# Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909, S. 2943)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44497

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** December 19, 2016
- **Citation:** R44497

## Text

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017
National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 4909, S. 2943)
(name redacted)
Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
December 19, 2016

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44497

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Introduction
This CRS Fact Sheet is designed as a time-urgent product offering Members the best available
information pending publication of a CRS report on the FY2017 defense funding legislation.
Following are selected highlights of the conference agreement on the FY2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA). The conference report (H.Rept. 114-840), filed in the House on
November 30, 2016, resulted from negotiations between the House and Senate on House-passed
H.R. 4909 and Senate-passed S. 2943. The agreement authorizes $611.2 billion in discretionary
funding for national defense activities within the jurisdictions of the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees. That total includes





$523.7 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) “base budget” which funds
routine activities not associated with ongoing deployments in Afghanistan and
Iraq;
$67.8 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) which funds
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and certain other DOD activities; and
$19.7 billion for national security programs of the Department of Energy and
other defense-related activities.

In addition to funds authorized by the NDAA, national defense-related funding for FY2017
includes $7.8 billion for discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the two Armed
Services Committees and $8.1 billion for programs funded by mandatory spending.
Table 1 provides a summary of amounts recommended for authorization by the conferees. Table
2 provides a summary of selected congressional budget reductions and restrictions, and Table 3
provides a summary of selected Administration policy and cost-cutting proposals. Table 4
provides a summary of selected congressional budget increases and policy initiatives.

Discretionary Spending Limits and the NDAA
Congressional action on the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was
fundamentally shaped by legally binding caps on discretionary spending for defense programs
and for non-defense programs in each fiscal year through FY2021. The spending caps—
established by P.L. 112-25, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and amended by P.L. 114-74
(BBA)—are enforced by “sequestration1,” a process that entails across-the-board cuts to most
funding accounts if enacted appropriations exceed either of the caps.
The annual defense caps apply to funding for the base budget, but not to amounts designated for
emergencies or for OCO. The OCO category of funding—which is not defined in law—was
adopted by the Obama Administration in 2009 to encompass funding associated with operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan. In subsequent budgets, the number of operations funded has increased
and the scope of funding designated as OCO has expanded.
The FY2017 NDAA debate focused, in part, on differences between the Administration and
Congress over how much of the FY2017 DOD budget designated as OCO funding—and thus
exempt from the budget caps—would be used for base budget purposes,. An underlying issue was
whether defense spending and non-defense base budget spending would be allowed to exceed
1

See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name red
acted) .

Congressional Research Service

1

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

their respective budget caps by roughly similar amounts through use of OCO-designated funding.
The Administration and the congressional minority leadership objected to providing defense
funding for base budget requirements in excess of the defense spending cap unless it was
accompanied by a comparable increase in funding for non-defense, base budget programs.2
The 2015 BBA, which raised the defense and non-defense spending caps for FY2016 and 2017,
also identified non-binding target levels of OCO funding for FY2016 and FY2017 for both the
DOD budget and international affairs budget3 (which falls into the non-defense category).
The Administration’s FY2017 DOD budget request included $58.8 billion designated as OCO, of
which $5.2 billion was to be spent on base budget requirements. The Administration’s FY2017
budget justification material makes several references to a similar enhancement of the nondefense foreign affairs budget, although the State Department published no detailed information
identifying OCO-designated funding intended to be used for base budget purposes.. A comparison
of the foreign affairs agencies’ OCO budget for FY2016 and their OCO request for FY2017 with
their OCO budget for FY2015—the last year of funding not affected by BBA—suggests that the
international affairs budget’s OCO-for-base amount is in excess of $5.0 billion—roughly the
same as in the DOD budget request.4
In November 2016, the Administration amended its FY2017 OCO request, asking for an
additional $5.8 billion to cover the cost of retaining more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than the
original budget had assumed and the cost of operations against the Islamic State.5
The House-passed version of the FY2017 NDAA (H/R/ 4909) would have dedicated $23.1 billion
of OCO-designated funding to DOD base budget purposes—$18.0 billion more than the
Administration proposed. However, the conferees agreed to allocate $8.3 billion in OCOdesignated funding for base requirements—$5.2 billion stemming from the Administration’s
request and $3.2 added during the conference negotiations (see Table 1.)

