who are inside the United States who would be "entitled to the availability
of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws."
The original provision from the House-passed bill, as amended on the floor,172 would have
covered only persons who are lawfully present in the United States when detained pursuant to the
AUMF. Under the floor amendment, the provision would also have required the President to
notify Congress within 48 hours of the detention of such a person, and established a requirement
that such persons be permitted to file for habeas corpus "not later than 30 days after the person is
placed in military custody."
The bill does not contain substantive clarification of which U.S. persons are lawfully subject to
detention under the AUMF. Sections from the House bill setting forth congressional findings with
respect to detention authority under the AUMF and 2012 NDAA and with respect to habeas
corpus were omitted from the final version. Consequently, ambiguity with respect to who can be
lawfully detained in the United States appears to have been preserved, but the enacted version of
the bill provides reassurance that access to a court to petition for habeas corpus will remain
available to those who are detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF.
Smith-Mundt Act34
Section 1078 of the enacted version of the authorization bill incorporates a modified version of a
provision in the House-passed bill (Section 1097) amending and restating Section 501 of the
United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (“Smith-Mundt Act”; P.L. 80402, 22 U.S.C. §1461) as well as Section 208 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1986 and 1987 (P.L. 99-93; 22 U.S.C. §1461-1a). Prior to enactment of H.R. 4310, those
two provisions of law authorized the Secretary of State to conduct public diplomacy programs
that provide information about the United States, its people, and its culture to foreign publics, but
prohibited the dissemination of that information within the United States until 12 years after the
initial dissemination or preparation for dissemination of such information. Before 12 years have
34
This section was prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation.
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
elapsed, Members of Congress, media organizations, and research students and scholars were
allowed to examine such information, however media organizations and researchers were
permitted to do so only at the Department of State. In addition, the two provisions prohibited the
use of funds authorized and appropriated for State Department public diplomacy programs to
influence public opinion in the United States.
The amendments incorporated in Section 1028 of the enacted bill removed the prohibition on
domestic dissemination of public diplomacy information produced by the Department of State
and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) intended for foreign audiences, while
maintaining the prohibition on using public diplomacy funds to influence U.S. public opinion.35
Proponents of these changes argued that the ban on domestic dissemination of public diplomacy
information was impractical given the global reach of modern communications, especially the
Internet, and that it unnecessarily prevented valid U.S. government communications with foreign
publics due to U.S. officials’ fear of violating the ban. They asserted as well that lifting the ban
would promote the transparency in the United States of U.S. public diplomacy and international
broadcasting activities conducted abroad. Critics of lifting the ban stated that it might open the
door to more aggressive U.S. government activities to persuade U.S. citizens to support
government policies, and might also divert the focus of State Department and the BBG
communications from foreign publics, thus reducing their effectiveness.36
House Floor Amendments
Following are selected amendments on which the House took action during consideration of
H.R. 4310.
Table 12. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 4310)
Principal
Sponsor
House
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Disposition
in House
Pakistan
Rohrabacher
H.Amdt.
1102
Prohibit funding for assistance to Pakistan in
FY2013
Rejected
84-335
n/a
Connolly
H.Amdt.
1104
Withhold Coalition Support Funds from Pakistan
until it allows transit of U.S. and NATO supplies in
and out of Afghanistan
Agreed to
412-1
modified
Section 1227
35
Other provisions in law would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds for “publicity and propaganda” within the
United States, including Section 1031(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Division
A of P.L. 111-84, 10 U.S.C. §2241a) placing this restriction on the Department of Defense, and government-wide
restrictions placed in annual appropriations acts. For a review of U.S. law regulating federal communications in the
United States, see CRS Report R42406, Congressional Oversight of Agency Public Communications: Implications of
Agency New Media Use, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RL32750,Public Relations and Propaganda:
Restrictions on Executive Agency Activities, by (name redacted).
36
For further discussion of the Smith-Mundt Act’s domestic dissemination ban, see CRS Report R40989, U.S. Public
Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Cicilline
H.Amdt.
1139
(en bloc
5)
Condition availability of Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund on certification that
Pakistan is making significant efforts to counter the
use of IEDs.
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Section 1228
Flake
H.Amdt.
1143
Withhold 90% of Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund until 30 days after Secretaries of State and
Defense update report to Congress on the strategy
for using those funds.
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Section 1228
Principal
Sponsor
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Disposition
in House
Afghanistan
Lee
H.Amdt.
1103
Provide that funds authorized for operations in
Afghanistan be used only for the safe and orderly
withdrawal of U.S. forces and contractors.
Rejected
113-303
n/a
DeLauro
H.Amdt.
1111
Prohibit purchase for Afghan security forces of
helicopters from any company controlled by a
government that has supplied weapons to Syria or to
a state sponsor of terrorism
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Section 1277
Condition availability of Afghan Security Forces
Fund on certification that Afghanistan is “taking
demonstrable steps” to recruit adequate number of
personnel for Afghan Public Protection Force.
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Section 1531
(en bloc
2)
Cicilline
H.Amdt.
1139
(en bloc
5)
Iran
Lee
H.Amdt.
1130
Create the position of Special Envoy for Iran to
ensure that all diplomatic avenues are pursued to
avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons.
Rejected
77-344
n/a
Conyers
H.Amdt.
1137
(en bloc
4)
Stipulate that nothing in this bill shall be construed as
authorizing the use of military force against Iran.
Agreed to
voice vote
accepted
Section 1234
Detainee Issues
Rooney
H.Amdt.
1105
Direct DOD to try detainees in military tribunals
rather than civil courts.
Agreed to
249-171
dropped
Gohmert
H.Amdt.
1126
Stipulate that neither the 2001 Authorization of
Military Force against Iraq nor the FY2012 National
Defense Authorization Act deny any constitutional
right, including habeas corpus, to anyone entitled
to such rights.
Agreed to
243-173
modified
Section 1029
Smith
H.Amdt.
1127
Amend the FY2012 National Defense Authorization
Act to eliminate “indefinite detention” of anyone
detainees by providing for immediate transfer to trial
in a federal or state court.
Rejected
182-238
n/a
Strategic Weapons and Arms Control Agreements
Markey
H.Amdt.
1109
Delay development of long-range, nuclear-armed
bomber for 10 years and reduce the bill by $291.7
million, the amount it would authorize for that program,
as requested
Congressional Research Service
Rejected
112-308
n/a
31
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Principal
Sponsor
House
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Price
H.Amdt.
1122
Prohibit the President from making unilateral
reductions to U.S. nuclear forces.
