Defense: FY2014 Authorization and
Appropriations

Pat Towell, Coordinator
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
December 16, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43323


Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Summary
President Obama’s FY2014 base budget request of $552.0 billion in discretionary budget
authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and defense-related programs of other agencies
(excluding war costs), exceeds by $53.9 billion the legally binding cap on defense funding for
FY2014 that was enacted in 2011 as part of the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). Unless the
Budget Control Act (BCA) is amended, either Congress will have to cut the Administration’s
National Defense request by $53.9 billion (about 9.8%) to meet the BCA cap of $498.1 billion, or
else the BCA law will reduce the appropriation to the level set by the cap through a process of
sequestration, beginning in January 2014.
In their initial actions on the annual defense funding bills for FY2014, the House and the Armed
Services and Appropriations Committees of the Senate approved defense funding totals
(excluding war costs) that were very close to President Obama’s so-called “base budget” (i.e.,
non-war) request, regardless of the BCA cap.
For DOD’s base budget, both the version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
passed by the House on June 14, 2013 (H.R. 1960), and the version reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee on June 20, 2013 (S. 1197), would differ from the President’s request by less
than $50 million, in terms of the net totals authorized. For war-related operations (designated as
“overseas contingency operations” or OCO), the Senate committee version of the authorization
bill would make few changes to the Administration’s $80.7 billion request, while the House-
passed bill would add $5.4 billion.
Both versions of the authorization bill also include provisions bearing on contentious policy
issues including the armed services’ handling of sexual assault cases and the treatment of
detainees currently held at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In the case of the FY2014 DOD Appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), which funds most discretionary
DOD programs except for military construction, the version passed by the House on June 24,
2013, and the version reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 1, 2013,
differed by a relatively larger amount. Compared with President Obama’s request for $589.4
billion (including both base budget and OCO funds), the version passed by the House on June 24,
2013, would provide a reduction of about $4.14 billion while the version reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee on August 1, 2013, would make a net reduction of about $2.17 billion.
In conjunction with funding for military construction and for defense-related spending in other
agencies in other appropriations bills passed by the House and reported by the Senate committee,
either version of H.R. 2397 would result in total DOD base budget appropriations that would
exceed the BCA limit for FY2014 by nearly as much as President Obama’s initial request.
Because legislation to fund the federal government in FY2014 had not been enacted prior to the
start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2013, DOD, like most other agencies, was then subject to a
lapse in appropriations during which agencies are generally required to shut down. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), however, identified a number of exceptions to the requirement
that agencies cease operations, including a blanket exception for activities that "provide for the
national security." Under that exception, all active-duty military personnel and many DOD
civilian employees remained on their jobs through October 17, 2013, when the FY2014
Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-46) was enacted, which allowed DOD and all other federal
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

