Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional research reportJan 8, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Defense:
FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
January 8, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43323
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
Congressional action on DOD’s FY2014 budget was hobbled by the prevailing uncertainty over
the entire federal budget that dissipated only in mid-December, when Congress passed and the
President signed H.J.Res. 59, which set binding caps on discretionary spending for defense and
nondefense programs in FY2014. The bill’s defense cap, while about $31 billion below the
amount requested for defense programs by President Obama, was more than $20 billion higher
than the FY2014 defense cap that had been set by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L.
112-25).
President Obama’s FY2014 base budget request of $552.0 billion in discretionary budget
authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and defense-related programs of other agencies
(excluding war costs), exceeded by $53.9 billion the legally binding cap on defense funding for
FY2014 that was enacted in 2011 as part of the BCA. Similarly, in their initial actions on the
annual defense funding bills for FY2014, the House and the Armed Services and Appropriations
Committees of the Senate approved defense funding totals (excluding war costs) that were very
close to President Obama’s so-called “base budget” (i.e., nonwar) request, regardless of the BCA
cap.
For DOD’s base budget, both the version of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act
passed by the House (H.R. 1960) and the version reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee (S. 1197) also exceeded the BCA cap, differing from the President’s request by less
than $50 million. For war-related operations (“overseas contingency operations” or OCO), the
Senate committee version of the authorization bill made few changes to the Administration’s
$80.7 billion request, while the House-passed bill added $5.4 billion.
Similarly, the versions of the FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2397) passed by the House
and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee—in conjunction with funding for military
construction and for defense-related spending in other agencies in other appropriations bills
passed by the House and reported by the Senate committee—would result in total DOD base
budget appropriations that would exceed the BCA defense limit for FY2014 by nearly as much as
President Obama’s initial request.
Because legislation to fund the federal government in FY2014 had not been enacted prior to the
start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2013, DOD, like most other agencies, was then subject to a
lapse in appropriations during which agencies are generally required to shut down. Under an
OMB-defined exception for “national security activities,” all active-duty military personnel and
many DOD civilian employees remained on their jobs through October 17, 2013, when H.J.Res.
59, the FY2014 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-46) was enacted, allowing DOD and all other
federal agencies to resume their normal operations through January 15, 2014. The resolution set
funding at an annualized level equal to that provided by the FY2013 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) after reductions made on March 15, 2013, by the
BCA-mandated sequestration process. Excluding war costs, the FY2014 CR funds DOD and
defense-related programs of other agencies (which comprise the “National Defense” budget
function) at an annual budget of $518 billion for about one-quarter of the year . That annual total
amounts to a $34 billion or 6.2% decrease from the President’s request for the FY2014 DOD base
budget. However, it would exceed the BCA cap on National Defense spending in FY2014 by $21
billion (or about 4%).
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
If the BCA had not been amended, Congress would have had to cut the Administration’s National
Defense request by $53.9 billion (about 9.8%) to meet the BCA cap of $498.1 billion. But the
FY2014 Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 59), which President Obama signed into law on
December 26, 2013, raised the BCA caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending for
FY2014 and FY2015 in addition to funding the operations of the federal government through
January 15, 2014.
For National Defense, the new FY2014 budget limit is $520 billion rather than the original BCA
limit of $498 billion. DOD’s share of this new, higher total amounts to about $497 billion rather
than $476 billion DOD would have been allowed under the original BCA cap. If Congress
appropriates to these new limits, there would no longer be a need for an additional $20 billion
sequester in January 2014.
For FY2015, the new limit, higher limits set by H.R. 59 (compared with the original BCA caps)
are $521 billion rather $512 billion for National Defense and $498 billion rather than $489 billion
for DOD. In each case, the FY2015 spending limit is increased by $9 billion over the original
BCA limits. The spending cap in FY2015 thus would be $1 billion above the FY2014 level. In
subsequent years, the original BCA spending limits would remain in force, rising by FY2021 to
$590 billion for National Defense and $564 billion for DOD in nominal dollars.
In sum, the effect of the Murray-Ryan budget agreement embodied in H.J.Res. 59 is to set a
cumulative limit for National Defense spending in FY2012-FY2021 totaling $5.447 trillion,
which is $32 billion higher than the original BCA limit for that period. For DOD, the spending
caps would total $5.202 trillion rather than $5.176 trillion, a $30 billion increase over the current
limit. The FY2014 Administration’s DOD budget plan for that decade totals $5.533 trillion,
exceeding the proposed new limits by $326 billion or 6%.
On December 26, 2013, the President signed into law H.R. 3304, a compromise version of the
FY2014 NDAA. It authorizes appropriation of nearly the amount the Administration originally
requested for the DOD base budget, taking no account of the new BCA defense spending limit,
which it would exceed by more than $30 billion. Like the earlier versions of the NDAA passed by
the House and reported by the Senate committee, H.R. 3304 also includes provisions bearing on
several controversial policy issues including the armed services’ handling of sexual assault cases
and the treatment of detainees currently held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
DOD and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are drafting FY2014 appropriations
bills that would comply with the new spending caps by cutting about $32 billion from the
Administration’s FY2014 DOD budget request. Pending enactment of those bills, funding for
DOD (and all other federal agencies) currently is slated to expire on January 15, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Legislative Action....................................................................................................... 7
Budgetary Context: BCA Spending Caps................................................................................ 11
Sequestration Flexibility in FY2014 and FY2013 Experience ................................................ 13
Sequestration Alternatives in FY2014 ..................................................................................... 15
Alternatives under Current Law ........................................................................................ 15
Legislative Proposals......................................................................................................... 16
DOD Forecast of FY2014 BCA Impact .................................................................................. 17
DOD FY2013 Post-Sequester Funding and the FY2014 Request ........................................... 18
FY2014 National Defense Budget Overview ................................................................................ 19
FY2014 DOD Base Budget Highlights ......................................................................................... 25
Sustaining Current Strategy ..................................................................................................... 27
Military Personnel ................................................................................................................... 27
Military Pay and Allowances ............................................................................................ 28
TRICARE Fees ................................................................................................................. 29
“Efficiency” Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 29
Weapons Acquisition Reductions ............................................................................................ 30
Proposed Base Closures .......................................................................................................... 31
FY2014 OCO Budget Highlights .................................................................................................. 31
Ship and Aircraft Retirements ........................................................................................... 34
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): H.R. 1960; S. 1197; H.R. 3304.............. 35
NDAA: The Broad Outlines .................................................................................................... 37
Proposed Administration Savings ..................................................................................... 37
Other Congressional Additions ......................................................................................... 39
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization) ............................................................................... 40
Military Pay Raise ................................................................................................................... 41
Sexual Assault Prevention and Treatment ......................................................................... 41
Provisions Relating to Chaplains Corps and Conscience .................................................. 42
TRICARE .......................................................................................................................... 43
Assignment of Women in the Military .............................................................................. 44
Reserve Component Mobilization Guarantees .................................................................. 44
Ground Combat Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................... 45
Current Generation Vehicles (M-1, Bradley, and others) .................................................. 45
Next Generation Vehicles: GCV, AMPV, MPC, and JLTV ............................................... 46
Naval Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................................... 46
Aircraft Carriers ................................................................................................................ 47
Attack Submarines and Missile Submarines ..................................................................... 48
Destroyers ......................................................................................................................... 49
Littoral Combat Ships ....................................................................................................... 49
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Authorization) ....................................................................... 50
Long-Range Strike Weapons ............................................................................................. 50
Other Provisions Related to Arms Control ........................................................................ 51
Carrier-Based UAVs .......................................................................................................... 52
Missile Defense (Authorization) ............................................................................................. 53
Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) ............................................................................ 54
Israeli Defenses ................................................................................................................. 55
NATO Missile Defense Cost ............................................................................................. 55
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees .............................................................................. 56
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 57
FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill ................................................................................................. 60
Overview (H.R. 2397; S. 1429) ............................................................................................... 60
Base Budget ...................................................................................................................... 62
OCO Funding .................................................................................................................... 63
Military Personnel Issues (Appropriations) ............................................................................. 64
Military Compensation...................................................................................................... 64
Defense Health Program (including TRICARE) ............................................................... 64
Ground Combat Systems (Appropriations) ............................................................................. 64
Naval Systems (Appropriations) ............................................................................................. 65
Submarines ........................................................................................................................ 65
Destroyers ......................................................................................................................... 66
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Appropriations) ..................................................................... 66
Strike Fighters (Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18).............................................................. 66
Missile Defense Programs (Appropriations) ........................................................................... 67
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (OCO) .............................................................................. 67
House Floor Amendments to FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bills .......................................... 68
Figures
Figure 1. Successive Administration DOD Budget Plans, FY2011-FY2014 ................................ 21
Figure 2. Estimated DOD Funding Projections, FY2013-2021 ..................................................... 24
Figure 3. Projected DOD Purchasing Power in Perspective, 1976-2021 (Base Budget)............... 25
Figure 4. OCO Funding and Troop Level Trends: FY2008 through FY2014 Request.................. 32
Tables
Table 1. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act .................................................................. 11
Table 2. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill ................................................................................... 11
Table 3. FY2014 National Defense Budget Function (050); Administration Request .................. 20
Table 4. DOD Budget Plans and BCA Caps .................................................................................. 23
Table 5. DOD Discretionary Base Budgets, FY2012-FY2014 ...................................................... 26
Table 6. Active Component Authorized End-Strength................................................................... 28
Table 7. Administration’s FY2014 Discretionary OCO Budget Request ...................................... 31
Table 8. OCO Funding by Mission Category ................................................................................ 34
Table 9. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1960; S. 1197: H,R, 3304) ............. 36
Table 10. Selected Administration Cost Cutting Initiatives ........................................................... 37
Table 11. Selected Additions to the Administration Request ......................................................... 39
Table 12. Selected Sexual Assault-related Provisions, FY2014 NDAA ........................................ 42
Table 13. Selected Nuclear Arms Control Provisions, FY2014 NDAA ........................................ 52
Table 14. Selected U.S. Territorial Missile Defense Provisions, FY2014 NDAA ......................... 54
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 15. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2014 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 1960) .......................................................................................................................... 57
Table 16. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397; S. 1429) ............................................... 61
Table 17. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R.
2397) ........................................................................................................................................... 68
Table A-1. Congressional Authorization Action on Selected FY2014 Missile Defense
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 73
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Missile Defense Funding
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 77
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Army, Marine Corps Ground
Combat Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................... 80
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 82
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................................. 83
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 84
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization ............... 85
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation .............. 86
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................................. 87
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 91
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables ................................................................................ 73
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 95
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 95
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Legislative Action
On December 11, 2013, Representative Paul C. Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, chairs of the
House and Senate budget committees, respectively, and co-chairs of the group appointed to
develop a budget compromise to avoid a sequester in mid-January 2014, introduced the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which raises defense and nondefense budget spending limits
under the Budget Control Act (BCA) for FY2014 and FY2015.1 On December 12, 2013, the
House passed the proposal as an amendment to H.J.Res.59, the Continuing Appropriations Act of
2014, by a vote of 332-94. The Senate passed the bill on December 18, 2013, by a vote of 64-36
and President Obama signed it into law on December 26, 2013.
For FY2014, the bill raised the original BCA budget limit for National Defense (budget function
050) by $22 billion to a total of $520 billion, or $2 billion above the level set in the Continuing
Resolution (CR) of 2014.2 For the Department of Defense (DOD), the new FY2014 limit was set
at $497 billion rather than the current limit of $476 billion, just above the CR. If Congress
extended the current CR level for the full year at these new limits, then there would be no
sequester in January 2014. For DOD, the new limits would essentially be a nominal freeze,
setting DOD spending at $2 billion above the FY2013 post-sequester level. The House and
Senate Appropriations Committees are drafting FY2014 funding bills for DOD and other agencies
that would conform to the newly revised budget caps.
For FY2015, the new budget limit for National Defense would be $523 billion, or $9 billion
above the current $512 billion limit. Similarly, for DOD, the new FY2015 limit would be $498
billion compared to $489 billion in current law, or $9 billion higher than the current limit, and $1
billion above the new limit for FY2014. In later years, budget limits would be the same as current
levels. Altogether, over the FY2012-FY2021 decade, National Defense spending would total
$5.447 trillion, or $32 billion (or 6%) above the current limit. DOD spending would total $5.206
trillion rather than $5.176 trillion, a $30 billion or 6% increase over current limits. 3
In addition to these changes in budget limits, the Bipartisan Budget Act also reduces the cost of
living adjustments (COLAs) provided to military retirees under the age of 62 from the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) to the CPI less 1% while also increasing contributions to retirement by new
federal retirees. Military retirees would receive a “catch-up” increase at age 62 that would raise
their benefit level to an amount including full CPI adjustments for each year when they received
1
H.J.Res. 59.
Section 101(a)(3) in P.L. 113-46, H.J.Res. 59.
3
CRS calculations based on Section 101(a) in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as introduced, OMB, OMB, “Final
Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2013,” April 9, 2013; http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/sequestration_final_april2013.pdf; OMB, FY2014
Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 31-1; http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/
31_1.pdf. The budget limits set for FY2014 and FY2015 reflect post-sequester levels and those for FY2016-FY2021
reflect pre-sequester levels; see Section 101 in Senate Budget Committee, “Section By Section Analysis of Bipartisan
Budget Act;” http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=9d3728aa-cf0a-4ddf-bfd4d02ed4de570f. See also see Section 111 (b)(10(B) which states that the new discretionary limits would not be lowered
by an OMB calculation of a reduction to caps.
2
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
reduced COLAs. and then receive full CPI adjustments after that.4 According to CBO, this change
would save the Department of Defense $6.235 billion over the decade.5
This CPI adjustment would apply to nearly all military retirees including those receiving military
disability benefits and to people receiving survivor benefits.6 (This provision would not affect
“REDUX” military retirees who already receive reduced COLAs of the CPI minus 1% in return
for receiving a $30,000 bonus at 15 years of service.) Some Members have raised concerns about
this reduction in retiree benefits. If enacted, this proposal could be re-considered at a later date
since it does not go into effect until December 1, 2015.7
There are several potential scenarios that Congress may face in January 2014. On January 15,
2014, the current CR (P.L. 113-46) lapses so Congress needs to either extend the current CR or
pass individual or an omnibus appropriations act to avoid a government shutdown. To avoid a
sequester, Congress needs to appropriate defense spending that complies with BCA limits that are
in effect.
If the new limits are adopted, and if Congress provides defense spending at the current CR for the
full year, then there would be no sequester because the new defense limit matches the CR.
According to press reports, the Department of Defense is currently spending at that level. If
Congress adopts the new limits but provides defense appropriations that exceed BCA limits,
however, then OMB would levy a sequester to ensure compliance with BCA limits.
