Defense: FY2013 Authorization and
Appropriations
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
July 13, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42607
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
President Obama’s $613.9 billion FY2013 budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD)
is $31.8 billion less than was appropriated for the agency in FY2012. The end of U.S. combat in
Iraq and the declining tempo of operations in Afghanistan account for the bulk of the overall
reduction: The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)—DOD activities in
those two countries—is $88.5 billion, which is $26.6 billion less than was provided for those
operations in FY2012.
However, the Administration’s $525.4 billion request for DOD’s so-called “base budget”—funds
for all DOD activities other than OCO—is $5.2 billion less than was provided for FY2012 and
$45.3 billion less than the FY2013 base budget the Administration had projected a year earlier, in
February of 2011. The proposed reduction in the base budget—and planned reductions of more
than $50 billion per year through FY2021, compared with the FY2011 projection—reflects the
Administration’ s effort to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget Control Act (BCA)
of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). All told, the Obama Administration’s current
projection would reduce DOD budgets by $486.9 billion over a 10-year period (FY2012-
FY2021), compared with its February 2011 plan. (See “FY2013 Defense Budget Overview,” pp.
1-4.)
According to the Administration, the FY2013 DOD budget request is consistent with the initial
spending caps set by the BCA. Both H.R. 4310, the version of the FY2013 National Defense
Authorization passed by the House on May 18, 2012, and H.R. 5856, the companion DOD
appropriations bill for FY2013, reported by the House Appropriations Committee on May 25,
2012, would exceed the Administration request—by $3.7 billion in the case of the authorization
bill and by $3.1 billion in the case of the appropriation bill.
On the other hand, S. 3254, the version of the authorization bill reported June 4, 2012, by the
Senate Armed Services Committee, would keep FY2013 DOD funding within the initial BCA
caps, exceeding the budget request by $197.0 million.
Each version of the authorization bill would add to the request several billion dollars to overturn
several cost-cutting initiatives incorporated in the Administration’s budget, including proposed
reductions in the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard. However, the House version
would go further in rejecting the proposed savings. Similarly, while both versions of the
authorization bill would add to the request funds for programs Congress historically has favored
(such as missile defense and equipment for reserve and National Guard forces), the Senate bill is
more generous in this regard. (See “NDAA: The Broad Outlines,” p.13-15, and “DOD
Appropriations Overview” pp. 34-38.)
The House committee-reported appropriation bill generally parallels the House-passed
authorization.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Status of Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 1
FY2013 Defense Budget Overview................................................................................................. 1
Base Budget Highlights ................................................................................................................... 5
New Strategic Guidance ............................................................................................................ 5
Force Structure, Readiness ........................................................................................................ 6
Military Personnel Issues .......................................................................................................... 7
Pay Raise............................................................................................................................. 7
TRICARE Pharmacy Fees .................................................................................................. 8
Modernization............................................................................................................................ 8
Overseas Contingency Operations Highlights................................................................................. 9
Bill-by-Bill Analysis...................................................................................................................... 10
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act ................................................................................ 10
NDAA: The Broad Outlines.............................................................................................. 11
Military Personnel Issues ........................................................................................................ 14
Proposed Reductions in Personnel and Force Structure.................................................... 15
Ground Combat Equipment..................................................................................................... 19
Naval Systems ......................................................................................................................... 20
Aircraft and Long-Range Strike Systems ................................................................................ 22
Ballistic Missile Defense......................................................................................................... 23
House Missile Defense Initiatives..................................................................................... 23
Defense Space Programs ......................................................................................................... 25
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan......................................................................................... 26
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees ........................................................................ 27
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 29
FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill................................................................................................. 32
DOD Appropriations Overview............................................................................................... 32
Proposed Administration Savings ..................................................................................... 35
Congressional Initiatives ................................................................................................... 35
Funding Offsets ................................................................................................................. 36
Military Personnel and Force Structure Appropriations.......................................................... 37
TRICARE Fee Increases ......................................................................................................... 38
Ground Combat Systems Appropriations ................................................................................ 38
Naval Systems Appropriations ................................................................................................ 39
Aircraft Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 39
Missile Defense Appropriations .............................................................................................. 40
OCO Funding: Afghanistan and Related Activities................................................................. 41
Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-FY2013................................................. 3
Figure 2. Obama Administration DOD Budget Projections: February 2011 and February
2012 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. OCO Funding by Country .............................................................................................. 10
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 4. U.S. Troop Level by Country ......................................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; S. 3254).................................. 1
Table 2. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856) ................................................................. 1
Table 3. FY2013 National Defense Budget Function (050): Administration Request .................... 2
Table 4. FY2013 DOD Discretionary Budget Authority: February 2011 Projection and
February 2012 Request................................................................................................................. 6
Table 5. Active Military End Strength ............................................................................................ 7
Table 6. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) .............................................. 11
Table 7. Current and Proposed FY2013 End-Strength for Active and Reserve Component
Forces.......................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 8. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2013 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 4310) .......................................................................................................................... 29
Table 9. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856) ............................................................... 34
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding
Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 43
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 46
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 49
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 50
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Authorization............................................................................................................. 51
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 53
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization............... 55
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation .............. 56
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Authorization............................................................................................................. 57
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 61
Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Program Funding Tables ............................................................................ 43
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 65
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Status of Legislation
Table 1. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310; S. 3254)
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markups
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
4/26-27/
5/9/2012
5/18/2012
6/4/2012
2012
299-120
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
112-479
112-173
Table 2. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856)
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
5/8/2012 5/25/2012
H.Rept.
112-493
FY2013 Defense Budget Overview
The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget request, submitted to Congress on February 13,
2012, includes $647.4 billion for the so-called “national defense” function (budget function 050).
This includes funding for global operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), defense-related
nuclear programs conducted by the Department of Energy, and other defense-related activities.
For discretionary DOD budget authority, the request includes $613.9 billion, of which $525.4
billion is for “base” defense budget costs—that is, day-to-day operations other than war costs—
and the remaining $88.5 billion is for “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO)—that is,
military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The function 050 total also includes $18.0
billion for Department of Energy defense-related programs (dealing with nuclear weapons and
warship powerplants), $4.7 billion for FBI national security programs, and $2.4 billion for a
number of smaller accounts, including the selective service and civil defense (Table 3).
Excluding OCO funds, the Administration’s FY2013 request for the national defense function
totals $550.6 billion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of
Administration’s program to be slightly higher: $552 billion.
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 3. FY2013 National Defense Budget Function (050): Administration Request
budget authority in billions of dollars; numbers may not add due to rounding
discretionary
mandatory
TOTAL
Department of
Base Budget
Tricare-for-Life
6.68 --
Defense
accrual payment
Concurrent Receipt
-- 6.85
accrual payment
Other DOD Base Budget
518.77 -0.69
(incl. offsetting receipts)
531.61
Overseas
Contingency
88.48 -- 88.48
Operations (OCO)
DOD total
613.93
6.16
620.09
Defense-related
Energy Department
Occupational illness
-- 1.17
Agencies
compensation and other
19.15
Other Base Budget
17.98
--
FBI defense-related
4.75
--
4.75
CIA Retirement
-- 0.51
0.51
Fund
Other 2.42
0.06
2.48
National Defense Total
639.08
7.90
646.97
National Defense (excluding OCO)
550.60
6.16
556.76
Source: H.Rept. 112-479, House Armed Services Committee, Report on H.R. 4310, National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2013, pp. 21-23.
Note: In the President’s budget, these funds comprise Budget Function 050 (National Defense). In the budget
resolution adopted March 29 by the House, the funds for Overseas Contingency Operations were incorporated
into a separate function, designated Function 970.
If accepted by Congress, the Administration’s DOD budget would mark the third consecutive
annual decrease in total DOD funding (including OCO) since FY2010. Most of that decline
reflects the decrease in OCO spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, while the decline in war costs accounts for most of the reduction in DOD budgets since
FY2010, the President’s FY2013 request would reduce the base budget (in current dollars) for the
first time since 1996. The base budget request is $5.2 billion less than was appropriated for the
base budget in FY2012 and $45.3 billion less than the FY2013 request the Administration had
projected in February 2011 (Figure 1).
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-FY2013
amounts in billions of dollars
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2013
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
request
Reduction from the February
45
2011 plan
Iraq
132
145
94
62
45
10
3
Afghanistan
34
39
52
100
114
105
86
Base Budget
431
479
513
528
528
531
525
Source: DOD Comptrol er, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, Figures 1-2 and 6-2, accessed at
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
That reduction from the previously planned FY2013 request—and additional planned reductions
of more than $50 billion per year compared to DOD’s February 2011 budget projections through
FY2021—reflects the Administration’s plan to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget
Control Act (BCA) of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Compared with the long-
range spending plan published by DOD in February 2011, the February 2012 plan would reduce
DOD base budgets by $259.4 billion from FY2012 through FY2017 (Figure 2). For the 10-year
period covered by the BCA (FY2012-FY2021), the Administration’s revised spending plan would
reduce DOD budgets by a total of $486.9 billion.
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 2. Obama Administration DOD Budget Projections:
February 2011 and February 2012
amounts in billions of dollars
640.0
620.0
600.0
580.0
560.0
540.0
520.0
500.0
480.0
460.0
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
DOD February 2011 Plan
528.2
553.0
570.7
586.4
598.2
610.6
621.6
DOD February 2012 Plan
528.2
530.6
525.4
533.6
545.9
555.9
567.3
Source: DOD Comptrol er, Budget Briefing, FY2012 Budget Request (slide 4) accessed at
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request.pdf.
Further reductions in DOD base budgets over the next 10 years may be in store as a result of the
BCA. In addition to the $900 billion worth of total deficit reduction in FY2012-FY2021
(counting both defense and non-defense spending) that result from BCA, the act also requires
additional deficit reduction measures totaling at least $1.2 trillion through 2021 (resulting in a
total spending reduction through FY2021 of $2.1 trillion) beginning with a reduction in spending
caps for FY2013 that would require a $4 billion reduction. Unless Congress and the President
either repeal BCA or enact legislation that would reduce deficits over that period by at least an
additional $1.2 trillion, the BCA will trigger automatic reductions that would cut the
Administration’s current DOD base budget plan by whatever amount is needed to cover the
defense share of the shortfall between whatever cuts Congress does agree to and the required total
reduction of $2.1 trillion (i.e., the $900 billion reduction resulting from the FY2012 and FY2013
spending caps, plus an additional $1.2 trillion as a result of legislation yet to be enacted). If the
automatic reductions are required to achieve the entire $1.2 trillion worth of additional
reductions, they would cut upwards of $54 billion per year from the current DOD base budget
plan.
Long-Term Budget Issues
For additional analysis of the potential impact on DOD of potential further budget reductions as part of the deficit
reduction measures mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), see CRS Report R42489, FY2013
Defense Budget Request: Overview and Context, by Stephen Daggett and Pat Towell.
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Base Budget Highlights
The Obama Administration presented its FY2013 DOD budget plan as an effort to address both
the long-term spending limits set by the BCA and the opportunity to refocus U.S. defense
planning arising from the winding down of large-scale deployments of U.S. troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Administration preceded the announcement of its FY2013 budget request with
the publication on January 5, 2012, of new “strategic guidance,” which, it said, took account of
both the new budgetary and strategic environments.1
New Strategic Guidance
The new strategic guidance postulates that active-duty ground forces no longer will be sized to
conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which
required an Army and Marine Corps capable of maintaining a constantly rotating overseas
deployment of upwards of 100,000 troops.
Under this new approach, U.S. forces will be shaped and sized to conduct simultaneously a
campaign to defeat a major aggression—a combined arms campaign involving air, sea, and land
forces and including a large-scale ground operation—and, simultaneously, another campaign
intended to block an attack in some other area by a second adversary.2
The new strategic guidance also calls for DOD to put a higher priority on deploying U.S. forces
to the Pacific and around Asia while scaling back deployments in Europe. For example, the
Administration plans to withdraw and disband two of the four Army brigade combat teams
currently stationed in Germany while maintaining a rotating force of up to 2,500 Marines in
northern Australia. It also plans to station littoral combat ships in Singapore and smaller patrol
craft in Bahrain. Because of the distances from land bases on which U.S. forces could rely,
operations in the Asia-Pacific region would rely heavily on air and naval forces. Accordingly,
many observers expect a shift of DOD resources toward the Navy and Air Force at the Army’s
expense.
Some question the Administration’s claim of a “pivot” toward Asia, citing its plan to retire some
older, long-range cargo planes and to cut a total of $13.1 billion from projected shipbuilding
budgets for FY2013-FY2017. But the Administration cites its decisions to retain in service 11
aircraft carriers and to add other ships to its shipbuilding plan as proof of its refocused
commitment on the Pacific region, where long operational distances are the rule.
New Strategic Guidance and the ‘Pivot to the Pacific’
For further analysis of the Obama Administration’s new Strategic Guidance, issued in January 2012, see CRS Report
R42146, In Brief: Assessing DOD’s New Strategic Guidance, by Catherine Dale and Pat Towell. For additional analysis of
the Administration’s increased emphasis on Asia and the Pacific region as the focus of U.S. military and diplomatic
attention, see CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia,
coordinated by Mark E. Manyin.
1 DOD, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012, accessed at
http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf.
2 Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Force Structure, Readiness
Pursuant to the Administration’s new strategic guidance, DOD plans to eliminate or retire several
major combat units and weapons systems by FY2017. Among these are
• At least 8 of the Army’s 45 active-duty brigade combat teams;
• Six of the Marine Corps’s 41 battalion landing teams;
• Seven cruisers which are among the Navy’s current fleet of 101 surface warships;
• Two of the Navy’s 30 amphibious landing ships;
• Six of the 61 fighter and ground-attack squadrons in the Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, and Air National Guard;
• 27 early-model C-5A cargo planes, out of a total fleet of 302 long-range, wide-
body C-5 and C-17 cargo jets;
• The entire fleet of C-27 mid-sized cargo planes, currently operated by the Air
Force, but desired by the Army to deliver supplies to troops in forward positions;
and
• The entire fleet of “Block 30” Global Hawk surveillance drones, which DOD
officials said had proven to be more expensive than the U-2 aircraft they had
been slated to replace.
On the other hand, the Administration says its plan would maintain the remaining force at a high
level of readiness. Compared with the February 2011 plan, the Operation and Maintenance
request for FY2013 was reduced by 3%, one-fifth as large as the 15% reduction imposed on the
Procurement accounts. (Table 4)
Table 4. FY2013 DOD Discretionary Budget Authority:
February 2011 Projection and February 2012 Request
(amounts in billons of current year dollars
Projected
Actual
FY2013
FY2013
Request
Request
Difference Difference
Appropriations Title
Feb. 2011
Feb. 2012
($)
(%)
Base Budget
Military Personnel
141.82 135.11
-6.71 -4.7%
Operation and Maintenance
197.21
208.76
+11.55
+5.9%
Procurement
104.53
98.82
-5.70
-5.5%
RDT&E
71.38
69.41
-1.97
-2.8%
Military Construction
11.37
9.57
-1.79
-1.6%
Family Housing
1.68
1.65
-0.03
-1.9%
Revolving and Management Funds
2.64
2.12
-0.52
-19.7%
subtotal: Base Budget
530.62
525.45
-5.18
-1.0%
subtotal: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
115.08
88.48
-26.60
-23.1%
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Projected
Actual
FY2013
FY2013
Request
Request
Difference Difference
Appropriations Title
Feb. 2011
Feb. 2012
($)
(%)
TOTAL 645.71
613.93
-31.78
-4.9%
Source: DOD Comptrol er, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, Table 8-1, accessed at
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Notes: The “Military Personnel” amounts include accrual payments into the budget account that funds
TRICARE for Life, which is the program that allows military retirees not yet eligible for Medicare to remain
enrol ed in DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance program. TRICARE for Life funds are not provided by the annual
defense appropriations bills but, rather, by permanent law according to calculations by DOD actuaries.
