Defense: FY2012 Budget Request,
Authorization and Appropriations

Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
November 25, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41861
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Summary
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request, sent to Congress on February 14, 2011, included
$670.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Defense (DOD), of which
$553.1 billion was for the so-called “base budget” of the department (that is, the cost of routine,
peacetime operations excluding the cost of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan). The
remaining $117.8 billion in the DOD budget request was to cover the cost of so-called “overseas
contingency operations (OCO),” including operations in those two countries.
However, the Budget Control Act (BCA) enacted in early August set ceilings on FY2012
discretionary budget authority that would require a reduction of $35.7 billion from the total
amount the Administration had requested for so-called “security agencies”—a category that
includes the DOD base budget, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, and
the Energy Department’s Nuclear National Security Agency, as well as the Department of State
and various international activities funded by other federal agencies.
Before the BCA was enacted, the House had passed its version of the FY2012 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 1540), which would authorize $1.8 billion more than was requested for
DOD in February. The bill was passed on May 26, 2011, by a vote of 322-96 after a floor debate
highlighted by a relatively narrow vote (204-215) to reject an amendment by Representative
McGovern that would have required the President to send Congress an accelerated plan for
handing over security operations in Afghanistan to the government of that country. Also prior to
the enactment of the BCA, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported on June 22, 2011 an
initial version of the authorization act (S. 1253) which would have authorized $6.4 billion less
that the Administration requested for FY2012, of which $5.9 billion would be cut from the base
budget.
The version of the FY2012 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 2219) passed by the House on June 14,
2011, would reduce the President’s requested base budget by $8.9 billion. However, the bill
would provide $842 million more than the President’s $117.8 billion OCO request. Thus the net
reduction to the President’s request for H.R. 2219 as passed by the House would be $8.1 billion.
The first legislative action that applied the BCA-mandated spending reduction to FY2012 defense
funding legislation was taken by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 7, 2011,
when it adopted discretionary spending ceilings for each of its 12 subcommittees that required the
Defense Subcommittee to cut $25.9 billion from the President’s request for programs funded by
the DOD Appropriations bill. On September 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported
an amended version of the House-passed DOD Appropriations bill (H.R. 2219) that would cut
$29.3 billion from the Administration request. That reduction included $5.0 billion that was cut
from the budget request for war costs to take account of President Obama’s announcement on
June 22, 2011 that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan would be reduced by 33,000 by the
end of FY2012.
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved on November 15, 2011 a revised version of the
FY2012 defense authorization bill (S. 1867) that would reduce the FY2012 national defense
authorization by an additional $21 billion, on top of the reduction of more than $6 billion that
would have been made by the committee’s earlier bill (S. 1253). All told, S. 1867—which the
Senate began to debate on November 17—would cut $27.3 billion from the Administration’s
FY2012 national defense authorization request.
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Provisions................................................................................ 1
Status of Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 2
FY2012 DOD Budget Request ........................................................................................................ 2
Base Budget Highlights............................................................................................................. 4
War Cost Highlights .................................................................................................................. 5
Budgetary Impact and Deficits ........................................................................................................ 7
Changing the Baseline....................................................................................................... 10
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540; S. 1253; S. 1867)............................... 11
Authorization Bill Overview ................................................................................................... 13
House-passed Bill (H.R. 1540) ......................................................................................... 13
Senate Committee-reported Bills (S. 1253, S. 1867) ........................................................ 14
Earmarks and Add-ons ............................................................................................................ 15
House Add-ons .................................................................................................................. 16
Senate Add-ons.................................................................................................................. 17
Military Personnel Issues ........................................................................................................ 18
Pay Raise........................................................................................................................... 18
End Strength and ‘Dwell Time’......................................................................................... 19
Tricare Fees ....................................................................................................................... 20
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ........................................................................................................ 21
Women in Combat............................................................................................................. 21
Readiness................................................................................................................................. 22
Acquisition Policy ................................................................................................................... 23
House-Passed Competition Provisions.............................................................................. 23
Senate Committee Competition Provisions....................................................................... 24
Other Acquisition-related Provisions ................................................................................ 25
Ground Combat Systems......................................................................................................... 26
M-1 Tanks and Bradley Troop Carriers............................................................................. 26
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) ........................................................................................ 26
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV).............................................................................. 27
Shipbuilding ............................................................................................................................ 28
House Shipbuilding Issues ................................................................................................ 29
Aircraft .................................................................................................................................... 30
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker................................................................................................. 30
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.................................................................................................... 30
Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft .............................................................................. 31
Next Generation Bomber and Prompt Global Strike......................................................... 31
Airlift................................................................................................................................. 32
B-1 and U-2 Retirements................................................................................................... 33
Strategic Missile Subs, Missile Defense, and Arms Control ................................................... 33
START Arms Reduction Treaty......................................................................................... 33
Anti-Ballistic Missile Defenses......................................................................................... 35
Military Construction: Homeports and Headquarters.............................................................. 36
House Military Construction Highlights ........................................................................... 36
Senate Military Construction Highlights/Global Deployments ........................................ 37
Issues Related to Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq............................................................. 39
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Provisions Relating to Overseas Contingency Operations................................................ 39
Provisions Relating to Guantanamo Bay Detainees.......................................................... 40
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 42
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2219)............................................................................. 43
Defense Appropriations Bills Overview.................................................................................. 43
House-Passed Bill ............................................................................................................. 43
Senate Committee-Reported Bill....................................................................................... 45
Defense Health Program ................................................................................................... 47
Ground Combat Systems................................................................................................... 47
Aviation Programs............................................................................................................. 48
Ships.................................................................................................................................. 49
Missile Defense................................................................................................................. 50
House Appropriations Floor Debate........................................................................................ 50

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 ..................................... 9

Tables
Table 1. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: H.R. 1540, S. 1253................................... 2
Table 2. FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act: H.R. 2219.............................................................. 2
Table 3. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act Summary (H.R. 1540)............................. 12
Table 4. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2012 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 1540) .......................................................................................................................... 42
Table 5. FY2012 DOD Appropriations Bill, discretionary spending (H.R. 2219) ........................ 46
Table 6. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2219)................................................................................................................................. 51
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding:
Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 54
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding:
Appropriations ............................................................................................................................ 57
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Ground Combat and
Communications Programs: Authorization ................................................................................ 60
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Ground Combat and
Communications Programs: Appropriations .............................................................................. 61
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Shipbuilding Programs:
Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 62
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Shipbuilding Programs:
Appropriations ............................................................................................................................ 65
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
Aircraft Programs: Authorization............................................................................................... 67
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
Aircraft Programs: Appropriations ............................................................................................. 70

Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables ............................................................................... 54

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 75
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 75

Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
On November 17, 2011, the Senate began debate on S. 1867, a national defense authorization bill
for FY2012 that would approve $661.1 billion for the Department of Defense and for defense-
related activities conducted by the Energy Department. The bill would authorize $27.3 billion less
than the Administration had requested for programs covered by the bill, thus bringing the
authorization in line with the reduction in FY2012 defense appropriations mandated by P.L. 112-
25, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), enacted on August 2, 2011.
The BCA would require an overall reduction of $35.7 billion from the total amount the
Administration had requested for so-called “security agencies.” That category was defined to
include the DOD base budget (i.e., non-war costs), the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Homeland Security, and the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Agency, as well as
the Department of State and various international activities funded by other federal agencies. The
BCA did not specify how much of the reduction would come from DOD. However, the Senate
Appropriations Committee, acting to comply with the BCA, adopted on September 7, 2011
discretionary spending ceilings for each of its 12 subcommittees that required the Defense
Subcommittee to cut $25.9 billion from the President’s request for programs funded by the DOD
Appropriations bill. On September 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported an
amended version of the House-passed DOD Appropriations bill (H.R. 2219) that would cut $29.3
billion from the Administration request.
An earlier version of the defense authorization bill (S. 1253), reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee on June 22, would have reduced the Administration’s budget request by $6.4
billion.
During the Senate’s first two days of consideration of S. 1867 (November 17-18), it adopted
several amendments by unanimous consent, including an amendment by Senator Kelly Ayotte
that would authorize the Air Force to reduce its fleet of long-range C-5 and C-17 cargo planes
from 316 aircraft to 301. This would allow the Air Force to retire several of its older C-5s, a
move the service says would reduce its annual costs by $1.2 billion.
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Provisions
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s initial version of the FY2012 defense authorization bill
(S. 1253), like the authorization bill passed by the House on May 26, 2011, included several
provisions regulating the treatment of detainees currently held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. After the White House and the chairs of other Senate committees objected to some of
the provisions in the bill, Senate Majority Leader Reid delayed consideration of S. 1253 pending
a resolution of the disputed language.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s second version of the bill (S. 1867) included revised
provisions relating to detainees that addressed some of the objections that had been raised to the
committee’s earlier version. S. 1867 would authorize the detention of certain categories of
persons, require the military detention of a subset of them; and regulate status determinations for
persons held pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (P.L. 107-40)
enacted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. S. 1867 also would regulate
periodic review proceedings concerning the continued detention of Guantanamo detainees, and
continue current funding restrictions that relate to Guantanamo detainee transfers to foreign
Congressional Research Service
1

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

countries. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill would not bar the transfer of detainees into the
United States for trial or perhaps for other purposes.
Despite the revisions to the detainee provisions, the Administration opposed them in the official
Statement of Administration Position (SAP) on the bill, issued November 17, 2011 by the Office
of Management and Budget.1 Using the standard language to issue a veto threat, the SAP said that
the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto of, "any bill that challenges or constrains
the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and
protect the Nation."2
Status of Legislation
Table 1. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: H.R. 1540, S. 1253
Conference Report
Senate Reports
Approval
House
House
Senate
Conf.
Public
Report
Passage
S. 1253
S. 1867
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
H.Rept.
Agreed to
S.Rept.
Committee





112-78
322-96
112-26
approved
5/17/2011 5/26/2011 6/22/2011
11/15/11
(no report)
Table 2. FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act: H.R. 2219
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/1/2011 H.Rept.
Agreed to
S.Rept.





112-110
336-87
112-77
6/16/2011
7/8/2011
9/15/2011
FY2012 DOD Budget Request
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD), which totaled
$670.9 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 cutting more than $20
billion from the FY2011 DOD request. The bulk of the reduction in the FY2012 request 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. The Administration’s FY2012 request
assumes that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the first quarter of FY2012 and that

1 See Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1867, November 17, 2011, accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf.
2 For further analysis, see “Provisions Relating to Guantanamo Bay Detainees,” p. 40, below, and CRS Report R41920,
Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia.
Congressional Research Service
2

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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
base budget, which includes all routine activities other than ongoing war costs. Compared with
the 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%.

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.
Of the FY2012 base budget request, $528.7 billion is for programs funded by the annual DOD
appropriations bill; $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
3

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.3
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;
• 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 systems (UASs) that range in size
and price from the airliner-sized Global Hawk to hand-launched reconnaissance drones the size of
a toy.

3 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
4

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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
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.
Congressional Research Service
5

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Request
2008
2009
2010
2011
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 Comptrol er, FY2012 DOD Budget
Source: DOD Comptrol er, 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
government lead responsibility that country’s security by 2012.4 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.

4 For background and analysis, see CRS Report R40156, War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Operations, and Issues for
Congress
, by Catherine Dale.
Congressional Research Service
6

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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 Comptrol er, 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 support from national intelligence agencies.

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.
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).
Congressional Research Service
7

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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 Comptrol er, 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.5 The Fiscal Commission plan also contemplates substantial additional
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.6
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,7 by an additional $400 billion

5 The Moment of Truth: Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, December 2010,
accessed at 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.
6 Restoring America’s Future, Debt Reduction Task Force, Bipartisan Policy Center, November 2010.
7 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. See Office of Management and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

(beyond the reductions embodied in the FY2012 DOD request) over the 12 years from FY2012-
FY2023.8 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).
Figure 6. Alternative National Defense Budget Trends, FY2010-FY2023
(billions of dollars)
800
700
600
f dollars
o
500
Billions
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 the 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,

(...continued)
Budget, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the U.S. Government, Table S-11, “Funding Levels for Appropriated
(“Discretionary”) Funds by Agency,” pp. 199-200, on line at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/budget.pdf.
8 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

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.9
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 DOD base budget10, as 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 2411 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.
Changing the Baseline
Negotiations surrounding legislation to increase the national debt ceiling resulted in enactment on
August 2, 2011 of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) which, among other things, set new
caps on discretionary spending in FY2012. While the law does not specifically mandate a
reduction in DOD appropriations below the President’s initial request, as a practical matter such
reductions may result.
One of BCA’s provisions sets a cap on discretionary appropriations for so-called “security
agencies”—a category that includes the DOD base budget, the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Homeland Security, and the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Agency, as well

9 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.
10 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.
11 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
10

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

as the Department of State and various international activities funded by other federal agencies.
The cap would require a reduction of $35.7 billion from the total amount the Administration had
requested for that category of agencies. The DOD base budget accounts for 76.9 percent of the
discretionary budget request for security agencies’ funding. Thus, if the base budget were to
absorb that share of the security agencies’ reduction (which is not required by the BCA),
appropriations for the FY2012 DOD base budget would be at least $27.2 billion below the
amount requested.
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R.
1540; S. 1253; S. 1867)

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).
Overall, the House bill would authorize $690.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for
programs covered by that bill. This includes $553.0 billion for DOD’s base budget and an
additional $118.9 billion for OCO. The remaining $18.1 billion the bill would authorize 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.12
On the other hand, S. 1867, reported November 15 by the Senate Armed Services Committee
would cut $27.3 billion from the President’s request, and would authorize $28.4 billion less than
the House-passed bill. For the DOD base budget, the Senate bill would authorize $527.3 billion,
which is $25.8 billion less than the President requested for programs covered by the bill (See
Table 3).


