Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional research reportJan 28, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and
Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
January 28, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43788
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
In contrast with the debate over the FY2014 defense budget, congressional action on the FY2015
Department of Defense (DOD) “base budget” (that is, the part of the budget not associated with
operations in Afghanistan or other situations designated by the President as emergencies) was not
complicated by disputes over the total amount at issue. For both the FY2015 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) and the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act, President Obama’s
request, and versions of the legislation that were passed by the House, approved by the relevant
Senate committees, and finally enacted, varied by amounts that amounted to a small fraction of
1%. The narrow range of disagreements reflected the fact that, in each case, the request and all
versions of the legislation were consistent with the binding cap on defense spending in FY2015
that had been established by the Balanced Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67).
For the FY2015 NDAA, the President requested base budget authorizations for DOD totaling
$495.5 billion. The version of that bill passed by the House (H.R. 4435) would have authorized
$495.8 billion, the version reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee would have
authorized $496.0 billion, and the enacted bill (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291) authorizes $495.9
billion. (See Table 11.)
For base budget programs covered by the FY2015 Defense DOD Appropriations Act (which does
not cover the military construction budget), the Administration requested $484.3 billion. The
version of the bill (H.R. 4870) passed by the House would have added $166.3 million to that total
while the version of H.R. 4870 reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would have cut
$1.1 billion. The final version of the Defense Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 83/P.L. 113235) provides $$483.7 billion. (See Table 19.)
Within those similar gross totals, however, the Administration’s budget request and the enacted
DOD funding legislation have some significant differences. Both bills either reject outright or
defers a decision on several cost reduction initiatives proposed by the Administration. At the same
time, both add to the budget billions of dollars for weapons programs and “readiness”
improvements that were not included in the budget request. Those added costs, are offset, in part,
by reductions which, according to the congressional defense committees, will have no adverse
impact on DOD programs. The cost of the congressional additions (in the base budget) is further
offset by the fact that some other costs are shifted into the part of the bill that funds war costs (or
Overseas Contingency Operations – OCO), and thus are exempt from the statutory cap on
discretionary spending. (See “NDAA Highlights” and “DOD Appropriations Overview”,
below.)
The Administration amended its FY2015 budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) three times in the course of 2014, each time expanding its scope to fund other emergent
DOD activities in addition to combat and post-combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The final version of the NDAA (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291) addressed an OCO request totaling
$63.7 billion from which it cut $1.5 million. Additions, including $1.25 billion to fund equipment
for the National Guard and reserve components and $351.0 million for the Iron Dome anti-rocket
system were offset by a cut to the amended request for the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund
(CTPF) for which the act authorizes $1.3 billion of the $4.0 billion requested.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
The final version of the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 83, Division C/P.L. 113-265)
adds $1.54 billion to a $63.7 billion OCO request (which included $112.0 million in emergency
appropriations for DOD activities to combat the Ebola virus).
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
FY2015 Defense Budget Overview ................................................................................................. 3
FY2015 OCO Budget Request Highlights ................................................................................ 5
Historical Context .......................................................................................................................... 11
Mandatory Spending Caps ...................................................................................................... 12
Internal Cost Pressures ............................................................................................................ 15
FY2015 Base Budget Highlights ................................................................................................... 16
Implementing the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) ................................................ 17
Manpower Issues ..................................................................................................................... 18
Size of the Force................................................................................................................ 18
Compensation .................................................................................................................... 20
Defense Health Program ................................................................................................... 22
Force Structure ........................................................................................................................ 23
Army Force Reductions .................................................................................................... 23
Navy Force Reductions ..................................................................................................... 23
Air Force Reductions ........................................................................................................ 24
Modernization.......................................................................................................................... 24
Readiness ................................................................................................................................. 26
Efficiencies .............................................................................................................................. 27
FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): H.R. 4435, S. 2410, H.R. 3979.............. 28
NDAA Highlights .................................................................................................................... 29
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization) ............................................................................... 35
End-Strength Reductions (Authorization) ......................................................................... 35
Compensation and Benefits Changes (Authorization) ...................................................... 36
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response .......................................................................... 39
Ground Combat Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................... 39
Army and National Guard Helicopters.............................................................................. 39
Armored Vehicle and Tactical Vehicle Industrial Base ..................................................... 40
Naval Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................................... 41
Refueling a Nuclear-powered Carrier ............................................................................... 41
Temporary Lay-up of Aegis Cruisers and Amphibious Ships ........................................... 42
Missile-launching Submarines .......................................................................................... 42
Air Force Programs (Authorization)........................................................................................ 43
A-10 Ground-Attack Aircraft ............................................................................................ 43
Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance (ISR) Aircraft......................................... 43
Missile Defense Programs ....................................................................................................... 44
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) ....................................................................... 44
Israeli Defense Systems .................................................................................................... 45
Provisions Regarding Guantanamo Bay Detainees ................................................................. 45
Provisions Relating to DOD Peacekeeping and Counterterrorism .......................................... 46
Global Train and Equip ..................................................................................................... 46
Human Rights Conditions ................................................................................................. 47
Other Security Assistance-related Provisions.................................................................... 47
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund ................................................................................. 47
House Floor Action on H.R. 4435 ........................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2015 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4870; H.R. 83, Division C)........................................... 51
DOD Appropriations Overview ............................................................................................... 52
FY2015 Base Budget Appropriations Highlights .................................................................... 56
Military Personnel Issues (Appropriations) ...................................................................... 57
Proposed Force Structure Changes (Appropriations) ........................................................ 58
Ground Combat Systems (Appropriations) ....................................................................... 59
Shipbuilding (Appropriations) .......................................................................................... 59
Aircraft Procurement (Appropriations) ............................................................................. 60
FY2015 OCO Appropriations ........................................................................................... 61
House Floor Action on H.R. 4870 ........................................................................................... 63
Figures
Figure 1. OCO Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan .................................................... 8
Figure 2. OCO Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan .............................................................................. 8
Figure 3. DOD Budget Authority (excluding post-9/11 war costs), FY1975-FY2015 .................. 11
Figure 4. Successive Changes to the 2011 Defense Spending Caps .............................................. 13
Figure 5. 10-year DOD Discretionary Budget Plans, 2010-2014 .................................................. 15
Figure 6. Army and Marine Corps end-strength ............................................................................ 19
Tables
Table 1. FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4435; S. 2410; H.R. 3979) ............... 2
Table 2. FY2015 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4870; H.R. 83, Division C) ............................... 2
Table 3. National Defense Base Budget Discretionary Funding, FY2015 Request......................... 3
Table 4. DOD Base Budget Discretionary Budget Authority .......................................................... 3
Table 5. FY2015 DOD Discretionary OCO Budget Request (including CTPF, ERI, Ebola,
and operations against the Islamic State) ...................................................................................... 7
Table 6. OCO Funding Related to Afghanistan and Iraq by Mission Category............................... 9
Table 7. Evolution of BCA “Sequester” Caps: FY2011-FY2014 .................................................. 14
Table 8. Active Component End-Strength (Base Budget) ............................................................. 18
Table 9. Selected Reserve Component End-Strength .................................................................... 20
Table 10. DOD Pay and Benefits as a Share of Total Budget Authority........................................ 20
Table 11. FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4435; S. 2410; H.R. 3979) ........... 29
Table 12. Selected Administration Cost Cutting Proposals ........................................................... 30
Table 13. Other Selected Congressional Budget Increases ............................................................ 32
Table 14. Selected Congressional Reductions to the Administration’s FY2015 Request .............. 34
Table 15. Selected Sexual Assault-related Provisions: H.R. 4435 and S. 2410 ............................. 39
Table 16. NDAA Changes to Authorization Request for Selected Army Vehicles ........................ 41
Table 17. ISR Aircraft Issues in FY2015 NDAA .......................................................................... 43
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 18. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2015 NDAA (H.R. 4435)............................. 48
Table 19. FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 4870; H.R. 83, Division C) ....................... 51
Table 20. Selected Administration Budget and Policy Initiatives .................................................. 52
Table 21. Selected Congressional Additions to the FY2015 Base Budget Request....................... 54
Table 22. Selected Congressional Reductions to the FY2015 Base Budget Request .................... 55
Table 23. Selected Floor Amendments to H.R. 4870 ..................................................................... 63
Table A-1. FY2015 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 83, Division C) Adjusted for
Comparison with Request ........................................................................................................... 66
Table A-2. Congressional Authorization Action on Selected FY2015 Missile Defense
Agency Request .......................................................................................................................... 67
Table A-3. Congressional Appropriations Action on FY2015 Missile Defense Agency
Request ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Table A-4. FY2015 Authorization Action on Selected Ground Vehicles ....................................... 73
Table A-5. FY2015 Appropriation Action on Selected Ground Combat Vehicles ......................... 74
Table A-6. FY2015 Authorization Action on Selected Ship Programs .......................................... 75
Table A-7. FY2015 Appropriation Action on Selected Ship Programs ......................................... 77
Table A-8. FY2015 Authorization Action on Selected Space and Communications
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Table A-9. FY2015 Appropriation Action on Selected Space and Communications
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 80
Table A-10. FY2015 Authorization Action on Selected Aircraft Programs ................................... 82
Table A-11. FY2015 Appropriation Action on Selected Aircraft Programs .................................. 86
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables ................................................................................ 66
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 90
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 90
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 90
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Introduction
Fiscal year 2015 (FY2015) is the fourth consecutive year for which discretionary appropriations
for the Department of Defense (DOD) are subject to a legally binding cap on national defenserelated spending, initially codified by P.L. 112-25, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (or BCA) and
subsequently modified, most recently by P.L. 113-67, the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2013.1
President Obama’s FY2015 DOD budget request complied with the applicable cap as did the
versions of the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that were passed by the
House (H.R. 4435), reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S. 2410), and enacted
into law (H.R. 3979).
Similarly, the versions of the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act passed by the House and
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (H.R. 4870) and the version enacted as part of
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (H.R. 83, Division C) all
were consistent with the defense spending cap then in force (i.e., BBA’s cap for FY2015).
By contrast, congressional action on the FY2014 DOD budget had been prolonged by the fact that
the Administration’s DOD budget request for that year exceeded the spending cap then in force,
as did the FY2014 defense funding bills reported by the Armed Services and Appropriations
Committees of both the House and Senate.2
For DOD’s FY2015 “base budget”—that is, the annual budget exclusive of war-related costs—
the Administration requested $495.6 billion in discretionary budget authority. Combined with the
amounts requested for national defense-related activities carried out by other agencies, including
the FBI and the Department of Energy, the Administration requested a total of $522.6 billion for
national defense related spending—a total that complies with the FY2015 cap on national defense
discretionary budget authority set by the BBA.3
1
Enacted in 2011 to resolve the crisis that summer about raising the debt limit, P.L. 112-25, the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA) required annual reductions in discretionary spending (compared with a projected spending baseline)
totaling about $2.1 trillion thru FY2021, in return for raising the debt limit by the same amount. For each year in the
decade FY2012-FY2021, the BCA caps require roughly equal reductions (from the projected baseline) in
appropriations for defense agencies and non-defense agencies. For any year for which appropriations for either
category exceed the BCA cap, appropriations are reduced to the level of the cap by a process of sequestration.
2
President Obama’s DOD budget request for FY2014, as well as the initial actions on the request by Armed Services
and Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, all would have resulted in FY2014 defense appropriations
that were substantially higher than the BCA spending cap in force at the time. Final action on FY2014 DOD
appropriations occurred in mid-January 2014—more than three months after the start of the fiscal year—after Congress
enacted P.L. 113-67, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA), which raised the FY2014 defense spending cap by
more than $20 billion, decreasing to that extent the amount Congress had to cut from the budget request in order to
avoid sequestration. For background on the FY2014 DOD spending debate, see CRS Report R43323, Defense: FY2014
Authorization and Appropriations, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
3
The spending limits set by BCA and later modified by BBA apply to the “national defense budget function” (or
Budget Function 050), which encompasses funding for all defense-related activities of the federal government, no
matter which agency conducts them. In this report, references to the BCA or BBA spending cap relating to DOD are
based on CRS analysis of DOD’s share of discretionary funding in the broader Function 050 category, which has
averaged about 95.4% in recent years. For further elaboration, see the text box on pp. 13-14.
The statutory spending caps are binding on appropriation bills, not authorization bills. However, the Armed Services
Committees of the House and Senate typically have tried to authorize in the annual NDAA a level of appropriations
that would be consistent with any relevant, mandatory ceilings on defense spending.
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Although the President’s FY2015 budget request for DOD complied with the FY2015 cap, he
also requested an additional $27.7 billion in defense-related spending (including $26.4 billion for
DOD) as part of package called the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI). If those
additional funds were appropriated, the current FY2015 defense cap would be exceeded. In that
case, unless current law was amended, appropriations would be reduced to the level of the cap by
a process of across-the-board reductions called “sequestration.”4 Moreover, for each year from
FY2016 through FY2019, the Administration’s projected DOD budget requests would exceed the
statutory defense spending cap for that year by an average of nearly $31 billion annually (see
Table 7).
Table 1. FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4435; S. 2410; H.R. 3979)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
4/30/14
5/20/14
and 5/1/14 and 5/21/14
House
Report
House
Passage
H.R. 4435
H.R. 4435
S. 2410
H.Rept.
113-446
5/25/14
S.Rept.
113-176
5/13/14
325-98
Final Bill
H.R. 3979
Senate
Report
6/2/14
Report
see
Note
House
Senate
12/4/14
12/12/14
300-119
89-11
Public
Law
P.L. 113291
Note: House and Senate negotiators drafted a compromise NDAA based on H.R. 4435 as passed by the House
and S. 2410 as reported by committee. This final version was incorporated into H.R. 3979, an unrelated bill,
which then was passed by both chambers. A “Joint Explanatory Statement” on the compromise bill (equivalent to
a conference report) is available on the House Armed Services Committee website at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=78ED7A79-9066-43FD-AA75-1D8F14B4B4A2.
Table 2. FY2015 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4870; H.R. 83, Division C)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
5/29/14
7/15/14
Final Bill
H.R. 83, Division C
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
H.Rept.
113-473
6/20/14
S.Rept.
113-211
6/10/14
340-73
7/17/2014
Report
see
Note
House
Senate
12/11/14
12/13/14
219-206
56-40
Public
Law
P.L. 113235
Note: House and Senate negotiators drafted a compromise defense appropriations bill based on H.R. 4870 as
passed by the House and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. This final version was incorporated
into H.R. 83, the Omnibus and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2015, of which Division C is the
defense appropriations bill. A “Joint Explanatory Statement” on the compromise bill (equivalent to a conference
report) is printed in Book II of the Congressional Record for December 11, 2014 (pp. H9364-H9647).
4
For additional information on the sequestration process see CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget
Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2015 Defense Budget Overview
Excluding war-related costs, President Obama’s FY2015 budget request for national defenserelated activities (comprising Budget Function 050) amounts to $522.6 billion in discretionary
budget authority. This so-called “base budget” (i.e., non-war cost) amount is consistent with the
defense spending cap established by P.L. 113-67, the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2013,
which raised the BCA spending caps for FY2014 and FY2015 (see Table 3).