agencies to resume their normal operations through January 15, 2014, at a rate of spending equal
to the rate provided by the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L.
113-6), subject to reductions made on March 15, 2013, by the BCA-mandated sequestration
process.
Excluding war costs, the FY2014 Continuing Resolution funds DOD and defense-related
programs of other agencies (which comprise the “National Defense” budget function) for roughly
one-quarter of a year at a rate that would amount to an annual budget of $518 billion. That annual
total would amount to a reduction of $34 billion (or 6.2%) from the President’s request for the so-
called “base budget”—that is, excluding war costs. However, it would exceed the BCA cap on
National Defense spending in FY2014 by $21 billion (or about 4%). Accordingly, if Congress
funded the National Defense function at that level for the entire year, and if the BCA were not
amended, OMB would be required to issue a sequestration order reducing National Defense
funding by 4%, in order to meet the relevant BCA cap.
From FY2014 through FY2021, the annual caps on National Defense funding that were enacted
into law as part of the BCA would increase by about $13 billion per year, which would not quite
cover the anticipated cost of inflation.
For DOD, which accounts for about 96% of the National Defense budget, the Administration’s
$526.6 billion base budget request for FY2014 exceeds by about $31 billion DOD’s post-
sequester, base budget funding level for FY2013, which is estimated by DOD at $495 billion.
On December 11, 2013, Congressman Paul C. Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, Chairs of the
House and Senate Budget Committee respectively, and co-chairs of the group appointed to
develop a budget compromise, introduced as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which resets the
defense and non-defense budget limits that need to be met to avoid a sequester in FY2014 and
FY2015. On December 12, 2013, the House adopted the bill by a vote of 302-95 as an
amendment to H.J.Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014. The Senate is expected to
vote on the bill on December 17, 2013, having voted to close debate on December 15, 2013.
For National Defense, the new FY2014 budget limit would be $520 billion rather than the $498
billion or $2 billion above the current CR for national defense. For DOD, the new total would be
about $497 billion for the Department of Defense rather than $476 billion under the current BCA.
If this bill becomes law and Congress appropriates to these new limits, there would no longer be a
need for an additional $20 billion sequester in January 2014. For FY2015, the new limit would be
$521 billion rather than the $512 billion for National Defense and $498 billion rather than $489
billion for DOD, in both cases providing a $9 billion increase above current limits. Spending in
FY2015 would be $1 billion above the prior year.
In later years, budget limits would be the same as the current limits rising to $590 billion for
National Defense 564 billion for DOD by FY2021 in nominal dollars. Altogether, over the
FY2012-FY2021 decade, National Defense spending would total $5.447 trillion or $32 billion
higher than the current limit. For DOD, spending would total $5.202 trillion rather than $5.176
trillion, a $30 billion increase over the current limit. The FY2014 Administration’s DOD budget
plan totals $5.533 trillion, exceeding the proposed new limits by $326 billion or 6%.
On December 14, 2013, by a vote of 350 to 69, the House passed H.Res. 441 which adopted H.R.
3304, effectively, a conference version of FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Senate is slated to take up the House bill on December 18.
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Legislative Action ....................................................................................................... 1
Budgetary Context: BCA Spending Caps .................................................................................. 5
Sequestration Flexibility in FY2014 and FY2013 Experience .................................................. 7
Sequestration Alternatives in FY2014 ....................................................................................... 9
Alternatives under Current Law .......................................................................................... 9
Legislative Proposals......................................................................................................... 10
DOD Forecast of FY2014 BCA Impact .................................................................................. 11
DOD FY2013 Post-Sequester Funding and the FY2014 Request ........................................... 12
FY2014 National Defense Budget Overview ................................................................................ 13
FY2014 DOD Base Budget Highlights ......................................................................................... 19
Sustaining Current Strategy ..................................................................................................... 21
Military Personnel ................................................................................................................... 21
Military Pay and Allowances ............................................................................................ 22
TRICARE Fees ................................................................................................................. 23
“Efficiency” Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 23
Weapons Acquisition Reductions ............................................................................................ 24
Proposed Base Closures .......................................................................................................... 25
FY2014 OCO Budget Highlights .................................................................................................. 25
Ship and Aircraft Retirements ........................................................................................... 28
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) ................................................................. 29
NDAA: The Broad Outlines .................................................................................................... 30
Proposed Administration Savings ..................................................................................... 30
Other Congressional Additions ......................................................................................... 32
Funding Offsets ................................................................................................................. 34
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization) ............................................................................... 34
Military Pay Raise ................................................................................................................... 35
Sexual Assault Prevention and Treatment ......................................................................... 35
Provisions Relating to Chaplains Corps and Conscience .................................................. 36
TRICARE .......................................................................................................................... 36
Assignment of Women in the Military .............................................................................. 37
Reserve Component Mobilization Guarantees .................................................................. 38
Ground Combat Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................... 38
Current Generation Vehicles (M-1, Bradley, and others) .................................................. 38
Next Generation Vehicles: GCV, AMPV, MPC, and JLTV ............................................... 39
Naval Systems (Authorization) ............................................................................................... 40
Aircraft Carriers ................................................................................................................ 40
Attack Submarines and Missile Submarines ..................................................................... 41
Destroyers ......................................................................................................................... 42
Littoral Combat Ships ....................................................................................................... 42
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Authorization) ....................................................................... 43
Long-Range Weapons and Provisions Related to Arms Control ....................................... 43
Carrier-Based UAVs .......................................................................................................... 44
Missile Defense (Authorization) ............................................................................................. 45
Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) ............................................................................ 45
Israeli Defenses ................................................................................................................. 46
NATO Missile Defense Cost ............................................................................................. 46
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees .............................................................................. 46
House Floor Amendments ....................................................................................................... 47
FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill ................................................................................................. 50
Overview (H.R. 2397; S. 1429) ............................................................................................... 50
Base Budget ...................................................................................................................... 53
OCO Funding .................................................................................................................... 54
Military Personnel Issues (Appropriations) ............................................................................. 54
Military Compensation ...................................................................................................... 54
Defense Health Program (including TRICARE) ............................................................... 55
Ground Combat Systems (Appropriations) ............................................................................. 55
Naval Systems (Appropriations) ............................................................................................. 56
Submarines ........................................................................................................................ 56
Destroyers ......................................................................................................................... 57
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Appropriations) ..................................................................... 57
Strike Fighters (Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18) .............................................................. 57
Missile Defense Programs (Appropriations) ........................................................................... 58
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (OCO) .............................................................................. 58
House Floor Amendments to FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bills .......................................... 59

Figures
Figure 1. Successive Administration DOD Budget Plans, FY2011-FY2014 ................................ 15
Figure 2. Estimated DOD Funding Projections, FY2013-2021 ..................................................... 18
Figure 3. Projected DOD Purchasing Power in Perspective, 1976-2021 (Base Budget) ............... 19