2

See OMB, “Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4909, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017,” May 16, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/
saphr4909r_20160516.pdf; and Senator Harry Reid, “Reid: Senate Must Give Defense Bill Deliberative Approach It
Deserves,” press release, May 25, 2016, http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-05-25-reid-senate-must-givedefense-bill-deliberative-approach-it-deserves#.V1GXYE0UVFo.
3
This is designated the State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOP) budget.
4
See U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification Material for the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Agencies, pp. 137-38, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/252179.pdf.
5
See U.S. Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request: Overview–Overseas Contingency Operations
Budget Amendment, http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2017/amendment/
FY17_OCO_Amendment_Overview_Book.pdf

Congressional Research Service

2

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Table 1. FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909, S. 2943)
(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Budget
Request

House-passed
(H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed
(S. 2943)

Conference
Report

$101,971.6

$103,124.7

$102,435.0

$102,422.7

Research and Development

71,391.8

71,619.8

71,227.2

71,110.6

Operation and Maintenance

171,318.5

169,322.3

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

37,058.6

37,398.0

36,058.4

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 Budget
Function (050) Base Budget

543,403.6

543,399.0

543,113.4

543,401.4

DOD OCO Budget

64,573.0b

58,793.5

58,890.5

67,766.4

607,976.6

602,192.5

602,004.0

611,167.8

Bill Title
National Defense Base Budget
Procurement

Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Defense-related Maritime Administrationa

GRAND TOTAL: FY2017 NDAA

Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943.
Notes:
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. Includes November 2016 amendment to the President’s Budget Request for OCO.

Table 2. Selected Congressional Budget Reductions and Prohibitions
Issue

House-passed (H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed (S. 2943)

Conference Report

Administration efforts to
close the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Would prohibit the transfer of
detainees to the U.S. (section
1032) or to certain other
countries (section 1034).

Would prohibit the
permanent transfer of
detainees to the U.S. 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 U.S.
and construction or
modification of facilities in
the U.S. for detainees
(sections 1032-1035).

Reductions to the request on
the basis of unobligated
balances from prior budgets
(or anticipated slower-thanplanned obligations in
FY2017), 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.

Congressional Research Service

3

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Issue

House-passed (H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed (S. 2943)

Conference Report

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 assumptions
regarding currency exchange
rates.

Would cut $121 million on
the assumption that the
goods and services bought
by U.S. forces abroad will
cost less than budgeted
due to assumptions
regarding currency
exchange rates.

Cuts $573 million on the
assumption that the goods
and services bought by
U.S. forces abroad will
cost less than budgeted
due to assumptions
regarding currency
exchange reates.

Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943.

Table 3. Selected Administration Policy and Cost-Cutting Proposals
Administration
Proposal

House-passed (H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed (S. 2943)

Conference Report

1.6% raise in Military
Basic Pay in lieu of the
2.1% raise that otherwise
would occur by lawa

Would require that pay be
increased by 2.1% (section
601); adds to the budget
request $330 million (in OCO
funds).

Would provide a 1.6% basic
pay increase, as requested
(section 601).

Senate recedes to the House,
adopting the 2.1% pay raise; adds
$330 million (in base budget).

Reduce military endstrength by 27,015
active and 9,800 reserve
component personnel

Would authorize an endstrength increase of 28,715
active personnel and 25,000
reserve component personnel
to the Administration’s endstrength request; adds $3.24
billion (in OCO funds) to the
request.

Would authorize endstrength totals at the level
requested by the
Administration.

Authorizes an end-strength
increase of 24,000 active
personnel and 12,000 reserve
component personnel; adds $1.35
billion (in OCO funds) to the
request.

