Defense: FY2012 Budget Request,
Authorization and Appropriations
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
June 15, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41861
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
On May 26, 2011, the House approved H.R. 1540, the FY2012 National Defense Authorization
Act, by a vote of 322-96. In all, the bill authorizes $690.1 billion in discretionary funding for
military activities of the Department of Defense and for nuclear weapons-related activities of the
Department of Energy, an increase of $1.1 billion over the amount requested. Of the total, $553.0
billion is for the Department of Defense base budget, including military construction, $18.1
billion is for the Department of Energy, and $118.9 billion is for DOD overseas contingency
operations. All of the net increase to the request is for overseas operations.
A major debate in the House concerned U.S. policy in Afghanistan. On May 26, by a relatively
narrow vote of 204-215, the House rejected an amendment by Representative McGovern that
would have required the President, within 60 days of enactment of the legislation, to transmit to
Congress (1) “a plan with a timeframe and completion date for the accelerated transition of
United States military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan”
and (2) “a plan with a timeframe to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to a political
settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan,” with participants in the
negotiations to include “the Government of Afghanistan, all interested parties within Afghanistan,
and with the observance and support of representatives of donor nations active in Afghanistan.”
The House-passed bill includes a number of provisions on other policy issues that may become
matters of debate with the Senate. One provision would defer repeal of a 1993 statute barring
homosexual persons from military service until the senior uniformed officer of each service
certifies, in writing, that repeal would not degrade the combat readiness, cohesion or morale of
units. The measure would add an additional hurdle to the reversal of DOD’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell Policy.” Legislation passed last year requires that the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, and the President certify that the repeal is consistent with military readiness,
military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting, and that DOD has prepared the necessary
policies and regulations for implementing the repeal. Other provisions concerning nuclear
weapons policy were specifically opposed in a White House Statement of Administration Policy.
The amounts provided for DOD in FY2012 will ultimately be determined in the annual defense
appropriations bill and the appropriations bill for military construction and VA and related
agencies. On May 24, the House Appropriations Committee formally approved the allocation of
total discretionary appropriations to each of the Appropriations subcommittees under Section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. For the so-called “base budget”—that is, excluding war
costs—the 302(b) allocations would require an $8.9 billion reduction to the President’s request.
One June 14, 2011, the House Appropriations Committee approved by voice vote an FY2012
DOD Appropriations bill which reduced the President’s requested base budget by $8.9 billion.
However, in the part of the bill that would fund war costs, the committee approved $842 million
more than the President’s $117.8 billion request, as the 302(b) allocation allowed. Thus the net
reduction to the President’s request for the entire DOD Appropriations bill as reported to the
House would be $8.1 billion.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Status of Legislation.................................................................................................................... 2
FY2012 DOD Budget Request .................................................................................................... 2
Base Budget Highlights......................................................................................................... 5
War Cost Highlights.............................................................................................................. 6
Budgetary Impact and Deficits .................................................................................................... 8
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date .............................................................. 11
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540): House........................................ 11
Earmarks and Add-ons .................................................................................................. 13
Military Personnel Issues .............................................................................................. 15
Readiness...................................................................................................................... 17
Acquisition Policy......................................................................................................... 18
Ground Combat Systems............................................................................................... 19
Shipbuilding ................................................................................................................. 21
Aircraft ......................................................................................................................... 22
Strategic Weapons, Missile Defense and Arms Control .................................................. 23
Military Construction: Homeports and Headquarters ..................................................... 25
Issues Related to Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq..................................................... 26
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act ....................................................................................... 29
Selected Highlights of the Bill....................................................................................... 29
Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-12........................................................ 3
Figure 2. Funding by Country FY2008-12.................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Troop Level by Country FY2008-12............................................................................. 6
Figure 4. OCO Funding Requests by Function, FY2011-12 ......................................................... 7
Figure 5. Projected Future Defense Budgets, FY2012-16............................................................. 8
Figure 6. Alternative National Defense Budget Trends, FY2010-FY2023 .................................. 10
Tables
Table 1. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1540................................................ 2
Table 2. FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act .............................................................................. 2
Table 3. Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012 .............................................. 4
Table 4. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act Summary (H.R. 1540)............................. 12
Table 5. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2012 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 1540) ..................................................................................................................... 27
Table 6. FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act ................................................................................ 31
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding:
Authorization......................................................................................................................... 33
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables............................................................................. 33
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 51
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On May 26 the House passed H.R. 1540, its version of the FY2012 National Defense
Authorization Act, by a vote of 322-96. The bill would add $1.1 billion to the $689.0 billion
requested by the President for programs covered that legislation.
The bill made few substantial changes to the Administration’s funding requests for particular
weapons, but it included several policy provisions to which the Administration strongly objected.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its Statement of Administration Policy on the
bill1 said the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill if it contained, in
its final form, House-passed provisions relating to three issues:
• Provisions requiring DOD to cooperate with efforts to keep alive with private
funds the effort to develop an alternative jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter;2
• Provisions limiting the Administration’s ability to implement the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty with Russia (referred to as New START) ratified in 2010;3 and
• Provisions which, in the words of the OMB statement, “purport” that the United
States is in a state of conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated entities
but which, the Administration says, would “recharacterize” the scope of the
conflict.4
The House rejected by a vote of 204-215 an amendment that would have required the President to
prepare a plan and an accelerated timeframe for Afghan forces to replace U.S. forces in military
operations in that country.
H.R. 1540 is the first major funding-related bill that the House has debated under procedures that
have the practical effect of ruling out Member-sponsored initiatives specifically targeted at
particular programs, entities or locales (colloquially referred to as “earmarks”). While the bill
would authorize some Member-sponsored additions to the DOD budget request, there are fewer
of them than in past defense bills and their intent is described in more general terms than has been
the case.5
On June 14, 2011, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2012
DOD appropriations bill, which would provide $649.2 billion for all DOD military activities
except military construction. That would be a net reduction of $8.1 billion from the President’s
request for those programs. More than half that net reduction came from rescissions and cuts
based on revised economic assumptions or contract delays.6
1 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1540—National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2012.
2 See “Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine, below.
3 See “START Arms Reduction Treaty,” below.
4 See “Issues Related to Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,” below.
5 See “Earmarks and Add-ons,” below.
6 See “FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act,” below
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Status of Legislation
Table 1. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1540
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
5/4-5/6
H.Rept.
Agreed to
2011
112-78
322-96
5/17/2011 5/26/2011
Table 2. FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/1/2011
FY2012 DOD Budget Request
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD), which totaled
$671.6 billion, was nearly 5.3% less than the amount he had requested for DOD in FY2011 and
nearly 2.5% lower than the amount Congress approved for that year, after slicing more than $20
billion from the FY2011 DOD request. The bulk of the reduction reflected the Administration’s
plan to reduce DOD funding for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by 26% as the tempo
of U.S. military activity in Iraq continues to decline and the planned drawdown of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan gets underway (see Figure 1).
The FY2012 budget assumes that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the first quarter
of FY2012 and that the average number in Afghanistan will decline from 102,000 during FY2011
to 98,000, as the Administration begins its planned drawdown in U.S. troop levels.
The FY2012 request, sent to Congress on February 7, 2011, included $553.7 billion for DOD’s
so-called “base budget,” which includes all routine activities other than ongoing war costs.
Compared with FY2011 DOD base budget set by the FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 1473, P.L. 112-10), this amounts to a 3% real increase
in purchasing power, taking account of inflation. On the other hand, the FY2012 request for so-
called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO i.e., operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), which is
$117.8 billion, would amount to an inflation-adjusted decrease of 27% (see Figure 1).
Of the FY2012 base budget request, $528.2 billion is for programs funded by the annual DOD
appropriations bill while $14.8 billion is for military construction and family housing programs
funded by the annual appropriations bill for those activities, the Department of Veterans Affairs
and other agencies. The remaining $10.7 billion requested in the FY2012 base budget funds the
so-called Tricare-for-Life program which provides medical benefits to Medicare-eligible military
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
retirees. Funding for Tricare-for-Life is a permanent appropriation made automatically under a
provision of standing law.7
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-12
Amounts in billions of dollars
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2012
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
request
Afghanistan
34
39
52
100
113
107
other supp.
3
7
1
Iraq
132
145
94
62
68
11
Base Budget
432
480
513
528
526
553
Source: DOD FY2012 Budget Briefing.
7 House and Senate Appropriations Committee tables generally show the amount for Tricare-for-Life as a
“scorekeeping adjustment.” DOD tables generally show the amount as part of the annual request for military personnel.
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Table 3. Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2012 Request vs
FY2011 Enacted
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
Defense Discretionary
Request Enacted Request Amount Percent
Title I—Military Personnel 127,669
126,740
132,097 5,357 4.23%
Title II—O&M
167,879
163,545
170,759
7,214
4.41%
Title III—Procurement
111,190
101,558
113,028
11,470
11.29%
Title IV—RDT&E
76,131
74,576
75,425
849
1.14%
Title V—Revolving and
2,379 2,909 2,701 -208 -7.14%
Management Funds
Title VI—Other DOD
34,033 34,313 33,645 -668 -1.95%
Programs
Title VII—Related Agencies
707
650
592
-58
-8.89%
Title VIII—General Provisions
Rescissions
-2,014
2,014
-100.00%
Other Provisions
11
-185
185
-100.00%
DOD Appropriations Bill
519,999 502,093 528,247 26,154 5.21%
(Discretionary)
Tricare for Life Accrual
10,873
10,873
10,732
-141
-1.29%
DOD Appropriations
530,872 512,966 538,980 26,014 5.07%
w. Tricare for Life Accrual
Military Construction &
18,747 16,589 14,766 -1,823 -10.99%
Family Housing
Total DOD Base Budget
549,619 529,555 553,746 24,191
4.57%
(Discretionary)
Overseas Contingency
159,336 159,046 117,843 -41,203 -25.91%
Operations (OCO)
Grand Total
708,955
688,601
671,589
-17,012
-2.47%
Sources: FY2011 data are from text of H.R. 1473 as provided by House Rules Committee, April 11, 2011.
Military construction total forl H.R. 1473 in the base budget includes a 0.2% across-the-board cut imposed in
Section 1119 of the bill. FY2012 request from Department of Defense, “Financial Summary Tables” and "National
Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2012," February 2011.
Notes: Percentage changes are in nominal terms, not adjusted for inflation.
The FY2012 budget request would reduce military construction funding for the third year in a
row, largely for three reasons:
• The budget to build facilities for units that are moving to new sites as a result of
the FY2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process is down sharply
because most BRAC-related construction was funded in earlier budgets, in order
to meet a September 15, 2011 deadline for completing the moves;
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
• The budget for construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was $1.3
billion in FY2011, is $80 million in FY2012; and
• The request for family housing-related accounts continues to decline as a result
of a policy, begun in the late 1990s, of privatizing military housing.
Military Construction Funding
For analysis of the FY2012 military construction budget request and funding legislation, see CRS Report R41653,
Military Construction: Analysis of the President’s FY2012 Appropriations Request, by Daniel H. Else
Base Budget Highlights
Compared with the Obama Administration’s prior DOD budget requests, the FY2012 proposal
incorporates fewer cuts to major weapons programs. However, the Administration’s proposal
would cancel the Marine Corps’s effort to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) as a
replacement for its current fleet of amphibious troop carriers. It also would restructure the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program, slowing a projected increase in production, increasing the plane’s
development budget, and putting on probation for two years the effort to develop a vertical
takeoff version of that plane for use by the Marines.
To replace some aging Navy fighters that had been slated for replacement by now-delayed F-35s,
the budget would continue longer than had been planned—through FY2014—the purchase of
F/A-18E/F carrier-based jets. It also would fund efforts to develop a new generation of long-range
bombers and missile-launching submarines and mid-air refueling tankers.