Agreed to
241-179
modified
Section 1038
Johnson
H.Amdt.
1121
Require the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to report to Congress whether the
nuclear arms reductions required by the so-called “new
START” treaty are in the national security interests of
the United States.
Rejected
175-245
n/a
Rehberg
H.Amdt.
1140
Prohibit elimination of any one of the three legs of the
U.S. strategic nuclear “triad” (land-based ICBMs, sublaunched missiles, and bombers) and prohibit reductions
to the U.S. strategic nuclear force pursuant to the “new
START” treaty unless the Secretary of Defense certifies
that (1) Russia is required by the treaty to make
commensurate reductions; and (2) Russia is not
acquiring nuclear-armed systems not covered by the
treaty that could reach U.S. territory.
Agreed to
238-162
modified
Section 1042
Johnson
H.Amdt.
1120
State as a “finding” of Congress that the deployment of
tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea would be
politically destabilizing and not in the U.S. national
interest.
Rejected
160-261
n/a
Lamborn
H.Amdt.
1131
Bar the expenditure of any funds for Russia under the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program,—
which is intended to dismantle weapons of mass
destruction in the former Soviet—unless the Secretary
of Defense certifies that Russia no longer is supporting
the Syrian regime and is not assisting Syria, North Korea,
or Iran in developing weapons of mass destruction. The
Secretary could waive the prohibition on grounds of
national security.
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Section 1295
Franks
H.Amdt.
1135
Bar the expenditure of any funds for Russia for the
purpose of nuclear nonproliferation unless the
Secretary of Energy certifies that Russia no longer is
supporting the Syrian regime and is not assisting Syria,
North Korea, or Iran in developing weapons of mass
destruction. The Secretary could waive the prohibition
on grounds of national security.
Agreed to
241-181
dropped
Polis
H.Amdt.
1110
Reduce by $403 million the amount authorized for the
Ground-based Mid-course Missile Defense (GMD)
system.
Rejected
165-252
n/a
Duncan
H.Amdt.
1128
Bar the use of any funds authorized by the bill for any
organization established by the United Nations in
connection with the Law of the Sea (LOS) Treaty.
Agreed to
229-193
dropped
Rejected
170-252
n/a
Budget and Budget Process
Lee
H.Amdt.
1125
Direct the President to reduce the amount
authorized by this bill to be appropriated by a total of
$8.231 billion.
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Principal
Sponsor
House
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Rigell
H.Amdt.
1123
Replace the discretionary spending caps for FY2013 with
caps equivalent to those set by the House-passed
Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), contingent on
the enactment of spending reductions over five years at
least as large as the reductions that would have resulted
from sequestration.
Agreed to
220-201
dropped
Flake
H.Amdt.
1111
(en bloc 2)
Provide that funds authorized for appropriation to pay
for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) can
be spent only on items and activities requested by the
President in the OCO portion of the FY2013 budget
request.
Agreed to
voice vote
dropped
Other Subjects
McCollum
H.Amdt.
1138
(en bloc 4)
Spend no more than $200.0 million on military bands.
Agreed to
voice vote
dropped
Duncan
H.Amdt.
1137
(en bloc 3)
Prohibit the use of funds for joint military exercises
with Egypt if that country withdraws from its 1970
peace treaty with Israel.
Agreed to
voice vote
dropped
Thornberry
H.Amdt.
1137
(en bloc 4)
Amend the Smith-Mundt Act to repeal the bar on
domestic dissemination of public diplomacy material
produced for dissemination to foreign audiences.
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Sec. 1078
Price
H.Amdt.
1142
Require the Department of Justice to investigate possible
violations of law regarding leaks of sensitive
information about U.S. and Israeli military and
intelligence capabilities.
Agreed to
379-38
modified
Section 1080
Smith
H.Amdt.
1100
(en bloc 1)
Remove commercial satellites from the Munitions
Control List.
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Sections 12611067
Smith
H.Amdt.
1119
(en bloc 3)
Establish a Sexual Assault Oversight Council to
provide independent oversight of DOD efforts to
prevent and prosecute sexual assault in the armed
forces.
Agreed to
voice vote
dropped
Bartlett
H.Amdt.
1106
Prohibit federal agencies from requiring contractor to
sign a Project Labor Agreement as a condition of
winning a federal construction project.
Agreed to
211-209
dropped
Coffman
H.Amdt.
1112
Repeal the current moratorium on A-76 “contracting
out” competitions.
Rejected
209-211
n/a
Wittman
H.Amdt.
1116
Require that a uniformed military chain of command,
headed by a commissioned military officer, control the
Army National Military Cemeteries.
Agreed to
voice vote
dropped
Notes: “House Amendment Number” is the number assigned to an amendment by the House Clerk, by which
amendments can be traced through CRS’s Legislative Information System (LIS). It is not the same as the number
assigned to the amendment by the House Rules Committee in H.Rept. 112-485, its report on the rule that
governed debate on amendments to H.R. 4310 (H.Res. 661).
During floor action on the bill, dozens of amendments were aggregated into several en bloc amendments, each of
which was agreed to by voice vote. Individual amendments in this table that were agreed to as a component of
one of those en bloc amendments are so identified.
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate Floor Amendments
Following are selected amendments on which the House took action during consideration of
S. 3254.
Table 13. Selected Senate Floor Amendments to FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act (S. 3254)
Principal
Sponsor
Senate
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Afghanistan
Sessions
S.Amdt.
3009
Require 30 days prior notice to Congress before
making any binding security agreement with
Afghanistan
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Sec. 1225
Feinstein
S.Amdt.
3018
Stipulate that neither the 2001 Authorization of
Military Force against Iraq nor any similar authorizes
the indefinite detention without trial of any U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident
Agreed to
67-29
modified
Sec. 1029
Collins
S.Amdt.
3042
Require a report by DOD on “insider attacks”
against U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Sec. 1212
Merkley
S.Amdt.
3096
Express the sense of Congress in support of an
accelerated transition of responsibility for
combat and security in Afghanistan from U.S. to
Afghan government forces.
Agreed to
62-33
accepted
Sec. 1226
Casey
S.Amdt.
3193
Require DOD to develop a plan to promote the
security of Afghan women after Afghan forces
assume responsibility for security in that country
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 1223
McCain
S.Amdt.
3261
Require the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
report to Congress an assessment of the risks
associated with any future change in the number of
U.S. troops in Afghanistan
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 1213
Sexual Assault and Harassment
Boxer
S.Amdt.
