# Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44454 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 28, 2017 - **Citation:** R44454 ## Text Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations (name redacted) Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget (name redacted) Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy June 28, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44454 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Summary This report discusses the Obama Administration’s FY2017 defense budget request and provides a summary of congressional action on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2017 (S. 2943/P.L. 114-328), and the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 244/P.L. 11531). In February 2016, the Obama Administration requested $523.9 billion to cover the FY2017 discretionary base budget of the Department of Defense (DOD) and $58.8 billion in discretionary funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). The OCO budget category generally includes funding related to the incremental cost of operations such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and certain DOD activities aimed at deterring Russian aggression in Europe. The balance of the DOD budget—that portion not designated as OCO—comprises what is often referred to as the base budget. Combined with an anticipated expenditure of $7.9 billion mandatory defense spending, the Obama Administration’s total budget FY2017 request for DOD was $590.5 billion as of February 2016. On November 10, 2016, the Obama Administration submitted an amendment to the OCO budget request, seeking an additional $5.8 billion to maintain approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan, to provide additional aviation assets for the Afghan Air Force, to support additional requirements in Iraq/Syria, and to address emerging force protection issues. This brought the FY2017 OCO discretionary budget request to $64.6 billion. On March 16, 2017—by which date the FY2017 NDAA had been enacted, but Congress had not completed action on the FY2017 defense appropriations bill—the Trump Administration requested additional DOD funding for FY2017. The additional funds –$24.9 billion for base budget activities and $5.1 billion designated for OCO—brought the total DOD request for FY2017 to $626.3 billion. Congressional deliberations on the FY2017 defense budget occurred in the context of broader budget discussions about the binding annual caps on base budget discretionary appropriations for defense and nondefense programs. These caps were established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA/P.L. 112-25) as last amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA/P.L. 11474). The BCA provides that amounts appropriated for OCO or emergencies are not counted against the established discretionary spending limits. In addition to raising the FY2017 discretionary defense spending cap on the base budget to $551 billion, the 2015 BBA set a nonbinding target of $58.8 billion for OCO-designated defense spending in FY2017. The Obama Administration’s FY2017 budget request matched the base budget cap and the OCO target that were set by the BBA. Of note, the request allocated $5.1 billion of the $58.8 billion in OCO-designated funds for base budget purposes. In the House-passed versions of both the NDAA (H.R. 4909) and the initial defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5293) for FY2017, the total amounts for base and OCO conformed with the amounts specified by the BBA. However, both House bills would have increased the amount of OCO-designated funding to be used for base budget purposes: the authorization bill would have added $18.0 billion and the appropriations bill would have added $15.1 billion to the $5.1 billion so-designated in the Obama Administration’s request. According to the House Armed Services Committee, the remaining OCO funds authorized by H.R. 4909 – amounting to $35.7 billion – would cover the cost of OCO through April 2017. By then, the committee said, the Congressional Research Service Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations newly elected President could request a supplemental appropriation to cover OCO costs for the balance of FY2017. Neither the Senate-passed NDAA nor the version of the defense appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 3000) would have increased the amount of OCOdesignated funding to be used for base budget purposes above the Obama Administration’s request. The enacted version of the FY2017 NDAA (S. 2943/P.L. 114-328), authorized $543.4 billion for DOD base budget activities—$2 million less than was requested—and $67.8 billion designated as OCO funding. The OCO-designated funding totaled $3.2 billion more than the Administration’s OCO request as amended in November and this additional funding was directed at base budget requirements. DOD’s military construction budget for FY2017 was funded in the annual appropriations bill that also funded the Department of Veterans Affairs and certain other agencies (H.R. 5325/P.L. 114223, enacted on September 29, 2016). That bill also incorporated a continuing resolution to provide temporary funding for federal agencies for which no FY2017 funds had been appropriated by the start of the fiscal year (October 1, 2016). This first FY2017 continuing resolution (CR) was succeeded by a second continuing resolution (H.R. 202/P.L. 114-254), enacted on December 10, 2016. Division B of this second FY2017 CR also appropriated a total of $5.8 billion for OCO-designated DOD funds for FY2017, including $1.45 billion requested in the Obama Administration’s November 2016 budget amendment. After the 115th Congress convened in January 2017, negotiators for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees drafted a new FY2017 defense appropriations bill—H.R. 1301. It was based on the original February 2016 budget request for FY2017 plus a portion of the OCO funding requested in November. The House passed H.R. 1301 on March 8, 2017. The Senate took no action on this bill. A third CR (H.J.Res. 99/P.L. 115-30) was enacted April 28, 2017 to provide an extra week to finalize the bills. On May 3, 2017, the House passed a third version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill as Division C of H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. Division C aligned with H.R. 1301 but included a new title (Title X) which provided $14.8 billion in response to the Trump Administration’s request for additional appropriations. All of the amounts in Title X are designated OCO funding. In total, H.R. 244 provided $582.4 billion in funding for the DOD. The Senate passed H.R. 244 on May 5, 2017, and the bill was signed into law (P.L. 115-31) before the third FY2017 CR expired. Congressional Research Service Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Evolution of the FY2017 Defense Budget Request......................................................................... 3 November 2016—Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment ....................... 4 March 2017- Request for Additional Appropriations ......................................................... 5 The Strategic Context ................................................................................................................ 6 The Budgetary Context ............................................................................................................. 8 The FY2017 Caps on Defense Spending ............................................................................ 9 Budget Request in a Historical Context .................................................................................. 10 FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909 and S. 2943)........................................ 13 The Defense Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 5293, S. 3000, H.R. 1301, and H.R. 244) ............. 18 Selected FY2017 Defense Funding and Policy Issues .................................................................. 23 DOD Organization .................................................................................................................. 23 Acquisition Reform ................................................................................................................. 24 DOD Contracting Procedures ........................................................................................... 24 Security Cooperation Management ......................................................................................... 25 Military Personnel Matters ...................................................................................................... 26 Active Duty and Reserve Component End Strength ......................................................... 26 Basic Pay........................................................................................................................... 28 Ground Vehicle Programs ....................................................................................................... 29 See the summary of congressional action authorizing funding for selected ground vehicle programs in Table A-1. Table B-1 provides a summary of appropriations actions related to such programs. Following are selected highlights:............................ 30 M-1 Abrams Tank Improvements ..................................................................................... 30 Paladin Self-propelled Artillery ........................................................................................ 30 Stryker Combat Vehicle .................................................................................................... 31 Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) ........................................................................ 31 Shipbuilding Programs ............................................................................................................ 31 Virginia Class Attack Submarine Program ....................................................................... 32 CVN-78 Class Aircraft Carrier Program ........................................................................... 32 Cruiser Modernization ...................................................................................................... 33 DDG-51 Destroyer Program ............................................................................................. 33 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program ............................................................................... 34 LHA-8 Amphibious Assault Ship ..................................................................................... 34 Selected Aviation Programs .................................................................................................... 34 Air Force Aviation Programs ............................................................................................ 35 Army Aviation Programs .................................................................................................. 36 Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs ..................................................................... 36 Strategic Nuclear Forces ......................................................................................................... 38 Ohio Replacement Ballistic Missile Submarine Program ................................................. 38 B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber ..................................................................................... 38 Nuclear-capable Missiles .................................................................................................. 39 Ballistic Missile Defense Programs .................................................................................. 39 Space and Space-based Systems ............................................................................................. 40 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Satellite Launcher .................................... 41 DOD Overseas Contingency Operations Funding .................................................................. 41 OCO Funding in the FY2017 NDAA ............................................................................... 43 Congressional Research Service Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations FY2017 Defense Appropriations OCO Funding ............................................................... 44 FY2017 “Additional Appropriations” ............................................................................... 46 Figures Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority: FY1965-FY2017 ...............................................11 Figure 2. DOD Budget Authority: FY1965-FY2017..................................................................... 12 Figure 3. National Defense (Function 050) as Percentage of GDP ............................................... 12 Figure 4. Federal Outlays by Budget Category ............................................................................. 13 Figure 5. Authorized Active Component End-Strength, 2001-2017 ............................................. 27 Figure 6. Military Basic Pay Increases vs. ECI, 2001-2017.......................................................... 29 Tables Table 1. February 2016 Request for FY2017 National Defense Budget Authority ......................... 4 Table 2. Changes to FY2017 National Defense Budget Request .................................................... 4 Table 3. Changes to FY2017 DOD Military (051) Budget Request ................................................ 5 Table 4. BCA Limits on National Defense (050) Discretionary Budget Authority ......................... 8 Table 5. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 ..................................................... 14 Table 6. FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act .................................................................. 15 Table 7. Selected Highlights of the FY2017 NDAA ..................................................................... 16 Table 8. FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act: Timeline .............................................................. 20 Table 9. FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act: Funding Levels.................................................... 21 Table 10. Selected Highlights of the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act .................................. 22 Table 11. Authorized Military End-Strength ................................................................................. 27 Table 12. Evolution of the FY2017 DOD Request for OCO-Designated Funds ........................... 42 Table 13. Assumed FY2017 Force Levels for Overseas Contingency Operations ........................ 