Introduce some new
TRICARE fees and
increase some existing
fees and copays

Would establish TRICARE fees
and copays similar to
Administration’s proposal
(section 701).

Would make significant
changes to TRICARE system
(Title VII, Subtitle A).

Renames the TRICARE
Standard/Extra health plan option
to TRICARE Select; modifies
enrollment fees, deductibles,
catastrophic caps, and copayments 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 preauthorization for referrals under
TRICARE Prime (section 701).

Reform of administration
of the Defense Health
Agency (DHA) and
military medical
treatment facilities

Would require DHA to
become responsible for
management of Military
Treatment Facilities (MTFs)
throughout the DOD, while
preserving certain
responsibilities of MTF
commanders (section 702).

Would consolidate the
medical departments of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force
with the Defense Health
Agency (section 721).

Requires the Director of DHA to
take responsibility for the
administration of each MTF on
October 1, 2018. Matters of
responsibility include: budget;
information technology; health
care administration and
management; administrative
policy and procedure; military
medical construction and 6) any
other matters the Secretary of
Defense determines appropriate
(section 702).

Congressional Research Service

4

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Administration
Proposal

House-passed (H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed (S. 2943)

Conference Report

Remove from service 7
(of the 22) Aegis
cruisers for
modernization and
eventual 1-for-1
replacement of cruisers
now in service

Would require that no more
than 6 cruisers be inactivated
at one time and that contracts
be signed for their
modernization (section 1024);
adds $202 million for
operation (in OCO funds).

Would require that at least
11 (of the 22) cruisers be in
service at all times, with 11
to be modernized and the
other 11 replaced when they
reach the end of their
service lives (section 1011).

Prohibits the retirement,
preparation for retirement,
inactivation, or placement in
storage of any Ticonderoga-class
cruisers or Whidbey Island-class
amphibious ships, except to allow
the modernization and upgrades
for those ships to continue in
accordance with previous NDAA
direction concerning the
modernization and upgrades for
these ships, as set forth in section
1026 of the FY15 NDAA (section
1024).

Disband 1 (of 10) activeduty carrier air wings
(requiring change in
current law)

Would reject the reduction in
carrier air wings; adds $86
million for wing operations (in
OCO funds).

Would allow the reduction
to 9 active-duty carrier air
wings (section 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).

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).

Plan a Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC)
roundb

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.

Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943.
Notes:
a. For background, see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by (name redacted).
b. For background, see CRS In Focus IF10362, The President’s FY2017 Military Construction Budget Request, by
(name redacted)
.

Congressional Research Service

5

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Table 4. Selected Congressional Budget Increases and Policy Initiatives
Issue

House-passed (H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed (S. 2943)

Conference Report

Registration of
Women for the
Military Draft

Had been required by section
528, adopted as a committee
amendment by a vote of 32-30;
provision was deleted by the
rule governing floor debate.

Would require registration of
women for the military draft
(section 591).

Does not include
Senate section 591.

Recovery of
amounts owed to
the U.S. by
members of the
uniformed services

Would amend 37 U.S.C. 1007
to establish a 10-year statute
of limitations on the authority
of the government to collect
an indebtedness to the
government owed by a
servicemember if the
indebtedness occurred through
no fault of the member
(effective October 1, 2027) and
would require annual DOD
report (section 642),

No similar provision.

Requires a board of
review to determine
whether the special pay
to members and former
members of the
California Air National
Guard was unwarranted
and, if so, to
recommend whether
the Secretary should
recoup the payment,
waive the recoupment,
or repay unwarranted
recoupments. Would
authorize the Secretary
to waive collection of
overpayments or to
repay previously
recouped payments that
were unwarranted.
Requires a report from
DOD and a GAO
report (section 671).

National
Commission on
Military, National
and Public Service

Would require the Secretary
of Defense to submit, not later
than July 1, 2017, a report on
the current and future need
for a centralized registration
system under the Military
Selective Service Act.

Contained a series of
provisions (sections 10661073) that would create a
National Commission on
Military, National, and Public
Service.

