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 Fact Sheet summarizes selected highlights of the version of the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act passed in the 114th Congress by the House on June 16, 2016 (H.R. 5293), the version reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, 2016 (S. 3000), and H.R. 1301, a third version of the bill to which House and Senate negotiators agreed on March 2, 2017. The Senate did not complete action on the Senate committee-reported version of the bill during 2016; however H.R. 1301 amounts to the product of an informal conference committee on the two earlier versions. The House passed H.R. 1301 on March 8, 2017 by a vote of 371-48.
This Fact Sheet does not account for additional FY2017 DOD funds requested by President Trump on March 16, 2017.
H.R. 1301 would provide $516.1 billion for DOD base budget activities (excluding military construction, funded in a separate appropriations bill). However, the bill would offset $5.6 billion of those costs by rescissions of unspent money appropriated in prior years and reductions to reflect lower fuel prices and other economic factors that would reduce to $509.5 billion the net amount of new budget authority the bill would require.
H.R. 1301 also would provide $62.7 billion in funds designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), including $4.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities for which the Obama Administration had requested funding in the base budget. The bill's total OCO appropriation would be offset by rescissions totaling $890.0 million, thus reducing the net requirement for new OCO budget authority to $61.8 billionThis Fact Sheet summarizes selected highlights of the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act passed by the House on June 16, 2016 (H.R. 5293), and the version reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, 2016 (S. 3000).
Congressional action on the FY2017 defense appropriations act has been fundamentally shaped by the legally binding caps on discretionary spending for defense programs and for non-defense programs, which were established by P.L. 114-74, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). A central issue before Congress is the extent to which Congress and the President approve Department of Defense (DOD) funding for FY2017 that (1) exceeds the relevant BBA cap; and (2) is also exempt from that spending cap because it is classified as funding for so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
The 2015 BBA increased binding caps on defense and non-defense discretionary appropriations for FY2016 and FY2017, which originally had been codified by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Those spending caps are enforced by a process of "sequestration."
Following are selected highlights of the version of the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act reported by the House on June 16, 2016 (H.R. 5293), and the version reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, 2016 (S. 3000). Table 1 provides a summary of amounts recommended for appropriation. Table 2 provides a summary of selected Administration policy and cost-cutting proposals. Table 3 provides a summary of selected congressional budget increases and policy initiatives.
Table 4 provides a summary of selected congressional budget reductions and restrictions. Table 5 summarizes a subset of the budget reductions proposed in each bill, namely those cuts that are justified on the basis of economic facts-of-life or efficiencies and that—the authoring committees assert—need not have an adverse impact on the Administration's program.
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 Defense Appropriations Act has been fundamentally shaped by the legally binding caps on discretionary spending for defense programs and for non-defense programs that were established by P.L. 114-74, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). A central issue before Congress is the extent to which Congress and the President approve Department of Defense (DOD) funding for FY2017 that (1) exceeds the relevant BBA cap; and (2) is also exempt from that spending cap because it is classified as funding for so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).1
The 2015 BBA increased binding caps on defense and non-defense discretionary appropriations for FY2016 and FY2017, which originally had been codified by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Those spending caps are enforced by a process of "sequestration."2
However, the BCA caps do not apply to appropriations designated both by Congress and by the President as funding either (1) for an emergency, or (2) for OCO purposes. The OCO label—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 "non-OCO" share of the annual DOD budget is referred to as the "base" budget.
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 budget3 (which falls into the non-defense category).
The FY2017 defense appropriations debate may focus, in part, on the difference between the Administration and the House Appropriations Committee 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. In the Administration's budget request, DOD and the foreign affairs agencies (the latter falling under the "non-defense" BBA spending caps) were slated to use certain OCO-designated funds for base budget purposes—$5.1 billion in the case of DOD and a similar amount for the international affairs agencies.4 If approved by Congress, the practical effect of this would be to allow both defense and non-defense spending to exceed the FY2017 BBA caps without triggering sequestration. In drafting H.R. 5293, the House Appropriations Committee approved a total of $58.6 billion for OCO-designated funding—roughly the amount requested by the Administration. (See Table 1.)