2981
Prohibit commissioning or enlistment in the
armed forces of anyone convicted of a felony sexual
offense
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
accepted
Sec. 523
Gillibrand
S.Amdt.
3016
Require that any service member convicted by
court-martial of sexual assault or rape be
discharged
Agreed to
voice vote
accepted
Sec. 572
Klobuchar
S.Amdt.
3102
Require the retention of certain reports filed in
cases of sexual assault involving members of the
military
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 577
Klobuchar
S.Amdt.
3234
Add to the amount of information contained in
an annual DOD report regarding sexual assaults
involving members of the military
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
accepted
Sec. 575
Klobuchar
S.Amdt.
3105
Require DOD to develop a comprehensive
program for prevention of and response to sexual
harassment
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 545
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Principal
Sponsor
Senate
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Embassy Security
McCain
S.Amdt.
3051
Increase the number of Marines assigned to
provide security at U.S. embassies by up to 1,000
personnel
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Sec. 404
Portman
S.Amdt.
3142
Require a DOD report on the department’s role
in providing security to U.S. diplomatic missions
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
dropped
Alternative Fuel Development
M. Udall
S.Amdt.
2985
Strike from the bill Section 313 which would
prohibit the purchase of alternative fuels most
costly than traditional fuels.
Agreed to
62-37
n/a
Hagan
S.Amdt.
3095.
Strike from the bill Section 2823 which would
prohibit DOD from planning, designing or
constructing a biofuels refinery
Agreed to
54-41
n/a
Other
Murray
S.Amdt.
3099
Require the establishment of comprehensive,
standardized suicide-prevention programs across
ass DOD components
Agreed to
voice vote
modified
Sec. 582
Menendez
S.Amdt.
3232
Expand the range of U.S. sanctions against foreign
firms that assist certain segments of the Iranian
economy
Agreed to
94-0
modified
Secs. 12411275
Cardin
S.Amdt.
3025
Strike from the bill Section 341 which would
require reductions in the number of DOD civilian
employees (including contractors) that would
reduce future budgets by the same amount as
planned reductions in the number of military
personnel
Rejected
41-53
n/a
McCain
S.Amdt.
3054
Require the Secretary of the Navy to inform
Congress 30 days prior to announcing the name of
a new Navy ship
Agreed to
voice vote
accepted
Sec. 1018
Gilliland
S.Amdt.
3058
Provide that certain treatments for autism
would be covered by the TRICARE health care
program and transferring $45 million from other
accounts into the TRICARE account for that
purpose
Agreed to
66-29
modified
Sec. 705
Rubio
S.Amdt.
3175
Express the sense of Congress in opposition to the
planned retirement of Navy cruisers and
amphibious landing ships earlier than had been
scheduled
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 354
Sanders
S.Amdt.
3183
Make available to the public online data concerning
DOD officials who are seeking jobs with
defense contractors
Agreed to
voice vote
dropped
Coburn
S.Amdt.
3237
Create a civilian Chief Management Office for DOD
if the department does not obtain an unqualified
audit of its financial statements for FY2017
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 1007
Ayotte
S.Amdt.
3245
Prohibit the transfer or release of detainees held
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Agreed to
54-41
modified
Sec. 1027
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Principal
Sponsor
Senate
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in
Conf. Rept.
Cornyn
S.Amdt.
3260
Prohibit dealing with Rosboronexport (the
Russian government’s arms export organization),
with the proviso that the ban can be waived on
national security grounds
Agreed to
unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 1277
Levin
S.Amdt.
3280
Require defense contractors dealing with classified
information to report to DOD when their
information networks are penetrated
Agreed to
Unanimous
consent
modified
Sec. 941
Note: “Senate Amendment Number” is the number assigned to an amendment by the Senate Clerk, by which
amendments can be traced through CRS’s Legislative Information System (LIS).
FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill
DOD Appropriations Overview
The FY2013 DOD appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee May 25,
2012 (H.R. 5856), would provide a total of $599.89 billion for DOD activities other than military
construction,37 $3.09 billion more than the President requested. Amendments to the bill, adopted
by the House on July 18-19, 2012, reduced the appropriation to $597.71 billion.
In exceeding the President’s budget request—and in many of its details—the House-passed
version of the DOD appropriations bill parallels H.R. 4310, the House-passed version of the
companion FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). By the same token, the Housepassed appropriation is consistent with the defense funding cap set by H.Con.Res. 112, the
FY2013 budget resolution adopted by the House on March 29, 2012. Thus, it exceeds defense
spending cap set by the Budget Control Act of August 2011. On those grounds, the
Administration warned that the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the
house-passed bill in its current form.38
The version of H.R. 5856 reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2, 2012,
would provide $596.64 billion—$155.0 million less than the Administration’s request and $1.06
billion less than the House-passed version (Table 14).
37
DOD’s budget for the construction of facilities and the construction and operation of military family housing is
funded by H.R. 5854. the FY2013 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
See CRS Report R42586, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations, by
(name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted)nangala.
38
OMB, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5856, June 28, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
36
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 14. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856)
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2013
Enacted
DOD
Approp.
(H.R. 933,
Div. C)
FY2012
Approp.
(P.L. 112-74)
FY2013
Admin.
Request
FY2013
HousePassed
(H.R. 5856)
FY2013
Senate
Committeereported
(H.R. 5856)
Military Personnel
131,090,539
128,430,025
128,462,794
127,502,463
127,533,073
Operation and
Maintenance
163,073,141
174,938,933
175,103,369
170,785,490
173,494,558
Procurement
104,579,701
97,194,677a
102,512,191
97,635,496
100,350,714
Research, Development,
Test & Evaluation
72,420,675
69,407,767
69,984,145
69,091,078
69,928,477
Revolving and Management
Funds
2,675,529
2,124,320
2,080,820
2,214,024
2,214,024
Defense Health Program
and other DOD Programs
35,593,020
35,430,579
35,905,118
35,013,758
35,526,674
Related Agencies
1,061,591
1,054,252
1,025,476
1,056,346
1,048,421
General Provisions (net)b
-2,597,704
8,000
-4,470,321
319,345
507,935
Subtotal: Base Budget
507,896,492
508,588,553
510,603,592
503,618,000
510,603,876
Base Budget Scorekeeping
Adjustments
+10,764,000
+8,057,000
+8,057,000
+8,057,000
+8,057,000
Subtotal: Overseas
Contingency
Operations (OCO)
114,965,635
88,210,745
87,105,081
93,026,000
86,954,838
+117,000
+271,000
+271,000
+271,000
+217,000
Pre-rescission total
DOD Appropriations in
H.R. 933, Div. C
622,862,127
596,799,298
597,708,673
596,644,000
597,558,714
Rescission mandated by
Section 3001 of H.R. 933)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
-472,000
Grand Total provided
by H.R. 933, Div. C
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
597,086,714
633,743,127
605,127,298
606,036,673
604,972,000
605,832,714
OCO Scorekeeping
Adjustments
Scorekeeping Adjusted
Totalc
Source: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 112-493, Report on H.R. 5856, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, FY2013, pp. 329-342; Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 112-196, Report on H.R.