12 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
11


Table 3. FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act Summary (H.R. 1540)
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2011 Authorization
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012 SASC-
H.R. 6523
FY2012 Administration
House-Passed
SASC-reported
reported S. 1867

(P.L. 111-383)
Request
H.R. 1540
S. 1253
DOD Base Budget

Procurement 110,433
111,454
111,386
109,539
101,633
Research and
76,587 75,325
75,580
74,859
71,841
Development
Operations and
168,151 170,759 171,120 168,683
160,847
Maintenance
Military Personnel
138,541 142,829 142,164 142,448
142,348
Other Authorizations
36,274
37,900
38,016
37,892
37,411
Military Construction
18,191 14,766 14,766 13,717
13,190
and Family Housing
Subtotal: DOD Base
548,176 553,033 553,032 547,139
527,270
Budget
Subtotal: Atomic Energy
Defense Activities

17,716 18,085 18,085 18,089
17,520
(Energy Dept.)
TOTAL: FY2012 Base
565,891 571,118 571,117 565,228
544,790
Budget
Subtotal: Overseas
158,750 117,843 118,940 117,306
116,847
Contingency Operations
GRAND TOTAL:
FY2012
724,642 688,961 690,056 682,534
661,636
National Defense
Authorization
Source: H.Rept. 112-78, House Armed Services Committee, “Report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012;” S.Rept. 112-26, Senate
Armed Services Committee, “Report to accompany S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012;” and Senate Armed Services Committee
summary of S. 1867 as reported, “Summary of National Defense Authorizations for FY2012,” November 17, 2011.

CRS-12

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Authorization Bill Overview
House-passed Bill (H.R. 1540)
The House bill’s total authorization is the net result of dozens of 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 House 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—all but $15.7 million of the amount requested -- from an Army
airborne electronic eavesdropping system designated the Enhanced, Medium-
Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS), a package of
cameras and electronic eavesdropping gear installed in a small, twin-engine
Beechcraft commercial plane. The committee said delays in the program justified
the reduction;
• $148.7 million from the amount requested for the Army’s Early Infantry Brigade
Combat Team (E-IBCT), an effort to equip infantry units with a digital network
which DOD cancelled in February 2011. The committee said that, at the Army’s
request, it was eliminating this amount and shifting the remainder of the funds
requested for E-IBCT ($89.9 million) to other purposes;
• $149.5 million from the MEADS anti-missile system, which is being jointly
developed by the United States, German, and Italy, but which the Pentagon has
decided not to purchase.
The largest single group of budget cuts the House committee incorporated into H.R. 1540
reflected its judgment that many DOD budget accounts held funds, appropriated in prior years,
which would not be obligated by the end of FY2011. On grounds that these “unobligated
balances” could be used in lieu of new budget authority to cover some of the cost of DOD’s
FY2012 program, the committee cut a total of $2.66 billion from the amount of new budget
authority requested for various accounts.
The House committee also incorporated into H.R. 1540 across-the-board cuts in the operations
and maintenance accounts totaling $59.7 million to reflect 10% reductions in the amounts
Congressional Research Service
13

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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).
Senate Committee-reported Bills (S. 1253, S. 1867)
Relevance of S. 1253 to S. 1867
Unless otherwise specified, all references in the balance of this report to the Senate Armed Services Committee’s
version of the FY2012 national defense authorization act refer to S. 1867, the version of that bill reported by the
committee on November 15, 2011. Unless otherwise specified, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report on S.
1253, its earlier version of the authorization bill (S.Rept. 112-26), applies to S. 1867.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s net reduction of $6.43 billion to the President’s request
in its initial version of the FY2012 NDAA (S. 1253) resulted from dozens of specific reductions,
many of which were relatively small. To achieve the additional reduction in S. 1867, the
committee retained the earlier cuts and added hundreds more.
The committee insisted in its report on S. 1253 (S.Rept. 112-26) that many of its cuts in that bill
would have no adverse impact on Pentagon operations because they involved funds that would
not be needed during FY2012 due, for example, to program delays, the inclusion in the request of
funding for overhead costs that the committee deemed excessive, or what the committee
described as lackluster performance. Although the committee did not issue a report to accompany
S. 1867, the summary funding tables incorporated in that bill included brief characterizations –
consisting of no more than a few words each – justifying those cuts in terms that were generally
similar to the rationales cited in S.Rept. 112-26 for the cuts in S. 1253.
The largest single cuts in S. 1867 related to U.S. operations in Afghanistan. The committee cut $5
billion from the $117.8 billion request for war costs on the grounds that, in June, President
Obama announced a decision to reduce U.S. troop strength in that country. The bill also cut $1.6
billion from the $12.8 billion requested for training, equipping and sustaining the Afghan Army
and National Police.
Some of the other major reductions incorporated in S. 1867 include:
• A total of $1.1 billion, distributed across several operation and maintenance
(O&M) accounts to reduce what the committee called in its report a “bloated”
budget request for contract services;13
• A total of $684 million from the O&M accounts in anticipation that, as
historically has been the case, DOD agencies asked for more money in these
accounts than they could spend in the course of the fiscal year, leaving them with
excessively large “unobligated balances” at year’s end;
• $350 million, about one-eighth of the $2.80 billion requested, for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), an umbrella
organization that was created to coordinate DOD efforts to neutralize the
roadside bombs widely used against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The

13 S.Rept. 112-26, pp. 86-87. According to the committee report on S. 1253, DOD’s base budget for FY2012 included
$150 billion for contract services, more than double the amount DOD spent for that purpose in FY2000.
Congressional Research Service
14

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

committee said the organization had not done enough to eliminate duplicative
efforts and was too dependent on contractor personnel;
• $752 million requested for aircraft that were included in the FY2012 budget sent
to Congress in February, but which, subsequently, had been funded in the
FY2011 DOD Appropriations bill, enacted April 15 as part of the FY2011
omnibus spending bill (P.L. 112-10). The items eliminated from the bill included
nine F/A18E/F Navy fighters ($495 million), one E-2D Hawkeye radar
surveillance plane ($164 million), two HH-60M Blackhawk helicopters modified
for combat search and rescue ($70 million), one Apache attack helicopter ($36
million) and upgrades for various helicopters used by special forces ($151
million); and
• $200 million from the $2.98 billion requested for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a combination of reasons including
concern about the agency’s history of excessive unobligated balances and the
committee’s doubts about the feasibility of some projects the agency is funding.
The panel was skeptical of an effort to develop a Transformer Vehicle that would
combine attributes of a vertical take-off aircraft and a HMMWV (Humvee).
In addition, S. 1867 would cut a total of $1.18 billion from four major weapons programs14
(including three of which the House bill also would cut), including:
• $540 million from an Army airborne surveillance system designated the
Enhanced Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System
(EMARSS);
• $407 million from the Army’s effort to develop a new family of digitally-linked
combat equipment;
• $135 million (of the $877 million total) requested to develop a new mid-air
refueling tanker (designated KC-46A), funds which the committee said the
program would not need in FY2012; and
• $407 million for the multinational Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS) anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense system.
Earmarks and Add-ons
Compared with annual defense authorization bills in the recent past, both the House-passed and
Senate committee-reported FY2012 bill include fewer Member-sponsored funding initiatives
(widely referred to as “earmarks”) and those that they do include are, as a rule, much less specific
in terms of identifying the program, contractor or locality for which the additional funds are
intended.

14 At the request of the Marine Corps, the Senate Committee cut $300 million from the budget request for medium-
sized trucks but reallocated the funds to other Marine Corps priorities, and thus did not reduce the overall amount
authorized by the bill.
Congressional Research Service
15

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

House Add-ons
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
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.15
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 contain
about one-fourth the number of Member-sponsored add-ons. However, in toto, this smaller
number of add-ons would add roughly the same amount of money.16 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
million17, providing a total of $1.37 billion (for an average value per earmark of
$3.7 million); and

15 U.S. Congress, House, House Rules and Manual, §1068d.
16 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.
17 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
16

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

• 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).
The impact of the new approach to Member-sponsored funding initiatives is even more striking in
a comparison of portions 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, most18 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
the 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 (MEFT) Fund, which it had funded with $1 billion that had
been cut from various parts of the DOD budget request. Program add-ons adopted by the
committee during the markup of H.R. 1540 absorbed $651.7 million of the $1 billion,
leaving a balance in the MEFT Fund of $348.3 million.
As reported, the bill would have authorized the Secretary of Defense to draw money from
the fund balance 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 from
the bill the $348.5 million that remained in the MEFT fund (see Table 4).
Senate Add-ons
In the Senate, the “no earmark” rule had an even more dramatic impact on the FY2012
defense authorization bills reported by the Armed Services Committee. The committee’s
initial bill (S. 1253), reported several weeks before the enactment of the BCA mandated
substantial additional reductions, included only 37 instances in which the committee

18 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
17

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

added funding to the budget request, with a total budget increase of $1.64 billion.19 In
writing a second version of the defense bill (S. 1867) to met the spending limits set by the
Budget Control Act, the committee made hundreds of additional cuts to the budget
request, no further additions, and reduced the amount of some of the additions it had
made in S. 1253.
The largest single amount the committee added to the budget request was $405 million added to
Operations and Maintenance funds intended, the committee said in its report on S. 1253, “to
reimburse expenses deferred to fund foreign operations.” The report does not elaborate on that
statement.
By way of comparison, the version of the FY2010 defense authorization bill that the Senate
Armed Services Committee reported on July 2, 2009 (S. 1390) included 336 additions (excluding
military construction) with a total budgetary increase of $5.17 billion—nearly nine times as many
additions and more than three times the total cost of the additions in S. 1253.
Military Personnel Issues
For military personnel costs in the base budget, the House 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.
As reported by the Senate committee, S. 1867 would authorize $142.35 billion for military
personnel costs in the base budget, which is $481.2 million less than was requested. The Senate
committee justified the bulk of the reduction ($325.6 million) on the basis of unobligated
balances in appropriations accounts that could be used to offset those cuts.
Additional Detail on Selected FY2012 Military Personnel Issues
For a more detailed analysis of military personnel issues in the FY2012 budget see CRS Report R41874, FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
, coordinated by David F. Burrelli.
Pay Raise
The House-passed bill includes a provision (Section 601) that would authorize a 1.6% raise in
service members’ basic pay, 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.
The Senate committee-reported bill includes no corresponding provision but, in effect, it also
would authorize the requested 1.6 percent increase in basic pay because, by law, military
personnel and federal civilian employees receive annual pay raises at the rate established by the
ECI, unless a different pay rate is established by statute.

19 This comparison excludes funding increases that were, in effect, amendments to the budget request made at the
request of DOD or one of the armed services.
Congressional Research Service
18

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

End Strength and ‘Dwell Time’
Both bills would authorize (with one minor change20) 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 their respective reports on
the bills, both Armed Services Committees expressed concern that the planned reduction in forces
might allow individuals 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 the ratio is much lower, and DOD hopes to improve the dwell time ratio to one-to-two by the
end of FY2012. The House 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
The House bill included a provision (Section 522) requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish
a policy on dwell time and to establish a data base that would monitor service member’s actual
ratio of time deployed to time at home.
Similarly, the Senate committee expressed concern that, if the drawdown were carried out too
quickly, while large U.S. forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops would have too
little time at home between deployments abroad.
Shaping the Drawdown
In its report, the Senate committee urged DOD, in deciding where to make further cuts in the
force, to be mindful of service members who have served during a decade of combat operations,
but have not yet completed the 20 years of service required to qualify for military retired pay:
...[F]uture reductions in force, while necessary, must be accomplished in a responsible
manner, taking into account the wartime service and contribution of service members,
particularly those with over 15 years of service. The nation owes it to our service members
and their families, especially after enduring the challenges of 10 years of war, to carefully
balance many factors in deciding how to draw down responsibly and fairly.22

20 The House bill would increase the Navy’s end-strength ceiling by 39 above the number requested.
21 H.Rept. 112-78, Report on the National Defense Authorization Acto fo rFY2012, pp. 127-28.
22 H.Rept. 112-26, p. 105.
Congressional Research Service
19

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

The Senate committee bill includes three provisions requested by the Administration to enable it
to more precisely tailor further reductions in the size of the force:
• Section 502 would authorize payment to certain officers with between 20 and 29
years of service of a voluntary retirement incentive amounting to up to 12 times
their monthly basic pay.
• Section 523 would extend from three months to one year the amount of time
prior to the end of an enlistment term that a service member could be
involuntarily discharged without loss of certain benefits (except that he or she
would not be paid for the time not served).
• Section 524 would extend through 2018 authority to provide, in effect, severance
pay to certain service members with less than 20 years of service who agree to be
retired.23
Tricare Fees
The Administration proposed in its FY2012 budget request an increase in enrollment fees for
TRICARE Prime, an HMO-style managed care plan that offers the most comprehensive coverage
among the nine options offered by DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance programs for
servicemembers, retirees and their dependents. The budget would have increased the fees—which
have not increased since 1995 -- by $30 per year for individuals (to $260) and by $60 per year for
families (to $580). The Administration also proposed that, in future years, the fees increase
annually at the same rate as the National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) Index, a measure of
health spending calculated by the federal agency that manages Medicare and Medicaid. The NHE
index is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 5-6 percent over the next decade.24
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Personnel Subcommittee proposed including in
H.R. 1540 a one year prohibition on increasing TRICARE Prime fees, similar to prohibitions
Congress has included in several prior defense authorization bills. But instead, the full House
committee included in the bill a provision (Section 701) that would allow the Administration’s
proposed fee increase but would limit increases in any future year to the percentage by which
military retired pay is increased in the same year. In its analysis of H.R. 1540, the Congressional
Budget Office estimated that this provision would allow the fees to increase by about 2 percent
annually over the next decade.25
The Senate committee bill contained a similar provision (also designated Section 701). However,
in its report on the bill the Senate committee said it would consider options for phasing in a more
rapid increase in TRICARE fees, as early as FY2014.

