This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
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. 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.version ofconference agreement on the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House on May 18, 2016 (H.R. 4909), and the version reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on the same date (S. 2943). Table 1 provides a summary of amounts recommended for authorization. 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 includeselectedselected congressional budget increases and policy initiatives.
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.
Congressional action on the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has beenwas fundamentally shaped by the legally binding caps on discretionary spending for defense programs and for non-defense programs, which were in each fiscal year through FY2021. The spending caps—established by P.L. 114-74, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). The caps apply to what is commonly referred to as the "base" budget but not to amounts designated for "emergency" or for "overseas contingency/global war on terror" requirements. A central issue before Congress is the extent to which Congress and the President will approve Department of Defense (DOD) funding for FY2017 that (1) exceeds the relevant BBA cap; and (2) is exempt from that spending cap because it is designated as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (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 2015 BBA increased binding caps on defense and non-defense discretionary appropriations for FY2016 and FY2017, which had originally been codified by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Those spending caps are enforced by a process of "sequestration."1 However, the BCA caps do not apply to appropriations designated by both Congress and the President as funding either (1) for an emergency, or (2) for OCO purposes. In addition to raising the binding caps on defense and non-defense spending, the 2015 BBA identified non-binding target levels of OCO funding for FY2016 and FY2017 for both the DOD budget and international affairs budget2 (which falls into the non-defense category).
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 may focus112-25, 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.
iswas whether defense spending and non-defense spending for base budget purposes are bothbase budget spending would be allowed to exceed thetheir respective budget caps by roughly similar amounts—without triggering sequestration— through use of OCO-designated funding. The Administration and the congressional minority leadership have objected to providing defense funding for base budget requirements in excess of the defense spending cap unless it iswas accompanied by a comparable increase in funding for non-defense, base budget programs.3
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 DOD budget request included $5.1 billion in OCO funding to support what it considers base budget requirements. Its2
estimate of the amount of funding involveddetailed 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 OCO-designated funding for base requirements—$5.2 billion stemming from the Administration's request and $3.2 added during the conference negotiations (see Table 1.) Table 1. FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909, S. 2943)(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
In comparing the Administration's FY2017 defense budget request and H.R. 4909 as reported by the House Armed Services Committee, the total amounts designated for base budget requirements are very similar and are in alignment with the BBA cap for FY2017. Likewise, the total OCO amounts reflect the BBA—the Administration request and the House committee-reported bill each designate $58.8 billion of the amount authorized for DOD as OCO funding. (See Table 1.)
However, the House-passed bill would dedicate $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 2017.5 By then, the committee says, the newly elected President could request a supplemental appropriation to cover OCO funding requirements through the remaining months of FY2017.
Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has proposed an amendment to S. 2943 that would authorize an additional $17 billion designated as OCO funding but to be used for base budget purposes. If the amendment were adopted, it would align the Senate bill more closely with the House-passed version.
Table 1. FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909, S. 2943)
amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority
|
Bill Title |
Budget Request |
House- |
Senate |
Conference Report |
||||||||
|
National Defense Base Budget |
||||||||||||
|
Procurement |
|
|
$103,124.7 $102,435.0 |
| ||||||||
|
Research and Development |
|
|
71,619.8 71,227.2 |
| ||||||||
|
Operation and Maintenance |
|
|
169,322.3 171,389.8 |
| ||||||||
|
Military Personnel |
|
134,018.4 |
| |||||||||
|
Defense Health Program and Other Authorizations |
|
|
37,058.6 37,398.0 |
| ||||||||
|
Military Construction/Family Housing |
|
|
| 7,709.6 |
||||||||
|
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget |
|
523,945.8 |
| |||||||||
|
Atomic Energy Defense Activities |
|
19,167.6 |
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
211.0
|
300.0 n/a |
| |||||||
|
TOTAL: National Defense Budget Function (050) Base Budget |
|
543,113.4 |
| |||||||||
|
DOD OCO Budget |
|
58,890.5 |
| |||||||||
|
GRAND TOTAL: FY2017 NDAA |
|
602,004.0 |
| |||||||||
Source: H.R. 4909 and H.Rept. 114-537, Report of the House Armed Services Committee to accompany H.R. 4909; S. 2943 and S.Rept. 114-255, Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee 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.
|
Issue |
House |
Senate |
Conference Report |
|
Administration efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
| |
|
Fuel prices assumed in the budget request |
Cuts $1.45 billion on the assumption that actual prices in FY2017 will be lower |
Cuts $822 million on the assumption that actual prices in FY2017 will be lower |
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 |
|
|
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.R. 4909 and H.Rept. 114-537, Report of the House Armed Services Committee to accompany H.R. 4909; S. 2943 and S.Rept. 114-255, Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee to accompanyassumptions regarding currency exchange rates.
Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943.
|
Administration Proposal |
House |
Senate |
Conference Report |
||
|
1.6% raise in Military Basic Pay in lieu of the 2.1% raise that otherwise would occur by lawa |
|
|
Senate recedes to the House, adopting the 2.1% pay raise; adds $330 million (in base budget). |
||
|
Reduce military end-strength by 27,015 active and 9,800 reserve component personnel |
|
|
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 |
|
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). 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). |
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). |
||
|
Remove from service 7 (of the 22) Aegis cruisers for modernization and eventual 1-for-1 replacement of cruisers now in service |
|
|
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) active-duty carrier air wings (requiring change in current law) |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to AccompanyIncludes the Senate provision (section 2702); cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning. |
Source: H.R. 4909 and H.Rept. 114-537, Report of the House Armed Services Committee to accompany H.R. 4909; S. 2943 and S.Rept. 114-255, Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee to accompany S. 2943.
Notes:
a. For background, see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by [author name scrubbed].
b. For background, see CRS In Focus IF10362, The President's FY2017 Military Construction Budget Request, by [author name scrubbed].
|
Issue |
House |
Senate |
Conference Report |
|
Registration of Women for the Military Draft |
Had been required by |
Required by Section 591 | |
|
Troop levels in Afghanistan |
Adds $2.33 billion to support deployment of 9,800 U.S. troops (rather than 5,500 as proposed in the budget) |
No change to request |
|
|
Ballistic Missile Defense of U.S. Territory |
Adds $300 million (using OCO funds to avoid breaking budget caps); directs DOD to demonstrate space-based missile defense by 2025 (Section 1656) |
Adds $115 million (in base budget); would also amend current law, which states that it is the goal of the missile defense system to protect U.S. territory against a "limited" missile attack; Section 1665 would delete the word limited |
|
|
Ship Procurement |
Increases shipbuilding authorization by a total of $2.3 billion (in OCO funds); Includes funds for one 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 |
Adds $100 million; includes partial funding for a destroyer ($50 million) and an amphibious landing transport ($50 million); cuts $28 million from request for Littoral Combat Ship |
|
|
Recodifies several existing authorities to train and assist partner countries (Sections 1201-1206) |
Broadens the range of purposes for which DOD can train, equip, and assist partner countries (Sections 1251-65) |
|
|
Revises existing law governing the scope and frequency of high-level strategic reviews (Sections 901-906) |
Mandates wide-ranging changes in DOD organization (Sections 941 and 942) |
|
|
Maintenance and Repair of Facilities |
Adds $2.4 billion (in OCO funds) |
Adds $839 million (in base budget) |
|
|
National Guard and Reserve Equipment |
Adds $250 million |
No change to request |
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 1066-1073) that would create a National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. 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). 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. 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. Territory Would replace the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 with new policy language to 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). Would amend current law, which states that it is the goal of the missile defense system to protect U.S. territory against a "limited" missile attack; section 1665 would delete the word limited. Includes the House provision with a clarifying amendment (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 (LPD-29 or LX(R). Cuts $28 million from request for the Littoral Combat Ship. 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-and-equip" authorities and consolidates reporting requirements (sections 1241-1253). Codifies and makes permanent "Section 1208" authority (section 1203). 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 OCO-for-base). National Guard and Reserve Equipment Would add $250 million. Would make no change to request. Adds $250 million.Source: H.R. 4909 and H.Rept. 114-537, Report of the House Armed Services Committee to accompany H.R. 4909; S. 2943 and S.Rept. 114-255, Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee to accompanyWould require registration of women for the military draft (section 591).
Security Cooperation with partner countriesa
Organization of DOD and Strategic Planningb
Source: H.Rept. 114-840, Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943.
Note:
a. For additional background, see CRS Report R44313, What Is "Building Partner Capacity?" Issues for Congress, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]
b. For additional background, see CRS Report R44474, Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed]
|
Area of Expertise |
Name |
Phone |
|
|
Specialist in |
Else, Daniel |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Feickert, Andy |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Military Aviation |
Gertler, Jeremiah |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in U.S. & Foreign National Security Programs |
Hildreth, Steven A. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
|
Jansen, Don |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Analyst in Military Manpower Policy |
Kamarck, Kristy |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy |
Kapp, Lawrence |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Nonproliferation |
Kerr, Paul |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Analyst in International Security |
McInnis, Kathleen J. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Analyst in Intelligence and National Security Policy |
Miles, Anne Daugherty |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Nonproliferation |
Nikitin, Mary Beth D. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Naval Affairs |
O'Rourke, Ron |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Defense Acquisition |
Schwartz, Moshe |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in National Security Policy and Information Operations |
Theohary, Catherine |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget |
Towell, Pat |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy |
Williams, Lynn |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy |
Woolf, Amy F. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
Author Contact Information
| 1. |
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||
| 2. |
| ||
| 3. |
|
||
| 3.
|
|
4.
This is designated the State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOP) budget. |
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. |
|