5856, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY2013, pp. 283-291.
a.
In addition to these funds requested for appropriation to be spent in FY2013, the Administration requested
an additional $4.43 billion in so-called “advance appropriations”—funds to be spent in FY2014-FY2017. The
Appropriations and Armed Services Committees of both the House and the Senate rejected the proposal
for “advance appropriations,” accordingly those funds are not included in the tables in this report.
b.
The bulk of General Provision funding changes result from provisions that would use previously
appropriated but unobligated funds for DOD’s FY2013 program, thus reducing the amount of new budget
authority required. For that purpose, H.R. 5856 would withdraw $2.46 billion from the Army Working
Congressional Research Service
37
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Capital Fund and would rescind a total of $1.60 billion appropriated in base budget and OCO accounts for
prior years.
c.
The bulk of the scorekeeping adjustments are accounted for by the amounts appropriated each year by
permanent law (rather than through annual appropriations bills) for the accrual contributions to the fund
from which Medicare-eligible military retirees are covered under the “TRICARE-for-Life” program. The
TRICARE-for-Life contributions for FY2013, which are derived from actuarial calculations, are $8.03 billion
in the base budget and $271 million in the OCO account.
Proposed Administration Savings and Congressional Response
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of H.R. 5856 would each add billions
of dollars to the Administration’s budget request—$5.5 billion in the case of the House bill—
reversing some of the Administration’s DOD budget reduction initiatives, summarized in Table
15.
In each version of the bill, that gross increase, along with other congressional initiatives
summarized in Table 16, is partly offset by funding reductions summarized in Table 17.
Table 15. Administration Budget Reduction Initiatives and Congressional Reversals
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 5856
Disband 7 Air Force and
Air National Guard
squadrons; Retire 303
aircraft.
Prohibits retirement or
transfer to another unit of
any aircraft; Adds a total of
$699.2 million to budget
request for Air Force, Air
Force Reserve and Air
National Guard to continue
operating the seven
squadrons the
Administration would
eliminate and fund the
associated 6,560 personnel
slots.
Cancel planned
procurements of Global
Hawk Block 30
surveillance drones and
C-27 small cargo planes.
Retire those Block 30s
and C-27s already
purchased
Adds $278.0 million to
continue procuring and
operating Global Hawk
Block 30s and $140.0
million to continue
operating C-27s.
Congressional Research Service
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 5856
Report directs DOD not to
make the proposed
changes until Congress
receives recommendations
of a Commission that
would be established by the
Senate version of the
defense authorization bill (S
3254); Adds to the budget
request $455.8 million to
continue operation of the
units in question and fund
9,460 personnel slots for
those units.
Adds $357.5 million to
continue operating Global
Hawk Block 30s, C-27s and
A-10s which the
Administration would
retire and orders the Air
Force to spend an
additional $133.0 million
for Global Hawk
operations; Also requires
DOD to spend funds
previously appropriated for
Global Hawks and C-27s.
Conference
Report
H.R. 933
Prohibits retirement of
aircraft or disbanding of the
seven squadrons proposed
by Administration (Sec.
8115); Adds to the budget
request $557.2 million to
continue operating those
squadrons and fund 6,994
personnel slots for those
units.
Adds $341.3 million to
continue procuring and
operating Global Hawk
Block 30s, C-27s and A-10s
and orders the the Air
Force to spend an
additional $133.0 million
for Global Hawk
operations.
Also requires DOD to
spend funds appropriated in
prior years for Global
Hawks and C-27s (Sec.
8118).
38
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 5856
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 5856
Retire four Aegis
cruisers in FY2013 and
three additional cruisers
and two amphibious
landing ships in FY2014.
Adds $602.3 million to
keep in service (and
modernize as earlier
planned) three of the four
ships. Allows retirement of
the Port Royal, severely
damaged in a 2009
grounding.
Adds $2.38 billion to man,
equip, modernize (as
previously planned) and
operate thru FY2014 all
seven cruisers and both
amphibious ships the
Administration would
retire.
Incorporates Senate
provision (as Sec. 8105).
Reduce TRICARE
budget request by $1.8
billion in anticipation of
proposed increases to
various TRICARE fees
and pharmacy co-pays.
Adds no funds to the
TRICARE request, but
committee says it will
“continue to evaluate” the
proposed changes pending
action on the defense
authorization bill.
Adds to the TRICARE
request $273.0 million to
replace increased fees
assumed in the budget, but
not authorized by
Congress.
Incorporates Senate
funding changes.
In addition, the House bill
cuts $400.0 million from
the $16.15 billion TRICARE
request on grounds that,
historically, the program
has spent less than was
appropriated (see also
Table 17).
Conference
Report
H.R. 933
In addition, cuts $807.4
million from TRICARE
request on grounds of
“historic
underexecution”—i.e., the
program typically has spent
less than was appropriated
(see also Table 17).
Slow design of new
ballistic missile
submarine, reducing
FY2013 funding by more
than half ($640 million)
from earlier projection.
n/c
n/c
n/c
Budget for one Virginiaclass sub and one Aegis
destroyer in FY2014
instead of two of each
type (as had been
planned).
Adds $723.0 million to
submarine account to allow
the purchase of two subs in
FY2014, and $1.00 billion
to allow the purchase of
three destroyers rather
than two (as requested) in
FY2013.
Adds $777.7 million to
submarine account to allow
the purchase of two subs in
FY2014, and $1.00 billion
to allow the purchase of
three destroyers rather
than two (as requested) in
FY2013.
Incorporates Senate
funding changes.
Efficiencies
Adds a total of $2.11 billion
to offset Administration
“efficiencies” which the
House committee deemed
unrealistic and likely to lead
to deferred maintenance of
facilities.
n/c
Adds a total of $575.2
million to offset
Administration
“efficiencies” which the
House committee deemed
unrealistic and likely to lead
to deferred maintenance of
facilities.
Sources: H.Rept. 112-493, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2013, report to accompany H.R. 5856; S.Rept. 112-196, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 5856; Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, Explanatory Statement
on H.R. 933, Division C, pp. S1316-S1546.