43 Table 14. FY2017 OCO-Designated Defense Authorizations ....................................................... 44 Table 15. FY2017 Defense OCO Appropriations by Account ...................................................... 45 Table 16. Request for Additional FY2017 DOD Base Budget Authority ...................................... 46 Table 17. OCO Authorized Amounts vs. Appropriated Amounts .................................................. 47 Table 18. Comparison of “OCO for Base” Authorized Amounts vs. “Additional Appropriations” .......................................................................................................................... 47 Table A-1. FY2017 Authorization Action on Ground Vehicle Programs ...................................... 49 Table A-2. FY2017 Authorization Action on Selected Ship Programs ......................................... 50 Table A-3. FY2017 Authorization Action on Selected Aircraft and Ballistic Missile Programs .................................................................................................................................... 51 Table A-4. FY2017 Authorization Action on Selected Missile Defense Programs ....................... 53 Table A-5. FY2017 Authorization Action on Selected Space and Communications Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Table B-1. FY2017 Appropriations Action on Selected Ground Vehicles Programs .................... 56 Congressional Research Service Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table B-2. FY2017 Appropriations Action on Selected Ship Programs ....................................... 57 Table B-3. FY2017 Appropriations Action on Selected Aircraft Programs .................................. 58 Table B-4. FY2017 Appropriations Action on Selected Missile Defense Programs ..................... 61 Table B-5. FY2017 Appropriations Action on Selected Space and Communications Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 62 Appendixes Appendix A. Authorization Action on Selected Programs ............................................................ 49 Appendix B. Appropriations Action on Selected Programs .......................................................... 56 Contacts Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 64 Congressional Research Service Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Introduction This report discusses the fiscal year (FY) 2017 defense budget request and provides a summary of congressional action on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2017 (H.R. 2943/P.L. 114-328), and the Defense Appropriations Act, FY2017 (Division C of H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31). The FY2017 process reflected a running debate about the size of the defense budget given the strategic environment and budgetary issues facing the United States. The debate spanned the end of the Obama Administration and the start of the Trump Administration and concluded about twothirds of the way through the fiscal year. Authorization and Appropriation The congressional budget process distinguishes between “authorizations,” which establish or define the activities of the federal government, and “appropriations,” which finance those activities. In itself an authorization does not provide funding for government activities. An authorization generally provides legal authority for the government to act, usually by establishing, continuing, or restricting a federal agency, program, policy, project, or activity. It may also, explicitly or implicitly, authorize subsequent congressional action to provide appropriations for those purposes. An appropriation generally provides both the legal authority to obligate future payments from the Treasury, and the ability to make subsequent payments to satisfy those obligations. The Obama Administration’s FY2017 budget request for national defense-related activities, and the initial versions of the FY2017 defense authorization and appropriations bills taken up in the House and Senate appear to be similar to one another and consistent with provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA/P.L. 114-74).1 However, a closer look reveals a relatively substantial disagreement between the Obama Administration and the Senate, on the one hand, and the House, on the other hand. The disagreement centered on the intended purpose of as much as $18 billion within that total. On its face, the issue was the allocation of Department of Defense (DOD) funds designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Previously labeled “Global War on Terror” funding, the OCO category was adopted by the Obama Administration in 2009 to designate the budget for activities related to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The remainder of DOD funding—that is, the budget for all activities not designated as OCO—is referred to as the base budget. In the Obama Administration’s February 2016 budget request for FY2017, $5.1 billion of the $58.8 billion in OCO-designated funds were intended to be used for base budget purposes. The Senate-passed version of the NDAA (S. 2943) and the Senate committee-reported version of the defense appropriations bill (S. 3000) followed suit. On the other hand, the House-passed version of the NDAA (H.R. 4909) would have increased the amount of OCO-designated funding for base budget purposes to $23 billion—$18 billion more than the Obama Administration proposed—leaving approximately $36 billion in OCO-designated funding for actual OCO operations through the end of April 2017. The House position was that a newly inaugurated president could then request a supplemental appropriation to carry OCO activities through the remaining five months of FY2017.2 1 P.L. 114-74, the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2015, amended the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) to raise the statutory limits on defense discretionary spending for FY2017 and FY2018. Section 101(d) of the BBA also expressed a non-binding level for Overseas Contingency Operations funding of $58.8 billion in FY2017. 2 H.Rept. 114-537, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Report of the Committee on Armed Services (continued...) Congressional Research Service 1 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations House and Senate negotiations leading to the final NDAA resulted in an authorization of $8.3 billion in OCO-designated funds to be used for base budget purposes—$3.2 billion more than the Administration proposed. President Obama signed the FY2017 NDAA conference agreement on December 23, 2016, enacting P.L. 114-328. The enacted FY2017 defense appropriations bill—Division C of H.R. 244—provided $586.2 billion in funding for the Department of Defense. CRS estimates the amount appropriated include a total of $19.9 billion in funding for base budget purposes that is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funding.3 That bill was the outcome of a sequence of House and Senate actions on the FY2017 defense appropriations bills that paralleled the respective chambers’ actions on the NDAA. In H.R. 5293—the version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill passed by the House on June 16, 2016—the total amounts designated as base budget and as OCO conformed with the amounts specified by the BBA. However, the House bill would have increased the amount of OCO-designated funding to be used for base budget purposes, adding $15.1 billion to the $5.1 billion so-designated in the Obama Administration’s request. On the other hand, the version of the defense appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 3000) would not have increased (above the Obama Administration’s request) the amount of OCO-designated funding to be used for base budget purposes. The Senate did not act on S. 3000 before October 1, 2016, the start of FY2017. By that date, DOD’s FY2017 military construction budget had been funded in the annual appropriations bill that also funded the Department of Veterans Affairs and certain other agencies (H.R. 5325/P.L. 114-223). P.L. 114-223 also included a continuing resolution (CR) to provide temporary funding for federal agencies for which no FY2017 funds had been appropriated by the start of the fiscal year. This first CR (H.R. 5323/P.L. 114-223) provided continuing budget authority for FY2017 effective October 1, 2016, through December 9, 2016. For more information see CRS Report R44636, FY2017 Defense Spending Under an Interim Continuing Resolution (CR): In Brief, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). On November 10, 2016, the Obama Administration submitted an amendment to the OCO budget request, seeking an additional $5.8 billion to maintain approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan, to provide additional aviation assets for the Afghan Air Force, to support additional requirements in Iraq/Syria, and to address emerging force protection issues. This brought the FY2017 OCO budget request to $64.6 billion. On December 10, 2016, the initial FY2017 continuing resolution (H.R. 5323/P.L. 114-223) was succeeded by a second continuing resolution (H.R. 2028/P.L. 114-254). This second CR provided funding through April 28, 2017. Division B of this second FY2017 CR (P.L. 114-254) also appropriated a total of $5.8 billion for OCO-designated DOD funds for FY2017—including $1.5 billion in additional funding requested by the Obama Administration’s November 2016 budget amendment. After the 115th Congress convened in January 2017, negotiators for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees drafted a new FY2017 defense appropriations bill—H.R. 1301. It (...continued) on H.R. 4909, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., May 4, 2016, p. 641. 3 Includes $5.1 billion requested by the Obama Administration in February 2016 and $14.8 billion provided by Congress following the Trump Administration’s March 2017 request for $24.7 billion in additional base budget funding. Congressional Research Service 2 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations was based on the original February 2016 budget request for FY2017, with a deduction of $1.5 billion for OCO activities that had been funded by Division B the second FY2017 continuing resolution (H.R. 2028/P.L. 114-254). The House passed H.R. 1301 on March 8, 2017, by a vote of 371-48. However, no action followed in the Senate and a third continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 99/P.L. 115-30) was enacted April 28, 2017, to extend the provisions of the second continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254) through May 5, 2017. On March 16, 2017, the Trump Administration submitted a request for “Additional Appropriations” for FY2017. The request totaled $30 billion—$24.7 billion for the DOD base budget and $5.1 billion for OCO. The Obama Administration’s base budget request was at the $551 billion BCA limit on defense discretionary budget authority. However, the Trump request included a proposal to increase by $25 billion the FY2017 cap on defense spending. On May 3, 2017, a third version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill passed the House as Division C of H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. Division C generally aligned with H.R. 1301 but included a new title (Title X) which provided $14.8 billion in “Additional Appropriations” for DOD, all of which were designated as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations. H.R. 244 became P.L. 115-31 on May 5, 2017. Military Construction Appropriations For information on FY2017 Military Construction funding see CRS Report R44639, Military Construction: FY2017 Appropriations, by (name redacted) . Evolution of the FY2017 Defense Budget Request The Obama Administration submitted its original FY2017 defense budget request to Congress in February of 2016. The request totaled $551.1 billion in “base budget” discretionary appropriations for the National Defense function of the federal budget (designated function 050). While approximately 96% of this total was funding for the Department of Defense (DOD), it also included funding for defense-related activities of the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other agencies. In addition, the Administration requested $58.8 billion in discretionary funding for OCO (see Table 1). National Defense Budget Function 050 The federal budget is divided into “functions,” each of which encompasses all spending for federal programs intended to serve a broad purpose (e.g., national defense, international affairs), regardless of which agency houses the program. The national defense budget (function 050) is comprised of DOD military activities (subfunction 051), defense-related programs in the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons (subfunction 053), and defense-related activities of the Department of Justice (subfunction 054). Subfunction 051 has historically constituted approximately 95% of the national defense budget request. See CRS In Focus IF10618, Defense Primer: The National Defense Budget Function (050), by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 3 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 1. February 2016 Request for FY2017 National Defense Budget Authority billions of dollars of budget authority Discretionary Subfunction Base OCO Mandatory Total DOD base budget (051) $523.9 $58.8 $7.9 $590.6 Atomic Energy defense-related (053) Other defense-related (054) $19.3 $7.8 $0 $0 $1.1 $0.6 $20.5 $8.4 Total Request (Feb 2016) $551.0 $58.8 $9.6 $619.4 Source: DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2017 [The Green Book], Table 1-9 “National Defense Budget Authority-Discretionary and Mandatory,” pp. 14-15. Notes: Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. The FY2017 defense budget request went through two modifications after its initial presentation—an amendment by the Obama Administration in November 2016 to increase amounts for OCO by $5.8 billion and a request for additional appropriations by the Trump Administration in March 2017 for an additional $30.0 billion in funding ($24.9 billion for base and $5.1 billion for OCO). These modifications brought the total amount (mandatory and discretionary) requested for national defense (050) in FY2017 to $655.2 billion ($585.5 base and $69.7 in OCO). See Table 2. Table 2. Changes to FY2017 National Defense Budget Request billions of dollars of budget authority Obama Feb 2016 Function 050 Obama Nov 2016 Trump Mar 2017 % change Feb 2016 - Mar 2017 Base $560.6 $560.6 $585.5 4.4% OCO $58.8 $64.6 $69.7 18.5% Total $619.4 $625.2 $655.2 5.8% Source: DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2017 [The Green Book], Table 1-9 “National Defense Budget Authority-Discretionary and Mandatory,” pp. 14-15; DOD Comptroller, Overview— Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment, November 2016; and