Under current BCA spending limits (without assuming passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013), a sequester would reduce defense spending by $20 billion, about 3.8% overall in midJanuary 2014 to bring appropriations into compliance with the BCA. (The percentage cut to
affected accounts, excluding exempted military personnel, would be about 5.8%.) This estimate
reflects the amount by which the current CR exceeds the estimated $476 billion cap set in the
Budget Control Act.8 If the new limits are adopted and matched by appropriations, the threat of a
sequester would disappear.
In other words, to the extent that defense appropriations breach or exceed whatever BCA limits
are in effect, OMB must levy a sequester of whatever size is necessary to ensure compliance with
BCA limits.9
4
See Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as introduced. The CPI-W tracks price changes for urban
consumers; see http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm.
5
CBO, “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as posted on the House Rules Committee website, December 10, 2013,”
December 11, 2013; http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/
Bipartisan%20Budget%20Act%20of%202013.pdf.
6
H.J.Res. 59 amends Title 10, Section 1401a(b), which sets COLAs for both military retirement and survivor benefits.
7
See Section 403 (c) of H.J.Res. 59 as passed by the House.
8
H.R. 2775/P.L. 113-46 set the FY2014 Continuing Resolution spending at the FY2013 enacted level with
sequestration. CBO estimated that post-sequester level as $518 billion in “CBO’s Estimate of Discretionary Budget
Authority for Fiscal Year 2013, Showing Amounts for Defense and Nondefense Programs,” supplementing Table 3 in
Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023, May 2013. The FY2014 defense caps is shown as $497 billion
in Table 1-5, “Discretionary Spending Projected in CBO’s Baseline,” in The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal
Years 2013 to 2023, February 2013; http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907BudgetOutlook.pdf.
9
If the current level of appropriations breaches caps set in budget law, 2 U.S.C. §901 (§251 of the Deficit Control Act
of 1985) requires that there be a sequestration within 15 calendar days after Congress adjourns to “eliminate a breach
within that category . . . “ Since the Constitution requires that a new session start by January 3 of each year, the latest a
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
In action on the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), on December 12, 2013,
the House, by a vote of 350 to 69, passed H.Res. 441, which adopted H.R. 3304, effectively a
conference version of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate passed the bill
on December 19, 2013, by a vote of 84-15 and the President signed it into law on December 26,
2013.
Earlier, on October 17, 2013, the FY2014 Continuing Resolution (CR, P.L. 113-46) appropriated
funds allowing the DOD and all other federal agencies to resume their normal operations through
January 15, 2014, after a 16-day government shutdown went into effect because no FY2014
appropriations had been provided for the new fiscal year. In general, the CR allows DOD and
other agencies to spend—during that period—at the rate at which each appropriations account
was funded by P.L. 113-6, the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
taking into account the amount sequestered by the March 1, 2013, OMB order mandated by the
Budget Control Act, enacted in 2011 (P.L. 112-25).10 For DOD, the current CR provides about
$495 billion.
Before passage of the CR, DOD, like most other agencies, was subject to a lapse in
appropriations during which agencies are generally required to shut down because Congress had
not acted on legislation to fund the federal government in FY2014 prior to the start of the fiscal
year on October 1, 2013. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however, identified a
number of exceptions to the requirement that agencies cease operations, including a blanket
exception for activities that “provide for the national security.”
As a result, during the lapse in appropriations, some DOD personnel were “excepted” from
furloughs, including all uniformed military personnel and some civilians, while other civilian
DOD employees were furloughed and, thus, not permitted to work. Normally, “excepted” military
and civilian personnel would continue to work but would not be paid until after appropriations are
provided by law. Shortly before and during the shutdown, however, Congress passed and the
President signed into law two pieces of legislation that appropriated funds to pay all active-duty
military and some DOD civilian personnel costs in the absence of an enacted appropriation, and
to provide death gratuities:
•
The Pay Our Military Act (P.L. 113-39; H.R. 3210), signed by the President on
September 30, 2013, provided funds to pay all active-duty military personnel,
most DOD civilians and possibly some private sector employees working for
DOD;
•
The Honoring the Families of Fallen Soldiers Act, (P.L. 113-44; H.J.Res. 91),
signed by the President on October 10, 2013, provided funds to pay death
gratuities to survivors of military personnel who die while on active duty.
(...continued)
FY2014 sequester could occur would be January 18, 2014 assuming the previous session ended at midnight January 2,
2014.
10
As typically has been the case with continuing resolutions in recent years, the FY2014 act funded activities for a time
certain (in this case, through January 15, 2014) under a formula commonly referred to as a “funding rate.” Under a
funding rate, the amount of budget authority available for an account is calculated as the total amount of budget
authority annually available based on a reference level (in this case, the post-sequester amounts resulting from the
FY2013 consolidated appropriation bill), multiplied by the fraction of the fiscal year for which the funds are made
available by the continuing resolution—in this case, about 24.6% (90 days out of a 366-day fiscal year that includes the
29-day February of a leap year).
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
DOD Operations During a Government Shutdown
For information and analysis of the impact on DOD of a lapse of appropriations, including an analysis of special DODrelated legislation that operated during the funding lapse in the fall of 2013 during the period October 1-October 17,
see CRS Report R41745, Government Shutdown: Operations of the Department of Defense During a Lapse in
Appropriations, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
For military activities of the Department of Defense that are covered by the FY2014 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama Administration requested authorizations for
discretionary budget authority (BA) totaling $632.7 billion, including the following:
•
$526.6 billion for the so-called “base budget”—that is, for costs not associated
with combat activities;
•
$80.7 million for war costs, officially designated overseas contingency operations
(OCO);
•
$18.9 billion for defense-related nuclear energy programs conducted by the
Department of Energy; and
•
$7.4 billion for other defense-related activities. (See Table 3).
For DOD’s base budget, both the version of the FY2014 NDAA passed by the House (H.R. 1960)
and the version of the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 20, 2013,
(S. 1197), differ from the President’s overall request by less than $50 million. The House bill,
passed by a vote of 315-108 on June 14, 2013, would authorize hundreds of millions of dollars
more than requested for various purposes, including a military pay raise, shipbuilding, and
ballistic missile defense. However, that gross increase was almost entirely offset by several
reductions which, according to the House Armed Services Committee, would have no adverse
impact on DOD programs because—in each of the affected accounts—previously appropriated
funds could be used in lieu of the requested new budget authority.
For war costs—designated as OCO—S. 1197, reported by the Senate committee on June 20,
2013, would make few changes to the Administration’s request. The House-passed bill, on the
other hand, would add $5.4 billion to the request.
On Dec. 26, 2013, the President signed into law H.R. 3304, a compromise version of the FY2014
NDAA, which authorized nearly the amount originally requested by the Administration. (See
Table 1 and Table 9)
For analysis of congressional action on the authorization bill, see the section of this report entitled
“FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act.”
For the FY2014 DOD Appropriations bill, which funds all discretionary DOD military programs
except military construction, the Administration requested a total of about $589.5 billion11 for the
base budget and OCO, combined. The version of the bill passed by the House on June 24, 2013,
11
Summary tables in House and Senate Appropriations Committees’ reports on their respective versions of the FY2014
DOD appropriations bill differ slightly in their presentations of the Administration request. Most of the difference
reflects the committees’ different treatments of an Administration proposal to rescind $1.28 billion appropriated in
FY2013. For additional detail, see text box “Differing Presentations of FY2014 Budget Request,” below.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
would make a net reduction of about $4.2 billion to the request while the version reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 1429) would make a net reduction of about $2.2 billion.
For analysis of congressional action the defense appropriations bill, see the section of this report
entitled “FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill.”
Table 1. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 1960; S. 1197; H.R. 3304)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
5/2223/2013
House
Report
on H.R.
1960
Senate
H.Rept.
113-102
6/1213/2013
6/7/2013
House
Passage
of H.R.
1960
315-108
6/14/2013
Senate
Report
on S.
1197
S.Rept.
113-44
6/20/2013
Approval of
H.R. 3304a
House
Senate
Public
Law
350-69
84-15
12/12/2013 12/19/2013
Notes: An explanatory statement on the compromise bill, functionally equivalent to a conference report, was
printed as “Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014,” House debate, , Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 159 (December 12, 2013), pp. H7894-H8037.
a.
In lieu of a formal conference committee to reconcile House and Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA,
members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, meeting informally, negotiated a
compromise version of the bill. To expedite Senate action on that final version of the bill, the negotiated
text was passed by the House and Senate as an amendment to a bill (H.R. 3304) that had been passed by
each chamber with slightly different form. The votes recorded in these columns had the practical effect of
approving the final version of the NDAA.
Table 2. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill
(H.R. 2397; S. 1429)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
6/5/2013
Senate
Conference Report
Approval
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
H.Rept.
113-113
315-109
S.Rept.
113-85
6/12/2013
6/24/2013
8/1/2013
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
Budgetary Context: BCA Spending Caps
FY2014 is the third consecutive year for which Congress and the President have had to come to
terms with the spending caps that were set in law by the BCA for each year in the decade
FY2012-FY2021.12 Enacted in 2011 to resolve the impasse that summer about raising the debt
limit, the BCA required reductions in discretionary spending totaling about $2.1 trillion through
12
For each year in the decade FY2012-FY2021, the BCA caps require roughly equal reductions (from a projected
baseline) in appropriations for defense agencies and non-defense agencies. From FY2013 onward, the category of
“defense” agencies is defined, for purposes of this law, as being those agencies funded in the “National Defense”
budget function (Function 050). The Department of Defense typically accounts for more than 95% of spending in
Function 050. See the text box, “Estimated impact on DOD of Budget Caps,” below.
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2021 in return for raising the debt limit by the same amount. A first tranche of reductions
amounting to $900 billion—half of which came from National Defense agencies (primarily DOD
but also including Department of Energy and other defense-related activities in other agencies)—
was reflected in the Administration’s FY2013 budget, which complied with initial caps set in the
BCA. Additional reductions of $1.2 trillion, also falling equally on defense agencies and
nondefense agencies—are to be achieved through a sequester in FY2013 and by automatic
reductions to appropriations that would apply each year between FY2014 and FY2021 unless
enacted appropriations in any year meet that year’s BCA limits. To the extent that annual
appropriations exceed or breach the BCA caps, a sequester would reduce funding to the level of
the caps by across-the-board cuts.
President Obama sent Congress his FY2014 budget request on April 10, 2013, more than two
months later than the legally prescribed date for submission of the budget. Uncertainties
surrounding the final outcome of the legislative battle over appropriations for the preceding year
accounted for the delay. The FY2013 appropriations for DOD and all other federal agencies were
not enacted until March 26, 2013, when the President signed the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933/P.L. 113-6). The amounts specified in that
legislation were not final but, rather, were the points of departure for further reductions (by a
process of “sequestration”) required to comply with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA),
which was enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25).13 BCA caps apply only to the defense base
budget, not to OCO funding.
If current law had not been amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 to change the BCA
spending caps, the Administration’s $552 billion national defense budget request for FY2014
(excluding war costs) would have to be reduced by $53.8 billion (about 9.8%) to a total of $498.1
billion in order to comply with BCA limits. If defense appropriations exceeded the BCA limit,
they would have been reduced to the BCA level by an across-the-board sequester to currently
appropriated levels that would begin in early to mid-January 2014.
Although the President’s FY2014 national defense budget request does not meet the defense
limits originally set in the BCA that would avoid a sequester under current law, the
Administration argues that the President’s budget would achieve—through a combination of
revenue increases and reductions to entitlement programs—the $1.2 trillion total reduction
through FY2021 that would result from the annual BCA caps. As a part of the Administration’s
overall program, the BCA would be amended to defer application of the spending caps, thus
accommodating the President’s FY2014 defense budget request.14
Consistent with the President’s budget request, the House-passed FY2014 budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 25) proposed $552 billion for national defense (excluding war costs). Subsequently,
the House Appropriations Committee reported—and the House passed—the three appropriations
bills that would provide defense funding up to that level: Defense (H.R. 2397, passed July 24,
315-109), Energy and Water (H.R. 2609, passed July 10, 227-198), and Military ConstructionVeterans Administration (H.R. 2216, passed June 4, 421-4).
13
The reductions pursuant to the BCA were mandated by the Office of Management and Budget (OBM) sequestration
order of March 1, 2013.
14
See chapter entitled “Reducing the Deficit in a Smart and Balanced Way” in OMB, The Budget of the United States
Government, FY2014; http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/reducing.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
To achieve the FY2014 savings mandated by the BCA, the House budget resolution proposes
higher cuts to nondefense spending as well as changes to entitlement programs which would
bring discretionary spending for the year to $967 billion, the discretionary total allowed by BCA.
But, within that total, the BCA establishes separate limits (or caps) for defense and nondefense
spending. The House-recommended defense levels exceed the BCA defense cap so, if they were
to become law, a 9.8% sequester cut would be levied in January 2014, unless Congress amended
the BCA to change the currently binding limits.
Similarly, the Senate’s FY2014 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 8) sets the total for national
defense at $552 billion—as requested by the President—and the defense-related bills reported by
the Senate Appropriations Committee are consistent with this level. Like the House budget
resolution, the Senate measure assumes that BCA’s limit on overall discretionary spending for
FY2014 would be met. In contrast to the House resolution, however, the Senate resolution
proposes to compensate for defense spending above the BCA level with a combination of revenue
increases and entitlement spending reductions similar to those proposed by the Administration.
However, if the level of national defense spending allowed by the Senate resolution were to be
enacted, there would have been a $53.8 billion sequester cut to discretionary spending in early
January 2014—if the original BCA caps had not been amended by law.
Estimated DOD Impact of Budget “Caps”
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) and the annual congressional budget resolutions all set discretionary
spending caps for “budget functions”—broad categories of activity that encompass all relevant funding, regardless of
the agency performing the activity. The “National Defense” function (Function 050) encompasses military functions of
DOD (i.e., it excludes the domestic public works program of the Army Corps of Engineers) as well as defense-related
activities of the Department of Energy and other agencies. In recent years, DOD funding has accounted for about
96% of the Function 050 total.
To analyze the implications for DOD funding plans of the legally binding BCA spending cap on the broader National
Defense category, CRS estimated the DOD share of the Function 050 funding cap for each future year in the BCA
and in any congressional budget resolution. In this report, those estimates are arrived at by using data from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine for each year in the period FY2014-FY2021 what percentage of the
Administration’s projected Function 050 budget request consists of the projected DOD request. For purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that DOD spending would account for the same share of Function 050 spending in that year.