Note: The notation n/c (no change) signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Congressional Research Service
39
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional Initiatives
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5856 also would add to the budget
request upwards of $6.0 billion for certain programs for which Congress typically increases
funding above the proposed level.
Table 16. Selected Congressional Actions
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 5856
Administration
proposal
House-passed
H.R. 5856
Requests $903.0 million
to continue upgrading
the Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense
(GMD) anti-missile
system deployed in
Alaska and California.
Adds $75.0 million but
does not order
development of a third
missile defense site to be
located on the East Coast
(as does the House-passed
NDAA).
n/c
Requests $100.0 million
to continue
development of three
Israeli missile defense
systems.
Adds $168.0 million for the
three Israeli systems and an
additional $680.0 million
for the Israeli “Iron Dome”
system designed to
intercept short-range
rockets and artillery shells.
Adds $168.9 million for the
three Israeli systems and an
additional $211.0 million
for the Israeli “Iron Dome”
system designed to
intercept short-range
rockets and artillery shells.
Incorporates House funding
increase.
Phases out upgrades to
Abrams tanks and
Bradley troop carriers,
preparatory to shutting
down those production
lines from 2014 until
2017, when new
upgrade programs
would begin.
Adds $321.0 million to
continue Abrams and
Bradley upgrades and adds
$62 million to the amount
requested for armored
tank recovery vehicle
Requests $2.04 billion
for 26 F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet Navy fighters
and $1.03 billion for 12
EA-18G Growler
electronic warfare
planes (with no funds to
continue Growler
production in FY2014).
Adds $605.0 million for 11
additional F/A-18E/Fs and
$45.0 million for long leadtime components to allow
the purchase of 15
additional Growlers in
FY2014.
Adds $60.0 million for long
lead-time components to
allow the purchase of 15
additional Growlers in
FY2014.
Adds $447.0 million for
seven additional C-130s
equipped for various
missions.
Reallocates $72.0 million
within Marine Corps
budget request to buy two
KC-130J refueling tankers
(at Marine Corps request)
and adds $180.0 million for
components that would
allow procurement of 18
C-130Js in FY2014.
Requests $836.6 million
for seven C-130s
equipped for mid-air
refueling, search and
rescue, and other
missions.
Congressional Research Service
Conference
Report
H.R. 933
Adds $165.4 million to
continue Abrams upgrade
and adds $123.0 million to
the amount requested for
armored tank recovery
vehicle
Incorporates Senate
funding increases.
Incorporates House funding
increases.
Incorporates House funding
increases.
Incorporates all but $10
million of both House and
Senate funding increases:
$437.0 for 7 new planes;
$72.0 million reallocated
within Marine Corps
budget to buy two planes;
and $180.0 million to lay
ground work for
procurement of 18 planes
in FY2014
40
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 5856
Administration
proposal
House-passed
H.R. 5856
Requests no funding for
the National Guard and
Reserve Equipment
account (NGREA)
Adds $2.00 billion for the
NGREA account and an
additional $219.0 million
for Blackhawk helicopters
and $100.0 million for
HMMWVs for the National
Guard.
Requests no funding for
OCO Transfer Fund, to
cover unforeseen costs
of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Creates a $3.25 billion
OCO Transfer Fund
consisting of $2.0 billion cut
from funds requested for
Army OCO operations
plus $1.25 billion added to
the budget.
n/c
Within the $673.0
million requested for
medical R&D, allocates
no funds for specific
programs for which
Congress has added
funds to previous budget
requests.
Adds $576.4 million for 21
peer-reviewed medical
R&D programs.
Allocates $354 million
(within the $673.0 million
requested) to increase
spending for six peerreviewed medical R&D
programs.
Requests no funds for
Defense Rapid
Innovation Fund
Adds $250.0 million for
Defense Rapid Innovation
Fund
Adds $200.0 million for
Defense Rapid Innovation
Fund
Adds $1.0 billion for
Marine Corps “reset”—i.e.,
repair and reconditioning of
equipment worn out by use
in Afghanistan and Iraq;
This increase partly offset
by cut of $500.0 million to
Marine Corps logistics
funding on grounds of
unjustified [cost] growth.
Conference
Report
H.R. 933
Adds $1.5 billion for the
NGREA account
Adds $1.0 billion for the
NGREA account.
Creates a $582.9 million
OCO Transfer Fund
Adds $635.4 million for 22
peer-reviewed medical
R&D programs
Incorporates House funding
increase.
n/c
n/c
Sources: H.Rept. 112-493, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2013, report to accompany H.R. 5856; S.Rept. 112-196, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 5856; Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, Explanatory Statement
on H.R. 933, Division C, pp. S1316-S1546.
Note: The notation n/c (no change) signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Funding Offsets
As is customary in annual DOD appropriations bills, the House-passed and Senate committeereported versions of H.R. 5856 would offset some of its proposed additions to the budget request
with a small number of relatively large funding reductions (in addition to dozens of smaller cuts
justified in terms of specific problems with specific programs).
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 17. Selected Funding Offsets
Issue
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 5856
House-passed
H.R. 5856
Depot maintenance
Cuts $2.46 billion from the
Army Working Capital
Fund on grounds that Army
depots have excessively
large backlog of work
funded in FY2012 that will
carry over into FY2013.
Cuts a total of $331.7
million from the Operation
and Maintenance Accounts
of the four services to
reduce their backlogs of
depot maintenance.
TRICARE
Cuts $400.0 million from
the $16.15 billion TRICARE
request on grounds that
the program historically
underspends its annual
appropriation.
Cuts $807.4 million from
the TRICARE request on
grounds of “historical
underexecution”
Requests labeled by
Appropriations
Committee as
“unjustified,” “early to
need,” or otherwise
unnecessary
Cuts $667.5 million,
including $79.4 million from
funds requested for travel.
Cuts $7.03 billion (in
addition to the $331.7
million depot maintenance
cut and the $807.4 million
TRCARE cuts cited above)
Army and Air Force
spare and repair parts
Cuts $500.0 million
because of excessive
inventory.
n/c
Defense Acquisition
Workforce
Development Fund
Cuts $224.0 million from
the $274.2 million
requested on grounds that
DOD representatives have
said the requested amount
would not be needed in
FY2013.
Adds $445.8 million to the
request, approving $720.0
million.
Medium Expanded Air
Defense System
(MEADS)
Cuts $400.9 million, the
entire amount requested
for this joint U.S.-GermanyItaly program to develop a
mobile anti-missile defense
for units in the field.