23 Under current law (10 U.S.C. 1175a), authority for this voluntary separation pay would lapse at the end of 2012.
24 Testimony of Jonathan Woodson, M.D., Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) before the Senate Armed
Services Committee Personnel Subcommittee, May 4, 2011, available at http://www.tricare.mil/tma/
congressionalinformation/downloads/2011/05-04-11%20SASC-
P%20DoD%20Focus%20Hearing%20Statement%20_Woodson_%20-%20FINAL.pdf.
25 H.Rept. 112-78, Part 2.
Congressional Research Service
20

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell26
The House bill includes three provisions relating to the repeal in December 2010 of the 1993 law
barring openly homosexual persons from military service.27 That law had embodied a DOD
policy colloquially referred to as, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
These provisions would:
• 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).

Analysis of issues related to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy
For a more comprehensive analysis of issues related to legislation and DOD policy concerning service of openly
homosexual persons in the armed forces, 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.

Women in Combat
In its report on H.R. 1540, the House 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.28

26 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.
27 The 1993 legislation was repealed by H.R. 2965 which was enacted on December 22, 2010 as P.L. 112-321.
28 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 48-49.
Congressional Research Service
21

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Readiness
S. 1867 would cut $4.8 billion from the $170.8 billion requested for operation and maintenance
(O&M) accounts, while shifting an additional $5.0 billion from the base budget to the title of the
bill that authorizes funds for war costs. The reductions include:
• $1.0 billion comprising unspecified “target” areas for reduction offered by the
Navy and Marine Corps in their O&M budgets;
• $684.0 million in new budget authority for which DOD could substitute
unobligated balances left over from prior budgets;
• $403.5 million that the Army said it could forego because of a reduced tempo of
operations; and
• $1.1 billion of the $70.5 billion requested for service contractors.
The Senate committee bill also included a provision (Section 823) that would hold spending on
service contractors in the base budget to the amount DOD spent on contractors in FY2010,
which—the committee said—would be the result of its proposed $1.1 billion reduction.29
The House-passed bill, on the other hand, would authorize a net increase of $361.2 million to the
O&M accounts. The major components of this increase included additions totaling more than $2
billion to improve the readiness of U.S. forces, including:
• $1.31 billion for maintenance, repair and upgrades to facilities;
• $439.7 million for ship and aircraft overhauls;
• $230.0 million for Army base operations; 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.
In its report on H.R. 1540, the House Armed Services 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.
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.30
• 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.31

29 S.Rept. 112-26, pp. 86-87.
30 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 107-08.
Congressional Research Service
22

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

• 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.32
• 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.33
Acquisition Policy
The versions of the defense authorization bill passed by the House and reported by the Senate
Armed Services Committee both included provisions intended to promote greater use of
competitive procedures in DOD contracting for the acquisition and maintenance of weapons
systems.
House-Passed Competition Provisions
In its report on H.R. 1540, the House committee contended that DOD should try to get lower
prices and higher quality from its suppliers by making more extensive use of competition in
acquiring and maintaining not only complex weapons but also their principal components. Noting
that the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) 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 that DOD could reduce its annual maintenance costs by $2 billion if it awarded
competitively the maintenance contracts for the large number of its jet engines that are variants of
commercial engines for which there are 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 House bill also 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 to designate as a “major subprogram” an electro-magnetic
catapult intended to launch planes from the Navy’s next class of aircraft carriers,
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

(...continued)
31 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 110.
32 H.Rept. 112-78, pp. 111-12.
33 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 111.
Congressional Research Service
23

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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.34
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.
Senate Committee Competition Provisions
In its report on S. 1253, the Senate committee justified its funding recommendations
regarding several acquisition programs as efforts to foster competition.
The Senate committee bill before the Senate (S. 1867) includes a provision (Section 153) that
would require DOD to report on how it plans to implement, as part of the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter Program, provisions of WSARA that require major weapons programs to allow for the
possibility of periodic re-competition for the prime contract and for major subcontracts.35
Another section of S. 1867 (Section 213) is intended to encourage the Navy to incorporate “open
architecture standards” into its program to develop a long-range, unmanned, carrier-based
bomber. An open architecture is a computer or software system based on specifications that are
publicly known and thus relatively easy to modify with products of a manufacturer other than the
original contractor—a characteristic intended to encourage competition designing and building
the system and its components. The bill would prohibit the Navy from spending more than 50
percent of the amount authorized for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS) system until DOD certifies to Congress that the program incorporates “open
architecture standards.”
The Senate committee bill also would require the GAO to review non-competitive contracts
awarded by DOD in FY2012 and the following two years.

34 For background, see CRS Report R41131, F-35 Alternate Engine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Jeremiah Gertler.
35 See CRS Report RL34026, Defense Acquisitions: How DOD Acquires Weapon Systems and Recent Efforts to Reform
the Process
, by Moshe Schwartz, pp. 19-20.
Congressional Research Service
24

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Other Acquisition-related Provisions
Political Contribution Reporting Ban
Both Section 847 of H.R. 1540 and Section 845 of S. 1867 as reported would prohibit the
government from requiring, as a condition of bidding on a government contract, that the bidder
disclose any political contributions, except to the extent that the collection and disclosure of such
information is allowed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-225). A widely-
reported (but never issued) draft executive order would have required the bidders to disclose
political contributions to any candidate or party competing for a federal office in the two years
preceding the bid.
Allowable Cost Limits on Contractor Salaries
Both versions of the authorization bill would expand the scope of an existing limitation on the
amount of total compensation for certain employees which a contractor could claim as a
reimbursable cost under certain types of contracts. Under current law (10 U.S.C. 2324 e.1), no
contractor could claim as an allowable expense on a federal contract more than $693,951.00 in
total annual compensation for any of its five most senior executives.36
Section 803 of the House-passed bill would extend that cap on allowable compensation costs to
cover all employees. Section 842 of the Senate committee-reported bill would extend it to cover
all executives of a firm, but not other employees.
Nunn-McCurdy Triggers
Senate committee included in S. 1867 a provision (Section 801) that would modify the so-called
Nunn-McCurdy rules which require various high-level reviews of any acquisition program that
exceeds its baseline cost estimate by more than a specified percentage.37 The provision would
exempt programs for which a sharp rise in the projected unit-cost was the result of a decision to
reduce the number of units that would be purchased.
Hedging Against Technical Risk
Section 212 of S. 1867 as reported would bar any funding for development of a new satellite
communication system for the B-2 stealth bomber until the Air Force sends Congress a detailed
report on the projected cost and schedule of the effort. At issue is the effort to develop an antenna
that would allow the plane to send and receive information over the Pentagon’s satellite-based
global information grid 100 times as fast as the bomber’s current communication system. The
committee said it wanted more detailed analysis of the technical risks of developing a novel type

36 The amount of that cap is calculated by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) using
a methodology prescribed in 41 U.S.C. 435.
37 See CRS Report R41293, The Nunn-McCurdy Act: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress , by Moshe
Schwartz.
Congressional Research Service
25

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

of antenna the bomber would need, including the risk that the antenna would compromise the
plane’s stealthiness.
The Senate committee bill also sliced funds from the amounts requested for some high-profile
weapons development programs which it deemed technically promising, but risky and, in any
case, lower priorities than other projects that could produce usable weaponry sooner. The bill
would cut:
• $30.0 million to terminate work on the so-called “free electron” laser, one of
several types of lasers the Navy is considering to protect ships against cruise
missiles and swarms of small speedboats;
• $26.9 million to terminate efforts to develop an electromagnetic “rail gun”—a
Navy project intended to use magnetic energy rather than gunpowder to propel
bullets and artillery shells for ships’ self-defense and to strike distant surface
targets; and
• $60.0 million to terminate experimentation with a large laser in a modified
Boeing 747 as an anti-missile weapon.
Ground Combat Systems
M-1 Tanks and Bradley Troop Carriers
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees both challenged DOD’s plan to shut down—
for at least a couple of years—the production lines that originally manufactured new M-1 tanks
and, for more than a decade, have rebuilt existing tanks with improved communications
equipment and sensors. As a cost-saving measure, DOD plans to shut down the line in FY2013
and then to restart them for a new tank modification in FY2016.
The committees 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. Accordingly,
the House-passed bill would authorize an additional $272 million and the Senate committee
version an additional $240 million to sustain the Abrams production line.38
The budget request assumed a similar hiatus in the production line that upgrades Bradley armored
troop carriers and the House committee challenged that decision for the same reasons it objected
to the tank plan. For that reason, the House version of the authorization bill also would add to the
budget request $153 million to continue Bradley upgrades.
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees both approved the request for $884 million to
continue development of a new armored troop carrier for the Army designated the Ground

38 The original Senate Armed Services Committee bill, S. 1253, would have authorized an additional $322 million for
Abrams upgrades.
Congressional Research Service
26

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Combat Vehicle (GCV). However, the House committee added to H.R. 1540 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.39
The House 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 and Senate Armed Services Committees both objected to DOD’s stated rationale for
cancelling development of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), an amphibious armored
troop carrier intended to replace the Marine Corps’ current amphibious tractor, designated the
AAV-7, which dates from the early 1970s. Former Defense Secretary Gates had cited as grounds
for the cancellation EFV’s 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 its predecessor. The speed specification—which required the EFV to “plane”
over the surface of the water like a speedboat -- 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.40
In drawing up the specifications for a cheaper substitute for EFV, designated the Armored
Combat Vehicle (ACV), the Marines have assumed that a troop carrier with more ergonomically
sound seating and environmental control would allow troops to tolerate a longer ride to the beach.
Moreover, the Navy now assumes it can protect ships closer to shore than 25 miles. In
combination, those assumptions allow the Marines to require that the ACV plow though the water
at about 12 miles per hour, allowing a simpler (and thus cheaper) design. The Marines also plan
to acquire a heavily armored, non-amphibious armored troop carrier called the Marine Personnel
Carrier (MPC).
House-passed Bill
The House bill would authorize the amounts requested to upgrade the amphibious troop carriers
currently in service and slightly increase their speed ($60.8 million) and to develop both the new
amphibious ACV ($12.0 million) -- which would be designed to travel at about half the speed for
which the EFV had been designed -- and the non-amphibious MPC ($34.9 million).

39 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.
40 For background, see CRS Report RS22947, The Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV): Background and
Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
27

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

In its report on the bill, the House Armed Services Committee said DOD had provided no
explanation for its decision to reduce the speed requirement for the new troop carrier. It added to
the House bill a provision (Section 214) barring the use of any funds authorized by the bill to
work on either improvements to the existing AAV-7 or development of the new ACV 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 AAV-7, the cancelled EFV, and the proposed new,
slower ACV.
Senate Committee Bill
The Senate committee bill would cut a total of $25 million from the amounts requested to
upgrade the existing AAV-7 and to develop the MPC. In its report, the Senate committee
expressed dissatisfaction with the Marine Corps’ plan to develop both the amphibious ACV and
the non-amphibious MPC in wake of the EFV cancellation. The committee added to S. 1867 a
provision (Section 241) that would slow down the Marines’ timetable, requiring:
• A thorough analysis of alternatives before proceeding with the new amphibious
vehicle (the ACV); and
• A assessment by DOD of the life-cycle cost of the Marines entire planned fleet of
combat vehicles.
The committee insisted that the Navy and Marine Corps substantiate -- by tests and exercises, if
possible—the more sanguine assumptions that undergird the less demanding specifications for the
ACV. The panel also said that, since the ACV was designed to plow through the water rather than
skim over it, it could be more heavily armored than the EFV would have been and, thus, might
obviate the need for a separate fleet of non-amphibious troop carriers (the MPCs).
Shipbuilding
The House-passed authorization bill and the Senate committee version each would authorize
funds to build 12 ships, as requested: two Virginia-class submarines, a destroyer equipped with
the Aegis anti-missile system, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), a transport for amphibious
landing troops, two high-speed cargo ships, an oceanographic research vessel and a Mobile
Loading Platform (MLP)—a modified tanker intended to serve as a floating pier used to transfer
combat vehicles and other equipment from cargo ships to landing barges. Each bill also would
authorize, as requested, partial funding for four ships that are being funded incrementally, over
two or more years: an aircraft carrier, a helicopter carrier (designated an LHA), and the last two
of three destroyers of the DDG-1000 class. (See Table A-5)
As requested, the Senate committee bill would authorize $14.9 billion for the Navy’s shipbuilding
account for 10 of the fully-funded ships and the four for which incremental funding is provided.
The committee bill also would authorize $223.8 million for one of the high-speed cargo ships
which is funded in the Army budget and $425.9 million for the MLP funded through a separate
sealift account. The House-passed bill would authorize the same amounts except that for the
Congressional Research Service
28

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

FY2012 increment of funding to build the $3.3 billion helicopter carrier (or LHA), it would
authorize $2.0 billion—$50 million less than was requested.41 The House bill also included 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).
House Shipbuilding Issues
In its report on H.R. 1540 the House Armed Services Committee directed the Secretary of the
Navy to report to the congressional defense committees on how the Administration’s plan to rely
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.42
Aircraft Carrier Numbers
As requested, both versions of the bill 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 carriers’ cost, funding for them is spread over several
budgets, contrary to Congress’s general policy of requiring “full-funding” for any procurement in
a single appropriation. In 2010, then-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 he announced it, in its
report on H.R. 1540 the committee did not repeat its objection but, rather, urged DOD not to let
the interval between carriers grow longer than five years.43
Carrier-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
The House-passed versions of the bill authorized, as requested, $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. In its report on H.R.
1540, the House Armed Services Committee said the Navy might be trying to move too quickly,
since the ability of a drone to land 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.
Accordingly, the committee added to the House 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.