The data from which this report calculates an imputed DOD share of Function 050 caps are in OMB’s FY2014:
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Table 32-1 “Policy Budget Authority and Outlays by Function,
Category, and Program,” accessible at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Sequestration Flexibility in FY2014 and FY2013 Experience
DOD officials have contended that sequestration would have serious adverse impacts on the
services’ combat readiness and modernization not only because of the size of the funding cuts
required but also because of the relatively arbitrary way in which the reductions are made.15 In a
fiscal year in which a sequester is triggered to reduce spending to the levels enacted in the BCA,
by law the reduction must be achieved by cutting a uniform percentage from the “budgetary
resources” of every program, project, and activity (PPA) in every budget account, except for those
budget accounts and PPAs that, by law, either are exempt from a sequester or are subject to a
special sequester rule. “Budgetary resources” include new budget authority for both the base
15
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by Undersecretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter and Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. James A. Winnefeld, “Hearing on the Defense Strategic Choices and
Management Review,” August 1, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
budget and OCO and budget authority appropriated in previous fiscal years but not yet
obligated.16
The sequestration process allows DOD some flexibility in implementing a sequester in ways that
DOD used to limit the impact on readiness, investment accounts, and war funding in FY2013 and
which might have similar results if sequestration were to be required for FY2014:
•
The President has authority to exempt the military personnel accounts from a
sequester, as he did in FY2013 and as OMB informed Congress on August 9,
2013, he will do, should a sequester occur in FY2014.17 Exercising this option
could allow DOD to avoid involuntary separations of military personnel, but does
not reduce the total amount that must be sequestered from DOD funds and, thus,
entails correspondingly larger cuts from other DOD accounts.
•
House and Senate conferees on the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) defined as a single PPA the entire Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) account of each service and reserve component.18
Therefore, DOD has considerable flexibility in allocating cuts within those
relatively large blocks of money. So, DOD could make proportionally larger
reductions in some O&M-funded activities—facilities maintenance and training,
for example—in order to allow proportionally smaller reductions in other O&Mfunded activities such as operational training or support for front-line combat
units.
•
DOD could avoid or minimize sequestration cuts in funds for war operations in
Afghanistan because, although Congress authorizes and appropriates separate
amounts for base budget funding and OCO funding, most funding of both sorts is
co-mingled in the PPAs that are subject to sequestration. Thus a service could
reduce its O&M funding for OCO by a proportionately smaller fraction provided
it was offset by a proportionately larger reduction in the service’s base budget
O&M spending. DOD did, however, choose to reduce OCO funding by $5.3
billion to meet the FY2013 sequester. This may have reflected a transfer into
OCO accounts in mid-May 2013 to meet unanticipated higher needs (see
below).19
16
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name
redacted).
17
See OMB notification letter at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/letters/militarypersonnel-letter-biden_080913.pdf.
18
The House and Senate came to agreement on the enacted version of the bill through a process of sequential
amendments rather than by a formal conference committee, so—technically speaking—there was no conference report,
in which conferees could elaborate (in a so-called “joint explanatory statement”) on their intent in drafting the law.
Nevertheless, the terms of the final bill were the product of negotiations between House and Senate conferees who
drafted a “joint explanatory statement” which they inserted in the Congressional Records of March 6, 2013, and March
11, 2013. The definition of each O&M account as a single PPA is found at Congressional Record, March 6, 2013, p.
H1029 and Congressional Record, March 11, p. S1316.
19
CRS analysis of DOD, “May 2013 Prior Approval Request, Reprogramming Action, FY13-09,” approved May 17,
2013; see http://comptroller.defense.gov/execution/reprogramming/fy2013/prior1415s/1309_PA_May_2013_Prior_Approval_Request_Implemented.pdf; and CRS analysis of OSD,C table, “DOD Base and
OCO funding by account as appropriated, and post-sequester,” November 2013.
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
•
In some of DOD’s investment accounts, unobligated balances of funds
appropriated in earlier budgets were reduced by proportionally larger amounts to
allow proportionally smaller reductions to newly appropriated budget authority.
Among the 21 procurement accounts, budget authority appropriated for FY2013
was cut by an average of 5.2% while unobligated funds were cut by an average of
11.2%.20 Since DOD budget authority appropriated for procurement and most
other activities expires if not obligated within a certain number of years,
sacrificing older budget authority allowed DOD to retain more budget authority
that would be available for a longer period.
•
After sequestration, DOD could and did use established reprogramming
procedures, which require prior approval by the congressional defense
committees in some cases, to shift funds among accounts. In May 2013, the
department requested congressional approval of reprogrammings that shifted
nearly $9 billion to meet more essential expenses by tapping funds that had been
appropriated to other programs.21 This included shifting some $5.1 billion of
OCO funding, about $3.0 billion of which came from cancelled lower priority
OCO needs, with the remainder from the base budget.22
Sequestration Alternatives in FY2014
In recent months, many observers, including DOD witnesses and some Members of Congress,
have raised particular concerns about sequesters, arguing that because they require largely acrossthe-board cuts to programs, this would not reflect priorities in defense spending. One way to
avoid a sequester would be if both houses of Congress passed a budget resolution that amended
the BCA caps and achieved savings elsewhere.
Alternatives under Current Law
If current budget law is not changed, however, there are still several ways that the Administration
and Congress could avoid a sequester in FY2014 or later years of the decade. These include:
•
Congress could appropriate amounts for defense that meet the lowered cap of
$498 billion for FY2014 before a sequester would go into effect. This could
reflect a joint budget resolution passed by both houses of Congress that would
presumably be followed by new 302(a) allocations of overall discretionary
budget authority and new 302(b) suballocations to individual appropriations
subcommittees. With the current CR (P.L. 113-46) slated to expire on January 15,
2014, Congress might pass individual appropriations bills, an omnibus funding
bill, or another CR by that time.23
20
Capital Alpha, “FY13 Sequestration Cuts Applied Unevenly With Some Surprises,” June 18, 2013,
http://www.capalphadc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-18-sequester-surprises.pdf.
21
Inside Defense, “Draft Reprogramming would Shift $9 Billion, Cut $4 Billion From Modernization,” May 16, 2013.
22
CRS analysis of DOD, “May 2013 Prior Approval Request, Reprogramming Action, FY13-09,” approved May 17,
2013; see http://comptroller.defense.gov/execution/reprogramming/fy2013/prior1415s/1309_PA_May_2013_Prior_Approval_Request_Implemented.pdf; and CRS analysis of OSD,C table, “DOD Base and
OCO funding by account as appropriated, and post-sequester,” November 2013.
23
Within 15 days of the end of a congressional session, budget law requires that OMB to determine whether budget
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Section 258B of the Deficit Control Act of 1985 allows the President to submit a
report, within five calendar days of the beginning of a new session, detailing an
alternative way to meet the defense sequester caps (i.e., a spending plan that
would reduce outlays by the same total amount that would result from an acrossthe board sequester). Congress would consider a resolution approving the
alternative plan within five calendar days, under expedited procedures that would
preclude a Senate filibuster.
Legislative Proposals
Bills have been introduced that would provide additional flexibility for DOD (and other agencies,
in some cases) to meet lower BCA caps by setting higher transfer caps that DOD could use after a
sequester went into effect in order to ensure that its higher priority programs were protected.
Introduced by Representatives Cooper and Ryan on July 31, 2013, H.R. 2883, the Defense
Flexibility Act, would permit the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds into an account as
necessary to meet “urgent national priorities” up to the amount sequestered in that account. The
transfer language in the bill states:
(b) Transfer Authority- In addition to any transfer authority otherwise available, and subject
to subsections (c) and (d), of the amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense in any
of fiscal years 2014 through 2021, the Secretary of Defense may transfer any appropriation
subject in such a fiscal year to reduction under a sequestration order issued pursuant to
section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 between
such appropriations, to address an urgent national priority or the consequences of a national
emergency resulting from such sequestration, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
(c) Limitation- The amount transferred to an appropriation under subsection (b) shall not
exceed the amount by which such appropriation is reduced under the sequestration order
referred to in such subsection.24
Some Members may raise concerns that this bill would undermine congressional prerogatives to
set funding priorities because the amount of transfer authority could be substantially higher than
current annual limits for DOD transfers: $4 billion for the base budget and $3.5 billion for OCO
spending in FY2013.25
A second alternative, S. 465, introduced by Senator Collins last March, would give all agencies
flexibility to propose an alternative to the FY2013 sequestration that would meet the caps. The
bill requires that this “notice of implementation” be submitted to their respective authorization
and appropriation committees for approval before going into effect. Including such a requirement
could be unconstitutional because it would constitute a legislative veto. If agencies voluntarily
(...continued)
caps are breached and if necessary, order a sequestration. Since the Constitution requires that Congress meet on
January 3 of each year (unless an alternate date is set), the latest date that the old congressional session could end
would be midnight January 2. This would mean that a breach determination for FY2014 could be made as late as
January 18, 2014. CRS Report R42977, Sessions, Adjournments, and Recesses of Congress, Sessions, Adjournments,
and Recesses of Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
24
H.R. 2883.
25
Joint Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, March 11, p. S1520 and S1543.
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
submitted such proposed changes, as occurs in current reprogramming and transfers, that would
be permissible. S. 465 also would give DOD additional flexibility in multiyear contracts and
changes in production rates if a CR limiting those changes is still in effect.26
DOD Forecast of FY2014 BCA Impact
In a July 10, 2013, letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and senior
committee Republican James M. Inhofe, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel predicted “serious
adverse effects” on DOD if its FY2014 base budget were reduced by $52 billion from the amount
requested to comply with the BCA cap on defense spending for that year.27
In the letter—written in response to the two Senators’ request—Secretary Hagel said his
projections assumed that the entire $52 billion reduction would be applied to the $526.6 billion
base budget request, with the $79.4 billion OCO request held harmless. The projection also
assumed that DOD would be given a free hand to allocate the reduction, rather than applying the
sequestration formula of program-by-program cuts. Even making those assumptions, Hagel
asserted, “the cuts are too steep and abrupt to be mitigated by flexibility, no matter how broadly
defined.”
Secretary Hagel described the five-page document presenting the projected BCA impact as a
“high-level summary” of an early version of DOD’s approach to accommodating lower annual
budgets than the Administration had projected. He said it was “guided by” inputs from the armed
services and by preliminary results of a Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR)—a
DOD-wide assessment Secretary Hagel had ordered to develop budget projections for FY2015FY2019 that would try to adhere to the Administration’s strategic goals at lower funding levels
than those currently projected.
Following are some of the negative consequences that Secretary Hagel predicted if DOD were
required to cut the President’s FY2014 DOD base budget request by $52 billion—nearly 10%:
•
The reduction in military personnel spending likely would be disproportionately
small—that is, appreciably lower than 10%—because the savings in military pay
that would result from involuntary separation of military personnel would be
largely offset by the cost of severance payments for those with more than six
years of service, according to DOD.
•
To cut military personnel costs by 10% would require what Secretary Hagel
described as “an extremely severe package of ... actions” including halting the
intake of any new personnel, ending all transfers from one base to another, and
freezing promotions.
•
While DOD would minimize cuts to those operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs most directly tied to training and combat readiness, it would impose civilian
hiring freezes and reduce scheduled maintenance of facilities, as it had done in
26
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/query/z?c113:S.465: This interpretation reflects consultation with CRS procedural
experts.
27
Defense Secretary Hagel’s July 10 letter is available on the website of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
Carl Levin, at http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/dod-responds-to-levin-hagel-request_for-guidanceon-defense-budget-cuts/?section=alltypes.
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2013, and would have to consider laying off civilian employees, Secretary
Hagel said.
•
Because of the practical difficulties in applying a proportionate reduction to
military personnel costs, accounts funding procurement, R&D, and military
construction likely would take disproportionately large cuts, with individual
projects subject to reductions of 15% or 20%, he said.
BCA Impact on DOD as FY2014 Begins
On September 30, 2013, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said that the department
would begin operating in FY2014—starting October 1, 2013—as though its FY2014 budget were
limited by the BCA cap and, thus, was more than $50 billion lower than the President’s FY2014
request:
Last year [FY2013], we didn’t start the fiscal year executing as though we had sequester,
because we were ready to do so, but we didn’t want to start until we had to, because
operating under sequester is harmful. It wasn’t until January [2013], after the Christmas deal
collapsed last year, that we began to execute—that is, to curb spending—in recognition of
the fact that sequester was then ... likely to kick in.
Once again, this year, it’s looking like we need to be ready to go. And so our plan is to begin
the fiscal year executing at the [BCA] cap levels, because it’s much easier to start that way
and then ramp up your expenditure later in the year [if the caps are lifted] than it is to go the
other way.28
More recently, after passage of the FY2014 CR setting defense spending levels at the FY2013
level, or some $30 billion below the request but $20 billion above the BCA caps, DOD
Comptroller Robert Hale announced that DOD would be spending at—or slightly below—the CR
level.29
In recent testimony to House and Senate committees, DOD witnesses have argued that there
could be a variety of negative effects, particularly in terms of readiness and maintaining current
planned procurement schedules, if BCA budget caps remained in effect. Witnesses have also
raised concerns that a year-long CR, which pegs funding levels to FY2013 levels, would create
problems because of year-to-year program changes.
DOD FY2013 Post-Sequester Funding and the FY2014 Request
The FY2013 DOD sequester totaled $37.2 billion, including $32.0 billion cut from its base
budget and $5.3 billion from OCO BA. The sequester tapped all available DOD BA except
military personnel accounts. Available BA included not only new BA appropriated in FY2013 in
the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933/P.L. 113-46), but also
prior year unobligated BA from previous years, reflecting the fact that BA in DOD’s investment
28
Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter, “Remarks on the U.S;-India Defense Partnership at the Center for
American Progress,” September 30, 2013, http://www.cq.com/doc/newsmakertranscripts-4353176.
29
Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and Under Secretary Hale in the Pentagon Briefing Room,
October 17, 2013, http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5321.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
accounts (procurement, RDT&E, and military construction) can be obligated (or placed on
contract) over several years.30
Compliance with budget caps is measured by budget authority (BA) or funding amounts as scored
by CBO. Scoring includes all cuts—both reductions to new FY2013 BA and rescissions which
cancel unobligated BA from prior years—because it reflects when legislative action is taken. As
scored, DOD’s FY2013 base funding totaled $495.2 billion after all sequester cuts.
Rescission of prior year unobligated balances, however, cancels BA that was provided for
programs in earlier years. Such reductions do not reduce resources available for current fiscal
year programs or activities. The total DOD FY2013 sequester to its base budget was $32.0 billion
including $26.2 billion in new BA cuts and $5.8 billion in rescissions of prior year unobligated
balances.31 So while DOD’s FY2013 post-sequester base budget funding is scored as $495.2
billion (including the full $32.0 billion reduction by sequester), funding available to carry out
FY2013 programs and activities totaled $501 billion (excluding the $5.8 billion rescission) (see
Table 5).
If DOD complies with the current FY2014 BCA caps, annual funding would decrease by an
additional $20 billion or about 4% from the FY2013 post-sequester level. BCA caps for defense
reach their lowest point for the decade in FY2014, increasing by roughly $10 billion annually
from FY2015 to FY2021, not quite sufficient to cover expected inflation.