Military Personnel Issues
The Administration plans to reduce the size of the active-duty force—slated to be 1.42 million at
the end of FY2012—by 21,600 personnel in FY2013 and by a total of 102,400 by the end of
FY2017. Consistent with the new policy of avoiding prolonged, large-scale peacekeeping
operations, most of that multi-year reduction—92,000 out of the 102,400—would come from the
Army and Marine Corps. In effect, this plan would remove from the force the 92,000 personnel
that were added to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 2007 to sustain deployments to Iraq
and Afghanistan. However, in 2017—when the proposed reductions would be complete—each of
those two services still would be larger than it had been before the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 (Table 5).
Table 5. Active Military End Strength
FY2001 FY2012 FY2013
FY2017
proposed
Proposed
Army
480,801 562,000 552,100 490,000
Navy 377,810 325,700 322,700 319,500
Marine
Corps
172,934 202,100 197,300 182,100
Air
Force
353,571 332,800 328,900 328,600
Total 1,385,116 1,422,600 1,401,000 1,320,200
Source: DOD Comptrol er, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, Figures 4-2, accessed at
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Pay Raise
The FY2013 budget request includes a 1.7% increase in service members’ “basic pay,” an amount
based on the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), which is a survey-based
estimate of the rate at which private-sector pay has increased. After providing an equal increase in
basic pay for FY2014, the Administration plan would provide basic pay raises less than the
anticipated ECI increase in the following three years: 0.5% below ECI for FY2015, 1.0% below
for FY2016, and 1.5% below for FY2017.
The Administration maintains that budgetary limits require some reduction in military
compensation in order to avoid excessive cuts in either the size of the force or the pace of
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
modernization. However, it promises that no service member would be subjected to either a pay
freeze or a pay cut. Moreover, proposed reductions in the size of the annual military pay raise
would not begin until FY2015, thus allowing service members and their families to plan for the
change. Over the five-year period (FY2013-FY2017), the Administration projects that savings
from its planned changes in military compensation would total $16.5 billion.
According to DOD officials, although military compensation accounts for about one-third of
DOD’s budget, the savings that would result from the proposed changes in compensation would
account for less than 10% of the total that the Administration’s budget would slice from the
February 2011 DOD budget projection for FY2012-FY2021 (Table 4).
TRICARE Pharmacy Fees
The Administration also proposes a variety of fee increases for the 9.65 million beneficiaries of
TRICARE, DOD’s medical insurance program for active-duty, reserve-component, and retired
service members and their dependents and survivors. According to DOD, the overall cost of the
Military Health Program, which totaled $19 billion in FY2001, has more than doubled to $48.7
billion in FY2013. The FY2013 request assumes $1.8 billion in savings as a result of the
Administration’s proposed fee increases, which are controversial and which Congress would have
to approve in law.
Many of the proposed fees and fee increases would apply only to working-age retirees and would
be “tiered” according to the retiree’s current income. The package also includes pharmacy co-
pays intended to provide an incentive for TRICARE beneficiaries to use generic drugs and mail-
order pharmacy service. Future changes in some of the propose fees and in the “catastrophic cap”
per family would be indexed to the National Health Expenditures (NHE) index, a measure of
escalation in medical costs calculated by the federal agency the manages Medicare.
Modernization
Compared with the FY2013 budget that DOD projected in February of 2011, the actual FY2013
request for procurement and R&D accounts was 12.5% lower. Proportionally, that reduction is
more than twice as large as the reduction in the combined accounts for military personnel and
operation and maintenance (down 4.7%).
Measured in constant dollars, DOD’s combined procurement and R&D budget in FY2010 was
60% higher than it had been in FY2001. Accordingly, some argue that DOD can afford to rein in
its spending on acquisition while it lives off the capital stocks built up and modernized during the
decade of budget increases that followed the terrorist attacks of 2001.3
But others contend that much of the procurement spending during that decade was for (1) items
peculiarly relevant to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; (2) items needed to replace equipment
destroyed in combat or worn out by the high tempo of operations in a region that is particularly
stressful on machinery and electronics; or (3) modifications to existing planes, tanks, and ships.
3 See, for example, Stimson Center, “What We Bought: Defense Procurement from FY01 to FY10,” by Russell
Rumbaugh, October 2011.
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
While modifications can improve the effectiveness of existing platforms, they cannot nullify in
the long run the impact of age and design obsolescence.4
The Administration emphasizes that it is prioritizing among weapons programs in deciding where
to make cuts in previously planned spending, and that it is sustaining funding for high-priority
programs, such as the development of a new, long-range bomber for which its plan budgets $292
million in FY2013 and more than $5 billion in FY2014-FY2017.
Compared with DOD’s February 2011 plan for procurement and R&D funding, the program
announced in February 2013 would save $24 billion in FY2013 and a total of $94 billion over the
five-year period FY2013-FY2017. Procurement of some items would be terminated outright,
before the originally planned total number was acquired (e.g., the Army’s new 5-ton trucks—
designated FMTV—terminated for a total savings of $2.2 billion over five years; and a new Air
Force weather satellite, terminated for a total savings of $2.3 billion).
But DOD plans to achieve most of the savings in procurement from “restructuring” programs,
that is, from slowing the timetable for moving from development into production or slowing the
rate of production. The department justifies some of its proposed reductions on grounds of fact-
of-life delays in specific programs. In other cases, it contends that it is an “acceptable risk” to
forego (or delay) acquisition of a particular capability.
Overseas Contingency Operations Highlights
The Administration’s $88.5 billion request for war costs (OCO) amounts to $26.6 billion less than
Congress appropriated for war costs in FY2012. This reduction reflects:
• the cessation of U.S. combat operations in Iraq by the end of the first quarter of
FY2012; and
• the reduction of the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, by the end of FY2012,
to 68,000 personnel, thus ending the “surge” into that country of 33,000
additional U.S. troops announced by President Obama on December 1, 2009.
4 See, for example, American Enterprise Institute, “The Past Decade of Military Spending: What We Spent, What we
Wasted, and What We Need.” By Mackenzie Eaglen, January 24, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 3. OCO Funding by Country
Figure 4. U.S. Troop Level by Country
200
200
180
160
150
140
120
100
100
thousands of
thousands
80
of troops
troops
50
60
40
20
0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Iraq
148
94
62
45
10
3
Iraq
154
141
96
47
5
0
Afghanistan 39
52
100 114 105
86
Afghanistan
33
44
84
98
90
68
Source: DOD Comptrol er, FY2013 Budget
Source: DOD Comptrol er, FY2013 Budget
Request Overview, Figure 6-2, accessed at
Request Overview, Figure 6-2, accessed at
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2
013_Buget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
013 _Buget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.
The OCO budget request assumes that 68,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through the
end of FY2013, although President Obama has said that, after the number had been drawn down
to 68,000 by the summer of 2012, it would continue to decline “at a steady pace.” 5
Bill-by-Bill Analysis
FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act
The House version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed May 18
by a vote of 229-199, would authorize $3.7 billion more than the $631.6 billion President Obama
requested for discretionary DOD spending and for defense-related nuclear energy programs
conducted by the Department of Energy. The bill thus was consistent with the FY2013 budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 112 adopted by the House on March 29, 2012), but would exceed by $8
billion the revised defense budget cap established by the 2011 BCA. That revised cap would be
the basis for a sequester in January 2013, unless the BCA is superseded by subsequent legislation.
The Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the FY2013 NDAA (S. 3254) on
May 25. That bill would authorize $234 million less than the President’s request (Table 6).
5 President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President on the Way Forward in Afghanistan, Washington, DC, June 22,
2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/22/remarks-president-way-forward-
afghanistan.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 6. FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310)
(amounts of discretionary budget authority in millions of dol ars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
Administration
HASC-
SASC-
Conference
Request
reported
reported
Report
Procurement 97,432
99,122
96,959
Research and Development
69,408
70,387
69,286
Operations and Maintenance
174,939
175,082
174,778
Military Personnel
135,112 135,727
135,112
Defense Health Program and
37,228 37,458
37,739
Other Authorizations
Military Construction and
11,223 10,838
10,559
Family Housing
Commission on the Structure
-- --
1,400
of the Air Force
Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
525,342
528,614
525,839
Subtotal: Atomic Energy
Defense Activities (Energy
17,779 18,143
17,348
Dept.)
TOTAL: FY2013 Base Budget
543,121
546,757
543,187
Subtotal: Overseas
88,482 88,482
88,182
Contingency Operations
GRAND TOTAL:
631,603 635,259
631,369
FY2013 NDAA
National Defense
Discretionary Funding not
7,474 7,474
7,474
covered by this bill
Total: FY2013 National
Defense Discretionary Budget
639,077 642,713
638,843
Authority implications of the
bill
FY2013 Mandatory National
7,891 7,891
7,891
Defense Funding
Grand Total FY2013 National
Defense Budget Authority
646,968 650,579
646,734
Implications of the bill
Source: H.Rept. 112-479, House Armed Services Committee, Report on H.R. 4310, National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2013, pp. 10-19.
Note: The amounts requested and authorized in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is less
than the total National Defense Budget because defense-related activities conducted by agencies other than
DOD and the Energy Department—for example, the FBI’s counterintelligence activity—are not covered by the
bill and because certain DOD activities do not require annual authorization.
NDAA: The Broad Outlines
Compared with annual defense authorization bills enacted in the previous decade, both H.R. 4310
as passed by the House and S. 3254 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee would
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
make relatively few changes in the authorization levels proposed by the Administration for
specific programs. This reflects the stringent bars against “earmarks” currently observed in both
the House and the Senate.
A small number of factors summarized below account for most of the $3.9 billion difference
between the total amounts that would be authorized by the two bills.
Proposed Administration Savings
H.R. 4310 would add to the request more than $4 billion to cover the cost of overturning some of
the Administration’s more high-profile efforts to reduce DOD spending. The Senate committee’s
bill would take similar action to reverse two of the initiatives—disbanding several squadrons of
airplanes in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard; and deferring production
of an attack submarine. However, the Senate panel’s bill would support, wholly or in part, several
of the Administration’s other proposed DOD spending cuts:
Selected Administration
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
proposals
House-passed
Committee-reported
Disband 7 Air Force and Air
Adds authorization for $1.1 billion and Freezes current force structure;
National Guard squadrons; Retire
7,816 personnel (active duty and
prohibits retirement of aircraft; adds
303 aircraft.
reserve components) to retain the
$1.4 billion to cover the cost of
current force structure.
maintaining status quo; creates
commission to recommend future
force structure of Air Force (including
reserve components).
Cancel planned procurements of
Adds $260 million to continue Global
In effect, withdraws $544 million
Global Hawk Block 30
Hawk Block 30 operations.
appropriated for Global Hawk Block
surveillance drones; Retire Global
30 in prior years, directing that those
Hawk 30s in service.
funds be substituted for new budget
authority to fund the FY2013 budget.
Retire four Aegis cruisers.
Adds $665 million to keep in service
n/c
three of the four cruisers.
Increase various TRICARE fees,
Adds $1.21 billion to replace funds
Adds $452 million to replace funds
reducing the FY2013 budget
the Administration had planned to
the Administration had planned to
requirement by $1.8 billion.
obtain from fee changes which the
obtain from fee changes which the
House bill would not authorize;
House bill would not authorize;
Allows some requested increases.
Al ows larger number of requested
increases.
Slow design of new ballistic missile Adds $374 million to fund ship design
n/c
sub, reducing FY2013 funding by
at earlier projected level; No addition
more than half ($640 million)
to restore funds cut from nuclear
from earlier projection.
reactor design.
Buy components to support
Adds $778 million to allow funding
Adds $778 million to allow funding
purchase of one Virginia-class
two subs in FY2014.
two subs in FY2014.
submarine in FY2014 rather than
two, reducing FY2013 funding by
more than 40% ($667 million).
Slow development of Army’s
n/c n/c
Ground Combat Vehicle reducing
FY2013 funding by two-thirds
($1.3 billion) from earlier
projection.
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Notes: The notation “n/c” [“no change”] signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Other Increased Weapons Spending
Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the FY2013 NDAA also was more restrained than
H.R. 4310 in funding certain programs for which Congress typically adds to the annual budget
request:
Selected Administration
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
proposals
House-passed
Committee-reported
Request $903 million to continue
Adds $357 million to deploy
n/c
upgrading Ballistic Missile Defense
additional interceptor missiles in
that has interceptor missiles based Alaska and $103 million to begin work
in Alaska and California.
on an East Coast site for additional
interceptors.
Request $100 million to continue
Adds $168 million for those three
Adds $100 million for the three Israeli
development of three Israeli
Israeli systems and an additional $680
systems and an additional $210 mil ion
missile defense systems.
million for the Israeli “Iron Dome”
for “Iron Dome.”
system designed to intercept short-
range rockets and artillery shells.
Phase out upgrades to Abrams
Adds $320 million to continue
Adds $91 million to continue Abrams
tanks and Bradley troop carriers,
Abrams and Bradley upgrades.
upgrades.
preparatory to shutting down
those production lines from 2014
until 2017, when new upgrade
programs would begin.
Request no funding for the
Adds $500 million for NGREA.
n/c
National Guard and Reserve
Equipment account (NGREA)
Notes: The notation “n/c” [“no change”] signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Funding Offsets
As is customary in annual NDAAs, both the House-passed H.R. 4310 and the Senate committee’s
S. 3254 would offset some or all of their proposed additions to the budget request with some
relatively large proposed reductions. Moreover—as usual—the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees that drafted the two bills said that some of their proposed reductions would have no
adverse impact on DOD. For example, each bill would reduce the total amount authorized by
upwards of $1.5 billion on the grounds that funds appropriated in prior years but not spent could
be used in lieu of the same amount of new budget authority to cover part of the FY2013 budget:
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
Issue
House-passed
Committee-reported
Amounts appropriated in prior budgets, Cuts a total of $1.61 billion from
Cuts a total of $1.50 billion from
now deemed unnecessary for their
military personnel, O&M and Defense
procurement, R&D, O&M and military
original purpose, are redirected to fund
Health Program requests on the
construction requests on grounds that
the FY2013 program (thus reducing the
grounds that, historically, those
an equal amount, appropriated in prior
requirement for new budget authority
accounts have “underspent” their
budgets, can be substituted for new
by the same amount).
appropriations, thus leaving
budget authority. This includes $544.4
“unobligated balances” in the accounts
million in prior year funding for the
at the end of the fiscal year.
Global Hawk Block 30, which the
Administration proposes cancelling.
Missile Defense Programs
Cuts the entire $400.9 million
Cuts the entire $400.9 million
requested for MEADS missile defense
requested for MEADS missile defense
system, a joint project of the U.S.,
system, a joint project of the U.S.,
German, and Italian governments.
