Defense: FY2013 Authorization and
Appropriations

Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
September 5, 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.”)
According to the Administration, the FY2013 DOD budget request is consistent with the initial
spending caps set by the BCA. However, 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 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
reported June 4, 2012, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the version of the DOD
appropriations bill (H.R. 5856) reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2,
2012, would keep FY2013 DOD funding within the initial BCA caps.
The House and Senate versions of the authorization bill would add several billion dollars and
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 funding 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.”)
In general terms, the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the DOD
appropriations bill (H.R. 5856) parallel the House and Senate versions of the NDAA,
respectively. (See “DOD Appropriations Overview.”)


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............................................................................................................................. 8
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.............................................................................................. 12
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..................................................................................... 24
Defense Space Programs ......................................................................................................... 25
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan......................................................................................... 26
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees ........................................................................ 28
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 30
FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill................................................................................................. 33
DOD Appropriations Overview............................................................................................... 33
Proposed Administration Savings and Congressional Response....................................... 35
Congressional Initiatives ................................................................................................... 36
Funding Offsets ................................................................................................................. 38
Military Personnel and Force Structure Appropriations.......................................................... 39
Depot Maintenance ‘Carryover’.............................................................................................. 41
TRICARE Fee Increases and Cost Savings............................................................................. 42
Ground Combat Systems Appropriations ................................................................................ 42
Naval Systems Appropriations ................................................................................................ 43
Aircraft Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 46
Missile Defense Appropriations .............................................................................................. 47
OCO Funding: Afghanistan and Related Activities................................................................. 48
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 50

Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2007-FY2013................................................. 3
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Figure 2. Obama Administration DOD Budget Projections: February 2011 and February
2012 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. OCO Funding by Country .............................................................................................. 10
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; S. 3254)................................ 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) .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 9. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856) ............................................................... 34
Table 10. Administration Budget Reduction Initiatives and Congressional Reversals.................. 35
Table 11. Selected Congressional Actions ..................................................................................... 37
Table 12. Selected Funding Offsets ............................................................................................... 38
Table 13. OCO Funding Highlights in FY 2013 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5856) .............. 48
Table 14. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY 2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R.
5856)........................................................................................................................................... 50
Table A-1. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding
Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 53
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Missile Defense Funding
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 56
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 59
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 60
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Authorization............................................................................................................. 61
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 63
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization............... 65
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation .............. 66
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Authorization............................................................................................................. 67
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 71

Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Program Funding Tables ............................................................................ 53

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

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/
5/22-
5/9/2012
5/18/2012 6/4/2012





2012
23/2012
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 7/31/2012 5/25/2012 7/19/2012 8/2/1012





H.Rept.
326-90
S.Rept.
112-493
112-196
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 restul of the
BCA. In addition to the $900 billion worth of deficit reduction in FY2012-FY2021 (counting
both defense and non-defense spending) that results from the BCA, the act also requires
additional deficit reduction measures totaling $1.2 trillion through FY2021 (which would result in
a total deficit reduction through FY2021 of $2.1 trillion).
In FY2013, the BCA requires an across the board cut in budget authority (or “sequester”) that
would be levied against almost all discretionary spending. For the National Defense budget
function (of which the DOD budget comprises more than 95 percent), some $59 billion—about
10 percent—would be cut from the Administration’s budget request, with equal percentages cut
from each program, project and activity. In subsequent years, the BCA sets lowered spending
caps to achieve the required savings. Each year, to the extent that Congress appropriates more
than the caps allow, the Administration would sequester funds through across-the-board cuts to
ensure that the required savings are achieved. If the sequestration process and the lowered
spending caps remain law, the Administration’s February 2012 projection for defense budgets
over the next 10 years would be cut by an additional $515 billion—about 9 percent.

Congressional Research Service
4

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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.
Base Budget Highlights
The Obama Administration presented its FY2013 DOD budget plan as an effort to both address
the long-term spending limits set by the BCA and as an 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 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 to which U.S. forces have access,
operations in the Asia-Pacific region would rely heavily on air and naval forces. Accordingly,
many observers expect a shift of DOD resources toward naval and air forces at the expense of
ground formations.
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

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

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.
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’ 41 battalion landing teams;
• Seven cruisers from, 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%
Congressional Research Service
6

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Projected
Actual
FY2013
FY2013
Request
Request
Difference Difference
Appropriations Title
Feb. 2011
Feb. 2012
($)
(%)
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%
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 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
Congressional Research Service
7

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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 the rate of increase
of military compensation in order to avoid excessive cuts in either the size of the force or the pace
of 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 schedule of 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 that 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
Congressional Research Service
8

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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.
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.

3 See, for example, Stimson Center, “What We Bought: Defense Procurement from FY01 to FY10,” by Russell
Rumbaugh, October 2011.
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 was thus 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; S. 3254)
(amounts of discretionary budget authority in millions of dol ars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
SASC-
FY2013
Administration
House-passed
reported
Conference

Request
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
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; S.Rept. 112-173, Senate Armed Services Committee, Report on S.
3254, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, pp. 4-8..
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.
Congressional Research Service
11

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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
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).
Congressional Research Service
12

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Selected Administration
H.R. 4310
S. 3254
proposals
House-passed
Committee-reported
Slow development of Army’s
n/c n/c
Ground Combat Vehicle reducing
FY2013 funding by two-thirds
($1.3 billion) from earlier
projection.
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 within certain programs. 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 Precision Tracking Space
System (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 USS
needed until FY2014, directing the
Enterprise.
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 7,030 personnel more than requested for the Air Force and its
associated reserve components in order to staff units that had been slated for disbanding. H.R.
4310 would add to the request $699.2 million to continue operating those units, plus $400.4
Congressional Research Service
15

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

million to continue purchasing C-27 cargo planes and RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk
reconnaissance drones. The 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
a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force that the bill would establish (Sections
1701-1709). Those recommendations would be due by March 31, 2013.
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 (Section 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

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.
Congressional Research Service
16

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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
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 (Section 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 (Section 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

7 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4310—National Defense
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

program to compensate for savings projected to have resulted from TRICARE changes the bill
would not authorize.
Abortion
The Senate committee-reported bill includes a provision (Section 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 (Section 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 (Section 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 (Section 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

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

recommendations for regulatory and statutory change that the Secretary considers appropriate to
increase service opportunities for women in the armed forces.”
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.