Table 1. FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act: H.R. 5293, S. 3000
amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority
Bill Title |
Budget Request |
House-passed bill |
Senate Appropriations Committee- reported bill |
Conference Report |
Base Budget |
||||
Military Personnel |
128.9 |
128.2 |
128.0 |
128.7 |
Operation and Maintenance |
171.3 |
173.4 |
170.7 |
167.6 |
Procurement |
101.9 |
104.3 |
105.3 |
108.4 |
Research and Development |
71.4 |
70.3 |
70.8 |
72.3 |
Revolving and Management Funds |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
1.5 |
Defense Health Program and Other Authorizations |
|
35.4 |
35.8 |
35.6 |
Related Agencies |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
General Provisions (net) |
-- |
-3.4 |
-3.7 |
-5.6 |
Subtotal: Base Budget (net) |
511.2 |
510.6 |
509.5 |
509.5 |
OCO-Designated Funds (net) |
58.6 |
58.6 |
58.6 |
61.8 |
TOTAL: FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act (net) |
569.9 |
569.2 |
568.1 |
571.5 |
Source: H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017; H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263, Report to Accompany S. 3000, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017, and S. 3000,
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Funds appropriated for defense are exempt from the budget caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 only if both Congress and the President designate them as OCO or emergency funds. (See 2 U.S.C. Section 901 (b)(2)(A)).
However, the House Appropriations Committee re-allocated $17.5 billion of its OCO-designated funding for what the committee labelled as "base budget requirements." According to the committee, the remaining OCO funds appropriated by the bill 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.
The Administration and the congressional minority leadership 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 non-defense, base budget programs.6
Administration Proposal |
|
| Conference Report The FY2017 base budget funding the bill would provide is consistent with both the FY2017 defense spending cap set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) and the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (P.L. 114-328). This CRS Fact Sheet offers Members the best available information pending publication of a CRS report on the FY2017 defense funding legislation. Budget Cap IssueCongressional action on the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act has been fundamentally shaped by the legally binding caps on discretionary spending for defense and non-defense programs that were established by P.L. 112-25, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and amended by P.L. 114-74, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). A central issue before Congress is the extent to which Congress and the President approve Department of Defense (DOD) funding for FY2017 that (1) exceeds the relevant BBA cap; and (2) is also exempt from that spending cap because it is designated by Congress and the President as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).1 The 2015 BBA increased binding caps on defense and non-defense discretionary appropriations for FY2016 and FY2017, which originally had been codified by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Those spending caps are enforced by a process of "sequestration."2 However, the BCA caps do not apply to appropriations designated both by Congress and the President as funding either (1) for an emergency, or (2) for OCO purposes. The OCO label—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 "non-OCO" share of the annual DOD budget is referred to as the base budget. The FY2017 defense appropriations debate focused, in part, on the difference between the Administration and the House Appropriations Committee 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. In the Obama Administration's FY2017 budget request, DOD and the foreign affairs agencies (the latter falling under the "non-defense" BCA spending caps) were slated to use certain OCO-designated funds for base budget purposes—$5.1 billion in the case of DOD and a similar amount for the international affairs agencies.3H.R. 5293, the version of the bill passed by the House in 2016, included a total of $58.6 billion for OCO-designated funding—roughly the amount requested by the Administration. However, the bill allocated $17.5 billion of this amount for what the House Appropriations Committee labelled as "base budget requirements." According to the committee, the remaining OCO funds appropriated by the bill would cover the cost of OCO requirements through April 2017.4 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. The Obama Administration and the congressional minority leadership objected to providing defense funding for base budget requirements in excess of the spending cap unless it was accompanied by a comparable increase in funding for non-defense budget programs.5 The version of the defense bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee made no comparably large allocation of OCO-designated funding to base budget purposes. The compromise final version of the bill (H.R. 1301) would allocate $3.8 billion in OCO funds for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding that the Obama Administration had included in the base budget. Table 2 provides a summary of selected Administration policy and cost-cutting proposals. Table 3 provides a summary of selected congressional budget increases and policy initiatives.Table 4 provides a summary of selected congressional budget reductions and restrictions. Table 2. Selected Administration Policy and Cost-Cutting Proposals
|
House-passed bill H.R. 5293
Senate committee- reported billS. 3000
House/Senate Negotiated Bill(H.R. 1301)
Obama Administration Proposal |
1.6% raise in Military Basic Pay in lieu of the 2.1% raise that otherwise would occur by lawa |
Adds $340 million to the amount requested for military pay, to cover the cost of the 2.1% pay raise |
Funds the Obama Administration-proposed raise of 1.6 |
Adds a total of $1.93 billion to cover the cost of a 2.1% pay raise and additional costs associated with an increase of 24,000 active-component personnel and 12,000 reserve and National Guard personnel above the requested level |
|
Reduce military end-strength by 27,015 active and 9,800 reserve component personnel |
Adds $3.15 billion to the request, thus funding provisions of H.R. 4909, the House-reported NDAA, which would reject the proposed reduction and |
Funds the Obama Administration-proposed end-strength reductions |
Rejects most of the proposed reductions. (See above) |
|
Introduce various new TRICARE fees and increase some existing fees and copays |
Funds the proposed changes |
Funds the Obama Administration- |
Adds $40 million to pay costs associated with rejection of some proposed changes in the FY2017 NDAA |
|
Remove from service seven Aegis cruisers and three amphibious landing ships for modernization |
Requires that no more than six cruisers be |
|
Rescinds $1.391 billion previously appropriated for this project and adds $400.9 million to fund modernization on the congressionally directed schedule |
|
Disband 1 (of 10) active-duty carrier air wings (requiring change in current law) |
Rejects proposed amendment to current law; adds $149 million for wing operations |
Funds the Administration-proposed reduction |
||
No funding increase specifically linked to FY2017 NDAA's rejection of the Administration-proposal. |
Adds a total of $4.1 billion to the amount requested for aircraft procurement |
Adds a total of $2.4 billion to the aircraft procurement request |
Adds a total of $3.3 billion to the amount requested for aircraft procurement |
|
|
Cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning |
Cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning |
Cuts $3.5 million slated for BRAC planning |
Source: H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017; H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263, Report to Accompany S. 3000, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017, and S. 3000,
Notes:
a.