41 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 4)
42 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.
43 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
29

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

S. 1867 would authorize the amount requested for UCAS but, citing delays in the effort to
develop the operational system, would cut $70 million from the amount requested for that project,
which is designated Future Unmanned Carrier-Based Strike System (FUCSS).
Aircraft
The House-passed and Senate committee reported versions of the bill authorized the amounts
requested for most types of aircraft except two Air Force V-22 Ospreys ($70.0 million). Both
committees said FY2012 funding was not needed for those aircraft, since they had been funded in
the FY2011 DOD appropriations bill, a part of the FY2011 full-year appropriations bill (P.L. 112-
10) that was enacted on April 15, two months after the FY2012 budget request was published.
On the same grounds, S. 1867 denied $495 million requested for nine F/A-18E/F strike fighters
that had been funded in the FY2011 bill. (See Table A-7 for authorization actions on selected
aircraft programs.)
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker
The Senate committee bill would authorize $742.1 million—$135.0 million less than was
requested— for the Air Force to develop a new mid-air refueling tanker designated the KC-46A,
which is based on the Boeing 767 jetliner. The committee said the reduced amount was what was
required in FY2012 by the tanker contract.
The House-passed bill would cut the tanker request by $27.2 million, to $849.9 million but
includes a provision (Section 241) that would require the GAO to give Congress an annual review
of the program. In its report on H.R. 1540, the House Armed Services Committee directed the
undersecretary of defense in charge of weapons procurement to notify the defense committees on
a quarterly basis of any changes by Boeing in the design or engineering of the plane, compared
with the design that was selected by DOD over a competing design submitted by the European
consortium that manufactures Airbus jetliners.44
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the bill both would authorize the
budget request for $6.64 billion to buy 32 tri-service (Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters. The House bill also would authorize as requested $2.78 billion to continue
development of the three versions of the plane; however S. 1867 would cut $18.9 million apiece
from the amounts requested to develop the Navy’s carrier-based version and the Marine Corps’
vertical takeoff version of the plane.
The Senate Armed Services Committee added to S. 1867 a provision (Section 152) requiring that
the next production batch45 of F-35s be purchased under a fixed-price contract that would exempt

44 For background, see CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program: Background and Issues for
Congress
, by Jeremiah Gertler.
45 The section would govern the contract for the fifth batch of planes designated as “low-rate initial production” (LRIP)
lots. These are relatively small batches of planes built to allow realistic testing before contracts are signed for large
production runs.
Congressional Research Service
30

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

the government from paying any cost increase above the “target price” set by the contract. The
committee had added this provision to the initial version of the bill (S. 1253) after rejecting, on a
tie vote (13-13) an amendment by Senator John McCain that would have killed the F-35 program
on December 31, 2012 if the program’s cost continued to exceed the target price by more than 10
percent (as it currently does).
F-35 Alternate Engine
Over the objections of the Bush and Obama Administrations, the House Armed Services
Committee has added to several annual authorization bills funds to support development by
General Electric of an alternate engine for the F-35, which currently is powered by a Pratt &
Whitney engine. The House committee did not authorize additional funds for the second engine
in H.R. 1540, but in its report on the bill the committee reiterated its position that development of
the second engine would be wise. It also included in the House-passed bill a provision (Section
252) that would require DOD to preserve any equipment it has acquired from contractors in the
course of the alternate engine development effort and would require DOD to support, at no cost to
the government, efforts by General Electric to continue the alternate engine development effort
using its own funds. Another provision of the House bill (Section 215) would bar the use of any
funds to develop improvements in the current F-35 engine unless improvements to the plane’s
powerplant were developed and produced on a competitive basis.
The Senate Armed Services Committee included in S. 1867 a provision (Section 211) that would
prohibit the use of any funds authorized by the bill to continue development of the alternate
engine. The provision also would bar the use of funds to support efforts by General Electric to
continue work on the engine using its own funds.
Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft
The Senate committee approved bill would not authorize the $159 million requested to buy nine
relatively inexpensive ground attack planes (designated Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft or
LARA) to train U.S. pilots who, in turn, would train pilots of allied governments facing local
insurgencies. The committee said procurement of the planes would be premature, though the bill
would authorize the $24 million requested for development of the program.
Next Generation Bomber and Prompt Global Strike
The House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the bill each would authorize the
requested $197 million to develop a new, long-range bomber. In its report on H.R. 1540, the
House Armed Services Committee 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 and other missions rather than developing a family of aircraft, each
optimized for a different mission.46

46 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
31

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

The Senate committee’s version of the bill would authorize $205 million, as requested, to
continue development of a so-called Prompt Global Strike (PGS) missile intended to carry a
precision-guided conventional warhead thousands of miles at 20 times the speed of sound (about
14,000 mph.). The House bill cut $25 million from that request. In its report, the House
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.
Airlift
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the defense bill each would
authorize (the House bill with minor changes) the amounts requested to upgrade the Pentagon’s
fleet of cargo planes.
Strategic Airlift (C-5, C-17)
For long-range (or “strategic”), wide-body airlift, S. 1867 would authorize a total of $1.0 billion,
as requested, to improve the C-5 and $519 million for modifications to the newer C-17, (counting
procurement and R&D funding, in each case). H.R. 1540 would cut $6 million from each of those
amounts.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees each rejected a DOD request to include in the
authorization bill a provision that would repeal existing law—10 U.S.C. 8062(g)—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
FY2011 (P.L. 111-383). However, on November 15, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent an
amendment to S. 1867 that would allow the Air Force to reduce its long-range cargo fleet to 301
aircraft.
Tactical Airlift
For shorter-range (or “tactical”) airlift, each version of the bill would approve, as
requested, $1.08 billion for 11 C-130 Hercules aircraft, equipped for various missions,
and $479.9 million for nine smaller C-27 planes, designated Joint Cargo Aircraft. In the
reports on their respective versions of the bill, the two Armed Services Committees each
challenged DOD plans to: (1) retire its fleet of 42 smaller C-23 cargo planes, which are
used by National Guard units in both their federal role as combat units and in their state
role, responding to natural disasters; (2) cut the C-130 fleet from 395 planes to 335; and
(3) buy 38 C-27s rather than the 78 initially planned, using larger C-130 cargo planes
already in inventory for missions that would have been flown with the 40 cancelled C-
27s.
In its report on S. 1253, the Senate committee directed the Secretary of the Air Force to
analyze the possible benefits of buying additional C-27s, which are cheaper to operate
than the larger C-130s. The House added to H.R. 1540 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.
Congressional Research Service
32

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

B-1 and U-2 Retirements
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the authorization bill would allow
the Air Force to retire six of its 66 B-1B bombers, as requested, but only with strings attached.
H.R. 1540 includes a provision (Section 131) that would allow the Air Force to retire six planes
but would require it to keep 36 B-1B in combat-ready units and also to retain in service enough
additional B-1Bs for training and maintenance service to support the 36 front-line aircraft.
S. 1867 includes a provision (Section 134) that would allow the Air Force to retire six of the
planes only after the Secretary of the Air Force sends Congress a plan indentifying the specific
planes that would be mothballed, the amount of money that would be saved by the retirements,
the amount of those savings that would be invested in modernizing the remaining B-1s and a plan
for keeping the B-1 fleet updated through FY2022.
The Senate committee bill also included a provision (Section 135) that would bar the retirement
of any U-2 reconnaissance planes until DOD certifies to Congress that Global Hawk long-range
drones are cheaper to operate than the U-2s they are slated to replace.
Strategic Missile Subs, Missile Defense, and Arms Control
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the 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 new 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 force of 12 subs
could dramatically reduce for many years the funding available to build other types of ships.47
The House committee added to H.R. 1540 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.48
START Arms Reduction Treaty
H.R. 1540 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). During the 2010 debate leading up to Senate approval of the treaty, several senators had
announced that their support for the treaty was conditional on modernization of the nuclear
weapons complex.49

47 See CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background
and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
48 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 89.
49 The House Armed Services Committee summarizes the current state of the nuclear complex modernization plan in its
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
33

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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).50
The Senate Armed Services Committee included in S. 1867 a provision (Section 1047) requiring
the President to send Congress a detailed analysis of the impact on U.S. strategy of any decision
to reduce U.S. nuclear forces below the levels set by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with
Russia (referred to as START). Specifically, the required report would be a “net assessment”
comparing current and proposed U.S. nuclear forces with those of other countries to determine
whether the proposed smaller U.S. force would be sufficient to deter potential adversaries and
reassure U.S. allies.
The Senate committee’s bill also would require several reports on aspects of the U.S. nuclear
force, including:
• A biennial DOD assessment of the safety, reliability, and military effectiveness of
each type of U.S. nuclear weapons delivery vehicle and of the associated
command and control network (Section 1073);
• An annual DOD report on the nuclear weapons stockpile (Section 1074); and
• A report by the President within 30 days of any change in U.S. strategy for using
nuclear weapons (Section 1075).

(...continued)
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.
50 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
34

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Anti-Ballistic Missile Defenses
S. 1867 would cut a total of $154 million from the $8.63 billion for the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA), making several adjustments to the amounts authorized for individual programs. The
House-passed bill would add a total of $264.2 million to the MDA request, authorizing a total of
$8.89 billion for the agency (See Table A-1).
Ground-Based Anti-Missile Defense
While basically approving the Administration’s funding request for the ground-based missile
defense system deployed in Alaska and California, the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees each told DOD to determine what caused the system to fail in its two most recent
tests and tell Congress how it planned to fix the problem. S. 1867 would authorize $1.16 billion
for the system, as requested. But the Senate committee bill also includes a provision (Section
232) expressing deep concern that the system had failed to intercept the target in each of its two
most recent tests. The provision directs the Secretary of Defense to send the congressional
defense committees detailed reports assessing the cause of the failures, outlining DOD’s proposed
remedy, and describing the current state of the remediation effort, with an initial report due 120
days after enactment of the bill, and a second report due one year later.
H.R. 1540 would authorize $1.26 billion for the system, which is $100 million more than the
request.51 The House committee said MDA should use the additional funds to accelerate efforts to
learn the cause of the test and it added to the bill a provision (Section 234) requiring DOD to
apprise Congress of its strategy for identifying and correcting the problem.
The H.R. 1540 also includes two provisions that would promote consideration of an expanded
missile defense for U.S. territory:
• Section 233 declares 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 235 requires the Secretary of Defense to spend $8 million on a report
analyzing the technical feasibility, cost and effectiveness of a limited network of
space-based anti-missile interceptors.
The Senate committee-reported bill includes a provision (Section 233) expressing the sense of
Congress in support of the Administration’s efforts to pursue, in cooperation with Russia, missile
defense programs that would protect the Russia and the United States as well as other NATO
members against ballistic missiles launched from Iran.
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
S. 1867 would deny the entire $406.6 million requested to continue development of the Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a mobile anti-aircraft and anti-missile system funded
jointly with Germany and Italy. DOD had decided against producing the system, but planned to

51 An amendment to drop the added $100 million was rejected by a vote of 184-234. (See Table 4)
Congressional Research Service
35

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

use it as a test-bed for improved missile defenses. In its report, the Senate committee urged DOD
to negotiate with the other two countries a plan to pull out of the program at the lowest possible
cost.
H.R. 1540 would authorize $257.1 million for MEADS, a reduction of $149.5 million from the
request. In its report, the House Armed Services Committee urged DOD to use promising
technologies developed by the MEADS program to improve the existing Patriot air and missile
defense system.
Other Missile Defense Programs
H.R. 1540 would add $50 million to the amounts requested for procurement of each of two other
anti-missile interceptors 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.
The House-passed bill would deny authorization for 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 House Armed Services Committee said the PTSS would
duplicate the role of another infra-red sensor system that would 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
House Military Construction Highlights
The only major construction project the House bill would cut on policy grounds is 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 and was inconsistent with previous Navy decisions.52
The House Armed Services Committee isntructed the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress
on any shift in the location of significant DOD assets, directing him to:
• Notify the congressional defense committees before announcing any decision to
homeport in Europe U.S. warships equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile
defense system, which is a central component of the Administration’s plan for
defending U.S. forces and allies in Europe.53
• Report to the congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 2012 on
the cost-benefit and strategic risk associated with moving to a domestic site the
headquarters for U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), currently located in
Stuttgart, Germany.54

52 See CRS Report R40248, Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN) Homeporting at Mayport: Background and Issues
for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
53 See CRS Report RL34051, Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, by Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek.
54 See CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, by
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
36