The budget would continue the Administration’s avowed emphasis on acquiring equipment that
would enhance the ability of U.S. forces to conduct the types of operations which the
Administration deems most likely in the near term: relatively limited, if prolonged and complex
operations such as the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than large-scale,
conventional wars with a potential peer competitor, such as China or a militarily resurgent Russia.
For example, the budget requests more than $10 billion to develop and acquire various types of
helicopters and $4.8 billion for an array of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that range in size
and price from the airliner-sized Global Hawk to hand-launched reconnaissance drones the size of
a toy.
The FY2012 budget request also incorporates some early results of the Administration’s pledge to
achieve a total of $178 billion in efficiency savings in the DOD budgets for FY2012-FY2016.
To reach that $178 billion goal, the armed services and the Special Operations Command are to
identify a total of $100 billion in savings over the five-year period of which $28 billion is to be
used to cover higher-than-anticipated operating costs while the remaining $72 billion is to be
reinvested over the five year period in high priority weapons programs, such as development of
the Air Force’s new long-range bomber, procurement of additional F/A-18E/F fighters and the
addition of six ships to the Navy’s acquisition plan.
Over the same five-year period (FY2012-FY2016), DOD officials are committed to reduce the
cumulative DOD budget request by a total of $78 billion through such factors as DOD’s share of
the two-year, government-wide freeze on federal civilian pay ($12 billion), a freeze on the size of
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
the DOD civilian workforce ($13 billion), and a reduction in service support contracts ($6
billion).
The FY2012 budget reflects an initial installment of $10.7 billion toward a projected total savings
by the services and Special Operations Command of $100.2 billion through FY2016. Of the
FY2012 total, $3.3 billion comes from reducing or terminating acquisition programs, $3.5 billion
is attributed to organizational streamlining, and $3.9 billion is to come from more efficient
business practices.
War Cost Highlights
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request for war costs reflects its plan to wrap up by the end
of calendar year 2011 the U.S. combat role in Iraq and to begin drawing down the U.S. military
effort in Afghanistan (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Under an agreement with the government of Iraq, U.S. military forces are slated to withdraw by
December 31, 2011, by which time Iraqi forces will be responsible for providing internal security.
In contrast with the FY2011 DOD budget, in which Congress appropriated $1.5 billion of the
$2.0 billion requested for funds to train and equip Iraqi forces, the FY2012 DOD budget requests
no funds for those purposes.
Figure 2. Funding by Country
Figure 3. Troop Level by Country
FY2008-12
FY2008-12
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
2012
2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
2008
2009
2010
2011
Request
Request
Iraq
148
94
62
46
11
Iraq
154
141
96
43
5
Afghanistan
39
52
100
113
107
Afghanistan
33
44
84
102
98
Millions of dollars
Number of troops in thousands
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2012 DOD Budget
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2012 DOD Budget
Request Overview, p, 6-4,
Request Overview, p, 6-4,
In December 2009, President Obama announced decisions to (1) “surge” the number of U.S.
military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan, with the aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaeda
and (2) begin a “conditions-based” withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country in July 2011. In
December 2010, announcing the results of the Administration’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Annual
Review, President Obama said the United States was committed to handing over to the Afghan
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
government lead responsibility that country’s security by 2012.8 Consistent with that policy, the
DOD budget for funds to train and equip Afghan Security forces, for which Congress approved
(as requested) $11.6 billion in FY2011, would increase to $12.8 billion in FY2012 under the
Administration’s budget (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. OCO Funding Requests by Function, FY2011-12
Amounts in billions of dollars
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Local
Equipment
Operations
Protection
Intelligence
Other
Support
Reset
FY2012
66.6
10.1
11.5
13.9
1.9
11.9
FY2011
89.4
15.3
12.6
16.9
3.8
21.4
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2012 DOD Budget Request Overview, p, 6-5.
Notes: “Local Support” includes funding to support Iraqi and Afghan security forces and other countries
assisting the U.S. effort as well as the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP).”Intelligence” includes
military intelligence and classified activity by U.S. agencies other than DOD.
War Funding
This report summarizes highlights of the budget request and legislative actions relating to operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, For a comprehensive analysis of issues related to the funding of U.S. military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan see CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since
9/11, by Amy Belasco.
8 For background and analysis, see CRS Report R40156, War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Operations, and Issues for
Congress, by Catherine Dale.
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Budgetary Impact and Deficits
Congress is weighing the FY2012 DOD budget request in the context of intense pressure across a
wide band of the political spectrum to reduce the federal budget deficit.
In January 2011, a few weeks before DOD published its FY2012 request, the Defense
Department announced $78 billion of savings in the FY2012-FY2016 five-year defense plan that
was submitted with the FY2012 budget request, compared with the spending plan for the same
period that accompanied the FY2011 DOD budget request (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Projected Future Defense Budgets, FY2012-16
Amounts in billions of dollars
660
640
620
600
580
560
540
520
500
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
FY2011 Budget Request
566
582
598
616
635
FY2012 Budget Request
553
571
586
598
611
Source: DOD Comptroller, FY2012 DOD Budget Request Overview, p, 1-2,
But even before the President released his FY2012 proposal, there had been calls for more
substantial retrenchment in DOD spending. In December, 2010, former Senator Alan Simpson
and former White House staff director Erskine Bowles, the co-chairs of the Presidentially
appointed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (generally referred to as the
“Fiscal Commission”) recommended cuts in security-related spending that, if applied
proportionally to defense, would entail a reduction of as much as $100 billion a year in national
defense funding by the middle of the decade compared to Administration projections at the time
of the Commission report.9 The Fiscal Commission plan also contemplates substantial additional
9 The Moment of Truth: Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, December 2010,
accessed at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
cuts in later years. In November 2010, the independent, bipartisan Domenici-Rivlin Debt
Reduction Task Force recommended a comparable cut in defense by the middle of the decade,
though it would allow growth in spending to resume thereafter.10
On April 13, the President outlined a long-term budget proposal that would reduce funding for
security-related programs, of which defense is the largest part,11 by an additional $400 billion
(beyond the reductions embodied in the FY2012 DOD request) over the 12 years from FY2012-
FY2023.12 The Defense Department is now working on adjusting its long-term plans to absorb an
as-yet-undetermined share of the cuts (see Figure 6).
(...continued)
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf. It is
important to note that the Fiscal Commission did not reach a consensus. Eleven of the eighteen members of the
Commission endorsed the plan by Co-Chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, but the proposal did not receive the
14 votes needed for formal approval.
10 Restoring America’s Future, Debt Reduction Task Force, Bipartisan Policy Center, November 2010.
11 The Administration defines security-related discretionary spending to include Department of Defense military
activities, Department of Energy nuclear weapons development and production, Department of Veterans’ Affairs health
programs, international affairs, and Department of Homeland Security spending. The security category is sometimes
defined differently, however.
12 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President on Fiscal Policy,” George Washington
University, April 13, 2011, on line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/remarks-president-fiscal-
policy.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 6. Alternative National Defense Budget Trends, FY2010-FY2023
(billions of dollars)
800
700
rs
lla
600
o
f d
o
s
n
500
illio
B
400
300
FY2010
FY2012
FY2014
FY2016
FY2018
FY2020
FY2022
Fiscal Year
CBO Baseline
Feb 2010 Request
Feb 2011 Request
April 2011 Estimate
Fiscal Commission
Domenici-Rivlin
Sources: CBO baseline from Congressional Budget Office; February 2010 and 2011 requests from Office of
Management and Budget; estimates of Fiscal Commission, Domenici-Rivlin, and April 2011 Administration plans
by Congressional Research Service.
Note: Amounts are for discretionary budget authority for the national defense budget function, excluding
funding for overseas contingency operations.
Some defense advocates have opposed the President’s plan for additional reductions in projected
DOD budgets, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Representative Howard P.
“Buck” McKeon who called the proposal to take $400 billion from security-related budgets
“jawdropping…. There appears to have been no consideration of threats, of deterrence, of
logistics, or capabilities — or even the effect such cuts would have on our three wars, our troops,
or our national security,” he said in an op-ed column published in USA Today.13
However, in April, the House incorporated the Administration’s February defense projections,
extended through FY2021, in its FY2012 budget resolution. The House Appropriations
Committee went further, setting a funding target for the Defense Subcommittee requiring
Congress to cut $8.9 billion from the President’s FY2012 request for the DOD base budget14, as
13 Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, “Obama Cuts Would Gut U.S. Defense,” USA Today, April 28, 1011, accessed at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-04-28-McKeon-blasts-Obama-defense-
cuts_n.htm#uslPageReturn.
14 See House Appropriations Committee press release, “Chairman Rogers Announces Schedule and Subcommttee
Spending Limits to Complete Appropriations Bills ‘On Time and On Budget’,” May 11, 2011 accessed at
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=298&Month=5&Year=
2011
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
the subcommittee subsequently did in a draft FY2012 DOD appropriations bill it marked up June
1.
In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 2415 Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
that, as a practical matter, it was inevitable that projected future defense budgets would be scaled
back as part of the deficit reduction effort. He said that the President’s proposed reductions were
not unprecedented:
What’s being proposed by the President is nothing close to the dramatic cuts of the past. For
example, defense spending in constant dollars declined by roughly a third between 1985 and
1998. What’s being considered today, assuming all $400 billion comes from DOD over 12
years, corresponds to a projected reduction of about 5 percent in constant dollars—or slightly
less than keeping pace with inflation.
However, Secretary Gates also emphasized that the proposed reductions would require tough
decisions about such hitherto untouchable issues as the pay, pensions and medical care of military
personnel and their families, and the type and number of missions U.S. forces could be ready to
handle:
If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make
conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country, as well as
for the variety of military operations we have around the world if lower priority missions are
scaled back or eliminated.
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to
Date
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540): House
On May 26, by a vote of 322-96, the House passed its version of the FY2012 National Defense
Authorization Act, H.R. 1540. Earlier, the House Armed Services Committee completed its
markup of the bill on May 11 and issued a report on May 17 (H.Rept. 112-78) followed on May
23 by a supplemental report covering the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the
bill’s budgetary impact (H.Rept. 112-78 Part 2).
The House approved a rule on the bill, H.Res. 269, on May 23 and subsequently debated the bill
and considered floor on amendments on May 25-26. Policy in Afghanistan was, perhaps, the most
significant issue. In a key vote, on May 26, the House rejected by 204-215 an amendment by
Representative McGovern to require the President, within 60 days, to transmit to Congress (1) “a
plan with a timeframe and completion date for the accelerated transition of United States military
and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan” and (2) “a plan with a
timeframe to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to a political settlement and reconciliation
of the internal conflict in Afghanistan,” to include the Government of Afghanistan, all interested
15 Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Speech to the American Enterprise Institute, May 24, 2011, accessed at
http://www.defense.gov//speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1570.
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
parties within Afghanistan, and with the observance and support of representatives of donor
nations active in Afghanistan.”
Overall, the bill would authorize $690.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for programs
covered by that bill. This includes $553.0 billion for DOD’s so-called “base budget” (which does
not include the cost of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and an additional $118.9
billion for those war-related activities (referred to as Overseas Contingency Operations). The
remaining $18.1 billion is for defense-related nuclear activities carried out by the Department of
Energy.
Viewed in the aggregate, H.R. 1540 would make only minor changes to President Obama’s
funding request for programs covered by the authorization bill: The DOD base budget request
would be trimmed by $1.7 million while the $1.1 billion the bill would add to the request for war
costs is accounted for almost entirely by the House committee’s addition to the DOD budget of
$1.1 billion for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, a program which the Administration’s
budget had funded through the State Department.16 (See Table 4).
Table 4. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act Summary (H.R. 1540)
amounts in millions of dollars
FY2011
FY2012 House
Authorization
FY2012
Committee
H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-
Administration
Reported
383
Request
H.R. 1540
DOD Base Budget
Procurement
110,433 111,454 111,386
Research
and
Development 76,587 75,325 75,580
Operations
and
Maintenance 168,151 170,759 171,120
Military Personnel 138,541
142,829 142,164
Other
Authorizations
36,274 37,900 38,016
Military Construction and Family
18,191 14,766 14,766
Housing
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
548,176
553,033
553,032
Subtotal: Atomic Energy Defense
17,716 18,085 18,085
Activities (Energy Dept.)