German and Italian governments. Also
cuts $247.4 million (of $297.4 million
requested) for PTSS missile tracking
program.
Aid to Afghanistan and to other
Cuts a total of $1.00 billion from the
Cuts a total of $250 million from the
governments col aborating with U.S.
request, including $650.0 million from
request, including $200.0 million from
policy in Afghanistan.
Coalition Support Funds and $200.0
Commanders Emergency Response
million from Commanders Emergency
Program (CERP).
Response Program (CERP).
$911.0 million request to decommission Cuts $470.0 million that would not be
n/c
the nuclear-powered carrier Enterprise. needed until FY2014, directing the
Navy to fund the project on a year-by-
year basis.
$463.0 million request for Energy
n/c
Cuts the entire amount on grounds that
Department contribution to fund for
payments must be authorized by
environmental cleanup at U.S. uranium
legislation outside jurisdiction of Armed
enrichment facilities.
Services Committee.
Notes: The notation “n/c” [“no change”] signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Military Personnel Issues
H.R. 4310 as passed by the House and S. 3254 as reported by the Senate committee would
authorize a 1.7% military pay raise, as requested. Both also would reject Administration proposals
to reduce the size of the Air Force and associated reserve components.
In their respective reports on the two bills, the Armed Services Committees of the House and
Senate each express concern that the Administration’s plan to reduce the Army and Marine Corps
by a total of 92,000 by the end of FY2017 may cut too deep. However, both bills would authorize
the Administration’s proposed reductions in the number of active-duty personnel for the Army,
Navy, and Marine Corps in FY2013 (Table 7).
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 7. Current and Proposed FY2013 End-Strength
for Active and Reserve Component Forces
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
passed by the House
reported by SASC
Service
FY2012
FY2013
Authorized
Request
number
change from
number
change from
authorized
request
authorized
request
ACTIVE FORCES
Army
562,000 552,100 552,100
0
552,100
0
Navy
325,700 322,700 322,700
0
322,700
0
Marine
Corps
202,100 197,300 197,300
0
197,300
0
Air
Force
332,800 328,900 329,597 +697 330,383 +1,483
TOTAL Active Forces
1,422,600
1,401,000
1,401,697
+697
1,401,560
+1,483
SELECTED RESERVE
Army National Guard
358,200
358,200
358,200
0
358,200
0
Army
Reserve
205,000 205,000 205,000
0
205,000
0
Navy
Reserve
66,200 66,200 66,200 0 66,200 0
Marine Corps Reserve
39,600
39,600
39,600
0
39,600
0
Air National Guard
106,700
101,600
105,005
+4,405
106,435
+4,835
Air Force Reserve
71,400
70,500
72,428
+1,928
72,428
+1,928
TOTAL Selected Reserve
847,100
837,400
843,733
+6,333
844,163
+6,763
Note: The “Selected Reserve” are those reservists enrolled in units that assemble for drill periods a certain
number of times annually, including one period of two weeks duration. Service members enrol ed in other
reserve categories do not participate in regular drills.
Proposed Reductions in Personnel and Force Structure
Air Force Cuts
Both versions of the bill contain provisions that would block the Administration’s proposal to
disband several Air Force units and retire more than 300 aircraft. In testimony before the Senate
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on March 14, 2012, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley
said he would defer the proposed changes until Congress completes action on the FY2013
defense funding bills. In a June 22, 2012, letter to Senate Defense Subcommittee Chairman
Daniel K. Inouye, Defense Secretary Panetta went further, saying he would defer any changes to
the force structure of the Air Force—including some that had been authorized and funded in prior
budgets—until Congress completes work on the FY2013 budget.
The House bill would authorize 7,816 personnel more than requested for the Air Force and its
associated reserve components to staff units that had been slated for disbanding. Besides the
Administration’s request of $150.5 million for the additional personnel, H.R. 4310 would add to
the request $699.2 million to continue operating those units, plus $400.4 million to continue
purchasing C-27 cargo planes and RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk reconnaissance drones. The
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Administration had proposed mothballing the C-27s and Block 30 Global Hawks already in hand
and terminating plans to buy more of each.6
The Senate committee bill would authorize 8,246 more personnel than had been requested for the
Air Force and associated reserve components. S. 3254 also includes provisions that would add to
the budget request a total of $1.40 billion to maintain the status quo pending recommendations by
March 31, 2013, of a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force that the bill would
establish (§§1701-1709).
However, the Senate committee bill would not challenge the Administration’s proposal to dispose
of the C-27s and Global Hawk Block 30s. In fact, it would—in effect—rescind $544 million
appropriated for Global Hawk in prior years, using those funds instead to cover some of the cost
of the FY2013 budget.
Ship Retirements
The House bill would bar the Navy from retiring three of the four Aegis cruisers the service wants
to lay up as a cost-saving measure. However, H.R. 4310 would approve a reduction in Navy end-
strength from 325,700 to 322,700, as requested. The Armed Services Committee said the Navy
could man the three ships even after absorbing that reduction. The bill would allow the Navy to
retire, as requested, the fourth cruiser, the USS Port Royal, although that ship—commissioned in
1994—is the newest of the Aegis cruisers and one of the few that has been modified to shoot
down ballistic missiles. The ship sustained structural damage when it ran aground off Honolulu in
2009.
S. 3254 would allow the proposed cruiser retirements to proceed.
Army and Marine Corps Drawdown
The Armed Services Committees of both the House and Senate, in their reports on their respective
versions of the defense authorization act, expressed concern over the Administration’s plan to cut
a total of 92,000 active-duty personnel from the Army and Marine Corps by the end of FY2017.
Although both bills would authorize the portion of that long-term reduction that the
Administration has proposed for FY2013 (approving cuts of 9,900 from the Army and 4,800 from
the Marine Corps), the two committees warned that the reduction could undermine morale by
reducing “dwell-time”—that is, the period during which soldiers and Marines are stationed at
their home bases between overseas deployments.
H.R. 4310 includes a provision (§403) that would limit the number of personnel that could be cut
in any one year from 2014 through 2017 to 15,000 from the Army and 5,000 from the Marine
Corps. In its Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the bill, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) said this provision would slow its planned drawdown in ground forces, thus
increasing military personnel and health care costs by more than $500 million in 2014 and by a
total of $1.9 billion through 2019.7
6 The Administration’s proposal to abandon the Block 30 version of the Global Hawk has no effect on other versions of
the Global Hawk long-range, unmanned aircraft used by DOD.
7 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4310—National Defense
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
S. 3254 includes no such provision, but in its report to accompany the bill, the Senate Armed
Services Committee directed DOD to include with each of its annual budget requests for FY2014-
FY2017 two items relevant to this issue:
• A prediction of the ratio of “dwell time” to deployment time for active and
reserve component personnel that would result from the personnel reductions
proposed in that budget; and
• An assessment of whether the proposed reductions could be reversed within one
year, if unforeseen contingencies led to the deployment of more forces than the
budget request had assumed.
TRICARE
Neither the House-passed H.R. 4310 nor the Senate committee-reported S. 3254 would authorize
most of the Administration’s proposed new fees and fee increases for TRICARE beneficiaries and
for retirees who benefit from the so-called TRICARE-for-Life program. Specifically, neither bill
would authorize proposals to
• raise TRICARE-for-Life premiums for military retirees using a three-tier model
linking the size of each beneficiary’s increase to the amount of his or her military
retired pay;
• link increases in TRICARE’s so-called “catastrophic cap”—the maximum
amount a family would have to pay in a single year—to increases in the federal
government’s National Health Expenditure index; and
• increase the annual enrollment fees for the TRICARE Prime plan and introduce
enrollment fees for the other TRICARE plans, including TRICARE for Life.
The House bill (§718) would allow increases in the TRICARE co-pays for brand and non-
formulary drugs, but at a lower rate than current law would allow. This section of the bill further
provides that, beginning in 2014, pharmacy co-payments would be indexed to the annual retiree
cost-of-living adjustment. The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot
program that would use the national mail-order pharmacy program to refill prescription
maintenance medications for each TRICARE for Life beneficiary (§717). All told, H.R. 4310
would add $1.21 billion to the amount requested in the budget to compensate for savings the
Administration had anticipated would result from the proposed TRICARE changes the House bill
would not make.
S. 3254 would allow the proposed increase in TRICARE pharmacy co-pays at the rate allowed by
current law. It also would authorize $452 million more than was requested for DOD’s health care
program to compensate for savings projected to have resulted from TRICARE changes the bill
would not authorize.
(...continued)
Authorization Act for FY2013,” accessed at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Abortion
The Senate committee-reported bill includes a provision (§711) that would authorize the use of
DOD funds to provide abortions in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
Same-Sex Marriage
The House bill includes a provision (§537) that would prohibit the use of DOD facilities for any
marriage or “marriage-like” ceremony unless the ceremony involves the union of one man and
one woman. The bill also includes a provision (§536) that would prohibit any military chaplain
from being required to perform any duty or religious ceremony contrary to the chaplain’s
conscience or religious beliefs. The provision also would bar any adverse personnel action against
a chaplain on the basis of his refusal to comply with any order prohibited by the Section.
Women in Combat Roles
In a February 2012 report mandated by Section 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2011,8 DOD announced its intention to relax several policies that have
restricted the assignment of women to ground combat units and their associated support units.
One of those announced changes was the development of “gender-neutral physical standards for
occupational specialties closed [to women] due to physical requirements.” H.R. 4310 includes a
provision (§526) that would require DOD to report to Congress on the feasibility of developing
such standards.
The House Armed Services Committee noted, in its report on H.R. 4310, that counterinsurgency
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan “place female service members in direct combat action with
the enemy.” Noting that some women who had been deployed in that theater were critical of the
body armor currently issued to U.S. troops (which was designed for male body morphology), the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to assess the need for body armor tailored to female
body types.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report on S. 3254, called the policy changes
announced in DOD’s February 2012 report “a small step in the right direction,” but urged DOD to
further relax current restrictions on the assignment of female service personnel, saying: “By
limiting their use of the talents of female service members, the Department [of Defense] and the
services are handicapping efforts to field the highest quality force possible.”
The Senate committee directed the Secretary of Defense to report by February 1, 2013, on its
implementation of the policy changes announced in the February report and to “make
recommendations for regulatory and statutory change that the Secretary considers appropriate to
increase service opportunities for women in the armed forces.”
8 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R), Report to Congress on the Reviews of
Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces, February, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Ground Combat Equipment
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected ground force equipment is
summarized in Table A-3. Following are highlights:
M-1 tanks, Bradley troop carriers, Hercules tank recovery vehicles
As part of DOD’s strategic reorientation,9 the Army plans to dissolve at least 8 of its 47 active-
duty brigade combat teams (BCTs),10 including at least 2 of its 15 so-called “heavy” BCTs—units
equipped with dozens of M-1 Abrams tanks and Bradley armored troop carriers. The Army has
not decided the final number of active BCTs it wants to retain; how many of that number will be
heavy BCTs; or the number of tanks, Bradleys, and other armored combat vehicles in each heavy
unit.
In its report on H.R. 4310, the House committee expressed concern that budget pressures might
induce the Army to eliminate too many heavy BCTs (which cost more to equip and operate than
other units). The panel also objected to DOD’s plan to shut down, from 2013 through 2016, the
production lines that upgrade M-1 tanks (in Lima, OH) and Bradleys (in York, PA). Under the
Administration’s plan, the two lines would re-open in 2017 to further modify tanks and Bradleys.
The House committee maintained that it was not clear either (1) that the planned temporary shut-
downs would save very much or (2) that the network of suppliers needed to support planned
future upgrades could be reconstituted after a three-year break. The panel also contended that
there was a need for additional upgraded combat vehicles and that pending Army decisions might
further increase the requirement. Accordingly, the House bill would increase above the budget
request the amounts authorized for three of the Army’s heavy combat vehicles, authorizing
• $255.4 million (an increase of $181.0 million) to convert older M-1As to the M-
1A2 SEP configuration, with improvements to night-vision equipment and other
components;
• $288.2 million (an increase of $140.0 million) to upgrade Bradleys; and
• $169.9 million to buy 51 Hercules tank recovery vehicles, designed to tow
damaged tanks to safety (an increase of $62.0 million and 20 vehicles).
The House committee also urged the Army to accelerate a program to equip its 1980s-vintage
Paladin mobile howitzers with a new chassis and a drive train adapted from the Bradley troop
carrier.
S. 3254, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, would mirror the House bill’s
authorization of $255.4 million to convert older tanks to the M-1A2 SEP configuration. It would
authorize the amount requested to upgrade Bradleys but would authorize a total of $230.9 million
for Hercules tank recovery vehicles.
9 See “New Strategic Guidance”, above.
10 Brigade combat teams (BCTs), the Army’s basic combat units, are manned by about 4,000 soldiers.
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
New Generation of Tactical Vehicles
H.R. 4310 and S. 3254 each would authorize the amounts requested to develop a new generation
of Army vehicles:
• $639.9 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle, intended to replace the Bradley;
• $74.1 million for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), intended to
replace the Vietnam War-vintage M-113 troop carrier now used in various roles,
including battlefield ambulance and supply hauler; and
• $116.8 million for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), intended to succeed
the jeep-like “Humvee” (HMMWV).
Naval Systems
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected naval systems is summarized in
Table A-5. Following are highlights.
Attack Submarines
As requested, H.R. 4310 and S. 3254 each would authorize $3.22 billion for two Virginia-class
attack submarines. But both bills also would authorize $1.65 billion—$778.0 million more than
requested—for long lead-time components to be used for an additional submarine to be procured
in FY2014. The addition would allow the Navy to budget for two submarines in FY2014—as had
been assumed in DOD’s February 2011 budget projection—rather than one sub, as is assumed in
the budget projection published in February 2012.
Each of the bills also includes a provision (§126 of H.R. 4310 and §124 of S. 3254) that would
permit the use of a multi-year contract for procuring up to 10 Virginia-class attack submarines in
FY2014-FY2018, and the use of incremental funding11 in such a contract. The Navy
had requested authority for a multi-year contract to buy nine submarines in that period. The
service did not request authority to use incremental funding in the contract, but testified that it
wanted to find a way, if possible, to buy a second Virginia-class boat in FY2014 (which would be
the 10th boat in the multi-year contract), and that doing so would likely require the use of
incremental funding.
DDG-51 Aegis Destroyers
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills each contain a provision relating to Aegis
destroyers that parallels in some respects their respective provisions relating to attack subs. In
both H.R. 4310 and S. 3254, Section 125 would permit the Navy to sign a multi-year contract to
11 In general, Congress requires that DOD budgets for weapons procurement adhere to a “full funding” policy, under
which the entire procurement cost of a weapon or piece of equipment (except for certain “long lead-time” components)
is appropriated in the year in which the item is procured. Under “incremental funding,” a weapon's cost is divided into
two or more annual portions, or increments, that reflect the need to make annual progress payments to the contractor as
the weapon is built. Congress then approves each year's increment as part of its action on that year's budget. See CRS
Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
buy 10 Aegis destroyers in FY2013-FY2017. The Navy had requested authority for a multi-year
contract to procure nine of the ships in that period, but indicated in testimony that it hoped that
bids submitted for that contract might come in low enough to finance the procurement of a 10th
ship.