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

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 also authorize a total of $230.9
million for Hercules tank recovery vehicles.11
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, as is assumed in the
budget projection published in February 2012.
Each of the bills also includes a provision (Section 126 of H.R. 4310 and Section 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 funding12 in such a contract. The
Navy had requested authority for a multi-year contract to buy nine submarines during that period.
The service did not request authority to use incremental funding in the contract, but testified that

11 The M88 Hercules is built from the chassis design of the M-1’s predecessor, the M60 Patton tank. It is, in essence, a
very large, heavy, and armored tow truck for tanks.
12 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

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
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 (Section 121)
requiring the Navy to maintain a force of
Nuclear
at least 12 ballistic missile
reactor
347.095 81.817 81.817 81.817
design
submarines. The panel also added $374.4
million to the authorization requested to
Total 1,204.590 564.913 939.312 564.913 design the 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).
Congressional Research Service
21

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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 increments13 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 (Section 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.
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 (Section 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 (Section 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,

13 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
22

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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
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 (Section 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 (Section 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.
Congressional Research Service
23

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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 (Section 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, 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 (Section 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.
Congressional Research Service
24

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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
committee added to the bill a provision (Section 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.
Congressional Research Service
25

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

• 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.14 The
amendment would require the notification to “include, to the extent practicable, an enumeration
of the items or items to be removed” from the list.15
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

14 The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Title II of P.L. 94-329) is codified in 22 U.S.C. Ch. 39.
15 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

• $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);
• $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.16
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.

16 This same argument of “historical underexecution” also was the House committee’s stated justification from the
$200 million reduction to the request for CERP.
Congressional Research Service
27

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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 would seek to extend
the effect or clarify the scope of detainee provisions contained in the 2012 NDAA. The bill also
would establish new restrictions on the transfer or release of detainees held by the United States
in Afghanistan, establish new reporting requirements relating to detainees held on U.S. naval
vessels, and, as amended, generally require 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.17 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
corpus
proceedings (Sections 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 (Section 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
would extend through FY2013 the existing funding bar on Guantanamo detainee transfers into the
United States (Section 1036), the prohibition on the use of funds to construct or modify facilities
within the United States to house detainees currently held at Guantanamo (Section 1038), and,
with minor modifications, the existing limitations and certification requirements relating to the
transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries (Section 1037). The bill would also make
minor modifications to the certification and reporting requirements contained in the 2012 NDAA
relating to Guantanamo detainee transfers to foreign countries (Section 1043). The bill would

17 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
28

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

prohibit 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 (Section 1035). It would further require annual reports to be submitted to Congress
regarding the recidivism of former Guantanamo detainees (Section 1039).
H.R. 1430 also contains provisions concerning detainees held abroad in locations other than
Guantanamo. It would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report regarding the use of
naval vessels to detain persons pursuant to the AUMF, and would require congressional
notification whenever such detention occurs (Section 1040). It would also establish 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
(Section 1041), along with a report on the recidivism of former detainees who were held there
(Section 1042).
The bill would extend 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 (Section 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 Act18
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
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, 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.19 Proponents of amending these two sections argue that the ban on domestic

18 This section was prepared by Matthew C. Weed, Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation.
19 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
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service
29

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

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.20
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
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)

(...continued)

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.
20 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
30

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
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 habeas 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
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
175-245
reductions required by the so-called “new START” treaty are in
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.
Congressional Research Service
31

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
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
220-201
(H.Con.Res. 112), contingent on the enactment of spending
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
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)
Congressional Research Service
32

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Number Summary Disposition
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 to
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, dozens of 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,21 $3.09 billion more than the President requested. Amendments to the bill, adopted
by the House on July 18-19, 2012, reduced the appropriation to $597.71 billion.
In exceeding the President’s budget request—and in many of its details—the House-passed
version of the DOD appropriations bill parallels H.R. 4310, the House-passed version of the
companion FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). By the same token, the House-
passed appropriation is consistent with the defense funding cap set by H.Con.Res. 112, the
FY2013 budget resolution adopted by the House on March 29, 2012. Thus, it exceeds defense
spending cap set by the Budget Control Act of August 2011. On those grounds, the
Administration warned that the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the
house-passed bill in its current form.22

21 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
Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga Panangala.
22 OMB, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5856, June 28, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
33

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

The version of H.R. 5856 reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2, 2012,
would provide $596.64 billion—$155.0 million less than the Administration’s request and $1.06
billion less than the House-passed version (Table 9).

Table 9. FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5856)
(budget authority in thousands of dol ars)
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
FY2013
Senate
Approp.
Admin.
House-Passed
Committee-
(P.L. 112-74)
Request
(H.R. 5856)
reported

(H.R. 5856)
Military Personnel
131,090,539 128,430,025 128,462,794 127,502,463
Operation and
163,073,141 174,938,933 175,103,369 170,785,490
Maintenance
Procurement 104,579,701
97,194,677a 102,512,191 97,635,496
Research, Development,
72,420,675 69,407,767 69,984,145 69,091,078
Test & Evaluation
Revolving and
2,675,529 2,124,320 2,080,820 2,214,024
Management Funds
Defense Health Program
and other DOD
35,593,020 35,430,579 35,905,118 35,013,758
Programs
Related Agencies
1,061,591
1,054,252
1,025,476
1,056,346
General Provisions (net)b -2,597,704
8,000
-4,470,321
319,345
Subtotal: FY2013 Base
507,89 6,492
508,588,553
510,603,592
503,618,000
Budget
Base Budget Scorekeeping
+10,764,000 +8,057,000 +8,057,000 +8,057,000
Adjustments
Subtotal: Overseas
Contingency