TOTAL: FY2012 Base Budget
565,891
571,118
571,117
Subtotal: Overseas Contingency
158,750 117,843 118,940
Operations
GRAND TOTAL:
724,642 688,961 690,056
FY2012 National Defense
Authorization
16 Echoing action that Congress incorporated into the FY2011 funding bills, H.R. 1540 would defer for one additional
year (in this case, through FY2012) the transfer from DOD to the State Department of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund.
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Source: H.Rept. 112-78, House Armed Services Committee, “Report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”
However, the bill’s aggregate subtotals reflect dozens of committee-proposed additions and
subtractions to various components of the President’s request which, all told, would shift billions
of dollars. In its report accompanying the bill (H.Rept. 112-78), the House Armed Services
Committee cited a variety of policy and management justifications for these proposed changes.
Among the most costly of the policy-based increases proposed by the committee are the
following:
• $1.31 billion to increase funding for maintenance, repair and upgrades to
facilities;
• $375 million to continue production of M-1 tanks and Bradley troop carriers,
contrary to DOD’s proposal to shut down those production lines;
• $310 million to accelerate development and production of various anti-missile
defense systems, including $110 million for systems designed and manufactured
in Israel, intended for that country’s defense; and
• $325 for equipment for the National Guard and the other reserve components of
the armed services.
The committee bill also incorporates recommended cuts to the DOD budget request. Among the
largest of the proposed reductions aimed at specific weapons programs are cuts of:
• $523.9 million from the Army’s request for an airborne electronic eavesdropping
system designated the Airborne Common Sensor, and
• $149.5 million from the MEADS anti-missile system, which is being jointly
developed by the United States, German, and Italy.
But the largest component of the budget cuts which the committee proposed was based on its
judgment that many DOD budget accounts held funds, appropriated in prior years, which would
not be obligated by the end of FY2011 and, thus, could be used in lieu of new budget authority to
cover some of the cost of DOD’s FY2012 program. All told, the committee cut $2.66 billion from
the amounts requested for various accounts on grounds that the funds could be made up from
“unobligated balances” in those accounts.
The committee also incorporated into H.R. 1540 across-the-board cuts in the operations and
maintenance accounts to reflect 10% reductions in the amounts requested for printing (a cut of
$35.7 million) and for the performance of studies and analysis by outside think-tanks (a $24.0
million reduction).
Earmarks and Add-ons
Compared with annual defense authorization bills in the recent past, H.R. 1540 includes fewer
member-sponsored funding initiatives (widely referred to as “earmarks”) and those it does
include are much less specific in terms of identifying the program, contractor or locality for
which the additional funds are intended.
Early in the House committee’s process of addressing the FY2012 DOD budget request, the
committee’s chairman, Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, announced that the
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
authorization bill would be marked up in compliance with the policy of the House Republican
Conference that bans for the duration of the 112th Congress the adoption of “earmarks” defined by
the rules of the House. He also announced that any Member-sponsored amendment to the
committee’s draft bill would be subject to a vote by the full committee in open session.
Clause 9 of House Rule XXI defines a congressional earmark as
a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific
amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a
contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity,
or targeted to a specific State, locality, or Congressional district, other than through a
statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.17
In the course of a markup session that began on May 11, 2011 and ran into the early hours of May
12, the House committee approved more than 200 amendments, most of them by voice votes on
en bloc groupings that incorporated several amendments. Of the amendments that were adopted,
156 increased the amount authorized for particular purposes. However, compared with similar
Member-sponsored additions to earlier defense bills, the purposes of the add-ons to H.R. 1540
were defined in less specific terms.
Compared with the FY2010 authorization bill reported by the House Armed Services Committee
in June 2009 (H.R. 2647; H.Rept. 111-166), the committee’s FY2012 defense bill would reduce
the number of add-ons by nearly three-quarters, but would add about the same amount of money,
in toto.18 In the titles of the annual authorization bills that authorize Procurement and Research &
Development, as reported by the House Armed Services Committee:
• The FY2010 bill included 372 earmarks each with a value of less than $100
million19, providing a total of $1.37 billion (for an average value per earmark of
$3.7 million); and
• The FY2012 bill included 98 committee additions with a value of less than $100
million, providing a total of $1.30 billion (for an average value per addition of
$13.3 million).
17 U.S. Congress, House, House Rules and Manual, §1068d.
18 Direct comparisons between H.R. 1540 and defense authorization bills reported by the committee in the recent past is
complicated by the fact that, because the committee’s procedure precludes the inclusion of “earmarks” in H.R. 1540,
there is no “earmark” list appended to its report on the bill, as there were in the committee’s reports on earlier defense
bills reported beginning in 2007. This analysis compares the authorization bills for FY2010 and FY2012, as reported by
the House Armed Services Committee and focuses on additions to the budget request of less than $100 million, which
encompasses the vast majority of add-ons to each bill and all but one of the earmarks that to the FY2010 bill that are
identified by the committee.
In bills for which the House Armed Services Committee prepared “earmark” lists, it did not treat as “earmarks” a
relatively small number of large initiatives, which the committee regarded as policy initiatives sponsored by the
committee itself, rather than as requests by an individual member. For example, the committee did not list as an
earmark its addition to the FY2010 defense bill (H.R. 2647) of $601 million to continue developing, as an alternative
engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-136 jet being developed by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. Similarly,
H.R. 1540 includes a handful of relatively large add-ons which are discussed in the committee report as policy issues.
19 The committee report lists only one earmark in the bill worth more than $100 million, which is the addition of $105
million for procurement of a C-40 executive jet.
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
The impact of the new approach to Member-sponsored funding initiatives is even more striking in
a comparison of portion of the authorization bills for FY2010 and FY2012 that cover military
construction projects:
• The FY2010 bill included 110 military construction earmarks for specific
projects at specific sites with a total value of $579 million; and
• The FY2012 bill would add to the construction request 22 lump-sum amounts—
all but two of them in the amount of $10 million or $20 million—for general
classes of facilities (e.g., maintenance and production facilities, troop housing
facilities, operational facilities) with the additional funds available for use at
“unspecified worldwide locations.”
‘Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund’
In previous defense authorization bills reported by the House Armed Services Committee,
additions to the budget request typically have been listed in the funding tables that are part of the
committee report on the bill. By contrast, most20 of the committee’s additions to H.R. 1540 are
listed in the text of the bill (Title XVI), each addition being accompanied by the stipulation that
additional funds be allocated to a specific entity only on the basis of “merit-based” or
“competitive” procedures.
The committee covered the cost of most, though not all, of those add-ons costing less
than $100 million each by drawing down funds in a new account, called the Mission
Force Enhancement Transfer Fund, which it had created with $1 billion that had been cut
from various parts of the DOD budget request. Program add-ons adopted by the
committee absorbed $651.7 million of the amount put into the fund, leaving a balance of
$348.3 million.
As reported, the bill would have authorized the Secretary of Defense to draw money from
the fund to meet unfunded requirements in any of seven areas: missile defense;
shipbuilding; shortages in the number of strike fighters; mine warfare; intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance; basic research; and the ability to defeat precision-guided
ballistic missile and other weapons intended to bar access of U.S. forces to certain areas.
However, by a vote of 269-151, the House adopted an amendment eliminating the fund
from the bill (see Table 5).
Military Personnel Issues
For military personnel costs in the base budget, the House committee bill would authorize $142.2
billion of the $142.8 billion requested, with a few minor increases more than offset by a proposed
reduction of $664.7 million to be made up for by unobligated balances in the military personnel
accounts, left over from prior fiscal years.
20 The relatively few exceptions to this generalization involve large sums (more than $100 million each) and high
profile issues of defense policy (e.g., whether or not to continue the production line for M-1 tanks and Bradley troop
carriers).
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Pay Raise
For “basic pay,” which accounts for about two-thirds of a typical service member’s cash
compensation, H.R. 1540 would authorize a 1.6% raise, as requested. This increase matches the
Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), which is an estimate of the past year’s
increase in private sector pay. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of a
1.6% increase in basic pay to be $1.2 billion.
End Strength and ‘Dwell Time’
The committee bill would authorize (with one minor change) the Administration’s proposal to
reduce the active-duty force by 9,800, setting the end-strength of the force (i.e., the number of
troops on the rolls on the last day of FY2012) at 1.42 million personnel. However, in its report,
the committee noted that the Army may have among its 560,000 active-duty personnel as many as
30,000 who cannot deploy overseas for medical or other reasons. Because of the current high
tempo of operations, the committee said, that might require units to deploy at less than full
strength while individual soldiers might have less “dwell time” between deployments than the
Army aims to provide.
DOD’s goal is for active-personnel to spend three years at their home station for every year
deployed, to allow rest, retraining in missions other than the particular mission on which they
were deployed, and renewal of family ties. Despite that goal of achieving a dwell time ratio (time
deployed to time at home) of one-to-three, current operations require deployments at such a pace
that DOD hopes to improve the dwell time ratio to one-to-two by the end of FY2012. The
committee questioned the wisdom of the Administration’s plan to reduce active-duty Army end-
strength by 22,000 in FY2013 and to further reduce the size of the active-duty Army and Marine
Corps by a total of 42,300 personnel in FY2015-16 assuming that the commitment of combat
forces in Afghanistan would be substantially reduced by the end of FY2014.
It remains unclear to the committee what the level of forces in Afghanistan would need to be
reduced [to] in order to allow the force reduction to begin without an adverse impact on
troops and their families. More importantly, the anticipated reductions appear to have no
relationship to the requirements of overall national strategy or to future warfighting
requirements.21
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell22
The House committee bill includes three provisions relating to the repeal in December 2010 of
the 1993 law barring openly homosexual persons from military service.23 That law had embodied
a DOD policy colloquially referred to as, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
As reported by the House committee, H.R. 1540 included provisions that would:
21 H.Rept. 112-78, Report on the National Defense Authorization Acto fo rFY2012, pp. 127-28.
22 For background, see CRS Report R40782, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Military Policy and the Law on Same-Sex
Behavior, by David F. Burrelli, and CRS Report R40795, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: A Legal Analysis, by Jody Feder.
23 The 1993 legislation was repealed by H.R. 2965 which was enacted on December 22, 2010 as P.L. 112-321.
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
• Defer repeal of the 1993 law until the senior uniformed officer of each service
certifies, in writing, that repeal would not degrade the combat readiness, cohesion
or morale of units (Section 533).
• Affirm that any DOD ruling or regulation concerning a service member of DOD
civilian employee will conform with the provision of the Defense of Marriage
Act (P.L. 104-199) which defines “marriage” as only a legal union of one man
and one woman (Section 534).
• Require that any marriage performed in a DOD facility or by a military chaplain
or other DOD official acting in an official capacity conform to the same
definition of “marriage” (Section 535).
Women in Combat
In its report on H.R. 1540, the House Armed Services Committee took a matter-of-fact approach
to the sometimes contentious issue of military women being placed in combat situations. The
committee noted that it had heard from a number of service women who had been deployed in
Iraq and Afghanistan that they found body armor which had been designed for male soldiers to be
restrictive and uncomfortable.
The committee notes that the current counterinsurgency and dismounted operations in [Iraq
and Afghanistan] place service women in direct combat action with the enemy. The
committee believes there is merit in conducting an evaluation as to whether there is an
operations need to tailor interceptor body armor systems…specifically for the physical
requirements of women….The committee commends the Army for acknowledging this issue
and encourages the acceleration of these efforts to help determine the most effective
organizational clothing and individual equipment, to include body armor and associated
components, for military service women.24
Readiness
In its report on H.R. 1540, the House committee noted that units about to deploy for operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq were fully manned, equipped, and trained. But it contended that the armed
services were pumping up the readiness of next-to-deploy units at the expense of “just-returned”
units which often were short-changed for personnel, equipment and training.