As requested, both bills would authorize $3.05 billion for two destroyers in FY2013. But the
House bill also would authorize $581.3 million—$115 million more than requested—for long
lead-time components to be used for an additional (10th) ship.
Ballistic Missile Submarines
In February 2011, DOD projected a FY2013 budget request totaling $1.20 billion to continue
developing a new class of 12 missile-launching submarines, designated SSBN(X). These ships
are intended to replace the 14 Ohio-class subs built in the 1980s and 1990s, which are slated to
begin retiring in 2027. The first of the new subs was slated to begin construction in FY2019. The
Administration’s FY2013 budget request, unveiled in February 2012, would provide less than half
of the amount earlier projected for FY2013—$564.9 million—and would defer construction of
the first of the new ships until FY2021.
FY2013 R&D funding related to SSBN(X)
In its report on H.R. 4310, the House
(amounts in millions of dollars)
committee objected that, under the new
Projected Requested
schedule, the number of missile subs in
H.R. 4310 S. 3254
2/2011
2/2012
service would drop to 10 or 11 ships for a
dozen years (2029-2041). It added to the
Ship
857.495 483.095 857.495 483.095
design
bill a provision (§121) requiring the
Navy to maintain a force of at least 12
Nuclear
ballistic missile submarines. The panel
reactor
347.095 81.817 81.817 81.817
design
also added $374.4 million to the
authorization requested to design the
Total 1,204.590 564.913 939.312 564.913 planned new sub, increasing that
authorization to the level that had been projected in 2011. The House bill would authorize the
amount requested to develop the new missile sub’s nuclear powerplant.
S. 3254 would authorize the amounts requested for SSBN(X).
Action on Other Naval Programs
As requested, H.R. 4310 and S. 3254 each would authorize $608.2 million as the first of six
annual funding increments12 for procurement of the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy, slated
for delivery to the Navy in 2022. However, the House bill includes a provision (§123) that would
allow the Navy to spend no more than half that amount in FY2013 until the Secretary of the Navy
sends Congress a plan to implement detailed management and construction policies intended to
keep the ship on budget.
12 In addition to the $8.08 billion currently budgeted for construction of the ship in six annual increments (FY2013-
FY2018), the ship’s total projected $11.4 billion cost includes $3.33 billion previously appropriated for long lead-time
components in the previous six budgets (FY2007-FY2012).
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
In both H.R. 4310 and S. 3254, Section 122—requested by the Navy—would permit incremental
funding for construction of this new carrier and its predecessor, the USS Gerald R. Ford, already
under construction, to be spread over six years. Existing law permits five-year incremental
funding for aircraft carriers.
The House bill would authorize a total of $665.1 million more than was requested to fund
upgrades and continued operation of three of the four Aegis cruisers the Administration proposed
retiring in FY2013. The largest single component of the addition is $170.0 million for five MH-
60R Seahawk helicopters, which are carried by cruisers and many other warships.
The House bill also includes a provision (§1021) repealing Section 1012 of the FY2008 National
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181), which required all major combatant vessels to be
designed with nuclear power systems.
Aircraft and Long-Range Strike Systems
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected aircraft and long-range strike
programs is summarized in Table A-10. Following are some highlights.
Long-Range Bombers, Strike Weapons
As requested, each bill would authorize $291.7 million to continue developing a new, long-range
bomber the Air Force wants to begin procuring in the 2020s. The House-passed H.R. 4310
includes a provision (§211) requiring that the airplane be equipped to carry nuclear weapons. The
House rejected by a vote of 112-308 an amendment to delay the program by 10 years and
eliminate the authorization for FY2013 funds (see H.Amdt. 1108 in Table 8).
Both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills also would authorize, as requested,
$110.4 million for development of a “conventional, prompt global strike” system designed to
place a precision-guided, non-nuclear warhead on a target anywhere in the world within minutes.
The House bill also would authorize, as requested, a total of $628.3 million to develop and install
various modifications in B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers currently in service. In its report on the bill,
the House Armed Services Committee expressed disappointment that DOD had budgeted less
money for these bomber upgrades in FY2013 than it had projected in February 2011. The
committee directed the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare a report on the advantages and
disadvantages of continuing a now-cancelled upgrade of the 50-year-old B-52 fleet (designated
CONECT).
The Senate committee bill would authorize the requested bomber modification funds except for
$15.0 million it would cut from the $327.4 million B-2 request on grounds of unspecified
“efficiencies.”
Carrier-Based UAVs
Each bill would authorize a total of $264.7 million for two programs aimed at developing a long-
range, stealthy drone aircraft to fly reconnaissance and attack missions from carriers. The
Administration requested $142.3 million for the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) project,
which is intended to test the feasibility of the project, and $142.5 million for the Unmanned
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) project, which is intended to
produce an operational weapon. S. 3254 would allocate funds between the two programs as
requested. However, the House bill would cut $75 million from the amount requested for
UCLASS and added the same amount to the request for UCAV, directing the Navy to slow the
former, more operationally oriented program while it conducts additional research in the UCAS
program. The panel also added to the bill a provision (§212) requiring the Navy to follow that
course.
Ballistic Missile Defense
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Table A-1. Following are some highlights.
H.R. 4310 would authorize $9.06 billion for programs managed by the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA), which is $1.31 billion more than the Administration requested. More than half that
increase ($680 million) would be authorized (§227) to be spent in FY2012-FY2017 for Israel to
procure and operate its Iron Dome system, designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery
shells. Another major component of the House bill’s increase is an addition $460 million to the
amount requested for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) anti-missile system currently
based in Alaska and California, of which $103.0 million is to begin work on a third base which is
to be located on the East Coast.
The Senate committee-reported bill would add $410 million to the MDA request, including no
additional funds for GMD and $210.0 million for Iron Dome in FY2013.
Neither bill would authorize the $400.9 million requested to continue development of the
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a program jointly funded by the United States,
Germany, and Italy to develop a mobile air and missile defense system for combat units in the
field. The system would incorporate the Patriot PAC-3 missile. Plans to procure MEADS as an
operational system have been shelved, but the three partner countries plan to continue the
development program in hopes of harvesting technologies that could be incorporated into other
systems. Under the tri-national agreement governing the program, the United States would incur
significant costs if the program were terminated.
House Missile Defense Initiatives
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System
H.R. 4310 would authorize $1.26 billion for the GMD system, an increase of $460 million over
the request. Of that increase, $100 million is to begin developing a plan and a supporting
environmental impact statement (required by Section 223 of the bill) to establish by the end of
2015 an anti-missile interceptor site on the East Coast. The plan is to evaluate the effectiveness,
from an East Coast launch site, of various interceptor missiles including the three-stage weapon
currently deployed at the existing GMD sites in Alaska and California, a two-stage version of the
GMD missile, and several versions of the Navy’s SM-3 Standard missile.
Another provision (§224) requires that, of the remaining GMD authorization increase in the bill,
$205 million shall be used to begin the upgrade of the six silos in Missile Field 1 (at Ft. Greeley,
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
AK), which the FY 2013 budget request recommends be shut down and moved to near mothball
status. The provision also requires that DOD refurbish already deployed GMD interceptors.
The House bill also includes the following GMD-related provisions:
• Section 225 would require that the GMD system be tested against a target ICBM
during 2013. Currently, such a test is scheduled for late 2015.
• Section 233 would require the Director, MDA, to develop a plan to increase the
rate of flight and ground tests of the GMD System to ensure there are at least
three such tests every two years.
• Section 222 would require that the Missile Defense Agency submit a plan to
ensure that the kill vehicle for the Next Generation Aegis Missile can be adapted
to also serve as an improved kill vehicle for the GMD system.
European Missile Defense
H.R. 4310 includes a provision (§230) that would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to submit a plan for how the United States will share with other NATO allies
the expense of a planned missile defense for Europe designated the Phased Adaptive Approach
(PAA). The system, which is to incorporate land-based components of the Navy’s Aegis anti-
missile system using various models of the SM-3 Standard missile and AN/TPY-2 radars, is
intended to intercept missiles launched from the Middle East at Europe and—eventually—at U.S.
territory.
The bill would require the United States to submit to NATO a specific financing request for PAA
and would prohibit the obligation of more than 25% of the funds appropriated for the program
until NATO responds to the U.S. request. The President could waive that restriction if it is
determined to be vital to the national security of the United States.
Missile Defense Radars
H.R. 4310 would authorize $397.4 million to buy two relocatable AN/TPY-2 missile defense
radars, instead of the $$227.4 million requested to buy one. The radar is used to support the
Army’s THAAD anti-missile system and is planned for inclusion in the Europe-based PAA.
The bill would authorize $9.7 million, as requested, for operation of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar
(SBX), a missile-detection radar mounted on a self-propelled ocean drilling platform. For
FY2012, Congress had appropriated, as requested, $167 million for SBX, which was to have been
based in Alaska to monitor North Korean missile launches. The FY2013 budget would
downgrade the radar’s mission, putting it into a semi-mothballed status from which it could be
deployed either to support U.S. anti-missile tests or to observe tests of long-range North Korean
missiles.
Although the House committee did not add funding to the Administration’s FY2013 request for
SBX, it contended that the budget was not large enough to operate the radar for an extended
period either to monitor tests or to beef up the GMD missile defense system for U.S. territory.
The committee ordered the director of MDA to report on the cost of keeping the radar in a state of
readiness that would allow its deployment on 14 days’ notice for up to 60 days per year. The
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
committee added to the bill a provision (§228) requiring that SBX be maintained in such a state
of readiness.
Defense Space Programs
As they had done in action on the FY2012 DOD budget, the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees supported a policy of spreading across several budgets the cost of some expensive
space satellites, but rejected the specific funding technique requested by DOD for that purpose.
For two satellite systems, DOD proposed that Congress include in the FY2013 funding legislation
provisions that would appropriate, in addition to the funds requested for FY2013, a total of $6
billion in so-called “advance appropriations” that would become available over the course of the
following five years (FY2014-FY2018). According to the Air Force, this would allow a “block
buy” of the two satellites, thus providing stability for the space industrial base, reducing cost, and
increasing the incentive for satellite manufacturers to invest in new technologies.
In general, the congressional defense committees have not supported requests for advance
appropriations because they limited Congress’s oversight of programs. Instead, the committees
each approved the proposed block buys, but told the Air Force to sign multi-year contracts for the
satellites that the service would pay for by “incremental funding,” seeking congressional approval
for each year’s increment of payments to the contractor in the annual budget request for that year:
• As requested, H.R. 4310 and S. 3254 each would authorize the Air Force to enter
a fixed-price contract to procure two Space Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS)
satellites, designed to detect the launch of long-range ballistic missiles. To buy
the two satellites in a so-called block buy, the Air Force had requested
authorization of $368.1 million in FY2013 and authorization of advance
appropriations totaling an additional $2.50 billion to be spent in FY2014 through
FY2018. Each of the bills would authorize the $368.1 million requested for
SBIRS funding in FY2013 and would authorize the Air Force to sign a fixed-
price contract for two satellites to be funded incrementally over a period of no
more than six years.
• For two Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Communication
Satellites, the Air Force requested $557.2 million in FY2013 and planned
advance procurement funding totaling $1.93 billion to be spent in FY2014-
FY2017. Each of the bills would authorize the $557.2 million requested for
AEHF in FY2013.
Commercial Satellite Export Rules
On May 17, 2012, the House adopted a floor amendment to H.R. 4310 that would allow the
President to transfer commercial communications satellites and related components from the U.S.
Munitions List, with certain reporting requirements and with prohibitions on exports to countries
with which the United States maintains an arms embargo, including China (See H.Amdt. 1100,
Table 8).
The amendment also addressed concerns that, under the current export control reform initiative,
functional categories of items on the USML will be transferred to the dual-use Commerce Control
List (CCL) without sufficient enumeration as to the items, parts, or components being transferred
under the notification requirements of Section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act. The
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
amendment would require the notification to “include, to the extent practicable, an enumeration
of the items or items to be removed” from the list.13
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
H.R. 4310 would authorize a total of $88.48 billion, the amount requested, for so-called Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO), that is, for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the bill’s
total OCO authorization is the same as the total amount requested, the bill would reallocate
hundreds of millions of dollars within that total.
S. 3254 would authorize $88.18 billion for OCO funding, a reduction of $300.59 million from the
request. The Senate committee-reported bill would make many fewer changes in the
Administration’s proposed allocation of funds within the OCO total.
House Reallocations of OCO Funds
As passed by the House, H.R. 4310 would make four major additions to the Administration’s
OCO request that total $1.61 billion:
• $680.0 million to support Israeli purchase of the Iron Dome system, designed to
intercept artillery shells and short-range rockets;
• $500.0 million to buy equipment for National Guard and reserve units;
• $200.0 million for a Defense Rapid Innovation fund; and
• $227.4 million, which the Administration requested as part of the base budget,
for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), a
multi-service DOD agency charged with reducing the effectiveness of so-called
“improvised explosive devices,” which have been a major source of U.S. combat
casualties in recent years.
Those four additions to the OCO budget request, plus several smaller increases, are exactly offset
by reductions H.R. 4310 would make to other elements of the Administration’s request. Several
of these cuts would come in programs that support non-combat activity in Afghanistan and Iraq,
including reductions of
• $129.0 million from the $179.0 million requested for the Task Force for Business
and Stability Operations in Afghanistan;
• $200.0 million from the $400.0 million requested for the Commanders
Emergency Response Program (CERP);
• $250 million from the $2.57 billion requested for depot maintenance of
helicopters, vehicles, and other equipment being withdrawn from Afghanistan
and Iraq (a reduction which the House Armed Services Committee justified on
grounds that more work was budgeted for than could be executed);
13 For additional information, see CRS Report R41916, The U.S. Export Control System and the President’s Reform
Initiative, by Ian F. Fergusson and Paul K. Kerr.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
• $650.0 million from the $1.75 billion requested for Coalition Support Funds,
which reimburse certain costs incurred by countries such as Pakistan, Jordan,
Mongolia, and Georgia from their support of U.S.-led efforts in Afghanistan and
Iraq; and
• $25.0 million from the $400.0 million requested for the Afghan Infrastructure
Fund.
The House bill also would cut a total of $280.8 million from the requests for various accounts on
grounds that, historically, DOD had spent less than was appropriated for those programs.14
Senate Bill OCO Budget Cuts
Like the House bill, S. 3254 would transfer to the OCO accounts $227.4 million for JIEDDO,
which the Administration requested as part of its base budget. However, the Senate committee bill
would offset most of the increase by reducing JIEDDO funding in the OCO account by $200.0
million on grounds that the program, typically, had not spent its entire annual appropriation
(“historic underexecution,” in the words of the House committee report) and cutting an additional
$29.0 million on grounds that the program was spending too much on service contractors.
Like the House bill, S. 3254 would authorize $200.0 million of the $400.0 million requested for
CERP. The Senate bill also would cut $50.0 million from the $400.0 million requested for the
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees
H.R. 4310 contains a subtitle addressing issues related to persons captured in the course of
hostilities against Al Qaeda and associated forces, including those detained at the U.S. Naval
Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Several of the provisions in H.R. 4310 seek to extend the
effect or clarify the scope of detainee provisions contained in the 2012 NDAA. The bill also
establishes new restrictions on the transfer or release of detainees held by the United States in
Afghanistan, establishes new reporting requirements relating to detainees held on U.S. naval
vessels, and, as amended, generally requires that foreign terrorists accused of attacking a U.S.
target be tried in a military tribunal.