114,965,635 88,210,745 87,105,081 93,026,000
Operations (OCO)
OCO Scorekeeping
+117,000 +271,000 +271,000 +271,000
Adjustments
TOTAL: FY2013
622,862,127 596,799,298 597,708,673 596,644,000
DOD Appropriations
Scorekeeping Adjusted
Totalc
633,743,127 605,127,298 606,036,673 604,972,000
Source: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 112-493, Report on H.R. 5856, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bil , FY2013, pp. 329-342; Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 112-196, Report on H.R.
5856, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY2013, pp. 283-291;
Notes:
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.
Congressional Research Service
34

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

b. The bulk of General Provision funding changes result from provisions that would use previously
appropriated but unobligated 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 contributions to the 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.
Proposed Administration Savings and Congressional Response
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of H.R. 5856 would each add billions
of dollars to the Administration’s budget request—$5.5 billion in the case of the House bill—
reversing some of the Administration’s DOD budget reduction initiatives, summarized in Table
10
.
In each version of the bill, that gross increase, along with other congressional initiatives
summarized in Table 11, is partly offset by funding reductions summarized in Table 12.
Table 10. Administration Budget Reduction Initiatives and Congressional Reversals
Senate
House –passed
Committee-reported
Administration Proposal
H.R. 5856
H.R. 5856
Disband 7 Air Force and Air
Prohibits retirement or transfer to
Report directs DOD not to make the
National Guard squadrons; Retire
another unit of any aircraft; Adds a
proposed changes until Congress
303 aircraft.
total of $699.2 million to budget
receives recommendations of a
Cancel planned procurements of
request for Air Force, Air Force
Commission that would be
Global Hawk Block 30
Reserve and Air National Guard to
established by the Senate version of
surveillance drones and C-27
continue operations and fund 6,560
the defense authorization bill (S 3254);
small cargo planes. Retire those
personnel slots from those three
Adds to the budget request $455.8
Block 30s and C-27s already
components which the Administration
mil ion to continue operation of the
purchased
would eliminate.
units in question and fund 9,460
personnel slots for those units.
Adds $278.0 million to continue
procuring and operating Global Hawk
Adds $357.5 million to continue
Block 30s and $140.0 million to
operating Global Hawk Block 30s, C-
continue operating C-27s.
27s and A-10s which the
Administration would retire.; Also
requires DOD to spend funds
previously appropriated for Global
Hawks and C-27s
Retire four Aegis cruisers in
Adds $602.3 million to keep in service
Adds $2.38 billion to man, equip,
FY2013 and three additional
(and modernize as earlier planned)
modernize (as previously planned) and
cruisers and two amphibious
three of the four ships. Allows
operate thru FY2014 all seven
landing ships in FY2014.
retirement of the Port Royal, severely
cruisers and both amphibious ships
damaged in a 2009 grounding.
the Administration would retire.
Congressional Research Service
35

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Senate
House –passed
Committee-reported
Administration Proposal
H.R. 5856
H.R. 5856
Increase various TRICARE fees,
Makes no change but committee says
Adds to the TRICARE request 273.0
thus reducing the FY2013 budget
it wil “continue to evaluate” the
million to replace increased fees
by $1.8 billion
proposed changes pending action on
assumed in the budget.
the defense authorization bill; House-
passed version of the authorization
In addition, cuts $807.4 million from
bill (H.R. 4310) would not authorize
TRICARE request on grounds of
most of the proposed changes and
“historic underexecution” – i.e., the
would add $1.21 billion to the budget
program typically has spent less than
to replace the anticipated fee hikes.
was appropriated (see also Table
12).
In addition, the House bill cuts $400.0
million from the $16.15 billion
TRICARE request on grounds that,
historically, the program has spent
less than was appropriated (see also
Table 12).
Slow design of new ballistic missile
n/c n/c
submarine, reducing FY2013
funding by more than half ($640
million) from earlier projection.
Budget for one Virginia-class sub
Adds $723.0 million to submarine
Adds $777.7 million to submarine
and one Aegis destroyer in
account to allow the purchase of two
account to allow the purchase of two
FY2014 instead of two of each
subs in FY2014, and $1.00 billion to
subs in FY2014, and $1.00 billion to
type (as had been planned).
allow the purchase of three
allow the purchase of three
destroyers rather than two (as
destroyers rather than two (as
requested) in FY2013.
requested) in FY2013.
Efficiencies
Adds a total of $2.11 billion to offset
n/a
Administration “efficiencies” which
the House committee deemed
unrealistic and likely to lead to
deferred maintenance of facilities.
Sources: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2013
, report to accompany H.R. 5856, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 25, 2012, H.Rept.
112-493 (Washington: GPO, 2012); U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Department of Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013, report to accompany H.R. 5856, 112th
Cong., 2nd sess., August 2, 2012, S.Rept. 112-196 (Washington: GPO, 2012).
Notes: The notation “n/c” [“no change”] signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
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 may typically increase
funding above the proposed levels:
Congressional Research Service
36

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 11. Selected Congressional Actions