To beef up readiness across-the-board, the committee added to the amounts requested in the
budget:
• $230.0 million for Army base operations;
• $366.0 million for ship overhauls;
• $71.2 million for depot maintenance of Navy aircraft; and
• $88.0 million to reverse the budget’s plan to reduce in FY2012 flying hours for
the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.
24 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 48-49.
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
In its report on the bill the House committee directed the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to submit four reports addressing significant aspects of the force’s combat readiness:
• An assessment of whether the Army’s readiness is handicapped by shortages in
the number of experienced specialists with certain skills, and by the number of
soldiers who cannot be deployed for medical and other reasons.25
• An analysis of whether recent changes in Navy policy regarding ship
maintenance have corrected a decline in the material condition of the fleet that
was documented by routine Navy inspections.26
• A review of the services’ plans for using a mix of live exercises and simulators to
train combat units to include an assessment of the services’ basis for deciding on
the appropriate mix of live and simulated training and a report on the metrics that
would be used to analyze the effectiveness of the training mix chosen.27
• An examination of the “modified tables of equipment” (MTOE)—the officially
sanctioned inventory of equipment issued to each Army and Marine Corps unit—
to consider (1) whether new items acquired for novel missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan should be added to the regular list and (2) whether some of the
equipment acquired for those missions should be disposed of.28
Acquisition Policy
The House committee’s version of H.R. 1540 highlighted its opinion that DOD should rely more
on competition in acquiring and maintaining not only complex weapons but also their principal
components in order to realize lower costs and higher quality from its vendors. Although the
Weapons System Reform Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-23) requires the use of competitive procedures in
maintaining a weapons system, the committee faulted DOD for relying unnecessarily on sole-
source maintenance contracts. For example, the committee estimated, DOD could reduce its
annual maintenance costs by $2 billion if it awarded on a competitive basis maintenance contracts
for many of its jet engines, which are variants of commercial engines that have many suppliers
and maintenance contractors.
The committee added to the bill a provision (Section 236) requiring that DOD consider using
competitive procedures in awarding maintenance contracts for components and subsystems of
major weapons.
The committee’s bill would:
• Require the Air Force conduct a competition to select the engines to be used in a
new long-range bomber the service is trying to develop (Section 220).
• Require the Navy designated as a “major subprogram” an electro-magnetic
catapult intended to launch planes from the Navy’s next class of aircraft carriers,
25 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 107-08.
26 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 110.
27 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 111-12.
28 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 111.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
with the aim of ensuring high-level oversight of the catapult program (Section
221).
• Shift the authorization of $142.2 million for the development of improved
communication satellites out of the budget line that funds improvements in the
existing satellites, into a new budget line, in hopes that companies not associated
with the current program will have a better chance of competing for the funds.
Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine
Although the House Armed Services Committee has been a staunch supporter of an effort to
develop the F-136 jet engine, built by General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce, as an alternative to
the Pratt & Whitney F-135 jet as the powerplant for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, it did not
attempt to add to the budget request DOD funds for the second engine. GE and Rolls-Royce have
announced plans to continue work on the engine through FY2012 using their own funds.29
By a vote of 55-5, the committee added to H.R. 1540 a provision that could facilitate the
companies’ efforts to keep the program alive with their own money by requiring DOD to preserve
intact and to make available to the contractors (at no cost to the government) any items associated
with the alternate engine program (Section 252). Another provision (Section 15) would bar DOD
from spending any funds to improve the power of the Joint Strike Fighter’s current engine (the F-
135) unless it conducts a competition that would allow GE and Rolls-Royce to offer their engine
as an alternative.
Ground Combat Systems
M-1 Tanks and Bradley Troop Carriers
The House committee objected to DOD’s plan to shut down—for at least a couple of years—the
production lines that originally manufactured new M-1 tanks and Bradley troop carriers and, for
more than a decade, have rebuilt existing tanks and Bradleys with greatly improved
communications equipment and sensors. As a cost-saving measure, DOD plans to shut down the
two lines in FY2013 and then to restart them for a new type of Bradley upgrade in FY2015 and
for a new tank modification in FY2016.
However, the committee objected that closing the lines and then reopening them could cost more
than continuing to operate them at a low rate, partly because some component suppliers and
assembly-line technicians familiar with these programs could move on to other work, forcing the
prime contractors to train new suppliers and workers before they could resume production.
Moreover, the committee said, the current plan would leave some National Guard units equipped
with older model tanks and Bradleys that could not link into the digital communications network
used by active-duty Army units. The committee added to the requested authorizations $272
million to sustain the Abrams tanks production line and $153 million to keep the Bradley upgrade
line in operation.
29 For background, see CRS Report R41131, F-35 Alternate Engine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Jeremiah Gertler.
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
The committee approved the request for $884 million to continue development of a new armored
troop carrier for the Army designated the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). However, it added a
provision (Section 211) that would bar the use of 30% of those funds until the Army provides
Congress with a report comparing the proposed new vehicle with alternatives, including the most
recently upgraded version of the Bradley troop carrier.
The committee continues to support the Army’s goal of pursuing a modernized combat
vehicle. However, before the Army starts another major development program that could
cost over $30.0 billion, the committee must be convinced that the GCV will be significantly
more capable than an upgraded version of current fielded platforms.30
The committee noted that the Army wants a troop carrier that could carry three more soldiers than
the six carried by the Bradley (in addition to a vehicle crew of three), but said that should not be
“the primary attribute” that determines whether to proceed with a new vehicle.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
The House committee objected to the process by which DOD cancelled the effort to develop the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), an amphibious armored troop carrier intended to replace a
vehicle built during the 1970s. Defense Secretary Gates cancelled the EFV on grounds of its cost
and technical complexity, much of which was due to the design goal of enabling the new vehicle
to carry Marines ashore at speeds of nearly 30 mph—about four times the speed of the 1970s-
vintage amphibious troop carriers currently in service. The speed requirement had been justified
by the argument that, in future conflicts, transport ships would have to launch the troop carriers
from 25 miles offshore (to avoid enemy defenses) and Marines would lose their fighting edge if
they were cooped up inside their troop carriers for more than an hour.31
DOD’s current plan is to upgrade the Marines’ existing troop carriers, slightly increasing their
speed, and then begin developing a replacement vehicle designed to move at only about half the
speed of the EFV. The committee said DOD had provided no explanation for its decision to drop
the speed requirement for the new troop carrier. It added to the bill a provision (Section 214)
barring the use of any funds authorized by the bill to work on improvements to the existing troop
carrier or a new one until the Secretary of the Navy submits to the committee a written
certification of the Marines’ requirements, including the distance offshore from which an
amphibious assault would be launched and the speed at which an amphibious troop carrier should
be able to travel.
The Navy Secretary also would be required to submit an analysis of alternative vehicles the
Marines might acquire, including an improved version of the existing troop carrier, the cancelled
EFV, and the proposed new, slower vehicle.
30 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 88. For background, see CRS Report R41597, The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and
Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team (E-IBCT) Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
31 For background, see CRS Report RS22947, The Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Shipbuilding
The House committee bill would authorize $14.9 billion for Navy’s principal shipbuilding
account32, trimming $50 million from the request but approving funds requested for 10 new ships.
These include two Virginia-class submarines, a destroyer equipped with the Aegis anti-missile
system, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), a transport for amphibious landing troops, a high-
speed cargo ship, and an oceanographic research vessel.33
The committee noted that work on a new helicopter carrier (designated an LHA), designed to
carry Marine combat units and the aircraft to carry them ashore, will not start until late in
FY2011. It authorized $2.0 billion—$50 million less than was requested in FY2012—toward the
$3.3 billion ship.34 The committee also added to the bill a provision that would allow DOD to
include funding for this ship, currently spread over the budgets for FY2011 and FY2012, into the
FY2013 budget (Section 121).
The committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense
committees on how the planned reliance on Aegis-equipped ships for anti-missile defense
missions would affect the Navy’s ability to perform other missions currently performed by those
same ships.35
Aircraft Carrier and Carrier-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
The bill also would authorize a $555 million increment toward the $12.3 billion total cost of
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a much larger share of which is slated for inclusion in the
FY2013 budget. Because of their cost, funding for carriers is spread over several budgets,
contrary to Congress’s general policy of requiring “full-funding” for any procurement in a single
appropriation. In 2010, Defense Secretary Gates announced a plan to space the construction of
new carriers five years apart. Given the ships’ planned service life, this would cause the number
of carriers in service to drop from 11 ships to 10 by about the year 2040. Although the House
committee had criticized Gates’ proposal at the time, in its report on H.R. 1540 the committee
urged DOD not to let the interval between carriers grow longer than five years.36
The committee approved, as requested, authorizations of $198 million for the Unmanned Carrier-
based Aircraft System (UCAS) project to test the feasibility of basing long-range stealthy drone
aircraft on aircraft carriers and an additional $121 million to begin work on an operational
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that could be deployed on carriers by 2018. However, the
committee said the Navy might be trying to move too quickly, since the ability of a drone to land
32 H.R. 1540 also would authorize as requested, in another account, $426 million for a Mobile Loading Platform—a
modified tanker intended to serve as a floating pier used to transfer combat vehicles and other equipment from cargo
ships to landing barges.
33 See CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke
34 In separate actions, the committee cut $200 million from the LHA request, because of delays, and then added $150
million to the reduced program, yielding a net reduction of $50 million. A floor amendment to eliminate the $150
million add-back was rejected. (Table 5)
35 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 107. See CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
36 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
on a carrier would not be tested until 2013 and the ability of a drone to refuel in mid-air from an
unmanned tanker plane would not be tested until 2014.
The committee added to the bill a provision (Section 223) that would allow the Navy to spend no
more than 15% of the funds authorized to develop the operational, carrier-based UAV until DOD
officials certify to Congress (1) what the specifications are that the system is intended to meet, (2)
that the Navy conducted an analysis of alternative ways of performing the intended mission, and
(3) that the lessons learned from the UCAS project had been incorporated into the effort to
develop an operational system.
Aircraft
The House committee approved with little or no change the amounts requested for development
and procurement of every major type of airplane and helicopter in DOD’s acquisition plans. This
includes a total of $11.8 billion for fighter jets, including $6.5 billion for acquisition of 32 F-35
Joint Strike Fighters, different versions of which are to be used by the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps, and $2.7 billion for 28 Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.37
The House bill also would authorize a total of $10.1 billion for several types of rotary-wing
aircraft. Of the total included in the budget, the committee rejected slightly more than $100
million, most of which was to buy two V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors and to modify a Blackhawk
helicopter for special operations missions. Those aircraft had been funded in the FY2011 DOD
appropriations bill which was part of the FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10) enacted on
April 15, two months after the FY2012 budget request was published.
The House rejected by a vote of 88-334 an amendment that would have eliminated all funds
requested for V-22 procurement.
For several types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the House bill also made minor reductions
to the total of $4.5 billion38 requested. Defense Secretary Gates singled out the Administration’s
funding request for rotary-wing aircraft and UAVs as emblematic of the priority the
Administration placed on equipping U.S. forces for the type of operations currently underway in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House committee recommended authorization of $850 million—$27 million less than was
requested—to develop a new mid-air refueling tanker based on the Boeing 767 jetliner.39
Next Generation Bomber and Prompt Global Strike
The House committee approved the requested $197 million to develop a new, long-range bomber.
However, it faulted the Air Force for not performing a formal life-cycle cost analysis to determine
whether the service should develop a single long-range aircraft for bomber and reconnaissance
37 For background, see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler; and CRS Report RL30624, Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft Procurement and
Strike Fighter Shortfall: Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler.
38 This total includes the total of $319 million requested for the two carrier-based UAV systems mentioned above.
39 For background, see CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler.
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
and other missions rather than developing a family of aircraft, each optimized for a different
mission.40
It also included a provision (Section 131) that would require the Air Force to keep in service 36
B-1 bombers. DOD wanted to reduce that minimum force level by six planes.