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Senate Military Construction Highlights/Global Deployments
As reported, S. 1867 would require DOD to incorporate more comprehensive and detailed
information into its assessments of the cost of stationing U.S. forces abroad, on the basis of which
the Department has contended that little or nothing would be saved by relocating to bases in the
United States units currently stationed in Europe or Asia. In its report on S. 1253, the committee
directed the GAO to critique the assumptions and methodology that underpin DOD’s cost-
estimates for overseas basing. In particular, it told GAO to review the cost estimates associated
with DOD’s decisions (1) to leave in Europe three Army brigade combat teams that had been
slated for withdrawal and (2) to increase the number of family members who could accompany
U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea (a process known as “tour normalization”).
NATO
In its report on S. 1253, the Senate committee also expressed concern about the growing disparity
between the United States and most members of NATO in terms of the percentage of GDP spent
on defense. According to a NATO report released on March 10, 2011, European members of the
alliance spent, on average, 1.7 percent of GDP on defense, which compares with NATO’s
agreement that members would spend 2 percent of GDP on defense and with U.S. defense
spending that amounted to 5.4 percent of its GDP. The committee warned that, “a continued
decline in defense investment by many of the NATO members may have far reaching
implications on the durability of the Alliance and its capability to effectively respond to future
security challenges.”
Asia-Pacific Region
DOD has announced plans to shift the focus of U.S. forces in the Pacific, oriented for decades
toward Northeast Asia, to focus instead on South and Southeast Asia. In its report on S. 1253, the
Senate committee expressed concern that the long-term strategic and budgetary implications of
that change had not been adequately considered. It directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a
20-year plan outlining intended changes with estimates from each service of the annual cost of
projected deployments including associated construction costs.
The report also directed the Secretary to provide, “an independent assessment of America’s
security interests in Asia, current force deployment plans, and likely future needs.” The
assessment, to be conducted by experts “drawn widely from throughout the country and the Asia-
Pacific region,” is to include DOD plans relating to South and Southeast Asia as well as plans to
increase the number of U.S. troops in South Korea who could be accompanied by family, plans to
shift Marines from Okinawa to Guam, and additional plans to increase the forces deployed on
Guam.
In addition to that report language, the Senate committee’s bill includes a provision (Section
1079) directing the Secretary to commission a study by a private think-tank, “that has broad
credibility in national security,” that is to cover essentially the same ground as the study ordered
by the committee report.

(...continued)
Lauren Ploch.
Congressional Research Service
37

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Redeployments in South Korea
The Senate committee directed the Secretary of Defense to give Congress a detailed justification
for far-reaching plans to redeploy U.S. forces stationed in South Korea that could require military
construction costs of $18.1 billion by 2020. DOD plans to move 10,000 U.S. troops currently
stationed near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) bordering North Korea and 9,000 troops stationed
in Seoul (plus their families) to one of two U.S. force “hubs” south of Seoul.
In addition, the number of families authorized to accompany U.S. troops to Korea is expected to
rise from about 1,700 to about 12,000 as the result of a DOD decision in 2010. Prior to that
decision, most U.S. personnel stationed in South Korea served there for one year unaccompanied
by family. The new policy, called “Tour Normalization,” would greatly increase the number of
U.S. troops authorized to bring their families to Korea, in which case they would serve there for
three years -- the same period as U.S. service members stationed in Europe, who routinely are
authorized to serve an “accompanied” tour. U.S. soldiers not accompanied to South Korea by
family would serve a two year assignment.
A GAO report55 predicted that the construction of family housing and other family support
facilities together with other costs of Tour Normalization would cost $5.1 billion through FY2020
and $22.0 billion through FY2050. The report also noted that DOD had not examined the cost and
benefit of alternative policies, nor had it demonstrated that service members and their families
would consider an accompanied three-year stint in South Korea to be an improvement to their
quality of life.
The DOD report on the planned changes relating to U.S. forces in South Korea, ordered by the
Senate committee, is to cover—among other subjects—the basis for the Department’s assumption
that allowing accompanied tours in Korea would improve servicemembers’ quality of life, the
strategic rationale for massing most U.S. forces in the country at two major hubs, and the
projected list of military construction projects the changes would require (with cost estimates).
The committee also added to the bill a provision (Section 2113) directing the Secretary of the
Army to present a master plan for implementing the Tour Normalization policy in Korea and
directing DOD’s director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to do an analysis of
alternatives to that plan.
Deployments in Okinawa and Guam
In its report on S. 1253, the Senate committee challenged a planned relocation of Marine Corps
aircraft based on Okinawa, saying it had become impractical because of its cost and local political
opposition. Under a 2006 agreement with the Government of Japan, the Marine Corps flying units
currently based at Futenma, in a densely populated part of Okinawa, would be moved to another
U.S. base in a more remote part of the island where new runways would be built on several
hundred acres of ocean landfill, at an estimated cost to the Japanese government of $5 billion to
$10 billion.

55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Management: Comprehensive Cost Information and Analysis of
Alternatives Needed to Assess Military Posture in Asia
, GAO-11-316, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
38

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees by December 1, 2011 on the feasibility of moving the Marine units
currently at Futenma instead to Anderson Air Force Base in central Okinawa, making room for
them at Anderson by moving to Guam or elsewhere in the Pacific some of the Air Force units
currently at Anderson.
The committee also denied authorization requested for $155.9 million worth of construction
projects on Guam and $33.0 million in impact assistance associated with plans to move 8,000
Marines from Okinawa to Guam on grounds that DOD had not shown Congress a master plan
governing what types of Marine units would make the move and where on Guam each would be
stationed. The committee also added to the bill a provision (Section 2208) directing the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to report to Congress how he would prefer the Marine units to
be redeployed and directing the Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan to implement that
deployment.

Military Construction Authorization Issues
For analysis of other issues in the FY2012 Military Construction budget, see CRS Report R41939, Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
, coordinated by Daniel H. Else.

Issues Related to Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
Provisions Relating to Overseas Contingency Operations
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:
Congressional Research Service
39

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

…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.56
An amendment to strike Section 1034 was rejected by a vote of 187-234 (see Table 4).
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.”57
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.
As reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, S. 1867 would authorize $116.8 billion for
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and supporting activities, a net reduction of $996.0 million.
The committee bill would shift $5 billion in O&M funds and $2.3 billion in procurement funds
from the base budget to the war costs section of the bill. But those increases were largely offset
two large reductions the bill would make to the Administration’s war costs request. The
committee bill would cut:
• $5 billion (comprising $1 billion in military personnel funds and $4 billion in
O&M funds) to reflect the President’s decision to draw down the number of U.S.
troops in Afghanistan;
• $1.6 billion, from the $12.8 billion requested to train and equip the Afghan Army
and National Police.
Provisions Relating to Guantanamo Bay Detainees
H.R. 1540 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.

56 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.
57 H.Rept. 112-78, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
40

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

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 4).
S. 1253, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, included several provisions
(Sections 1031-37) that would have reaffirmed —or, in the view of some observers expand -- the
detention authority that Congress implicitly granted the President via the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (AUMF) enacted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
(P.L. 107-40). In response to objections to some of those provisions raised by the White House
and the chairs of other Senate committees, the Armed Services Committee revised the detainee
provisions in its second version of the authorization bill (S. 1867).
S. 1867 would authorize the detention of certain categories of persons and require the military
detention of a subset of them; regulate status determinations for persons held pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (P.L. 107-40) enacted in the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. S. 1867 also would regulate periodic review proceedings
concerning the continued detention of Guantanamo detainees; and continue current funding
restrictions that relate to Guantanamo detainee transfers to foreign countries. Unlike the House
bill, the Senate bill would not bar the transfer of detainees into the United States for trial or
perhaps for other purposes.
Despite the revisions to the detainee provisions, the Administration opposed them in the official
Statement of Administration Position (SAP) on the S. 1867 issued November 17, 2011 by the
Office of Management and Budget.58 Using the standard language to issue a veto threat, the SAP
said that the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto of, "any bill that challenges or
constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous
terrorists, and protect the Nation."59

Detainee Issues in the FY2012 Defense Authorization Act
For more detailed analysis of the provisions of S. 1867 relating to detainees, see CRS Report R41920, Detainee
Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills
, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia.


58 See Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1867, November 17, 2011,
accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf.
59 For further analysis, see “Provisions Relating to Guantanamo Bay Detainees,” p. 40, below, and CRS Report
R41920, Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John
Garcia.
Congressional Research Service
41

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

House Floor Amendments
Following are selected amendments on which the House took action during consideration of H.R.
1540:
Table 4. 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 allow 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
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
Agreed
en bloc 3
345
authorized in excess of the amounts requested by the President for any
voice vote
research and development activity (or “program element”)
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
Congressional Research Service
42

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Principal
Sponsor Number
Summary
Disposition
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
310
Bar any requirement that companies disclose their political contributions as a
Agreed
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
McCol um 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
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 (H.R. 2219)
Defense Appropriations Bills Overview
House-Passed Bill
On July 8, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2219 which would appropriate $638.3 billion for DOD’s
discretionary spending in FY2012, a reduction of $8.1 billion from the President’s request.60 That

60 This is based on the Administration’s request for $646.4 billion for FY2012 discretionary spending by DOD. The
Administration also requested that the bill provide $3.2 billion to be spend in FY2013-17 on an Air Force AEHF
communications satellite. This request for so-called advance appropriations was rejected by the Appropriations
Committees of both the House and Senate.
Congressional Research Service
43

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

net reduction reflected cuts in the base budget request totaling $8.9 billion that were partly offset
by a net increase of $842 million in funds for war costs, compared with the President’s request.
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.
The House Appropriations Committee had reported the bill on June 16, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-110).
Two-thirds of the House bill’s net reduction to the President’s request—$5.4 billion—would
come from changes which, according to the Appropriations Committee, would have no adverse
impact on DOD operations. Among these were 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 than had been incorporated into the budget request;
• $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 House-passed bill also would cut $1.2 billion from the amounts requested for classified
procurement and research and development programs.
OCO Transfer Fund
In its report, the House committee said the Army’s budget request for operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq was overstated because of certain erroneous assumptions. For example, the budget
assumed that all supplies shipped to Afghanistan would be moved by air, whereas 80 percent of
them are moved by cheaper surface transport, the committee said. Based on this analysis, the
committee cut a total of $5 billion from the amounts requested in various Army O&M accounts in
the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) part of the bill (Title IX) and transferred that sum to
a so-called Overseas Contingency Operation Transfer Fund from which the Secretary of Defense
could draw funds to cover unforeseen expenses in Afghanistan and Iraq.
During House debate on the bill, an amendment that would have eliminated the OCO Transfer
Fund was rejected by a vote of 118-295.
DOD ‘Efficiencies’ Challenged
The House bill would add to the bill $884.7 million to restore funds DOD had cut on the basis of
“efficiency” but which the committee, in its report on the bill (H.Rept. 112-110), dubbed “valid
requirements” many of which involved funding for maintenance 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. As passed, the House bill would cut:
Congressional Research Service
44

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

• $400.0 million from the amount requested for contractor-provided logistic
support of weapons, such as the performance of overhauls on aircraft and engines
and the management of supply chains;
• $124.0 million (from the $300.6 million requested) for “information operations”
which activities, the committee said, were not traditional or appropriate for the
military services;
• $30.0 million from the budget for telecommunications services; and
• $315.0 million from the amounts requested for overhead costs at three of the
Navy’s shipyards (at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Bremerton, Washington; and
Portsmouth, New Hampshire), in order to bring those costs in line with the less
expensive Navy yard at Norfolk, Va.
Senate Committee-Reported Bill
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported on September 15, 2011 an amended version of
H.R. 2219 that would cut a total of $26.2 billion from the FY2012 DOD budget request, a
reduction large enough to meet the FY2012 spending caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011
(P.L. 111-25), enacted August 2, 2011.
Funds Transferred from Base Budget to OCO
In summary terms, the Senate committee’s version of H.R. 2219 would cut a total of $25.9 billion
from the $528.7 billion requested for DOD’s FY2012 base budget and an additional $268 million
from the $117.7 billion requested for war costs in Title IX of the bill. But nearly 40 percent of the
amount cut from the base budget -- $9.9 billion -- is transferred to Title IX, where it supplants
most of the $10.2 billion the committee would cut from that part of the bill.
The largest part of the funds the Senate committee shifted from the base budget to war costs ($6.2
billion) comes from the O&M accounts, including $4.3 billion for major overhauls of ships,
planes, combat vehicles and other weapons. Also shifted into Title IX is a total of $2.9 billion
from procurement and R&D accounts, 60 percent of which is for three unmanned aerial vehicle
programs.
Most of that $10.2 billion the bill would cut from the Title IX request (and which would be back-
filled by the $9.9 billion moved from other parts of the budget) would have no adverse impact on
DOD operations, according to the Senate committee. This includes reductions of:
• $5 billion to take account of President Obama’s decision in June to reduce the
number of troops in Afghanistan; and
• $2 billion from the Army’s O&M request which, the committee said, the service
had identified as unnecessary.
Other Major Senate Committee Reductions
The Senate Appropriations Committee also maintains that an additional $8.6 billion that its
version of the defense bill would cut from the budget request would have no adverse impact on
DOD. This includes reductions totaling $5.6 billion from programs the committee said did not
Congressional Research Service
45

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

need the funds during FY2012 for reasons such as contract delays and the availability of funds
left over from prior budgets to cover some FY2012 costs. The Senate committee bill also would
rescind $2.7 billion appropriated in prior budgets, allowing those funds to be used instead of new
budget authority to cover a share of FY2012 costs.
The Senate committee bill also would cut $1.57 billion from the $12.8 billion requested
to assist the military and police forces of Afghanistan.
Table 5. FY2012 DOD Appropriations Bill, discretionary spending (H.R. 2219)
amounts in millions of dollars