Senate
House –passed
Committee-reported
Administration proposal
H.R. 5856
H.R. 5856
Requests $903.0 million to
Adds $75.0 million but does not order
continue upgrading the Ground-
development of a third missile defense
Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
site to be located on the East Coast
n/c
anti-missile system deployed in
(as does the House-passed NDAA).
Alaska and California.
Adds $168.0 million for the three
Adds $168.0 million for the three
Requests $100.0 million to
Israeli systems and an additional
Israeli systems and an additional
continue development of three
$680.0 million for the Israeli “Iron
$211.0 million for the Israeli “Iron
Israeli missile defense systems.
Dome” system designed to intercept
Dome” system designed to intercept
short-range rockets and artillery
short-range rockets and artillery
shells.
shells.
Phases out upgrades to Abrams
tanks and Bradley troop carriers,
preparatory to shutting down
Adds $321.0 million to continue
Adds $165.4 million to continue
those production lines from 2014
Abrams and Bradley upgrades.
Abrams upgrade.
until 2017, when new upgrade
programs would begin.
Requests $2.04 billion for 26 F/A-
Adds $605.0 million for 11 additional
18E/F Super Hornet Navy fighters
F/A-18E/Fs and $45.0 million for long
Adds $60.0 million for long lead-time
and $1.03 billion for 12 EA-18G
lead-time components to allow the
components to allow the purchase of
Growler electronic warfare planes
purchase of 15 additional Growlers in
15 additional Growlers in FY2014.
(with no funds to continue
FY2014.
Growler production in FY2014).
Transfers $72.0 million from Marine
Requests $836.6 million for seven
Corps budget request to buy two KC-
C-130s equipped for mid-air
Adds $447.0 million for seven
130J refueling tankers (at Marine
refueling, search and rescue, and
additional C-130s equipped for
Corps request) and adds $180.0
other missions.
various missions.
million for components that would
al ow procurement of 18 C-130Js in
FY2014.
Adds $2.00 billion for the NGREA
Requests no funding for the
account and an additional $219.0
Adds $1.0 billion for the NGREA
National Guard and Reserve
million for Blackhawk helicopters and
account.
Equipment account (NGREA)
$100.0 million for HMMWVs for the
National Guard.
Requests no funding for OCO
Create a $3.25 billion OCO Transfer
Transfer Fund, to cover
Fund consisting of $2.0 billion cut
unforeseen costs of operations in
from funds requested for Army OCO
n/c
Iraq and Afghanistan.
operations plus $1.25 billion added to
the budget.
Within the $673.0 million
requested for medical R&D,
Al ocates $354 million (within the
allocates no funds for specific
Adds $576.4 million for 21 peer-
$673.0 million requested) to increase
programs for which Congress has
reviewed medical R&D programs.
spending for six peer-reviewed
added funds to previous budget
medical R&D programs.
requests.
Requests no funds for Defense
Adds $250.0 million for Defense
Adds $200.0 million for Defense
Rapid Innovation Fund
Rapid Innovation Fund
Rapid Innovation Fund
Congressional Research Service
37

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Senate
House –passed
Committee-reported
Administration proposal
H.R. 5856
H.R. 5856
Adds $1.0 billion for Marine Corps
“reset”—i.e., repair and
reconditioning of equipment worn out

by use in Afghanistan and Iraq; This
n/c
increase partly offset by cut of $500.0
million to Marine Corps logistics
funding on grounds of unjustified
[cost] growth.
Sources: H.Rept. 112-493; S.Rept. 112-196.
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 DOD appropriations bills, the House-passed and Senate committee-
reported versions of H.R. 5856 would offset some of its proposed additions to the budget request
with a small number of relatively large funding reductions (in addition to dozens of smaller cuts
justified in terms of specific problems with specific programs).
Table 12. Selected Funding Offsets



Cuts $2.46 billion from the Army
Cuts a total of $331.7 million from
Working Capital Fund on grounds
the Operation and Maintenance
Depot maintenance
that Army depots have excessively
Accounts of the four services to
large backlog of work funded in
reduce their backlogs of depot
FY2012 that will carry over into
maintenance.
FY2013.
Cuts $400.0 million from the $16.15
Cuts $807.4 million from the request
TRICARE
billion TRICARE request on grounds
on grounds of “historical
that the program historically
underexecution”
underspends its annual appropriation.
Requests labeled by
Cuts $667.5 million, including $79.4
Cuts $7.35 billion (in addition to the
Appropriations Committee as
million from funds requested for
$331.7 million depot maintenance cut
“unjustified,” ”early to need,” or
travel.
and the $807.4 million TRCARE cut
otherwise unnecessary
cited above)
Air Force spare and repair parts
Cuts $400.0 million because of
n/c
excessive inventory.
Cuts $224.0 million from the $274.2
Defense Acquisition Workforce
mil ion requested on grounds that
DOD representatives have said the
Adds $445.8 million to the request,
Development Fund
requested amount would not be
approving $720.0 million.
needed in FY2013.
Cuts $400.9 million, the entire
Cut’s $20.0 million, approving $380.9
Medium Expanded Air Defense
amount requested for this joint U.S-
mil ion either to fund the program’s
System (MEADS)
Germany-Italy program to develop a
final year (as the Administration
mobile anti-missile defense for units in
proposes) or to pay the termination
the field.
liability for ending the program sooner
Congressional Research Service
38

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations




Rescinds a total of $1.60 billion
Rescinds a total of $3.81 billion
appropriated in prior years for specific appropriated in prior years for specific
Rescissions
purposes making those funds available
purposes making those funds available
to reduce by the same amount the
to reduce by the same amount the
requirement for new budget
requirement for new budget
authority.
authority.
Cuts $470.0 million of the $940.0
Decommissioning the nuclear-
mil ion requested and requires the
n/c
powered aircraft carrier Enterprise
Navy to seek funding on a year-by-
year basis.
Cuts $722.7 million of the $5.75
Cuts $500.0 million of the $5.75
Afghan Security Forces Fund
billion requested on grounds that
billion requested on grounds that
DOD has been slow in spending funds DOD has been slow in spending funds
appropriated in earlier years.
appropriated in earlier years.
Army Operation and Maintenance
Cuts $2.00 billion cut from the Army
[O&M] funds for war operations
O&M request on grounds that the
(Overseas Contingency
budget request would have resulted in
n/c
Operations)
an unjustified increase in expenditures
per troop)
Source: H.Rept. 112-493; S.Rept. 112-196.
Notes: The notation “n/c” [“no change”] signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
Following are additional highlights of H.R. 5856 as passed by the House and reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee:
Military Personnel and Force Structure Appropriations
Both the version of H.R. 5856 passed by the House and the version reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee would fund the 1.7% increase in “basic pay” for military personnel
proposed by the Administration. That rate is 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.
Reduction in Personnel Transfers
A Senate committee version of the bill would cut the $2.94 billion request in the four routine
personnel transfers by 10 percent ($293.6 million).23 In its report, the committee said DOD rotates
an average of one-third of military personnel from one duty station to another in any year and that
the average time between such reassignments is about two years. Longer tours of duty at any one
station (and, thus, fewer moves in a given year) would reduce budget costs and family stress
while allowing personnel to become more proficient at any given assignment.