The committee cut $25 million from the $205 million requested to continue development of a so-
called Prompt Global Strike (PGS) missile that could carry a precision-guided conventional
warhead thousands of miles at 20 times the speed of sound (about 14,000 mph.). The committee
said DOD was moving too quickly in trying to incorporate promising but unproven technologies
into an operational weapon. It encouraged DOD to explore less risky technologies for the PGS
mission.
Long-range and Short-range Airlift
The House committee approved with minor changes the amounts requested to upgrade the
Pentagon’s fleet of cargo planes. However, it also added to H.R. 1540 provisions that would
block, at least temporarily, any DOD effort to reduce the size of its airlift fleet.
For long-range (or “strategic”), wide-body airlift, the committee bill would authorize $1.0 billion,
for improvements to the C-5, and $519 million for modifications to the newer C-17, counting
procurement and R&D funding. In each case, committee reduced the request by $6 million. The
committee rejected a DOD request that it repeal a provision of law (10 U.S. C. 8062g) that
requires the Air Force to maintain a fleet of at least 316 long-range, wide-body cargo jets. The
provision had been enacted in 2010 as part of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 2011 (383).
For shorter-range (or “tactical”) airlift, the committee bill would approve, as requested, $1 billion
for 11 C-130 Hercules aircraft, equipped for various missions, and $479 million for nine smaller
C-27 planes, designated as Joint Cargo Aircraft. The committee objected to DOD plans to retire
some of its smaller cargo planes, cutting the C-130 cargo fleet from 395 to 335, buying 38 C-27s
rather than the 78 initially planned, and retiring the entire fleet of 42 C-23s, which are used by
National Guard units in both their federal role as combat units and in their state role, responding
to natural disasters. The committee added to the bill a provision (Section 111) barring the
retirement of any C-23s until a year after certain senior military and civilian officials give the
congressional defense committees a report on the requirement for short-range cargo planes to
perform both military and domestic emergency missions.
Strategic Weapons, Missile Defense and Arms Control
The House bill would authorize, as requested $1.1 billion to begin development of a new class of
ballistic missile-launching submarines that would replace the current Ohio-class subs starting in
2019. Although the Navy has reduced the projected cost of the ships from an initial estimate of $7
billion apiece to $4.9 billion each, senior Navy officials have warned that the cost of a planned
40 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 65-66. For background, see CRS Report RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler. As noted above, the committee also added to the bill a
provision (Section 220) requiring the Air Force to select the engines for the new bomber by a competitive process.
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
force of 12 subs could dramatically reduce for many years the funding available to build other
types of ships.41
The House committee added to the bill a provision (Section 213) requiring the Navy to justify its
decision to reduce the number of missile launching tubes on each of the new submarines from 20
to 16. The committee said that the new ships’ contribution to the U.S. nuclear deterrent, “must not
be compromised solely on the basis of the promise of potential cost savings,” resulting from a
reduction in the number of missile tubes.42
START Arms Reduction Treaty
The House bill also includes several provisions intended to ensure (1) that the Administration
follows through with a commitment it made in 2010 to modernize the Energy Department’s
nuclear weapons production complex and (2) that it not reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal or change
DOD’s nuclear war plans except as required by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia
(dubbed START), which the Senate approved in 2010. Several senators had announced that their
support for the treaty was conditional on modernization of the nuclear weapons complex.43
Among the provisions of H.R. 1540 relating to U.S. nuclear weapons and arms control policy
were:
• A requirement for an annual report by the President on the status of plans to
modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile, the nuclear weapons production
complex, and the U.S. force of missiles, planes and subs equipped to launch
nuclear weapons, as well as plans to retire any nuclear weapons (Section 1053).
• A prohibition on retiring any nuclear weapons pursuant to the START treaty until
the Secretaries of Defense and Energy inform Congress, in writing, that the
nuclear weapons complex modernization plan is being carried out and a further
prohibition on any reduction in nuclear arms beyond those required by START
unless they are mandated by law or by another treaty (Section 1055).
• A requirement that the President notify Congress before changing U.S. nuclear
strategy for using nuclear weapons in case of war (Section 1056).
• A requirement that the GAO provide Congress with a critical assessment of the
process by which DOD established policies, strategies and acquisition
requirements regarding nuclear weapons (Section 1057).
• A prohibition on any international agreement affecting U.S. missile defenses that
is not incorporated in either a Senate-approved treaty or legislation (Section
1229).44
41 See CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
42 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 89.
43 The House Armed Services Committee summarizes the current state of the nuclear complex modernization plan in its
report on H.R. 1540, H.Rept. 112-78, at pp. 304-06. For background on the New START Treaty, see CRS Report
R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, by Amy F. Woolf.
44 See CRS Report R41251, Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions: A Review of the Historical
Record, by Steven A. Hildreth and Amy F. Woolf.
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Anti-Ballistic Missile Defenses
The House committee bill would add a total of $214 million to the $8.62 billion requested for the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
For the ground-based defense system located in Alaska and California, it would authorize $1.26
billion, which is $100 million more than the request.45 The committee said MDA should use the
additional funds to accelerate efforts to learn the cause of a recent spate of test failures in the
system, and it added to the bill a provision (Section 234) requiring DOD to apprise Congress of
its strategy for identifying and correcting the problems.
The House bill also includes a provision declaring it to be national policy to pursue a “hedging
strategy,” that would provide an alternative missile defense for U.S. territory in case the threat of
long-range missile attack materializes sooner than current plans assume or in case the currently
planned defenses run into technical problems or delays (Section 233).
The bill would add $100 million to the amounts requested for each of two other anti-missile
systems intended to protect U.S. forces and allies overseas: the Standard 3 missile, to be carried
by warships equipped with the powerful Aegis radar, and the ground based THAAD missile.
On the other hand, the House committee bill would authorize none of the $161 million requested
to develop an infra-red detection satellite (designated Precision Tracking Space System or PTSS)
intended to precisely track incoming missiles. The committee said the PTSS would duplicate the
role of another infra-red sensor system designed to be carried by a UAV. The committee added
$20 million to the $47 million requested for this Air-Borne Infra-Red system.
Military Construction: Homeports and Headquarters
From six construction projects which the House committee said it fully supported, H.R. 1540
would cut a total of $300 million which, the committee said, could not be spent during FY2012.
The only DOD construction project the House bill would cut on policy grounds was the request
for $30 million for planning and road construction to support the movement of a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier from Norfolk, Virginia to Mayport, Florida. The committee said the proposed
move was too expensive.46
In its report on the bill the House Armed Services Committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress on two options involving a shift in the location of significant DOD assets:
• Homeporting in Europe warships equipped with the Aegis anti-missile defense
system, which is a key component of the Administration’s plan for defending
U.S. forces and allies in Europe.47
45 An amendment to drop the added $100 million was rejected by a vote of 184-234. (See Table 5)
46 See CRS Report R40248, Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN) Homeporting at Mayport: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
47 See CRS Report RL34051, Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, by Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek.
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
• Moving to a domestic site the headquarters for U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM), currently located in Stuttgart, Germany.48
Issues Related to Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
The House bill includes a provision (Section 1034) that would “affirm” that:
• The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and
associated forces.
• Those entities pose a threat to the United States and its citizens.
• The President has the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force during
the current armed conflict….pursuant to the Authorization for the Use of Military
Force [AUMF],” which was enacted on September 18, 2001 (P.L. 107-40).
• Belligerents in this conflict include nations, organizations and persons who (1)
are part of or “are substantially supporting” al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated
forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners or
(2) have engaged in hostilities or “directly supported” hostilities in aid of those
entities.
• The President’s authority pursuant to the 2001 AUMF includes the authority to
detain belligerents “until the termination of hostilities.”
This would broaden the scope of the authorization embodied in the 2001 legislation, which
authorized the use of military force against nations, organizations or persons who the President
determines to have:
…planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.49
An amendment to strike Section 1034 was rejected by a vote of 187-234 (see Table 5).
In its report on H.R. 1540, the House committee expressed concern that the scheduled departure
of U.S. combat units from Iraq by December 31, 2011, “will leave Iraqi Security Forces with
several critical capabilities gaps that may render it unable to achieve minimum combat readiness,
thereby jeopardizing Iraq’s stability and the United States’ hard-fought gains in the region.”50
The House bill included a provision (Section 1215) requiring the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress on how DOD would help Iraq make up for deficiencies in its security forces, if the
government of Iraq should request such assistance.
48 See CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, by
Lauren Ploch
49 P.L. 107-40, Section 2. See CRS Report RS22357, Authorization for Use of Military Force in Response to the 9/11
Attacks (P.L. 107-40): Legislative History, by Richard F. Grimmett.
50 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Guantanamo Bay Detainees
H.R. 1540 also includes several provisions relating to detainees held at the U.S. Naval Station at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including a requirement that DOD provide the congressional defense
committees with specific rules governing what sort of contact with the outside each Guantanamo
detainee would be allowed (Section 209). Other detainee-related provisions would ban:
• The use of any funds authorized by the bill to construct or modify facilities in the
United States to house detainees currently at Guantanamo (Section 1037).
• Visits to detainees by family members (Section 1038).
• The transfer to U.S. territory of any detainee (Section 1039).
• The transfer of detainees to any foreign country unless the Secretary of Defense
has certified to Congress that the destination country (1) is not a designated state
sponsor of terrorism, (2) maintains effective control over the detention facility to
which a detainee would be assigned, (3) has taken steps to prevent the detainee
from engaging in terrorist activity, and (4) has agreed to share with the U.S.
government any information about the detainee or his associates that could affect
U.S. security (Section 1040).
The House rejected an amendment that would have allowed Guantanamo detainees to be brought
to U.S. territory to testify in court (rejected 165-253) and agreed to an amendment requiring that
any foreign terrorist accused of attacking a U.S. target be tried in a military tribunal rather than a
civilian court (agreed to 246-173; see Table 5).