DOD Comptroller, Overview—Request for Additional Appropriations, March 2017. Notes: Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. November 2016—Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment On November 10, 2016, the Obama Administration submitted an amendment to the FY2017 defense budget seeking an additional $5.8 billion in OCO-designated funds, bringing the total OCO request to $64.6 billion. More than half the additional funds ($3.4 billion) would support operations related to Afghanistan, including funds to slow the withdrawal of U.S. troops and to expand the Afghan Air Force. The balance of the additional request would support additional Congressional Research Service 4 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations requirements in the campaign against the Islamic State.4 See Table 3 for more detail on the request. March 2017- Request for Additional Appropriations On March 16, 2017, the Trump Administration requested an additional $24.9 billion for DOD base budget activities and an additional $5.1 billion in OCO funding in FY2017. By this date, the FY2017 NDAA had been enacted, the original FY2017 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5293/S. 3000) had not been enacted by the end of the 114th Congress, and a new FY2017 appropriations bill, drafted by negotiators from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (H.R. 1301), had passed the House. According to DOD, the requested $24.9 billion in base budget authority was intended to compensate for:   insufficient funding for near-term and mid-term combat readiness-related expenses such as equipment maintenance, munitions stocks, and intelligence operations; and unanticipated expenses resulting from enactment of the FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328) such as a higher than budgeted 2017 military pay raise (2.1% vs. 1.6%).5 The increase included $13.5 billion—that is, 54%— for procurement including nearly $2.7 billion for missiles and other munitions. For Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts, the proposed increase would amount to $7.2 billion (see Table 3). Table 3. Changes to FY2017 DOD Military (051) Budget Request millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority Obama Feb 2016 Obama Nov 2016 Trump Mar 2017 Total FY2017 Request Military Personnel $135.3 -- +$1.0 $136.3 O&M $206.0 -- +$7.2 $213.2 Procurement $102.6 -- +$13.5 $116.0 RDT&E $71.4 -- +$2.1 $73.5 Revolving Funds/Other $1.4 -- +$1.0 $2.3 Military Construction/ Family Housing $7.4 -- +$0.2 $8.3* Base Total $523.9 -- +$24.9 $549.6 Base OCO 4 DOD, “Overview: Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment, November 2016” accessed at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2017/amendment/FY17_OCO_Amendment_Overvie w_Book.pdf. 5 DOD, Request for Additional FY2017 Appropriations, March 16, 2017, accessed at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2017/marchAmendment/FY17_March_Amendment. pdf. Congressional Research Service 5 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Obama Feb 2016 Obama Nov 2016 Trump Mar 2017 Total FY2017 Request Military Personnel $3.6 +$0.1 +$0.1 $3.8 O&M $45.0 +$5.1 +$3.6 $53.7 Procurement $9.6 +$0.4 +$1.0 $11.0 RDT&E $0.4 +$0.1 +$0.5 $1.0 Revolving Funds/Other $0.1 -- -- $0.1 Military Construction/ Family Housing $0.2 -- +<$0.1 $0.2 OCO Total $58.8 +$5.8 +$5.1 $69.7 $582.7 +$5.8 +$30.0 $619.3 Grand Total Source: DOD Comptroller, Overview—Request for Additional Appropriations, March 2017. Notes: *Includes amounts appropriated by Division A of P.L. 114-223, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 (September29, 2016). Totals may not reconciliation due to rounding. The Strategic Context The Obama Administration presented its FY2017 defense budget request in the context of an increasingly complex and unpredictable international security environment.6 Some of the unforeseen events that have challenged U.S. security interests since 2014 include        the continued rise of the Islamic State; Russian-backed proxy warfare in Ukraine; North Korean provocation and recent missile test launches; Chinese “island building” in the South China Sea; a series of terrorist attacks in Western Europe (Paris, Nice, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester); the Syrian refugee crisis; and the Ebola outbreak in 2014. In their essentials, none of these challenges is “new” in its own right. What makes them uniquely problematic, perhaps even “unprecedented,” is the speed with which each of them has developed, the scale of their impact on U.S. interests and those of our allies, and the fact that many of these challenges have occurred—and have demanded responses—nearly simultaneously. 7 The 2015 6 See, for example: DNI Clapper “Worldwide Threats” Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee; Department of Defense Press Briefing by Deputy Secretary Work and Gen. Selva on the FY 2017 Defense Department Budget Request in the Pentagon Press Briefing Room, February 9, 2017, found at http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsTranscripts/Transcript-View/Article/653524/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-deputy-secretary-work-and-genselva-on; the National Security Strategy, February 2015, found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ 2015_national_security_strategy.pdf; and the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review for 2014 found at http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf. 7 The Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Open Letter on Defense Reform,” March 14, 2016, http://csis.org/ press/press-release/open-letter-defense-reform. Congressional Research Service 6 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations National Military Strategy (NMS) organized the key security challenges confronting the United States into two primary categories: revisionist states intent on disrupting the international order, such as Russia, Iran, and China, and violent extremist organizations, such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State.8 This NMS is the first official statement of strategy in more than two decades to assert that there is a “low but growing” possibility that the United States may find itself in a conflict with another major power.9 In developing the FY2017 budget to deal with the challenges to U.S. security interests, DOD said it focused on the following priorities:    being able to deter the most technologically advanced potential adversaries with conventional weapons, without assuming that U.S. forces would match the size of enemy forces; increasing the combat effectiveness of U.S. forces by modernizing their equipment and changing their organization rather than by enlarging their numbers; and emphasizing innovation.10 Some observers have called for DOD to be more flexible and agile in order to meet a variety of expected and unexpected threats.11 One of DOD’s more high-profile initiatives, called the “Third Offset,” is an effort to develop and use advanced technologies to mitigate adversaries’ numerical and technological advantages.12 Under this rubric, according to DOD, priority is being given to technologies relevant to guided munitions, undersea warfare, cyber and electronic warfare, and human-machine teaming, as well as wargaming and the development of new battlefield operating concepts.13 Shortly after taking office, President Trump directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a “30day Readiness Review” which included an assessment of “military training, equipment maintenance, munitions, modernization and infrastructure.”14 This readiness review, in part, led to the Trump Administration’s March 2017 request for additional appropriations for DOD. In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan on March 16, 2017, President Trump said the $30 billion request for 8 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “National Military Strategy of the United States 2015: The United States Military’s Contribution to National Security,” June 2015. Available at http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/ Publications/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf. 9 See CRS Report R43838, A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense— Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . 10 Department of Defense, “Press Briefing by Deputy Secretary Work and Gen. Selva on the FY 2017 Defense Department Budget Request,” February 9, 2016. http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/ Article/653524/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-deputy-secretary-work-and-gen-selva-on 11 See, for example, “Remarks by Chairman Mac Thornberry at the National Press Club,” January 13, 2016. http://www.press.org/sites/default/files/20160113_thornberry.pdf 12 The label implies that the current initiative is comparable in its scope to two earlier “offset” strategies pursued by DOD during the Cold War, each of which was intended to nullify the more numerous conventional combat forces of the Soviet Union. The first was the Eisenhower Administration’s reliance on nuclear weapons; the second was the effort, beginning in the late 1970s, to meld long-range target detection equipment, highly accurate guided munitions, and low-observable design (or “stealth”). 13 Mackenzie Eaglen, “What is the Third Offset Strategy?” Real Clear Defense, February 16, 2016. Available at http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/02/16/what_is_the_third_offset_strategy_109034.html. 14 U.S. President (Trump), Memorandum to the Secretary of Defense and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Subject: Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces, January 27, 2017, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/01/27/presidential-memorandum-rebuilding-us-armed-forces. Congressional Research Service 7 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations additional funds in FY2017 would address “critical budget shortfalls in personnel, training, equipment, munitions, modernization and infrastructure investment. It represents a critical first step in investing in a larger, more ready, and more capable military force.”15 The Budgetary Context Congressional deliberations on the FY2017 defense budget have been one facet of a broader budget discussion regarding the annual limits on discretionary appropriations (through FY2021) as established by the Budget Control Act of 2011(BCA/P.L. 112-25).16 The BCA spending limits – one on defense spending (budget function 050), and one on nondefense spending (defined as all other federal programs) – apply to discretionary appropriations for the base budget and are enforced by a budgetary mechanism referred to as sequestration.17 Table 4 shows the statutory changes made to the national defense (function 050) discretionary limits since enactment of the BCA. Although the BCA does not establish limits on the subfunctions (051, 053 and 054), the BCA limits on function 050 have been applied proportionally to the subfunctions in practice. Table 4. BCA Limits on National Defense (050) Discretionary Budget Authority amounts in billions of dollars National Defense (050) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Budget Control Act of 2011 555 546 556 566 577 590 603 616 630 644 Budget Control Act of 2011 after revision (sequestration) 555 492 502 512 523 536 549 562 576 590 American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 555 518* 498* 512 523 536 549 562 576 590 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 555 518 520* 521* 523 536 549 562 576 590 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 555 518 520 521 548* 551* 549 562 576 590 Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 112-240, P.L. 113-67, and P.L. 114-74; CBO Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2012. *[Bold-italics] indicates a statutory change was made to the original BCA limits. 15 For more information see CRS Report R44806, The Trump Administration’s March 2017 Defense Budget Proposals: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) . 16 The Budget Control Act of 2011 codified separate annual limits for each fiscal year through FY2021 that apply to (1) discretionary funding for defense-related activities (except for war-related costs) and (2) for all other federal activities. If Congress appropriates in any year more than is allowed by the relevant cap, the limit is enforced by mandatory across-the-board reductions to all appropriations that are covered by that cap—a process called “sequestration.” 17 Sequestration – across-the-board cuts to non-exempt accounts – is triggered if the total amount appropriated for a category exceeds the cap for that category of spending. For more information, see CRS Report R44039, The Budget Control Act and the Defense Budget: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 8 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations The BCA spending limits do not apply to funds designated for OCO and the law does not define or otherwise limit the term “Overseas Contingency Operations.” Therefore, the OCO designation can be applied to any appropriation which the President and Congress agree to so-designate. That fact undergirds two questions that dominated debate over the allocation of OCO-designated funds in the FY2017 defense budget:   How much in excess of the defense spending cap would be provided for DOD base budget purposes by designating such funds as OCO funds (to avoid triggering sequestration); and Would both the defense and nondefense categories of spending be allowed to exceed their respective spending caps (using OCO-designated funds) by roughly equal amounts? Since 2009, the OCO designation has been applied to a widening range of activities, including those associated with operations against the Islamic State and activities intended to reassure U.S. allies in Europe confronted by Russian assertiveness. In the Obama Administration’s February 2016 budget request for FY2017, $5.1 billion of the $58.8 billion in OCO-designated funds were intended to be used for base budget purposes. The Trump Administration’s request for additional appropriations distinguished between the $24.9 billion for the base budget and the $5.1 billion for OCO. It also proposed reducing non-defense spending by $18.0 billion to offset the proposed base budget defense increase and for increasing the cap on defense spending by $25 billion. The Budget Control Act and Defense Spending For more information on the BCA and detail on the effect of the BCA limits on DOD military (subfunction 051) budgets, see CRS Report R44039, The Budget Control Act and the Defense Budget: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name re dacted) . The FY2017 Caps on Defense Spending The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA/P.L. 114-74) raised the Budget Control Act limits for FY2017 by $30 billion—increasing both defense and nondefense parts of the FY2017 budget by $15 billion. In addition, the BBA identified a nonbinding target of $58.8 billion for OCO funding for DOD in FY2017.18 Similarly, the BBA set a $14.9 billion target for (nondefense) international affairs OCO funding.19 House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry is one of many congressional defense committee members who maintained that the negotiations from which the BBA emerged contemplated a higher FY2017 National Defense base budget. In a February 5, 2016 letter to 18 As originally drafted in October 2015, the BBA would have provided for “not less than” $58.8 billion for defenserelated OCO funding in FY2017. However, the House Rules Committee amended the bill by eliminating the “not less than” phrase so that, as enacted, the BBA simply states that $58.8 billion could be appropriated for DOD’s OCO funding in FY2017 See “House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314 [text of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015],” in the record of the House Rules Committee’s action on that Senate amendment, October 27, 2015. https//rules.house.gov/bill/hr-1314-sa-0. See also “Amendment to the House Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner (Amendment #2)” in the record of the House Rules Committee’s action on “Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314,” October 27, 2015. https//rules.house.gov/bill/hr-1314-sa-0. 