23 This reduction would not affect the request for an additional $1.39 billion for travel costs associated with moving
personnel (1) from the point of their enlistment or commissioning to their first duty station or training school, (2) from
a duty station to a training school, or (3) from the last duty station to the home of record when they leave the service.
Congressional Research Service
39

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

The committee directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to send
Congress, within 180 days of enactment of the FY 2013 appropriations bill, a plan for increasing
the length of service members’ assignments
Army, Marine Corps End-Strength Reductions
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the bill each 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 bill would fund continued operation during FY2013 of three of the four Aegis cruisers
the Administration’s budget would retire during that year. The fourth ship, USS Port Royal, was
severely damaged in 2009 when it grounded on a coral reef off Honolulu. The bill would add to
the request $124.6 million for operation and maintenance of the three other cruisers 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.
The Senate committee bill would add to the budget request $2.38 billion in a “Ship
Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund” that would remain available through FY2013
and FY2014 “for the purposes of manning, operating, sustaining, equipping and modernizing” all
seven of the cruisers and both of the amphibious landing ships that the Administration would
retire during those two years (Section 8103).
Air Force Cuts Rejected
Like the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees both 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 House 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 House 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.
Congressional Research Service
40

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

The Senate committee-reported version of the bill would add to the request a total of $455.8
million to continue operation of the units in question and fund 9,460 personnel slots for those
units. It also would add to the FY2013 request a total of $357.5 to continue operating the Global
Hawk Block 30s, C-27s and A-10s that the Administration would retire. A provision of the Senate
committee bill (Section 8110) would require DOD to spend funds previously appropriated for
procurement of Global Hawk Block 30s and C-27s.
In its report, the Senate committee directs DOD not to carry out the proposed changes until
Congress receives recommendations of a commission that would be established by the Senate
version of the defense authorization bill (S. 3254).
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley have said that they will
defer action on the proposed changes pending congressional action on the issue.
Depot Maintenance ‘Carryover’
The House-passed and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported versions of H.R. 5856 each
would cut the Administration’s budget request in an effort to reduce what the committees deemed
to be an excessive backlog of scheduled maintenance work by the services’ depots, which
perform major overhauls of aircraft, ground vehicles, engines, electronic equipment and other
major items. Essentially, the committees took the position that they would reduce the amount of
additional funds appropriated for overhauls in FY2013 while the depots would keep working at
their regular temple, drawing down the backlogs.
The issue, which the GAO has been scrutinizing for years, is referred to as “excess carryover”
and is described by a July 2008 GAO report on Army depots:
The five Army depots operate under the working capital fund concept, where customers are
to be charged for the anticipated full cost of goods and services. To the extent that the depots
do not complete work at [sic–apparently means “by”] year-end, the funded work will be
carried into the next fiscal year. Carryover is the reported dollar value of work that has been
ordered and funded (obligated) by customers but not completed by working capital fund
activities at the end of the fiscal year. The congressional defense committees recognize that
some carryover is needed to ensure a smooth flow of work during the transition from one
fiscal year to the next. However, past congressional defense committee reports raised
concerns that the level of carryover may be more than is needed. Excessive amounts of
carryover financed with customer appropriations are subject to reductions by the Department
of Defense (DOD) and the congressional defense committees during the budget review
process.24
The House-passed version of H.R. 5856 includes a provision (Section 8087) that would cut a total
of $2.46 billion from the amounts requested for Army Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and
for the Army’s Other Procurement accounts, explaining the action in a summary table as, “Excess
Working Capital Fund Carryover.” Citing the same rationale, the Senate committee-reported

24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Army Working Capital Fund: Actions Needed to Reduce Carryover at
Amry Depots, GAO-08-714, July 2008, pp. 1-2.
Congressional Research Service
41

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

version of the bill would cut a total of $331.7 million from the amounts requested for the O&M
accounts of the four armed services.
TRICARE Fee Increases and Cost Savings
Proposed TRICARE Fee Increases
The Administration’s $16.15 billion request for the TRICARE medical insurance program that
covers active and retired service members, their dependents, and their survivors assumed certain
increases in various fees paid by participants. While some of those proposed increases are
allowed by current law, most of them would require new legislation. The House-passed and
Senate committee-reported versions of the FY2013 defense authorization bill would reject several
of those proposed changes.
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5856 incorporates the TRICARE cost
savings that would result from the Administration’s proposed fee hikes. In its report on the bill,
the House Committee said it would “continue to evaluate the proposed changes,” pending
enactment of the companion defense authorization bill.
The Senate committee’s version of the bill would add $273.0 million to the request to cover
higher than budgeted costs should Congress reject some of the proposed TRICARE fee increases.
TRICARE Savings Assumed
Citing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as its authority, the Senate Appropriations
Committee said, in its report on H.R. 5856, that the TRICARE program had “underexecuted” its
budget (i.e., had spent less than was appropriated) by $771.6 million in FY2010 and by $1.36
billion in FY2011, and that it was on track to spend $1.04 billion less than had been appropriated
for FY2012. On the assumption thtat this pattern of “historic underexecution” would continue in
FY2013, the Senate committee’s version of the defense bill would cut $807.4 million from the
FY2013 TRICARE request, a reduction of 5 percent.
The House-passed version of the bill would cut $400.0 million from the TRICARE budget
request on grounds of “historic underexecution.”
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; Hercules tank recovery vehicles
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. The House-passed version of
H.R. 5856 would increase the request by $188.0 million, to upgrade additional M-1s to the
A2SEP standard.
Congressional Research Service
42