House-passed Senate
Committee-reported
FY2011
FY2012
Net
Net
Enacted
Request
other
House
Base/OCO
other
Senate
Base/OCO
House
net
Transfers
Senate
net
Transfers
changes
total
changes
total
Military
126, 740
132, 097
+283
-287
132, 092
-529
-567
131, 001
Personnel
O&M
165, 560
170, 759
+26
-810
169, 975
-6,197
-2, 012
162, 550
Procurement
102. 122
111, 153
+7
-3, 579
107, 581
-2, 843
-6, 192
102, 118
(FY2013-17
n/a
(3, 212)
0
-3, 212
0
0
(-3, 212)
0
procurement)a
R&D
74, 957
75, 325
0
-2, 342
72, 983
-105
-4, 186
71, 034
Revolving &
2, 909
2, 701
0
-26
2, 676
0
-438
2, 263
Mgmt. Funds
Defense
Health and
34, 313
35, 520
0
+158
35, 678
-221
+329
35, 628
Other DOD
Programs
Related
942
1, 106
0
-134
972
0
+2
1, 107
Agencies
General
-5, 117
29
0
-2, 154
-2, 183
0
-2, 955
-2, 926
Provisions
FY2012 Base
Budget

502, 426 528,
688 +316 -9,
229 519,
775 -9,
895 -16,
018 502,
775
Subtotal
Military
16, 251
11, 111
-283
-14
10, 814
+529
+17
11, 657
Personnel
O&M
110, 127
89, 035
-26
+806
89, 815
+6,197
-4, 685
90, 547
Procurement
25, 194
12, 344
-7
+1,038
13, 375
+2,843
+322
15, 519
R&D 955
397
0
+40
437
+105
+80
582
Revolving &
485 435
0
0 435
0 -38 397
Mgmt. Funds
Defense
Health and
4, 667
4, 403
0
-117
4, 286
+221
-479
4, 145
Other DOD
Programs
Congressional Research Service
46

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations


House-passed Senate
Committee-reported
FY2011
FY2012
Net
Net
Enacted
Request
other
House
Base/OCO
other
Senate
Base/OCO
House
net
Transfers
Senate
net
Transfers
changes
total
changes
total
Title IX
General
0 0
0 -595 -595
0
-5,
380
-5,
380
Provisions
OCO
157, 680 117,
726 -316 +1,
158 118.
567 +9,
895 -10,
163 117,
466
Subtotal
FY2012
TOTAL

(new
660, 106 646,
416
0 -8,071 638,
342
0 -26,181 620,
241
discretionary
budget
authority)

Source: S.Rept. 112-77, Senate Appropriations Committee, Report to Accompany H.R. 2219, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bil , 2012, “Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority for Fiscal
Year 2011 and Budget Estimates and Amounts Recommended in the Bill for Fiscal Year 2012,” pp. 282-89.
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.
Following are further highlights of the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of
H.R. 2219:
Defense Health Program
The House-passed 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 to the budget request $523.5 million for research and development programs
focused on specific diseases and treatments.
Both versions of the bill would add $120 million for research on breast cancer and $64.0 million
for research on prostate cancer. The House bill would add $125.0 million and the Senate
committee bill $60.0 million for research on Traumatic Brain Injury and psychological health.
Ground Combat Systems
Funding that would be provided by the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of
H.R. 2219 for selected major Army and Marine Corps weapons programs is summarized in the
Appendix (Table A-4). Following are some highlights:
Congressional Research Service
47

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

M-1 Tank Upgrade
Both versions of the bill would add funds to the budget to continue upgrading most of the Army’s
M-1 tanks with the so-called System Enhancement Package (SEP), which includes improved
night vision equipment, digital communication links, and armor. DOD plans to install the SEP
upgrades in 1,547 tanks—about two-thirds of the M-1 fleet -- and then to shut down the tank
production line in mid-2013 and restart it three years later for a new round of tank modifications.
Meanwhile, most National Guard combat units would be equipped with the one-third of the tank
fleet that would not have the SEP improvements.
To the $181.3 million requested for SEP upgrades in FY2012, the House-passed bill would add
$272.0 million and the Senate committee will would add $240.0 million. Citing in its report the
frequency with which National Guard units have been deployed in recent years, the House
Appropriations Committee urged DOD to consider the advantages of having all combat units
equipped with the same model tank.
Ground Combat Vehicle
In its report on the bill, the Senate committee questioned the cost of the Army’s plan to develop a
new armored troop carrier and then purchase 1,874 of those vehicles to replace half its current
fleet of Bradley fighting vehicles. Noting that the program currently is behind schedule and in a
state of flux, the Senate committee cut $644.0 million from the $884.4 million requested. The
House-passed bill would provide $768.1 million for the program.
JLTV
The Senate committee’s version of the bill would deny the $243.9 million requested for the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), thus terminating the program which was intended to develop a
replacement for some of the roughly 170,000 Humvees used by the Army and Marine Corps. The
committee said that, although the new vehicle had been intended as a replacement for the entire
Humvee fleet, the planned purchase had been greatly cut back because of the growing cost of the
program. The committee added to its version of the bill $20 million for the Army to use in finding
a cheaper alternative to replace existing Humvees.
The House-passed bill cut $25 million from the JLTV request, citing delays in the program as the
reason. It also added $25 million to the budget to develop improved armor for Humvees.
Aviation Programs
Funding that would be provided by the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of
H.R. 2219 for selected aircraft programs is summarized in the Appendix in Table A-8. Following
are some highlights.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The Senate Appropriations Committee cited experience with the F-22 fighter program as grounds
for slicing $695.1 million from the $9.51 billion requested for procurement of F-35 Joint Strike
Fighters. The committee argued that, because so many F-22s had been manufactured while the
Congressional Research Service
48

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

plane still was undergoing flight tests, the Air Force had to budget hundreds of millions of dollars
to retrofit modifications to deal with problems that surfaced later in the test program. Noting that
the F-35, which is being produced in three versions, had completed only about 10 percent of its
flight test program, the committee recommended deferring DOD’s plan to accelerate the F-35
production rate. Accordingly it’s bill would cut from the request:
• $190.0 million (one aircraft) from the $1.50 billion requested to buy 7 F-35Cs
designed to operate from Navy carriers;
• $108.6 million to buy long lead-time components to be used in carrier-variant F-
35s slated for funding in future budgets;
• $302.0 million (two aircraft) from the $3.34 billion requested to buy 19 F-35s for
the Air Force; and
• $94.5 million to buy long lead-time components for use in “A” model planes that
would be funded in future years.
The Senate committee approved without change the requests for $1.14 billion to buy for the
Marine Corps six F-35Bs equipped for vertical takeoffs and landings, and $117.2 million for long
lead-time components for that version of the plane.
The House-passed bill would trim $55 million from the F-35 procurement request to reduce the
amount spent on various overhead costs.
C-17 Long-range Cargo Plane
Although the Administration requested no additional C-17 cargo planes, the House-passed bill
includes $225 million to buy one plane as a replacement for a C-17 that crashed during a
demonstration flight.
The Senate committee bill would deny the $108.6 million requested to shut down the C-17
production line on grounds that recent sales of the plane to other countries will extend production
into mid-2014.
Army Electronic Reconnaissance (EMARSS)
Neither version of the bill would fund production of from an Army reconnaisance system
designated the Enhanced, Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System
(EMARSS), a package of cameras and electronic eavesdropping gear installed in a small, twin-
engine Beechcraft airplane. Noting that the contract that would obligate the funds is scheduled to
be awarded in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and that program has experienced delays, the
House committee approved in its version of the bill $15.7 million of the $539.6 million requested
for the program. The Senate committee denied the entire request.
Ships
The House-passed version of the bill essentially funded the Administration’s shipbuilding
request, making relatively minor reductions to several individual programs in an effort to reduce
costs. (See Table A-6 for House-passed and Senate committee-recommended funding levels for
individual ship building programs).
Congressional Research Service
49

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

For the Navy’s main shipbuilding account, the House bill would provide $14.7 billion -- all but
$203.4 million of the amount requested -- for purchases including two submarines, a destroyer,
four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), and LPD-17-class amphibious landing transport, a small,
high-speed ship (designated a JHSV) to carry troops or cargo, and an oceanographic research
vessel. The House bill also would provide, as requested, $223.8 million for a second JHSV
funded in the Army budget as well as $400.0 million of the $425.9 million requested for a ship
(designated an MLP) designed to serve as a floating pier over which large combat vehicles can be
transferred from large cargo ships to amphibious landing craft.
The Senate committee-reported version of the bill would deny the entire amount requested for the
MLP ($425.9 million). It also would cut $38.7 million from the $223.8 million requested for the
Army-funded JHSV and would transfer that ship to the Navy’s shipbuilding account, pursuant to
an agreement between the Army and Navy. Otherwise, the Senate committee bill would make no
change in the Navy’s $14.7 billion shipbuilding account.
Missile Defense
Funding that would be provided by the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of
H.R. 2219 for selected missile defense programs is summarized in the Appendix (Table A-2)
Following are some highlights:
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
The Senate committee-reported bill would provide the $406.6 million requested to continue
developing the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a mobile anti-aircraft and anti-
missile system, originally planned as a replacement for the Patriot system that was being jointly
funded by the United States, Germany and Italy. Because of budget limits, DOD has decided not
to procure MEADS as a system, but to continue development work for two years to allow the
Army to use some of the system’s technical innovations to upgrade the Patriot system and to
allow the two partner countries to purchase the system if they wish.
In its report, the Senate committee noted that, by terms of the tri-lateral agreement governing the
program, if the United States unilaterally pulled out of the program, it would be liable for
cancellation penalties almost as expensive as the cost of continuing the revised, two-year
program.
The House-passed bill would provide $257.1 million for MEADS.
House Appropriations Floor Debate
During two days of floor debate on H.R. 2219, the House rejected several amendments that would
have reduced the amount of budget authority provided by the bill. Following is a summary of
House action on selected amendments to the bill:
Congressional Research Service
50

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Table 6. Selected House Floor Amendments to
FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2219)
Principal
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
Deficit Reduction
Broun 507
Cut 10 percent ($217. million) from the amount requested for Operation and
Rejected
Maintenance funding for the Office of the Secretary of Defense
87-328
Broun 512
Cut all funds ($25.8 million) requested for Army environmental research Rejected
voice vote
Broun 513
Cut all funds ($22.8 million) requested for HIV research Rejected
voice vote
Broun 514
Cut all funds ($21.7 million) requested for Navy environmental research Rejected
voice vote
Cut from the Air Force R&D account J$297.0 million, the amount the bill would
Rejected
Welch 516
appropriate for development of a new bomber, and move those funds to the
98-322
“spending reduction account”
Lee 530
Cut all funds ($5 billion) in the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer
Rejected
Fund
114-314
Mulvaney 550 Cut funding for Base Budget by $17 billion (to the FY2011 level)
Rejected
135-290
Frank 563
Cut funding for Base Budget (excluding military personnel accounts and the
Rejected
Defense Health Program) by $8.5 billion
181-244
Flake 566
Cut $250 million for aid to local school districts for schools on military bases
Rejected
39-380
Flake 567
Cut $3.5 billion of the $5 billion provided for the Overseas Contingency
Rejected
Operation Transfer Fund
118-295
Flake 569
Reduce all R&D accounts by 1 percent
Rejected
100-321
Medical Care Funding
Kucinich 509
Increase funding for Gulf War Illness Program by $3.6 million offset by a
Agreed
reduction in funds for the Pentagon Channel on Armed Forces Network Television
253-167
Increase funding for research on Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-
Agreed
Jackson Lee
510
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by $500,000 offset by a reduction in DOD
voice vote
O&M funding
Stearns 518
Increase funding for Prostate Cancer research by $16 million offset by a
Agreed
reduction in appropriations for defense-wide agencies
voice vote
Increase funding for defense health programs by $10 million for a pilot program
Agreed
Sessions 519
to support private sector treatment of TBI victims offset by a reduction in R&D
voice vote
funding
Holt 535
Increase funding for suicide prevention outreach by $20 million offset by a
Agreed
reduction of $35 million in funding for Afghanistan Security Forces
voice vote
Afghanistan
Lee 525
Cut $33.0 billion for combat operations in Afghanistan
Rejected
97-322
Garamendi 526 Cut $20.9 billion to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan
Rejected
to 25,000 by December 31, 2012.
133-295
Congressional Research Service
51