Troop levels in
Afghanistan

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.

Includes the Senate
provisions establishing a
National Commission
on Military, National
And Public Service and
requires a study by the
Secretary of Defense to
inform the Commission
on the current and
future need for a
centralized registration
system under the
Military Selective
Service Act (section
552).
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 of U.S.

Would replace the National
Missile Defense Act of 1999
with new policy language to

Would amend current law,
which states that it is the goal
of the missile defense system

Congressional Research Service

Includes the House
provision with a
clarifying amendment

6

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Issue

House-passed (H.R. 4909)

Senate-passed (S. 2943)

Conference Report

Territory

the effect that the United
States should maintain and
improve a robust layered
missile defense system capable
of defending the territory of
the United States and its allies
against the developing and
increasingly complex ballistic
missile threat (section 1665).

to protect U.S. territory
against a “limited” missile
attack; section 1665 would
delete the word limited.

(section 1681).

Ship Procurement

Would increase shipbuilding
authorization by a total of $2.3
billion (in OCO funds);
Includes funds for one
additional Littoral Combat Ship
($385 million), partial funding
for a destroyer ($433 million)
and an amphibious landing
transport ($856 million), and
$263 million to accelerate
construction of an aircraft
carrier.

Would add $100 million;
includes partial funding for a
destroyer ($50 million) and
an amphibious landing
transport ($50 million); cuts
$28 million from request the
for Littoral Combat Ship.

Adds $490 million;
includes partial funding
for a destroyer ($50
million) and adds $440
million for amphibious
landing transport (LPD29 or LX(R). Cuts $28
million from request for
the Littoral Combat
Ship.

Security
Cooperation with
partner countriesa

Would recodify several
existing authorities to train and
assist partner countries
(sections 1201-1206).

Would broaden the range of
purposes for which DOD can
train, equip, and assist partner
countries (sections 1251-65).

Creates a new chapter
in title 10, U.S.C.;
includes provisions to
consolidate “train-andequip” authorities and
consolidates reporting
requirements (sections
1241-1253). Codifies
and makes permanent
“Section 1208”
authority (section
1203).

Organization of
DOD and Strategic
Planningb

Would revise existing law
governing the scope and
frequency of high-level
strategic reviews (sections
901-906).

Would mandate wide-ranging
changes in DOD organization
(sections 941 and 942).

Establishes a
Commission on the
National Defense
Strategy for the United
States (section 942);
revises the
requirements of the
national military
strategy (section 943);
and revises the FY2016
section 1064
requirements for and
independent study of
the national security
strategy (section 945).

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 base and
$197.8 million OCOfor-base).

National Guard and
Reserve Equipment

Would add $250 million.

Would make no change to
request.

Adds $250 million.

Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943.

Congressional Research Service

7

Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA

Note:
a. For additional background, see CRS Report R44313, What Is “Building Partner Capacity?” Issues for Congress,
coordinated by (name redacted)
b. For additional background, see CRS Report R44474, Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted)

Table 5. CRS Defense Analysts
Area of Expertise

Name

Phone

Email

Specialist in Military Ground Forces

Feickert, Andy

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Military Aviation

Gertler, Jeremiah

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in U.S. & Foreign National
Security Programs

Hildreth, Steven A.

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Defense Health Care
Policy

Jansen, Don

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Analyst in Military Manpower Policy

Kamarck, Kristy

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

Kapp, Lawrence

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Nonproliferation

Kerr, Paul

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Analyst in International Security

McInnis, Kathleen J.

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Analyst in Intelligence and National
Security Policy

Miles, Anne Daugherty

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Nonproliferation

Nikitin, Mary Beth D.

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Naval Affairs

O'Rourke, Ron

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Defense Acquisition

Schwartz, Moshe

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in National Security Policy
and Information Operations

Theohary, Catherine A.

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and
Budget

Towell, Pat

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy

Williams, Lynn

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy

Woolf, Amy F.

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov , 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....

8

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44497. Public record. Not legal advice.