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

The House 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.
In addition, the House bill would add $62.0 million to the $107.9 million requested for M-88A2
Hercules tank recovery vehicles – tracked vehicles designed to tow to safety a disabled 70-ton
Abrams tank.
The Senate committee version of H.R. 5856 would add $91.0 million to the Abrams tank upgrade
request, $123.0 million to the tank recovery vehicle request, and no funds to the Bradley upgrade
request.
Overall Combat Vehicle Modernization Plan
The House-passed and Senate committee versions of H.R. 5856 both would provide $639.9
million, as requested, to continue development of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), which is
intended to replace the Bradley armored troop carrier. However, in its report on the bill, the
Senate Appropriations Committee questioned the emphasis the Army was placing on that project
considered in the context of its overall spending plans for modernization of its armored combat
vehicle fleet.
Under current Army plans, the Senate committee said, the GCV would account for about 10
percent of the Army’s entire fleet of combat vehicles. In the FY2013 budget request, it accounts
for more than 70 percent of the total amount requested for modernization of the ground combat
fleet. Over the five-year period FY2013-FY2017, GCV would absorb more than 80 percent of the
service’s projected spending on combat vehicle modernization. The committee directed the Army
to provide to Congress the results of a business case analysis—currently underway—of its
combat vehicle fleet modernization plans.
Naval Systems Appropriations
In their respective reports on H.R. 5856, the Appropriations Committees of both the House and
Senate decried the Administration’s plan to reduce the number of warships projected for funding
in FY2013-FY2017 compared with the Navy’s previous five-year plan. Both committees warned
that the projected reduction in shipbuilding would increase costs and weaken the nation’s
shipbuilding industrial base. The House committee also contended that the Administration’s plan
was inconsistent with its increased emphasis on U.S. military power in the Pacific region, where
naval forces would play a particularly significant role.
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, the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee objected to the Administration’s plan to buy one Virginia-class attack
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
Congressional Research Service
43

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

restore these ships to FY2014,” the House Appropriations Committee said in its report on H.R.
5856.
All four of the congressional defense committees argued for providing enough funds in FY2013
to support multi-year contracts to procure 10 submarines and 10 destroyers in order to realize
cost-cutting efficiencies.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5856 would add to the request $723 million in long lead-time
funding to buy components that allow the Navy to start two submarines rather than one in
FY2014. The bill also would include an additional $1.0 billion to fund a third destroyer in
FY2013, in addition to the two requested, stating in its report that the “Secretary of the Navy is
directed to use this funding as part of the DDG-51 multiyear procurement planned for fiscal years
2013 through 2017 in order to achieve a lower cost and provide a more stable production base for
the duration of the DDG-51 multiyear procurement.”25 In its report, the House committee rejected
Navy proposals to squeeze the additional ships into the currently projected shipbuilding budgets
by funding them “incrementally”—appropriating for each fiscal year only the amount that would
be spent in that year—rather than following the usual policy of “full-funding,” under which the
full cost of any ship would have to be appropriated for a single year.26
The Senate committee’s version of H.R. 5856 would add to the budget $777.7 million—about 7.6
percent more than the House-passed version—for components to allow procurement of a second
submarine in FY 2014. For the additional destroyer, the Senate committee bill would add the
same amount as the House bill—$1.0 billion.
The Senate committee bill includes a provision (Section 8010) that would authorize incremental
funding for additional submarines—an approach the House committee had rejected. But the
Senate committee took a more cautious approach in approving modifications to proven ship
designs:
• The Senate committee cut $90.0 million from the $100.0 million requested to
develop the “Virginia Payload Module”—a 94 foot-long hull section intended to
be inserted into the Virginia-class design to carry additional weapons, unmanned
mini-subs and other equipment. In its report, the committee said it was unclear
that the proposed addition would not disrupt submarine production and
compromise the ships’ performance.
• The Senate committee also insisted that destroyers built under the planned multi-
year contract not incorporate a powerful new radar, currently under development,
to improve the ships’ anti-missile defense capability. Like the House-passed
version of H.R. 5856, the Senate committee version would provide the $223.6
million requested to continue development of this Air and Missile Defense Radar
(AMDR). However, the Senate committee said it would be premature to include
the new radar in the ships to be purchased under the pending multi-year contract.

25 “DDG-51” identifies the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers currently being procured by the Navy.
26 CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for Congress,
by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
Congressional Research Service
44

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

USS Miami Fire Damage Repair
The Senate committee version of H.R. 5856 would add to the budget $150 million for the repair
of the Virginia-class submarine USS Miami, damaged by fire on May 23, 2012, and undergoing
an overhaul at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. On August 22, 2012, the Navy
announced that it plans to repair the ship, at an estimated cost of $450.0 million, by April 30,
2015, after which the ship would be good for an additional 10 years of service.27
The anticipated unit-cost of one Virginia-class submarine in the FY2013 budget is $2.55 billion.
Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD-17)
In its report on the bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the Navy has fewer
amphibious landing transports than current DOD plans call for and that the number of such ships
is slated to decline further. To stem that decline, the committee added to the request $263.3
million for long leadtime components to be used in an LPD-17-class amphibious transport dock
ship to be purchased in FY2014.
Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB)
In its FY2013 appropriations submission, the Navy requested $38.0 million to purchase certain
components in advance of ordering a ship purpose-built as a mobile at-sea platform to support
and sustain various maritime operations. The vessel, known as the Afloat Forward Staging Base
(AFSB), would be a modification of an existing ship type, the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP),
that is currently under construction. The House-passed bill denied the requested funding, while
the Senate committee version granted the request and added to it $106.5 million of budget
authority.
The MLP program is designed to give the Navy the ability to transfer rolling stock, such as trucks
and Humvees, at sea between ships that lack the capability to offload such cargo without port
facilities. It does so by providing a very low, flat deck area onto which both vehicles can drive
from their transport ships using ramps and Navy air cushion landing craft (LCACs) can “fly”
under their own power. Once aboard, the vehicles can be loaded onto the LCACs for transfer to
amphibious assault ships to join with the Marines who will use them in operations. The Navy has
planned to build three such MLPs and has already received much of the necessary funding.
Over the past several years, the Navy has weighed its need for MLPs against the need for
additional offshore capabilities. The Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) would adapt the MLP
platform to become a floating base for smaller vessels (e.g., minesweepers or patrol craft) and
helicopters that could perform a variety of missions. After having concluded that two MLPs will
satisfy the cargo transfer requirement, the Navy proposed using the requested FY2013 MLP
funding to begin the process of converting the third MLP into an AFSB and indicated that funding