Cut’s $20.0 million,
approving $380.9 million
either to fund the
program’s final year (as the
Administration proposes)
or to pay the termination
liability for ending the
program sooner
Rescissions
Rescinds a total of $1.60
billion appropriated in prior
years for specific purposes
making those funds
available to reduce by the
same amount the
requirement for new
budget authority.
Congressional Research Service
Conference
Report
H.R. 933
Cuts a total of $332.3
million from the Operation
and Maintenance Accounts
of the four services to
reduce their backlogs of
depot maintenance.
Incorporates Senate
funding reduction.
Cuts $9.45 billion (in
addition to the $332.3
million depot maintenance
cut and the $807.4 million
TRICARE cuts cited above)
Incorporates House funding
reduction
Incorporates House funding
reduction.
Rescinds a total of $3.81
billion appropriated in prior
years for specific purposes
making those funds
available to reduce by the
same amount the
requirement for new
budget authority.
Incorporates Senate
funding reduction.
Rescinds a total of $4.00
billion appropriated in prior
years for specific purposes
making those funds
available to reduce by the
same amount the
requirement for new
budget authority. This
includes $2.14 billion worth
of rescissions in the base
budget and $1.86 billion
worth of rescissions in the
OCO budget.
42
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Issue
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 5856
House-passed
H.R. 5856
Decommissioning the
nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier Enterprise
Cuts $470.0 million of the
$940.0 million requested
and requires the Navy to
seek funding on a year-byyear basis.
n/c
Afghan Security Forces
Fund
Cuts $722.7 million of the
$5.75 billion requested on
grounds that DOD has
been slow in spending funds
appropriated in earlier
years.
Cuts $500.0 million of the
$5.75 billion requested on
grounds that DOD has
been slow in spending funds
appropriated in earlier
years.
Army Operation and
Maintenance [O&M]
funds for war operations
(Overseas Contingency
Operations)
Cuts $2.00 billion cut from
the Army O&M request on
grounds that the budget
request would have
resulted in an unjustified
increase in expenditures
per troop
Conference
Report
H.R. 933
Cuts $70 million of the
$940 million requested.
n/c
Cuts $525.0 million of the
$5.75 billion reqeust.
Cuts $500.0 million from
the Army O&M request on
grounds that the budget
request would have
resulted in an unjustified
increase in expenditures
per troop
Source: H.Rept. 112-493, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2013, report to accompany H.R. 5856; S.Rept. 112-196, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 5856; Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, Explanatory Statement
on H.R. 933, Division C, pp. S1316-S1546.
Note: The notation n/c (no change) signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Following are additional highlights of H.R. 5856 as passed by the House and reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Military Personnel and Force Structure (Appropriations)39
H.R. 933 as enacted funds the 1.7% increase in “basic pay” for military personnel proposed by
the Administration, as the versions of H.R. 5856 passed by the House and reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee would have done. That rate is based on the Labor Department’s
Employment Cost Index (ECI), which is a survey-based estimate of the rate at which privatesector pay has increased.
Army, Marine Corps End-Strength Reductions
The enacted bill, as well as the versions that had been passed by the House and reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee each accepted the Administration’s proposal to reduce the
active-duty end-strength of the Army (reduced by 9,900) and Marine Corps (reduced by 4,800)
during FY2013. In its report on the FY2013 defense bill, the House Appropriations Committee
39
For congressional action on authorization related to military personnel and force structure, see “Military Personnel
Issues (Authorization).”
Congressional Research Service
43
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
expressed concern that the Administration’s plan to reduce those two services by an additional
77,300 spaces by the end of FY2017 was based on budgetary pressures rather than military
requirements.40
Navy Ship Retirements
The enacted bill, like the version reported by the Senate committee, added to the budget request
$2.38 billion to continue manning, operating and modernizing as previously had been scheduled
in FY2013 and FY2014 all seven of the Aegis cruisers and both of the amphibious landing ships
the Administration had planned to retire during that time. The funds are in a newly created “Ship
Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund” that would remain available through FY2014
(Section 8105 of H.R. 933).
The House bill would have added to the request only the funds needed to modernize and continue
operating during FY2013 three of the four Aegis cruisers that would have been retired during that
year under the administration’s plan. The House bill would have allowed the retirement of a
fourth cruiser—USS Port Royal, which was severely damaged in 2009 when it grounded on a
coral reef off Honolulu. The House bill would have added $124.6 million for operation and
maintenance of the three other cruisers and $426.7 million to upgrade their equipment (including
the purchase of five MH-60R helicopters).
Air Force Cuts Rejected
The final version of the appropriations bill added to the Administration’s request nearly $900
million dollars to sustain several flying squadrons that the budget would have disbanded and to
continue acquiring and operating two types of aircraft that would have been disposed of under the
budget request.
Like the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees both rejected a proposal to disband seven Air Force squadron and mothball or
dispose of nearly 300 F-16s and A-10s operated by those units. In its report H.R. 5856, the House
Appropriations Committee said the planned cutbacks would fall disproportionately on the Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard. Together, those two reserve components would absorb
85% of the planned reduction in airplanes and 60% of the planned manpower cuts, the committee
said.
As enacted, H.R. 933 includes a provision (Sec. 8115) that prohibits both the proposed
dissolution the squadrons and disposal of their aircraft. It also adds to the amount requested
$557.2 million to continue operating those squadrons and to fund the nearly 7,000 Air Force, Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard personnel assigned to them.
In its report to accompany H.R. 5856, the House Appropriations Committee had directed the Air
Force to submit by October 1, 2012, a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed retirements and
reorganizations that was to be reviewed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Conferees on H.R. 933 explicitly dropped the requirement, but said they expected that any future
40
H.Rept. 112-493, p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
44
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
proposals to change the Air Force’s force structure would be “transparently and comprehensively
justified.”
The final defense bill also adds to the request $341.3 million to for the previously planned
procurements of “Block 30” Global Hawk long-range surveillance drones and small cargo planes
designated C-27s and to continue operating Block 30s and C-27s that already had been acquired.
It also includes a provision (Sec. 8118) requiring the Air Force to spend funds appropriated in
earlier budgets for Block 30s and C-27s.
Reduction in Personnel Transfers
The enacted version of FY2013 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 933) cut the $2.94 billion
requested by the four services for routine personnel transfers by 5% ($146.8 million).41 This
amounted to half the reduction that would have been made by the version of the bill reported by
the Senate Appropriations Committee (H.R. 5856), which would have cut transfer costs by 10%
($293.6 million).