Some observers would argue that the FY2013 sequester created harmful effects on readiness and
investment accounts and that additional spending is necessary to offset those effects. Others
might argue that providing for a one-year annual increase in FY2014 would undermine efforts
currently underway in the Department of Defense to determine the best way to accomodate lower
spending levels evident in the Strategic Choices and Management Review undertaken by
Secretary Hagel this summer.
FY2014 National Defense Budget Overview
32
The Obama Administration’s FY2014 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 10, 2013,
includes $641.12 billion for National Defense programs (budget function 050), including military
operations of the Department of Defense, defense-related nuclear energy programs conducted by
the Department of Energy, and other defense-related activities. Of that total, $625.15 billion is
requested for programs falling within the scope of the annual National Defense Authorization Act,
with the remainder either permanently authorized or falling outside the jurisdiction of the House
and Senate Armed Services Committees. (See Table 3.)
30
Availability (or life) varies with the type of account with two years for RDT&E accounts, three years for all
procurement accounts except shipbuilding available for five years, and five years fo military construction accounts.
31
CRS analysis based on table provided by DOD that segregates sequester cuts from unobligated and new FY13 BA
and by base and OCO BA.
32
In this section of the report, statements concerning the National Defense budget refer to OMB’s National Defense
“budget function”—designated function 050—which is one of several “functions” (or categories) intended to
encompass all relevant federal funding, regardless of the agency performing the activity. Function 050 includes funding
for military activities of DOD (i.e., not including Army Corps of Engineers public works) as well as the defense-related
activities of the Energy Department and other agencies. In recent years, DOD has accounted for about 96% of the
Function 050 total.
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
The Administration’s budget includes $607.36 billion for discretionary DOD budget authority,
including $526.64 billion for “base” defense budget costs (day-to-day operations other than war
costs), and $80.72 billion for OCO—largely in Afghanistan. The Administration’s initial FY2014
budget presentation included “placeholder” totals for OCO funding. The actual OCO request for
that year was submitted to Congress as an addendum in May 2013.
Included in the DOD discretionary budget is $6.68 billion for the annual accrual payment to the
fund that underwrites payments from the so-called “TRICARE for Life” program to Medicareeligible military retirees. TRICARE is DOD’s medical insurance program.33
Also included in the $632.74 billion National Defense discretionary total is $17.96 billion for
defense-related programs of the Energy Department. This includes funds for renovation of the
existing nuclear weapons stockpile, environmental cleanup of past nuclear weapons work, and
work related to the development and construction of nuclear powerplants for warships.
The remaining $7.41 billion of discretionary funding for National Defense is requested for
defense-related activities in other agencies, the largest share of which ($4.80 billion) is for FBI
activity, including counterintelligence operations.
Table 3. FY2014 National Defense Budget Function (050); Administration Request
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Discretionary
Funding
Mandatory
Funding
Department of Defense (DOD)
Base Budget
526.64
6.45
533.09
Department of Energy;
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
17.97
1.36
19.33
Department of Justice and
Other Defense-related Activities
7.41
0.60
8.01
National Defense, Base Budget
552.02
8.41
560.43
DOD Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
80.72
0.00
80.72
National Defense, Total
632.74
8.40
641.14
DOD Subtotal (Base Budget plus OCO)
607.36
6.45
613.81
Department
Total
Source: Based on Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. S. Government
(FY2014), Table 31-1; OCO data from DOD FY14 Budget, Overview, Addendum A: Overseas Contingency
Operations, May 2013.
Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding The amounts summarized by the table include some funds that
are not covered by the annual legislation that authorizes and appropriates funds for DOD, which are the bills
that are the focus of this report. The “Mandatory” column includes certain offsetting receipts.
The Administration’s overall National Defense budget for FY2014 also includes $8.40 billion in
mandatory spending. The lion’s share of this amount—$7.13 billion—is the annual payment into
the military retirement fund to cover payments to retirees who have become eligible for additional
33
Although the TRICARE for Life accrual payment is “discretionary” funding and is authorized annually, the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) provides a permanent, indefinite
appropriation to this fund each year of whatever amount is deemed necessary by a board of DOD actuaries.
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
benefits in recent years as a result of legislation that has narrowed limitations on “concurrent
receipt” of both military retired pay and disability annuity from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.34
When President Obama submitted his FY2011 budget request in February 2010, he had projected
requesting for DOD’s base budget a total of $6.26 trillion in discretionary budget authority over
the 10-year period FY2011-FY2020. The Administration reduced its DOD funding projections in
each of the three succeeding budgets. (See Figure 1and Table 4.)
Figure 1. Successive Administration DOD Budget Plans, FY2011-FY2014
(amounts of budget authority in billions of current dollars)
800
700
600
FY2011 budget plan
500
FY2012 budget plan
FY2013 budget plan
400
FY2014 budget plan
300
Reduced BCA caps
(current law)
200
100
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Sources: Data for FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014 budget plans from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget
Estimates for FY2014 (The Green Book), Table 1-12, “Discretionary Budget Authority for Past Defense Budgets to
the Present as reported by OMB.” Data for FY2011 budget plan from OMB, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the
U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Table 32-1, “Policy Budget Authority By Function, Category, and Program.”
Note: Implication for DOD of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) is a CRS estimate.
The 10-year plan accompanying DOD’s FY2012 budget request incorporated $178 billion of
“efficiencies” that were to be realized in the first five years of that period. Enactment of the
Budget Control Act in 2011, however, created a new frame of reference that has shaped much of
34
For background, see CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name red
acted).
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
the subsequent debate over DOD budgets, with the FY2012 request serving as a baseline against
which subsequent reductions have been measured.
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 4. DOD Budget Plans and BCA Caps
(amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total
20122021
FY2012
Budget
Plan
553.03
570.73
586.35
598.17
610.58
621.57
632.76
644.15
655.74
667.54
6,140.61
n/a
Estimated
BCA Cap
530.36
495.20
475.07
487.95
498.12
509.97
522.36
534.74
548.07
561.41
5,163.23
977.38
FY2013
Budget
Plan
530,55
525,43
533,55
545,93
555,91
567,34
579,29
592,396
605,43
617,91
5,653.39
486.88
FY2014
Budget
Plan
530.42
525.43
526.62
540.84
551.37
559.97
568.57
577.15
586.73
596.30
5,563.39
577.22
Additional Reduction (from FY2012 Total) Required
to Meet BCA Cap Total
400.16
Sources: Data for FY2012 and FY2014 DOD budget plans are from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget
Estimates for FY2014 (The Green Book), Table 1-12; “Estimated BCA Cap” is a CRS estimate.
For the 10-year period from FY2012 to FY2021, the caps set by the BCA would require a
reduction in DOD discretionary spending of $977 billion (15.9%) from the total that was
projected by the FY2012 DOD 10-year plan (assuming that DOD accounts for the same
percentage of the National Defense Budget Function in each year as in the Administration’s
projected budgets). Under the FY2013 DOD budget plan, funding for the FY2012-FY2021
decade would total $5.65 trillion, a reduction of $487 billion (or 7.9%) compared with the
FY2012 plan. Under DOD’s FY2014 budget plan, projected spending for that decade would
decline by an additional $90 billion, bringing the cumulative total reduction (compared with the
FY2012 plan) to $577 billion (or 9.4%).
To realize the total reduction in DOD spending for FY2012-FY2021 required by the BCA caps,
an additional reduction of $400 billion would be required.
Congressional Research Service
Reduction
from
FY2012 Plan
23
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 2. Estimated DOD Funding Projections, FY2013-2021
(amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
DOD budget
Senate bud res
House bud res
Lowered BCA cap
postsequester
FY2013
496
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
527
527
527
475
541
534
541
488
551
541
551
498
560
548
564
510
569
555
576
522
577
563
589
535
587
571
602
548
596
579
615
561
Source: DOD data derived from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The
Green Book”), Table 5-4, Table 2-1, and Table 1-12. Data on the “Lowered BCA cap” derived from P.L. 112-25
(“Budget Control Act of 2011”). Data on House and Senate budget resolutions derived from H.Con.Res. 25
(House budget resolution for FY2014), and S.Con.Res. 8 (Senate budget resolution for FY2014).
Notes: Implications for DOD of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), the Senate budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 8) and the House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 25) are CRS estimates. See text box, “Estimated
DOD Impact of Budget ‘Caps’,” above.
Based on DOD’s sorting of its spending between the base budget and OCO, the base budget—
measured in current dollars (i.e., not adjusting for the cost of inflation)—increased at a relatively
steady rate between the late 1990s and 2010. After reaching a high point in 2010, the base budget
declined in FY2012 and FY2013 because of BCA budget limits. Unless the BCA cap for FY2014
is modified, it would require a further reduction of National Defense spending from the amount
requested by the Administration, with DOD’s share of the reduced amount estimated to reach
$475 billion. From FY2015 through FY2020, the BCA, the President’s FY2014 budget
projection, and the FY2014 budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate all project a
steady increase in DOD funding.
Allowing for the cost of inflation as estimated by OMB, the Administration’s projection of
discretionary DOD budget authority thru FY2021 would provide a higher level of “real”
purchasing power than the department’s average annual budget (in FY2014 dollars) for the period
since the end of the Vietnam War (FY1976-FY2012). In turn, the average DOD budget for that
36-year period—which included the last 15 years of the Cold War—is higher in real terms than
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
was the department’s average budget since the 1991 war with Iraq (FY1992-FY2012). (See
Figure 3)
Figure 3. Projected DOD Purchasing Power in Perspective, 1976-2021 (Base Budget)
(amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
DOD discretionary
(Base budget only for 2001-21)
Senate budget resolution
(DOD impact estimated)
House budget resolution
(DOD impact estimated)
reduced BCA cap
(DOD impact estimated)
average 1992-2012, DOD base budget
average 1976-2012, DOD base budget
Sources: CRS analysis of inflation-adjusted amounts based on budget data from DOD Comptroller, National
Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green Book”), Table 5-4, Table 2-1, and Table 1-12. Other data are
from P.L. 112-25 (“Budget Control Act of 2011”), H.Con.Res. 25 (House budget resolution for FY2014), and
S.Con.Res. 8 (Senate budget resolution for FY2014). Defense deflators from OMB, Historical Tables: Budget of
the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2014. Table 10-1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the
Historical Tables, 1940-2018,” converted to base year 2014.
Notes: Implications for DOD of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), the Senate budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 8), and the House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 25) are CRS estimates.
FY2014 DOD Base Budget Highlights
According to DOD officials, the Administration’s $526.6 billion request for discretionary
spending in DOD’s FY2014 base budget is intended both to sustain current U.S. strategy and
continue down-sizing the Army and Marine Corps as one element of that strategy. It incorporates
a range of cost-reduction initiatives and various efforts to restrain the growth of personnel costs.
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
However, the budget request would create relatively few major perturbations of planned weapons
acquisition programs.35 (See Table 5 )
Table 5. DOD Discretionary Base Budgets, FY2012-FY2014
(amounts in billions of current dollars of budget authority)
FY2012 Enacted
Appropriation
FY2013 PostSequester (as
scored)a
and FY2014
Continuing
Resolution
(P.L. 113-46)
Military Personnelc
141.68
135.39
135.39
137.08
Operation and
Maintenance
199.21
193.04
193.98
209.44
Procurement
102.26
92.17
95.85
99.31
RDT&E
71.51
63.35
63.98
67.52
Military
Construction
11.37
7.67
8.04
9.47
Family Housing
1.68
1.46
1.53
1.54
Revolving and
Management Funds
2.70
2.15
2.22
2.28
530.41
495.22
500.99
526.64
Total: Base
Budget
FY2013 PostSequester Resources
Availableb
FY2014
Administration
Request
Sources: Data for FY2012 and FY2014 Administration Request from DOD Comptroller, National Defense
Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green Book”), Table 2.1, pp. 40-41. Data for the two FY2013 columns are from
DOD Comptroller data provided to CRS showing track from enacted level to post-sequester level with separate
figures for base budget and OCO funding.
a.
Amounts “as scored” reflect sequester cuts to both new FY2013 BA and to unobligated balances from prior
years that are credited in FY2013. FY2014 CR reflects scored levels because unobligated balances from
prior year cancelled by the FY2013 sequester are not available to finance FY2014 programs.
b.
Resources funds available for FY2013 programs and activities including only sequester cuts from FY2013 BA.
c.
Includes annual accrual payment 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 bills but,
rather, by permanent law according to calculations by DOD actuaries ($6.68 billion in FY2014).
At the request of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Senator James M.
Inhofe, the committee’s ranking minority Member, DOD agreed to present a plan for cutting $52
billion (about 10%) from the FY2014 base budget request, to meet the legally binding BCA
spending cap.36 In addition, Secretary Hagel launched in April a DOD-wide Strategic Choices and
Management Review (SCMR) intended to develop three alternative DOD budget plans for
35
DOD Comptroller, Overview: U.S. Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, April 2013, pp. 2-1 to
2-7.
36
Senators Carl Levin and James M. Inhofe, Letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, May 2, 2013,
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press/releases/upload/SASC-Budget-letter-to-Hagel-050313.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2015-FY2019: one based on the Administration’s current budget projection, a second based on
annual funding levels that were 5% lower, and a third based on annual funding levels lower by
10%.
Sustaining Current Strategy
In January 2012, the Obama Administration issued a new Strategic Guidance document to inform
DOD planning and budgeting.37 Among the premises drawn from that document to underpin the
Administration’s FY2014 base budget request are the following:
•
DOD will maintain a large enough force to win a major conventional war in one
region while, concurrently, being able to inflict enough damage on an aggressor
in a second region to deter a second attack.
•
DOD will not maintain an active-duty force large enough to conduct large-scale
stability operations on a prolonged basis such as recent operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Those campaigns required a large enough force so that upwards of
100,000 troops at a time could be periodically deployed and then rotated back
home for rest and retraining.
•
In a departure from the practice in recent years of having forces concentrate on
training for the types of missions being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan,
forces will train for operating across the spectrum of conflict, from major
conventional wars to peacekeeping and stability operations.
•
DOD will try to improve its ability to help other countries bolster their own
security forces to partner more effectively with U.S. forces in missions of mutual
interest.38
•
DOD will “rebalance” its global posture to emphasize operations in the AsiaPacific region and the Middle East.39
Military Personnel
The Administration’s FY2014 budget would continue the ongoing reduction in number of activecomponent Army and Marine Corps personnel to a planned total of 672,100 personnel by the end
of FY2017. At that point, the combined, active-duty end-strength of those two services would
exceed by more than 18,000 troops their combined end-strength at the end of FY2001, before the
services’ post-9/11 expansion. In effect, the plan would remove the 92,000 personnel that were
added to the two ground combat-oriented services in 2007. (See Table 6)
37
For further analysis, see CRS Report R42146, In Brief: Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance
(DSG), by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
38
For further analysis, see CRS Report R42516, In Brief: Clarifying the Concept of “Partnership” in National
Security, by (name redacted).