Table 3. National Defense Base Budget Discretionary Funding, FY2015 Request
(amounts in billions of dollars; totals may not add due to rounding)
Discretionary
Spending
Mandatory
Spending
Total
Department of Defense
495.6
6.2a
501.8
Atomic Energy Defense-Related Activities
18.0
1.4b
19.3
Defense-Related Activities
8.3
0.6
8.9
521.9c
8.2
530.0
27.7
DOD share = 26.4
0.0
27.7
Total, Base Budget
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
(OGSI)
Source: CRS analysis of data in DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2015 [The Green
Book]( http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/FY15_Green_Book.pdf), Table 1-9
“National Defense Budget Authority—Discretionary and Mandatory,” pp. 14-15.
Notes:
a.
This net amount, which reflects $1.5 billion in offsetting receipts, also includes $6.6 billion for concurrent
receipt accrual payments to the military retirement trust fund. For additional information, see CRS Report
RL33449, Military Retirement, Concurrent Receipt, and Related Major Legislative Issues, by (name redacted).
b.
The largest element of this amount is the Energy Department’s occupational illness compensation program.
c.
This total includes certain amounts that are not subject to BBA’s statutory cap on defense spending for
FY2015, which is $521.3 billion.
Within the overall FY2015 national defense budget request for discretionary spending, the base
budget for DOD military activities5 is $495.6 billion. (Table 4)
Table 4. DOD Base Budget Discretionary Budget Authority
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2014 Enacteda
FY2015 Request
Military Personnel
135.9
135.2
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
192.8b
198.7
5
Certain civil functions performed by DOD components—the dredging of rivers and harbors and other civil works
operations of the Army Corps of Engineers, for example—are not included in the “national defense” budget function.
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2014 Enacteda
FY2015 Request
Procurement
92.4
90.4
Research, Development, Test & Engineering (RDT&E)
62.8
63.5
Revolving and Management Funds
2.2
1.2
Military Construction
8.4
5.4
Family Housing
1.4
1.2
495.9
495.6
Total, DOD Base Budget
(Discretionary)
Source: CRS analysis of data in DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2015 [The Green
Book] (http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/FY15_Green_Book.pdf), Table 1-9
“National Defense Budget Authority—Discretionary and Mandatory,” p. 14.
Notes:
a.
Because of details in the financing of certain DOD activities, and in the organization of the annual DOD
funding bills, data in this table are not comparable to summary data regarding the annual authorization and
appropriations bills. For example, in this table, the Military Personnel total includes an accrual payment for
the so-called “TRICARE for Life” program ($7.3 billion for FY2014 and $6.2 billion for FY2015) that is
scored as “discretionary” funding, but which occurs automatically each year through a permanent provision
of law (10 U.S.C. 1116). Similarly, the totals in this table for O&M, Procurement, and RDT&E include
amounts that Congress authorizes and appropriates as part of the Defense Health Program, a program to
eliminate chemical weapons, and DOD’s drug interdiction and counter-drug program.
b.
The enacted FY2014 total for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) does not include $9.15 billion for
activities that DOD requested in its base budget, but which Congress funded as war costs in P.L. 113-76,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2014. In its FY2015 budget request, DOD again includes those
activities in the base budget. If those funds are not counted as part of the FY2014 base budget O&M
appropriation, then the FY2015 base budget O&M request amounts to an increase of 3.1% above the prior
year. But if the $9.15 billion is counted as part of the base budget O&M appropriation, then the FY2015
O&M request shows a decrease of 1.6%.
Consistent with national defense budgets in recent years, the DOD request thus amounts to
roughly 95% of the discretionary national defense-related base budget for FY2015.
In addition to funding for DOD, the FY2015 discretionary base budget request for function 050
also includes $18.0 billion for defense-related nuclear energy activities conducted by the
Department of Energy, the largest share of which is $8.3 billion for activities related to nuclear
weapons. Other major components of the defense-related nuclear energy budget include $4.9
billion for environmental cleanup at defense nuclear sites, $1.6 billion for nuclear nonproliferation work, and $1.4 billion for work on nuclear reactors that power Navy ships.
The remaining $8.0 billion of the FY2015 base budget request for function 050 is for defenserelated activities conducted by other agencies. Of this amount, the largest single component—
$4.9 billion—would go to the FBI for counterintelligence operations.
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI)
In addition to its base budget request, the Administration has requested for FY2015 an additional $27.7 billion as the
national defense component of the so-called Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI), a $56 billion
spending package split evenly between defense and non-defense programs. If Congress were to appropriate these
funds in addition to the Administration’s total base budget request, it would exceed the FY2015 discretionary
spending cap, thus triggering sequestration.
The OGSI package also included proposed changes in existing federal programs that would have cut spending by $28
billion and proposed tax increases that would have boosted revenue by $28 billion, thus offsetting the cost of the
proposed new spending. Even if the proposed taxes were enacted, however, sequestration would occur because the
spending caps apply to the amounts appropriated for defense and non-defense discretionary spending. Unless current
law was amended, offsetting revenue increases would not eliminate the required sequestration.
Neither the Armed Services nor Appropriations Committees of the Senate or House has taken any action on the
OGSI request in their respective FY2015 funding bills.
FY2015 OCO Budget Request Highlights
The Administration amended its FY2015 budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) three times, expanding that category’s scope to include funding for DOD activities other
than operations relating to combat and post-combat activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Initial Placeholder
At the time the FY2015 budget request was submitted to Congress in March 2014, the
Administration said it had not yet settled on an OCO budget for the upcoming year because of
ongoing negotiations with the Afghan government that would affect the number of U.S. troops
remaining in that country during FY2015. Accordingly, the budget request included, as a
“placeholder” for the OCO request, $79.4 billion—essentially the amount appropriated for OCO
in FY2014. When the House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of H.R. 4870, the
FY2015 defense appropriations bill, it incorporated this amount with few modifications.
June 2014 OCO Request
On June 27, 2014, DOD released an amended OCO budget request that included $53.8 million for
activities in (and in the region around) Afghanistan and Iraq. (See Table 5.)
The budget amendment also included funds for two newly proposed DOD programs:6
•
$4.0 billion for a new Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF), intended to
support the counterterrorism efforts of partner states (with $1.0 billion of this
amount directed to support states bordering on Syria and to train and equip
“properly vetted elements of the Syrian armed opposition”).7
6
This budget amendment also included increased OCO funding for the Department of State and other federal agencies
including $1.0 billion for CTPF activities, $75 million for ERI, and $278 million for the U.S. share of UN
peacekeeping operations in the Central African Republic.
7
DOD Comptroller, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment: Overview, Overseas
Contingency Operations, June 2014, pp. 7-10.
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
•
$925 million for a new European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), which is intended
to reassure NATO allies and bolster the defenses of NATO and non-NATO
partners “that feel most threatened by Russia’s actions against Ukraine.”8
•
To partly offset these costs, the budget amendment also included a rescission of
$117.0 million appropriated in FY2014 to modernize Army helicopters that now
are slated for retirement.
This version of the OCO budget request, which amounted for $58.6 billion for DOD, was the one
the Senate Appropriations Committee had acted on when it reported to the Senate its version of
H.R. 4870 on July 17, 2014.
Ebola-related Funding Addition
On November 5, 2014, after the House had passed the FY2015 DOD appropriations bill and the
Senate Appropriations Committee had reported its version of the measure to the Senate, the
President requested $6.18 billion in emergency appropriations to deal with the outbreak of Ebola
in Africa and to beef up domestic public health systems to deal with such threats. That package
included $112 million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to speed
development of medical technologies that would be useful in developing vaccines and other
defenses against Ebola and other infectious diseases. The Office of Management and Budget
categorized this request as an addition to DOD’s FY2015 OCO budget.
FY2015 DOD Funding Regarding Ebola and the Islamic State
For additional detail on the $5.1 billion in OCO funding requested to support DOD activities to combat the Ebola
virus and the Islamic State, see CRS Report R43807, FY2015 Budget Requests to Counter Ebola and the Islamic State (IS),
coordinated by (name redacted).
Increase to Counter Islamic State (IS)
On November 10, 2014, the President requested an additional $5.0 billion in DOD budget
authority for OCO in FY2015 to cover the cost of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operations
conducted by U.S. forces against the Islamic State. The Islamic State is a transnational Sunni
Islamist insurgent and terrorist group that has expanded its control over areas of parts of Iraq and
Syria since 2013.
The major components of that request include
•
8
$1.62 billion to create an Iraq Train and Equip Fund through which the Iraqi
military and Kurdish and tribal security forces would be provided equipment,
supplies, training, services, and stipends to support their role in the fight against
the Islamic State;
Ibid., pp. 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
•
$2.46 billion to cover the military personnel and Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) costs of U.S. forces engaged in Operation Inherent Resolve, aimed at
eliminating the Islamic State; and
•
$972.5 million for procurement and development of equipment, including $141.3
million to replenish missiles and other munitions expended in the operation and
$673.6 million for classified purposes.
In sum, the November 2014 adjustments brought the Administration’s FY2015 OCO request to
$63.7 billion,9 which was the amount considered by congressional negotiators drafting the final
version of the FY2015 appropriations legislation.
Table 5. FY2015 DOD Discretionary OCO Budget Request
(including CTPF, ERI, Ebola, and operations against the Islamic State)
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2014 Enacted
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015
Request
OCO Related to Afghanistan and Iraq (as defined in previous budgets)
Military Personnel
7,972
5,395
68,397
[59,246]
41,570
6,233
5,599
135
80
0
46
2,165
926
85,344
[76,193]
53,765
Counterterrorism
Partnerships Funds (CTPF)
0
4,000
European Reassurance
Initiative (ERI)
0
925
85,344
58,690
offset from prior-year cancellation
0
-117
DOD share of November 5, 2014, Ebola-related
budget amendment
0
112
DOD share of November 10,2014, ISIL-related
budget amendment
0
5,000
85,344
63,685
Operation and Maintenance
[O&M minus $9,151 million congressional transfer in
FY2014]
Procurement
RDT&E
Military Construction
Revolving and Management Funds and Other DOD
Subtotal: Afghanistan and Iraq
[minus $9,151 million congressional transfer to
O&M in FY2014]
Total (before additional funding requests
related to Ebola and ISIL)
Total, DOD
9
That total includes $46 million for military construction. Of that total, $63.5 billion of the OCO request was dealt with
in the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Bill, which was Division C of H.R. 83 (the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of FY2015). The military construction request was dealt with in the FY2015 Military
Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, which was Division I of H.R. 83.
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Source: DOD Comptroller, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment: Overview,
Overseas Contingency Operations, June 2014, Table 1, p. 12.
Notes: The enacted FY2014 total for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) includes $9.15 billion for activities that
DOD requested in its base budget but which Congress funded as war costs in P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for 2014. In its FY2015 budget request, DOD again included those activities in the base
budget.
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance Initiative
For more detailed analysis of the Administration’s request for FY2015 funding for the Counterterrorism Partnerships
Fund (CTPF), see CRS Report IN10103, The Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) Proposal: Questions for
Congress, coordinated by (name redacted). For a more detailed analysis of the Administration’s request for FY2015
funding for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), see CRS Report R43478, NATO: Response to the Crisis in Ukraine
and Security Concerns in Central and Eastern Europe, coordinated by (name redacted).
The revised OCO request assumes that, between FY2014 and FY2015, the average number of
U.S. troops in Afghanistan would drop by more than two-thirds while OCO funding would
decline by slightly more than one-third. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2.)
Figure 1. OCO Funding for Operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan
Figure 2. OCO Troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan
(amounts in billions of dollars)
(numbers in thousands of personnel)
200
Afgh.
Iraq
Afgh.
Iraq
200
150
62
45
148
100
150
96
10
94
50
100
39
114
52
105
3
0.8
85
84.5
100
0.3
154
141
9
50
53.4
47
84
33
44
2008
2009
98
90
63
37
12
0
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Notes: The FY2015 column omits additional funds
requested for the Counterterrorism Partnerships
Fund ($4.0 billion) and for the European
Reassurance Initiative ($0.9 billion). That column
also assumes that the proposed new OCO budget
authority is partly offset by the cancellation of $117
million appropriated for Army helicopters in the
FY2014 DOD appropriations bill. The FY2015
column does not reflect the November 10, 2014,
request for an additional $5 billion to combat the
Islamic State.
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Notes: Data represent the average number of U.S.
personnel in each country during a given fiscal year.
The chart reports only personnel in each of the two
countries. DOD estimates that operations in
Afghanistan during FY2015 will be directly
supported by—on average—63,309 U.S. military
personnel stationed elsewhere in the region.
The November 10, 2014, budget amendment
assumes the average number of U.S. troops in Iraq
associated with operations against the Islamic State
during FY2015 would average 2,904. It assumes that
the number of supporting personnel in the region
would rise to 64,482.
Source: DOD Comptroller, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment: Overview,
Overseas Contingency Operations, June 2014, Figure 6, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
According to DOD, OCO funding is slated to decline more slowly than the number of troops on
the ground for several reasons. These include
•
the continued “forward presence” of substantial U.S. forces in the Middle East,
outside of Afghanistan, to support the OCO mission;
•
the cost of base closure, unexploded ordnance disposal, and return of equipment
to the United States; and
•
the costs of replacing munitions expended in the operation and of replacing or
repairing equipment destroyed, worn out, or damaged in OCO.10
That contention is consistent with DOD’s functional breakdown of the FY2015 OCO request (see
Table 6). On the one hand, the $11.0 billion requested for the operation of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan would decline by 60%, compared with the corresponding amount in the FY2014
budget. On the other hand, the request for funding in two categories that account for more half the
spending related to Afghanistan would decline by less than 10% compared with the amounts
appropriated in FY2014, namely:
•
the $18.1 billion requested for activities outside Afghanistan to support
operations in that country would amount to 91% of the corresponding
expenditure in FY2014; and
•
the $9.2 billion requested for replacement or refurbishing of equipment and
munitions would amount to a nearly 5% increase over the FY2014 amount.
Table 6. OCO Funding Related to Afghanistan and Iraq by Mission Category
(amounts in billions of dollars; totals may not add due to rounding)
Additions
to FY2015
Request
(November
2014)
FY2014
Enacted
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015
Request
(June 2014)
Operations and Force Protection in
Afghanistan
26.2
11.0
In-Theater Support (outside
Afghanistan)
19.9
18.1
Joint Improvised Explosive Defense
(IED) Defeat
0.9
0.4
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
4.7
4.1
-
4.1
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
0.2
0.0
-
0.0
Coalition Support Funds
1.7
1.7
-
1.7
Procurement and Equipment Reset
8.8
9.2
0.3
9.5
Temporary End-Strength
4.7
2.4
-
2.4
Unexploded Ordnance Removal
0.0
0.3
-
0.3
2.0
-
Amended
FY2015
Request
11.0
20.1
0.4
10
DOD Comptroller, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment: Overview, Overseas
Contingency Operations, June 2014, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2014
Enacted
(P.L. 113-76)
FY2015
Request
(June 2014)
Additions
to FY2015
Request
(November
2014)
Iraq Train and Equip Fund
0.0
0.0
1.6
Non-DOD, Classified, and Other
DOD
18.1
6.6
subtotal: Afghanistan and Iraqrelated
85.3
53.8
Counterterrorism Partnerships
Fund (CTPF)
0.0
4.0
European Reassurance Initiative
(ERI)
0.0
0.9
85.3
58.7
5.0
63.7
offset from prior-year cancellation
0
-0.117
-
-0.117
Total, New Budget Authority
85.3
58.6
5.0
63.6
Total Budget Authority
1.2
5.0
-
Amended
FY2015
Request
1.6
7.7
58.8
4.0
0.9
Source: DOD Comptroller, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Amendment: Overview,
Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment, November 2014. Figure 3, p. 3.