For background, see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by [author name scrubbed]Lawrence Kapp.
b.
For background, see CRS In Focus IF10362, The President's FY2017 Military Construction Budget Request, by [author name scrubbed]Daniel H. Else.
Issue |
House-passed bill |
Senate committee- reported bill |
Conference Report |
Troop levels in Afghanistan |
Adds $2.1 billion to support deployment of 9,800 U.S. troops (rather than 5,500 as proposed by the Administration) |
No addition to the amount requested |
|
Israeli Missile Defense Systems |
Adds $465 million |
Adds $455 million |
Adds $455 million |
Ship Procurement (Administration requested $18.4 billion) |
Increases shipbuilding procurement account by a total of $3.2 billion including additional funds for one Littoral Combat Ship, partial funding for a destroyer and an amphibious landing transport, and Increases shipbuilding procurement account by a total of $2.1 billion, including funds for one Littoral Combat Ship and one icebreaker, and partial funding for a destroyer and an amphibious landing transport |
Increases shipbuilding procurement account by a total of $2. | |
Maintenance and Repair of Facilities (Administration requested $9.6 billion) |
Adds $1.6 billion |
Adds $154 million |
Adds $148 million |
Readiness Improvement Fund to be allocated at discretion of DOD [not in Obama Administration request] |
No related provision |
Adds $2.45 billion (Section 8088 and Section 9016) |
|
Navy and Air Force Depot Maintenance (Administration requested $19.4 billion) |
Adds $801 million in O&M accounts to "restore readiness" |
Cuts $194 million for various efficiencies |
|
National Guard and Reserve Equipment (Administration requested $3.06 billion for Guard and reserves in the services' budgets) |
Adds $1.15 billion |
Adds $960 million (of which $60 million is for HMMWV ambulances) |
Adds $1.11 billion (of which approx. $204 million is for Black Hawk helicopters and $160 million for HMMWVs) |
Medical Research and Development (Administration requested $1.01 billion) |
Adds $735 million |
Adds $915 million |
Adds $1.3 billion |
Science and Technology R&D (Administration requested $12.5 billion for |
Adds $654 million |
Adds $254 million |
Adds $777 million |
Source: H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017; H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263, Report to Accompany S. 3000, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017, and S. 3000,
Issue |
House-passed bill |
Senate committee- reported bill |
Conference Report |
Administration efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
Prohibits transferring detainees to the United States (Section 8096) and imposes other relevant restrictions (Sections 8097, 8098, and |
Prohibits transferring detainees to the United States (Section 8097) and imposes other relevant restrictions (Sections 8098 and 8099) |
Prohibits transferring detainees to the United States (Section 8101) and imposes other relevant restrictions (Sections 8102 and 8103) |
Fuel prices assumed in the budget request |
Cuts $1.49 billion on the assumption that actual prices in FY2017 will be lower (Section 8117) |
Cuts $1.59 billion on the assumption that actual prices in FY2017 will be lower (Section |
Cuts $1.16 billion on the assumption that actual prices in FY2017 will be lower (Section 8119) |
Foreign currency exchange 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 value of the dollar (Section 8074) |
No comparable action |
|
Rescission of funds appropriated in prior years for specific programs (which offsets appropriations of the same amount of new budget authority, thus reducing the cost of the bill by that amount) |
Rescinds $1.95 billion (Section 8023 and Section 9020) |
Rescinds $3.38 billion (Section 8041 and Sections 9014-9015) |
|
Reductions described by the committee as justified by efficiency, e.g., unexpended budget authority, funds requested before needed, or costs lower than planned
|
Cuts $6.54 billion |
Cuts $10.11 billion |
Source: H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017; H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263, Report to Accompany S. 3000, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017, and S. 3000,
In the versions of the FY2017 Defense Appropriations Act passed by the House and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (H.R. 5293 and S. 3000, respectively) many of the proposed reductions to the amounts requested for specific elements of the DOD budget were "programmatic"—that is, they reflected a specific change in the Administration's announced program that is desired by the authoring committee. Each of the bills also incorporates "non-programmatic" reductions—cuts that the committees present as reflecting fact-of-life reductions in the amount a program would spend during the coming fiscal year. Accordingly, the committees assert these reductions should not have any adverse impact on the scope, pace, or cost of the program involved.