39
For further analysis, see CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing”
Toward Asia, coordinated by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 6. Active Component Authorized End-Strength
FY2001
FY2013
FY2014
FY2017
Army
480,000
552,100
520,000
490,000a
Navy
372,642
322,700
323,600
319,500
Marine Corps
172,600
197,300
190,200
182,100a
Air Force
357,000
329,460
327,600
328,600
Total
1,382,242
1,401,600
1,361,400
1,320,200
Sources: Data for FY2001 from H.Rept. 106-945, Conference Report on H.R. 4205, Enactment of Provisions of
H.R. 5408, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 777; data for
FY2013 and FY2014 from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green Book”),
Table 3-2, p. 53; data for FY2017 from DOD Comptroller, Briefing on the FY2013 Budget Request, at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request.pdf, slide 9.
Notes: In the Administration’s FY2014 budget request, 490,000 Army personnel and 182,000 Marines would be
funded in the base budget with the remainder of each service—30,000 Army and 8,100 Marines—being funded
with OCO appropriations.
a.
Citing budgetary pressures, the Army and Marine Corps each have accelerated their drawdowns by two
years, planning to reach the lower manpower levels in FY2015 rather than in FY2017.
As DOD had done in its FY2013 budget request, it proposed to fund in the FY2014 base budget
only the “enduring end-strength” of the two services—that is, the number of personnel they
would have after the drawdown is complete in 2017: 490,000 for the Army and 182,000 for the
Marine Corps. On grounds that the additional Army and Marine personnel were a legacy of the
expansion of those services to deal with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—an expansion now being
largely reversed—the remaining personnel would be funded out of appropriations to cover war
costs (OCO).
Military Pay and Allowances
The budget request would provide a 1% raise in military basic pay, which typically accounts for
between two-thirds and three-quarters of active-duty services members’ cash compensation (the
balance of which typically consists of allowances for housing and living costs and various special
pays and bonuses intended to attract and retain personnel with certain skills).40 DOD estimates
that this 1% raise would save $540 million in FY2014 (and nearly $3.5 billion through FY2018)
compared with the 1.8% increase in basic pay that would occur, automatically, under the terms of
37 U.S.C. 1009, which provides that military basic pay will increase by the same annual
percentage as pay in the private sector as measured by the Labor Department in the Employment
Cost Index (ECI).
Congress can, by law, establish a different pay raise than the ECI and the President asserts that he
has authority under subsection (e) of 37 U.S.C. 1009 to set an alternative pay adjustment.41 On
40
See CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by (name redacted).
Section 1009 (e) allows the President to submit a plan for an alternative pay adjustment to Congress before
September 1 of the year preceding the pay raise. This provision does not explicitly state that any such plan overrides
the automatic adjustment tied to the ECI, but it could be argued that the authority nonetheless exists because subsection
(e) refers to “alternative pay adjustments as the President considers appropriate” and subsection (b) states that “an
adjustment under this section [1009] shall have the force and effect of law.”
41
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
August 30, 2013, the President sent a letter to Congress stating, “I have determined it is
appropriate to exercise my authority under 1009(e) of Title 37, United States Code, to set the
2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent.”42
When the Obama Administration presented its FY2013 budget request in February 2012, it had
announced plans to increase military basic pay at the ECI rate for FY2014 and to begin proposing
pay increases below the ECI rate in FY2015.
TRICARE Fees
As it had done in its FY2013 budget request, the Administration included in its FY2014 DOD
budget the creation of some new fees and increases in others for beneficiaries of TRICARE,
DOD’s medical insurance program. TRICARE covers more than 9.6 million active duty and
retired servicemembers as well as their dependents and survivors.
DOD justifies the proposed increases on the argument that, while the costs to beneficiaries
remained largely unchanged between 1996 and 2012, DOD’s medical costs grew from $19 billion
in FY2001 to a projected $49 billion in FY2014.43 Congress had rejected most of the fee increases
proposed for FY2013, but approved a proposed increase in pharmacy copayments.
The TRICARE fee increases proposed for FY2014 would not affect servicemembers currently on
active duty except that their dependents would be liable for increased pharmacy copayments.
Most of the other proposed fee increases would apply to military retirees under the age of 65,
although a proposal to create a new TRICARE for Life enrollment fee was included in the
Administration’s request for the first time.
“Efficiency” Initiatives
According to DOD, the FY2014 base budget request incorporates some two dozen “efficiency”
initiatives that would reduce spending by a total of $17.03 billion over the period FY2014FY2018.44 Five of those proposals account for about 80% of the projected five-year savings,
namely:
•
$8.90 billion—more than a quarter of the total reduction—would come from
reduced estimates of the cost of DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance program,
with the cuts based partly on a decline in the rate of medical care cost growth and
partly on an Administration plan to reorganize some DOD facilities (FY2014
savings of $1.37 billion);
•
$2.77 billion would be cut from projected payrolls for DOD civilians, partly on
the assumption that annual pay raises will be lower than previously projected and
42
Letter available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-payplan-members-uniformed-services.
43
See CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, by (name redacted).
44
DOD Comptroller, Operation and Maintenance Overview: Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Estimates, April 2013, pp. 210235. This CRS report discusses separately additional savings projected by the Administration to result from base
closures and reduced military construction.
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
partly on the assumption that Congress will approve the closure of some bases
and medical facilities (FY2014 savings of $356 million);
•
$1.20 billion would be saved by reducing enlistment bonuses and the budget for
recruitment advertising, capitalizing on the improved recruiting environment
created by a weak domestic economy45 (FY2014 savings of $213 million);
•
$625 million would be saved as a result of scaling down Army deployments in
the Balkans (FY2014 savings of $106 million);
•
$447 million would be saved by reducing the Navy’s projected operation and
maintenance budgets on grounds that the service routinely has requested more
funding in those accounts than it has spent in recent years (FY2014 savings of
$87 million).
Weapons Acquisition Reductions
The FY2014 request incorporates reductions in planned acquisition spending for some five dozen
weapons programs by a total of $15.62 billion over the period FY2014-FY2018. Some of the
reduction would result from the cancellation of some programs and reductions in the number of
items that would be purchased, or the rate at which they would be purchased. Still other savings
are projected to result from wider use of multi-year procurement contracts.
Most of the proposed changes would yield savings of less than $150 million each over the fiveyear period, but 10 of the changes—each projected to save more than $500 million—account for
nearly 60% of the projected five-year savings, namely:
•
$2.06 billion would come from dropping plans to develop a “Block IIB” version
of the SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptor (FY2014 savings of $216 million);
•
$1.72 billion would come from cancellation of the Precision Tracking Space
System, a satellite network intended to provide targeting data on incoming
ballistic missiles (FY2014 savings of $270 million);
•
$1.35 billion would be saved by deferring until FY2019 the construction of a new
“IIIB” version of the Apache attack helicopter (upgrading existing Apaches to
that standard, in the meantime) (FY2014 savings of $475 million);
•
$1.09 billion would come from using Atlas rockets for some planned satellite
launches instead of more expensive Delta rockets (FY2014 savings of $106
million);
•
$684 million would be saved in the near term by slowing procurement of the
Navy’s SM-6 anti-cruise missile interceptor until more ships are equipped with a
new version of the Aegis weapons control system that is needed to fully exploit
the capabilities of the SM-6 (FY2014 savings of $58 million);
•
$683 million would come from a reduction in the overhead cost budgeted for the
carrier-launched version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (FY2014 savings of $8
million);
45
See CRS Report RL32965, Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2011 and FY2012 Results for Active and
Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
•
$598 million would come from reducing the number of the Navy’s F/A-18
fighters that would be rebuilt to like-new condition (FY2014 savings of $48
million);
•
$593 million would be saved by reducing the Marine Corps ammunition
inventory consistent with the retirement of one of three flotillas of pre-positioned
supply ships carrying supplies and equipment for Marine combat units (FY2014
savings of $229 million);
•
$528 million would come from savings as a result of buying DDG-51-class
destroyers on a multi-year contract (FY2014 savings of $67 million); and
•
$526 million would come from savings as a result of buying C-130J cargo planes
on a multi-year contract (FY2014 savings of $83 million).
Proposed Base Closures
Over the FY2014-FY2018 period, DOD projects a total reduction in military construction budgets
of $4.13 billion compared with previous projections. Some of those cutbacks are slated to result
from the closure of some bases and medical facilities as a result of a Base Realignment and
Closure Commission (BRAC), which Congress is asked to authorize. Congress rejected a BRAC
proposal included in the FY2013 budget request.
FY2014 OCO Budget Highlights
The Administration’s $79.44 billion request for war costs (OCO) represents a reduction of about
3% from the amount appropriated by Congress for war costs in FY2013 (after sequestration).
(See Table 7.)
Table 7. Administration’s FY2014 Discretionary OCO Budget Request
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2012 Enacted
Appropriation
FY2013 PostSequester
(as scored)a
and FY2014
continuing
resolution
(P.L. 113-46)
FY2013 PostSequester Resources
Availableb
FY2014
Request as
Amended
May 2013
Military Personnelc
11.29
14.26
14.26
9.85
Operation and
Maintenance
86.78
58.38
58.38
63.63d
Procurement
16.05
8.89
9.33
5.62e
RDT&E
0.53
0.19
0.19
0.07f
Military Construction
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
Revolving and
Management Funds
0.44
0.24
0.24
0.26
115.08
81.96
82.40
79.44
Total: OCO Budget
Congressional Research Service
31
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Sources: Data for FY2012 from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green
Book”), Table 2.1, pp. 40-41. Data for the two FY2013 columns are from DOD Comptroller data provided to
CRS showing track from enacted level to post-sequester level with separate figures for base budget and OCO
funding. Data for FY2014 request from DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal
Year 2014 Budget Request, Addendum A, Overseas Contingency Operations, Table 1, “OCO Funding by
Appropriations Title,” p. 11.
a.
Amounts “as scored” reflect sequester cuts to both new FY2013 BA and to unobligated balances from prior
years that are credited in FY2013. FY2014 CR reflects scored levels because unobligated balances from
prior year cancelled by the FY2013 sequester are not available to finance FY2014 programs.
b.
Resources funds available for FY2013 programs and activities including only sequester cuts from FY2013 BA.
c.
Includes annual accrual payment 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 bills but,
rather, by permanent law according to calculations by DOD actuaries ($164 million in OCO funds in
FY2014).
d.
Assumes Congress will transfer to this account an additional $486 million that Congress had added to the
FY2013 DOD appropriation to keep in service several Aegis cruisers the Administration wants to retire.
e.
Assumes Congress will transfer to this account an additional $749 million that Congress had added to the
FY2013 DOD appropriation to continue purchasing C-27 cargo planes, a program the Administration wants
to terminate.
f.
Assumes Congress will transfer to this account an additional $44 million that was appropriated for
unspecified R&D program in FY2004.
Although the OCO funding request for FY2014 would drop by 3% compared with the presequester FY2013 appropriation, the number of U.S. personnel deployed in Afghanistan would
decline by 39% and the total number of personnel supported by the OCO budget (including forces
outside Afghanistan that support operations in that country, in the Philippines and in the Horn of
Africa) would drop by about 20%. (See Figure 4)
Figure 4. OCO Funding and Troop Level Trends: FY2008 through FY2014 Request
Proposed OCO Funding
by Country
Proposed U.S.Troops
by Country
amounts in billions of dollars
thousands of personnel
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
2008
Iraq
148
Afghanistan 39
2009
94
52
2010
62
100
2011
45
114
2012
10
105
2013
3
85
2014
1
78
0
2008
Iraq
154
Afghanistan 33
2009
141
44
2010
96
84
2011
47
98
2012
9
90
2013
0
63
2014
0
38
Source: DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request,
Addendum A, Overseas Contingency Operations, Figure 2, “OCO Funding and Troop Level Trends,” p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
According to DOD’s functional breakdown of the FY2014 OCO budget (see Table 8), three
components that, in sum, account for more than 80% of the total request would decline by less
than 10% compared with the pre-sequester FY2013 appropriation:
•
$25.7 billion for U.S. force operations (including force protection);
•
$21.8 billion for activities outside Afghanistan to support operations inside that
country; and
•
$8.9 billion to purchase equipment to replace war losses (including 4 Apache
attack helicopters and 11 Chinook transport helicopters), replenish ammunition
supplies, and refurbish equipment worn out by use in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to DOD, those costs are declining at a slower rate than U.S. troop levels in
Afghanistan because of expenses associated with closing bases in that country and returning
thousands of cargo containers, vehicles, and other pieces of equipment to the United States and
refurbishing the equipment as necessary.46
46
DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, Addendum A,
Overseas Contingency Operations, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 8. OCO Funding by Mission Category
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2013 Enacted
Appropriation
PRE-SEQUESTERR
FY2014 Request
Operations and Force Protection
27.7
25.7
In-Theater Support
23.0
21.8
Military Intelligence Program
4.4
3.8
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
5.1
7.7
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
0.3
0.3
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)
0.2
0.1
Coalition Support Funds
2.1
2.0
Procurement and Equipment Reset
11.1
8.9
Temporary End-Strength
5.8
5.1
Other
9.5
5.3
Prior-Year Cancellations
-2.0
-1.3
Net Total
87.2
79.4
Source: DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request,
Addendum A, Overseas Contingency Operations, Figure 3. “OCO Functional/Mission Category Breakout,” p. 5. Postsequester estimates are not available.
Afghanistan’s Army, projected to number 195,000 at the end of FY2013, and its National Police,
projected to number 157,000 at the end of FY2013, are expected to remain at those levels through
FY2014. The OCO budget request would increase U.S. support for those forces by 50% (to $7.7
billion) over the pre-sequester FY2013 appropriation. According to DOD, the increase is
associated with the Afghan forces’ assumption of responsibility for security as well as continued
efforts to improve their operational capabilities.47
Ship and Aircraft Retirements
The Administration’s FY2014 OCO budget request would require $80.7 billion in budget
authority. However, the Administration proposes to reduce the budgetary impact of the request by
covering part of the costs by rescinding or cancelling $1.3 billion appropriated for FY2013 to
retain in service Navy ships and Air Force cargo planes that the Administration’s FY2013 budget
request would have retired.
Thus, the FY2014 request proposes to reverse Congress’s decision to reject the Administration’s
FY2013 proposals to retire seven Aegis cruisers and two amphibious transport ships and to
mothball the fleet of C-27 cargo planes. To fund its FY2014 OCO budget, it would use:
•
47
$486 million that Congress had added to the FY2013 DOD appropriation to keep
in service the ships the Administration wanted to retire;
Ibid., p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
•
$749 million that Congress had added to the FY2013 bill to continue purchasing
and operating C-27s; and
•
$44 million that had been appropriated for unspecified R&D program in FY2004.