Notes: The enacted FY2014 total for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) includes $9.15 billion for activities that
DOD requested in its base budget but which Congress funded as war costs in P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for 2014. This table treats those funds as part of the FY2014 OCO appropriation.
The table does not reflect the November 5, 2014, budget amendment requesting $112 million for DOD
research on dealing with Ebola and other infectious diseases.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Historical Context
The President’s FY2015 request of $495.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for DOD’s
base budget is lower than the corresponding FY2014 appropriation by less than $400 million. If
Congress were to approve funding at that level, FY2015 would be the third consecutive year in
which DOD’s base budget hovered at between $495 billion and $496 billion after having dropped
between FY2012 and FY2013 by $35 billion, in nominal terms (that is, without taking account of
inflation). The 7% reduction in DOD’s base budget in FY2013 was part of the government-wide
spending reduction program initiated by the 2011 BCA. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3. DOD Budget Authority (excluding post-9/11 war costs), FY1975-FY2015
700
600
500
400
billions
of dollars
300
DOD budget
in constant FY15 dollars
200
DOD budget
in current "then-year" dollars
DOD budget in 1985, the
high point in constant dollars
100
average (mean) DOD budget,
FY1975-FY2015
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Source: DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2015 (“The Green Book”), Table 6-10, pp.
143-149, except that, for 2001-2015, DOD budget in constant FY2015 dollars, is determined by CRS analysis of
data in “The Green Book,” Table 2-1. pp. 31-33 and Table 5-6, pp. 58-59.
Based on DOD’s method of adjusting for the cost of inflation, the FY2015 base budget request is
1.8% below the FY2014 appropriation in real terms. It is about 19% lower, adjusting for inflation,
than DOD’s budget in 1985, which marked the peak year (in real terms) of the Reagan-era Cold
War buildup. But it is slightly more than 1% higher in real terms than the average (mean) DOD
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
budget since the end of the Vietnam War (1975-2015) and 23% higher than the FY2000 budget,
the last one enacted before the attacks of September 11, 2001.11
Mandatory Spending Caps
Since 2011, the mandatory spending caps enacted as part of the BCA have been a significant
factor in restraining the rate at which DOD spending has increased (as measured in current
dollars). The BCA required annual reductions in projected discretionary spending for FY2012FY2021 totaling $2.1 trillion, with the cuts falling equally on defense and non-defense programs.
Compared with the Administration’s 10-year projection of discretionary DOD funding published
in March 2011, the amount provided for FY2012 was reduced by terms of the BCA and the
amount provided for FY2013 was reduced by sequestration, but only after the spending caps for
that year were raised by terms of P.L. 112-240, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) of
2012. The DOD budget request for FY2014 exceeded that modified cap and final action on
FY2014 appropriations came only after Congress enacted P.L. 113-67, the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2014, which further raised the spending caps for FY2014 and 2015. (See Figure 4.)
Based on projections by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the adjusted caps would
increase at or slightly below the rate of inflation, thus keeping future DOD budgets flat in real
terms.
11
These data exclude war-related costs in FY2001-FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 4. Successive Changes to the 2011 Defense Spending Caps
(amounts in billions of dollars)
580
560
540
520
billions of dollars
500
480
460
440
420
400
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Budget Control Act
530
of 2011 (BCA)
American Taxpayer
Relief Act
of 2012 (ATRA)
Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2013 (BBA)
DOD future years
budget plan (FYDP)
FY2015-19
471
481
490
501
513
526
538
551
565
496
475
489
500
512
525
537
551
564
496
496
499
512
524
536
550
563
496
535
544
551
559
568
Source: CRS analysis based on the relevant statutes as shown above and the table entitled, “Policy Budget
Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program,” in the OMB publications entitled Analytical
Perspectives accompanying the President’s annual budget requests for FY2012 through FY2015. The table is
labelled Table 32-1 in the volumes for FY2012 and FY2013, Table 31-1 in the volume for FY2014, and Table 28-1
in the volume for FY2015.
Thus, one aspect of the interaction between DOD’s long-term budget projections and the
spending reduction effort embodied in BCA is that, after their initial year in effect (2012, when
the FY2013 budget was at issue), Congress has twice modified the spending caps so as to reduce
(but not eliminate) their impact on the then-pending budget request. (See Table 7.)
Defense Spending “Caps” in Effect for FY2012-FY2021
On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 became law, setting annual spending limits for National Defense
(budget function 050) and Non-Defense (all other) for FY2012-FY2021. If Congress does not enact appropriations
that meet the annual limit, the President is required to order a sequestration that reduces spending by applying
across-the-board cuts to each program, project or activity to ensure compliance. In this report, “sequester caps” is
used to refer to spending limits that must be met to avoid a sequester. In FY2012, the BCA limit was met.
On January 2, 2013, Congress adjusted the original BCA annual limits in the American Taxpayer Relief Act
(ATRA)(H.R. 8/P.L.112-240). The FY2013 limit was raised by $26 billion and the FY2013 limit was lowered by $4
billion. The adjusted FY2013 limit was met.
On December 23, 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (H.J. Res 59/P.L.113-67) raised the FY2014 limit by $22
billion and the FY2015 limit by $9 billion. The adjusted FY2014 limit was met. Adjustments to “sequester” caps are
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
highlighted in the table below.
BCA limits are set for the National Defense budget function (050). CRS estimated the DOD share (generally about
$95.4%) for the original BCA and ATRA using the shares shown in the table entitled “Policy Budget Authority and
Outlay by Function, Category, and Program” in OMB’s annual budget volume, Analytical Perspectives for FY2012,
FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015.
Table 7. Evolution of BCA “Sequester” Caps: FY2011-FY2014
(in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA): S. 365/P.L. 112-75
Fiscal Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total:
12-21
National Defense
555
492
502
512
523
536
549
562
576
590
5,397
DOD Estimate
530
471
481
490
501
513
526
538
551
565
5,167
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA): H.R. 8/P.L. 112-240
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total:
12-21
National Defense
555
518
498
512
523
536
549
562
576
590
5,419
DOD Estimate
530
496
475
489
500
512
525
537
551
564
5,179
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013: H.J. Res 569/P.L. 113-67
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total:
12-21
National Defense
555
518
520
521
523
536
549
562
576
590
5,451
DOD Estimate
530
495
496
496
499
512
524
536
550
563
5,201
Sources: Relevant laws as shown above. OMB Table 32-1 in FY2012 and FY2013 Analytical Perspectives, Table
31-1 in FY2014 and Table 28-1 in FY2015 volume. For OMB annual estimates, see OMB, Sequestration Preview
Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2015, March 10, 2014; http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/sequestration_preview_report_march2014.pdf.
On the other hand, since early 2011—months before the BCA was enacted—DOD’s long-range
spending plans have been pared back each year as part of the spending reduction effort of which
the BCA-created spending caps are the most prominent manifestation. As a result, the
Administration’s FY2015 DOD request of $496 billion in discretionary budget authority is lower
by more than 18% than the $616 billion request for FY2015 that was projected in March 2010.
(See Figure 5.)
Even if Congress were to amend the current defense spending cap for FY2015 and provide the
additional $26.4 billion requested for DOD as part of the OGSI package, discretionary DOD base
budget authority for FY2015 would be 15% lower than was projected in 2010.
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 5. 10-year DOD Discretionary Budget Plans, 2010-2014
(amounts in billions of dollars)
800
700
600
billions of
current or
"then-year"
dollars
500
400
300
200
100
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
March 2010 plan
549 566 582 598 616 633 650 668 687 706
FY2011-2020
March 2011 plan
553 571 586 598 611 622 633 644 656 668
FY2012-2021
March 2012 plan
525 534 546 556 567 579 592 605 618 634
FY2013-2022
May 2013 plan
527 541 551 560 569 577 587 596 606 617
FY2014-2023
April 2014 plan
496 535 544 551 559 568 576 586 601 617
FY2015-2024
April 2014 plan
522 535
plus OGSI
Source: OMB budget documentation for FY2011-FY2015, “Analytical Perspectives,” Table 32-1 in the volumes
for FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013,Table 31-1 in the volume for FY2014, and Table 28-1 in the volume for
FY2015.
DOD Estimate of Defense Spending Caps Impact in FY2016-FY2019
In April 2014, DOD projected the impact on readiness, force structure, and selected procurement programs if the
defense spending caps for future budgets currently in force were not lifted. The report, Estimated Impacts of
Sequestration-Level Funding—FY 2015 Defense Budget, can be accessed at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/
Documents/defbudget/fy2015/Sequestration_Impacts.pdf.
Internal Cost Pressures
Although DOD’s FY2015 base budget request is 23% higher, in real terms, than the budget was
in 2000 (the last full year before the terror attacks of 9/11), the department may face increasingly
tough budget choices if there is no change in the current statutory caps restricting future defense
budgets to increases that would match, or fall just short of, the rate of inflation.
The basic reason for this is that within major segments of the DOD budget—excluding war
costs—the annual cost-per-active-duty-troop (in inflation-adjusted terms) has been steadily
increasing for many years:
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Military personnel funding per capita (excluding most of the cost of medical
care) has increased by nearly 27% since 2000. Major contributing factors
included annual pay raises that frequently exceeded the average rate of pay hikes
in the private sector, increased housing allowances intended to eliminate out-ofpocket costs for personnel not living in government-provided housing, and
various policy changes that have increased pay and medical benefits for military
retirees.
•
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding, which covers deployments,
training, operation of bases, repair and maintenance of equipment and facilities
and most of DOD’s civilian payroll and health care costs, has been growing for
more than three decades, relative to the size of the force, at an average annual
rate of 2.7% above the cost of inflation.
•
Spending on acquisition (procurement plus R&D) per troop has increased in real
terms as developments in technology make each new generation of weaponry
more expensive (as well as more capable) than the generation it replaces.
Moreover, combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has fostered new requirements for
procurement associated with force protection, communications and
transportation.12
If DOD discretionary spending (adjusted for inflation) remains essentially flat through the early
2020s as current law (i.e., the BBA spending caps) requires, and if the real per capita costs of
personnel, O&M, and procurement continue to increase, some combination of reductions in the
size and/or readiness of the force and reductions in the scope of planned modernization may have
to occur.
FY2015 Base Budget Highlights
According to Administration officials, the $495.6 billion request for discretionary budget
authority in DOD’s base budget was intended support the national strategy outlined in DOD’s
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) published concurrently with the funding request.13 In
general terms, the request was presented as an effort to accommodate both changing security
requirements and more constrained budgets by reducing the size of the force—particularly the
Army and Marine Corps—while modernizing the force and keeping it trained for a broader range
of missions.
Following are some major themes of the Administration’s FY2015 base budget request.
12
Acquisition spending-per-troop has shown particularly sharp increases during the two most recent periods of
sustained defense budget increases: the so-called “Reagan buildup” of the early and mid-1980s and the post-9/11
buildup that peaked in 2010.
13
Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review, 2014, at http://www.defense.gov/pubs/
2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf (hereinafter cited as “2014 QDR”).
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Implementing the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
A QDR, mandated by law14 to be conducted during the first year of every four-year presidential
term, is required to “delineate a national defense strategy”; to determine the force structure,
modernization plans, and infrastructure required to implement that strategy; and to craft a budget
plan that would fund it. The review is required by law to take a 20-year outlook, and to be fiscally
unconstrained by the President’s budget request.
Some critics faulted the 2014 QDR for focusing on near-term security issues and accepting the
limitations imposed by the Administration’s budget:
[T]he 2014 QDR focused largely on the planned force structure associated with the five-year
Future Years Defense Program [covering 2015-2019], and it contained a strategy that
assumes increased risk to the force, without specifying the resources required to execute the
strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk.15
The Administration, on the other hand, characterized the 2014 QDR as “strategy-driven and
resource-informed.”16
The DOD priorities outlined in the 2014 QDR were based on the Defense Strategic Guidance17
(DSG) issued by the Administration in January 2012. That earlier document was written as a
blueprint for reshaping by 2020 a U.S. defense establishment that had been focused for more than
a decade on very specific types of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the shifts proposed
by DSG that were echoed in the 2014 QDR are the following:
•
DOD will “rebalance” its global posture to emphasize operations in the AsiaPacific region and the Middle East.
•
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 a potential
aggressor in a second region to deter that country from launching a second attack.
•
DOD will not maintain an active-duty force large enough to conduct large-scale
stability operations on a prolonged basis, such those conducted in Iraq and
Afghanistan over the past decade.
•
DOD will place more emphasis on being able to project military power in regions
to which potential adversaries will try to deny them access with precision-guided
missiles and other advanced weapons.
•
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,
14
10 U.S.C. §118. For additional background, see CRS Report R43403, The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
and Defense Strategy: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
15
See U.S. Congress, House Armed Services, Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015, report to accompany H.R. 4435, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., May 13, 2014, H, Rept. 113-446
(Washington: GPO, 2014), p. 227.
16
2014 QDR, p. 1.
17
For further analysis, see CRS Report R42146, Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG): In
Brief, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
forces will train for operating across the spectrum of conflict, from major
conventional wars to peacekeeping and stability operations.
•
DOD will invest in capabilities other than traditional combat forces, including
Special Operations Forces, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
capabilities, and cyberspace defenses.
•
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.
Manpower Issues
Size of the Force
The Administration’s FY2015 budget request projected continuation of the reduction in the
number of active-component personnel begun in FY2013, with the Army and Marine Corps slated
to absorb most of the reduction. Originally, the plan was that, by FY2017, the Army would drop
to 490,000 active-duty soldiers, while the size of the Marine Corps would drop to 182,100. In
effect, the two services thus would give up the 92,000 personnel that had been added to their
strength in 2007, ending up slightly larger than they had been in 2001, the last budget year before
the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
With the FY2014 budget request, the planned drawdown was accelerated, with the two services
slated to reach their new, lower ceilings by FY2015. However, the FY2015 budget request
projected that, even if the BCA spending caps were removed, by FY2019 the Army will be further
reduced, stabilizing at between 440,000 and 450,000 active-duty personnel. If the BCA caps
remain in force, the projection is for an Army of 420,000 and a Marine Corps of 175,000. (See
Table 8.)
Table 8. Active Component End-Strength (Base Budget)
(numbers in thousands; totals may not add due to rounding)
Projected
FY2019
(w/o sequester)
Projected
FY2019
(with sequester)
FY2001
FY2010
FY2014
FY2015
request
Army
481
566
520
490
440 to 450
420
Marine Corps
173
202
190
183
182
175
Navy
372
328
324
324
n/a
n/a
Air Force
354
334
328
311
n/a
n/a
Total
1,380
1,430
1,362
1,309
n/a
n/a
Source: Data for 2001 and 2010 from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2015 (“The
Green Book”), Table 7-5, pp. 254-256; Data for FY2014 and 2015 from House Armed Services Committee, H.
Rept. 113-446, Report on the Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015, p. 136;
Projected data for 2019 from DOD Comptroller, “Briefing on the FY2015 Budget Request,”
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_Request.pdf.