The consideration and enactment of the 2012 NDAA led to significant debate regarding the extent
to which U.S. persons may be detained as enemy belligerents under either the act itself or pre-
existing law.15 H.R. 4310 contains several provisions addressing this issue, including the ability of
persons in military custody to seek judicial review of the legality of their detention.
The bill contains congressional findings regarding the scope of detention authority conferred by
the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, P.L. 107-40) and the 2012 NDAA, the
due process rights afforded to U.S. citizens placed in military detention, and the ability of U.S.
citizens and persons held at Guantanamo to challenge the legality of their detention via habeas
14 This same argument of “historical underexecution” also was the House committee’s stated justification from the
$200 million reduction to the request for CERP.
15 For background, see CRS Report R42143, The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012: Detainee Matters,
by Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia.
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
corpus proceedings (§§1031, 1032). As introduced, the bill also contained a provision specifying
that nothing in the AUMF should be construed as denying the availability of habeas to persons
detained in the United States (§1033). The House adopted by a vote of 243-173 an amendment to
this provision to refer only to the availability of habeas for “persons lawfully in the United States
when detained.” The amended provision also requires that the executive notify Congress when
such persons are placed in military detention, and permits covered detainees to file habeas
applications within 30 days of being placed in military custody (H.Amdt. 1126, Table 8).
The House rejected by a vote of 182-238 an amendment to the bill (H.Amdt. 1127, Table 8) that
would have barred indefinite military detention pursuant to the AUMF within the United States.
However, it adopted by a vote of 249-171 an amendment (H.Amdt. 1105, Table 8) providing that,
in the event that a foreign terrorist has attacked a U.S. target and may be subject to trial for the
offense before a military commission, the accused may only be tried before a military
commission, rather than in federal court.
H.R. 4310 also contains several provisions dealing specifically with Guantanamo detainees. It
extends through FY2013 the existing funding bar on Guantanamo detainee transfers into the
United States (§1036); the prohibition on the use of funds to construct or modify facilities within
the United States to house detainees currently held at Guantanamo (§1038); and, with minor
modifications, the existing limitations and certification requirements relating to the transfer of
Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries (§1037). The bill also makes minor modifications to
the certification and reporting requirements contained in the 2012 NDAA relating to Guantanamo
detainee transfers to foreign countries (§1043). The bill also prohibits Guantanamo detainees who
are “repatriated” to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of
the Marshall Islands from being able to travel to the United States (§1035). It further requires
annual reports to be submitted to Congress regarding the recidivism of former Guantanamo
detainees (§1039).
H.R. 1430 also contains provisions concerning detainees held abroad in locations other than
Guantanamo. It requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report regarding the use of naval
vessels to detain persons pursuant to the AUMF, and requires congressional notification whenever
such detention occurs (§1040). It also establishes certification and congressional notification
requirements relating to the transfer or release of non-U.S. or Afghan nationals held by the United
States at the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan (§1041), along with a report on the
recidivism of former detainees who were held there (§1042).
The bill also extends the authority to make rewards for individuals who provide information or
non-lethal assistance to the U.S. government or an ally in connection counterterrorist military
operations or force protection (§1034).
The only detainee-related provisions of S. 3254 would extend for one year certain provisions of
law adopted in prior years that otherwise would expire.
Smith-Mundt Act16
Section 1097 would amend and restate Section 501 of the United States Information and
Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (“Smith-Mundt Act”; P.L. 80-402, 22 U.S.C. §1461) as well as
16 This section was prepared by Matthew C. Weed, Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation.
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Section 208 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (P.L. 99-93;
22 U.S.C. §1461-1a). As currently constituted, together these two provisions authorize the
Secretary of State to conduct public diplomacy programs that provide information about the
United States, its people, and its culture to foreign publics, but prohibit their dissemination within
the United States until 12 years after the initial dissemination or preparation for dissemination of
such information. Before 12 years have elapsed, Members of Congress, media organizations, and
research students and scholars may examine such information. Media organizations and
researchers may only examine such information at the Department of State. In addition, no funds
authorized and appropriated for State Department public diplomacy programs may be used to
influence public opinion in the United States.
The proposed amendments to these provisions in Section 1097 primarily would remove the
prohibition on domestic dissemination of public diplomacy information produced by the
Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) intended for foreign
audiences, while maintaining the prohibition on using public diplomacy funds to influence U.S.
public opinion.17 Proponents of amending these two sections argue that the ban on domestic
dissemination of public diplomacy information is impractical given the global reach of modern
communications, especially the Internet, and that it unnecessarily prevents valid U.S. government
communications with foreign publics due to U.S. officials’ fear of violating the ban. They assert
as well that lifting the ban will promote the transparency in the United States of U.S. public
diplomacy and international broadcasting activities conducted abroad. Critics of lifting the ban
state that it may open the door to more aggressive U.S. government activities to persuade U.S.
citizens to support government policies, and might also divert the focus of State Department and
the BBG communications from foreign publics, reducing their effectiveness.18
House Floor Amendments
Following are selected amendments on which the House took action during consideration
of H.R. 4310:
Table 8. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 4310)
House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
Pakistan
Rohrabacher H.Amdt. Prohibit funding for assistance to Pakistan in FY2013
Rejected
1102
84-335
17 Other provisions in law would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds for “publicity and propaganda” within the
United States, including Section 1031(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Division
A of P.L. 111-84, 10 U.S.C. §2241a) placing this restriction on the Department of Defense, and government-wide
restrictions placed in annual appropriations acts. For a review of U.S. law regulating federal communications in the
United States, see CRS Report R42406, Congressional Oversight of Agency Public Communications: Implications of
Agency New Media Use, by Kevin R. Kosar, and CRS Report RL32750, Public Relations and Propaganda:
Restrictions on Executive Agency Activities, by Kevin R. Kosar.
18 For further discussion of the Smith-Mundt Act’s domestic dissemination ban, see CRS Report R40989, U.S. Public
Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues, by Kennon H. Nakamura and Matthew C. Weed.
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
Connolly H.Amdt.
Withhold Coalition Support Funds from Pakistan until it allows
Agreed to
1104
transit of U.S. and NATO supplies in and out of Afghanistan
412-1
Cicilline H.Amdt.
Condition availability of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund on
Agreed to
1139
certification that Pakistan is making significant efforts to counter
voice vote
(en bloc 5)
the use of IEDs.
Flake H.Amdt.
Withhold 90% of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund until 30 days Agreed to
1143
after Secretaries of State and Defense update report to
voice vote
Congress on the strategy for using those funds.
Afghanistan
Lee H.Amdt.
Provide that funds authorized for operations in Afghanistan be
Rejected
1103
used only for the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces and
113-303
contractors.
DeLauro H.Amdt.
Prohibit purchase for Afghan security forces of helicopters from
Agreed to
1111
any company control ed by a government that has supplied
voice vote
weapons to Syria or to a state sponsor of terrorism
(en bloc 2)
Cicilline H.Amdt.
Condition availability of Afghan Security Forces Fund on
Agreed to
1139
certification that Afghanistan is “taking demonstrable steps” to
voice vote
(en bloc 5)
recruit adequate number of personnel for Afghan Public
Protection Force.
Iran
Lee H.Amdt.
Create the position of Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all
Rejected
1130
diplomatic avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to
77-344
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Conyers
H.Amdt.
Stipulate that nothing in this bill shall be construed as
Agreed to
1137
authorizing the use of military force against Iran.
voice vote
(en bloc 4)
Detainee Issues
Rooney H.Amdt.
Direct DOD to hold detainee trials at the U.S. facility at
Agreed to
1105
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, not in the United States.
249-171
Gohmert H.Amdt.
Stipulate that neither the 2001 Authorization of Military Force
Agreed to
1126
against Iraq nor the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act 243-173
deny any constitutional right, including habeus corpus, to anyone
entitled to such rights.
Smith H.Amdt.
Amend the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act to
Rejected
1127
eliminate “indefinite detention” of anyone detainees by
182-238
providing for immediate transfer to trial in a federal or state
court.
Strategic Weapons and Arms Control Agreements
Markey H.Amdt.
Delay development of long-range, nuclear-armed bomber for 10
Rejected
1109
years and reduce the bill by $291.7 million, the amount it would
112-308
authorize for that program, as requested
Price H.Amdt.
Prohibit the President from making unilateral reductions to U.S.
Agreed to
1122
nuclear forces.
241-179
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
Johnson H.Amdt.
Require the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint
Rejected
1121
Chiefs of Staff to report to Congress whether the nuclear arms
reductions required by the so-called “new START” treaty are in
175-245
the national security interests of the United States.
Rehberg H.Amdt.
Prohibit elimination of any one of the three legs of the U.S.
Agreed to
1140
strategic nuclear “triad” (land-based ICBMs, sub-launched
238-162
missiles, and bombers) and prohibit reductions to the U.S.
strategic nuclear force pursuant to the “new START” treaty
unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that (1) Russia is
required by the treaty to make commensurate reductions; and
(2) Russia is not acquiring nuclear-armed systems not covered
by the treaty that could reach U.S. territory.
Johnson H.Amdt.
State as a “finding” of Congress that the deployment of tactical
Rejected
1120
nuclear weapons to South Korea would be destabilizing and not
160-261
in the U.S. national interest.
Lamborn H.Amdt.
Bar the expenditure of any funds for Russia under the
Agreed to
1131
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program,—which is
voice vote
intended to dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the
former Soviet—unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that
Russia no longer is supporting the Syrian regime and is not
assisting Syria, North Korea, or Iran in developing weapons of
mass destruction. The Secretary could waive the prohibition on
grounds of national security.
Franks H.Amdt.
Bar the expenditure of any funds for Russia under the
Agreed to
1135
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program,—which is
241-181
intended to dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the
former Soviet—unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that
Russia no longer is supporting the Syrian regime and is not
assisting Syria, North Korea, or Iran in developing weapons of
mass destruction. The Secretary could waive the prohibition on
grounds of national security.
Polis H.Amdt.
Reduce by $403 million the amount authorized for the Ground-
Rejected
1110
based Mid-course Missile Defense (GMD) system.
165-252
Duncan H.Amdt.
Bar the use of any funds authorized by the bill for any
Agreed to
1128
organization established by the United Nations in connection
229-193
with the Law of the Sea (LOS) Treaty.
Budget Process
Lee H.Amdt.
Direct the President to reduce the amount authorized by this
Rejected
1125
bill to be appropriated by a total of $8.231 billion.
170-252
Rigell H.Amdt.
Replace the discretionary spending caps for FY2013 with caps
Agreed to
1123
equivalent to those set by the House-passed Budget Resolution
(H Res 112-xxx), contingent on the enactment of spending
220-201
reductions over five years at least as large as the reductions that
would have resulted from sequestration.
Flake H.Amdt.
Provide that funds authorized for appropriation to pay for
Agreed to
1111
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) can be spent only on
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
items and activities requested by the President in the OCO
portion of the FY2013 budget request.
Other Subjects
Congressional Research Service
31
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
McCollum H.Amdt. Spend no more than $200.0 million on military bands.
Agreed to
1138
voice vote
(en bloc 4)
Duncan H.Amdt.
Prohibit the use of funds for joint military exercises with Egypt if Agreed to
1137
that country withdraws from its 1970 peace treaty with Israel.
voice vote
(en bloc 3)
Thornberry H.Amdt. Amend the Smith-Mundt Act to repeal the bar on domestic
Agreed to
1137
dissemination of public diplomacy material produced for
voice vote
(en bloc 4)
dissemination to foreign audiences.
Price H.Amdt.
Require the Department of Justice to investigate possible
Agreed to
1142
violations of law regarding leaks of sensitive information about
379-38
U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence capabilities.
Smith H.Amdt.
Remove commercial satellites from the Munitions Control List.
Agreed to
1100
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Smith H.Amdt.
Establish a Sexual Assault Oversight Council to provide
Agreed to
1119
independent oversight of DOD efforts to prevent and prosecute voice vote
(en bloc 3)
sexual assault in the armed forces.
Bartlett H.Amdt.
Prohibit federal agencies from requiring contractor to sign a
Agreed to
1106
Project Labor Agreement as a condition of winning a federal
211-209
construction project.
Coffman H.Amdt.
Repeal the current moratorium on A-76 “contracting out”
Rejected
1112
competitions.
209-211
Wittman H.Amdt.
Require that a uniformed military chain of command, headed by
Agreed tp
1116
a commissioned military officer, control the Army National
voice vote
Military Cemeteries.
Notes: “House Amendment Number” is the number assigned to an amendment by the House Clerk, by which
amendments can be traced through CRS’s Legislative Information System (LIS). It is not the same as the number
assigned to the amendment by the House Rules Committee in H.Rept. 112-485, its report on the rule that
governed debate on amendments to H.R. 4310 (H.Res. 661).
During floor action on the bill, several dozen amendments were aggregated into several en bloc amendments,
each of which was agreed to by voice vote. Individual amendments in this table that were agreed to as a
component of one of those en bloc amendments are so identified.
FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill
DOD Appropriations Overview
The FY2013 DOD appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee May 25,
2012 (H.R. 5856), would provide a total of $599.89 billion for DOD activities other than military
construction,19 $3.09 billion more than the President requested (Table 9).
19 DOD’s budget for the construction of facilities and the construction and operation of military family housing is
funded by H.R. 5854. the FY2013 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
See CRS Report R42586, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations, by
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
In that respect—and in many of its details—the bill parallels H.R. 4310, the House-passed
version of the companion FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). By the same
token, H.R. 5856 is consistent with the defense funding cap set by H.Con.Res. 112, the FY2013
budget resolution adopted by the House March 29, 2012, thus exceeding the defense spending cap
set by the Budget Control Act enacted in August of 2011. On those grounds, the Administration
warned that the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill in its current
form.20
(...continued)
Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga Panangala.
20 OMB, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5856, June 28, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 9. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856)
(budget authority in thousands of dol ars)
FY2013
H.R. 5856
FY2012
FY2013
House
compared
Approp.
Admin.
Committee-
with Admin.
(P.L. 112-74)
Request
reported
request
(H.R. 5856)
Military Personnel
131,090,539 128,430,025 128,462,794 +32,769
Operation and
163,073,141 174,938,933 175,159,569 +220,636
Maintenance
Procurement 104,579,701
97,194,677a 102,496,191 +5,301,514
Research, Development,
72,420,675 69,407,767 69,984,145 +576,378
Test & Evaluation
Revolving and
2,675,529 2,124,320 2,080,820 -43,500
Management Funds
Other DOD Programs
35,593,020
35,430,579
35,865,118
+434,539
Related Agencies
1,061,591
1,054,252
1,025,476
-28,776
General Provisions (net)b -2,597,704
8,000
-3,397,740 -3,405,749
Subtotal: FY2013 Base
507,89 6,492
508,588,553
511,676,373
+3,087,820
Budget
Base Budget Scorekeeping
+10,764,000 +8,057,000 +8,057,000
n/a
Adjustments
Subtotal: Overseas
Contingency
114,965,635 88,210,745 88,208,906 -1,839
Operations (OCO)
OCO Scorekeeping
+117,000 +271,000 +271,000
n/c
Adjustments
TOTAL: FY2013
622,862,127 596,799,298 599,885,279 +3,085,981
DOD Appropriations
Scorekeeping Adjusted
633,743,127 605,127,298 608,213,279 +3,085,981
Totalc
Source: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 112-493, Report on H.R. 5856, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bil , FY2013, pp. 329-342.