Following are some of the key amendments on which the House took action during consideration
of H.R. 1540:
Table 5. Selected House Floor Amendments to
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540)
Principal
Sponsor Number
Summary
Disposition
McGovern
344
Require President to submit a timetable for accelerated transfer of military
Rejected
operations in Afghanistan from U.S. forces to Afghan forces;
204-215
Chaffetz
330
Require withdrawal from Afghanistan of U.S. ground troops except those involved
Rejected
in small, targeted counter-terrorism operations
123-294
Conyers
333
Bar use of funds authorized by the bill to deploy U.S. armed forces or contractors on
Agreed
ground in Libya, except for rescue operations
416-5
Amash
327
Strike Section 1034 which affirms an Authorization of the Use of Military
Rejected
Force (AUMF) against Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated entities
187-234
Mica
318
Require that rules of engagement al ow U.S. personnel to proactively defend
Agreed
themselves from hostile action
260-160
S. Davis
348
Withhold 25% of Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund until Secretary of Defense
Agreed
en bloc 6
determines women are integral part of Afghan reconciliation process
voice vote
Carnahan 345
Withhold 25% of Afghanistan Security Forces Fund until Secretary of Defense
Agreed
en bloc 3
certifies program has adequate management and oversight provisions
voice vote
Smith, A
322
Allow detainees to testify in courts on U.S. territory
Rejected
165-253
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Principal
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
Buchanan
323
Require foreign terrorists who attack U.S. targets to be tried by military tribunals Agreed
246-173
Flake
334
Strike the Mission Force Enhancement Fund Agreed
269-151
Flake
345
Require DOD. to make public any written communication from a member of
Agreed
en bloc 3
Congress recommending that funds authorized for specified purposes (rather than
voice vote
for specific projects) be directed toward a particular project
Flake
Require DOD report to Congress the process by which it al ocated funds
en bloc 3
345
Agreed
authorized in excess of the amounts requested by the President for any
research and development activity (or “program element”)
voice vote
Ellison
335
Strike Section 1604 which would add $150 million to the amount requested for an
Rejected
LHA-class helicopter carrier
176-241
Cravaack
343
Repeal authorization for the United States Institute of Peace Agreed
226-194
Campbel
329
Reduce number of DOD civilian employees by 1% per year in each of the next 5
Rejected
years
98-321
Campbel
328
Terminate Human, Social, and Culture Behavior Modeling program
Rejected
63-354
Campbel 307
Terminate Joint Safety Climate Assessment program
Agreed
en bloc 2
voice vote
Flake
320
Repeal authorization for National Drug Intelligence Center Agreed
246-172
Schakowsky
321
Freeze DOD budget at the current level (except for war costs, personnel costs and
Rejected
wounded warrior programs) until DOD can pass an audit
voice vote
Polis
332
Reduce number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe by 30,000 and reduce end-
Rejected
strength by 50,000
96-323-1
Loretta
Rejected
Sanchez
336
Reduce by $100 million the amount authorized for ground-based mid-course
ballistic missile defense
184-234
Garamendi
311
Require prime contractors working at military bases to set aside 40% of the dol ar
Rejected
value of its subcontracts for local, qualified subcontractors
168-256
Cole
Agreed
310
Bar any requirement that companies disclose their political contributions as a
condition of bidding on a federal contract
261-163
Carter 303
Deem casualties of 2009 Ft. Hood terrorist shootings to be eligible for combat-
Agreed
en bloc 1
related benefits, compensations and awards
voice vote
Woolsey
302
Strike funding for the procurement of V-22 Ospreys Rejected
83-334
Boustany 345
Require a “whole of government” plan to better integrate the activities of
Agreed
en bloc 3
multiple federal agencies addressing an issue
voice vote
Miller 303
Make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Agreed
en bloc 1
Staff
voice vote
McCollum 346
Limit the amount spent on DOD musical groups in FY 2012 to $200 million Agreed
en bloc 4
voice vote
Source: Congressional Record, May 25 and May 26, 2011
Notes: “Number” is the number assigned to an amendment by the House Clerk, by which the amendment can
be traced through CRS’s Legislative Information System. It is not the same as the number assigned to the
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
amendment by the House Rules Committee in H.Rept. 112-88, its report on the rule that governed most of the
floor action on H.R. 1540 (H.Res. 276),
During floor action on the bill, several dozen amendments were aggregated into six en bloc amendments, each of
which was agreed to by voice vote. Individual amendments in the table that were agreed to as a component of
one of those en bloc amendments are so identified.
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up on June 1, 2011, a draft DOD
appropriations bill for FY2012 that would cut a total of $8.1 billion from the $657.3 billion the
President requested for programs funded by that legislation.51 That overall reduction reflected
cuts in the base budget request totaling $8.9 billion that were partly offset by a net addition of
$842 million to the funds requested for war costs (see Table 6). The largest component of that net
increase in war costs is $1.5 billion added to the bill for unspecified equipment for National
Guard and reserve units.
Two-thirds of the net reduction to the President’s request—$5.4 billion—would come from
changes which, according to the committee, would have no adverse impact on DOD operations,
including reductions of:
• $1.7 billion in new budget authority that would be offset by rescissions totaling
that amount of unspent funds appropriated in prior budgets;
• $1.3 billion on the basis of more optimistic assumptions about inflation and other
economic factors;
• $959 million from delays in two acquisition programs;
• $899 million accounts which, the committee says, historically have had large
“unexpended balances” at the end of the fiscal year; and
• $500 million from “unjustified supply increases,” in the Army’s budget request.
The committee bill also would cut $1.2 billion from the amounts requested for classified
procurement and research and development programs.
Selected Highlights of the Bill
DOD ‘Efficiencies’ Challenged
The House committee added to the President’s request a total of $884.7 million to restore funding
cuts that DOD had cited as efficiencies but which the committee, in its report52 on the bill, dubbed
“valid requirements,” many of which were reductions to the amounts requested for maintenance
51 The text of the unnumbered bill is available on the House Appropriations Committee website at
http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/FY12Defense_xml.pdf.
Funds for military construction projects are provided by a separate appropriations bill which also funds the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). The House began floor debate on its version of the FY2012 Military Construction and VA
Appropriations bill (H.R. 2055, H.Rept. 112-94) on June 1, 2011.
52 Draft report to accompany Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2012, accessed on the House
Appropriations Committee website at http://appropriations.house.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
and repair of facilities. On the other hand the committee made some reductions of its own
reductions to the President’s request on the basis of anticipated efficiencies.
Contractor Weapons Maintenance
Rising cost was one of several concerns the committee expressed concerning DOD’s increasing
reliance on contractors to sustain weapons over the entire course of their service life. Formally
referred to as Contractor Logistic Support (CLS), this covers a range of contractor-provided
services such as overhauling aircraft and engines and managing supply chains.
In its report, the committee noted that there was neither a common definition of CLS applied
DOD wide nor a consolidated budget that summed up the total cost. But based on the information
available, the committee said, CLS costs appeared to be rising faster than the Operations and
Maintenance budgets in general:
The CLS costs as reported by the Services increase by $3,010,500,000 (23 percent) from
FY2009 to FY2012. Over the same time period, operations and maintenance funding grows
by only 10 percent. The Services have yet to explain the reason that CLS cost growth
outpaces the overall growth of operations and maintenance funding,53
Saying it was confident that DOD would find efficiencies and cost-savings through better
management of CLS, the committee cut $400 million from the budget request.
53 House Appropriations Committee report, p. 54.
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Table 6. FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act
amounts in millions of dollars
House
Recommended
FY2012
Committee
vs.
Request
Recommended
Request
Military Personnel 132,097
132,092
-4
Operations and Maintenance
170,759
169,258
-780
Procurementa 111,153
107,581
-6,784
Research and Development
75,325
73,009
-2,316
Revolving and Management Funds
2,701
2,676
-26
Other DOD Programs
35,520
35,648
128
Related Agencies
1,106
972
-134
General Provisions (net)
29
-2,183
-2,212
Subtotal: Base Budget (in this bill) 528,690
519,775
-8,915
Tricare-for-Life Accrual
10,764
10,764
0
Subtotal: Base Budget
539,454
530,539
-8,915
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
117,726
118,567
Tricare-for-Life Accrual (OCO)
117
117
0
Subtotal: OCO
117,843
118,684
842
GRAND TOTAL
657,297
649,223
-8,074
Source: House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, summary table of subcommittee draft bill accessed at
http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/53111FY12DefenseSubMarkUpTable.pdf.
a. The President’s budget request also included $3.21 billion in “advance appropriations” for procurement of
Air Force’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) communications satellites, with the funds slated
for expenditure in FY2013-FY2017. Under congressional scorekeeping rules, these funds would have been
“scored” in the fiscal year for which they were provided, rather than as FY2012 appropriations. However,
the House Appropriations Committee rejected the request for advance appropriations.
Military Information Operations
The House committee cut $124.0 million of the $300.6 million requested for “information
operations” which activities, it said, were not traditional or appropriate military activities:
Many of the activities being funded under ‘information operations’ are duplicative of, or
operate at cross purposes with, other federal agencies activities, particularly the Department
of State. ....[B]ased on the Department’s significant usage of contractors to plan and execute
these programs, the Committee questions whether the Department has the technical expertise
or capacity to effectively manage and execute these types of programs in a cost-effective
manner.54
54 House Appropriations Committee report, pp. 55-56
Congressional Research Service
31
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
The committee directed DOD to submit a detailed report on the specific activities being
conducted with “information operations” funds, including a description of the activity, the target
audience, goals, attribution, and measures of effectiveness.
Telecommunications Expense Management
The committee warned that DOD’s telecommunications cost management systems might be
overwhelmed by the proliferation within the department of mobile communications and
computing devices requiring a wide array of commitments to commercial service providers. It
included in the bill a provision (Section 8117) requiring DOD to conduct a study of the feasibility
of using a commercial off-the-shelf telecommunications cost management system in order to
reduce costs. In anticipation of such savings, the committee cut a total of $30 million from the
budget request.
Shipyard Overhead Costs
The committee directed the Navy to reduce the disparity in overhead costs among it four
shipyards, where the percentage of annual funding absorbed by overhead ranges from 29 percent,
at Norfolk, Va., to 43 percent at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The committee cut a total of $315 million
from the amounts requested for overhead costs at the three more expensive shipyards (in Hawaii,
Bremerton, Washington, and Portsmouth, New Hampshire) and added the amount cut from each
yard’s overhead account to the separate account the that funds ship overhauls.
Defense Health Program
The committee bill would provide $32.3 billion—$118.7 million more than requested—for the
Defense Health Program, which serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including service members and
military retirees, their survivors and their dependents. The committee cut $394 million from the
request for operating accounts that, historically, have not spent their entire annual allocation. But
it also added $523.5 million for research and development programs focused on specific diseases
and treatments.
Many of the additions continue a long-standing tradition of congressional funding initiatives,
including funds for research on breast cancer ($120.0 million) and prostate cancer ($64.0
million). But they also include a total of $189.6 million for research on Traumatic Brain Injury
and related medical problems that have been exacerbated by combat conditions in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Congressional Research Service
32
Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
PE Number
(for R&D
FY2012
House-
Senate
Conference
projects
Administration
Passed
Commttee
Report
only)
Program Element Title
Request
H.R. 1540
Reported
Comments
0603175C BMD
Technology
75.0
75.0
0603274C Special
Programs
61.5
61.5
0603881C
BMD Terminal Defense Segment
290.5
290.5
0603882C
BMD Midcourse Defense
1,161.0
1,261.0
System currently deployed in Alaska
Segment
and California to defend U.S. territory.
HASC added $100 million to make up
for delays resulting from test failures
0603884C BMD
Sensors
222.4
222.4
0603888C
BMD Test & Targets
1,071.0
1,071.0
0603890C
BMD Enabling Programs
373.6
373.6
0603891C
Special Programs
296.6
296.6
0603892C AEGIS
BMD
960.3
965.3
`
0603893C Space
Tracking & Surveillance
96.4 96.4
System
0603895C
BMD System Space Programs
8.0
8.0
0603896C
BMD Command and Control,
364.1 364.1
Battle Management and
Communications
0603898C
BMD Joint Warfighter Support
41.2
41.2
0603901C
Directed Energy Research
96.3
146.3
0603902C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIB
123.5
123.5
0603904C
Missile Defense Integration &
69.3 69.3
Operations Center (MDIOC)
CRS-33
PE Number
(for R&D
FY2012
House-
Senate
Conference
projects
Administration
Passed
Commttee
Report
only)
Program Element Title
Request
H.R. 1540
Reported
Comments
0603906C Regarding
Trench
15.8
15.8
0603907C
Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX)
177.1
177.1
H.R. 1540
Israeli Cooperative Programs
106.1
216.1
Israeli systems to defend against
medium and short range missiles and
artillery shells
0604880C Land-based
SM-3
306.6
306.6
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA Co-
424.5 464.5
Collaboration
with
Japan
Development
0604883C
Precision Tracking Space System
160.8
0
House said PTSS would duplicate role
of less technologically risky airborne
0604884C Airborne
Infrared
46.9
66.9
system
0901598C
Management HQ - MDA
28.9
28.9
Subtotal, Missile Defense Agency RDT&E,
6,577.1
6,691.3
THAAD, Fielding
833.2
883.2
Request is for 68 missiles
Aegis BMD
565.4
615.4
Request is for 46 missiles
AN/TPY-2 radar
380.2
380.2
Request is for two relocatable radars
Subtotal, Missile Defense Agency
1,778.7 1,878.7
Procurement
THAAD, Operations and Maintenance
50.8
50.8
Ballistic Missile Defense Radars
151.9
151.9
MDA, Military Construction
67.2
67.2
GRAND TOTAL, Missile Defense Agency
8,625.7
8,839.9
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012.