27 Navy News Service, “Navy Provides Updated Cost Estimate for USS Miami Repair,” August 22, 2012, accessed at
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=69153.
Congressional Research Service
45

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

for a fourth MLP, purpose-built as an AFSB, would be requested for FY2014. The requested
$38.0 million was intended to procure the initial components that would go into that fourth MLP.
As noted, the House-passed version of H.R. 5856 denied all funding for this purpose, instructing
the Navy to instead modify existing ships as necessary to fulfill specific missions and to apply the
AFSB funding planned for FY2014 toward the submarine construction program.
The Senate committee reacted differently to the proposal. The committee recommended that the
request to redirect the $38.0 million of advance procurement for the fourth MLP into the
conversion of the the third ship into an AFSB be granted and that an additional $97.0 million be
provided in FY2013 in order to complete the task.
For a fuller discussion of the Navy shipbuilding program, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and
Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
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 a backup oxygen supply for
the pilots in each aircraft. 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.
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 had previously announced plans 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.
Congressional Research Service
46

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Military aircraft programs are explained in detail in reports written by Jeremiah Gertler, Specialist in Military Aviation,
that are available to congressional clients through the CRS website.
Missile Defense Appropriations
The House-passed version of H.R. 5856 would appropriate $9.06 billion for programs of the
Missile Defense Agency, a 17% increase above the $7.75 billion request. Nearly two-thirds of the
increase is accounted for 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.
The version of the defense bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would add $587
million to the Missile Defense Agency budget request.
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 House-passed 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 House version of the defense appropriations 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 on deploying additional anti-missile interceptors at a third site on the East Coast of
the United States.
The Senate committee version of the bill would provide the $903.2 million requested for GMD.
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
H.R. 5856 would provide none of the $400.9 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 that incorporates the Patriot PAC-3 missile, which is
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. The
House-passed version of the appropriations bill would deny all funding for MEADS.
In its official Statement of Administration Position on the bill, OMB said it “strongly objects,”
stating
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
47

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.28
In its report, the House committee acknowledged that additional funding might yield some
benefits, but added: “The expected benefits do not justify the cost.” 29
The Senate committee version of the bill would provide $380.9 million that could be used either
to complete the MEADS development program or to pay the fee the U.S. government would
incur through termination. In its report on the bill, the Senate committee said the costs would be
about the same in either case.30
CRS reports written by Stephen A. Hildreth, Specialist in Missile Defense, cover these issues in detail.
OCO Funding: Afghanistan and Related Activities
The House-passed version of H.R. 5856 would provide $87.11 billion for Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO)—basically, operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and supporting activities, which
is $1.11 billion less than the request. The Senatecommittee-reported version of the bill would
provide $93.03 billion for OCO funding, $4.82 billion more than the request.
Table 13. OCO Funding Highlights in FY 2013 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5856)
Senate Committee-reported
Issue
House-passed H.R. 5856
H.R. 5856
Funds requested in the Base
Transfer $3.54 billion total to Title IX
Transfer $6.55 billion to Title IX
Budget, funded in Title IX (OCO
funds), which is currently exempt
from budget caps
$5.75 billion requested for Afghan
Cut $723 million
Cut $600 million
Security Forces Fund
$400 million requested for
Cut $200 million
Cut $200 million
Commanders Emergency
Response Program (CERP)
Rescissions of OCO funds
Cut $580 million
Cut $1.71 billion
provided by prior appropriations
$1.75 billion requested for
Floor amendment cut $650 million
n/c
Coalition Support Fund
O&M requests deemed by the
Cut $2.0 billion from Army O&M and
n/c
committee to be unjustified
$500 million from Marine Corps O&M

28 OMB, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5856, June 28, 2012.
29 H.Rept. 112-493, p. 219.
30 S.Rept. 112-196, p. 179.
Congressional Research Service
48

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Senate Committee-reported
Issue
House-passed H.R. 5856
H.R. 5856
Additional funds to “resed”
Add $1.00 billion
Transfer $1.13 billion from Army base
equipment returned to U.S. after
budget request and $110 million from
service in Iraq and Afghanistan
Marine Corps base budget request
(included in the $6.55 billion transfer
total noted above)
Additional ship deployments to
n/c
Add $293 million
Central Command region
Source: H.Rept. 112-493; S.Rept. 112-196.
Notes: The notation “n/c” [“no change”] signifies that no provision of the bill would block or alter the proposed
policy.
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.
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5856 would have provided the $1.75
billion requested for CSF. However, Section 9015 of the bill would have barred any payments
from the fund 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.
An amendment adopted during House debate on H.R. 5856 cut $650 million from the CSF
request, with the intent of cutting Pakistan’s payment by 50 percent to $650 million.
Detainee Issues
OMB also said it “strongly objects” to several provisions of the House-passed version of H.R.
5856 restricts the transfer to any other location those detainees who are neither U.S. citizens nor
members of the U.S. Armed Forces and are held in the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
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 where the host government would likely retain the
detainee in custody and render him unable 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.
The Senate committee-reported version of H.R. 5856 contains analogous provisions in Sections
8105, 8106 and 8107, respectively.
Congressional Research Service
49

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

House Floor Amendments
Following are selected amendments on which the House took action during consideration of H.R.
5856:
Table 14. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY 2013 DOD Appropriations Act
(H.R. 5856)
House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Numbera
Summaryb Disposition