19 The International Affairs budget—designated Budget Function 150—is, for the most part, funded by Congress in the annual State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriation bill. Under the BCA-created spending caps regime, the international affairs budget is included in the non-defense category. Congressional Research Service 9 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, Thornberry contended that the appropriate benchmark for the FY2017 National Defense base budget was “approximately $574 billion,”– the amount incorporated into the House-passed version of the FY2016 congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 27) based on the Administration’s February 2015 projection for FY2017.20 Instead of matching its original projection, however, the Obama Administration’s FY2017 base budget request for national defense matched the BBA’s $551.1 billion cap and the $58.8 billion OCO level. Of the OCO request, approximately $5 billion was identified for base budget activities. Thus, the Administration’s budget request would provide a total of $556.1 billion for FY2017 base budget defense operations—$18 billion less than the previously projected request. Chairman Thornberry argued the Obama Administration had erred in treating the BBA’s nonbinding OCO level as “a ceiling, not a floor” and failed to sufficiently resource the needs of the Department.21 To bring FY2017 base defense funding up to $574 billion—$23 billion higher than that BBA defense cap—without triggering sequestration, Thornberry called for authorizing $23 billion of OCO-designated funding for base budget purposes (about $18 billion more than the Administration’s OCO for base budget request). Keeping with the $58.8 billion OCO target set by BBA, Thornberry proposed that the resulting shortfall in funding for actual OCO requirements could be made up for by a supplemental appropriations request submitted early in 2017 by the newly installed Administration. H.Con.Res. 125, the FY2017 House Budget Resolution reported by the Budget Committee on March 23, 2016, mirrored Chairman Thornberry’s proposal to allow $574 billion for national defense base budget purposes. Of that amount, $551 billion would be designated as base budget funding and the remaining $23 billion would be drawn from OCO-designated funding. The committee-reported budget resolution also contained reconciliation instructions to 12 House committees, directing them to report legislation that would reduce the deficit over the period of FY2017 to FY2026. In addition to reconciliation instructions, the resolution included a policy statement declaring that the House would consider legislation, early in the second session of the 114th Congress, to achieve mandatory spending savings of not less than $30 billion over the period of FY2017 and FY2018 and $140 billion over FY2017-FY2026. Ultimately, the resolution was not passed by the House or Senate and, therefore, had no force.22 It was in this environment that the House and Senate began legislative activity on the FY2017 NDAA and defense appropriations bill. Budget Request in a Historical Context The $523.9 billion requested by the Obama Administration for DOD’s FY2017 base budget was approximately 0.4% higher than the corresponding FY2016 appropriation of $521.7 billion. The Trump Administration’s March 2017 request for additional FY2017 appropriations brought the DOD military base budget request to $549.5 billion. Compared with the FY2016 appropriation of $522 billion, it would provide an increase of 5%. 20 Letter from The Honorable William M. “Mac” Thornberry, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, to The Honorable Tom Price, Chairman, House Committee on the Budget, February 5, 2016. 21 Ibid. 22 Paul M. Krawzak, “Latest Plan for House Budget Resolution Falters,” CQ Roll Call, May 17, 2016 http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4889750?5&search=x9dFjJlP. Congressional Research Service 10 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations These increases followed three consecutive years (FY2013-15) in which the DOD base budget hovered between $495.0 billion and $496.1 billion after having dropped in FY2013 by approximately $35 billion (without adjusting for inflation) from the FY2012 level. A 7% reduction in DOD’s budget in FY2013 reflected the government-wide spending reduction program initiated by the 2011 BCA (see Figure 1). Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority: FY1965-FY2017 billions of dollars Source: CRS calculation based on data from OMB, Budget of the United States Government, FY2017: Historical Tables, Table 6-8, and DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2017 [The Green Book], Table 2-1. “Base Budget, War Funding and Supplementals by Military Department, by Public Law Title,” and CBO Estimate, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, May 1, 2017. Notes: The base budget incorporates supplemental appropriations associated with natural disasters not connected with OCO. Adjusted for the cost of inflation, the Obama Administration’s February 2016 budget request for FY2017 was approximately 9% higher than the average (mean) annual defense budget authority since the end of the Vietnam War (1975). In further comparison, the initially requested amount was about 14% lower than the enacted amount in FY1985, the peak year of defense spending during the Cold War. The base budget was 24% higher than the last defense budget enacted before the attacks of September 11, 2001. If the $58.8 billion initial OCO request is included, the total request was 38% more than the FY2000 enacted base budget (see Figure 2). Congressional Research Service 11 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Figure 2. DOD Budget Authority: FY1965-FY2017 billions of 2017 dollars Source: CRS analysis of Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2017 [The Green Book], Table 6-8, “Department of Defense Budget Authority by Public Law Title,” pp. 133-39, and CBO Estimate, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, May 1, 2017. Notes: All enacted and supplemental funding is included. At the February 2016 requested level, the total FY2017 DOD budget (including OCO funds) would amount to approximately 3.1% of the Gross Domestic Product (see Figure 3). Figure 3. National Defense (Function 050) as Percentage of GDP FY1962-FY2021 Source: OMB Historical Table 8.4 and CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027, January 2017. Congressional Research Service 12 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Notes: Outlays include programs designated as Overseas Contingency Operations and other adjustments to the discretionary budget authority limits established by the BCA as amended. Spending on defense, as a percentage of total federal outlays by budget category, has declined from approximately 41.1% in 1965 to 14.3% in FY2017. Defense spending is projected to further decline to 11.6% of the budget by 2021, while mandatory spending and net interest is forecast to consume 65.1% of budgetary resources (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Federal Outlays by Budget Category FY1962-FY2021 in billions of nominal dollars Source: OMB Historical Table 8.1 and CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027, January 2017. Notes: CBO projections are based on current law, and assume that the limits on discretionary budget authority established by the BCA as amended will proceed as scheduled. Outlays include programs designated as Overseas Contingency Operations and other adjustments to the discretionary budget authority limits established by the BCA as amended. Trends in Federal Spending For additional information on mandatory spending see CRS Report R44641, Trends in Mandatory Spending: In Brief, by (name redacted) . For information on federal deficits and debt CRS Report R44383, Deficits and Debt: Economic Effects and Other Issues, by (name redacted) . FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909 and S. 2943) The debate about how much to spend on defense in FY2017 played out in Congress’ deliberations on the NDAA. Congressional Research Service 13 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 5. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 H.R. 4909 and S. 2943 (114th Congress) Committee House Senate H.R. 4909 S. 2943 House Senate Public Law 6/14/2016 Vote: 84-13 12/2/2016 Vote: 375-34 12/8/2016 Vote: 92-7 12/23/2016 P.L. 114-328 H.R. 4909 S. 2943 5/4/2016 H. Rept. 114-537 5/18/2016 5/18/2016 S. Rept. 114-255 Vote: 277-147 Conference Report (H.Rept. 114-840) Source: H.R. 4909 and S. 2943. Both the Obama Administration’s original FY2017 defense budget request and H.R. 4909 as passed by the House aligned with the BCA defense cap for FY2017. Likewise, the total OCO amounts reflected the 2015 BBA agreement—the Administration request and the House-passed bill each designated $58.8 billion of the amount authorized for DOD as OCO funding. However, the House-passed bill would have allocated $23.1 billion of OCO-designated funding to DOD base budget purposes—$18.0 billion more than the Administration proposed. According to the House Armed Services Committee, the remaining OCO funds authorized by H.R. 4909— amounting to $35.7 billion—would cover the cost of OCO through April 2017. By then, the committee said, the newly elected President could request a supplemental appropriation to cover OCO funding requirements through the remaining months of FY2017.23 The Senate-passed NDAA also would have complied with the BCA caps and the 2015 BBA agreement on minimum funding for OCO by authorizing $523.9 billion for base budget activities and $58.8 billion for OCO. During floor debate on the bill, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain proposed an amendment to S. 2943 that would have authorized an additional $17 billion designated as OCO funding to be used for base budget purposes.24 Had the amendment been agreed to, the Senate bill nearly would have matched the House-passed bill, while also providing full year OCO funding. Senator Jack Reed and Senator Barbara Mikulski, senior Democrats on the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, respectively, proposed an amendment to the McCain amendment that would have increased non-DOD spending by $18 billion to provide “parity” between defense and nondefense spending. Motions to invoke cloture (that is, to end debate and force a vote) on each amendment failed to achieve the required three-fifths majority. Accordingly, the McCain amendment was withdrawn, nullifying the Reed/Mikulski amendment as well, and the bill was passed by a vote of 84-13. The conference report on the FY2017 NDAA, enacted as P.L. 114-328, designated $8.3 billion in OCO funds for base budget purposes, about $3.2 billion more than the Administration had requested. (See Table 6.) President Obama signed the FY2017 NDAA conference agreement on December 23, 2016, enacting P.L. 114-328. 23 H.R. 4909’s authorization for Operation and Maintenance funding, Military Personnel funding, and Working Capital funding designated as OCO would expire on April 30, 2017 (Section 1504, 1505, and 1506). House Committee on Armed Services, "Opening Statement of Chairman Thornberry," press release, April 27, 2016. 24 S.Amdt. 4229 to S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 114th Cong. (2016). Congressional Research Service 14 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 6. FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 4909 and S. 2943/P.L. 114-328 amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority Title Budget Request* Housepassed H.R. 4909 Conference Report S. 2943 P.L. 114-328 Senatepassed S. 2943 Procurement $101,971.6 $103,062.3 $102,435.0 $102,422.7 Research and Development $71,391.8 $71,629.8 $71,227.2 $71,110.6 Operation and Maintenance $171,318.5 $169,325.3 $171,389.8 $171,870.9 Military Personnel $135,269.2 $134,849.8 $134,018.4 $134,569.5 Defense Health Program and Other Authorizations $36,557.0 $37,025.6 $37,398.0 Military Construction/Family Housing $7,444.1 $7,694.0 $7,477.5 $7,709.6 $523,952.1 $523,586.9 $523,945.8 $523,741.6 $19,240.5 $19,512.1 $19,167.6 $19,359.8 $211.0 $300.0 n/a $300.0 TOTAL: National Defense Base Budget $543,403.6 $543,399.0 $543,113.4 $543,401.4 OCO for OCO purposes $53,742.2 $35,741.5 $58,890.5 $59,516.0 OCO for base budget purposesb $5,055.8 $23,052.1 $0.0 $8,250.4 TOTAL: DOD OCO Budget $58,798.0 $58,793.5 $58,890.5 $67,766.4 GRAND TOTAL: NDAA $602,201.6 $602,192.5 $602,004.0 $611,167.8 Subtotal: DOD Base Budget Atomic Energy Defense Activities Defense-related Maritime Administrationa $36,058.4 Source: H.Rept. 114-537, H.R. 4909, S.Rept. 114-255, and S. 2943. Notes: *Obama Administration February 2016 request. Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. a. Funding authorization for this program, provided in Title XXXV of the House bill, is outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee. b. In its report on S. 2943, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not identify OCO funding that was requested or authorized for base budget purposes. Congressional Research Service 15 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 7. Selected Highlights of the FY2017 NDAA H.R. 4909, S. 2943/P.L. 114-328 Issue House NDAA H.R. 4909 Senate NDAA S. 2943 Conference Report S. 2943 P.L. 114-328 [H. Rept, 114-537] S.Rept. 114-255] [H. Rept. 114-840] Congressional Funding Changes Reductions to the request on the basis of unobligated balances from prior budgets, excessive fuel price estimates, unjustified growth, or other factors Would reduce the request by $1.77 billion, of which $1.12 billion comes from the Operation and Maintenance accounts. Would reduce the request by $935 million, of which $880 million comes from the Military Personnel accounts. Reduces the request by $1.28 billion in Operation and Maintenance accounts and $1.29 billion from Military Personnel Accounts, but adds $1.28 billion and $1.29 billion, respectively, to OCO for base requirements in such accounts. Foreign currency exchange rate assumptions Would cut $429 million on the assumption that the goods and services bought by U.S. forces abroad will cost less than budgeted due to currency exchange rates. Would cut $121 million due to assumptions regarding currency exchange rates. Cuts $573 million due to assumptions regarding currency exchange rates. Maintenance and Repair of Facilities Would add $2.4 billion (in OCO funds). Would add $839 million (in base budget). Adds $396.7 million ($198.9 million in base and $197.8 million in OCOdesignated-for-base). Ship Procurement for which $18.4 billion was requested Would increase shipbuilding authorization by a total of $2.3 billion (in OCO funds); Includes funds for one additional Littoral Combat Ship, partial funding for a destroyer and an amphibious landing transport, and $263 million to accelerate construction of an aircraft carrier. Would add $100 million; includes partial funding for a destroyer and an amphibious landing transport; cuts $28 million from request the for Littoral Combat Ship. Adds $490 million; includes partial funding for a destroyer and adds $440 million for amphibious landing transport (LPD-29 or LX(R). Cuts $28 million from request for the Littoral Combat Ship. To meet BBA budget caps, reduce FY2017 aircraft procurement funding by 12% ($4.34 billion) below amount projected in early 2015 Would add a total of $5.9 billion to the requested aircraft procurement authorization accounts (using OCO funds). Would add a total of $353 million to the requested aircraft procurement accounts. Cuts $270.3 million from the requested aircraft procurement accounts ($244.7 million from base and $25.6 million from OCO). Congressional Research Service 16 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Issue House NDAA H.R. 4909 Senate NDAA S. 2943 Conference Report S. 2943 P.L. 114-328 [H. Rept, 114-537] S.Rept. 114-255] [H. Rept. 114-840] Administration Policy Initiatives Administration efforts to close Guantanamo Bay detention site Would prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States (Section 1032) or to certain other countries (Section 1034). Would prohibit the permanent transfer of detainees to the United States or to certain other countries (Sections 1021, 1026, 1029); would allow temporary transfer to U.S. for medical treatment (Section 1024). Maintains existing restrictions on the closure of the detention facility; extends current prohibitions on transfers of detainees into the United States and construction or modification of facilities in the United States for detainees (Sections 10321035). Plan a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round Would prohibit the use of funds for a BRAC round (Section 2707); cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning. Would prohibit the use of funds for a BRAC round (Section 2702); cuts $4 million slated for BRAC planning. Includes the Senate provision (Section 2702); cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning. Provide 1.6% raise in military basic pay Requires a 2.1% raise (§601); add $330 million for the cost Approves Administration proposal (§601) Senate recedes to the House, adopting the 2.1% pay raise (Section 601); adds $330 million (in base budget). Cuts end-strength by 27,015 active and 9,800 reserve component personnel Increases current endstrength by 1,700 activeduty and 15,200 reserve component; adds $3.2 billion for the added cost Approves Administration proposal Authorizes an endstrength increase of 24,000 active personnel and 12,000 reserve component personnel; adds $1.35 billion (in OCO funds) to the request. Introduces new TRICARE fees and increase existing fees and co-pays Establishes some TRICARE fees and co-pays similar to Administration proposal (§701) Makes significant changes to TRICARE (Title VII, Subtitle A); consolidates medical departments of services with Defense Health Program (§721) Renames the TRICARE Standard/Extra health plan option to TRICARE Select; modifies enrollment fees, deductibles, catastrophic caps, and co-payments for beneficiaries in the retired category and active duty family members who join the military on or after January 1, 2018; requires an open enrollment period; and prescribes certain requirements for pre-authorization for referrals under TRICARE Prime (Section 701). Congressional Research Service 17 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations House NDAA H.R. 4909 Senate NDAA S. 2943 Conference Report S. 2943 P.L. 114-328 [H. Rept, 114-537] S.Rept. 114-255] [H. Rept. 114-840] Rejects proposed change in current law to allow reduction; adds $86 million for wing operations Incorporates the proposed change in law allowing reduction to 9 wings (§1088) Reduces to 9 the minimum number of carrier air wings until additional deployable aircraft carriers can fully support a tenth carrier air wing, or October 1, 2025, whichever comes first, at which time the Secretary of the Navy shall maintain a minimum of ten carrier air wings (Section 1042). Issue Disbands one (of 10) active-duty carrier air wings Congressional Policy Initiatives Registration of women for the draft Had been required by bill as reported by HASC, but provision was deleted by House Rules Committee Required by Section 591 Does not include Senate Section 591. Troop levels in Afghanistan (budget assumed 5,500) Would add $2.33 billion to support deployment of 9,800 U.S. troops (rather than 5,500 as proposed in the original FY2017 OCO budget). Would make no change to the original FY2017 request. Agreement supports the November 2016 amended OCO request, including $2.5 billion in additional funding to maintain approximately 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Ballistic Missile Defense – Requested $7.51 billion, including $146 million for Israeli-designed systems Would add $635 million, including $480 million for Israeli systems; would require demonstration of space-based missile defense by 2025 (§1656) Would add $250 million, including $135 million for Israeli systems. Would make a net addition of $414 million, including $455 million for Israeli systems; encourages DOD to consider feasibility of space-based missile defense (Section 1683). Security cooperation with partner countries Recodifies several existing authorities to train and assist partner country forces (Sections 1201-06) Broadens the range of purposes for which DOD can train, equip, and assist partner country forces (Sections 1251-65) Incorporates several provisions from each earlier version of the bill (Sections 1204-05, 124153) The Defense Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 5293, S. 3000, H.R. 1301, and H.R. 244) In drafting H.R. 5293, the House Appropriations Committee generally followed the HASC and approved $510.6 billion in base discretionary budget authority and $58.6 billion for OCOdesignated funding, with $17.5 billion of that designated as “base budget requirements.” As noted, the Administration and many in Congress have objected to providing defense funding for base budget requirements in excess of the spending cap unless it is accompanied by a comparable increase in funding for nondefense, base budget programs. Despite these objections, H.R. 5293 Congressional Research Service 18 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations passed the House without amendment to the designation of OCO funding for base requirements on June 16, 2016. The Senate version of the defense appropriations bill, S. 3000, was reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, 2016 and would have provided $509.5 billion in discretionary base budget authority along with $58.6 billion for OCO requirements Unlike the House, the Senate did not use OCO-designated funds to increase the base budget. However, the Senate committee noted in a press release that the committee identified “$15.1 billion from more than 450 specific budget cuts and redirect[ed] those savings to high-priority national security needs.”25 In addition to routine reductions due to lower-than-anticipated fuel costs and unobligated balances from prior-year appropriations totaling $5.4 billion, S. 3000 proposed additional savings achieved through efforts to “improve funds management,” “restore acquisition accountability,” and “maintain program affordability.”26 Many of the programmatic increases proposed by the Senate committee (and offset in large part by the $15.1 billion in savings described above) were aligned with the increases proposed by one or another of the NDAA versions (H.R. 4909 and S. 2943) or by H.R. 5293. The Senate did not act on S. 3000 before October 1, 2016, the start of FY2017. By that date, DOD’s FY2017 military construction budget had been funded in the annual appropriations bill that also funded the Department of Veterans Affairs and certain other agencies (H.R. 5325/P.L. 114-223). P.L. 114-223 also included a continuing resolution (CR) to provide temporary funding for federal agencies for which no FY2017 funds had been appropriated by the start of the fiscal year. This first CR (H.R. 5323/P.L. 114-223) provided continuing budget authority for FY2017 effective October 1, 2016, through December 9, 2016. On December 10, 2016, the initial FY2017 continuing resolution (H.R. 5323/P.L. 114-223) was succeeded by a second continuing resolution (H.R. 2028/P.L. 114-254). This second CR provided funding through April 28, 2017. Division B of this second FY2017 CR (P.L. 114-254) also appropriated a total of $5.8 billion for OCO-designated DOD funds for FY2017—including $1.5 billion in additional funding requested by the Obama Administration’s November 2016 budget amendment. FY2017 Continuing Resolutions For more information see CRS Report R44636, FY2017 Defense Spending Under an Interim Continuing Resolution (CR): In Brief, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) . After the 115th Congress convened in January 2017, negotiators for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees drafted a new FY2017 defense appropriations bill—H.R. 1301. It was based on the original February 2016 budget request for FY2017, with a deduction of $1.5 billion for OCO activities that had been funded by Division B the second FY2017 continuing resolution (H.R. 2028/P.L. 114-254). The House passed H.R. 1301 on March 8, 2017, by a vote of 371-48. However, no action followed in the Senate and a third continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 99/P.L. 115-30) was enacted April 28, 2017, to extend the provisions of the second continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254) for an additional week, to allow negotiators to finalize the agreement. (See Table 8.) 25 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Senate Appropriations Committee Approves FY2017 Defense Funding Bill,” press release, May 26, 2016, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/senate-appropriationscommittee-approves-fy2017-defense-funding-bill. 26 S.Rept. 114-263 Congressional Research Service 19 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 8. FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act:Timeline H.R. 5293, S. 3000, H.R. 1301, and H.R. 244* Committee Markup House Passage H.R. 5293 5/17/2016 H.Rept. 114-577 6/16/2016 Vote: 282-138 S. 3000 5/26/2016 S.Rept. 114-263 Origin HAC-D SAC-D 1st Bicameral Agreement 2nd Bicameral Agreement Number H.R. 1301a 3/8/2017 Vote: 371-48 H.R. 244 5/2/2017 Vote: 309-118 Senate Passage Public Law 5/4/2017 Vote: 79-18 5/4/2017 P.L. 115-31 Source: H.R. 5293, S. 3000, H.R. 1301 (all in the114th Congress) and H.R. 244 (115th Congress). Note: *An initial continuing appropriations resolution for FY2017 (P.L. 114-223) was enacted 9/29/2016 and provided appropriations for the DOD at 99.5% of FY2016 appropriated levels through 12/9/2016. A second continuing resolution, (P.L. 114-254), enacted on December 10, 2016, that provides funding for those agencies at a rate equivalent to 99.8% of the FY2016 appropriated levels. A third continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 99/P.L. 11530) was enacted April 28, 2017, and extending P.L. 114-254 to May 5, 2017. This table only summarizes congressional action on full-year defense appropriations bills. a. The Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 1301 can be found in the Congressional Record, March 8, 2017, pp. H1640-H1935. On March 16, 2017, the Trump Administration submitted a request for “Additional Appropriations” for FY2017. The request totaled nearly $30 billion—$24.7 billion for the DOD base budget and $5.1 billion for OCO. The Obama Administration’s base budget request was at the $551 billion BCA limit on defense discretionary budget authority. Congress was faced with three main options: raise the BCA limit; designate any additional appropriations as OCO; or not respond to the newly elected President’s request for additional FY2017 resources for defense. On May 3, 2017, a third version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill passed the House as Division C of H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. Division C generally aligned with H.R. 1301 but included a new title (Title X) which provided $14.8 billion in “Additional Appropriations” for DOD, all of which were designated as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations. In total, H.R. 244 provided $586.2 billion in funding for the Department of Defense. H.R. 244 became P.L. 115-31 on May 5, 2017. The amounts appropriated include a total of $19.9 billion in funding for base budget purposes that is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funding.27 (See Table 9.) 