Notes: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation
of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide
funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized.
CRS-34
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
PE Number
(for R&D
FY2012
House-
Senate
Conference
projects
Administration Committee
Commttee
Report
only)
Program Element Title
Request
Reported
Reported
Comments
0603175C BMD
Technology
75.0
75.0
0603274C Special
Programs
61.5
61.5
0603881C
BMD Terminal Defense Segment
290.5
290.5
0603882C
BMD Midcourse Defense
1,161.0
1,261.0
System currently deployed in Alaska
Segment
and California to defend U.S. territory.
0603884C BMD
Sensors
222.4
222.4
0603888C
BMD Test & Targets
1,071.0
1,071.0
0603890C
BMD Enabling Programs
373.6
373.6
0603891C
Special Programs
296.6
296.6
0603892C AEGIS
BMD
960.3
960.3
0603893C Space
Tracking & Surveillance
96.4 96.4
System
0603895C
BMD System Space Programs
8.0
8.0
0603896C
BMD Command and Control,
364.1 364.1
Battle Management and
Communications
0603898C
BMD Joint Warfighter Support
41.2
41.2
0603901C
Directed Energy Research
96.3
146.3
0603902C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIB
123.5
123.5
0603904C
Missile Defense Integration &
69.3 69.3
Operations Center (MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
15.8
15.8
0603907C
Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX)
177.1
177.1
CRS-35
PE Number
(for R&D
FY2012
House-
Senate
Conference
projects
Administration Committee
Commttee
Report
only)
Program Element Title
Request
Reported
Reported
Comments
H.R. 1540
Israeli Cooperative Programs
106.1
235.7
Israeli systems to defend against
medium and short range missiles and
artillery shells
0604880C Land-based
SM-3
306.6
306.6
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA Co-
424.5 424.5
Collaboration
with
Japan
Development
0604883C
Precision Tracking Space System
160.8
0
0604884C Airborne
Infrared
46.9
46.9
0901598C
Management HQ - MDA
28.9
28.9
Subtotal, Missile Defense Agency RDT&E,
6,577.1
6,645.9
THAAD, Fielding
833.2
883.2
Request is for 68 missiles
Aegis BMD
565.4
615.4
Request is for 46 missiles
AN/TPY-2 radar
380.2
380.2
Request is for two relocatable radars
Subtotal, Missile Defense Agency
1,778.7 1,878.7
Procurement
THAAD, Operations and Maintenance
50.8
50.8
Ballistic Missile Defense Radars
151.9
151.9
MDA, Military Construction
67.2
67.2
GRAND TOTAL, Missile Defense Agency
8,625.7
8,794.5
Sources: House Appropriations Committee, draft report to accompany the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY2012, accessed at
http://appropriations.fireside21.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY_2012_DEFENSE_FULL_COMMITTEE_REPORT.pdf.
CRS-36
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars; base budget funding in plain type, OCO funding in italics.)
House-passed H.R.
Senate Armed Services
FY2012 Request
1540
Committee
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
Aerial Common Sensor
18
539.6
31.5
0
15.7
31.5
Budget buys half the projected total number late in
FY2012; HASC said the program had been delayed
Light Utility Helicopter
39 250.4 0
39 250.4 0
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter
75 1,678,2
21.5 75 1,597.4
21.5
and Mods, Army (incl. OCO)
CH-47 Chinook Helicopter
47
1,440.0 48.9
47
1,360.3
48,9
32 newly built helos; 15 existing helos upgraded with
and Mods (incl. OCO)
digital cockpit, more powerful engines
AH-64 Apache Helo Mods
20
1,074.3 92.8
19
1,039.3
92.8
Rebuilt helos with improved fire-control and digital
(incl. OCO)
electronics; HASC denied OCO funds for one helo
M-2 Bradley Mods
n/a
250.7
12.3
403.7
12.3
Both programs upgrade existing vehicles; DOD plan
would shut down these lines to be restarted later;
M-1 Abrams tank Mods
21
341.9
9.7
21
613.9
34.7
HASC added funds to continue upgrades.
Stryker Armored Vehicle
100
633.0
101.4
100 633.0
101.4
Army Ground Combat Vehicle
-
0.0
884.4
-
0.0
884.4
Replacement for the cancel ed manned combat
(GCV)
vehicle component of Future Combat Systems
Army Family of Medium
-
842.2
4.0
-
792.2
4.0
Several thousand trucks of various models with a
Tactical Vehicles and USMC
cargo capacity of 2.5-5.0 tons. HASC cut $50 million
Medium Trucks (incl. OCO)
from the $392 million requested for Marine Corps
vehicles.
Family of Heavy Tactical
-
1,122.3 5.5
-
1,122.3
5.5
Several thousand truck tractors and trailer of various
Vehicles and USMC Logistics
models, with a cargo capacity of 15 tons. Slightly
Vehicle System (LVS)
more than one-fourth of the money is to rebuild
Replacement (incl. OCO)
existing vehicles.
Source: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012.
Note: The defense authorization act general y does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation
of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide
CRS-37
funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized. Funding for Army and Marine
Corps unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is summarized in Table A-4.
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars; base budget funding in plain type, OCO funding in italics.)
House Committee
Senate Armed Services
FY2012 Request
Recommendation
Committee
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
Aerial Common Sensor
18
539.6
31.5
0
15.7
31.5
Budget buys half the projected total number late in
FY2012; HAC said the program had been delayed
Light Utility Helicopter
39 250.4 0
39 250.4 0
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter
75 1,678.2
21.5 75 1,678.2
21.5
and Mods, Army (incl. OCO)
CH-47 Chinook Helicopter
47
1,440.0 48.9
47
1,440.2
48,9
32 newly built helos; 15 existing helos upgraded with
and Mods (incl. OCO)
digital cockpit, more powerful engines
AH-64 Apache Helo Mods
20
1,074.3 92.8
19
1,039.3
92.8
Rebuilt helos with improved fire-control and digital
(incl. OCO)
electronics; HAC denied OCO funds for one helo
M-2 Bradley Mods
n/a
250.7
12.3
250.7
12.3
Both programs upgrade existing vehicles; DOD plan
would shut down these lines to be restarted later;
M-1 Abrams tank Mods
21
341.9
9.7
54
613.9
9.7
HAC added funds to continue tank upgrades.
Stryker Armored Vehicle
100
633.0
101.4
100 633.0
64.4
Army Ground Combat Vehicle
-
0.0
884.4
-
0.0
768.1
Replacement for the cancel ed manned combat
(GCV)
vehicle component of Future Combat Systems
Army Family of Medium
- 842.2
4.0 - 492.3
4.0
Several thousand trucks of various models with a
Tactical Vehicles and USMC
Medium Trucks (incl. OCO)
cargo capacity of 2.5-5.0 tons.
Family of Heavy Tactical
-
1,122.3 5.5
-
1,270.3
5.5
Several thousand truck tractors and trailer of various
Vehicles and USMC Logistics
models, with a cargo capacity of 15 tons. Slightly
Vehicle System (LVS)
more than one-fourth of the money is to rebuild
Replacement (incl. OCO)
existing vehicles.
Source: House Appropriations Committee, draft report to accompany the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY2012, accessed at
http://appropriations.fireside21.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY_2012_DEFENSE_FULL_COMMITTEE_REPORT.pdf.
CRS-38
Note:. Funding for Army and Marine Corps unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is summarized in Table A-4.
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Shipbuilding Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House-Passed Senate
Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
CVN-21 Carrier
-
554.8
54.1
-
554.8
54.1
Sixth year of long lead-time funding
for a Ford-class carrier; Remaining
two-thirds of the $10.3 billion est.
cost will be funded incrementally in
FY2013-16.
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
- 529.7 n/a - 529.7 n/a
All
but
$15 million is the third year of
long lead-time funding for modernizing
and refueling reactor of a Nimitz-class
carrier; Remaining three-quarters of
the $4.6 billion est. cost will be funded
in FY2013-14.
Virginia-class submarine
2 4,757.0 97.2 2 4,757.0 107.2
SSBN(X)
- 0 781.6
- 0 781.6
Developing
a
replacement
for
Ohio-
class Trident missile subs.
DDG-1000 Destroyer
-
453.7
261.6
-
453.7
261.6
Procurement amount is an increment
toward estimated $3.5 billion cost of
last of three ships
DDG-51 Destroyer
1 2,081.4 0 1 2,081.4 0
Includes $100.7 million for
components to be used in future ships
of this class
Cruiser modernization
3 590.3 0 3 590.3 0
Ungrades the electronics, weaponry
Destroyer modernization
and powerplant of ships built in the
3 119.5 0 3 119.5 0
‘80s and ‘90s.
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
4 1,802.1 286.8 4 1,802.1 286.8
Includes
$80
million for two of the
interchangeable weapons modules that
will equip these ships for different
missions,
CRS-39
Request
House-Passed Senate
Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
LHA Helicopter Carrier
-
2,018.7
0
-
1,968.7
0
Second annual increment of funding
for $3.3 billion ship
LPD-17 Amphibious Force
1 1,847.4 .9 1 1,847.4 .9
Funds 11th and final ship of the class.
Transport
Joint High-Speed Vessel
2
408.9
7.1
2
408.9
7.1
Army budget funds one ship for
$223.8 million.
Mobile Landing Platform
1
425.9
0
1
425.9
0
Based on the design of a commercial
tanker, this ship is intended to
function as a floating pier on which
large ships can transfer combat
equipment to smal er landing craft.
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012.
Notes: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation
of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide
funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a “new start” for which funding has never been authorized.
CRS-40
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Shipbuilding Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House Committee
Senate Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
CVN-21 Carrier
-
554.8
54.1
-
554.8
54.1
Sixth year of long lead-time funding
for a Ford-class carrier; Remaining
two-thirds of the $10.3 billion est.
cost will be funded incrementally in
FY2013-16.
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
- 529.7 n/a - 529.7 n/a
All
but
$15 million is the third year of
long lead-time funding for modernizing
and refueling reactor of a Nimitz-class
carrier; Remaining three-quarters of
the $4.6 billion est. cost will be funded
in FY2013-14.
Virginia-class submarine
2 4,757.0 97.2 2 4,682.7 112.2
SSBN(X)
- 0 781.6
- 0 781.6
Developing
a
replacement
for
Ohio-
class Trident missile subs.
DDG-1000 Destroyer
-
453.7
261.6
-
453.7
257.6
Procurement amount is an increment
toward estimated $3.5 billion cost of
last of three ships
DDG-51 Destroyer
1 2,081.4 0 1 2,079.0 0
Includes $100.7 million for
components to be used in future ships
of this class
Cruiser modernization
3 590.3 0 3 566.9 0
Upgrades the electronics, weaponry
and powerplant of ships built in the
Destroyer modernization
3 119.5 0 3 117.5 0
‘80s and ‘90s.
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
4 1,802.1 286.8 4 1,755.1 296.8
Includes
$80
million for two of the
interchangeable weapons modules that
will equip these ships for different
missions,
LHA Helicopter Carrier
-
2,018.7
0
-
1,999.2
0
Second annual increment of funding
for $3.3 billion ship
LPD-17 Amphibious Force
1 1,847.4 .9 1 1,833.4 .9
Transport
Funds 11th and final ship of the class.
CRS-41
Request
House Committee
Senate Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
Joint High-Speed Vessel
2
408.9
7.1
2
408.9
7.1
Army budget funds one ship for
$223.8 million.
Mobile Landing Platform
1
425.9
0
1
400.9
0
Based on the design of a commercial
tanker, this ship is intended to
function as a floating pier on which
large ships can transfer combat
equipment to smal er landing craft.
Source: House Appropriations Committee, draft report to accompany the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY2012, accessed at
http://appropriations.fireside21.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY_2012_DEFENSE_FULL_COMMITTEE_REPORT.pdf.
CRS-42
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Aircraft Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars; base budget funding in plain type, OCO funding in italics.)