In its report on the defense bill, the Senate committee said DOD rotates an average of one-third of
military personnel from one duty station to another in any year and that the average time between
such reassignments is about two years. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 933
directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to report to Congress
(within 180 days of enactment) on potential budget savings that could be realized by longer tours
of duty at any one station as well as potential improvements in service members’ job performance
and in the quality of life for service members and their families.
Depot Maintenance ‘Carryover’
The enacted version of the FY2013 defense appropriations bill—like the versions passed by the
House and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee - cut the Administration’s budget
request in an effort to reduce what the committees described in their reports as an excessive
backlog of scheduled maintenance work by the services’ depots, which perform major overhauls
of aircraft, ground vehicles, engines, electronic equipment and other major items. Essentially, the
Appropriations Committees took the position that they would reduce the amount of additional
funds appropriated for overhauls in FY2013 while the depots would keep working at their regular
tempo performing work that had been paid for in prior budgets, thus drawing down the backlogs.
The issue, which the GAO has been scrutinizing for years, is referred to as “excess carryover”
and is described by a July 2008 GAO report on Army depots:
The five Army depots operate under the working capital fund concept, where customers are
to be charged for the anticipated full cost of goods and services. To the extent that the depots
do not complete work at [sic–apparently means “by”] year-end, the funded work will be
carried into the next fiscal year. Carryover is the reported dollar value of work that has been
ordered and funded (obligated) by customers but not completed by working capital fund
activities at the end of the fiscal year. The congressional defense committees recognize that
41
This reduction would not affect the request for an additional $1.39 billion for travel costs associated with moving
personnel (1) from the point of their enlistment or commissioning to their first duty station or training school, (2) from
a duty station to a training school, or (3) from the last duty station to the home of record when they leave the service.
Congressional Research Service
45
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
some carryover is needed to ensure a smooth flow of work during the transition from one
fiscal year to the next. However, past congressional defense committee reports raised
concerns that the level of carryover may be more than is needed. Excessive amounts of
carryover financed with customer appropriations are subject to reductions by the Department
of Defense (DOD) and the congressional defense committees during the budget review
process.42
The House-passed version of H.R. 5856 would have cut a total of $2.46 billion from the amounts
requested for Army Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and for the Army’s Other Procurement
accounts, explaining the action in a summary table as, “Excess Working Capital Fund Carryover.”
Citing the same rationale, the Senate committee-reported version of the bill would have cut a total
of $331.7 million from the amounts requested for the O&M accounts of the four armed services.
H.R. 933 as enacted cuts $332.3 million from the O&M requests.
TRICARE Fee Increases and Cost Savings43
Proposed TRICARE Fee Increases
The Administration’s $16.15 billion request for DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance program
assumed certain increases in various fees paid by participants. While some of those proposed
increases were allowed by current law, most of them would have required legislative changes,
most of which were rejected by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in drafting the
enacted version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5856 incorporated the TRICARE cost
savings that would result from the Administration’s proposed fee hikes. In its report on the bill,
the House Committee said it would “continue to evaluate the proposed changes,” pending
enactment of the companion defense authorization bill.
H.R. 933 as enacted—like the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported version of H.R. 5856—
added to the budget request $273.0 million to cover higher than budgeted costs expected to result
from Congress’s rejection of some of the proposed TRICARE fee increases.
TRICARE Savings Assumed
Following the lead of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the enacted version of H.R. 933 cuts
$807.4 million from the FY2013 TRICARE request, a reduction of 5% which—conferees said—
should have no adverse impact on the program. Citing the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) as its source, the Senate Committeee said in its report on H.R. 5856 that the TRICARE
program had “underexecuted” its budget (i.e., had spent less than was appropriated) by $771.6
million in FY2010 and by $1.36 billion in FY2011, and that it was on track to spend $1.04 billion
less than had been appropriated for FY2012.
42
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Army Working Capital Fund: Actions Needed to Reduce Carryover at
Amry Depots, GAO-08-714, July 2008, pp. 1-2.
43
For additional background, see CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for
Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
46
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Similarly, the House-passed version of H.R. 5856 would have cut $400.0 million from the
TRICARE request on the assumption that this pattern of “historic underexecution” would
continue in FY2013.
Ground Combat Systems Appropriations44
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected ground combat systems is
summarized in Table A-4. Following are some highlights.
Abrams Tank and Bradley Upgrades; Hercules tank recovery vehicles
H.R. 933 as enacted incorporates $383.0 million worth of House-passed additions to the amounts
requested for three armored vehicle programs, as follows:
•
The budget requested $74.4 million for to support the fielding of M-1 tanks that had been
upgraded to the so-called “M-1A2SEP” version, which incorporates improvements to the
power train, communications gear, and night-vision equipment.45 The final appropriations
bill would add $181.0 million to upgrade additional tanks.
•
H.R. 933 would nearly double—to $288.2 million, from $148.2 million requested—
funding to upgrade Bradley armored troop carriers with improved night vision
equipment, digital communications gear, and power train modifications.
•
The bill would add $62.0 million to the $107.9 million requested for M-88A2 Hercules
tank recovery vehicles—tracked vehicles designed to tow to safety a disabled 70-ton
Abrams tank.
Ground Combat Vehicle46
The enacted version of the appropriations bill—like the House-passed and Senate committeereported versions of H.R. 5856—would provide $639.9 million, as requested, to continue
development of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), which is intended to replace the
Bradley armored troop carrier.
In its report on H.R. 5856, the Senate Appropriations Committee had questioned the emphasis the
Army was placing on the GCV, considered in the context of its overall spending plans for
modernization of its armored combat vehicle fleet. Under current Army plans, the Senate
committee said, the GCV would account for about 10% of the Army’s entire fleet of combat
vehicles. In the FY2013 budget request, it accounts for more than 70% of the total amount
requested for modernization of the ground combat fleet. Over the five-year period FY2013FY2017, GCV would absorb more than 80% of the service’s projected spending on combat
44
For congressional action on authorizations for ground combat systems, see “Ground Combat Equipment
(Authorization).”
45
The funds requested for FY2013 would pay for training, technical manuals, and other support costs associated with
the deployment to Army units of tanks that had been upgraded with funds appropriated in prior fiscal years.