27 Includes $5.1 billion requested by the Obama Administration in February 2016 and $14.8 billion provided by Congress following the Trump Administration’s March 2017 request for $24.7 billion in additional base budget funding. Congressional Research Service 20 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 9. FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act: Funding Levels H.R. 5293, S. 3000, H.R. 1301 and H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31 amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority Budget Requesta H.R. 5293 S. 3000 Military Personnel $128,902.3 $128,168.5 $127,976.5 $128,726.0 $128,726.0 Operation and Maintenance $171,318.5 $173,680.1 $170,698.9 $167,603.3 $167,603.3 Procurement $101,916.4 $104,200.6 $105,253.8 $108,426.8 $108,426.8 Research and Development $71,391.7 $70,292.9 $70,800.8 $72,301.6 $72,301.6 Revolving and Management Funds $1,371.6 $1,371.6 $1,561.6 $1,511.6 $1,511.6 Defense Health Program and Other Authorizations $35,284.7 $35,358.4 $35,815.2 $35,615.8 $35,615.8 Related Agencies $1,047.6 $997.6 $1,039.4 $1,029.6 $1,029.6 -- -$3,423.6 -$3,680.2 -$5,583.7 -$5,583.7 Title General Provisions (net) H.R. 1301 H.R. 244 P.L. 115-31 Subtotal: DOD Base Budget $511,232.8 $510,646.1 $509,466.1 $509,631.0 $509,631.0 OCO for OCO purposesb $53,742.2 $35,741.5 $58,890.5 $61,822.0 $61,822.0 OCO-designated additional appropriationsc $5,055.8 $23,052.1 $0.0 $0.0 $14,752.3 Total: DOD OCO Budget $58,798.0 $58,626.0 $58,635.0 $61,822.0 $76,574.3 TOTAL: DOD Appropriations $569,858.4 $569,272.1 $568,101.1 $571,453.0 $586,205.3 Source: H.Rept. 114-577 to accompany H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263 to accompany S. 3000, H.R. 1301 and H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31. The Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 1301 can be found in the Congressional Record, March 8, 2017, pp. H1640-H1935. The Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 244 can be found in the Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, Book II, pp. H3391-3703. Notes: Includes only those accounts under the jurisdiction of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittees. Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. Does not include scorekeeping adjustments. An initial continuing appropriations resolution for FY2017 (P.L. 114-223) was enacted 9/29/2016 and provided appropriations for the DOD at 99.5% of FY2016 appropriated levels through 12/9/2016. A second continuing resolution, (P.L. 114-254), enacted on December 10, 2016, that provides funding for those agencies at a rate equivalent to 99.8% of the FY2016 appropriated levels. A third continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 99/P.L. 115-30) was enacted April 28, 2017, and extending P.L. 114-254 to May 5, 2017. This table only summarizes congressional action on full-year defense appropriations bills. a. Obama Administration, February 2016 request. b. In its report on S. 3000, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not identify OCO funding that was requested or authorized for base budget purposes. Neither did the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 1301. c. See Title X of Division C, H.R. 244. Table 10 provides summaries of selected highlights of the House-passed and Senate-committee passed FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act: Congressional Research Service 21 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Table 10. Selected Highlights of the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act H.R. 5293, S. 3000, and H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31 Issue First House-passed bill H.R. 5293 [H.Rept. 114-577] First Senate committeereported bill S. 3000 [S. Rept. 114-263] H.R. 244 P.L. 115-31 [Joint Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, Book II, pp. H3391-3703] Congressional Funding Changes Rescissions of funds appropriated in previous fiscal years Rescinds $2.3 billion Rescinds $4.1 billion Rescinds $5.1 billion Reductions to draw down excess cash balances in revolving funds Cuts $336 million Cuts $706.5 million Cuts $867 million Facilities maintenance and repair ($9.6 billion requested) Adds $1.6 billion Adds $154 million Adds $148.0 million Readiness improvement lumpsum additions Adds $3.9 billion Adds $2.5 billion Adds $801 million Shipbuilding procurement and conversion ($18.4 billion requested) Adds $3.2 billion Adds $2.1 billion Adds $2.8 billion FY2017 Aircraft procurement request lower than projected by 12% ($4.3 billion) Adds $5.4 billion Adds $1.5 billion Adds $3.4 billion Administration Policy Initiatives Administration efforts to close Guantanamo Bay detention site Prohibits closure of Guantanamo Bay facility (Section 8128); restricts transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to U.S. or other countries (Sections 8097, 8099) Restricts transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to U.S. or other countries (Sections 8097, 8099) Provide 1.6% raise in military basic pay Adds $340 million to cover the cost of the 2.1% raise authorized by House NDAA Funds the Administration proposal Cut end-strength by 27,015 active and 9,800 reserve component personnel Adds $3.2 billion to fund added end-strength authorized by House NDAA Funds the Administration proposal Plan a Base Realignment and Closure round Cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning Cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning Prohibits closure of Guantanamo Bay facility (Section 8127); restricts transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to U.S. or other countries (Sections 8101, 8103) Adds a total of $1.3 billion to fund the additional end strength authorized by the NDAA and a 2.1% pay raise Cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning Congressional Policy Initiatives Medical R&D ($1.0 billion requested) Congressional Research Service Adds $735 million Adds $915 million Adds $1.28 billion 22 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Issue Science and Technology (S&T) R&D ($12.5 billion requested) First House-passed bill H.R. 5293 [H.Rept. 114-577] First Senate committeereported bill S. 3000 [S. Rept. 114-263] H.R. 244 P.L. 115-31 [Joint Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, Book II, pp. H3391-3703] Adds $654 million Adds $254 million Adds $1.51 billion Selected FY2017 Defense Funding and Policy Issues DOD Organization Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2017 NDAA included provisions intended to make DOD more agile and adaptable to meet emerging threats. At least in modified form, many of these initiatives were incorporated into the compromise final version of S. 2943. Following are selected provisions of S. 2943, as enacted, that address the organization of the DOD leadership and the National Security Council:      Section 921 extends from two years to four years the terms of office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It also requires that their terms be staggered and that the Vice-Chairman be ineligible for service as chairman or any other position in the armed forces, a limitation which the President can waive if deemed in the national interest. Similar provisions had been included in both H.R. 4909 (Section 907) and the Senate-passed version of S. 2943 (Section 921). Section 903 limits the number of persons assigned to the Joint Staff to no more than 2,069 of whom no more than 1,500 can be military personnel on active duty. The original Senate bill included the ceiling on the number of active-duty military personnel assigned to the Joint Staff, but it also included limits on the number of civilians assigned to the offices of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force (Section 904). Section 1085 provides that the professional staff of the National Security Council (NSC) shall include no more than 200 persons, approximately half the number of staff of the Obama Administration NSC. The original Senate bill would have capped the size of the NSC staff at 150 persons, while H.R. 4909 would have required Senate confirmation of the President’s National Security Advisor if the staff exceeded 100 persons. Section 923 elevates the U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) to the status of a combatant command which is the same status as Strategic Command, European Command, Central Command and DOD’s other major operational arms. Section 911 of H.R. 4909 was similar. Section 922 is intended to enhance the authority of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) to provide bureaucratic advocacy and support for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) in the same way that the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force support those services. Section 923 of the original Senate bill was similar. Congressional Research Service 23 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations DOD Organizational Issues For background and additional detail, see CRS Report R44474, Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) , and CRS Report R44508, Fact Sheet: FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) DOD Reform Proposals, by (name redacted) . Acquisition Reform As enacted, the FY2017 NDAA includes several provisions intended to rebalance the way DOD manages risk in developing and procuring weapons systems. Despite Administration objections, the bill’s Section 901 would divide the authority over the entire weapons acquisition process— from the earliest phases of research and development to production and sustainment—between two senior DOD officials. This authority is currently vested in the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L). Pursuant to S. 2943, the AT&L position will be replaced by an Under Secretary for Research and Engineering and an Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment, a move for which House and Senate conferees on the bill expressed the following rationale: The conferees believe the technology and acquisition missions and cultures are distinct. The conferees expect that the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering would take risks, press the technology envelope, test and experiment, and have the latitude to fail, as appropriate. Whereas the conferees would expect that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to focus on timely, cost-effective delivery and sustainment of products and services, and thus seek to minimize any risks to that objective. The original Senate-passed version of S. 2943 had a similar provision (Section 901). As enacted, the bill provides that these organizational changes will take effect on February 1, 2018. The enacted NDAA also includes provisions intended to make DOD’s weapons acquisition process more agile, among which are the following:   Section 805 requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, major weapons systems will be designed following a “modular open system approach” intended to make it relatively easy to add, remove, or update major components of the system, thus facilitating competition among suppliers to provide incremental improvements. The House bill had included a similar provision (Section 1701). Section 806 would make various changes to the rules governing the development of major weapons systems including changes intended to require that programs incorporate only “mature” technologies. In other words, DOD would not gamble on unproven technologies which, if not realized, would delay or stymie procurement of the proposed new weapon. DOD Contracting Procedures The enacted version of the NDAA also includes several provisions relating to DOD contracting procedures, among which are the following:  Section 829 modifies DOD’s acquisition regulations to establish a preference for fixed-price contracts (rather than contracts that reimburse the contractor’s costs and provide an additional fee). The enacted provision allows more flexibility for Congressional Research Service 24 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations   the use of other types of contracts than had the corresponding provision (Section 827) in the original, Senate-passed version of S. 2943. Section 813 limits the circumstances under which DOD could award a contract to the bidder who submitted the lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) offer. Contracting by the LPTA rule bars the government from paying a higher price for a proposal it deems technically superior to (or offered by a more reliable contractor than) the lowest-price proposal. Similar provisions had been included in the House-passed bill (Section 847) and in the original Senate bill (Section 825). Section 885 requires a report to Congress on the bid protest process by which the award of a DOD contract can be challenged on grounds that the award violated relevant laws and regulations. Such protests are adjudicated by the GAO. The House-passed bill contained a similar provision (Section 831). The original Senate-passed bill (in Section 821) would have required the protestor (if it was a large contractor) to cover the cost of the process if GAO denied all elements of the protest. Acquisition Process Issues For background and additional detail, see CRS Report R44561, Acquisition Reform in the House and Senate Versions of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act, by (name redacted). Security Cooperation Management The enacted version of S. 2943 includes in Subtitle E of Title XII several dozen provisions on “security cooperation,” defined as programs, activities, and other interactions of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) with the security forces of other countries that are intended to increase partner country capabilities, provide U.S. armed forces with access, or promote relationships relevant to U.S. national security interests. Statutes governing security cooperation have been enacted piecemeal over time and are scattered through U.S. Code and public law (such annual NDAAs). In the debates over the FY2017 defense funding bills, DOD and the congressional defense committees developed various proposals to streamline the existing security cooperation authorities and facilitate congressional oversight. The agreed on provisions, consolidated into a new Chapter 16 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, govern:     Military-to-military engagements, exchanges, and contacts, including payment of personnel expenses and the extension of such authorities to nonmilitary security personnel (with the concurrence of the Secretary of State); Combined exercises and training with foreign forces; Operational support and foreign capacity building, including logistics support, supplies, and services associated with operations that the U.S. military is not directly participating in; defense institution building; and authority to train and equip foreign forces as well as sustain such support; and Educational and training activities, including foreign participation in service academies and other DOD-sponsored programs, such as the DOD State Partnership Program, the Regional Centers for Security Studies, and the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program. Congressional Research Service 25 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Security Cooperation Management For background and additional detail, see CRS Report R44673, Security Cooperation: Comparison of Proposed Provisions for the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by (name redacted) et