Notes: The Administration request would fund in the base budget end strength of 182,700 for the Marine
Corps, which is the level to which the Administration had planned to reduce that service prior to completion of
the 2014 QDR. An additional 1,400 members of that service would be funded in the OCO budget.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
In FY2001, the last budget year before the post-9/11 buildup of U.S. force, the combined endstrength of the active component Army and Marine Corps was about 653,000—roughly twothirds of its FY1987 post-Vietnam, Cold War peak. Compared with their manpower in FY2001,
the two services had grown by about 18% in FY2010, their peak year of their post-9/11 endstrength. Compared with that same baseline, the current plan would reduce their size by 5% if the
spending caps were lifted and by 9% if the caps remained in force. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Army and Marine Corps end-strength
(intervals on the horizontal axis are not equal)
1000
900
active component personnel
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
FY1987
FY2001
Army
FY2010
FY2015
FY2019
w/o
sequester
FY2019
with
sequester
Marine Corps
Source: Data for 1987, 2001, 2010, and 2015 from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for
FY2015 (“The Green Book”), Table 7-5, pp. 254-56; Projected data for 2019 from DOD Comptroller, “Briefing on
the FY2015 Budget Request,” http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/
fy2015_Budget_Request.pdf.
Notes: The Administration estimates that the Army’s end-strength in FY2019 will be between 440,000 and
450,000, if the sequestration-level budget caps are lifted. In this figure, the “FY2019 w/o sequester” column
reflects Army end-strength of 440,000.
FY1987 marked the peak level of active-component Army and Marine strength during the Reagan buildup of the
Cold War. FY2010 was the peak level for the two services during the period of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The Administration’s FY2015 request also assumed a reduction of 12,900 personnel in the reserve
components. More than half that cut would be taken from the Army Reserve and Army National
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Guard which—taken together—account for two-thirds of Selected Reserve personnel.18 As is the
case with the Army’s active component, that service’s two reserve components would continue to
shrink under the Administration’s budget plan. Compared with their FY2014 end-strength, the
combined end-strength of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard would be reduced by 5%
by FY2019 if DOD is granted relief from the current budget caps and by 10% if the caps remain
in force. (See Table 9.)
Table 9. Selected Reserve Component End-Strength
(numbers in thousands; totals may not add due to rounding)
FY2014
Authorized
FY2015
Request
Projected
FY2019 w/o
sequester
Projected
FY2019 with
sequester
Army Reserve
205
202
195
185
Army National Guard
354
350
335
315
Navy Reserve
59
57
n/a
n/a
Marine Corps Reserve
40
39
n/a
n/a
Air Force Reserve
70
67
n/a
n/a
Air National Guard
105
105
n/a
n/a
Total
834
821
Source: Data for 2014 and 2015 from Senate Armed Services Committee, Report on the Carl Levin National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2015, S. Rept. 113-176, p. 99; projected data for 2019 from DOD
Comptroller, “Briefing on the FY2015 Budget Request,” http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/
defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_Request.pdf.
Compensation
By DOD’s accounting, more than one-third of the department’s annual budget funds pay and
benefits for military personnel. Adding the cost of pay and benefits for DOD’s nearly 800,000
civilian employees—most of whose compensation is funded in the Operation and Maintenance
accounts—brings the total cost of compensation to nearly one-half the annual DOD budget. (See
Table 10.)
Table 10. DOD Pay and Benefits as a Share of Total Budget Authority
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2001
enacted
% of
2001 DOD
FY2015
request
Military Personnel Appropriations
77.3
129.0
TRICARE for Life accrual
—
6.2
Defense Health Program
13.7
34.6%
32.5
% of 2015
DOD
35.6%
18
The Selected Reserve consists of personnel who are assigned to organized units that regularly assemble for training a
certain number of times in the course of a year. It does not include members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR),
who are not assigned to units that regularly assemble for training, but who can be mobilized as individuals.
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2001
enacted
% of
2001 DOD
FY2015
request
DOD dependents’ schools
1.5
3.0
Military Family Housing
3.7
1.2
Commissary Subsidy
1.0
1.1
Other Benefit Programs
2.4
3.6
Subtotal: Military Pay and Benefits
99.5
176.6
DOD civilian pay and benefits
39.8
69.8
TOTAL: DOD Pay and Benefits
139.3
48.5%
246.4
% of 2015
DOD
49.7%
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2015 DOD Budget Request, Overview, March 2014, p. 5-1,
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/
fy2015_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Note: The decline in spending for government-provided housing for military families reflects a policy of paying
servicemembers a housing allowance to cover the cost of acquiring housing in the private sector near their duty
stations. The total for housing allowances (which are included in “Military Personnel Appropriations”) rose from
$6.4 billion in FY2001 to $19.3 billion in the FY2015 request.
The FY2015 budget request proposed several changes in compensation policy which, the
Administration maintains, would not reduce the compensation of any servicemember but would
slow the rate at which compensation costs were rising year to year:
•
Basic pay, which typically accounts for about two-thirds of the cash
compensation of an active-duty servicemember, would be increased by 1% in
FY2015 and FY2016. This is a lower rate than the expected increase in the Labor
Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), which tracks changes in private
sector pay.
•
Generals and admirals would receive no increase in basic pay in FY2015.
•
Servicemembers’ Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)—a cash payment based
on members’ rank, number of dependents, and housing costs in the area where
they are stationed—has been intended to cover 100% of housing rental expenses
for personnel who are not provided with government-supplied housing. Under
the Administration’s plan, the allowance would increase more slowly than rental
costs until the allowance covers 95% of rent and utility costs, requiring
servicemembers to cover the remaining 5%.19
•
The subsidy for commissaries—a worldwide chain of 284 supermarkets in which
servicemembers, retirees, and their dependents buy items at cost-plus-5%—
would be reduced by a total of $1 billion over three years (FY2015-FY2017).20
•
As it had done in its budget requests for FY2013 and FY2014, the Administration
included in its FY2015 DOD budget proposals to create some new fees and
19
The Administration’s proposal also would eliminate renters’ insurance from the costs to be covered by the housing
allowance. In the 1990s, the housing allowance typically covered 82% of a servicemember’s housing costs.
20
DOD estimates that commissary prices are about 30% lower than those in nearby commercial supermarkets. See
Defense Commissary Agency, “History of U.S. Military Commissaries,” at http://www.commissaries.com/history.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
copayment requirements and to increase some existing fees for beneficiaries of
TRICARE, DOD’s medical insurance program.
Defense Health Program
The FY2015 budget request included a total of $47.4 billion for DOD’s health care system, which
serves more than 9,600,000 active and retired servicemembers, their dependents, and their
survivors. Of that total, the Defense Health Program (DHP) was slated to receive $32.0 billion,
97% of which is Operation and Maintenance funding that operates DOD’s 56 hospitals and 608
medical and dental clinics in addition to funding private sector medical care purchased by the
TRICARE system under contract.21 The DHP budget includes compensation for the health care
system’s 67,000 civilian employees.
The other major components of DOD’s health care budget are
•
$8.6 billion (included in the services’ Military Personnel accounts) to fund pay
and benefits for the 85,000 uniformed medical personnel, many of who support
the noncombat health care mission directly or indirectly; and
•
$6.2 billion in payments to the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund,
created in 2003 to provide for the future cost of post-retirement health care of
personnel currently on active duty (and their dependents) under the so-called
TRICARE-for-Life program.22
Like several previous DOD budget requests since 2005, the FY2015 request incorporated
proposals intended to slow the rate of growth of DOD’s health care costs. The health care system
(including military personnel costs), which accounted for 6.0% of DOD’s base budget in FY2001,
accounted for 9.4% of the FY2015 base budget request.
Compared to what the FY2015 DOD health care budget would have been in the absence of the
Administrations proposed TRICARE changes, the Administration request incorporated:
•
an addition of $88 million to cover the administrative cost of consolidating into a
single TRICARE coverage plan the current menu of three TRICARE options;
•
a reduction of $180 million to reflect the higher copayment fees for
pharmaceuticals that TRICARE beneficiaries would pay under one of the
Administration’s legislative proposals, which is intended to encourage the use of
generic medications and mail-order refills; and
•
a reduction of $92 million in anticipation of savings that result from the
consolidation and reorganization of some DOD health care facilities on the basis
of a DOD study currently underway.
21
The DHP budget request also includes $655 million for medical R&D, $308 million for procurement, and $161
million in an unallocated reduction. In addition, the FY2015 military construction budget request includes $486 million
for medical facilities.
22
Technically, DOD’s annual accrual payment into the TRICARE-for-Life fund is discretionary (rather than
mandatory) funding and thus is covered by the annual National Defense Authorization Act. However, by law (10
U.S.C. §1116), the payment is made automatically by a permanent appropriation on the basis of actuarial calculations,
so it is not included in the annual DOD appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
The Administration also proposed an enrollment fee for military retirees joining the TRICAREfor-Life program. Currently, there is no such fee.
Personnel Policy, Military Compensation, and TRICARE Issues
For more detailed analysis of congressional action on the Administration’s proposed changes to military personnel
policy and compensation (including proposed changes to TRICARE), see CRS Report R43647, FY2015 National
Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name redacted).
Force Structure
The Administration’s FY2015 budget request and its projected requests through FY2019 assumed
that reductions would be made in several components of the force in addition to some
reorganizations. Moreover, the Administration said that deeper reductions would be necessary if
the defense spending caps currently in force were not raised, officials said.
Army Force Reductions
In the Army’s active component, the number of brigade combat teams (BCTs)—ground combat
units of 4,000 to 5,000 soldiers—would drop from 36 to 32. The remaining BCTs each would be
enlarged with the addition of a third combat battalion.
The Army also would reduce from 13 to 11 the number of combat aviation brigades—each of
which fields upwards of 100 combat and transport helicopters as well as pilotless drones. To save
an estimated $1.1 billion in annual operating costs, the service would dispose of nearly 800 of its
almost 4,600 helicopters. In the process, the service hoped to economize on its aviation training
and maintenance overhead by eliminating entire fleets of several older types of aircraft. More
controversially, the plan would transfer to active-component Army units all 192 of the Apache
attack helicopters currently assigned to National Guard units, while transferring to Guard units
111 Blackhawk troop-carrying helicopters currently assigned to the active Army.
Navy Force Reductions
The FY2015 budget request for the Navy would have paid to remove spent nuclear fuel from the
two reactors that power the 25-year-old aircraft carrier U.S.S. George Washington, for which the
Navy long had planned a mid-life refueling and modernization to equip the ship for another 25
years of service. But Administration officials said that, if the defense spending caps currently in
force were not removed, the Navy would retire the ship instead, reducing the carrier force to 10
ships.
To save money, the Navy’s budget also would remove from service—but not scrap—half its fleet
of 22 Aegis cruisers and 3 of its amphibious landing ships. The vessels would be modernized over
several years and put back in service one-by-one to replace similar ships that had remained in
service and had worn out.
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Air Force Reductions
Contending that the Air Force could not sustain its current force under the reduced budgets now
in prospect, Administration officials planned to retire entire fleets of certain types of aircraft so
they could shut down the associated training and maintenance pipelines. They planned to retire
the U-2 long-range reconnaissance plane which, they said, could be replaced by long-range
drones. They also planned to retire the A-10 ground attack plane, contending that many other
types of aircraft could perform its missions using precision-guided bombs and missiles.
If the future defense spending caps remained in force, they said, the Service would propose in
future budgets retiring its force of KC-10 mid-air refueling tankers and one version of the Global
Hawk long-range reconnaissance drone.
Modernization
According to the Administration, its FY2015 DOD budget request and plan for future DOD
budgets would modernize the smaller force in prospect with an emphasis on systems that could
prevail over a “near-peer competitor”—that is, another traditionally organized military force
equipped with high-tech weaponry and communications. Compared with previously announced
modernization plans, however, the request reflected tighter defense budgets both in reductions in
the number of some items acquired and, in some cases, a shift to less technologically ambitious
development efforts.
Strategic Nuclear Forces
The budget request would sustain the existing “triad” of strategic nuclear weapons launchers:
manned bombers, land-based ICBMs, and ballistic missile launching submarines. It included
$913 million in FY2015 and an additional $8.9 billion over the course of the following four years
to develop a new long-range bomber to replace B-52s that have been in service since the early
1960s.23 The request also included $1.22 billion to continue developing a new missile-launching
sub (and its associated nuclear power plant) to replace the ten Ohio-class ships currently in
service, which are slated to begin retiring in 2025.24
Ground Combat Systems
Both the Army and the Marine Corps sidetracked efforts to push the technology envelope in
developing a new generation of armored combat vehicles, putting emphasis, instead, on less
complex programs. The Army’s highest-priced R&D program, the Ground Combat Vehicle
(GCV) program (intended as a successor to the Bradley armored troop carrier) was cancelled
weeks before the FY2015 DOD budget was made public.25 According to DOD, this single move
will reduce by a total of $3.7 billion the budgets requested in FY2015-FY2019.
23
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background
and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
24
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
25
FY2014 budget documents, published in April 2013, projected that DOD would request $953.1 billion to continue
the GCV program in FY2015. For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report R41597, The Army’s Ground
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
The budget request included $92.4 million to continue development of an Advanced MultiPurpose Vehicle (AMPV) intended to replace some 3,000 Vietnam War-era M-113 troop carriers
currently used as mobile command posts and battlefield ambulances and supply carriers.26
In 2012, the Marine Corps had abandoned its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program, an
effort to develop an amphibious armored vehicle that would move from ship to shore at 50 mph
and then function as a troop carrier. Other efforts to develop less technologically ambitious
combat vehicles for the Marines have been slow to gain momentum in recent years. With the
existing fleet of AAV-7 amphibious troop carriers reaching 40 years of service, the Marine Corps
FY2015 budget request includes $105.5 million to develop an Amphibious Combat Vehicle
(ACV)—a conventional armored troop carrier that would replace some of the older AAV-7s.
Unlike the vehicle it would replace, the ACV might travel on wheels rather than on tracks, and
would be carried close to shore in a landing craft.27
Ships
Reflecting the Administration’s priority on forces that could hold their own in high-tech,
conventional warfare, the FY2015 budget request continued the policy of funding annually two
Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines (requesting $5.88 billion for the program) and two
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with the Aegis anti-missile/anti-aircraft system (for
which the budget includes $2.81 billion).28
The emphasis on systems that can fight in intense conventional combat was the Administration’s
stated rationale for funding in FY2015 three Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs], rather than the four
ships that had been planned. Although the Navy had planned to buy a total of 52 of the ships (two
versions of which are being built), Defense Secretary Hagel directed the Navy to buy no
additional LCS ships (beyond those requested for FY2015) and to come up with a design for a
more robust and combat-capable ship. In the event, DOD announced on December 11, 2014 that
the Navy would continue purchasing both LCS versions with additional firepower and other
improvements.29
Aircraft
The Administration’s request would continue funding several major aircraft programs that have
been among DOD’s top priorities, though the amounts requested for FY2015 were less than had
been projected in DOD’s FY2014 budget documents.
(...continued)
Combat Vehicle (GCV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
26
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle
(AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
27
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
28
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack
Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RL32109, Navy
DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
29
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
For the three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter used by the Navy, Marine Corps and Air
Force, the budget requested $5.82 billion for 34 planes. This amounted to a reduction of eight
planes ($1.15 billion) from the FY2015 request that was projected in DOD’s FY2014 budget
request.30
The request included a total of $2.31 billion to continue development and begin production of the
KC-46A mid-air refueling tanker, a modification of the Boeing 767 jetliner intended to replace
KC-135 tankers that date from the 1960s.31
No funds were requested by the Navy to continue production of either the F/A-18E/F carrierbased strike fighter or the EF-18G Growler, a variant of the fighter equipped to jam enemy radars.