Notes: Click here and type the notes, or delete this paragraph
a. In addition to these funds requested for appropriation to be spent in FY2013, the Administration requested
an additional $4.43 billion in so-called “advance appropriations”—funds to be spent in FY2014-FY2017. The
Appropriations and Armed Services Committees of both the House and the Senate rejected the proposal
for “advance appropriations,” accordingly those funds are not included in the tables in this report.
b. The bulk of General Provision funding changes result from provisions that would use previously
appropriated funds for DOD’s FY2013 program, thus reducing the amount of new budget authority
required. For that purpose, H.R. 5856 would withdraw $2.46 billion from the Army Working Capital Fund
and would rescind a total of $1.60 billion appropriated in base budget and OCO accounts for prior years.
c. The bulk of the scorekeeping adjustments are accounted for by the amounts appropriated each year by
permanent law (rather than through annual appropriations bills) for the accrual contribution to fund from
which Medicare-eligible military retirees are covered under the “TRICARE for Life” program. The TRICARE
for Life contributions for FY2013, which are derived from actuarial calculations, are $8.03 billion in the base
budget and $271 million in the OCO account.
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Proposed Administration Savings
Like the House-passed version of the NDAA, the House committee-reported appropriations bill
would add billions of dollars to the Administration’s budget request—$5.5 billion in the case of
H.R. 5856—to reverse some of the Administration’s DOD budget reduction initiatives.21 That
gross increase, along with others to be discussed in the following section, is partly offset by
reductions summarized in the section following that one.
On some of these issues, H.R. 5856 would closely parallel the course followed by the
authorization bill while on other issues they differ:
Administration Proposal
House committee-reported H.R. 5856
Prohibits retirement or transfer to another unit of any
aircraft; Adds a total of $699.2 mil ion to budget request for
Disband 7 Air Force and Air National Guard
Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard to
squadrons; Retire 303 aircraft.
continue operations and fund 6,560 personnel slots from
those three components which the Administration would
eliminate.
Cancel planned procurements of Global Hawk Block
Adds $262.0 million to continue procuring and operating
30 surveillance drones; Retire those already
Global Hawk Block 30s.
purchased.
Adds $602.3 million to keep in service (and modernize as
Retire four Aegis cruisers
earlier planned) three of the four ships. Al retirement of
the Port Royal, severely damaged in a 2009 grounding.
Increase various TRICARE fees, thus reducing the
Makes no change; House authorization bill would not
FY2013 budget by $1.8 billion
authorize most of the proposed changes and would add
$1.21 billion to the budget to replace the anticipated savings
Slow design of new ballistic missile submarine,
reducing FY2013 funding by more than half ($640
No change
million) from earlier projection.
Budget for one Virginia-class sub and one Aegis
Adds $723.0 million to submarine account to allow the
destroyer in FY2014 instead of two of each type (as
purchase of two subs and two destroyers in FY2014, and
had been planned).
$988.0 million to al ow the purchase of three destroyers
rather than two (as requested) in FY2013.
Adds a total of $2.11 billion to offset Administration
“efficiencies” which the House committee deemed
Efficiencies
unrealistic and likely to lead to deferred maintenance of
facilities.
Congressional Initiatives
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5856 also would add to the budget
request upwards of $6.0 billion for certain programs for which Congress typically increases
funding above the proposed levels:
21
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Administration proposal
House committee-reported H.R. 5856
Requests $903.0 million to continue upgrading the
Adds $75.0 million but does not order development of a
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) anti-missile third missile defense site to be located on the East Coast (as
system deployed in Alaska and California.
does the House-passed NDAA).
Adds $168.0 million for the three Israeli systems and an
Requests $100.0 million to continue development of
additional $680 million for the Israeli “Iron Dome” system
three Israeli missile defense systems.
designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery
shells.
Phases out upgrades to Abrams tanks and Bradley
troop carriers, preparatory to shutting down those
Adds $321.0 million to continue Abrams and Bradley
production lines from 2014 until 2017, when new
upgrades.
upgrade programs would begin.
Requests $2.04 billion for 26 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Adds $605.0 million for 11 additional F/A-18E/Fs and $45.0
Navy fighters and $1.03 billion for 12 EA-18G
million for long lead-time components to allow the purchase
Growler electronic warfare planes (with no funds to
of 15 additional Growlers in FY2014.
continue Growler production in FY2014).
Requests $836.6 million for seven C-130s equipped
Adds $447.0 million for seven additional C-130s equipped
for mid-air refueling, search and rescue, and other
for various missions.
missions.
Requests no funding for the National Guard and
Adds $2.00 billion for the NGREA account and an additional
Reserve Equipment account (NGREA)
$219.0 million for Blackhawk helicopters and $100.0 million
for HMMWVs for the National Guard.
Requests no funding for OCO Transfer Fund, to
Create a $3.25 billion OCO Transfer Fund consisting of
cover unforeseen costs of operations in Iraq and
$2.0 billion cut from funds requested for Army OCO
Afghanistan.
operations plus $1.25 billion added to the budget.
Requests no funds for congressional y directed
Adds $576.4 million for various peer-reviewed medical R&D
medical R&D.
programs.
Requests no funds for Defense Rapid Innovation Fund
Adds $250.0 million for Defense Rapid Innovation Fund
Requests no funds for OCO Transfer Fund created by Adds $1.25 billion to the OCO Transfer Fund plus $4.0
Congress in the FY2012 DOD appropriations act
billion transferred from the Army’s O&M budget request for
giving DOD discretion to fund unforseeen costs
OCO.
arising from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Adds $1.0 billion for Marine Corps “reset”—i.e., repair and
--
reconditioning of equipment worn out by use in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Funding Offsets
As is customary in annual DOD appropriations bills, H.R. 5856 would offset some of its proposed
additions to the budget request with a small number of relatively large reductions (in addition to
dozens of smaller cuts justified in terms of specific problems with specific programs). Nine
rationales accounted for reductions of nearly $7.0 billion to the Administration request:
Issue
House committee-reported H.R. 5856
Cuts $2.46 billion on grounds that the fund’s cash reserve is excessively
Army Working Capital Fund
large. The amount cut from the fund is applied to the cost of the FY2013
bill, thus reducing the amount of new budget authority required.
Requests labeled “unjustified” by
Cuts $667.5 million, including $79.4 million from funds requested for travel.
House Appropriations Committee
Congressional Research Service
36
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Issue
House committee-reported H.R. 5856
Air Force spare and repair parts
Cuts $400.0 million because of excessive inventory.
Defense Acquisition Workforce
Cuts $224.0 million from the $274.2 million requested on grounds that
Development Fund
DOD representatives have said the requested amount would not be
needed in FY2013.
Medium Expanded Air Defense
Cuts $400.9 million, the entire amount requested for this joint U.S-
System (MEADS)
Germany-Italy program to develop a mobile anti-missile defense for units in
the field.
TRICARE
Cuts $400.0 million on grounds that the program historically underspends
its annual appropriation.
Rescinds a total of $1.60 billion appropriated in prior years for specific
Rescissions
purposes and now available to reduce by the same amount the requirement
for new budget authority.
Decommissioning the nuclear-
Cuts $470.0 million of the $940.0 million requested and requires the Navy
powered aircraft carrier Enterprise
to seek funding on a year-by-year basis.
Afghan Security Forces Fund
Cuts $722.7 million of the $5.75 billion requested on grounds that DOD
has been slow in spending funds appropriated in earlier years.
Following are additional highlights of H.R. 5856 as reported by the House Appropriations
Committee:
Military Personnel and Force Structure Appropriations
H.R. 5856 would fund the 1.7% increase in “basic pay” for military personnel proposed by the
Administration, a rate based on the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index, which is a
survey-based estimate of the rate at which private-sector pay has increased.
Army, Marine Corps End-Strength Reductions
The bill would fund reductions in active-duty end-strength of 9,900 in the Army and 4,800 in the
Marine Corps during FY2013, as proposed. In its report on the bill, however, the House
Appropriations Committee expressed concern that the Administration’s plan to reduce those two
services by an additional 77,300 spaces by the end of FY2017 was based on budgetary pressures
rather than military requirements.
Navy Cruiser Retirements
The House committee bill would fund continued operation during FY2013 of three of the four
Aegis cruisers the Administration’s budget would retire. The bill would add to the request $124.6
million for operation and maintenance of the three ships and $426.7 to upgrade their equipment
(including the purchase of five MH-60R helicopters).
According to the House Appropriations Committee, keeping the three ships in service allows a
$2.1 million reduction in the military personnel budget request: the $36.7 million added to the
request for the payroll of the three ships’ crews would be more than offset by a reduction of $38.8
million to account for severance pay that would not be needed.
Congressional Research Service
37
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Air Force Cuts Rejected
Like the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House Appropriations Committee
rejected a proposal to disband several Air Force units and mothball or dispose of nearly 300
airplanes. In its report on the bill, the House Appropriations Committee said the planned cutbacks
would fall disproportionately on the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. Together, those
two reserve components would absorb 85% of the planned reduction in airplanes and 60% of the
planned manpower cuts, the committee said.
The committee directed the Air Force to submit by October 1, 2012, a cost-benefit analysis of the
proposed retirements and reorganizations that is to be reviewed by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
The bill’s military personnel accounts would add $120.8 million to the budget request to cover the
cost of 560 active-duty Air Force personnel, 900 members of the Air Force Reserve, and 5,100
members of the Air National Guard who would be dropped from the rolls under the
Administration’s proposal.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley have said they will
defer action on the proposed changes pending congressional action on the issue.
TRICARE Fee Increases
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5856 incorporates the savings in
TRICARE costs based on the Administration’s proposed increases in various TRICARE fees. The
House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the FY2013 defense authorization bill
would reject several of those proposed changes.
In its report on H.R. 5856, the House Appropriations Committee said it would “continue to
evaluate the proposed changes,” pending enactment of the companion defense authorization bill.
Ground Combat Systems Appropriations
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected ground combat systems is
summarized in Table A-4. Following are some highlights.
Abrams Tank and Bradley Upgrades
The budget requested $74.4 million to support the fielding of M-1 tanks for which previous
budgets had funded conversion to the “M-1A2SEP” version, which incorporates improvements to
the power train, communications gear, and night-vision equipment. H.R. 5856 would increase the
request by $188.0 million, to upgrade additional M-1s to the A2SEP standard.
The bill also would add $140.0 million to the $148.2 million requested to upgrade Bradley
armored troop carriers. The additional funds would be used to equip the vehicles with improved
digital communications systems and night-vision equipment.
Congressional Research Service
38
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Naval Systems Appropriations
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected naval systems is summarized in Table
A-6. Following are highlights.
Submarine and Destroyer Production
Like the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate in the reports on their respective
versions of the FY2013 defense authorization bill, the House Appropriations Committee objected
to the Administration’s plan to buy one submarine and one Aegis destroyer in FY2014, rather than
two ships of each type, as had been planned. “The Navy has approached the committee with
various plans and schemes to attempt to restore these ships to FY2014,” the panel said in its
report on H.R. 5856.
H.R. 5856 would add to the request $723 million in long lead-time funding to buy components
that allow the Navy to buy two submarines rather than one in FY2014. The bill also would
include an additional $1.0 billion to construct a second destroyer.
Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB)
H.R. 5856 would not appropriate $38.0 million requested for components to be used in a ship to
be used as a floating base. The committee noted that this mission has been performed in the past
on an ad hoc basis using existing ships and that the amphibious landing ship USS Ponce currently
is being modified for this purpose. Given the tight limits on the shipbuilding budget, the
committee said, the Navy should continue to fill this role as it has done in the past, using ad hoc
expedients.
Aircraft Appropriations
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected aircraft and long-range strike
programs is summarized in Table A-10. Following are some highlights:
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
H.R. 5856 would appropriate 95% of the $8.69 billion requested to continue development and
production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The bill would provide $5.59 billion to buy a total of
29 planes of three types: a carrier-based version for the Navy, a short-takeoff version for the
Marine Corps, and a conventional, land-based version for the Air Force. The bill also would
provide $2.68 billion to continue development of the plane.
F-22 Oxygen System
The House bill would add $50.0 million to the $283.9 million requested for modifications to the
Air Force’s F-22 fighters, with the additional funds intended to install in the airplanes a backup
oxygen supply for the pilots. The Air Force has been investigating complaints by some F-22
pilots that they have experienced symptoms similar to those caused by hypoxia (oxygen
deprivation). While the Air Force has not concluded its inquiry, there has been speculation that
the system installed in the planes to provide oxygen to the pilot may be at fault.
Congressional Research Service
39
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
C-130 Cargo Planes
H.R. 5856 would add to the request $447.0 million for seven C-130 cargo planes, most of which
would be equipped for specialized missions such as mid-air refueling and search-and-rescue. In
its report, the House committee noted that the Air Force, previously, had planned to buy 12 C-
130s in FY2013 and that the FY2012 defense appropriations act had provided $120.0 million to
buy components that would be needed to permit the purchase of 12 planes in FY2013.
The bill also would add $20.0 million to the Air Force’s procurement and R&D accounts to
continue the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), a project to upgrade the cockpit
electronics of older planes. The Administration’s budget would scrap the program.
Missile Defense Appropriations
H.R. 5856 would appropriate $8.51 billion for programs of the Missile Defense Agency, a 9%
increase over the request. Most of the increase is accounted for largely by the House committee’s
addition of $848 million for four Israeli missile defense systems, which includes $680 million for
the Iron Dome system designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells.
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Table A-2. Following are some highlights.
Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) System
For the Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) system currently deployed at sites in Alaska and
Hawaii, the bill would provide $978.2 million, an increase of $75 million over the request. In the
House committee’s report on H.R. 5856, the stated rationale for the increase was “sustainment.”
The bill was silent on the provisions of the House version of the companion defense authorization
bill directing DOD to spend $100.0 million to begin work aimed at deploying additional anti-
missile interceptors at a third site on the East Coast of the United States.
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
H.R. 5856 would provide none of the $00.9 million requested to continue development of the
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a joint U.S.-German-Italian effort to develop a
mobile air and missile defense system, incorporating the Patriot PAC-3 missile, designed to
protect combat units in the field.
Plans to deploy MEADS have been shelved, but the three partner countries are continuing work
on the system in hopes of developing components and technologies that could be used in other
systems. Under the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding governing the program, the United
States would incur significant cash penalties if it unilaterally pulled out of the program.
In its official Statement of Administration Position on the bill, OMB said it “strongly objects” to
the bill’s denial of funding for MEADS.
There is a high likelihood that this action would be perceived by our partners, Italy and
Germany, as breaking our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding. This
Congressional Research Service
40
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
could harm our relationship with our allies on a much broader basis, including future
multinational cooperative projects. It also could prevent the completion of the agreed [test
activities] necessary to harvest technology from U.S. and partner investments in MEADS.22
In its report, the House committee acknowledged that additional funding might yield some
benefits, but added: “The expected benefits do not justify the cost.”
OCO Funding: Afghanistan and Related Activities
H.R. 5856 would provide $88.21 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)—basically,
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and supporting activities. This is only $1.84 million less than
the request. But the relatively small difference between the request and the recommended
appropriation belies billions of dollars the bill would reallocate within the total appropriation,
compared to the Administration’s request.