al., and CRS In Focus IF10582, Security Cooperation Issues: FY2017 NDAA Outcomes, by (name redacted). Military Personnel Matters For active-duty and reserve component military personnel costs, the original FY2017 budget request included $135.3 billion in the base budget and $3.6 billion in OCO, for a total of $138.8 billion.28 The Administration also proposed reductions in military manpower and changes in military compensation—some of which were incorporated into the budget request—that would reduce the rate at which personnel cost-per-troop increased. Military Personnel Issues in the FY2017 NDAA For information and additional analysis of military personnel issues addressed in the FY2017 NDAA, including TRICARE and other DOD health care issues, see CRS Report R44577, FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by (name redacted) et al. Active Duty and Reserve Component End Strength The annual personnel budget is driven partly by the number of military personnel, measured in terms of authorized end strength.29 Over the past decade, authorized active duty end strengths have shifted in response to the build-up and draw-down associated with conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The past five years have witnessed substantial reductions in personnel strength, with ground forces bearing the brunt of the cuts. Overall, the Administration proposed an active duty end strength for FY2017 of 1.28 million, a reduction of 2.1% from the previous fiscal year and down 8.4% from the most recent peak in 2011 (see Figure 5). The Army has seen the biggest end strength reductions in the past five years, dropping from a peak of nearly 570,000 in 2011 to a little under 475,000 at the end of FY2016—a reduction of nearly 17%. The Administration’s budget would have continued that trajectory, reaching an Army end-strength of 460,000 by the end of FY2017, with a goal of reaching 450,000 by the end of FY2018. The Marine Corps has also seen substantial reductions in recent years, dropping from peak activeduty end strength of 202,000 in 2010 to 184,000 in FY2016 with the budget proposing an additional cut to 182,000, which would amount to a 10% reduction from the peak year. 28 Includes basic pay, retired pay accrual, basic allowance for housing (BAH), basic allowance for subsistence(BAS), special and incentive pays, separation pay, and travel and other allowances. 29 In practical terms, authorized end strength is the number of personnel on the rolls on the last day of the fiscal year. Authorized end strength is the sum of personnel in the force structure and individual accounts authorized by Congress; it is synonymous with manpower authorizations. Congressional Research Service 26 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Figure 5. Authorized Active Component End-Strength, 2001-2017 Source: National Defense Authorization Acts for FY2001 to FY2017. The Senate NDAA (S. 2943) would have authorized end-strengths identical to the Administration’s request, while the House bill (H.R. 4909) would not only reject the proposed cuts but would authorize an overall increase in troop levels, adding a total of 1,700 troops to the FY2016 authorized level and 28,715 to the FY2017 total requested by the Administration. The House-proposed increase would be most noticeable for the Army, which would be authorized 5,000 more members than its 2016 end-strength and 20,000 more than the Administration proposed for FY2017. (See Table 11.). The enacted version of the NDAA came closer to the House’s provisions on endstrength, authorizing 24,000 more personnel than requested, including 16,000 Army troops. Table 11. Authorized Military End-Strength Army Senatepassed (S.2943) Conference Report (S. 2943) P.L. 114-328 FY2017 NDAA versus FY2017 request FY2016 enacted FY2017 request Housepassed (H.R. 4909) 475,000 460.000 480,000 460.000 476,000 +16,000 Navy 329,200 322,900 324,615 322,900 323,900 +1,000 Marine Corps 184,000 182,000 185,000 182,000 185,000 +3,000 Air Force 320,715 317,000 321,000 317,000 321,000 +4,000 Total, active-duty 1,308,915 1,281,900 1,310,615 1,281,900 1,305,900 +24,000 Congressional Research Service 27 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Army Reserve 198,000 195,000 205,000 195,000 199,000 +4,000 Navy Reserve 57,400 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 -- Marine Corps Reserve 38,900 38,500 38,500 38,500 38,500 -- Air Force Reserve 69,200 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000 -- Army National Guard 342,000 335,000 350,000 335,000 343,000 +8,000 Air National Guard 105,500 105,700 105,700 105,700 105,700 -- Total, reserve component 811,000 801,200 826,200 801,200 813,200 +12,000 Source: H.Rept. 114-537, H.R. 4909, S.Rept. 114-255, and S. 2943. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees each followed the lead of their respective Armed Services Committee. Thus, the House-passed defense appropriations bill (H. 5293) would have added to the Administration’s request $1.66 billion to cover the personnel costs of the increased end-strength that would have been authorized by H.R. 4909, while the bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee included no such addition. H.R. 1301—the version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill passed by the House on March 8, 2017-added to the request a total of $1.3 billion to fund both the higher end-strength authorized by the NDAA and a higher military pay raise than the Obama Administration had requested. Basic Pay In addition to shrinking the force size, a major theme in recent defense budget debates has been an effort to reduce the rate of increase in military compensation costs. A number of proposals accompanying this year’s budget request seek to further rein in the rate at which those costs increase. Section 1009 of Title 37, United Stated Code provides a set formula for calculating automatic annual increases in military basic pay indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), a government measure of changes in private sector wages and salaries.30 However, that law also gives the President authority to specify an alternative pay adjustment that supersedes the automatic adjustment.31 From FY2001 through FY2010 increases in basic pay were generally above ECI. From FY2011FY2014 pay raises were equal to ECI per the statutory formula. From FY2014 to FY2016, pay raises were less than the ECI because, in those years, the President invoked his authority to set an alternative pay adjustment, and Congress did not act to overturn that decision (see Figure 6). 30 The Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the change in the price of labor, defined as compensation per employee hour worked. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the ECI which is computed from compensation cost data collected from a sample of jobs within sampled business establishments and government operations. The data are weighted to represent the universe of establishments and occupations in the nonfarm private sector and in State and local governments. For more information see http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/ 31 For more information see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by (name redacted). Congressional Research Service 28 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Figure 6. Military Basic Pay Increases vs. ECI, 2001-2017 Source: Increase in ECI from Bureau of Labor Statistics; provision enacted into law from relevant NDAA. For FY2017, the Obama Administration attempted to continue that recent trend, proposing a 1.6% increase in basic pay for military personnel rather than the 2.1% increase that would result from the ECI calculation. Assuming the lower pay raise allowed the Administration to save approximately $264 million. The Senate-passed version of S. 2943 reflected the Administration’s proposal. However, the enacted version of the bill included a provision from the House-passed NDAA mandating a pay raise that would match the ECI projection. The first House-passed version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5293) added $340 million to the budget request. H.R. 244, the version of the FY2017 defense appropriations bill that was enacted, added to the request a total of $1.3 billion to fund both the higher endstrength authorized by the FY2017 NDAA and a higher military pay raise than the Obama Administration had requested. Ground Vehicle Programs Of the nearly $3.5 billion originally requested in FY2017 for acquisition of armored combat vehicles, more than 80% was allocated to upgrade the Army’s current fleet of Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Stryker 8x8 armored troop carriers, and Paladin self-propelled artillery. The remainder of the request was to continue development of three new vehicles: a troop carrier for support roles (designated AMPV), a new amphibious landing vehicle for the Marine Congressional Research Service 29 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Corps (designated ACV)32, and a combat vehicle with a tank-like cannon that will be light enough to be dropped by parachute with airborne troops. The original budget request also included $735.4 million for continued development and the third year of procurement funding of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) intended ultimately to replace nearly 17,000 of the High-Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) or “Humm-vees” used by the Army and Marine Corps.33 See the summary of congressional action authorizing funding for selected ground vehicle programs in Table A-1. Table B-1 provides a summary of appropriations actions related to such programs. Following are selected highlights: M-1 Abrams Tank Improvements34 The original budget request included $480 million to continue upgrading the Army’s fleet of M-1 Abrams tanks, the newest of which was manufactured in 1994. Subsequently, the Army asked Congress to increase that amount by $172 million to be transferred from other parts of the Army budget request. The House and Senate versions of the NDAA each authorized the increased amount with the House bill also authorizing an additional $140 million for M-1 modifications. As enacted, the NDAA authorized the revised total request ($652 million with $72 million of the increase authorized as OCO funding) but not the additional House increase. The initial House-passed FY2017 defense appropriations bill would have provided for M-1 improvements all but $4 million of the $652 million requested by the Army plus $80 million. The Senate committee version of that bill—S. 3000—would have provided $652 million, the amount of the revised request. As enacted, the consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31) provides $664 million for M-1 improvements, a net addition of $12 million to the Army’s adjusted request. Paladin Self-propelled Artillery As requested, the versions of the NDAA passed by the House and Senate, as well as the enacted version, authorized $595 million to continue modernizing the Army’s fleet of Paladin 155 mm. cannons and their associated ammunition carriers. In addition to modernizing the vehicles’ electronic components, the Army is replacing their tracked chassis (manufactured in the 1970s and 1980s and refurbished since then) with new chassis based on the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The initial House-passed appropriations bill would have provided the total requested amount, while the Senate committee-approved S. 3000 would have cut $31 million. The enacted appropriations bill provides $584 million for Paladin modernization, cutting $10 million from the request on account of anticipated contract savings. 32 See CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . 33 See CRS Report RS22942, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name r edacted). 34 See CRS Report R44229, The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 30 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations Stryker Combat Vehicle The budget requested $727 million to continue developing various upgrades and installing them in the Army’s fleet of Stryker wheeled armored troop carriers. Some of the funds will be used to install on some older Strykers a V-shaped underside to partially deflect the blast of a buried landmine. Other funds will be used to enhance the firepower of Strykers based in Europe by replacing their .50 caliber machine guns with a 30 mm. cannon. The Senate-passed version of the NDAA trimmed $11 million from the request and the enacted version of the bill followed suit. The initial House-passed defense appropriations bill would have cut $4 million from the Stryker request while the Senate committee-approved S. 3000 would have cut $34 million on grounds that those funds would not be needed in FY2017. The initial House-Senate defense appropriations compromise (H.R. 1301) would have provided $701 million from Stryker procurement, cutting $26 million from the request on grounds that it was not justified. However, the enacted appropriations bill restored $8 million of that reduction, providing a total of $709 million. Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)35 The budget requested $184 million to continue development of a new tracked vehicle designated the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) that would replace thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 vehicles as battlefield ambulances and mobile command posts, and filling other combat support roles. The new vehicle will be based on the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The FY2017 funds would be used to complete production of 29 prototype AMPVs slated for shakedown testing at government test sites. The enacted version of the NDAA authorized the full amount requested, as had both the House and Senate versions of that bill. Similarly, the House-passed and Senate committee versions of the initial defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5293 and S. 3000, respectively) would have provided the full amount requested for AMPV, as does the enacted bill. Shipbuilding Programs The planned size of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional defense committees for the past several years. Concerns over the current and future size and capability of the Navy have intensified with the recent shift in the international security environment to a situation featuring renewed great power competition.36 The Navy’s original FY2017 budget requested funding for the procurement of seven new ships— two Virginia-class attack submarines, two DDG-51 class destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), and one LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship. The Navy’s FY2017-FY2021 five-year shipbuilding plan includes a total of 38 new ships, compared to the five-year plan sent to Congress in 2015, which projected funding of 48 new ships during this period. 