46
For additional background, see CRS Report R41597, The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
47
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
vehicle modernization. The committee directed the Army to provide to Congress the results of a
business case analysis—currently underway—of its combat vehicle fleet modernization plans.47
Naval Systems Appropriations48
In their respective reports on H.R. 5856, the Appropriations Committees of both the House and
Senate decried the Administration’s plan to reduce the number of warships projected for funding
in FY2013-FY2017 compared with the Navy’s previous five-year plan. Both committees warned
that the projected reduction in shipbuilding would increase costs and weaken the nation’s
shipbuilding industrial base. The House committee also contended that the Administration’s plan
was inconsistent with its increased emphasis on U.S. military power in the Pacific region, where
naval forces would play a particularly significant role.49
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected naval systems is summarized in Table
A-6. Following are highlights.
Submarine and Destroyer Production
Like the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate, the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee had objected to the Administration’s plan to buy one Virginia-class
attack submarine and one Aegis destroyer in FY2014, rather than two ships of each type, as had
been planned. H.R. 933 as enacted—like the Senate committee-reported versions of H.R. 5856—
adds nearly $1.8 billion to the amount requested for Navy shipbuilding in FY2013 to support
multi-year contracts to procure 10 submarines and 10 destroyers in FY2013 through FY2017,
with the aim of achieving cost-cutting efficiencies.
Like the Senate committee version of H.R. 5856, H.R. 933 adds to the budget request:
• $778 million for long lead-time funding to buy components that would allow the Navy to
start work on two submarines rather than one in FY2014; and
• $1.0 billion to fund a third destroyer in FY2013, in addition to the two ships requested.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5856 added $723 million for the submarine components as
well as $1 billion for a third destroyer.
USS Miami Fire Damage Repair
The final bill—like the Senate committee version of H.R. 5856—added to the amount requested
$150 million for the repair of the Virginia-class submarine USS Miami, damaged by fire on May
23, 2012, and undergoing an overhaul at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. On
August 22, 2012, the Navy announced that it plans to repair the ship, at an estimated cost of
47
S.Rept. 112-196, p. 176.
For congressional action on authorization for naval systems, see “Naval Systems (Authorization).”
49
H.Rept. 112-493 pp. 158-59; S.Rept. 112-196, pp. 125-27.
For additional background on Navy shipbuilding plans, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and
Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
48
Congressional Research Service
48
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
$450.0 million, by April 30, 2015, after which the ship would be good for an additional 10 years
of service.50
The anticipated unit-cost of a new Virginia-class submarine in the FY2013 budget is $2.55
billion.
Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD-17)
The enacted appropriation, like the Senate committee version of the bill, added $263.3 million for
long lead-time components that would allow funding in FY2014 of an LPD-17 class amphibious
transport dock ship. In its report on the H.R. 5856, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted
that the Navy has fewer amphibious landing transports than current DOD plans call for and that
the number of such ships is slated to decline further.
Aircraft Appropriations51
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected aircraft and long-range strike
programs is summarized in Table A-10. Following are some highlights:
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
H.R. 933 appropriates $8.29 billion—95% of the amount requested—to continue development
and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Several reductions totaling $404.0 million
reflected what the House and Senate conferees described as funding requests the were premature
or that incorporated unjustified price increases. The House-passed and Senate committee-reported
versions of H.R. 5856 each would have made generally similar reductions.
The final bill would provide $5.59 billion to buy a total of 29 F-35s of three types: a carrier-based
version for the Navy, a short-takeoff version for the Marine Corps, and a conventional, land-based
version for the Air Force. It also would provide $2.68 billion to continue development of the
plane.
F-22 Oxygen System
The enacted bill would add $21.5 million to the amount requested for modifications to the Air
Force’s F-22 fighters, with the additional funds intended to install a backup oxygen supply for the
pilots in each aircraft. The Air Force has been investigating complaints by some F-22 pilots that
they have experienced symptoms similar to those caused by hypoxia (oxygen deprivation).
On August 1, 2012, an Air Force official said that a faulty pressurization program in the F-22's
oxygen system was responsible for hypoxia-like symptoms its pilots were suffering. The faulty
pressurization programming caused a pressurized vest—designed to protect pilots’ lungs in case
50
Navy News Service, “Navy Provides Updated Cost Estimate for USS Miami Repair,” August 22, 2012,
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=69153.
51
For congressional action on authorization for aviation systems, see “Aircraft and Long-Range Strike Systems
(Authorization).”
Congressional Research Service
49
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
of rapid decompression—to inflate, restricting the pilots' ability to breathe, Maj. Gen. Charles
Lyons USAF, told reporters.52
C-130 Cargo Planes
Instead of the 7 C-130 cargo planes requested in the FY2013 budget (most of which would be
equipped for specialized missions such as mid-air refueling and search-and-rescue), the enacted
defense bill would provide 14 of the planes plus a down-payment on 18 additional C-130 to be
funded in future fiscal years. For procurement of new C-130s (of various types) and
modifications to existing planes, the budget requested $1.12 billion and H.R. 933 provides $1.73
billion.
The enacted bill also adds a total of $20.0 million to the Air Force’s procurement and R&D
accounts to continue the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), a project to upgrade the
cockpit electronics of older planes. The Administration’s budget would have scrapped the
program.
Missile Defense Appropriations53
The enacted version of H.R. 933 appropriates $8.30 billion for programs of the Missile Defense
Agency, an increase of 6.6% above the $7.79 billion request. The largest single component of the
net increase is the House committee’s addition of $280.0 million for four Israeli missile defense
systems, which includes $211.0 million for the Iron Dome system designed to intercept shortrange rockets and artillery shells. Another component of the net increase for MDA in the bill is
the addition of $75.0 million to the $903.2 million requested for the Ground-Based Missile
Defense (GMD) system currently deployed at sites in Alaska and Hawaii.
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Table A-2.
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
Following the lead of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the enacted bill appropriates $380.9
million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a joint U.S.-German-Italian
effort to develop a mobile air and missile defense system that incorporates the Patriot PAC-3
missile, which is designed to protect combat units in the field.
Plans to deploy MEADS have been shelved, but the three partner countries are continuing work
on the system in hopes of developing components and technologies that could be used in other
systems. The Administration maintains that, under the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding
governing the program, the United States would incur significant cash penalties if it unilaterally
pulled out of the program. The House-passed version of the appropriations bill would have denied
the entire $400.9 million requested for MEADS in the FY2013 budget.
52
DOD News Transcript, Maj. Gen. Charles Lyons USAF, Director of Operations, Air Combat Command, August 1,
2012, http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5094.
53
For congressional action on authorization for ballistic missile defense programs, see “Ballistic Missile Defense
(Authorization).”
Congressional Research Service
50
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
The FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; P.L. 112-235) had authorized no
funds
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.