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA): H.R. 1960; S. 1197; H.R. 3304
H.R. 3304, the version of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by
President Obama on December 31, 2013,—like Administration’s budget request and earlier
versions of the NDAA passed by the House (H.R. 1960) and reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee (S. 1197)—exceeded by more than $30 billion the cap on national defense
spending48 in FY2014 that was established by the FY2014 Continuing Appropriations Resolution
(H.J.Res. 59), which the President also signed into law on December 26, 2013.
For DOD’s FY2014 base budget, the totals authorized by the final version of the bill (H.R. 3004),
the version passed by the House on June 14, 2013, (H.R. 1960), and the version reported by the
Senate Armed Services Committee on June 20, 2013, (S. 1197), all come within $228 million of
the $526.57 billion requested by the President. (See Table 9)
For OCO funding (or “war costs”), H.R. 3304, like the Senate committee versions of the bill (S.
1197), makes few changes to the Administration’s $80.72 billion request. The House-passed bill,
on the other hand, would have authorized $5.04 billion more than was requested49, including the
following increases:
•
$1.68 billion for depot maintenance;
•
$1.50 billion to “reset” (i.e., rehabilitate, reequip, and retrain) Army units after
their deployment in Afghanistan;
•
$535.9 million for higher than budgeted fuel costs;
•
$340.9 million to replace FY2013 OCO funds that were reprogrammed to other
OCO uses; and
•
$400.0 million for equipment for National Guard and reserve component units.
The enacted version of the bill, authorizing $2.0 million less than the OCO request, dropped
about two-thirds of the House-passed increases authorizing an additional $1.10 billion for Army
reset, $400.0 for National Guard and reserve equipment; and $130.0 million for depot
maintenance.
Because neither H.R. 1960 nor S. 1197 had been passed by both chambers, there was no basis for
convening a House-Senate conference to reconcile the House-passed and Senate committeereported versions of the FY2014 NDAA. In lieu of a formal conference report, members of the
48
The spending cap applies to DOD’s base budget, but not to funding for war costs (or OCO).
49
The House-proposed increases in OCO funds would not count against the caps set by the Budget Control Act.
However, OCO funds would have be subject to sequestration, if that occurs.
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
House and Senate Armed Services Committees, meeting informally, negotiated a compromise
version of the bill. To expedite Senate action on that final version of the bill, the negotiated text
was passed by the House and Senate as an amendment to a bill (H.R. 330450) that already had
been passed by each chamber, but on the specific language of which the House and Senate had
not yet come to agreement.
On December 12, 2013, the House voted 350-69 to adopt the negotiated NDAA text as an
amendment to H.R. 3304 and to pass the amended bill. On December 19, 2013, the Senate
concurred in the House action—in effect, passing the negotiated NDAA text—by a vote of 84-15.
Table 9. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1960; S. 1197: H,R, 3304)
(amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
FY2014
Administration
Request
FY2014
House-passed
H.R. 1960
FY2014
Senatecommittee
reported
S. 1197
H.R. 3304
enacted
Base Budget
Procurement
98,227
99,666
98,151
98,442
Research and Development
67,520
68,079
67,541
67,739
Operations and Maintenance
175,098
174,672
176,632
176,420
Military Personnel
137,077
136,896
136,807
136,394
Defense Health Program and Other
Authorizations
37,639
37,362
37,775
37,438
Military Construction and Family
Housing
11,012
10,056
9,662
10,367
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
526,572
526,732
526,568
526,800
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
(Energy Dept.)
17,858
17,696
17,842
17,623
TOTAL: FY2014 Base Budget
544,430
544,428
544,411
544,424
Subtotal: Overseas Contingency
Operations
80,722
85,766
80,704
80,720
625,153
630,194
625,115
625,143
GRAND TOTAL:
FY2014 NDAA
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960), June 7, 2013, pp. 363-67; Senate Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 11344. Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013,
pp. 268-72.
50
As originally passed by the House and Senate, H.R. 3304 would have requested that the Medal of Honor be awarded
to two veterans of the Vietnam War and to certain other veterans who had been recommended for the award.
Congressional Research Service
36
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
NDAA: The Broad Outlines
Like the defense authorization act for FY2013 (H.R. 4310, P.L. 112-239), the final version of the
FY2014 NDAA—like the versions of the FY2014 bill that earlier had been passed by the House
and reported by the Senate committee—makes relatively few individual additions to the
authorization levels proposed by the Administration for specific procurement and R&D programs,
compared with the annual defense authorization bills enacted in the first decade of this century.
That difference reflects the stringent bars against “earmarks” currently observed in both the
House and the Senate.
Proposed Administration Savings
H.R. 3304 bars an Administration proposal to retire several Navy ships ahead of schedule and to
increase some TRICARE fees. Congress had rejected these proposals in the FY2013 budget and
that also had been rejected in the House-passed and Senate committee versions of the FY2014
authorization bill.
The final FY2014 bill also blocked an Air Force plan to retire its fleet of A-10 ground attack
planes as part of its plan to accommodate the anticipated reduction in its FY2014 budget request.
The proposal surfaced after the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee had acted
on their respective versions of the bill.
On the other hand, the final NDAA—and the two earlier versions—supported several of the
Administration’s other cost-cutting proposals. Following are actions incorporated in various
versions of the FY2014 NDAA related to selected Administration savings. (See Table 10)
Table 10. Selected Administration Cost Cutting Initiatives
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 1960
Senate
committeereported
S. 1197
Final Version
H.R. 3304
Annual Raise in
Military Basic Pay
1.0%
1.8% (added cost of
$580.0 million)
1.0%
1.0%
Recruiting and
Retention Bonuses and
Advertising
Reduce FY2014
request by $213
million
Add $5.4 million for
bonuses for flight
paramedics in Army
Reserve and National
Guard
no change
Cut an additional
$115.9 million from
the request
DOD Civilian Pay
Cut by $346.1 million
compared with
current policy
Cut an additional
$341.5 million (lower
projection of number of
employees)
no change
Cut an additional
$621.7 million (lower
projection of number
of employees)
TRICARE medical
insurance costs
Cut by $1.37 billion in
anticipation of higher
fees
Add $164 million; bar
fee changes
Add $218 million;
bar fee changes
Add $218 million; bar
fee changes
Congressional Research Service
37
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
committeereported
S. 1197
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 1960
Retirement of seven
Navy cruisers and two
amphibious landing
transport ships
(proposal rejected by
Congress in FY2013
budget)
Cancel $486 million
(of $1.4 billion) that
Congress added to
the FY2013 DOD
appropriation to keep
in service the ships
the Administration
wanted to retire. Use
those funds to cover
part of the cost of the
FY2014 budget
request
Bar retirement of the
seven cruisers and one
of the two amphibious
ships; Authorized use of
up to $915 million (of
the funds authorized in
FY2013 to keep the
ships in service) to
modernize the cruisers
Reject
Administration
proposal and
direct DOD to
use funds
appropriated in
FY2013 to
continue
operating the
ships
Bar retirement of the
seven cruisers and one
of the two amphibious
ships; no additional
transfer authority.
(Section 1023)
Retirement of C-27
cargo planes (proposal
rejected by Congress
in FY2013 budget)
Cancel $749 million
that Congress had
added to the FY2013
bill to continue
purchasing and
operating C-27s; Use
those funds to cover
part of the cost of the
FY 2014 budget
request
no change
no change
Require the Air Force
to transfer 14 C-27s
to the Coast Guard as
part of a multi-agency
reassignment of
various aircraft
(Section 1098)
AH-64 Apache
helicopter
Defer until FY2019
the manufacture of
new AH-64s;
Continue upgrade of
existing helicopters to
AH-64 Block IIIB
configuration; Reduce
FY2014 request by
$475 million
no change
no change
no change
UH-72 Lakota
helicopter for
noncombat missions
Buy the final 10 UH72s in FY2014 in lieu
of planned 31 in
FY2014 and 10 more
in FY2015; Reduce
projected FY2014
request by $163
million
Add $135 million to
buy 21 additional UH72s in FY2014
no change
Add $75 million to buy
10 additional UH-72s
in FY2014
Standard SM-3-IIB antiballistic missile
interceptor
Cancel development
of a new variant of
the SM-3 IIA antimissile interceptor;
Reduce FY2014
request by $216
million
no change
no change
no change
Precision Tracking
Space System (PTSS)
missile defense
tracking satellite
Cancel development
of PTSS missile
defense tracking
satellite; Reduce
FY2014 request by
$270 million
no change
no change
no change
Congressional Research Service
Final Version
H.R. 3304
38
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Other Congressional Additions
Both versions of the NDAA would authorize more than was requested for several large O&M
accounts in which the Administration’s budget assumed costs would be reduced by “efficiencies.”
The Senate committee-reported S. 1197 would add $1.8 billion to these accounts, while the
House-passed H.R. 1960 would add $5.6 billion, of which $4.6 billion was added to the
authorization for OCO funding.
Following are actions selected increases to the Administration’s DOD budget request that would
be authorized by various versions of the FY2014 NDAA. (See Table 11)
Table 11. Selected Additions to the Administration Request
Administration
proposal
House-passed
H.R. 1960
Senatecommittee
reported
S. 1197
Facilities
maintenance and
upgrades
$9.38 billion request
assumes unspecified
efficiencies
Add $809 million for
facilities maintenance
and repair
Add $286 million for
facilities maintenance
and repair
Add $635 million for
facilities maintenance
and repair
Depot
maintenance
$14.04 billion
request assumes
unspecified
efficiencies
Add $1.68 billion
million for depot
maintenance (nearly
all OCO funding)
Add $608 million for
depot maintenance
Add $924 million for
depot maintenance
(of which $130
million is OCO
funding)
“Reset” of
equipment
deployed in
Afghanistan and
Iraq
Request $2.24 billion
for Army “reset” (in
OCO funding)
Add $1.50 billion for
reset (OCO funding)
no change
Add $1.10 billion for
reset (OCO funding)
Other “add-backs”
n/a
Add $329 million for
additional training
and other readinessrelated O&M costs
(OCO funding)
Add $885 million for
additional training
and other readinessrelated O&M costs
Add $802 million for
additional training
and other readinessrelated O&M costs
no change
no change
Final version
H.R. 3304
Add an additional
$341 million to
replace FY2013
OCO funds that
were reprogrammed
to other OCO uses;
Fuel costs
Request assumes
unspecified
efficiencies
Congressional Research Service
Add $536 million for
fuel costs. (OCO
funding)
39
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Senatecommittee
reported
S. 1197
Administration
proposal
House-passed
H.R. 1960
Final version
H.R. 3304
Ballistic Missile
Defense system
deployed in Alaska
and California to
intercept intercontinental
missiles aimed at
U.S. territory
Request $1.03 billion
to continue
upgrading Ballistic
Missile Defense
system deployed in
Alaska and California
to intercept intercontinental missiles
Add $140 million;
require construction
of the third site for
defense of U.S.
territory against
long-range ballistic
missiles(Section 232);
Also add $107
million to begin
procurement of 14
additional
interceptor missiles
no change
Add $80 million to
analyze causes of a
flight test failure; Add
$20 million to
continue evaluation
of possible additional
missile defense sites
(as required by
FY2013 NDAA);
Requires a briefing
on that study
(Section 239)
Three Israeli
missile defense
systems
Request $96 million
to continue
development of the
three missile defense
systems
Add $173 million
Add $150 million
Add $188 million
“Iron Dome”
Israeli system
designed to
intercept shortrange rockets and
artillery shells
Request $220 million
for procurement
Add $15 million to
facilitate U.S.
production of Iron
Dome
no change
Add $15 million to
facilitate U.S.
production of Iron
Dome
Upgrades to
Abrams tanks and
Bradley troop
carriers
Request $171 million
for Bradley mods and
$178 million for
Abrams mods but no
funds for more
complex upgrade of
Abrams tanks to socalled M-1A2 SEP
configuration
Add $168 million to
continue M-1A2 SEP
upgrades
no change
Add $90 million to
continue M-1A2 SEP
upgrades
Virginia-class
nuclear submarine
Request $2.93 billion
to fully fund one sub
and partly fund a
second
Add $492 million to
fully fund the second
sub
no change
Add $492 million to
fully fund the second
sub
Equipment for
National Guard
and reserve
component forces
Request $4.25 billion
distributed through
the appropriations
accounts that fund
equipment for activecomponent forces
Add $400 million for
procurement in the
National Guard and
Reserve Equipment
Account (NGREA)
(OCO funds)
no change
Add $400 million for
procurement in the
National Guard and
Reserve Equipment
Account (NGREA)
(OCO funds)
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization)
Military Personnel Policy Issues
For additional background and analysis of selected military personnel issues dealt with in the FY2014 NDAA (endstrength, pay raise, TRICARE fees, chaplains’ rights, and reserve component mobilization), see CRS Report R43184,
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
The final version of the bill, like the versions passed by the House and reported by the Senate
committee, incorporate Administration proposals to reduce the statutory ceilings on the number of
military personnel at the end of FY2014. That new ceiling on active component personnel is be
1.36 million, a reduction of just over 40,000 from the FY2013 ceiling on “end-strength” while the
new personnel ceiling for the National Guard and other reserve components is 833,700, a
reduction of just over 8,000.
In the explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 3304, House and Senate negotiators noted that,
because of budgetary constraints, the Army and Marine Corps have accelerated their planned
reduction in active-duty personnel and now hope to reduce active component ends-strength by an
additional 38,100 troops by FY2015, instead of FY2017.51 The negotiators supported that plan,
but commented:
We remain concerned that unfettered reductions in end-strength will have a detrimental
impact on force structure and, ultimately, operational mission capability and capacity among
the services, and harm the morale of the force,52
Military Pay Raise
The Senate committee’s bill included a provision (Section 601) that would have authorized for
FY2014 the 1% raise in military basic pay called for by the budget request. On the other hand, the
House Armed Services Committee called for a 1.8% military pay raise, as would happen
automatically under existing law, which ties the annual raise in military basic pay to the Labor
Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI). DOD estimated that the higher raise would increase
FY2014 military personnel costs by $540 million.
H.R. 3304 included no provision setting the FY2014 military pay raise. However, the President
asserts that the law that ties pay raises to the ECI53 also includes a provision giving him authority
to specify an alternative pay raise, and he has done so by setting the FY2014 pay raise at 1.0%.54
In the explanatory statement accompanying the bill, House and Senate negotiators acknowledged
the President’s action.55
Sexual Assault Prevention and Treatment
Sexual Assault-Related Provisions
For more extensive description and analysis of sexual assault-related provisions of H.R. 1960 and S. 1197 relating to
sexual assault, see CRS Report R43213, Sexual Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected
Legislative Proposals, by (name redacted).
51
For additional background and analysis on the Administration’s manpower plan, see CRS Report R42493, Army
Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
52
“Joint Explanatory Statement” on the FY2014 NDAA, House Armed Services Committee website, at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8A5E9112-80EF-43E1-A4E9-9AB0C0C107D8, pp. 5253.