35 See CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . 36 For more on this shift, see CRS Report R43838, A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 31 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations See the summary of congressional action authorizing funding for selected shipbuilding programs in Table A-2. Table B-2 provides a summary of appropriations actions related to such programs. Following are selected highlights: Virginia Class Attack Submarine Program37 The original budget request included $5.1 billion to continue procuring Virginia class attack submarines at a rate of two per year under a ten-ship multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for FY2014-FY2018. The Navy’s FY2017-FY2021 five-year shipbuilding plan proposes including in one of the two Virginia-class boats projected for FY2019, and in all Virginia class boats procured in FY2020 and subsequent years, the Virginia Payload Module (VPM)—an additional ship section that will increase the boat’s payload of Tomahawk cruise missiles from 12 to 40. The budget request included $98 million to continue development of the VPM. The Navy’s FY2016 budget submission proposed building some, but not all, Virginia class boats procured in FY2020 and subsequent years with the VPM. The Senate version of the NDAA would have authorized the amounts requested for the submarine and for VPM development, but the House version of that bill and the enacted version of S. 2943 also authorized an additional $85 million in “advance procurement” (AP) funding to buy components for boats that primarily would be funded in future budgets. The Senate committee version of the first defense appropriations bill S. 3000 would have provided the requested amounts for the submarines and the VPM, while the House-passed version (H.R. 5293) would have added $85 million to the amount requested for the subs. Like the initial House-passed appropriations bill, the enacted bill added $85 million to the $5.1 billion requested for submarines. CVN-78 Class Aircraft Carrier Program38 The Navy’s originally proposed FY2017 budget included a $1.29 billion increment of the estimated $12.9 billion in procurement funding for CVN-79, the second Gerald R. Ford (CVN78) class aircraft carrier. The budget also requested $1.37 billion in AP funding for CVN-80, the third ship in the class.39 One issue for Congress during its consideration of the FY2017 request was whether to provide AP funding in FY2017 for the procurement of materials for CVN-81, the fourth ship in the class (which is scheduled for procurement funding in FY2023). Earlier funding for the fourth ship would permit a combined purchase of materials for CVN-80 and CVN-81 and thereby reducing the combined procurement cost of the two ships. The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget did not request any AP funding for CVN-81; the Navy’s plan was to request initial AP funding for CVN81 in FY2021. The enacted version of the NDAA, like the versions passed by the House and Senate, authorizes the full amount requested for the second and third ships, a total of $2.7 billion The House version 37 For more on the Virginia-class program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . 38 For more on the CVN-78 program, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . 39 In the backup material sent to Congress with its FY2017 budget request, the Navy projected the total cost of these two carriers to be $12.9 billion (CVN-79) and $11.4 billion (CNV-80). Congressional Research Service 32 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations also would have authorized an additional $263 million for AP funding for the fourth carrier in the class, but that was not included in the final version of the authorization bill. The House-passed version of the initial defense appropriations bill would have followed suit with the House-passed NDAA, providing an additional $263 million for the fourth carrier, while the Senate committee-approved S. 3000 would have trimmed $20 million from the overall $2.66 billion carrier request. The enacted appropriation bill (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31) provides a total of $2.63 billion for the second and third carriers, trimming $36 million from the request. It did not provide AP funding for a fourth carrier. Cruiser Modernization40 Congress in recent years has pushed back against Navy proposals for operating and modernizing its force of 22 Aegis cruisers. When the Navy proposed retiring seven of the ships years before the end of their service lives, Congress rejected the proposal. When the Navy then proposed taking 11 of the 22 ships temporarily out of service for modernization, and then returning them to service years later as one-for-one replacements for the other 11 ships in the class, Congress modified the Navy’s proposed schedule. In its proposed FY2017 budget, the Navy once again asked to modernize the 11 ships along the Navy’s preferred schedule, rather than the modified schedule directed by Congress. The House-passed NDAA and the enacted version of the bill (S. 2943) each contained a provision (Section 1024) that requires the Navy to modernize the 11 ships on the schedule directed by Congress. The Senate-passed NDAA contained a provision (Section 1011) that would have allowed the Navy to retire some of the cruisers if certain prescribed criteria were met. Both House and Senate versions of the initial defense appropriations bill rejected the Navy’s proposal for the cruisers, as does the enacted appropriations bill. DDG-51 Destroyer Program41 The FY2017 request included $3.3 billion to continue procurement of DDG-51 destroyers at an average rate of two ships per year under a 10-ship MYP contract for FY2013-FY2017. As part of its markup of the Navy’s FY2016 budget, Congress had provided $1.0 billion in additional procurement funding to help pay for the procurement of an additional DDG-51. The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget noted this $1.0 billion in funding but did not include an additional ship in its shipbuilding plan. The $433 million needed to complete the funding for this additional destroyer, however, was included as the second item on the Navy’s FY2017 Unfunded Requirements List (URL). The House and Senate versions of the NDAA each authorized the $3.3 billion requested for the destroyers with the House bill approving an additional $433 million and the Senate bill an additional $50 million for the ship that Congress partially funded in the FY2016 budget. The enacted version of the bill authorized the request plus $50 million. 40 For more on the issue of the modernization of the Navy’s cruisers, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . 41 For more on the DDG-51 program, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 33 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations In addition to providing the $3.3 billion requested for the destroyers in FY2017, the House-passed version of the initial defense appropriations bill would have added $433 million for the partially funded FY2016 ship as does the enacted bill (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31). The Senate committeeapproved version of the first bill (S. 3000) would have added $404 million for the FY2016 ship. Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program42 In December 2015, then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter directed that the LCS program be reduced from a planned total of 52 ships to a planned total of 40 ships, that annual procurement quantities of LCSs be reduced during the Navy’s FY2017-FY2021 five-year shipbuilding plan, and that the Navy choose one of the two current LCS builders, so that LCSs procured in FY2019 and subsequent years would be produced by only one builder. Reflecting this direction, the Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget requested $1.1 billion for the procurement of two LCSs, rather than the three LCSs that had been projected for FY2017 under the FY2016 budget submission. In addition to authorizing the funding requested for two LCSs, the House version of the NDAA would have authorized an additional $384.7 million for a third ship. The enacted version of that bill did not included authorization for a third ship and followed the Senate-passed version of the bill in trimming $28.0 million from the request for two ships. The House-passed version of the initial defense appropriations bill would have cut $71 million from the total amount requested for two ships but also would have added $384 million for a third LCS. The Senate committee bill would have provided $1.1 billion as requested plus $475 million for a third ship. The enacted appropriation bill cuts $36 million from the $1.1 billion requested for two LCSs but would add $475 million for a third ship of this type. LHA-8 Amphibious Assault Ship In recent years, LHA-type amphibious assault ships—carrier-like ships designed to carry some 1,700 Marines and a mix of aviation assets—have been funded using split funding (i.e., two-year incremental funding). The Navy’s FY2017 budget submission proposes using split funding—$1.6 billion requested in FY2017 and a plan to request $1.7 billion in FY2018—to procure an amphibious assault ship designated LHA-8. The enacted NDAA, like the House and Senate versions of that bill, authorized the $1.6 billion requested for the ship in FY2017. The initial House-passed appropriations bill would have reduced the funding by $64 million, while the Senate committee version would have provided the amount requested. The enacted bill (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31) trims $5 million from the amount requested for the LHA. Selected Aviation Programs In their initial FY2017 budget requests, the Army and Air Force chose to delay their previously planned aircraft purchases, and the Navy planned to meet its aviation modernization goals by inviting Congress to add funds to its budget request to pay for so-called “unfunded requirements.” Army officials emphasized that the service’s FY2017 budget request gave priority to readiness 42 For more on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 34 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations over modernization.43 Within the Army’s modernization budget, helicopter programs felt the brunt of the budget squeeze. The Army’s $3.9 billion budget request for aircraft procurement in FY2017 (which includes modernization as well as the acquisition of new aircraft), amounted to less than one-third of the service’s FY2016 aircraft procurement account. See the summary of congressional action authorizing funding for selected aviation programs in Table A-3. Table B-3 provides a summary of appropriations actions related to such programs. Following are some highlights: Air Force Aviation Programs44 The budget squeeze confronting the Air Force’s modernization plans has been widely recognized. The simultaneous attempt to modernize Air Force fighters with the F-35, bombers with the B-21, trainers with the T-X, and other systems has created a classic “bow wave” of acquisitions, in which systems already being procured and others moving from development into procurement exceed the available procurement budget.45 The Air Force original FY2017 budget submission attempted to relieve some of that budget pressure by deferring planned acquisitions. F-35A Joint Strike Fighter The FY2017 request included $4.4 billion for 43 F-35A Lightning II fighters, five fewer than projected in the FY2016 budget request. All told, the Air Force’s new plan would acquire 45 fewer F-35A’s during the period FY2017-FY2021 than had been planned in January 2016. The enacted NDAA, like the Senate version of that bill, authorizes the requested amount for 43 of the fighters. Besides approving that amount, the House-passed NDAA also would have authorized $691 million for 5 additional aircraft. The initial House-passed defense appropriations bill would have provided a total of $4.8 billion, adding to the requested amount $352 million for five additional F-35As. The Senate committee version of that bill (S. 3000) would have cut the FY2017 procurement amount by $418 million, but would have added $100 million to the $405 million requested for advance procurement funds with the aim of supporting the higher FY2018 production rate that had been planned prior to the FY2017 budget submission. The enacted appropriation provides a net increase of $201 million to the $4.4 billion requested for 43 F-35As. The bill cuts $294 million from the amount requested on account of “efficiencies” and adds $405 million for five additional aircraft. KC-46A Pegasus Tanker The enacted NDAA, like both the House and Senate versions, authorized the $2.9 billion requested for 15 KC-46A mid-air refueling tankers. However, all three versions of the legislation cut the $262 million requested to continue development of the aircraft by more than 50%, to $122 43 Michelle Tan, “Interview: U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley,” Defense News, October 14, 2015. For more on Air Force aviation programs see CRS Report R44305, The Air Force Aviation Investment Challenge, by (name redacted) . 45 A modernization “bow wave” is a commonly used term to describe long-term defense modernization plans that depend on a significant increase in future funding. For more on this see Defense Modernization Plans through the 2020s: Addressing the Bow Wave, by Todd Harrison, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, January 2016, http://csis.org/files/publication/160126_Harrison_DefenseModernization_Web.pdf. 44 Congressional Research Service 35 Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations million on grounds that the program had unspent funds from prior years’ appropriations and had encountered fewer problems than the budget request had anticipated. The initial House-passed defense appropriations bill would have cut $83 million from the $2.9 billion KC-46A procurement request and $32 million from the R&D request. The Senate committee version of the appropriations bill would have provided the amounts requested both for procurement and for development of the plane. The enacted appropriation (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31) cuts the procurement request by $167 million—double the amount that would have been cut by the initial House-passed appropriations bill—while cutting $32 million from the tanker’s R&D request. Army Aviation Programs Reductions in planned aircraft procurement also were evident in the Army’s original FY2017 request, which would procure 110 helicopters instead of the 144 projected in 2015. Army leaders attributed these deferrals primarily to budget concerns and force structure issues re [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44454. Public record. Not legal advice.