Some critics of the F-35 view continued production of the F/A-18E/F as a possible alternative to
the Navy’s version of the F-35.32
Readiness
DOD characterized the FY2015 budget request as a blueprint for the revitalization of
conventional warfighting capabilities that had atrophied during a decade of counterinsurgency
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD budget documents cited three factors as contributing to
a shortfall in current readiness:33
•
Mandatory deficit reduction measures enforced by sequestration in FY2013 and
by spending caps in FY2012, FY2104, and FY2015, which have constrained
budgets for training, equipment maintenance, and facilities upkeep.
•
Maintenance of relatively large forces in Iraq and Afghanistan that required units
to deploy frequently for operations in a demanding environment without
adequate time between deployments for rest and rehabilitation of personnel and
equipment.
•
A constant need to devote available training time and equipment to preparing
troops to fight a very specific, limited type of war at the expense of preparing for
conventional combat against a technologically advanced adversary.
For FY2015, DOD’s base budget request for operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts—
which fund training, equipment maintenance, facilities upkeep and other activities contributing to
readiness—amounted to $198.7 billion. This is 3.1% more than was appropriated for base budget
O&M funding in FY2014. However, in the FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 11376), Congress shifted to the part of the bill funding war costs $9.15 billion for O&M activities
that DOD had presented as part of the base budget. If those funds are counted as part of the
30
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, by
(name redacted).
31
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program, by
(name redacted).
32
For additional information and analysis, see CRS Report RL30624, Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft Program,
by (name redacted).
33
DOD Comptroller, FY2015 DOD Budget Request, Overview, March 2014, pp. 3-1 thru 3-22, at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2014 base budget O&M appropriation, the FY2015 O&M request would represent a reduction
of 1.6%.
Efficiencies
In addition to proposed reductions in the size of the force and the pace of modernization, the
FY2015 request—like the three budgets that preceded it—included a number of organizational
and management initiatives that are intended to further reduce DOD operating costs:34
•
The FY2012 request projected savings totaling $150 billion over the course of
FY2012-FY2016.
•
The FY2013 request projected savings of an additional $60 billion in FY2013FY2017.
•
The FY2014 request projected savings of an additional $35 billion in FY2014FY2018.
The FY2015 budget assumed operational efficiencies that would reduce DOD costs in FY2015FY2019 by an estimated $73.3 billion, including the following projected savings:
•
a 20% reduction in headquarters budgets expected to save an estimated $5.3
billion.
•
various proposed efficiencies in the Defense Health Program (aside from the
proposed changes in the TRICARE medical insurance system) projected to save
$17.3 billion.
•
cuts to training, travel and other support costs expected to save $21.0 billion; and
•
various efficiencies in contracting expected to save $29.9 billion.
The FY2015 budget request and five-year projection also assumed reductions in manpower and in
military facilities construction funds totaling $12.2 billion. In addition, the budget request
assumed a so-called “BRAC”-round of base-closures that would cost $1.9 billion through
FY2019 but would yield annual savings thereafter.
34
DOD Comptroller, FY2015 DOD Budget Request, Overview, March 2014, pp. 4-1 thru 4-3, at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA): H.R. 4435, S. 2410, H.R. 3979
The versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2015 that were passed by
the House on May 25, 2014 (H.R. 4435) and reported on June 2, 2014, by the Senate Armed
Services Committee (S. 2410) each would have authorized total DOD base budget appropriations
that would have exceeded the Administration’s base budget request by less than $500 million.
The base budget authorized by H.R. 3979—the version of the NDAA that was cleared for the
President on December 8, 2014—fell between the House and Senate versions of the bill,
authorizing $495.9 billion, which is $347 million more than the Administration requested. (See
Table 11.)
Authorized funding levels for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in the House-passed,
Senate committee reported, and final versions of the FY2015 NDAA are not comparable. The
Administration’s original FY2015 budget request included $79.4 billion for OCO, but that
amount—which was identical with DOD’s enacted FY2014 OCO appropriation—was
specifically described as a placeholder that would be replaced with an updated request once
decisions were made about the number of U.S. troops slated to remain in Afghanistan through
FY2015.
Before the Administration submitted its revised OCO request, the House passed H.R. 4435, which
would have authorized the placeholder OCO amount, and the Senate Armed Services Committee
reported S. 2410, which would have provided a blanket authorization for OCO appropriations
without specifying the amount.
House and Senate negotiators drafting H.R. 3979 took account of total FY2015 OCO funding
requests totaling $63.7 billion, which the Administration submitted in three parts:
•
On June 26, 2014, it requested $53.7 billion for operations associated with
Afghanistan and Iraq plus $4.0 billion for a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
and $925 million for a European Reassurance Initiative to signal U.S. support for
countries unsettled by Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory.
•
On November 5, 2014, it requested $112 million for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop vaccines and other technologies
relevant to the effort to combat the Ebola virus.
•
And on November 10, 2014, it requested $5.0 billion for operations against the
Islamic State.
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 11. FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4435; S. 2410; H.R. 3979)
(amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Administration
Request
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Senate
Committeereported
S. 2410
Procurement
89,508
90,984
89,549
91,399
Research and Development
63,534
63,791
63,484
63,826
Operation and Maintenance
165,722
164,555
166,075
165,417
Military Personnel
135,194
135,244
135,147
134,716
Defense Health Program and
Other Authorizations
35,029
34,742
35,266
33,980
Military Construction and Family Housing
6,557
6,533
6,452
6,552
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
495,544
495,849
495,973
495,891
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
(Energy Dept.)
17,873
17,565
17,687
17,524
513,417
513,414
513,660
513,415
Subtotal: Overseas Contingency Operations
63,733
79,445
0
63,732
(Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund) non-add
(4,000)
0
0
(1,300)
(925)
0
0
(371)
577,150
592,859
513,660
577,147
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Base Budget
TOTAL: National Defense Budget
Function Base Budget
(European Reassurance Initiative) non-add
GRAND TOTAL: FY2015 NDAA
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-446, Report on the Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2015, pp. 372-375; Senate Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-176, Report on
the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015, pp. 296-299; Joint Explanatory Statement to
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 [H.R. 3979] on the House Armed
Services Committee website at http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=78ED7A79-906643FD-AA75-1D8F14B4B4A2.
Notes: Administration officials described the $79.4 billion OCO total included in the FY2015 budget request as
a “placeholder” Subsequent to House passage of H.R. 4435 and Senate committee approval of S. 2410, the
Administration sent to Congress several amendments to its original OCO request. In sum, the final FY2015
OCO request amounted to $63.7 billion: $53.7 billion for operations related to Afghanistan and Iraq, $5 billion
to combat the Islamic State, $4 billion for Counterterrorism Partnership activities, $925 million for actions to
reassure European allies in the wake of Russia's occupation of Ukrainian territory, and $112 million for DOD
research related to combatting the Ebola virus.
NDAA Highlights
The House and Senate versions of the bill each barred—during FY2015—several of the costreduction initiatives that had been incorporated into the Administration’s budget request. Both
bills included provisions that would bar Administration proposals for a new round of military
base closures, the retirement of various Air Force planes (including A-10 ground attack aircraft),
and changes in the military commissary system.
However, the final version of the bill approved limited steps that could lead to eventual
implementation of many of the Administration’s proposals to reduce the rate of growth of military
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
compensation and to retire some types of weapons. On several of these issues, including the
proposed transfer of Apache helicopters from the National Guard to the Army, the housing
allowance for military personnel, and pharmacy co-payments for TRICARE beneficiaries, the
Joint Explanatory Statement on H.R. 3979 agreed to by House and Senate negotiators specifically
cited the possibility that Congress might, at some future date, agree to these or similar costreduction proposals. (See Table 12.)
Table 12. Selected Administration Cost Cutting Proposals
Issue
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Senate
Committeereported
S. 2410
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Annual Raise in
Military Basic Pay
1.0%; freeze for
generals and
admirals
Authorizes 1.8%
raise (added cost of
$534.9 million);
Authorize freeze for
generals and
admirals (Section
602)
Supports the
Administration
proposal (Section
601)
Joint Explanatory
Statement notes
President’s authority
to set the raise at
1%; Bill authorizes
$215.3 million more
than requested for
basic pay; Bill freezes
pay for generals and
admirals (Section
601)
Annual Commissary
Subsidy ($1.4 billion
in FY2014)
3-year phase-in of $1
billion reduction,
beginning with $200
million reduction in
FY2015
Adds $100 million to
reverse
Administration
proposal, pending
study (Section 632)
Adds $200 million to
reverse
Administration
proposal; requires
DOD report
Adds $100 million to
reverse budget
proposal: Requires
study of possible
cost reductions
(Section 634)
Housing Allowance
for assignment in
U.S. (currently
covers 100% of cost)
Gradually reduce
rate of growth until
allowance covers
95% of cost
Rejects proposal;
Includes no change
in current law
governing housing
allowance
Authorizes the
Administration
proposal (Section
603)
Authorizes
reduction of
allowance in FY2015
by 1% of average
housing costs
(Section 604)
TRICARE medical
insurance for active
duty and retired
servicemembers and
their dependents
Proposes increased
deductibles and
enrollment and
participation fees
and pharmacy copayments
Authorizes none of
the proposed
changes
Authorizes only the
proposed increase in
pharmacy copayments (Section
702)
Authorizes a $3
increase in pharmacy
co-payments
(Section 702)
Decision to retire or
refuel the aircraft
carrier USS George
Washington
(previously slated for
refueling and
modernization in
FY2016 to provide
25 years of
additional service)
Defer until 2016
choice between
refueling the ship
and retiring it (DOD
five-year budget plan
assumes ship would
be retired in
FY2016)
Adds $796.2 million
for refueling and
modernization; bars
use of 50% of
Section of Defense
office budget until
funds are obligated
to upgrade the ship
(Section 1024)
Authorizes transfer
of up to $650 million
from other accounts
to refuel the ship
(Section 123); Bar
use of funds for any
action regarding the
ship that are not
necessary for
refueling (Section
1021)
Adds $795.1 million
for refueling and
modernization;
Incorporates Senate
provision barring
spending for any
purpose not
necessary for
refueling and
modernization
(Section 1023)
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committeereported
S. 2410
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Status of 11 Aegis
cruisers and three
amphibious landing
ships near the
midpoint of
expected service life
Mothball the ships
and gradually
modernize them and
put them back into
service to replace
similar ships as they
wear out
Prohibits inactivation
of any of the ships;
Requires that 2
cruisers be
modernized in
FY2015 (Section
1026)
Establishes rules for
the Administration’s
phased
modernization plan;
Requires that all
ships be kept in
active service for full
expected lifetime
(Section 1022)
Bars retirement of
any of the ships and
requires that
modernization of
two cruisers begin in
FY2015 (Section
1026)
Army/National
Guard helicopter
missions
Move all Apache
attack helicopters
from National Guard
units to Army units;
Re-equip some of
those Guard units
with Black Hawk
troop carriers
Prohibits removing
Apaches from
National Guard
units; Adds $105.2
million to buy new
Black Hawks and
modernize older
ones
Prohibits moving
more than 48
Apaches from
National Guard units
(Section 1703);
Creates commission
to study
Army/National
Guard structure
(Sections 1701-09)
Adds $145.0 million
for new Black
Hawks for National
Guard units
Bars moving any
Apaches from
National Guard to
Army in 2015 but
allows moving 48 in
2016 (Section 1712);
Creates commission
to review
Army/National
Guard roles
(Sections 1701-1707;
Adds $103.0 million
for National Guard
Black Hawks
Tomahawk cruise
missile production
(projected in 2013
to continue thru
2018 at rate of 196
missiles per year)
Reduce total
purchase, buying the
last 100 missiles in
FY2015 ($194.3
million)
Adds $82.0 million
for 96 additional
Tomahawks
Adds $82 million for
100 additional
Tomahawks
Adds $82.0 million
for 96 additional
Tomahawks
A-10 ground attack
planes.
Retire all A-10s
Prohibits retirement
of A-10s (Section
132); Adds $635.0
million in OCO
account to continue
operating, and
upgrading A-10s
Prohibits retirement
of any A-10s
(Section 134); Adds
$339.3 million to
continue operating
A-10s
Bars retirement of
any A-10s but allows
up to 36 to be
removed from daily
operation (Section
133); Adds $331.1
million for A-10
operations
U-2 intelligence
collection planes
Replace U-2s with
Global Hawk drones
Prohibits retirement
of U-2s (Section
133)
Adds $70.1 million
to keep U-2s in
service; Cuts $136.0
requested to equip
Global Hawks with
capability of U-2s
Prohibits retirement
of U-2s (Section
133); Adds $70.1
million to keep U-2s
in service; Cuts
$136.0 requested to
equip Global Hawks
with capability of U2s
Issue
Congressional Research Service
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
31
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committeereported
S. 2410
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Issue
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4435
E-3A AWACS radar
planes
Retire seven (of 31)
AWACS
Prohibits retirement
of more than four
AWACS until AF
reports how it will
meet requirements
with planned force
of 24 planes (Section
135); Adds $12.2
million for AWACS
operations
Prohibits retirement
of any AWACS
(Section 136); Adds
$59.5 million to
continue operating
all 31 planes
Prohibits retirement
of any AWACS
(Section 136); Adds
$59.5 million to
continue operating
all 31 planes
military base
closures
Prepare for a Base
Realignment and
Closure (BRAC)
process in FY2017
Prohibits planning
for another BRAC
round (Section
2711); Cuts $4.8
million requested for
BRAC planning
Prohibits planning
for another BRAC
round (Section
2702); Cuts $4.8
million requested for
BRAC planning
Prohibits planning
for another BRAC
round (Section
2711); Cuts $4.8
million requested for
BRAC planning
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service
As both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA would have done, H.R. 3979 authorizes
billions of dollars more than the budget requests for various purposes (with those gross increases
offset, in some measure, by proposed cuts to the request). Taken as a whole, the Senate bill’s addons were less ambitious than those that would have been authorized by the House bill: for two
big-ticket Navy items—refueling an aircraft carrier and buying an amphibious landing ship—the
House bill would have authorized additional funds while the Senate bill would have allowed the
Navy to use for those purposes funds that had been appropriated in earlier budgets.
For several programs, the increased authorizations provided by the final version of the bill were
closer to the higher, House-passed, amounts. For example, H.R. 3979 would add to the amount
requested nearly $1.7 billion for the carrier refueling and the additional amphibious landing ship.
However, more than $1.0 billion of the final bill’s additional authorization would apply to the
OCO budget, which is exempt from the statutory cap on defense spending. (See Table 13.)