For some of these non-programmatic cuts, there are relatively specific justifications, for example, anticipated reductions in the price of fuel, increasing strength of the dollar against foreign currencies in countries where U.S. forces operate, and rescissions of previously appropriated funds that will not be spent for their intended purposes. Across-the-board reductions in the House and Senate versions of the defense bill based on these three rationales are listed in Table 4.
Each of the two defense funding bills also includes proposed reductions to specific elements of the budget request that are justified by the committees as reflecting efficiencies or budgetary facts-of-life. In some cases, a request is reduced by some amount which the committees assert can be replaced by "unobligated balances" or "carryovers"—funds appropriated in previous budgets but not yet spent. In other cases, a request is reduced because, according to the committee, funding is requested before it would be needed or because projected costs have declined because of price reductions. Although most of the reductions are relatively small, their cumulative impact is to cut several billion dollars from the Administration's budget request, making those funds available either to pay for congressional initiatives or to reduce the total amount appropriated by the bill.
Table 5 summarizes the non-programmatic reductions to the Administration's request that are recommended by H.R. 5293 and S. 3000. The table includes savings that are ascribed to fuel costs, foreign exchange rates, and rescissions, as well as cuts based on proposed efficiencies and other fact-of-life changes.
Appropriation Account |
Budget Request |
|
|
Military Personnel |
132,465 |
-772 |
-934 |
O&M |
215,783 |
-1,090 |
-2,085 |
Procurement |
111,022 |
-2,770 |
-3,203 |
RDT&E |
71,766 |
-1,370 |
-2,586 |
Revolving Funds & Related Agencies |
2,560 |
0 |
0 |
DHP and Other Programs |
36,262 |
-530 |
-385 |
General Provisions |
-- |
-4,023 |
-5,733 |
Total |
569,858 |
-10,555 |
-15,083 |
Source: H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017; H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263, Report to Accompany S. 3000, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017, and S. 3000,
Note: These figures do not include proposed reductions to specific programs for which a specific rationale is given. Nor do they include reductions that are described as "classified."
No comparable action Source: H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017; H.R. 5293, S.Rept. 114-263, Report to Accompany S. 3000, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2017, and "Explanatory Statement" to accompany H.R. 1301.Table 6
Area of Expertise |
Name |
Phone |
|
|||
Specialist in National Defense |
Else, Daniel |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Specialist in Military Ground Forces |
Feickert, Andy |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Specialist in Military Aviation |
Gertler, Jeremiah |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed]
|
Specialist in Military Ground Forces
|
Feickert, Andy
|
Specialist in Military Aviation Gertler, Jeremiah |
Specialist in Specialist in U.S. & Foreign National Security Programs |
Hildreth, Steven A. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] | |||
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy |
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 Non-proliferation |
Kerr, Paul |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Analyst in International Security |
McInnis, Kathleen J. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Analyst in |
Miles, Anne Daugherty |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Specialist in Non-proliferation |
Nikitin, Mary Beth D. |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Specialist in Naval Affairs |
O'Rourke, Ron |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] | |||
|
Schwartz, Moshe |
[phone number scrubbed] |
[email address scrubbed] |
|||
Specialist in National Security Policy and Information Operations |
Theohary, Catherine A. |
[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 R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status, coordinated by |
2. |
See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by |
3. |
|
4. |
|
H.Rept. 114-577, Report to Accompany H.R. 5293, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2017, pp. 3-4. By terms of the House-passed version of the companion FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909) authorization for FY2017 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding designated as OCO would expire on April 20, 2017 (Section 1504)] . |
|
See OMB, "Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4909, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017," May 16, 2016, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr4909r_20160516.pdf; and Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, May 25, 2016 http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-05-25-reid-senate-must-give-defense-bill-deliberative-approach-it-deserves#.V1GXYE0UVFo . |