Senate Armed
Request
House Passed
Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and
Mods, AF (conventional takeoff
19 3,664.1 1,435.9
19 3,664.1 1,435.9
version)
F-35C Joint Strike Fighter,
Marine Corps (STOVL version)
6 1,259.2 670.7
6 1,259.2 670.7
F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
(Carrier-based version)
7 1,720.8
677.5
7 1,720.8
677.5
[F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
total]
32 6,644.1 2,784.1
32 6,644.1 2,784.1
F-22 Fighter Mods
-
232.0
718.4
-
232.0
718.4
F-15 Fighter Mods
-
222.4
207.5
-
222.4
207.5
F-16 Fighter Mods
-
73.3
143.9
-
56.7
143.9
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
12
1,107.5
17.1
12
1,107,5
17.1
F/A-18E/F
Fighter,
Navy
28 2,431.7 151.0
28 2,431.7 151.0
F/A-18 Fighter Mods (with
OCO)
- 546.6 2.0 - 546.6 2.0
A-10 Attack Plane Mods
-
153.1
11.1
158.1
11.1
B-1B
Bomber
Mods
- 198.0 33.0
198.0 33.0
B-2A
Bomber
Mods
- 41.3 340.8
41.3 340.8
B-52
Bomber
Mods
- 93.9 133.3
93.9 133.3
Light Attack Armed
Small, turboprop plane
Reconnaissance Aircraft
9 158.5
23.7
9 158.5
23.7
intended for use by U.S.
allies that do not operate
front-line combat jets.
FIXED-WING CARGO AND TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
CRS-43
Senate Armed
Request
House Passed
Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
C-130 variants, AF, Marine
Corps
11 1,075.6
39.5
11 1,075.6
39.5
C-130 Mods (with OCO)
-
901.8
61.6
-
899,2
61.6
C-5 Mods,
Includes $964 million to
- 1,035.1
24.9
- 1,035.1
24.9
rebuild the 52 newest C-5s
with more powerful engines
and digital cockpits.
C-17
- 0 0 - 0 0
C-17
Mods
213.2 128.2
196.2 128.2
C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft
9
479.9
27.1
9
479.9
27.1
KC-X Tanker Replacement,
-
-
877.1
-
-
849.9
C-37A executive transport
Gulfstream V used for long-
3 77.8 - 3 77.8 -
range transport of senior
civilian and military officials.
ROTARY-WING
AIRCRAFT
MV-22 Osprey, Marine Corps
HASC rejected $85 million
and Mods
30 2,399.1
84.5
30 2,338.8
84.5
requested for two Osprey’s
modified for special
CV-22 Osprey, AF and Mods
7
577.6
31.5
5
492.6
31.5
operations , saying those
[V-22 Osprey Total]
aircraft had been funded in
the FY2011 DOD
37 2,916.4 116.0
35 2,831.4 116.0
Appropriations Act (P.L.
112-10).
Special Operations helicopter
Mods
- 404.0 51.1 - 396.2 51.1
CH-53K
Helicopter
- -
629.5 - -
629.5
CRS-44
Senate Armed
Request
House Passed
Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Executive Helicopter
Funds are for development
of a new helicopter to
- -
180.1 - -
180.1
transport the President and
other senior officials,
Previous effort (VH-71) was
cancelled.
HH-60M search and rescue
HASC dropped two helos
helicopter and Mods (with
that had been funded in the
OCO)
5 178.4 94.1
163.1 11.0
FY2011 DOD
Appropriations Act (P.L.
112-10).
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
26 798.6 72.6 26 798.6 72.6
MH-60R/MH-60S Helicopter,
Navy
42 1,483.4
48.3
42 1,483.4
51.2
MANNED SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT
P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission
Maritime Aircraft
11 2,275.5 622.7
11 2,275.5 622.7
E-2D Hawkeye radar plane
(with OCO)
6 1,236.3 111.0
6 1,236.3 111.0
P-3/EP-3 Aircraft Mods (with
OCO)
- 275.4 3.4 - 275.4 3.4
E-8 JSTARS ground surveillance
plane Mods
- 29.1 121.6 - 29.1 121.6
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) including Mods and with OCO
MQ-4/RQ-4 Global Hawk
3
484.7
972.0
3
484
972.0
MQ-9 Reaper
48
1,072.3
149.3
48
1,072.3
149.3
MQ-1
Warrior/Predator
36 970.0 153.6 36 971.0 153.6
RQ-7 Shadow Mods
-
232.7
35.8
-
232.7
35.8
RQ-11 Raven
1,272 71.2 5.9
1,272 71.3 5.9
“hand-launched” drone with
camera
CRS-45
Senate Armed
Request
House Passed
Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
MQ-8 Fire Finder
12
192.0
108.2
12
192.0
108.2
Unmanned Combat Air System
UCAS is intended to test
(UCAS)
- 0
198.3 - 0
198.3
feasibility of a long-range,
carrier-based bomber.
Future Unmanned Carrier-
FUCSS is program to
based Strike System (FUCSS)
develop such a weapon.
HASC would withhold 85
- 0
121.2 - 0
121.2
percent of FUCSS money
until DOD and Navy
officials give Congress a
report on the programs.
Long-Endurance Multi-
Prototype surveillance blimp
Intelligence
Vehicle
(LEMV)
- 0 42.9 - 0 42.9
that could stay aloft for
three weeks.
Source: House Appropriations Committee, draft report to accompany the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY2012, accessed at
http://appropriations.fireside21.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY_2012_DEFENSE_FULL_COMMITTEE_REPORT.pdf.
CRS-46
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Aircraft Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars; base budget funding in plain type, OCO funding in italics.)
Senate Armed
Request
House Committee Recommended Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and
Mods, AF (conventional takeoff
19 3,664.1 1,435.9
19 3,664.1 1,397.9
version)
F-35C Joint Strike Fighter,
Marine Corps (STOVL version)
6 1,259.2 670.7
6 1,259.2 651.8
F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
(Carrier-based version)
7 1,720.8
677.5
7 1,665.8
658.5
[F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
total]
32 6,644.1 2,784.1
32 6,644.1 2,784.1
F-22 Fighter Mods
-
232.0
718.4
-
232.0
658.4
F-15 Fighter Mods
-
222.4
207.5
-
208.4
207.5
F-16 Fighter Mods
-
73.3
143.9
-
56.7
143.9
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
12
1,107.5
17.1
12
1,029.7
17.1
F/A-18E/F
Fighter,
Navy
28 2,431.7 151.0
28 2,368.2 145.2
F/A-18 Fighter Mods (with
OCO)
- 546.6 2.0 - 483.8 2.0
A-10 Attack Plane Mods
-
153.1
11.1
195.6
11.1
B-1B
Bomber
Mods
- 198.0 33.0
198.0 33.0
B-2A
Bomber
Mods
- 41.3 340.8
31.0 362.8
B-52
Bomber
Mods
- 93.9 133.3
93.9 133.3
Light Attack Armed
Small, turboprop plane
Reconnaissance Aircraft
9 158.5
23.7
9 158.5
23.7
intended for use by U.S.
allies that do not operate
front-line combat jets.
FIXED-WING CARGO AND TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
CRS-47
Senate Armed
Request
House Committee Recommended Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
C-130 variants, AF, Marine
Corps
11 1,075.6
39.5
11 1,075.6
39.5
C-130 Mods (with OCO)
-
901.8
70.2
-
998.1
70.2
Includes $964 million to
C-5
Mods,
- 1,035.1
24.9
- 1,035.1
24.9
rebuild the 52 newest C-5s
with more powerful engines
and digital cockpits.
C-17
- 0 0 1
225.0 0
C-17
Mods
213.2 128.2
213.2 128.2
C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft
9
479.9
27.1
9
479.9
27.1
KC-X Tanker Replacement,
-
-
877.1
-
-
877.1
Gulfstream V used for long-
C-37A
executive
transport
3 77.8 - 3 77.8 -
range transport of senior
civilian and military officials.
ROTARY-WING
AIRCRAFT
MV-22 Osprey, Marine Corps
and Mods
30 2,399.1
84.5
30 2,363.9
84.5
CV-22 Osprey, AF and Mods
7
577.6
31.5
5
483.6
26.5
[V-22
Osprey
Total]
37 2,916.4 116.0
35 2,831.4 116.0
Special Operations helicopter
Mods
- 404.0 51.1 - 355.7 51.1
CH-53K
Helicopter
- -
629.5 - -
624.5
Funds are for development
of a new helicopter to
Executive
Helicopter
- -
180.1 - -
160.1
transport the President and
other senior officials,
Previous effort (VH-71) was
cancelled.
CRS-48
Senate Armed
Request
House Committee Recommended Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
HH-60M search and rescue
helicopter and Mods (with
5 178.4 94.1 5 203.0 11.1
OCO)
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
26 798.6 72.6 26 766.1 67.6
MH-60R/MH-60S Helicopter,
Navy
42 1,483.4
48.3
42 1,463.8
48.3
MANNED SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT
P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission
Maritime Aircraft
11 2,275.5 622.7
11 2,253.7 632.7
E-2D Hawkeye radar plane
(with OCO)
6 1,236.3 111.0
5 1,064.8 111.0
P-3/EP-3 Aircraft Mods (with
OCO)
- 275.4 3.4 - 255.5 3.4
E-8 JSTARS ground surveillance
plane Mods
- 29.1 121.6 - 26.1 121.6
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) including Mods and with OCO
MQ-4/RQ-4 Global Hawk
3
484.7
972.0
3
484.7
972.0
MQ-9 Reaper
48
1,072.3
149.3
48
926.6
149.3
MQ-1
Warrior/Predator
36 971.0 153.6 36 970.0 153.6
RQ-7 Shadow Mods
-
232.7
35.8
-
171.3
35.8
RQ-11 Raven
1,272 71.2 5.9
1,272 71.2 5.9
“hand-launched” drone with
camera
MQ-8 Fire Finder
12
192.0
108.2
0
76.5
108.2
Unmanned Combat Air System
(UCAS)
- 0
198.3 - 0
198.3
UCAS is intended to test
feasibility of a long-range,
CRS-49
Senate Armed
Request
House Committee Recommended Services Committee
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
carrier-based bomber.
FUCSS is program to
develop such a weapon.
Future Unmanned Carrier-
HASC would withhold 85
based Strike System (FUCSS)
- 0
121.2 - 0 81.2
percent of FUCSS money
until DOD and Navy
officials give Congress a
report on the programs.
Long-Endurance Multi-
Prototype surveillance blimp
Intelligence
Vehicle
(LEMV)
- 0 42.9 - 0 42.9
that could stay aloft for
three weeks.
Source: House Appropriations Committee, draft report to accompany the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY2012, accessed at
http://appropriations.fireside21.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY_2012_DEFENSE_FULL_COMMITTEE_REPORT.pdf.
CRS-50
Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-2122
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
War costs
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Intelligence Richard
Best 7-7607
rbest@crs.loc.gov
Military personnel social issues
David Burrelli
7-8033 dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Force Structure and policy
Stephen Daggett
7-7642
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Acquisition workforce
Valerie Grasso
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Military compensation
Charles Henning 7-8866
chenning@crs.loc.gov
Health care
Don Jansen
4-4769
djansen@crs.loc.gov
Reserve component issues
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Acquisition process
Moshe Schwartz
7-1463
mschwartz@crs.loc.gov
Current military operations
Catherine Dale
7-8983
cdale@crs.loc.gov
Ground combat systems
Andrew Feickert
7-7673
afeickert@crs.loc.gov
Military aviation systems
Jeremiah Gertler
7-5107
Jgertler@crs.loc.gov
Missile defense systems
Steven Hildreth
7-7635
shildreth@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear weapons
Jonathan Medalia
7-7632
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Naval systems
Ronald O’Rourke
7-7610
rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Cyber-warfare Catherine
Theohary
7-0844
ctheohary@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
51