A handful of committee initiatives involving more than $100 million apiece accounted for the
lion’s share of the total amount the bill would reallocate:23
Major House Appropriations Committee
Major House Appropriations Committee
Additions to the OCO Request in H.R. 5856
Deductions from the OCO Request in H.R. 5856
$2.00 billion from Army Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
request on grounds that the budget request would have
resulted in an unjustified increase in expenditures per troop
$3.25 billion for the OCO Transfer Fund to cover
$727.7 million from Afghan Security Forces Fund on
unforeseen costs in OCO (includes $2.00 billion cut
grounds that that DOD has been slow in spending funds
from the Army Operation and Maintenance [O&M]
appropriated in earlier years
request on grounds that the budget request would
have resulted in an unjustified increase in
expenditures per troop)
$579.9 million appropriated in prior budget for specific
purposes that is rescinded and now available to reduce by
the same amount the requirement for new budget authority
$500.0 million from Marine Corps field logistics on grounds
that it is “unjustified” growth
$1.00 billion for “reset” of Marine Corps equipment
(i.e., refurbishment of equipment worn out or
damaged by deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan)
$192.0 million cut from the Air Force request for depot
maintenance and transferred to Air National Guard base
budget
$150.0 million cut from the $400 million requested for the
$264.0 million transferred from Army’s base budget
Commanders Emergency Response Program
request, for “forward deployed land forces base
camps”
$109.2 million cut from Air Force O&M request for civilian
guards to replace military personnel at entrances to bases
22 SAP the the the
23 Some of the items listed in this table duplicate items listed in the tables summarizing the overview
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations
Aid to Pakistan
In the official Statement of Administration Policy, OMB objected to a provision of the House
committee bill that would impose limitations on payments to Pakistan from the $1.75 billion
Coalition Support Fund. The payments from the fund are intended to reimburse U.S. coalition
partners—chiefly Pakistan and Jordan—for expenses they incur from supporting U.S. military
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
H.R. 5856 would appropriate the $1.75 billion requested for the fund. However, Section 9015 of
the bill would bar any payments to Pakistan (slated to receive $1.30 billion) unless the Secretaries
of Defense and State certify that the government of Pakistan is cooperating with U.S. policy in
certain respects, including supporting counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and certain
other groups with bases in Pakistan.
Detainee Issues
OMB also said it “strongly objects” to several provisions of the bill that restricting the transfer to
any other location of detainees held in the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who are
neither U.S. citizens nor members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Three provisions of H.R. 5856 at
issue are
• Section 8108, which would prohibit the transfer to (or release within) U.S.
territory of any such detainee;
• Section 8109, which would prohibit the transfer to any other country of any such
detainee except to a country meeting certain conditions that would make it likely
that the detainee would remain in custody of the host government and would not
be able to threaten U.S. interests; and
• Section 8110, which would prohibit the use of any funds to build, acquire, or
modify any facility in U.S. territory to house Guantanamo detainees.
Congressional Research Service
42
Appendix A. Selected Program Funding Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2013
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Authorization
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request
Authorization
Report Comments
0603175C BMD
Technology
79,975
79,975
79,975
0603274C Special
Programs
36,685
36,685
36,685
0603881C
BMD Terminal Defense
316,929 316,929 316,929
Segment
0603882C BMD
Midcourse
903,172
1,363,172
903,172
System based in Alaska and California to
Defense Segment
defend U.S. territory; House added $103
million to add a launch site on the East
Coast plus $357 million to otherwise
expand the program
0603884C BMD
Sensors
347,012
347,012
347,012
0603890C BMD
Enabling
362,711 362,711 362,711
Programs
0603891C
Special Programs
272,387
272,387
272,387
0603892C AEGIS
BMD
992,407
992,407
992,407
0603893C
Space Tracking &
51,313 51,313 51,313
Surveillance System
0603895C
BMD System Space
6,912 6,912 6,912
Programs
0603896C
BMD Command and
366,552 366,552 366,552
Control, Battle
Management and
Communications
0603898C
BMD Joint Warfighter
55,550 55,550 55,550
Support
CRS-43
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2013
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Authorization
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request
Authorization
Report Comments
0603901C Directed
Energy
46,944
76,944
46,944
House added funds to accelerate
Research
development of anti-missile lasers
0603902C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIB
224,077
224,077
224,077
0603904C Missile
Defense
63,043 63,043 63,043
Integration &
Operations Center
(MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
11,371
11,371
11,371
0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band
9,730 9,730 9,730
Radar (SBX)
0603913C Israeli
Cooperative
99,836 267,836 199,836
Programs
Iron
Dome
0.0
680,000 210,000
0603914C BMD
Tests
454,400
454,400
454,400
0603915C BMD
Targets
435,747
435,747
435,747
0604880C Land-based
SM-3
276,338
276,338
276,338
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA
420,630 420,630 420,630
Co-Development
0604883C Precision
Tracking
297,375 50,000
297,375
Space System (PTSS)
0604886C Advanced
Remote
58,742 58,742 58,742
Sensor Technology
0901598C Management
HQ-MDA 34,855
34,855
34,855
Subtotal, MDA RDT&E,
6,224,693
7,315,318
6,534,693
THAAD, Fielding
460,728
587,728
560,728
36 interceptors requested; House adds
12
Aegis BMD
389,626
389,626
389,626
29 interceptors requested;
AN/TPY-2 radar
217,244
387,244
217,244
One radar requested; House adds one
CRS-44
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2013
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Authorization
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request
Authorization
Report Comments
Subtotal, MDA Procurement
1,077,775
1,374,775
1,177,775
THAAD, O&M
55,679
55,679
55,679
Aegis BMD O&M
12,163
12,163
12,163
Bal istic Missile Defense Radars. O&M
192,133
192,133
192,133
Subtotal, MDA, O&M
259.975
259,975
259,975
Aegis Ashore Site, Romania
157,900
82,900
157,900
Midcourse Defense Data Link, Fort
25,900 25,900 25,900
Drum, N.Y.
Planning & Design
4,548
4,548
4,548
Subtotal, MDA, Military
188,348 113,348 188,348
Construction
Total, Missile Defense Agency
7,750,791
9,063,417
8,160,791
0604869A
Medium Extended Air
400,861 0.0
0.0
Defense System
(MEADS)
0102419A
Aerostat Joint Project
190,422 171,422 190,422
Office
Selected Army R&D missile
591,283 171,422 190,422
defense
Patriot Missile (PAC-3) procurement
646,590
696,590
646,590
84 interceptors requested; House added
funds for unspecified additional number
Total, Selected Army Missile
1,237,873 868,012 837,012
Defense
Grand Total, Missile Defense
8,988,664
9,931,429
8,997,803
CRS-45
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2013
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request
Appropriation
Report Comments
0603175C BMD
Technology
79,975
75,975
0603274C Special
Programs
36,685
36,685
0603881C
BMD Terminal Defense
316,929 296,929
Segment
0603882C BMD
Midcourse
903,172
978,172
System based in Alaska and California to
Defense Segment
defend U.S. territory; House added $103
million to add a launch site on the East
Coast plus $357 million to otherwise
expand the program
0603884C BMD
Sensors
347,012
347,012
0603890C BMD
Enabling
362,711 362,711
Programs
0603891C
Special Programs
272,387
272,387
0603892C AEGIS
BMD
992,407
992,407
0603893C
Space Tracking &
51,313 51,313
Surveillance System
0603895C
BMD System Space
6,912 6,912
Programs
0603896C
BMD Command and
366,552 341,552
Control, Battle
Management and
Communications
0603898C
BMD Joint Warfighter
55,550 55,550
Support
0603901C Directed
Energy
46,944 41,944
Research
0603902C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIB
224,077
204,077
CRS-46
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2013
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request
Appropriation
Report Comments
0603904C Missile
Defense
63,043 63,043
Integration &
Operations Center
(MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
11,371
11,371
0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band
9,730 9,730
Radar (SBX)
0603913C Israeli
Cooperative
99,836 267,836
Programs
Iron
Dome
0.0
680,000
0603914C BMD
Tests
454,400
454,400
0603915C BMD
Targets
435,747
435,747
0604880C Land-based
SM-3
276,338
266,338
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA
420,630 420,630
Co-Development
0604883C Precision
Tracking
297,375 242,375
Space System (PTSS)
0604886C Advanced
Remote
58,742 33,742
Sensor Technology
0901598C Management
HQ-MDA 34,855
34,855
Subtotal, MDA RDT&E,
6,224,693
7,315,318
THAAD, Fielding
460,728
460,728
Aegis BMD
389,626
389,626
AN/TPY-2 radar
217,244
217,244
Subtotal, MDA Procurement
1,077,775
1,374,775
THAAD, O&M
55,679
55,679
Aegis BMD O&M
12,163
12,163
Bal istic Missile Defense Radars. O&M
192,133
192,133
CRS-47
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2013
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request
Appropriation
Report Comments
Subtotal, MDA, O&M
259.975
259,975
Aegis Ashore Site, Romania
157,900
82,900
Midcourse Defense Data Link, Fort
25,900 25,900
MDA Military Construction Projects are
Drum, N.Y.
funded in H.R. 5854, the FY2013 Military
Planning & Design
4,548
4,548
Construction, Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
Subtotal, MDA, Military
188,348 113,348
Construction
Total, Missile Defense Agency
7,750,791
9,063,417
0604869A
Medium Extended Air
400,861
Defense System
0.0
(MEADS)
0102419A
Aerostat Joint Project
190,422 190,422
Office
Selected Army R&D missile
591,283 171,422
defense
Patriot Missile (PAC-3) procurement
646,590
996,590
Total, Selected Army Missile
1,237,873 868,012
Defense
Grand Total, Missile Defense
8,988,664
9,931,429
CRS-48
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $
$ #
$ $
M-2 Bradley
-
148,193
97,279
-
288,193
97,279
-
148,193
97,279
Request assumed shutdown from 2014 to 2016
Mods
of Pennsylvania plant that upgrades early-model
Bradleys with improved electronics and engines.
House would continue the upgrade program.
M-1 Abrams
- 129,090 -
- 129,090 -
- 129,090 -
tank Mods
M-1 Abrams
-
74,433
82,586
-
255,433
82,586
-
165,433
82,586
Request assumed shutdown from 2014 to 2016
tank Upgrade
of Ohio plant that upgrades early-model M-1s
with improved electronics, armor and engines.
House would continue the upgrade program.
Stryker
58 286,818
14,347 58 286,818
14,347 58 286,818 14,347
Armored
Vehicle
Ground
- -
639,874
-
639,874
-
639,874
Combat
Vehicle
Armored
- -
74,095
- -
74,095
- -
74,095
Multi-Purpose
Vehicle
Joint Light
- -
116,795
-
116,795
-
116,795
Tactical
Vehicle
Paladin
17 206,101
167,797 17 206,101
167,797 17 206,101
167,797
howitzer
Upgrade
Hercules
31 107,909 - 51
169,909 - 230,909 -
recovery
vehicle
CRS-49
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Procurement
R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
# $ $ # $ $ #
$
$ #
$ $
M-2 Bradley
-
148,193
97,279
-
288,193
97,279
Request assumed shutdown from 2014 to 2016 of
Mods
Pennsylvania plant that upgrades early-model
Bradleys with improved electronics and engines.
House would continue the upgrade program.
M-1 Abrams
- 129,090 - - 129,090 -
tank Mods
M-1 Abrams
-
74,433
82,586
-
255,433
82,586
Request assumed shutdown from 2014 to 2016 of
tank Upgrade
Ohio plant that upgrades early-model M-1s with
improved electronics, armor and engines. House
would continue the upgrade program.
Stryker
58 286,818
14,347 58 286,818
14,347
Armored
Vehicle
Ground
- -
639,874
-
639,874
Combat
Vehicle
Armored
- -
74,095
- -
74,095
Multi-Purpose
Vehicle
Joint Light
- -
116,795
-
116,795
Tactical
Vehicle
Paladin
17 206,101
167,797 17 206,101
167,797
howitzer
Upgrade
Hercules
31 107,909 - 49 169,909 -
recovery
vehicle
CRS-50
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
CVN-21
1 608,195 159,554 1 608,195 159,554 1 608,195 159,554
The
projected
$11.4
billion total procurement cost of this
Carrier
carrier, John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), scheduled for delivery
in 2022, is to be spread across 12 budgets (FY2007-18).
Carrier
1
1,683,402
-
1
1,683,402
-
1
1,683,402
-
The projected $4.5 billion total cost of refueling and
Refueling
modernizing the carrier Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
Overhaul
scheduled for completion in 2016, is to be spread across
six budgets (FY2009-14)
Virginia-class
2 4,092,479 165,230 2 4,870,479 165,230 2 4,870,158 165,230
Request
includes
$3.2
billion for two subs and $875 million
submarine
for long lead-time components for one sub to be funded in
FY2014 and two to be funded in FY2015. House bill adds
$778 million to buy long lead-time components for a
second FY2014 sub
SSBN(X)
- - 564,912
- - 939,312
- - 564,912
Request
includes
$483.1
million to design a replacement
missile-launching sub and $81.8 million to develop its
nuclear powerplant. House bill increases the ship design
funding by $374.4 million.
DDG-1000
-
669,222
204,202
-
669,222
204,202
-
669,222
204,202
Provides components for three ships funded largely in
Destroyer
FY2007 and FY2009 budgets, slated for delivery in FY2014
through FY2018 at a total cost of $11.9 billion.
DDG-51
2
3,514,941
13,710
2
3,629,941
13,710
2
3,514,941
13,710
Request includes $3.0 billion for two ships and $466
Destroyer
million for long lead-time components for future ships
acquired under a multi-year (FY2013-FY2017) contract for
nine ships. House bill adds funds for a 10th ship.
CRS-51
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Cruiser
-
101,000
260,616
-
184,972
511,741
-
101,000
260,616
In Feburary 2011, DOD projected requesting $601 million
modernization
in FY2013 for this multi-year program to modernize the
22 Aegis cruisers currently in service. The actual FY2013
request reflects the Administration’s decision to retire the
seven oldest cruisers—four in FY2013 and three in
FY2014. To keep in service three of the four ships slated
for retirement in FY2013, the House adds $83.9 million to
this line, $170 million for new helicopters, and $26.7
million to various other modernization-related
procurement programs and $84.0 million in R&D.
Destroyer
-
452,371
233,596
-
452,371
233,596
-
452,371
233,596
Funds one year increment of a $5.4 billion multi-year
modernization
program to modernize the Aegis combat system and other
components of the 28 oldest DDG-51 class destroyers
Improved Anti-
-
-
223,621
-
-
223,621
-
-
223,621
Funds development of Advanced Missile Defense Radar
aircraft/Anti-
(AMDR) slated to equip modified DDG-51s funded
Missile radar
starting in FY2016. FY2013 request is $93.6 million less
than had been projected in February 2011.
Littoral
4 1,784,959 429,420 4 1,784,959 429,420 4 1,784,959 429,420
Combat Ship
(LCS)
LCS Combat
-
102,608
195,824
-
102,608
195,824
-
102,608
195,824
Request funds procurement of modularized equipment
Modules
sets with which an LCS can carry out minesweeping,
counter-small boat or anti-submarine missions.