Table 13. Other Selected Congressional Budget Increases
Issue
Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) “readiness” funding
Congressional Research Service
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Adds $1.11 billion in base
budget for increased
operational tempo, depot
maintenance and other
readiness-related activities
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
Adds $586.8 million in
base budget for
readiness-related
activities
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Adds $267.0 million
for readiness in base
budget and an
additional $666.2
million in OCO budget
(which is exempt from
budget caps)
32
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
Issue
House-passed
H.R. 4435
EF-18G Growler electronic
warfare planes (Navy)
Adds $450.0 million for
five Growlers
Directs the Navy to
retain the option of
buying additional
Growlers; For that
purpose, adds $25.0
million and authorizes
the use of $75.0 million
appropriated in FY2014
(Section 121)
Adds $450.0 million
for five additional
growlers and directs
the Navy to retain he
option of buying more
(Section 125)
San Antonio-class (LPD-17)
amphibious landing ship
(most recently funded of
which—the 11th of the
class—cost $2.09 billion in
FY2012)
Adds $800.0 million for a
12th ship of this class;
Authorizes incremental
funding for the ship
(Section 122)
Authorizes the Navy to
transfer up to $650
million from
procurement accounts to
fund an additional LPD17 (Section 123)
Adds $800.0 million
for a 12th ship of this
class; Authorizes
incremental funding for
the ship (Section 121)
C-130 Hercules
modernization
Prohibits cancellation of
avionics upgrade for older
planes (Section 131);
Adds $73.8 million to
upgrade avionics and
engines
Adds $73.8 million to
upgrade avionics and
engines on older planes
Prohibits cancellation
of avionics upgrade for
older planes (Section
134); Adds $73.8
million to upgrade
avionics and engines
Armored combat vehicles
Adds $192.0 million to
upgrade M-1 tanks and
modernize armored tank
recovery vehicles to
sustain the armored
vehicle industrial base
Adds $136.9 million to
modernize Bradley troop
carriers, buy tank
recovery vehicles, and
give tanks more limited
modifications to sustain
the industrial base
Adds $232.9 million
modernize Bradleys,
buy tank recovery
vehicles and provide
the more extensive
tank upgrades
Accrual payments to Military
Retired Pay account; (Budget
includes $18.9 billion to
cover estimated future
payments to current
servicemembers)
No change
Adds $500.0 million to
cover the cost of P.L.
113-82, exempting
persons who joined the
service before 1/1/2014
from the BBA’s reduction
in the retired pay COLA
formuila; Also extends
that exemption through
1/1/2016 (Section 621)
Extends the exemption
created by P.L. 113-82
(Section 623; Does not
authorize a
corresponding
additional payment to
the Military Retired
Pay account
Israeli missile defense
systems (Budget includes
$176.0 for procurement of
Iron Dome defense against
short-range rockets and
mortars and $96.8 million
for R&D on three other
systems, for a total of
$272.8 million)
Adds $176.0 million for
Iron Dome and $72.0
million for the other
three Israeli missile
defense systems (total of
$520.8 million authorized)
Shifts the $176.0 million
requested for Iron Dome
procurement to R&D;
Adds $175.0 million for
R&D on the other three
Israeli systems (total of
$447.8 million
authorized)
Adds $175 million for
Iron Dome and
transfers resulting Iron
Dome procurement
(totaling $351.0
million) to OCO
budget; Adds $123.8
million for R&D on
other systems (total of
$571.6 million
authorized
Congressional Research Service
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
33
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Issue
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Develop a replacement for
Russian RD-180 satellite
booster
Adds $220.0 million to
develop a replacement for
the Russian-manufactured
RD-180 rocket engine
used to launch heavy
DOD satellites
Adds $100.0 million to
develop a replacement
rocket propulsion system
Adds $220.0 million to
develop a replacement
for the Russianmanufactured RD-180
rocket engine
Construction of ballistic
missile defense site near the
East Coast (in addition to
current sites in Alaska and
California)
Adds $20.0 million for
planning and design of
East Coast site
None
None
Procurement funding for
National Guard and reserve
forces
Adds $105.2 million
Adds $151.8 million
Adds $1.35 billion (of
which $1.25 billion is in
OCO funding)
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service
To compensate for the added cost of rejecting at least some Administration-proposed savings and
making some sizeable additions to the budget request, H.R. 3979—as the House and Senate
versions of the NDAA would have done—would authorize less than the budget requested for
many programs, with some of the reductions amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. While
some of the proposed reductions were aimed at slowing down certain acquisition programs,
others were justified on grounds that they reflected fact-of-life developments (such as changes in
foreign currency exchange rates) and would have no adverse impact on DOD’s FY2015 activities.
(See Table 14.)
Table 14. Selected Congressional Reductions to the
Administration’s FY2015 Request
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Issue
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Littoral Combat Ships;
Budget requests 3 ships
($1.43 billion)
Cuts 1 ship ($450.0
million); Adds $100.0
million for long lead-time
components
No change to request
No change to request
KC-46 tanker plane;
Budget requests 7 planes
($1.58 billion)
Cuts 1 plane ($229.7
million) because of budget
constraints
No change to request
No change to request
UCLASS carrier-based,
long-range drone; Budget
requests $403.0 million
Cuts $203.0 million
No change to request
No change to request
Army radios and radars
(Budget requests total
$1.15 billion)
Cuts total of $225.0
million from three
programs
Cuts $293.4 million from
the same three programs
Cuts $225.0 million from
the three programs
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Issue
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Anticipated cost
reductions due to
fluctuations in currency
exchange rates
Cuts $ 414.1 million
Cuts $220.9 million
Cuts $220.9 million
Smaller civilian workforce
than budget assumed
Cuts $315.0 million
Cuts 250.0 million
Cuts $421.3 million
Overestimated military
personnel costs in
previous budgets
No change to request
Cut’s $761.1 million
Cuts $688.0 million
Reduction of funding for
service contractors
Cuts $817.5 million
No change to request
No change to request
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization)
CRS Analysis of Selected Military Personnel Issues
For additional detail and analysis of selected military personnel issues touched upon in the FY2015 NDAA, see CRS
Report R43647, FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by (name re
dacted).
End-Strength Reductions (Authorization)
As the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA would have done, H.R. 3979 authorizes
the Administration-proposed reductions in the size of the active and reserve components of the
services. This will reduce active component end-strength by 52,800 to a total of 1,361,400
personnel (Table 8) while reducing reserve component end-strength by 12,900 to a total of
820,800 personnel (Table 9).35
In its report on H.R. 4435, the House Armed Services Committee expressed concern that,
considering ongoing overseas commitments of U.S. forces, the additional reductions that will be
necessary if the budget caps are not lifted, “may have serious implications on the capacity and
capability of the All-Volunteer Force and the ability for the services to meet the National Defense
Strategy.”36
The House committee also directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate
why 25% of Army Reserve and 30% of Army National Guard personnel are not available for
mobilization at any given time, mostly for medical reasons.
35
The NDAA also authorizes the annual end-strength of the Coast Guard Reserve, for which both bills would maintain
the current end-strength of 9,000 personnel, as requested.
36
H.Rept. 113-446, p. 135.
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Compensation and Benefits Changes (Authorization)
The House-passed version of the FY2015 NDAA would block each of the Administration’s
proposals to slow the rate of growth in military pay and benefits, while the version reported by
the Senate Armed Services Committee would authorize some of those initiatives.37
In its report on H.R. 4435, the House Armed Services Committee warned of the cumulative effect
on relatively junior enlisted personnel of the proposed changes in pay and benefits,
recommending that any changes be deferred until Congress receives the recommendations of the
legislatively mandated Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
(MCRMC). This group, established by a provision of the NDAA for FY2013,38 is due to report its
findings and recommendations by February 1, 2015.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report on S. 2410, said it “reluctantly” supported
proposed restraints on the increase for FY2015 in servicemembers’ basic pay and housing
allowances, as well as a proposed increase in certain pharmacy co-payment requirements under
TRICARE. However, the Senate committee, too, called for deferring other proposed changes in
TRICARE and the commissary system pending receipt of the MCRMC recommendations. It also
urged the commission to conduct a survey of servicemembers.
The enacted version of the bill—H.R. 3979—steered a middle course between the House and
Senate bills on these issues. But in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill, House
and Senate negotiators noted that they were deferring judgment on some of the proposed cost
reductions, not rejecting them out of hand, and warning that the overall budget situation would be
a factor in the Armed Services Committees’ future decisions:
We note that if sequestration-level budgets remain in effect for fiscal year 2016 and beyond,
DOD will need to make painful cuts and achieve substantial savings across its entire budget
in order to avoid an unacceptable reduction in readiness of the Armed Forces of the United
States. The [Joint Chiefs of Staff] have urged us to take all action necessary, including
compensation adjustments, to avoid such readiness impacts.39
Military Basic Pay Authorization
Section 601 of the final bill freezes the basic pay of generals and admirals during FY2015, as the
Administration had proposed. The House and Senate bill’s each contained similar provisions.
For personnel of all other ranks, Section 601 of the Senate Committee’s bill would have
authorized a 1% raise in basic pay, beginning January 1, 2015, as called for by the budget request.
In its report on H.R. 4435, the House Armed Services Committee endorsed the 1.8% increase in
basic pay that would occur on that date under existing law40 which ties the annual increase in
37
See “Compensation,” above.
P.L. 112-229, Section 671.
39
Joint Explanatory Statement [hereinafter, JES] to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015 [H.R. 3979] on the House Armed Services Committee website at
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=78ED7A79-9066-43FD-AA75-1D8F14B4B4A2; p. 86.
38
40
37 U.S.C. §1009.
Congressional Research Service
36
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
military basic pay to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), a measure of private
sector compensation. The House-passed bill included no provision relating to the annual increase
in basic pay (except for its Section 602, freezing basic pay for generals and admirals). However,
House bill would have increased the amount authorized for military personnel spending by
$534.9 million—the difference between the cost of the 1% raise included in the budget request
and the 1.8% raise favored by the House committee.
The enacted bill contains no provision relating to basic pay (except for generals and admirals).
However, the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement acknowledges that the President had
“exercised his authority under Section 1009 (e) of Title 37, United States Code” to implement a
1% raise rather than the 1.8% raise that the ECI formula would require.41
Military Retired Pay COLA
H.R. 3979 includes a provision (Section 623) that essentially mirrored Section 621 of the Senate
bill, delaying until January 1, 2016, the effective date of a reduction in the annual cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) for military retired pay. The provision’s roots lay in the Bipartisan Budget
Act (BBA) of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) enacted late in December 2013.
In addition to raising mandatory budget caps in FY2014 and FY2015, that law reduced the cost of
living adjustments (COLAs) provided to military retirees under the age of 62 from a percentage
equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to a percentage that was 1% lower than
the CPI change. Subsequent legislation (P.L. 113-76 and P.L. 113-82) exempted from that
provision all currently serving military personnel who joined prior to January 1, 2014.
Section 623 of the enacted bill extends that exemption to cover all who joined the service prior to
January 1, 2016. In its report on S. 2410, the Senate Armed Services Committee said this would
defer any change in the retirees’ COLA until Congress had time to review the report of the
legislatively mandated compensation review commission (MCRMC), which is due to report early
in 2015.
Housing Allowance (BAH) Authorization
Section 603 of the Senate bill (S. 2410) would have authorized, as requested, a change in the
method for computing servicemembers’ Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in order to allow
DOD to reduce the rate of growth in BAH payments in fiscal years 2015-2017 until they cover
95% of housing and utility costs in a particular region rather than 100% of costs, as currently is
the policy.
The House bill included no provision relating to the proposed change in the housing allowance.
However, in its report, the committee asked DOD to share with the Military Compensation
Commission any analysis it had carried out concerning the likely effects on the force of the
proposed change in the housing allowance.
Section 604 of the final bill allows DOD to implement that portion of the planned reduction in
growth that was planned for FY2015—the first year of the three-year phase-in period—pending
41
JES to accompany H.R. 3979, p. 93.
Congressional Research Service
37
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
the Military Compensation Commission report. “By adopting changes to BAH beginning in the
first year of the proposal, the agreement preserves the option for Congress to achieve the full
savings requested by DOD,” the Joint Explanatory Statement says.42
Commissary Subsidy Authorization
Like the House and Senate versions of the FY2015 NDAA, the final version of the bill rejected
the Administration proposal to reduce by $200 million the annual operating subsidy to the
military commissary system. The subsidy amounted to $1.37 billion in FY2014 and the
Administration requested $1.11 billion in FY2015.
H.R. 3979 authorizes restoration of the $200 million difference to the commissary budget, as the
Senate bill would have done. In its report on S. 2410, the Senate committee directed the Secretary
of Defense to present to the military compensation commission an analysis of the impact of the
commissary proposal on the purchasing power of the families of younger enlisted personnel and
an assessment of other business models for the commissary system. The House bill would have
added $100 million to the commissary budget request.
Section 634 of the final bill—which parallels Section 632 of the House bill—requires the
Secretary of Defense to sponsor a review of the commissary system by an independent
organization “experienced in grocery retail analysis.” The review is to include an assessment of
“the impact that eliminating or reducing the commissary subsidy would have on eligible
beneficiaries.”43
TRICARE Authorization
The House bill rejected the Administration’s proposed increases in TRICARE fees and pharmacy
copays, including the proposed enrollment fee for retirees joining TRICARE-for-Life. The bill
included a provision (Section 736) barring the closure or realignment of any DOD medical
facility pending a report to Congress by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on a
currently ongoing DOD study that is expected to recommend such changes.
The Senate bill would have authorized the Administration’s proposal to increase pharmacy
copayments under TRICARE in ways designed to encourage the use of generic medications and
mail-order refills (Section 702).
Section 702 of the final version of the bill authorizes a $3 increase in the current pharmacy
copayment and requires that all prescriptions for maintenance medications—those used on a
regular basis for chronic conditions such as high cholesterol—be filled either through a pharmacy
at a military medical facility or through TRICARE’s mail-order system.
42
43
JES to accompany H.R. 3979, p. 86.
Ibid., p. 93.
Congressional Research Service
38
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
The House and Senate bills each included provisions building on elements of the FY2014 NDAA
(P.L. 113-66) that changed DOD policy and military law regarding cases of sexual assault within
the Armed Forces.
Following are selected aspects of the sexual assault issue that are addressed in one or another
version of the FY2015 NDAA:
Table 15. Selected Sexual Assault-related Provisions: H.R. 4435 and S. 2410
Issue
Housepassed
H.R. 4435
Senate
Committeereported
S. 2410
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Alleged victims of sexual assault will be consulted as to
whether they prefer an accusation of assault to be tried in
a civilian court or by court-martial
Section 534
Sections 545a
and 545b
Section 534
Victims of a sex-related offense can appeal, on a
confidential basis, the terms of their separation or
discharge from the service
Section 538
Section 545e
Section 547
“General military character” of the accused cannot be
used to establish probability of innocence in a sexual
assault case (the so-called “good soldier” defense)
Section 537
Section 545g
Section 536
Minimum sentence in sexual assault cases includes
dishonorable discharge and two years imprisonment
Section 536
none
none
none
Section 546
Section 541
Service secretary will review (at the request of the
service’s chief prosecutor) of any decision by a convening
authority not to take a case to court-martial
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service
Note: Corresponding provisions of the two bills differ in some respects.
Ground Combat Systems (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected ground force equipment is
summarized in Table A-4. Following are some highlights.
Army and National Guard Helicopters
The House bill would have prohibited during FY2015 the transfer to active Army units of Apache
attack helicopters currently assigned to National Guard units many of which, in turn, would be
equipped with relatively modern Black Hawk troop-carrying helicopters drawn from Army units
(Section 1050). It also would have directed the GAO to review the analysis that was the basis of
the Army’s decision to transfer the Apaches. In its report on the bill, however, the committee
allowed for the possibility that such a transfer eventually might occur, stating: “The committee
Congressional Research Service
39
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
expects that those units that transfer AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the active Army would
receive priority for modernized Black Hawks.”44
The House bill also would have added to the budget $96.4 million to buy six new Black Hawks
for the National Guard plus $45.4 million to modernize early-model Black Hawks currently
equipping National Guard units.