53
37 U.S.C. 1009.
54
See “Military Pay and Allowances” above.
55
“Joint Explanatory Statement” on the FY2014 NDAA, House Armed Services Committee website, at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8A5E9112-80EF-43E1-A4E9-9AB0C0C107D8, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
In response to several high-profile cases involving sexual assaults within the Armed Forces, the
House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the FY2014 NDAA each included
several provisions that would address the issue. Some of these provisions would change the
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) pertaining to sexual assault while
others would change the rules governing (1) the disposition of sexual assault allegations within
the military and (2) the conduct of courts-martial.
Corresponding provisions of the House and Senate bills differ in some respects, particularly in the
types of alleged crimes to which they would apply. H.R. 3304 included compromise versions of
most of those provisions. Following are selected aspects of the sexual assault issue that are
addressed in the legislation (Table 12).
Table 12. Selected Sexual Assault-related Provisions, FY2014 NDAA
Housepassed
H.R. 1960
Senate
committeereported
S. 1197
Enacted
H.R. 3304
Establishment of mandatory minimum sentences for
conviction by court-martial of a sex-related crime
Section 533
Section 554
Section 1705
Appointment of a Special Victims’ Counsel to provide
victims of alleged sex-related offenses with
independent legal representation, drawn from outside
the military services
Section 536
Section 539
Section 1716
Prohibition of a commander’s consideration of the
“character and military service” of the accused in
deciding whether to prosecute an alleged offense
Section 546
Section 565
Section 1708
Limitation of a commander’s authority to grant
clemency
Section 531
Section 555
Section 1702
Right of a complaining witness to be heard in the
clemency phase of the proceedings
Section 544
Section 556
Section 1706
Provisions Relating to Chaplains Corps and Conscience
As passed by the House, H.R. 1960 included a provision (Section 529) providing that, if a
military chaplain were called upon to lead a prayer in some context other than a religious service,
he or she would have the right to close the prayer “according to the traditions, expressions and
religious exercises” of the chaplain’s faith tradition. During debate on the bill, the House rejected
an amendment that would have authorized the appointment of military chaplains who are
endorsed by recognized nontheistic or nonreligious organizations.56
Instead of that House provision, H.R. 3304 includes a provision (Section 534) requiring DOD to
conduct a survey of military chaplains to ascertain whether restrictions on their role outside a
religious service have prevented them from conforming to the tenets of their faith or interfered
with their ability to minister to DOD personnel and their families.
56
See House amendment number 169 in Table 15.
Congressional Research Service
42
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Another provision of the House-passed bill (Section 530E) would have required “advance written
notice of any meeting to be held between Department employees and civilians for the purpose of
writing, revising, issuing, implementing, enforcing, or seeking advice, input, or counsel regarding
military policy related to religious liberty.” The final version of the bill contained no such
provision however, in their explanatory statement, House and Senate negotiators urged DOD and
the military services to consult with all faith groups when formulating or change policies that
would affect religious freedom or tolerance. They added:
We are becoming increasingly concerned over reports that the Department and the services
appear more responsive to some religious groups and interests than others.57
Legal Protection for Religious Expression
Like the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, H.R. 3304 also included a provision (Section
532) amending a provision of law enacted as part of the FY2013 NDAA (P.L. 112-239). Section
533 of the FY2013 act requires the armed forces to “accommodate the beliefs of a member of the
armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs and, insofar as
practicable ... not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action....” The
immediately following provision of the act provides that nothing in the preceding provision
precludes disciplinary or administrative action for conduct “that threatens good order and
discipline.”
In the enacted version of the FY2014 NDAA, Section 532 amends the existing law to provide
that, “unless it could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order
and discipline, the Armed Forces shall accommodate individual expressions of belief,” and that
such “expression of belief” shall not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel action.”
TRICARE
Like the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 3304 does not authorize the
Administration’s proposals to:
•
Raise the premiums paid by military retirees to participate in TRICARE, DOD’s
private-sector health insurance program for active-duty and retired services
members, their dependents, and their survivors;
•
Index increases in TRICARE’s “catastrophic cap”—the maximum annual amount
a beneficiary should have to pay—to the National Health Expenditure index,
which is a federal government barometer of changes in health care costs; and
•
Introduce enrollment fees for certain TRICARE programs, including TRICARE
for Life, the program that covers Medicare-eligible military retirees.
Like the Senate committee bill, H.R. 3304 would add $218 million to the requested TRICARE
authorization for FY2014, which would restore funds the budget request assumed would not be
needed because of the proposed fees. The House-passed bill would have added $164 million for
this purpose.
57
“Joint Explanatory Statement” on the FY2014 NDAA, House Armed Services Committee website, at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8A5E9112-80EF-43E1-A4E9-9AB0C0C107D8, p. 82.
Congressional Research Service
43
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
DOD has announced its intention to cut off coverage for TRICARE Prime—a TRICARE option
that is similar to an HMO—in certain areas of the United States. The House bill (Section 711)
would allow TRICARE beneficiaries who are eligible for TRICARE Prime to enroll in the
program, even if they live in those areas in which DOD has barred new TRICARE beneficiaries
from enrolling in it. Instead, H.R. 3304 would allow current TRICARE Prime participants to
remain in the program, even if they reside in areas in which no new enrollees will be allowed.
Assignment of Women in the Military58
In February 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta rescinded DOD’s so-called “combat
exclusion rule,” which barred the assignment of female military personnel to ground combat
units. Panetta also directed the services to open all military assignments to women by January 1,
2016, unless by then they had requested specific exceptions which, in turn, would be subject to
approval by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The House-passed FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 1960, includes Section 530D expressing the sense of
Congress that by September 2015, the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force “should
develop, review, and validate individual occupational standards, using validated gender-neutral
occupational standards, so as to assess and assign members of the Armed Forces to units,
including Special Operations Forces.” In final version of the bill, H.R. 3304, Section 524
contained the House-passed provision with a technical amendment.
In its report on S. 1197, the Senate Armed Services Committee praised DOD for “moving toward
an assignment system that is gender-neutral and performance-based.” Moreover, the committee
encouraged DOD “to work toward full integration of women in all military occupations to the
maximum extent practicable, consistent with military capabilities required for our nation’s
defense.” However, the committee also expressed concern “that women may not always be
afforded the opportunity to serve a full career.” It directed DOD to submit a report examining:
•
retention rates and career progression opportunities for female servicemembers;
•
“causes of voluntary mid-career separation, especially those related to
childbirth”; and
•
personnel management options that might better accommodate servicemembers’
personal and family goals, including the use of temporary assignments to the
reserve components.
Reserve Component Mobilization Guarantees
Like the House and Senate versions of the bill, H.R. 3304 included a provision triggered by
instances in which reserve component units that had been mobilized for deployment overseas had
their deployments cancelled on relatively short notice, in some cases causing significant cost and
inconvenience to members of the affected units.
In the House bill, Section 511 would require the secretaries of the military departments to provide
at least 120 days’ notice to reserve units or individual reserve component members if they are to
58
For additional background on issues related to the assignment of women in the military, see CRS Report R42075,
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
44
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
be mobilized for deployment in connection with a contingency operation or if, after such
notification has been given, the deployment is cancelled or otherwise altered. If such notification
is not given, a report would have to be submitted to the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees explaining the reasons and providing the names of the affected units or individuals.
In the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Section 508 would require the
Secretary of Defense to personally approve any decision to cancel a planned reserve unit
deployment within 180 days of the unit’s scheduled deployment if an active duty unit is to be
deployed, instead, to perform the same mission. In those cases, the provision also would require
notification of the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees and the
governors of the affected states.
In the final version of the bill, Section 513 incorporated the Senate committee provision plus an
additional requirement of 120 days prior notice to any reserve component member who is
mobilized as an individual (rather than as a member of a unit).
Ground Combat Systems (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected ground force equipment is
summarized in Appendix Table A-3. Following are highlights:
Current Generation Vehicles (M-1, Bradley, and others)
The House bill would increase by $274 million the total authorized for procurement of tanks and
other armored combat vehicles. In its report on H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee
said the budget request for armored vehicles was too anemic to sustain the specialized network of
suppliers and assembly plants needed to build such equipment.
While a number of armored vehicle programs currently are underway, DOD projects a surge in
demand for production capacity in about 2019, when new programs are slated for funding. Until
then, the Administration maintains, foreign sales combined with projected DOD purchases will
keep the production lines warm. The House committee said reliance on foreign sales to keep the
industrial base intact was too risky, and that the additional vehicles for which it would provide
authorization could replace older equipment in some units.
As passed by the House, H.R. 1960 would add to the budget request authorization a total of $274
million for various armored vehicle programs including $168 million to upgrade M-1 tanks with
improved digital communications, night-vision equipment, armor, and transmissions. DOD has
not budgeted for this program since FY2012, but Congress funded it in FY2013 in the absence of
an Administration request. The House bill also would authorize:
•
$186.0 million, $75.0 million more than the $116.0 million requested, for socalled armored recovery vehicles, designed to tow disabled 70-ton tanks off the
battlefield; and
•
$94.0 million, $31.0 million more than the $63.0 million requested, to buy
assault breacher vehicles, which are M-1 tank chassis equipped with a bulldozer
blade and other gear for clearing a path through a minefield.
Congressional Research Service
45
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
The Senate bill would add no funds to the amounts requested for procurement or major
modification of armored combat vehicles.
The final bill would add to the request a total of $165 million: $90 million for M-1 upgrades and
$75 million for armored recovery vehicles.
Next Generation Vehicles: GCV, AMPV, MPC, and JLTV
H.R. 1960 and S. 1197 each would authorize the amounts requested to develop four new types of
battlefield vehicles for use by the Army and Marine Corps:
•
$592.2 million for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) intended to
replace some Bradley troop carriers;59
•
$116.3 million for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle intended to replace the
thousands of Vietnam War-era M-113 tracked vehicles still in use for various
Army utility tasks;60
•
$137.0 million for the Marines’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle, intended to replace
the 1970s-designed AAV-7 amphibious troop carrier;61 and
•
$134.6 million for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), slated to replace the
ubiquitous HMMWV (Humm-Vee).62
Since the Marine Corps has deferred plans to field a simpler armored troop carrier, not designed
for amphibious landings, both bills would drop the requested $20.9 million authorization for this
program, designated the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC).
H.R. 3304, the final version of the NDAA, authorizes the same amounts for each of those
programs except for the Marines’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle, for which it would authorize $123
million, a reduction of $14 million, because of delays in the program. The bill also includes a
provision (Section 211) requiring the Secretary of the Army to certify the affordability and
technical feasibility of the planned new Ground Combat Vehicle and requiring DOD officials—
acting independently of the Army—to assess the Army’s plan to fund development of the new
system using a single contractor (rather than two competing firms).
Naval Systems (Authorization)
In their reports on H.R. 1960 and S. 1197, respectively, the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees each expressed concern that, because of budgetary limits, DOD might not be able to
59
For background and additional analysis see CRS Report R41597, The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program: Background
and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
60
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle
(AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
61
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
62
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report RS22942, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV): Background
and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
46
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
fund the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan.63 Each committee highlighted in particular the
challenge of replacing the current fleet of Trident missile-launching submarines even within the
DOD budgets through FY2021 that were projected by the Obama Administration, let alone within
the tighter budgets that might result from the current budget battles. In a House Armed Services
Seapower Subcommittee hearing on September 12, 2013, Rear Admiral Richard P. Breckenridge,
director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, said that, on top of currently projected
shipbuilding budgets, the Navy would need an additional $60 billion over 15 years to replace the
missile subs.
In its report on H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee noted that the most recent
version of DOD’s annual 30-year shipbuilding plan, sent to Congress in April 2013, assumed that
during the middle decade of that period (namely, 2024-2033) annual shipbuilding budgets would
average nearly $20 billion in constant dollars. The committee directed DOD to submit a 30-year
plan that assumed annual shipbuilding budgets of $16 billion (in constant dollars), which the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says was the average annual shipbuilding budget over the
past 30 years.
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected naval systems is summarized in
Appendix Table A-5. Following are highlights:
Aircraft Carriers64
The House and Senate versions of the NDAA each would authorize a total of $3.48 billion, as
requested, to sustain a fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers by the end of this decade.65
Slightly less than half that total ($1.53 billion) would provide partial funding for two ships
currently under construction:
•
$944.9 million for the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), authorized in FY2013 and
currently slated for completion in FY2022 at an estimated total cost of $11.33
billion; and
•
$588.1 million for the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), authorized in FY2008 and
currently slated for completion in FY2015 at an estimated total cost of $12.8
billion.66
The balance of the carrier-related funding ($1.96 billion) would partially fund major overhauls for
two existing ships, about halfway through their projected 50-year service lives. This would entail
63
For additional background and analysis of the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy
Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
64
For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted)
65
The FY2006 NDAA (P.L. 109-163, Section 126) established a requirement in law that the Navy maintain no fewer
than 12 operational carriers (codified at 10 U.S.C. 5062b). The FY2007 NDAA (P.L. 109-364, Section 1012) amended
the law to reduce the requirement to 11 carriers. The FY2010 NDAA (P.L. 111-84, Section 1023) provided that the
number of carriers could drop to 10 in the interval between the retirement of the carrier Enterprise and the
commissioning of the carrier Gerald R. Ford, currently under construction.
66
In the DOD budget documentation, NDAA and DOD appropriations bill for FY2014, funding for CVN 79 is
included in the Carrier Replacement Program while funding for CVN 78 is included in a separate budget line entitled
“Completion of Prior Year Shipbuilding Programs.”
Congressional Research Service
47
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
refueling their nuclear reactors and upgrading key electronic and weapons systems, for which the
House and Senate bills would authorize, as requested:
•
$1.71 billion for work on the Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), slated for completion
in FY2016 at a total cost of $4.57 billion; and
•
$245.8 million from preliminary work on the George Washington (CVN 73), on
which work is scheduled to begin in FY2016.
Both bills also would increase the legislative cap on spending for the Ford (CVN 78), raising it
from $11.76 billion to $12.90 billion.
In the final version of the bill, the only change made to the carrier funding request was a
reduction of $22.1 million to the $1.96 billion requested for two refueling overhauls on grounds
that those expenses had been covered by previously appropriated funds.
Attack Submarines and Missile Submarines
The House-passed H.R. 1960 and Senate Armed Services Committee-reported S. 1197 each
would authorize, as requested, a total of $6.42 million to continue construction of Virginia-class
submarines, to design and develop a new ballistic-missile sub to replace the Ohio-class ships
currently in service, and to design an enlarged version of the Virginia-class that would greatly
increase the ship’s payload of Tomahawk land-attack missiles. The House-passed H.R. 1960
would increase the total submarine-related authorization by $492 million to compensate for the
amount that the sequestration process cut from the FY2013 appropriation for Virginia-class subs.