Overall Budget Reduction Proposals

Woolsey
1404
Cut the total appropriated by $181 million, the amount by which the
Rejected
House-passed Transportation Department Appropriation Bill (H.R. 5972)
voice vote
would reduce funding for the Federal Transit Administration.
Woolsey
1406
Cut the total appropriated by $294 million, the amount by which the
Rejected
Labor-HHS Appropriations bill drafted by a House Appropriations
106-311
subcommittee would reduce funding for Title X Family Planning
programs.
Woolsey
1411
Cut the total appropriated by $1.7 billion, the annual budget for the Social Rejected
Services Block Grant Program, which the House Ways and Means
91-328
committee voted to eliminate as part of the FY2013 budget process.
Lee
1419
Cut the total appropriated by $19.2 billion, reducing it to the amount
Rejected
appropriated for DOD in FY2008.
87-326
Lee
1421
Cut the total appropriated by $7.58 billion, an amount that would reduce
Rejected
DOD appropriations as required by the 2011 Budget Control Act.
171-243
Mulvaney
1431
Cut the total appropriated by $1.07 billion, an amount that would freeze
Agreed to
DOD appropriations at the FY2012 level (except for personnel, health
247-167
care, and war costs).


Specific Budget Cuts

McCollum
1378
Cut $188 million to reduce spending on military bands.
Rejected
166-250
Kingston
1380
Cut $27 million to eliminate recruiting advertising on NASCAR racers.
Rejected
202-216
Quigley
1391
Cut $988 million to eliminate an Aegis destroyer the bill would add to
Rejected
the budget.
60-359
Cohen
1392
Cut $507 million the bill would add to retain for Aegis cruisers the
Rejected
Administration would retire; Add $235 million for additional Cancer
145-273
research.
Pompeo
1393
Cut $250 million to eliminate the Rapid Innovation Fund.
Rejected
137-282


Medical R&D Additions

Kucinich
1383
Shift $10 million to research on treatment of Gulf War Syndrome.
Agreed
voice vote
Langevin
1386
Shift $15 million to research on spinal cord injury
Agreed
voice vote
Session
1387
Shift $10 million to research on Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-
Agreed
Traumatic Stress Disorder
voice vote
Congressional Research Service
50

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Principal
Amend.
Sponsor
Numbera Summaryb Disposition
Walz
1388
Shift $10 million to research on vision and eye disorders
Agreed
voice vote
Boswell
1402
Shift $10 million to suicide prevention efforts
Agreed
voice vote


Reductions to Afghanistan-related Costs

Jones
1397
Cut $412 million from incentive pay for Afghan Security Forces and add
Agreed
$149 million for incentive pay for U.S. personnel
voice vote
Ciciline
1400
Cut $375 million from the Afghan Infrastructure Fund (thus eliminating
Rejected
the fund).
149-270
Cohen
1401
Cut $175 million from the Afghan Infrastructure Fund.
Agreed
228-191
Poe
1412
Cut $650 million from Coalition Support Funds (thus cutting by 50
Agreed
percent the projected aid to Pakistan).
voice vote
Lee
1414
Cut $20.8 billion from the request for Overseas contingency Operation
Rejected
(OCO) costs, with the aim of requiring withdrawal of U.S. forces from
107-312
Afghanistan.
Garamendi 1430
Cut $20.8 billion from the request for Overseas Contingency Operation
Rejected
(OCO) costs, with the aim of requiring a continuing drawdown of U.S.
137-278
forces in Afghanistan during FY2014.


Strategic Nuclear Weapons-related Issues

Markey
1394
Cut $75 million the bill would add to the budget for Ground-Based
Rejected
Missile Defense.
150-268
Markey
1405
Prohibit the use of funds to deploy more than 300 ICBMs.
Rejected
136-283
Turner
1424
Prohibit the use of funds to make certain reductions in nuclear weapons.
Agreed
235-178
Berg
1427
Prohibit any reduction in the number of certain types of nuclear weapons
Agreed 233-
delivery vehicles.
183


Other Issues

Amash
1395
Remove Section 8039 (which restricts the contracting-out to private
Rejected
firms of functions performed by federal employees).
186-233
King
1415
Exempt military construction projects from the Davis-Bacon Act.
Rejected
82-235
King
1416
Prohibit the use of funds to violate the Defense of Marriage Act.
Agreed
247-166
Coffman
1426
Mandate by law the Administration’s decision to withdraw two Army
Rejected
brigade combat teams from Europe.
123-292
Stearns
1435
Prohibit the introduction of any new fee for TRICARE-for-Life.
Agreed
399-117
Notes:
a. “House Amendment Number” is the number assigned to an amendment by the House Clerk, by which
amendments can be traced through the CRS Legislative Information System (LIS).
b. In many cases, the proposed amendment would add or cut a specific amount to an appropriations account
without specifying the intended purpose. In those cases, the intent of the amendment is determined by the
Congressional Research Service
51

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

proponents’ statements during debate on the proposal. The cost estimates implicit in these amendment
cummaries reflect the assertions of the amendment sponsors and have not been verified by CRS.

Congressional Research Service
52


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-53


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-54


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-55


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-56


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-57


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-58


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-59


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-60


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-61


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 February 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-62


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-63


FY2013
House-passed
Senate-passed
Appropriation

Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report




Cruiser

101,000
260,616

607,660
510,616






In February 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-64


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-65


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-66


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-67


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-68


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-69


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-70


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-71


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-72


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-73


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-74

Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations



Author Contact Information


Pat Towell
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in U.S.
Specialist in National
Defense Policy and
Defense
Budget
delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-
ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-
4996
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
Military construction and installations,
Daniel H. Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
defense industry
Current military operations
Catherine Dale
7-8983
cdale@crs.loc.gov
Ground combat systems
Andrew Feickert
7-7673
afeickert@crs.loc.gov
Military aviation systems
Jeremiah Gertler
7-5107
jgertler@crs.loc.gov
Missile defense systems
Steven Hildreth
7-7635
shildreth@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear weapons
Jonathan Medalia
7-7632
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Naval systems
Ronald O’Rourke
7-7610
rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Cyber-warfare Catherine
Theohary
7-0844
ctheohary@crs.loc.gov


Congressional Research Service
75