The Senate bill would have allowed DOD to transfer to the active Army as many as 48 of the
National Guard’s 192 Apaches (Section 1703). In addition, it would have added to the budget
$145 million for eight additional Black Hawks for the National Guard.
S. 2410 also would have mandated creation of an independent commission to make
recommendations on the organization of the Army and on the allocation of missions among the
active Army, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard (Title XVII). The bill also would
have required the Secretary of the Air Force to report each year from 2016 to 2019 on that
service’s implementation of recommendations made early in 2014 by a legislatively mandated
panel set up to review the structure of the Air Force, including the allocation of missions between
active and reserve components (Section 1061).
In the final version of the FY2015 NDAA, Section 1703 bars the transfer of any Apache
helicopters from the National Guard during FY2015 but allows the transfer of up to 48 of the
aircraft during the first six months of FY2016. Also, Sections 1701-1712 of the bill creates a
commission to study the allocation of missions between the active-duty Army and its reserve
components, paralleling the Senate bill’s initiative.
Armored Vehicle and Tactical Vehicle Industrial Base
Like the House and Senate versions of the bill, H.R. 3979 authorizes larger amounts than were
requested for tanks and other armored combat vehicles for the stated purpose of sustaining the
specialized network of suppliers and assembly plants that produce such equipment. The House
and Senate Armed Services Committees, in the reports on their respective versions of the FY2015
NDAA, each warned that the Army’s budget request for tanks and other armored combat vehicles
was inadequate to sustain that industrial base. The House committee explicitly discounted DOD’s
contention that sales to foreign governments would keep the armored industrial base intact until
late in this decade, when DOD projects a surge in procurement of such vehicles.
The final version of the bill also mirrors the House bill in authorizing additional funds for Army
trucks. In its report on H.R. 4435, the House Armed Services Committee justified these increases
as a way to even out annual funding for the trucks, avoiding the inefficiencies that would result
fluctuations in annual funding under DOD projected spending plans. (Table 16.)
44
H.Rept. 113-446, p. 199.
Congressional Research Service
40
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 16. NDAA Changes to Authorization Request for Selected Army Vehicles
(amounts are in millions of dollars)
System
Budget
Request
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Senate
Committeereported
S. 2410
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
M-1 tank modifications
237.0
no change
+24.0
no change
M-1 tank “upgrade” with
improved digital
communications
0.0
+120.0
no change
+120.0
Bradley troop carrier
modifications
107.5
no change
+37.0
+37.0
M-88 tank recovery
vehicle procurement and
modifications
52.5
+72.0
+75.9
+75.9
Family of medium tactical
vehicles
0.0
+50.0
no change
+50.0
Family of heavy tactical
vehicles
28.4
+50.0
no change
+50.0
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service
Naval Systems (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected naval equipment is summarized in
Table A-6. Following are some highlights.
Refueling a Nuclear-powered Carrier
Like the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, H.R. 3979 includes provisions intended to
require the Navy to refuel and modernize the aircraft carrier U.S.S. George Washington. The
project—expected to cost $4.7 billion over nearly four years—would equip the ship,
commissioned in 1992, for an additional 23 years of service.
Incremental funding for preliminary work was included in DOD budgets beginning in FY2012,
with extensive work on the ship slated to begin in FY2016. But when presenting the FY2015
budget request, DOD officials said that, because of budget constraints, they were deferring until
2016 a decision whether to refuel and modernize the carrier or retire it. Officials said that the
FY2016 budget request would fund one course or the other depending on whether Congress had
indicated a willingness to provide more funding for DOD in future years than the budget caps
currently in force would allow.
On July 10, 2014, the Navy’s chief shipbuilding manager, Assistant Secretary Sean Stackley, told
a House Armed Services Subcommittee that, in the light of congressional support for retaining the
ship, the Navy was planning to fund the refueling and overhaul of the carrier in future budgets.
The House bill would have required the Navy to proceed with the originally planned mid-life
refueling and modernization of U.S.S. George Washington, authorizing an additional $785 million
for the project. The House bill also would have embargoed use of 50% of the funds appropriated
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in FY2015 until contracts were signed for the refueling
(Section 1024).
The Senate bill would have authorized the Navy to begin work on the carrier using in FY2015 up
to $650 million in funds that had been appropriated in prior budgets but had not been spent
(Section 1021). It also would have barred the Navy from using those funds to perform any work
on the carrier that was not a part of the refueling and modernization work (Section 1021). This
would be consistent with DOD’s announced plan to perform during FY2015 only work that
would be needed whether the ship was to be refueled or retired.
The final version of the NDAA authorizes an additional $795.1 million to begin overhauling the
ship and incorporates as Section 1023 the Senate provision barring use of the funds for any
purpose not required by the refueling and modernization plan.
Temporary Lay-up of Aegis Cruisers and Amphibious Ships
The FY2015 budget request incorporated a plan for the Navy to:
•
keep in service 11 Aegis cruisers and 9 LSD-type amphibious landing transports;
•
tie up 11 other cruisers and 3 LSDs;
•
modernize the out-of-service ships while they are laid up, over the span of
several years; and
•
return the modernized ships to service as one-for-one replacements as their sister
ships (those that remained in service) retire, beginning in the late 2020s.
H.R. 3979—like the House and Senate versions of the FY2015 NDAA—includes
restrictive provisions intended to ensure that the laid-up ships would be modernized and
would not be prematurely scrapped.
In the final version of the bill, Section 1026 requires that modernization work on two of the
cruisers begin in 2015, that none of the ships be retired, and that all of them be maintained in a
condition that would permit their return to active service. It also requires submission to Congress,
with the annual DOD budget request, of a detailed report on the status of each of the ships. The
Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979 expresses the expectation that the ships be
retained in the fleet for their full, planned service lifetimes (not counting any years that the ship
was out of service because it was undergoing modernization).
Missile-launching Submarines
The final version of the FY2015 NDAA—like the House and Senate versions—authorizes the
$1.22 billion requested to develop a new class of ballistic missile-launching submarines to replace
the current fleet of Ohio-class subs, which are slated to begin retiring in 2027. That total includes
$849.3 million for design work related to the new ship and $370.0 million to continue
development of the new sub’s nuclear power plant.
H.R. 3979—like its House and Senate precursors—also creates (Section 1022) a new budget
account to fund construction of the new class of missile subs: the National Sea-Based Deterrent
Fund. Navy officials have said that, if the cost of the new subs—estimated at $6 billion apiece in
FY2013 dollars—has to be absorbed within projected shipbuilding budgets, many other ships will
Congressional Research Service
42
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
be squeezed out.45 The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to transfer into the new account
up to $3.5 billion in unobligated balances from the Navy’s appropriations for FY2014-FY2016.
Air Force Programs (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected types of fixed-wing aircraft is
summarized in Table A-10. Following are some highlights.
A-10 Ground-Attack Aircraft
The House and Senate versions of the FY2015 NDAA each contained provisions that would have
blocked outright the Air Force’s plan to retire its fleet of A-10 ground-attack planes. Each of those
bills also would have authorized additional funds to continue operating the A-10 fleet.
Section 133 of H.R. 3979 prohibits retirement of any A-10s, but it also allows the Air Force to
remove up to 36 of the aircraft from day-to-day operations if the Secretary of Defense certifies to
Congress that doing so is necessary to free up funding needed to sustain the readiness of the Air
Force fighter fleet. The final bill also added to the Air Force authorization request $331.2 million
for continued A-10 operations in FY2015.
Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance (ISR) Aircraft
In the reports on their respective versions of the FY2015 NDAA, the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees each expressed concerns about Air Force plans to retire several of the
service’s surveillance and reconnaissance planes, in some cases, before a planned replacement
would be ready for service. Following is a summary of action related to those issues in the House
and Senate versions of the NDAA and in H.R. 3979, the final version enacted into law. (See
Table 17.)
Table 17. ISR Aircraft Issues in FY2015 NDAA
Administration
proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Replace U-2s with
Global Hawk drones
equipped with
upgraded sensors
Prohibits retirement of U-2s
(Section 133); requires report
on cost and timetable to
replace U-2s without loss of
capability pending deployment
of the proposed replacement
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
Adds $70.1 million to keep U-2s
in service; Cuts $136.0 million
requested to equip Global
Hawks with capability of U-2s;
Report cites provision of
FY2012 NDAA as prohibiting
U-2 retirements (Section 133 of
P.L. 112-81)
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Prohibits retirement of U-2s
(Section 132); Adds $70.l
million to upgrade U-2s and
cuts $136.1 requested to
upgrade Global Hawks for the
U-2 mission
45
CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
43
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committee-reported
S. 2410
Enacted Bill
H.R. 3979
Prohibits retirement of more
than four AWACS until AF
reports how it will meet
requirements with the
residual force of 24 planes
(Section 135)
Prohibits retirement of any
AWACS (Section 136); Adds
$59.5 million to continue
operating all 31 planes
Prohibits retirement of any
AWACS (Section 136); Adds
$59.5 million to continue
operating all 31 AWACS.
Requires report to Congress
on the overall military
requirement for groundscanning radar planes
Prohibits retirement of any
JSTARS planes until Air Force
reports to Congress the cost
and timetable of alternatives
(Section 213); Urges Air Force
to base JSTARS replacement on
existing technology and cuts
$63 million from the $73 million
requested to develop
replacement
Prohibits retirement of any
JSTARS planes until Air Force
reports to Congress the cost
and timetable of alternatives
that would begin delivering
replacement aircraft in 2019;
(Section 219); Authorizes, as
requested, $73 million to
develop replacement
Administration
proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4435
Retire seven (of 31)
AWACS radar planes
Retire 5 (of 16)
JSTARS groundscanning radar planes;
begin developing a
replacement with new
technology, to enter
service in 2022
Source: Created by Congressional Research Service
Missile Defense Programs
The FY2015 budget request included $7.46 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), about
three-quarters of which would go to R&D efforts to develop sensors to detect ballistic missiles in
flight and weapons to destroy them. The House bill would increase the MDA authorization by a
net total of $363 million—about 4.9%. The Senate bill would add a net total of $190 million to
the request. H.R. 3979 would add a net total of $377.6 million, authorizing a total of $7.85 billion
for MDA. In each case, the bulk of the proposed increase would go to several Israeli-developed
defense systems.
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Table A-2. Following are some highlights.
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
The budget request included $1.00 billion for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD),
which includes Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missiles currently deployed in Alaska and
California to protect U.S. territory against a small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs) launched from North Korea or Iran. The final version. H.R. 3979—like the Housepassed version of the NDAA—increases the authorization by $40.0 million to improve the
reliability and maintainability of the system.
The final bill does not authorize planning and design for a third GBI deployment site, to be
located on the East Coast. The House bill would have authorized $20 million for this purpose. In
its report on H.R. 4435, the House Armed Services Committee directed MDA to provide it with
regular updates on the cost and planning estimates associated with a third site and an assessment
Congressional Research Service
44
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
of which of several potential East Coast sites would provide the best protection against missiles
launched from Iran.46
Israeli Defense Systems
The budget request included a total of $272.8 million for various Israeli-designed systems: $96.8
million to continue development of three systems designed to intercept short-range and mediumrange ballistic missiles and $176.0 million to continue acquiring for Israel’s use a fourth system
called “Iron Dome,” designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells.
The House bill would have raised the total authorized for the Israeli systems to $520.8 million:
$352.0 million for Iron Dome and $168.8 million for the other three. The Senate bill would have
authorized $447.8 million: $351.0 million for Iron Dome and $220.6 million for the other three.
H.R. 3979 authorizes $571.6 million—slightly more than double the budget request—for the
Israeli missile defense systems: $351.0 million for procurement of Iron Dome (in the OCO
budget) plus $220.6 million for the other three systems.
Provisions Regarding Guantanamo Bay Detainees
The final version of the FY2015 NDAA—like the House bill—extends through December 31,
2015 restrictions in current law that prohibit the transfer to the United States of detainees held at
the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Section 1033).
By contrast, the Senate bill (Section 1031) would have allowed a detainee to be brought to U.S.
territory for continued detention and/or trial if:
•
the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a plan to close the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility;
•
Congress does not pass (under fast-track procedures) a joint resolution of
disapproval;
•
the Secretary of Defense determines that the transfer served U.S. security
interests and that steps had been or would be taken to reduce any public safety
risks that would result; and
•
Congress received at least 30 days prior notice of the proposed transfer.
H.R. 3979 does not include a provision comparable to Section 1033 of the Senate bill which
would have allowed the temporary transfer of detainees to U.S. territory to deal with medical
emergencies.
Detainee Facilities at Guantanamo Bay
No funds for constructing additional detainee facilities at Guantanamo Bay were
requested in the FY2015 budget and none are authorized by H.R. 3979. The House
46
H.Rept. 113-446, pp. 280-281.
Congressional Research Service
45
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
version of the FY2015 NDAA would have added $69.0 million for construction at
Guantanamo Bay of a “high value detainee complex.”
Section 2808 of the final bill—repeating Section 2806 of the Senate bill—prohibits
funding the construction of any additional facility at Guantanamo Bay “unless it has
enduring military value independent of a high value detention mission.”
H.R. 3979 does not include a provision comparable to Section 1034 of the House bill that
would have barred the use of funds for recreational facilities for Guantanamo Bay
detainees.
Transfer of Detainees to Other Countries
The final version of the bill does not include language paralleling provisions of the Senate bill
that would:
•
Prohibit the transfer of detainees to Yemen (Senate bill Section 1034); or
•
Require a report to Congress on impediments to the transfer of detainees to other
countries using the greater discretion given to the executive branch by Section
1035 of the FY2014 NDAA (Section 1032).
Detainee-Related Provisions
For background and additional analysis of detainee-related provisions in the FY2015 National Defense Authorization
Act, see CRS Report R42143, Wartime Detention Provisions in Recent Defense Authorization Legislation, by (name redact
ed) and (name redacted).
Provisions Relating to DOD Peacekeeping and Counterterrorism47
Global Train and Equip
Section 1205 of the final version of the FY2015 NDAA codifies a modified version of DOD’s
premier “building partner capacity” (BPC) authority, first established by Section 1206 of the
FY2006 NDAA (P.L. 109-163) and regularly extended by subsequent NDAAs. Known for its first
decade by its original section number, “Section 1206,” as codified to Title 10 (Armed Services),
U.S. Code, Section 2282, authorizes the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State, to provide equipment, supplies, training, defense services, and small-scale
military construction to foreign security forces:
•
to enable foreign national military forces, national maritime or border security
forces, and other national-level security forces with counterterrorism
responsibilities to perform counterterrorism operations; and
•
to enable foreign military forces to participate in or to support military, stability,
and peace support operations which benefit U.S. national security interests.
This assistance is subject to all conditions found elsewhere in law on country eligibility and the
types of assistance that may be provided.