Joint High-
1 189,196 1,967 1 189,196 1,967 1 189,196 1,967
Speed Vessel
CRS-52
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
CVN-21
1 608,195 159,554 1 578,295 159,554
The
projected
$11.4
billion total procurement cost of this
Carrier
carrier, John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), scheduled for delivery
in 2022, is to be spread across 12 budgets (FY2007-
FY2018).
Carrier
1
1,613,402
-
1
1,613,402
-
The projected $4.5 billion total cost of refueling and
Refueling
modernizing the carrier Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
Overhaul
scheduled for completion in 2016, is to be spread across
six budgets (FY2009-FY2014)
Virginia-class
2
4,092,479 165,230
2
4,870,479 165,230
Request includes $3.2 billion for two subs and $875 million
submarine
for long lead-time components for one sub to be funded in
FY2014 and two to be funded in FY2015. House bill adds
$723 million to buy long lead-time components for a
second FY2014 sub
SSBN(X)
-
-
564,912
-
-
939,312
Request includes $483.1 million to design a replacement
missile-launching sub and $81.8 million to develop its
nuclear powerplant.
DDG-1000
-
669,222
204,202
-
669,222
204,202
Provides components for three ships funded largely in
Destroyer
FY2007 and FY2009 budgets, slated for delivery in FY2014
through FY2018 at a total cost of $11.9 billion.
DDG-51
2
3,514,941
13,710
3
4,502,911
13,710
Request includes $3.0 billion for two ships and $466
Destroyer
million for long lead-time components for future ships
acquired under a multi-year (FY2013-FY2017) contract for
nine ships. House bill adds $1.0 billion for a 10th ship.
CRS-53
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Cruiser
-
101,000
260,616
-
607,660
510,616
In Feburary 2011, DOD projected requesting $601 million
modernization
in FY2013 for this multi-year program to modernize the
22 Aegis cruisers currently in service. The actual FY2013
request reflects the Administration’s decision to retire the
seven oldest cruisers—four in FY2013 and three in
FY2014. As part of its decision to keep in service three of
the four ships, the House added $256.7 million. It also
added an additional $250.0 million to equip for anti-missile
defense several ships not currently slated to receive that
capability,
Destroyer
-
452,371
233,596
-
412,656
233,596
Funds one year increment of a $5.4 billion multi-year
modernization
program to modernize the Aegis combat system and other
components of the 28 oldest DDG-51 class destroyers
Improved Anti-
-
-
223,621
-
-
223,621
Funds development of Advanced Missile Defense Radar
aircraft/Anti-
(AMDR) slated to equip modified DDG-51s funded
Missile radar
starting in FY2016. FY2013 request is $93.6 million less
than had been projected in February 2011.
Littoral
4 1,784,959 429,420 4 1,784,959 401,620
Combat Ship
(LCS)
LCS Combat
-
102,608
195,824
-
102,608
195,824
Request funds procurement of modularized equipment
Modules
sets with which an LCS can carry out minesweeping,
counter-small boat or anti-submarine missions.
Joint High-
1 189,196 1,967 1 189,196 1,967
Speed Vessel
CRS-54
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
Advanced EHF
-
557,205
229,171
-
557,205
227,671
-
557,205
227,671
Request funds purchase of fifth and sixth of a new type of
Satellite
communications satellite with greater capacity and jam-
resistance than earlier types
GPS III Satellite
2
492,910
690,587
2
492,910
689,087
2
492,910
689,087
Request funds improved navigation satellites to sustain a 24
satellite constellation
Evolved
4 1,679,856 7,980 4 1,679,856 7.980 4 1,679,856 7.980
Expendable
Launch Vehicle
(EELV)
SBIR High
2
454,251
448,594
2
454,251
446,594
2
454,251
447,094
Request funds purchase of the fifth and sixth of a new type
of infra-red sensor satellites to detect ballistic missile
launches
“Space Fence”
-
0.0
252,578
-
0.0
232,578
-
0.0
252,578
Continues development of “Space Fence” to monitor
orbital debris that could endanger U.S. satellites
CRS-55
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
#
$ $ #
$ $ #
$ $
#
$ $
Advanced EHF
-
557,205
229,171
-
547,205
191.171
Request funds purchase of fifth and sixth of a new type of
Satellite
communications satellite with greater capacity and jam-
resistance than earlier types
GPS III Satellite
2
492,910
690,587
2
492,910
652,287
Request funds improved navigation satellites to sustain a 24
satellite constellation
Evolved
4 1,679,856 7,980 4 1,679,856 32,980
Expendable
Launch Vehicle
(EELV)
SBIR High
2
454,251
448,594
2
454,251
516,594
Request funds purchase of the fifth and sixth of a new type of
infra-red sensor satellites to detect ballistic missile launches
“Space Fence”
-
0.0
252,578
-
0.0
215,478
Continues development of “Space Fence” to monitor orbital
debris that could endanger U.S. satellites
CRS-56
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
#
$ $ #
$ $ #
$
$ #
$
$
Fixed Wing Tactical Combat Aircraft
F-35A Joint Strike
19
3,417,702
1,210,306
19
3,353,702
1,210,306
19 3,417,702 1,210,306
Fighter and Mods,
AF (conventional
takeoff version)
F-35B Joint Strike
6 1,510,936 737,149 6 1,510,936 733,949 6
1,510,936
737,149
Fighter, Marine
Corps (STOVL
version)
F-35C Joint Strike
4 1,072,812 743,926 4 1,072,812 740,726 4
1,072,812
743,926
Fighter, Navy
(Carrier-based
version)
[F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter,
total]
F-35 Fighter Mods
147,995
8,117
147,995
8,117
147,995
8,117
F-22
Fighter
Mods 283,871 511,767 283,871 511,767
283,871 511,767
F-15
Fighter
Mods 148,378 192,677 148,378 192,677
148,378 192,677
F-16 Fighter Mods
6,896
190,257
6,896
190,257
6,896
190,257
EA-18G Electronic
12
1,027,443
13,009
12
1,042,443
13,009
12
1,027,443
13,009
Request includes no funds for long-lead
Warfare Acft.
components to continue procurement
in FY2014; House adds $45 million for
long-lead components to allow future
production partly offset by reductions
of $30.0 million.
F/A-18E/F Fighter
26
2,065,427
-
26
2,019,427
-
26
2,125,427
-
CRS-57
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
F/A-18 Fighter
-
688,549
188,299
-
688,549
188,299
- 688,549 188,299
Mods
A-10 Attack Plane
89,919 13,358 89,919 13,358
89,919
13,358
Mods
Long-Range Strike Aircraft and Missiles
Long-Range Strike
- 0.0 291,742
0.0 291,742
0.0
291,742
(Aircraft)
B-1B Bomber
- 149,756 16,265 149,756 16,265
149,756
16,265
Mods
B-2A Bomber
-
82,296
317,026
82,296
317,026
82,296
302,026
S. 3254 would cut $15.0 million from
Mods
R&D request for unspecified
“efficiencies.”
B-52 Bomber Mods
-
9,781
53,208
9,781
53,208
9,781
53,208
Trident II Missile
1,224,683
101,295
1,224,683
101,295
1,224,683
101,295
Request funds service-life extension of
Mods
multi-warhead, nuclear-armed, sub-
launched ballistic missiles
Conventional
- 0.0 110,383
0.0 110,383
0.0
110,383
Prompt Global
Strike
Fixed-Wing and Tilt-Rotor Cargo and Transport Aircraft
C-130 variants,
7 1,167,145 50,299 7 1,167,145 50,299 7
1,167,145
50,299
including Mods
C-5 Mods,
1,127,586
35,115
1,127,586
35,115
1,127,586
35,115
C-17 Mods
205,079
99,225
205,079
99,225
205,079
99,225
C-27 Joint Cargo
0.0 0.0
115,000
25,000
0.0
0.0
Aircraft
V-22 Osprey,
21 2,025,426 84,261 2,025,426 84,261
2,025,426
84,261
including Mods
Fixed-Wing Surveillance and Tanker Aircraft
KC-46 Tanker
-
0.0
1,815,588
0.0
1,815,588
0.0
1,728,458
CRS-58
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
E-8C Joint Stars
-
59,320
24,241
59,320
24,241
71,320
24,241
P-8A Poseidon
13
2,746,434
421,102
13
2,746,434
421,102
13
2,746,434
421,102
P-3/EP-3 Mods
-
227,809
3,405
-
227,809
3,405
-
227,809
3,405
E-2D
Hawkeye
5 984,677 119,065 5 984,677 119,065 5
984,677
119,065
E-3A AWACS
- 193,099 65,200 - 193,099 65,200 -
193,099
65,200
Mods
Rotary-Wing Aircraft (including SOF)
UH-60 Blackhawk
59
1,222,200
83,255
59
1,222,200
83,255* 59
1,222,200
83,255
Blackhawk Mods
200,584
200,584
200,584
AH-64 Apache
50 1,055,936 124,450 50 1,055,936 124,450* 48
984,936
124,450
Request would remanufacture 40 helos
Block III
and buy 10 new ones, all with improved
electronics and weaponry
Apache
Mods -
178,805 -
178,805 - 178,805 -
CH-47 Chinook
44
1,390,682
71,563
44
1,390,682
71,563*
44
1,390,682
71,563
Request would remanufacture 19 helos
and buy 25 new ones, all with improved
electronics and engines
Chinook Mods
-
173,920
-
173,920
-
173,920
-
Light Utility
34 271,983
-
34 271,983
-
34
271,983
-
Helicopter
OH-58 Kiowa
376,384 85,468 376,384 85,468
376,384
85,468
Upgrade
Huey/SuperCobra
28 820,391 31,105 28 820,391 31,105 28
820,391
31,105
Upgrades
MH-60R/S
37 1,296,831 36,609 42 1,466,831 36,609 37
1,296,831
36,609
Seahawk
CH-53K
-
0.0
606,204
-
0.0
606,204
- 0.0 606,204
Unmanned Aerial Systems (including Mods)
Predator and
1,673,727 231,711 1,891,027 231,711
1,732,127
231,711
Reaper
CRS-59
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Authorization
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Global
Hawk
95,911 1,103,857 201,111 1,103,857
95,911
1,103,857
Unmanned
-
-
142,282
-
-
217,282
- - 142,282
Combat Air
Vehicle (UCAV)
Unmanned
-
-
122,481
-
-
47,481
- - 122,481
Carrier-Launched
Airborne
Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS)
Fire
Scout
6 141,073 99,600 6 141,073 99,600 6 141,073
99,600
Shadow
153,663
39,621
153,663
39,621
153,663
39,621
Raven
30,178
4,534
30,178
4,534
30,178
4,534
CRS-60
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Procurement R&D Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
# $
$
Fixed Wing Tactical Combat Aircraft
F-35A Joint Strike
19 3,417,702 1,210,306 19 3,244,702 1,210,306
Fighter and Mods,
AF (conventional
takeoff version)
F-35B Joint Strike
6 1,510,936 737,149 6 1,343,835 733,949
Fighter, Marine
Corps (STOVL
version)
F-35C Joint Strike
4 1,072,812 743,926 4 998,569 740,726
Fighter, Navy
(Carrier-based
version)
[F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter,
total]
F-35
Fighter
Mods 147,995 8,117 30,195 0.0
F-22
Fighter
Mods 283,871 511,767 333,871 511,767
F-15
Fighter
Mods 148,378 192,677 148,378 192,677
F-16
Fighter
Mods 6,896 190,257
6,896 190,257
EA-18G Electronic
12 1,027,443 13,009 12 985,965
13,009
Warfare Acft.
F/A-18E/F
Fighter 26 2,065,427
-
37 2,627,861
-
F/A-18 Fighter
- 688,549 188,299 - 641,262 168,299
Mods
A-10 Attack Plane
89,919 13,358 89,919 13,358
Mods
CRS-61
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Long-Range Strike Aircraft and Missiles
Long-Range Strike
- 0.0 291,742
0.0 291,742
(Aircraft)
B-1B Bomber
- 149,756 16,265 149,756 16,265
Mods
B-2A Bomber
- 82,296 317,026 82,296 317,026
Mods
B-52 Bomber Mods
-
9,781
53,208
9,781
18,508
Trident II Missile
1,224,683
101,295
1,224,683
101,295
Request funds service-life extension of
Mods
multi-warhead, nuclear-armed, sub-
launched ballistic missiles
Conventional
- 0.0 110,383
0.0 110,383
Prompt Global
Strike
Fixed-Wing and Tilt-Rotor Cargo and Transport Aircraft
C-130 variants,
7 1,167,145 50,299 14 1,624,145 50,299
including Mods
C-5
Mods,
1,127,586 35,115 1,053,586 35,115
C-17
Mods
205,079 99,225 205,079
C-27 Joint Cargo
0.0 0.0
115,000
25,000
Aircraft
V-22 Osprey,
21 2,025,426 84,261 22 2,066,451 73,261
including Mods.
Fixed-Wing Surveillance and Tanker Aircraft
KC-46 Tanker
-
0.0
1,815,588
0.0
1,815,588
E-8C Joint Stars
-
59,320
24,241
49,020
24,241
P-8A
Poseidon
13 2,746,434 421,102 13 2,712,731 406,102
P-3/EP-3
Mods
- 227,809 3,405 - 218,309 3,405
E-2D
Hawkeye
5 984,677 119,065 5 937,677 119,065
CRS-62
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
E-3A AWACS
- 193,099 65,200 - 193,099 48,900
Mods
Rotary-Wing Aircraft (including SOF)
UH-60
Blackhawk 59 1,222,200 83,255 69 1,461,100
83,255*
Blackhawk Mods
200,584
-
220,584
-
AH-64 Apache
50 1,055,936 124,450 50 1,090,936 124,450*
Request would remanufacture 40 helos
Block III
and buy 10 new ones, all with improved
electronics and weaponry
Apache Mods
-
178,805
-
178,805
-
CH-47
Chinook
44 1,390,682 71,563 44 1,390,682 71,563*
Request would remanufacture 19 helos
and buy 25 new ones, all with improved
electronics and engines
Chinook Mods
-
173,920
-
192,420
-
Light Utility
34 271,983
-
37 295,980
-
Helicopter
OH-58 Kiowa
376,384 85,468 376,384 85,468
Upgrade
Huey/SuperCobra
28 820,391 31,105 30 856,773 31,105
Upgrades
MH-60R/S
37 1,296,831 36,609 42 1,433,852 36,609
Seahawk
CH-53K
- 0.0 606,204
- 0.0 606,204
Unmanned Aerial Systems (including Mods)
Predator and
43 1,673,727 231,711 55 1,863,727 231,711
Reaper
Global
Hawk
95,911 1,103,857 202,911 1,119,857
Unmanned
- - 142,282
- - 142,282
Combat Air
Vehicle (UCAV)
CRS-63
FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report
Unmanned
- - 122,481
- - 122,481
Carrier-Launched
Airborne
Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS)
Fire Scout
6
141,073
99,600
6
70,073
83,100
Shadow
153,663 39,621 153,663 39,621
Raven
30,178 4,534 30,178 4,534
CRS-64
Defense: FY2013 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
Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Military personnel social issues
David Burrelli
7-8033
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Force Structure and policy
Catherine Dale
7-8983
cdale@crs.loc.gov
Acquisition workforce
Valerie Grasso
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Military compensation
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@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
65