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Principal
Sponsor Number
Summary
Disposition
Cohen 531
Cut $200 million from Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund Rejected
210-217
Cicilline 532
Cut $475 million (entire amount requested) from Afghanistan Infrastructure
Rejected
Fund
145-283
Cohen
534
Cut $4 billion from the $12.8 billion requested for Afghanistan Security Forces Rejected
119-306
McCol um 540 Prohibit the use of funds to operate the Task Force for Business and Stability
Agreed
Operations
voice vote
Welch 559
Cut $200 million from Commander’s Emergency Response Program Rejected
169-257
Pakistan
Poe 529
Reduce Coalition Support Fund by $1 billion (intended to eliminate
Rejected
reimbursements to Pakistan
131-297
Poe 537
Reduce Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund by $1 billion
Rejected
140-285
Rohrbacher
554
Prohibit the use of funds to provided assistance to Pakistan
Rejected
88-338
Libya
Cole 542
Prohibit the use of funds to assist any group or individual not part of a
Agreed
country’s armed forces in carrying out military activities against Libya
225-201
Amash 543
Prohibit the use of funds for the use of military force against Libya Rejected
199-229
Prohibit the use of funds to support Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation
Rejected
Scott 544
Unified Protector (UN-sanctioned, NATO-led operations against Libyan
176-247
government)
Sherman 552
Prohibit the use of funds in contravention of the War Powers Resolution Agreed
316-111
Gohmert 555 Prohibit the use of funds to support military operations against Libya Rejected
162-265
Conyers 568
Prohibit the use of funds to deploy U.S. forces (or private security
Agreed
contractors) on the ground in Libya, except to rescue U.S. military personnel
voice vote
Kucinich 579
Prohibit the use of funds for military operations against Libya except pursuant to a
Rejected
declaration of war
169-251
Contracting-out
Delete Section 8015 of the bill as reported which would have prohibited DOD from
Amash 520
contracting out any function currently performed by federal employees, unless the
Agreed
proposed outsourcing would save at least $10 million or 10 percent of the cost
212-208
(whichever is smaller)
Delete Section 8101 of the bill as reported which would have barred the outsourcing
Sessions 522
of any DOD function pursuant to an A-76 competition, until the Executive Branch
Agreed
has completed studies and certifications regarding the A-76 process as required by
217-204
Section 325 of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84)
Military Bands and Race Car Sponsorships
Carter 523
Delete Section 8127 of the bill as reported which would have limited funding for
Agreed
military bands to $200 million
voice vote
Congressional Research Service
52

Defense: FY2012 Budget Request, Authorization and Appropriations

Principal
Sponsor Number
Summary
Disposition
McCol um 538 Reduce funding in the bill by $124.8 million, which is the amount by which the budget
Agreed
request for military bands exceeds $200 million
226-201
McCol um 539 Limit funding for motorsport racing sponsorships to no more than $20 million
Rejected
167-260
Airline Baggage Fees for Troops
Kissel 548
Prohibit the use of funds to contract with any U.S. airline that charges baggage fees
Agreed
to any member of the U.S. armed forces travelling on military orders.
voice vote
Prohibit the use of funds to pay any airline that charges baggage fees to a service
Agreed
Runyan 552
member deploying to or from an overseas contingency operation except in the case
voice vote
of bags weighing more than 80 pounds and individuals checking more than 4 bags
Other
Cole 562
Prohibit the use of funds to enforce an executive order requiring companies bidding
Agreed
on federal contracts to disclose all federal campaign contributions
256-170
Huelskamp 573 Prohibit the use of funds to enforce a directive allowing Navy chaplains to perform
Agreed
same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of applicable state law
236-184
Polis 575
Reduce the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe to no more than 30,000 and
Rejected
reduce the total end-strength of the force by the corresponding number of troops
113-307
Source: Congressional Record, July 6 and July 7, 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.

Congressional Research Service
53


Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
PE Number
Committee-
Conference
(for R&D
FY2012
House- Passed
Reported
Report
projects
Program
Administration
Authorization
Authorization
only)
Element Title
Request
H.R. 1540
S. 1867
Comments
0603175C BMD
Technology
75.0
75.0
75.0


0603274C Special
Programs
61.5
61.5
61.5


0603881C BMD
Terminal
290.5 290.5 310.5

Defense Segment
0603882C BMD
Midcourse
1,161.0
1,261.0
1,161.0

System currently deployed in Alaska and
Defense Segment
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
222.4


0603888C
BMD Test &
1,071.0 1,071.0 1,022.0


Targets
0603890C BMD
Enabling
373.6 373.6 373.6

Programs
0603891C
Special Programs
296.6
296.6
296.6


0603892C
AEGIS BMD
960.3
965.3
1,250.3
`
SASC moved $220 million from
production to R&D to correct cause of
test failures
0603893C
Space Tracking &
96.4 96.4 96.4

Surveillance System
0603895C
BMD System Space
8.0 8.0 8.0

Programs
CRS-54


Senate
PE Number
Committee-
Conference
(for R&D
FY2012
House- Passed
Reported
Report
projects
Program
Administration
Authorization
Authorization
only)
Element Title
Request
H.R. 1540
S. 1867
Comments
0603896C BMD
Command
364.1 364.1 364.1

and Control, Battle
Management and
Communications
0603898C BMD
Joint
41.2 41.2 41.2

Warfighter
Support
0603901C Directed
Energy
96.3
146.3
36.3

HASC added funds for scheduled projects
Research
including an anti-missile laser carried by a
modified jetliner; SASC cut funds
requested for the airborne laser.
0603902C
Aegis SM-3 Block
123.5
123.5
123.5

Upgraded Aegis missile designed to
IIB
intercept ICBMs.
0603904C Missile
Defense
69.3 69.3 69.3

Integration &
Operations Center
(MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
15.8
15.8
15.8


0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band
177.1 177.1 157.1

Radar (SBX)
H.R. 1540
Israeli Cooperative
106.1 216.1 156.1
Israeli
systems to defend against medium
Programs
and short range missiles and artillery
shells
0604880C
Land-based SM-3
306.6
306.6
306.6

Basis of Obama Administration plan for
missile defense in Europe
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block
424.5
464.5
444.5

Col aboration with Japan
IIA Co-
Development
0604883C Precision
Tracking
160.8
0
160.8

House said PTSS would duplicate role of
Space System
less technologically risky airborne system
(PTSS)
CRS-55


Senate
PE Number
Committee-
Conference
(for R&D
FY2012
House- Passed
Reported
Report
projects
Program
Administration
Authorization
Authorization
only)
Element Title
Request
H.R. 1540
S. 1867
Comments
0604884C Airborne
Infrared
46.9
66.9
46.9

0901598C
Management HQ -
28.9 28.9 28.9

MDA
Subtotal, Missile Defense
6,577.1 6,691.3 6,577.1


Agency RDT&E,
THAAD, Fielding
833.2
883.2
713.2

Request is for 68 missiles
Aegis BMD
565.4
615.4
250.4

Request is for 46 missiles
AN/TPY-2 radar
380.2
380.2
380.2

Request is for two relocatable radars
Subtotal, Missile Defense
1,778.7 1,878.7 1,778.7


Agency Procurement
THAAD, Operations and
50.8 50.8 50.8

Maintenance
Bal istic Missile Defense Radars
151.9
151.9
151.9


MDA, Military Construction
67.2
67.2
67.2


Total, Missile Defense Agency
8,625.7
8,839.9
8,625.7


0604869A Medium
Extended
406.6 257.1 0.0

Air Defense
System (MEADS)
0102419A Aerostat
Joint
344.7
344.7
327.9

Developing bal oon-borne radars to
Project Office
detect low-flying cruise missiles and
tactical ballistic missiles.
Selected Army R&D missile
751.3 601.8 344.7


defense
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.R. 2219 H. Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; Senate
Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 112-26, Report to accompany S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; funding tables in S. 1867, the National
Defense Authorization Act for 2012.
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-56


Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Missile Defense Funding: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
PE Number
Committee-
(for R&D
FY2012
House-Passed
Reported
projects
Program
Administration
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference
only)
Element Title
Request
H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Report Comments

0603175C BMD
Technology
75.0
75.0
75.0


0603274C Special
Programs
61.5
61.5
61.5


0603881C BMD
Terminal
290.5 290.5
310.5

Defense Segment
0603882C BMD
Midcourse
1,161.0
1,161.0
1,161.0

System currently deployed in Alaska and
Defense Segment
California to defend U.S. territory.
0603884C BMD
Sensors
222.4
222.4
222.4


0603888C
BMD Test &
1,071.0 1,071.0 0.0

SAC cut $85.7 million and split the
Targets
balance among three other lines

BMD Tests


488.4

SAC shifts money from 060388C

BMD Targets


455.0

SAC shifts money from 060388C
0603890C BMD
Enabling
373.6
373.6
415.5

SAC shifts money from 060388C
Programs
0603891C
Special Programs
296.6
296.6
296.6


0603892C AEGIS
BMD
960.3
960.3
1,027.0


0603893C
Space Tracking &
96.4 96.4
96.4

Surveillance
System
0603895C BMD
System
8.0 8.0
8.0


Space Programs
0603896C BMD
Command
364.1 364.1
364.1

and Control,
Battle
Management and
Communications
CRS-57


Senate
PE Number
Committee-
(for R&D
FY2012
House-Passed
Reported
projects
Program
Administration
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference
only)
Element Title
Request
H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Report Comments

0603898C BMD
Joint
41.2 41.2
41.2

Warfighter
Support
0603901C Directed
Energy
96.3
96.3
36.3

SAC reduction tracks Senate
Research
authorization
0603902C
Aegis SM-3 Block
123.5
123.5
0.0

SAC shifted the money requested for the
IIB
Block IIB version of the Standard missile
to less complex versions slated for
earlier deployment
0603904C Missile
Defense
69.3 69.3
69.3

Integration &
Operations
Center (MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
15.8
15.8
15.8


0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band
177.1 177.1
157.1

Radar (SBX)
H.R. 1540
Israeli
106.1 235.7
235.7
Israeli
systems to defend against medium
Cooperative
and short range missiles and artillery
Programs
shells
0604880C
Land-based SM-3
306.6
306.6
306.6

Slated for deployment in Europe
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block
424.5
424.5
474.5

Col aboration with Japan
IIA Co-
Development
0604883C Precision
Tracking
160.8 0
160.8

PTSS would use satellites to track
Space System
attacking missiles by their heat signature;
(PTSS)
ABIR would use drone planes for the
same mission. HAC denied funding for
0604884C Airborne
Infrared
46.9 46.9 0
PTSS, SAC for ABIR.
(ABIR)
0901598C Management
HQ
28.9 28.9
28.9

- MDA
CRS-58


Senate
PE Number
Committee-
(for R&D
FY2012
House-Passed
Reported
projects
Program
Administration
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference
only)
Element Title
Request
H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Report Comments

Subtotal, Missile Defense
6,577.1 6,645.9



Agency RDT&E,
THAAD, Fielding
833.2
883.2
671.2

Request is for 68 missiles
Aegis BMD
565.4
565.4
565.4

Request is for 46 missiles
AN/TPY-2 radar
380.2
380.2
380.2

Request is for two relocatable radars
Subtotal, Missile Defense
1,778.7 1,878.7



Agency Procurement
THAAD, Operations and
50.8 50.8
50.8

Maintenance
Bal istic Missile Defense Radars
151.9
151.9
151.9


TOTAL, Missile Defense





Agency
0604609A Medium
Extended
406.6 257.1
406.6

Air Defense
System (MEADS)
0102419A Aerostat
Joint
344.7 327.9
344.7

Project Office
TOTAL, ARMY RDT&E





GRAND TOTAL: MISSILE





DEFENSE
Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 112-110, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2012; Senate Appropriations
Committee, S.Rept. 112-77, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bil , 2012.
CRS-59


Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Ground Combat and Communications Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House-Passed
Senate Committee-
Authorization H.R.
Reported
FY2012 Request
1540
Authorization S. 1867
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D

# $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
M-2 Bradley Mods
n/a
250.7
12.3

403.7
12.3

250.7
12.3
DOD plans to end modification of existing Bradleys
and Abrams and begin a new round of improvements
M-1 Abrams tank Mods

160.6
9.7

160.6
9.7

131.2
9.7
a few years later, leaving many tanks without the
most sophisticated upgrades. HASC and SASC both
M-1 Abrams tank Upgrade
21
181.3

21
453.3

70
421.5

added funds avoid to upgrade more of the tanks.
HASC also would continue Bradley mods.
Stryker Armored Vehicle
100
633.0
101.4
100
633.0
101.4
100
606.9
101.4

Army Ground Combat Vehicle
-
0.0
884.4
-
0.0
884.4
-
0.0
884.4
Replacement for the cancel ed manned combat
(GCV)
vehicle component of Future Combat Systems
Source: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; Senate Armed Services
Committee, S.Rept. 112-26, Report to accompany S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; funding tables in S. 1867, the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY1012.
Note: 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-60


Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Ground Combat and Communications Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars; base budget funding in plain type, OCO funding in italics)
Senate Committee-
House-Passed
Reported
Appropriation
Appropriation
FY2012 Request
H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D

# $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
M-2 Bradley Mods
-
250.7
12.3

250.7
12.3
-
250.7
12.3

M-1 Abrams tank Mods
-
160.6
9.7
-
160.6
9.7
-
131.2

DOD plans to end modification of existing tanks and
begin a new round of improvements a few years
M-1 Abrams tank upgrade
21
181.3
0.0
54
453.3
0.0
70
421.3
0.0
later, leaving many tanks without the most
sophisticated upgrades. HAC and SAC both added
funds avoid to upgrade more of the tanks.
Stryker Armored Vehicle
100
633.0
101.4
100
633.0
64.4
100
606.9
101.4
SAC used left-over funds from prior years to cover
part of the procurement budget
Army Ground Combat Vehicle
-
0.0
884.4
-
0.0
768.1
-
0.0
240.4
SAC cut nearly three-quarters of the request on
(GCV)
grounds that it was premature, pending completion
of analysis of alternatives for performing the mission.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
-
0.0
243.9
-
0.0
193.9
-
0.0
5.0
SAC would cancel effort to develop a new vehicle
(JLTV)
intended to replace one-third of Army and Marine
HMMWVs beginning in 2016; shifted $20.0 million to
program to upgrade HMMWV design.
Army Family of Medium
-
849.3
4.0
-
499.3
4.0
-
539.3
4.0
Several thousand trucks of various models with a
Tactical Vehicles and USMC
cargo capacity of 2.5-5.0 tons. After budget
Medium Trucks (incl. OCO)
submitted, Marine Corps requested that $300 million
requested in OCO funds be reallocated to other
Marine Corps OCO programs, including $148.0
million moved to LVS.
Family of Heavy Tactical
-
1,122.3
5.5
-
1,270.3
5.5
-
1,240.2
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. SAC adds $148.0 million from
Marine-requested cut to medium truck replacement
program
CRS-61