47
This section of the report was written by (name reda cted), Specialist in International Security Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
46
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Human Rights Conditions
Section 1204 of H.R. 3979 codifies a modified version of the recurring “Leahy Law” human
rights condition on DOD assistance to foreign security forces included in annual DOD defense
appropriations measures since 1989. As codified to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2249e, the DOD
Leahy Law prohibits providing training, equipment, and “other assistance” to members of a
foreign security force unit where there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross
violation of human rights.48 Exceptions are made for disaster, humanitarian and emergency
assistance, and for cases where a foreign government “has taken all necessary corrective steps” to
address a unit’s gross violations of human rights. (The term “all necessary corrective steps” is not
defined.) The prohibition could be waived in case of “extraordinary circumstances.”
In a related human rights innovation, Section 1206 of the enacted bill authorizes the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to conduct human rights and rule of law
training of security forces and associated foreign government security ministries through FY2020.
This provision permits human rights and rule of law training, under certain conditions, to foreign
security units that would otherwise be prohibited from receiving such training by the DOD Leahy
Law (see above) or other law.
Other Security Assistance-related Provisions
The final version of the FY2015 NDAA also contains two other provisions regarding DOD BPC
and other security assistance:
Section 1201 extends the joint DOD-State Department Global Security Contingency Fund
(GSCF, Section 1207 of the FY2012 NDAA, P.L. 112-81, as amended) through FY2017. The
GSCF may be used for BPC counterterrorism programs similar to those conducted under Section
1206, Global Train and Equip as well as justice sector, rule of law, and stabilization support.49
Section 1201 adds a new provision permitting up to $750,000 to be used per project for smallscale construction; and
Section 1211 of the bill requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to report by February 1 of 2016, 2018, and 2020 on 18 specified DOD programs, describing
assistance provided, stating the cost, and describing metrics, if any used to assess and evaluate
those programs.
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
Section 1510 of H.R. 3979 authorizes up to $1.3 billion in FY2015 DOD appropriations to
establish the new Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) requested by the Administration in
June 2014. (The Administration requested $4 billion in DOD funding.) Section 1534 authorizes
the use of CTPF funds for two purposes: (1) to provide support and assistance to foreign security
forces or other groups or individuals to conduct, support, or facilitate counterterrorism and crisis
48
See: CRS Report R43361, “Leahy Law” Human Rights Provisions and Security Assistance: Issue Overview,
coordinated by (name redacted).
49
See CRS Report R42641, Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
47
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
response activities under existing DOD authorities, and (2) to improve U.S. military capacity to
provide enabling support to counterterrorism and crisis response activities undertaken by foreign
security forces or other groups or individuals.
Congress established a number of limitations on this authority. Section 1534 limits CTPF-funded
activities to the areas of responsibility of the U.S. Central Command (excluding assistance or
other support for the government of Iraq) and the U.S. Africa Command. Activities elsewhere
may be funded only if the Secretary of Defense determines it necessary to counter an increased
national security risk and no other monies are available.
CTPF funds can only be used when transferred to any existing DOD operation and maintenance
account to conduct programs under any existing DOD authority and subject to the requirements
and limitations of that authority. Although Section 1534 does not specify potential recipient
accounts, Section 9016 of the FY2015 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 113-235) provides that up
to $500 million CTPF monies may be used through FY2015 to assist vetted Syrian forces, groups,
and individuals authorized to receive assistance under Section 1209 of the FY2015 NDAA.
Among possible authorities under which CTPF monies may be spent are the “Section 1206”
Build Partner Capacity authority (as codified at 10 U.S.C. 2282), the Global Security
Contingency Fund, and the Regional Defense Counterterrorism Fellowship Program (10 U.S.C.
2249c). P.L. 112-235 designates CTPF monies as Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War
on Terrorism funds.
House Floor Action on H.R. 4435
The House passed H.R. 4435, the Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2015, on May 25, 2014 by a vote of 325-98. Following is a summary of House action
on selected amendments considered during floor debate on the bill:
Table 18. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2015 NDAA (H.R. 4435)
Principal
sponsor
House
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in Enacted
Bill
H.R. 3979
War on Terror
Lambert
667
Require DOD to establish plan with Afghan
government for reimbursement of U.S. contractors
who paid illegal taxes to Afghan government
agreed
voice vote
not included
Schiff
680
Sunset, 12 months after enactment of the bill, the
Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF)
resolution adopted in 2001
rejected
191-233
n/a
Broun
687
en bloc 6
Prohibit use of unmanned aerial vehicle (“drone”) to
kill a U.S. citizen except one who is actively engaged in
combat against the United States
agreed
voice vote
not included
Gibson
687
en bloc 6
Provided that nothing in this bill shall be construed as
authorizing the use of military force against Syria or
Iran
agreed
voice vote
Section 1279
(applies only
to Iran)
Detainee Issues
Congressional Research Service
48
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Principal
sponsor
House
Amdt.
Number
Summary
Disposition
in House
Disposition
in Enacted
Bill
H.R. 3979
Smith
(Wash.)
675
Provide a framework for closure of the detention
facility at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
rejected
177-247
n/a
Smith
(Wash.)
676
Eliminate indefinite detention of persons under
authority of the AUMF and provide for transfer of
detainees to trial by federal or state courts
rejected
191-230
n/a
Prohibit use of taxpayer funds to provide additional or
upgraded recreational facilities for detainees at
Guantanamo Bay
agreed
voice vote
Section 1032
669
Eliminate the expiration date (2021) from Section
1634 of the bill which requires DOD to retain ICBM
launch silos from which missiles have been removed
in a “warm” status that would facilitate their
reactivation
agreed
222-196
Section 1644
Lamborn
679
Prohibit the use of funds to implement the New
START arms reduction treaty until Secretary of
Defense certifies that Russia no longer is occupying
Ukrainian territory and is complying with the INF and
CFE treaties
agreed
233-191
not included
Blumenauer
681
Require Congressional Budget Office to update
annually its report on the projected cost of U.S.
nuclear forces
agreed
224-199
modified
Section 1643
686
en bloc 6
Prohibit the use of funds to remove nuclearweapons capable aircraft from Europe unless
Secretary of Defense certifies that Russia no longer is
occupying Ukrainian territory and is complying with
the INF and CFE treaties; Also require report on cost
and burden-sharing arrangements with NATO of U.S.
nuclear weapons “forward-based” in Europe
agreed
voice vote
modified
Section 1649
Franks
688
en bloc 7
Increase by $99 million the authorization for Aegis
missile defense (offset by reductions in other
programs)
agreed
voice vote
final
authorization
amount
included the
increase
Kelly
685
en bloc 4
Express sense of Congress opposing sale by France
to Russia of two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships
agreed
voice vote
not included
deLauro
687
en bloc 6
Prohibit DOD contracts with Russian arms export
agency Rosoboronexport unless Secretary of
Defense certifies that the agency has ceased
transferring arms to Syria and that Russia has
withdrawn its forces from Crimea
agreed
voice vote
modified
Section 1246
Engel
687
en bloc 6
Establish a policy of opposing the transfer to Russia,
by any NATO member, of defense articles or services
while Russian forces occupy the territory of Ukraine
agreed
voice vote
not included
Ross
686
en bloc 5
Strategic Arms, Arms Control, and Russia
Daines
Turner
Other Issues
Congressional Research Service
49
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Express sense of Congress that military personnel on
active duty who live in or are stationed in
Washington, DC should be exempt from local guncontrol restrictions
agreed
voice vote
not included
Prohibit the use of funds to implement certain
climate-change assessments and reports
agreed
231-192
not included
Gingrey
688
en bloc 7
McKinley
671
Connolly
685
en bloc 4
Direct the President to sell F-16 fighters to Taiwan
agreed
voice vote
not included
Jenkins
678
Create a moratorium on insourcing of previously
contracted DOD activities, unless an activity is
“inherently governmental” or DOD can document
specific savings from insourcing
rejected
179-244
n/a
Kilmer
672
en bloc 1
Prohibit furloughs for budgetary reasons of DOD
civilians paid by working capital funds
agreed
voice vote
not included
Griffith
682
en bloc 2
Reduce (by attrition) the number of generals and
admirals by 33 by the end of 2015
agreed
voice vote
not included
Langevin
684
en bloc 3
Require the National Institute of Mental Health to
conduct a study of the mental, behavioral and
psychological health of Special Operations Forces
agreed
voice vote
modified
Section 586
Source: Created by Congressional Research Service
Notes: “House Amendment Number” is the number assigned to an amendment by the House Clerk, by which
amendments can be traced through CRS’s Legislative Information System (LIS). It is not the same as the number
assigned to the amendment by the House Rules Committee in H.Rept. 113-646, its report on the rule that
governed debate on amendments to H.R. 3979 (H.Res. 770).
During floor action on the bill, dozens of amendments were aggregated into several en bloc amendments, each
of which was agreed to by voice vote. Individual amendments in this table that were agreed to as a component of
one of those en bloc amendments are so identified.
Congressional Research Service
50
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2015 DOD Appropriations Bill
(H.R. 4870; H.R. 83, Division C)
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2015 (H.R. 83, codified as
P.L. 113-235) incorporates as Division C the FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act which
appropriates $483.7 billion for DOD’s FY2015 base budget. Compared with the Administration’s
$484.3 billion request for base budget programs funded in that bill, this amounts to a reduction of
$548 million—slightly more than 1/1000th of 1%. (See Table 19.)
Within those similar gross totals, however, the budget request and the enacted bill have some
significant differences. The bill—like the companion FY2015 NDAA—either rejects outright or
defers a decision on several cost reduction initiatives proposed by the Administration. At the same
time, it appropriates billions of dollars for weapons programs and “readiness” improvements that
were not included in the budget request.
Those added costs, in turn, are offset—in part—by reductions which, according to the bill’s
authors, reflect fact-of-life developments and will have no adverse impact on DOD programs.
The cost of the congressional additions (in the base budget) is further offset by the fact that some
other costs are shifted into the part of the bill that funds war costs (or Overseas Contingency
Operations—OCO), and thus are exempt from the statutory cap on discretionary spending. (See
“DOD Appropriations Overview”, below.)
Table 19. FY2015 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 4870; H.R. 83, Division C)
amounts in thousands of dollars
House-passed
H.R. 4870
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 4870
Enacted Bill
H.R. 83
Division C
128,957,593
128,127,640
128,430,543
128,004,018
Operation and Maintenance
(O&M)
166,002,818
164,533,638
165,786,003
161,655,679
Procurement
89,660,299
91,228,819
91,409,693
93,835,072
Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E)
63,533,947
63,352,890
62,566,834
63,713,275
Revolving and
Management Funds
1,234,468
1,334,468
2,150,078
2,134,480
Defense Health Program and
Other DOD Programs
34,101,361
33851,219
33,641,680
34,144,557
Related Agencies
1,024,194
1,015,194
1,023,374
1,021,600
General Provisions
(including rescissions)
-260,685
976,452
-1,891,348
-803,288
Subtotal:
DOD Base Budget
484,253,995
484,420,320
483,116,857
483,705,933
Amended FY2015
Budget Request
(as of 11/5/14)
Military Personnel
DOD BASE BUDGET
Congressional Research Service
51
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
House-passed
H.R. 4870
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 4870
Enacted Bill
H.R. 83
Division C
63,516,619
79,445,000
59,654,711
63,935,295
547,770,614
563,865,320
541,372,568
547,641,288
112.000
n/a
n/a
112,000
547,882,614
563,865,320
541,372,568
547,753,288
Amended FY2015
Budget Request
(as of 11/5/14)
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OCO)
Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) for DOD
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
and OCO
DOD Ebola-related
Total: FY2015 Defense
Appropriations Bill
Source: Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 83. Division C: the FY2015 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, pp. 147-157. accessed from the House Rules Committee website at
http://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/113-2/PDF/113-S1847-JES.pdf.
DOD Appropriations Overview
As is the case with the companion NDAA, the versions of H.R. 4870 passed by the House and
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as the enacted version of the bill ((H.R.
83, Division C) rejects or deferrs several of the cost-reduction initiatives contained in the
Administration’s budget request. They all bar proposals for another round of military base
closures, the retirement of various types of Air Force planes, the retirement of an aircraft carrier,
and changes in the military commissary system.
On the other hand (as with the authorization measure), the enacted version of the appropriations
bill—like the Senate version—allows some of the Administration’s other controversial proposals
which the House bill would block: reductions in the rate of increase of military basic pay and of
housing allowances. (See Table 20.)
Table 20. Selected Administration Budget and Policy Initiatives
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 4870
Enacted Bill
H.R. 83
Division C
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4870
Annual Raise in
Military Basic Pay
1.0% basic pay raise
Funds1.8% raise;
added cost of $533.5
million provided by
Section 8130
conforms with
Administration
proposal
conforms with
Administration
proposal
Annual Commissary
Subsidy ($1.4 billion
in FY2014)
3-year phase-in of $1
billion reduction,
beginning with $200
million reduction in
FY2015
Adds $100 million to
reverse
Administration
proposal
Adds $200 million to
reverse
Administration
proposal
Adds $190 million to
reverse
Administration
proposal
Congressional Research Service
52
Defense: FY2015 Authorization and Appropriations
Senate
Committeereported
H.R. 4870
Enacted Bill
H.R. 83
Division C
Administration
Proposal
House-passed
H.R. 4870
Housing Allowance
for assignment in
U.S. (currently
covers 100% of cost)
Gradually reduce
rate of growth until
allowance covers
95% of cost
Adds $244.7million
to reverse
Administration
proposal (Section
8136)
conforms with
Administration
proposal
Consistent with
FY2015 NDAA, adds
$88 million to
partially restore
Administration
reduction (Section
8130)
Prospective
retirement of the
aircraft carrier U.S.S.
George Washington
DOD five-year
budget plan assumes
the ship would be
retired instead of
being refueled
Adds $789.3 million
to begin refueling
and modernizing the
ship
Adds $849.8 million
to begin refueling
and modernizing the
ship
Adds $849.5 million
to begin refueling
and modernizing the
ship
Status of 11 Aegis
cruisers and three
amphibious landing
ships near the
midpoint of
expected service life
Mothball the ships
and gradually
modernize them and
put them back into
service to replace
similar ships as they
wear out
Adds $540.0 million
for the
Administration’s
program but
requires that
modernization of
two of the cruisers
begin in FY2015 and
that no more than
six cruisers be
sidelined at a time
(Section 8105)
Provides that no
more than six
cruisers at a time be
laid up for
modernization
(Section 8105)
Adds $540.0 million
for the
Administration’s
program but
requires that
modernization of
two of the cruisers
begin in FY2015 and
that no more than
six cruisers be
sidelined at a time
(Section 8110)
Army/National
Guard helicopter
missions
Move all Apache
attack helicopters
from National Guard
units to Army units;
Re-equip some of
those Guard units
with Black Hawk
troop carriers
Prohibits removing
Apaches from
National Guard units
until FY2015 NDAA
is enacted (Section
8136)
Adds $144 million to
buy six Apaches for
National Guard
(included in OCO
funds)
Prohibits removing
Apaches from
National Guard units
before FY2015
NDAA is enacted
(Section 8133)
[Adds $144 million for
six Apaches in OCO
funds, not earmarked
for National Guard]
A-10 ground attack
planes.
Retire all A-10s.
Prohibits retirement
of A-10s (Section
10027)
Adds $325.7 million
to continue
operating A-10s
Adds $337.1 million
to continue
operating A-10s;
Bars retirement of
A-10s (Section 8141)
E-3A AWACS radar
planes
Retire seven (of 31)
AWACS
Adds $90.5 millio
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.