About three-quarters of the total amount requested ($5.28 billion) would fund continued
construction of the Virginia-class subs, including:
•
$2.93 billion to fully fund one sub and to provide about two-thirds of the cost of
a second, for which the remaining $953 million will be requested in the FY2015
budget. The House bill added $492 million—the amount of the FY2013
sequester—to this request.67
•
$2.35 billion for long lead-time components that would be used in two additional
subs for which the bulk of the funding will be included in the FY2015 budget.
The remainder of the sub-related funding, endorsed by both bills, is for R&D programs:
•
$1.08 billion to continue developing a next-generation ballistic missile sub
($787.6 million) and the associated nuclear powerplant ($296.1 million);68 and
•
$59.1 million to continue developing the Virginia Payload Module—an extension
of the sub’s hull by nearly 100 feet to accommodate four large vertical launch
tubes, each of which could accommodate seven Tomahawk missiles.
67
For additional background and analysis on the Virginia-class submarine program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy
Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
68
For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
48
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
The final version of the bill mirrored the House-passed version, adding $492 million to the
authorization for new construction, to offset the loss of the same amount from the FY2013 budget
as a result of sequestration.
Destroyers69
H.R. 3304, like the versions of the FY2014 NDAA passed by the House and reported by the
Senate committee, would support the budget request for construction of new Navy destroyers.
But it also would add to the amounts requested funds that would roughly offset the funds
removed by sequester from the destroyer programs in FY2013:
•
For two DDG-51-class ships, the budget requested $1.62 billion; the Senate bill
would have increased the authorization by $100 million, while the House bill and
the final version added $332 million (which is nearly the amount cut from this
program in FY2013 by sequestration);
•
To complete construction of three DDG 1000-class destroyers, authorized in
FY2007-FY2009, the Senate bill would have authorized $231.7 million, as
requested, while the House bill and H.R. 3304 added $79.3 million, slightly more
than was sequestered from the program in FY2013.
The DDG-1000 class had been intended to succeed the DDG-51 class, the first of which was
commissioned in 1991. But in 2008, DOD announced that only three ships of the new type would
be built, while the Navy would resume procurement of DDG-51-class ships, transitioning to
procurement of an enlarged, so-called “Flight III” version of that design to be equipped with a
larger radar, designated the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), intended to improve the
ships’ missile defense capability.
Section 1025 of the final version of the bill, a modified version of a provision in the Housepassed bill, requires the Navy to compare the costs and risks of resuming procurement of DDG1000 type ships rather than the planned Flight III version of the DDG-51 design.
H.R. 3304, like the House-passed and Senate committee versions of the NDAA, authorizes
$240.1 million, as requested, to continue developing the new AMDR radar, However, in its report
on H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit
a report on whether a larger version of AMDR mounted on a larger ship than a destroyer would
perform the missile defense mission more effectively than the smaller version that is slated to be
installed on DDG-51s.
Littoral Combat Ships70
The final version of the bill, like H.R. 1960 and S. 1197, authorizes $1.78 billion, as requested,
for procurement of four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), which are fast, relatively small ships
intended to deal with hostile submarines, minefields, and small attack boats in “littoral”—that is,
69
For background and additional analysis on destroyer programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
70
For background and additional analysis on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
49
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
“near to shore”—waters. All three versions of the bill also authorize $143.1 million, as requested,
to continue acquisition of the interchangeable weapons modules intended to equip the ships for
either mine-sweeping, sub-hunting, or surface combat.
But H.R. 3304 also incorporates provisions, similar to those in the House and Senate versions of
the NDAA, requiring reports on certain aspects of the LCS program:
•
Section 124 of H.R. 3304 (elaborating on Section 125 of S. 1197) requires a
report by the Navy on its plans for how the LCS vessels would be used, how they
compare with other U.S. warships and with the ships of potential adversaries in
terms of their combat survivability, and how their capability in particular
missions compares with the capability of the older equipment they are slated to
replace. It also requires DOD organizations outside the Navy to independently
assess the ships’ suitability for their proposed missions and the adequacy of the
testing program intended to verify their capability.
•
Section 325 of the final bill (based on Section 321 of the House version) requires
a detailed report by the Navy on its plan to sustain the ships for extended periods
in areas far from U.S. shipyards—for example, in Singapore—using private
contractors rather than U.S. government personnel for routine maintenance. In its
report to accompany H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee called on
the Government Accountability Office to review the Navy’s plan for sustainment
of the LCS.
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected aircraft and long-range missile
programs is summarized in Appendix Table A-9. Following are some highlights:
Long-Range Strike Weapons
H.R. 3304, like the version of the NDAA reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee,
approved requests totaling $1.09 billion to sustain and modernize the Air Force’s long-range
bomber fleet.71 Including funds for both procurement and R&D, the final bill authorizes:
•
$423.7 million to upgrade the 20 B-2 bombers (including $303.5 million to
improve the stealth planes’ defensive electronics);
•
$151.8 million to modernize B-1s;
•
$135.0 million to upgrade B-52s; and
•
$379.4 million to develop a new, stealthy bomber slated to enter service in the
mid-2020s.72
71
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R43049, U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and
Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted)
72
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background
and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
50
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
The House-passed version of the bill would have authorized the requested bomber funding except
that it would deny authorization for $500,000 to modify B-52s in accordance with the New
START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, approved by the Senate in 2010.
Similarly, the final version of the bill, like S. 1197, authorizes, as requested, a total of $1.47
billion for an ongoing program of refurbishing Trident II nuclear-armed, submarine-launched
ballistic missiles by replacing their solid-fuel rocket motors and other aging components. The
House bill would have reduced the authorization by $717,000 for activities related to compliance
with New START.
The final bill, like the House and Senate versions, authorizes, as requested, $65.4 million to
continue the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, aimed at developing a ballistic missile
or other vehicle that could strike a distant target with a non-nuclear warhead on short notice.73
The bill did not include a provision of S. 1197 (Section 211) that would have barred the use of
funds to develop a submarine-launched missile for this mission until 60 days after DOD reports to
Congress on how it would manage the risk that an adversary might assume that any missile
launched from a submarine carried a nuclear warhead. However, in the explanatory statement
accompanying H.R. 3304, House and Senate negotiators directed DOD to submit a report
covering not only “ambiguity” problem raised by the Senate committee but also several other
matters including possible techniques that could verify the non-nuclear character of a submarinelaunched missile.74
Other Provisions Related to Arms Control
The House-passed bill would have cut from the budget request a total of $30.2 million75 for
activities to comply with the New START treaty. Nearly half that reduction—$14.7 million—was
intended to bar the decommissioning of some ICBM missile silos and the preparation of an
associated environmental impact statement.
The House bill also included several provisions policy reflecting opposition to the New START
treaty and to President Obama’s announcement in his 2013 State of the Union Address that he
would seek agreement with Russia for additional reductions in nuclear arms.76
The H.R. 3304 did not incorporate any of the House funding cuts related to compliance with New
START. However, the final bill did incorporate provisions dealing with some of the arms control
issues addressed in the House-passed version of the bill.
73
For background an additional analysis, see CRS Report R41464, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and LongRange Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).
74
“Joint Explanatory Statement” on the FY2014 NDAA, House Armed Services Committee website, at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8A5E9112-80EF-43E1-A4E9-9AB0C0C107D8, p. 29.
75
The $30.2 million total includes $1.22 million for modification of B-52 bombers and Trident II missiles, as described
in the previous section of the report.
76
For background and additional analysis on New START and prospective future nuclear arms control agreements see
CRS Report R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, by (name redacted) and CRS Report
R43037, Next Steps in Nuclear Arms Control with Russia: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
51
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 13. Selected Nuclear Arms Control Provisions, FY2014 NDAA
Policy Issue
House-passed
H.R. 1960
Senate
committeereported
S. 1197
Enacted
H.R. 3304
Eliminating any of the three “legs” of the
strategic “triad” (land-based ICBMs, sublaunched ballistic missiles, and long-range
bombers.
Prohibited (Sec. 1051)
Opposed by Sense of
Congress (Sec. 1054)
Prohibited by Section 1055
Reducing number of long-range U.S. nuclear
missiles and bombers pursuant to the New
START treaty.
Prohibited pending
receipt by Congress
of a previously
mandated report on
allocation of cuts
among “triad” legs
(Sec. 1052 a.1.)
none
Funds may be used to
prepare for reductions (Sec.
1056 a.); no more than 50%
of funds for environmental
assessment may be spent
pending receipt by Congress
of previously mandated
report on allocation of cuts
(Sec. 1056 b.)
Decommissioning ICBM launch silos as part
of the reductions required by New START
Decommissioned silos
must be kept
“warm”—i.e., ready
for easy reactivation
(Sec. 241)
DOD to report on
advisability of
keeping
decommissioned
silos warm (Sec.
1045)
Sense of Congress that silos
be kept ready for reactivation
on 6 months’ notice (Sec.
1056 e.)
Modifying multiple warhead (or “MIRVed”)
Minuteman III ICBMs to carry only one
warhead
Must be capable of
“re-MIRVing” within
270 days (Sec. 1056)
none
Must be capable of “reMIRVing” within 180 days
(Sec. 1057)
Further reducing U.S. nuclear forces, below
caps set by New START
Only by treaty or
statute; (Sec. 1052
a.2.); And only after
President certifies (1)
Russian compliance
with existing arms
treaties and (2) high
quality intelligence on
Chinese nuclear arms;
(Sec. 1054 b.)
none
Sense of Congress that
additional cuts be made only
by treaty (Sec. 1060)
Dealing with an arms control treaty signatory
that is not complying with treaty obligations
Sense of Congress
President should
consider not seeking
additional arms
reduction agreements
(Sec. 1055 b.); Report
to Congress whether
continued U.S.
compliance is in U.S.
interest and how U.S.
will compensate for
noncompliance of
others (Sec. 1055 c.)
none
Sense of Congress President
should consider various
options and inform Congress
(Sec. 1061)
Carrier-Based UAVs
The FY2014 budget request includes a total of $167.7 million for two Navy R&D programs
aimed at developing a fleet of long-range, armed, drone aircraft to fly reconnaissance and attack
Congressional Research Service
52
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
missions from aircraft carriers. Of that total, the Senate version of the NDAA would have
authorized, as requested:
•
$21.0 million to conclude the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) project,
which has tested the feasibility of operating large drones off carriers using fullsized, experimental X-47 aircraft, one of which autonomously landed on the
carrier George H. W. Bush on July 10, 2013; and
•
$146.7 million for the Unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS) project, which is intended to produce an operational weapon.
In its report on H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee contended that the Navy was
acting prematurely in retiring the X-47s before they had been used to explore all the technical
challenges that the operators would encounter when the UCLASS drones were deployed. The
committee was particularly critical of the Navy’s decision to drop a planned effort to refuel an X47 in midair while the drone was fully under the control of its on-board computers, with no
intervention by a human pilot.
Accordingly, H.R. 1960 would have increased the UCAV authorization by $20.0 million—to
$41.0 million—and would have included a provision (Section 217) requiring the Navy to conduct
mid-air refueling tests with the X-47. The House bill also would have authorized, as requested,
$146.7 million for UCLASS.
The enacted version of the bill authorizes for UCAV $21.0 million, as requested, and does not
include the House provision requiring that the Navy conduct mid-air refueling tests with the X47. In the explanatory statement on the bill, House and Senate negotiators acknowledged the
Navy’s decision to continue testing the aircraft through FY2014 and “encouraged” the service to
demonstrate drone-to-drone refueling using the X-47.77
Missile Defense (Authorization)
The FY2014 budget request included $7.68 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the
bulk of it for R&D efforts aimed to developing an array of sensors to detect ballistic missiles in
flight and weapons to destroy them. The House-passed bill would increase the total MDA
authorization by $435.4 million, with most of the additional funding directed to several Israeli
defense systems and to 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
intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from North Korea or Iran. The Senate committeereported NDAA would increase the MDA authorization by $150.0 million, directing the
additional funds to the same Israeli systems.
As enacted, H.R. 3304 would authorize $372 million more than was requested for MDA, with the
Israeli systems getting about half the increase and U.S. territorial defense accounting for most of
the remainder.
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Appendix Table A-1. Following are highlights.
77
“Joint Explanatory Statement” on the FY2014 NDAA, House Armed Services Committee website, at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8A5E9112-80EF-43E1-A4E9-9AB0C0C107D8, p. 30.
Congressional Research Service
53
Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations
Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD)
The budget request includes $1.03 billion for the GMD system: some of which is intended to pay
for refurbishing and upgrading the 30 interceptor missiles currently deployed; some to prepare for
deployment of 14 additional interceptors at the existing launch site in Alaska, as the
Administration has announced it may do; and some to survey locations for a potential third
launch site for missile interceptors on the East Coast. The FY2013 NDAA (P.L. 112-239, Section
227) required DOD to develop a plan for deploying interceptors at an East Coast site, on the
grounds that it would increase the likelihood that the GMD system could intercept U.S.-bound
missiles from Iran or North Korea. The budget also requests $315.2 million for the network of
long-range radars on which the GMD system relies for target data.
As enacted, H.R. 3304 authorizes $1.13 billion for GMD, including additions to the request of
$20.0 million for assessment of a potential third site and $80.0 million to assess the causes of a
flight test failure of the system on July 5, 2013. It also includes a provision (Section 235)
requiring the deployment of an additional missile-detection radar to cover U.S. territory and
authorizes an additional $30 million for that purpose.
Following are highlights of the House-passed and Senate committee-reported and finally enacated
versions of the FY2014 NDAA that bear on U.S. territorial missile defense:
Table 14. Selected U.S. Territorial Missile Defense Provisions, FY2014 NDAA
Senate committeereported
S. 1197
Enacted
H.R. 3304
Policy Issue
House-passed
H.R. 1960
Procurement of 14
additional Ground-Based
Interceptor (GBI) missiles
Add to the request $107.0
million for long lead-time
components
Require report on cost
and effectiveness of
planned enhancements
including deployment of 14
additional GBIs (Section
238 (c.) 2C.)
Require report on cost
and effectiveness of
planned enhancements,
including deployment of 14
additional GBIs (Section
238 (c)4)
Construction of a missile
defense site on East Coast,
to complement those in
Alaska and California
[FY2013 NDAA required
evaluation of potential
deployment sites and plans
for deployment]
Add to the request $140.4
million to begin work on
the third site;
Require report on cost
and effectiveness of
planned enhancements
including deployment of 14
additional GBIs and
potential East Coast site.
(Section 238 (c.) 2D).
Add to the request $20.0
million for previously
required assessment and
planning for potential
deployment at third site
Require completion of the
site by 2018 (Section 232)
Require report on cost
and effectiveness of
potential additional
enhancements, including
third site (Section 238
(c)5)
Require briefings on status
of environmental impact
statement and dep
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.