Senate Committee-
House-Passed
Reported
Appropriation
Appropriation
FY2012 Request
H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D

# $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
Early Infantry Brigade Combat
-
243.1
528.2
-
86.8
508.9
-
50.8
310.7
Effort to use some parts of cancel ed Future Combat
Team (EIBCT)
Systems (FCS) to modernize Army brigades with
digital communications links. EIBCT was, itself,
cancelled in February 2011, but some the digital
network and a robot ground vehicle remain under
development
Warfighter Information
-
974.7
298.0
-
974.7
298.0
-
865.2
183.0
Wide-area digital communication network that would
Network—Tactical (WIN-T)
retain connectivity “on-the-move” in its later
versions
Joint Tactical Radio System
-
776.3
688.1
-
716.5
688.1
-
576.3
619.1
Programmable, digital radios for vehicles and
(JTRS)
individuals.
Source: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept. 112-110, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2012; Senate Appropriations
Committee, S Rept 112-77, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bil , 2012.
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Shipbuilding Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate Committee-
House-Passed
Reported Authorization S.
Request
Authorization H.R. 1540
1867
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
CVN-21 Carrier
-
554.8
54.1
-
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.
CRS-62


Senate Committee-
House-Passed
Reported Authorization S.
Request
Authorization H.R. 1540
1867
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
-
529.7
n/a
-
529.7
n/a
-
529.7
n/a
Al 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 2 4,757.0 107.2

SSBN(X)
-
0
781.6
-
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
-
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
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 3 590.3 0 Upgrades the electronics, weaponry
and powerplant of ships built in the
Destroyer modernization
3 119.5 0 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 4 1,802.1 286.8

LHA Helicopter Carrier
-
2,018.7
0
-
1,968.7
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 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
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
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 smaller landing craft.
CRS-63


Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; Senate Armed
Services Committee, S.Rept. 112-26, Report to accompany S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; funding tables in S. 1867, 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-64


Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2012 Shipbuilding Programs: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate Committee-Reported
House-Passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
# $
$
CVN-21 Carrier
-
554.8
54.1
-
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 0 - 529.7 0 - 529.7
0 Al
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 2 4,757.0 97.2

SSBN(X)
-
0
781.6
-
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
-
453.7
261.6
Procurement amount is an increment
toward estimated $3.5 billion cost of
the last of three ships
DDG-51 Destroyer
1
2,081.4
0
1
2,079.0
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 3 566.9 0 3 585.3
0 Upgrades the electronics, weaponry
and powerplant of ships built in the
Destroyer modernization
3 119.5 0 3 117.5 0 3 119.5
0 ‘80s and ‘90s.
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
4 1,802.1 286.8 4 1,755.1 296.8 4 1,802.1 282.8
LHA Helicopter Carrier
-
2,018.7
0
-
1,999.2
0
-
2,018.7
0
Second annual increment of funding
for $3.3 billion ship
CRS-65


Senate Committee-Reported
House-Passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation H.R. 2219
H.R. 2219
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
# $
$
LPD-17 Amphibious Force
1 1,847.4 .9 1 1,833.4 .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
2
370.2
7.1
SAC moves one ship from Army
budget to Navy budget and reduces
funding for that vessel by $38.7 mil ion
Mobile Landing Platform
1
425.9
0
1
400.9
0
0
0
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 smaller landing craft.
Source: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept. 112-110, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2012; Senate Appropriations
Committee, S Rept 112-77, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bil , 2012.
CRS-66


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)
House-Passed Authorization
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 1540
Authorization S. 1867
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 1,435.7
19 3,664.1 1,435.7
19 3,664.1 1,435.9
version)
F-35C Joint Strike Fighter,
6 1,259.2 670.7
6 1,259.2 651.8
6 1,259.2
651.8
Marine Corps (STOVL version)
F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
7 1,720.8
677.5
7 1,720.8
658.5
7 1,720.8
658.5
(Carrier-based version)
[F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
32 6,644.1 2,784.1
32 6,644.1 2,784.1
32 6,644.1
2,746.2
total]
F-22
Fighter
Mods
- 232.0 718.4
- 232.0 658.4
- 232.0
511.4

F-15
Fighter
Mods
- 222.4 207.5
- 222.4 207.5
- 208.4
194.8

F-16
Fighter
Mods
- 73.3 143.9
- 56.7 143.9
- 56.7 131.1

EA-18G
Aircraft,
Navy
12 1,107.5
17.1
12 1,107.7
17.1
12 1,100.5
17.1
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
Senate bill drops 9 planes
28 2,431.7 151.0
28 2,431.7 145.2
19 1,835.3
151.0 funded in the FY2011
appropriations bill
F/A-18 Fighter Mods
-
546.6
2.0
-
546.6
2.0
-
492.6
2.0

A-10 Attack Plane Mods
- 153.1 11.1
- 158.1 11.1
- 7.3
11.1 SASC cut wing replacement
program
B-1B Bomber Mods
-
198.0
33.0
-
198.0
33.0
-
198.0
33.0

B-2A Bomber Mods
-
41.3
340.8
-
41.3
362.8
-
41.3
225.8

B-52
Bomber
Mods
- 93.9 133.3
- 93.9 133.3
- 93.9 133.3

CRS-67


House-Passed Authorization
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 1540
Authorization S. 1867
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
Light Attack Armed
Small, turboprop plane
Reconnaissance Aircraft
9 158.5
23.7
9 158.5
23.7
0 0.0
23.7
intended for use by U.S.
allies that do not operate
front-line combat jets.
FIXED-WING AND TILT-ROTOR CARGO AND TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
C-130 variants, Air Force and
12 1,184.0
39.5
12 1,184.0
39.5
12 1,184.0
39.5

Marine Corps
C-130
Mods.
- 740.5 70.2 - 737.9 70.2 -
750.8 70.2

Includes $964 million to
C-5
Mods,
- 1,035.1
24.9
- 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 - 0
0

C-17 Mods

213.2
128.2

213.2
128.2
-
213.2
128.2

C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft
9
479.9
27.1
9
479.9
27.1
9
479.9
27.1

KC-X Tanker Replacement,
-
-
877.1
-
-
877.1
-
-
750.0

Gulfstream V used for
C-37A executive transport
3
77.8
-
3
77.8
-
3
77.8
-
long-range transport of
senior civilian and military
officials.
MV-22 Osprey, Marine Corps
30 2,399.1
84.5
30 2,363.9
84.5
30 2,399.1
84.5
House-passed and Senate
and Mods
committee bills both
rejected $85 million
CV-22 Osprey, AF and Mods
6
577.6
31.5
5
483.6
26.5
5
483.6
26.5
request for two Ospreys
[V-22 Osprey Total]
modified for special
operations, saying those
aircraft had been paid for in
36 2,976.7 116.0
35 2,831.4 116.0
35 2,882.7
111.0
the FY2011 DOD
appropriations act (P.L.
112-10)
CRS-68


Source: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 112-78, Report to accompany H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; Senate Armed Services
Committee, S.Rept. 112-26, Report to accompany S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012; funding tables in S. 1867, 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-69


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)
House-Passed Appropriation
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 2219
Appropriation H.R. 2219
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
F-35A Joint Strike
Fighter and Mods,
19 3,664.1 1,435.9 19 3,664.1 1,397.9
17
2,967.6 1,387.9

AF (conventional
takeoff version)
F-35C Joint Strike
Fighter, Marine
6
1,259.2 670.7 6
1,259.2 651.8
6 1,259.2 651.8

Corps (STOVL
version)
F-35B Joint Strike
Fighter, Navy
7
1,720.8 677.5 7
1,665.8 658.5
6 1,422.2 658.5

(Carrier-based
version)
[F-35 Joint Strike
32
6,644.1 2,784.1 32
6,644.1 2,708.2
29 5,649.0 2,698.2

Fighter, total]
F-22
Fighter
Mods
-
232.0 718.4 -
232.0 658.4
- 232.0 511.4

F-15
Fighter
Mods
-
222.4 207.5 -
208.4 207.5
- 255.6 194.8

F-16
Fighter
Mods
-
73.3 143.9 -
56.7 143.9
-
56.7 131.1

EA-18G Aircraft,
12
1,107.5 17.1 12
1,029.7 17.1
12 1,100.5 17.1

Navy
F/A-18E/F Fighter,
28
2,431.7 151.0 28
2,368.2 145.2
28 2,330.3 151.1

Navy
F/A-18 Fighter Mods
-
546.6 2.0 -
483.8 2.0
492.6 2.0

(with OCO)
CRS-70


House-Passed Appropriation
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 2219
Appropriation H.R. 2219
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
A-10 Attack Plane
Senate
Mods
committee
said the
-
153.1 11.1

195.6 11.1

7.3 11.1
effort to
replace the
planes’ wings
is behind
schedule
B-1B Bomber Mods
-
198.0
33.0

198.0
33.0
-
198.0
33.0

B-2A Bomber Mods
-
41.3
340.8

31.0
362.8
-
41.3
236.3

B-52
Bomber
Mods
- 93.9 133.3
93.9 133.3
-
93.9 88.0

Light Attack Armed
Small,
Reconnaissance
turboprop
Aircraft
plane
intended for
9
158.5 23.7 9
158.5 23.7
0 0.0 0.0
use by U.S.
allies that do
not operate
front-line
combat jets.
FIXED-WING CARGO AND TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
C-130 variants, Air
Force and marine
12
1,184.0 39.5 12
1,184.0 39.5
12 1,184.0 39.5

Corps
C-130
Mods.
-
740.5 70.2 - 737.9 70.2
- 750.8 70.2

CRS-71


House-Passed Appropriation
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 2219
Appropriation H.R. 2219
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
Includes
$964 million
to rebuild the
52 newest C-
C-5
Mods,
-
1,035.1 24.9 -
1,035.1 24.9
- 1,035.1 12.9
5s with more
powerful
engines and
digital
cockpits.
C-17
- 0.0 0.0 1
225.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0

C-17
Mods
213.2 128.2
213.2 128.2
-
202.2 94.3

C-27 Joint Cargo
9
479.9 27.1 9 479.9 27.1
9 479.9 27.1

Aircraft
KC-X Tanker
- - 877.1 - - 877.1

742.1

Replacement,
Gulfstream V
used for
C-37A executive
long-range
transport
3
77.8 - 3
77.8 -
3 77.8 -
transport of
senior civilian
and military
officials.
ROTARY-WING AIRCRAFT
MV-22 Osprey,
Marine Corps and
30
2,399.1 84.5 30
2,363.8 84.5
30 2,382.4 84.5
Mods
CV-22 Osprey, AF
6
577.6 31.5 5 483.6 26.5
5 507.6 21.5

and Mods
[V-22 Osprey
36
2,976.7 116.0 35
2,847.4 116.0
35 2,890.0 106.0
Total]
Light Utility
39
250.4 0 39
250.4 0
39 250.4 0

Helicopter
CRS-72


House-Passed Appropriation
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 2219
Appropriation H.R. 2219
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
UH-60 Blackhawk
Helicopter and
75 1,678.3 21.5 75 1,678.3 21.5
81
1,772.4 8.0

Mods, Army (incl.
OCO)
CH-47 Chinook
32 newly
Helicopter and Mods
built helos;
(incl. OCO)
15 existing
helos
47 1,623.3 48.9 47 1,623.3 48,9
47
1,550.6 48.9 upgraded
with digital
cockpit,
more
powerful
engines
AH-64 Apache Helo
Rebuilt helos
Mods (incl. OCO)
with
improved
fire-control
and digital
20 1,074.8 92.8 19 1,038.3 92.8
19
995.8 92.8
electronics;
HAC and
SAC both
denied OCO
funds for one
helo
CRS-73


House-Passed Appropriation
Senate Committee-Reported
Request
H.R. 2219
Appropriation H.R. 2219
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D

Comments
# $ $
#
$
$
#
$
$
CH-53K
Helicopter - - 629.5 - - 624.5
-
- 629.5

Executive
Helicopter - - 180.1 - - 160.1
-
- 60.8

HH-60M search and
rescue helicopter
and Mods (with
4
178.4 94.1 4 203.0 11.1
1 108.5 8.0

OCO)
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
26
798.6 72.6 26 766.1 67.6
26 757.5 72.6

MH-60R/MH-60S
42
1,483.4 48.3 42
1,463.8 48.3
42 1479.2 48.3

Helicopter, Navy
MANNED SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT
P-8A Poseidon
Multi-Mission
11
2,275.5 622.7 11
2,253.7 632.7
11 2,275.5 608.7

Maritime Aircraft
E-2D Hawkeye radar
6
1,236.3 111.0 5
1,064.8 111.0
5 1,059.8 131.0

plane (with OCO)
P-3/EP-3 Aircraft
-
275.4 3.4 -
255.5 3.4
- 273.7 3.4

Mods (with OCO)
E-8 JSTARS ground
surveillance plane
- 29.1 121.6 - 26.1 121.6
-
22.6 74.6

Mods
Aerial Common
18
539.6 31.5 0 15.7 13.5
0

88.5 31.5

Sensor
Source: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept. 112-110, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2012; Senate Appropriations
Committee, S Rept 112-77, Report to accompany H.R. 2219, Department of Defense Appropriations Bil , 2012

CRS-74

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
75