Tables
Table 1. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1960; S. 1197) .................................. 5
Table 2. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2397; S. 1429) .................................................. 5
Table 3. FY2014 National Defense Budget Function (050); Administration Request .................. 14
Table 4. DOD Budget Plans and BCA Caps .................................................................................. 17
Table 5. DOD Discretionary Base Budgets, FY2012-FY2014 ...................................................... 20
Table 6. Active Component Authorized End-Strength ................................................................... 22
Table 7. Administration’s FY2014 Discretionary OCO Budget Request ...................................... 25
Table 8. OCO Funding and Troop Level Trends: FY2008 through FY2014 Request ................... 26
Table 9. OCO Funding by Mission Category ................................................................................ 28
Table 10. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1960; S. 1197) .............................. 30
Table 11. Selected Administration Cost Cutting Initiatives ........................................................... 31
Table 12. Selected Additions to the Administration Request ......................................................... 32
Table 13. Selected Congressional Funding Offsets in the FY2014 NDAA ................................... 34
Table 14. Selected Sexual Assault-related Provisions, FY2014 NDAA ........................................ 35
Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 15. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2014 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 1960) .......................................................................................................................... 47
Table 16. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397; S. 1429) ............................................... 52
Table 17. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R.
2397) ........................................................................................................................................... 59
Table A-1. Congressional Authorization Action on Selected FY2014 Missile Defense
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 63
Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Missile Defense Funding
Appropriation .............................................................................................................................. 66
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Army, Marine Corps Ground
Combat Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................... 69
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Army Ground Combat Programs:
Appropriation .............................................................................................................................. 71
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................................. 72
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 73
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization ............... 74
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation .............. 75
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Authorization ............................................................................................................. 76
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile
Programs: Appropriation ............................................................................................................ 80

Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables ................................................................................ 63

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 84
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 84

Congressional Research Service

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Most Recent Legislative Action
On December 11, 2013, Congressman Paul C. Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, chairs of the
House and Senate budget committees, respectively, and co-Chairs of the group appointed to
develop a budget compromise to avoid a sequester in mid-January 2014, introduced the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which raises defense and non-defense budget spending limits for
FY2014 and FY20151 The proposal includes alternate savings to offset these increases. The target
for reaching an agreement was December 13, 2013.2 On December 12, 2013, the House passed
the proposal as an amendment to H.J. Res 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014 by a
vote of 302-95. The Senate is expected to act the week of December 16th, 2013.
For FY2014, the proposal raises the current budget limit for National Defense (budget function
050) limit by $22 billion to a total of $520 billion, or $2 billion above the level set in the
Continuing Resolution (CR) of 2014.3 For the Department of Defense, the new FY2014 limit
would be set at $497 billion rather than the current limit of $476 just above the CR. If Congress
extends the current CR level for the full year at these new limits, then there would be no sequester
in January 2014. For DOD, the new limits would essentially be a nominal freeze, setting DOD
spending at $2 billion above the FY2013 post-sequester level. If the Bipartisan Budget Act
becomes law, the appropriations committees in both houses are expected to conference to the new
limits.
For FY2015, the new budget limit for National Defense would be $523 billion, or $9 billion
above the current $512 billion limit. Similarly, for DOD, the new FY2015 limit would be $498
billion compared to $489 level in current law, or $9 billion higher than the current limit, and $1
billion above the new limit for FY2014. In later years, budget limits would be the same as current
levels. Altogether, over the FY2012-FY2021 decade, National Defense spending would total
$5.447 trillion or $32 billion or 6% above the current limit. DOD spending would total $5.206
trillion rather than $5.176 trillion, a $30 billion or 6% increase over current limits. 4



1 H.J.Res. 59.
2 CQ News, “Without a Budget Deal Lawmakers Would Face Tough Choices on Spending,” By Tamar Hallerman,
Nov. 11, 2013; CQ News, “Budget Conferees Prepare to Confront Deep Rift on Spending Levels,” By Kerry Young,
CQ Roll Call; Oct. 16, 2013.
3 Sec. 101(a)(3) in P.L. 113-46, H.J.Res. 59.
4 CRS calculations based on Sec. 101(a) in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as introduced, OMB, OMB, “Final
Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2013,” April 9, 2013;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/sequestration_final_april201
3.pdf; OMB, FY2014 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 31-1;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/31_1.pdf.
The budget limits set for FY2014 and FY2015 reflect post-sequester levels and those for FY2016-FY2021 reflect pre-
sequester levels; see Sec. 101 in Senate Budget Committee, “Section By Section Analysis of Bipartisan Budget Act;”
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=9d3728aa-cf0a-4ddf-bfd4-d02ed4de570f. See
also see Sec. 111 (b)(10(B) which states that the new discretionary limits would not be lowered by an OMB calculation
of a reduction to caps.

Congressional Research Service
1

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

In addition to these changes in budget limits, the Bipartisan Budget Act also reduces the inflation
adjustments provided to military retirees under the age of 62 from the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) to the CPI less 1% in parallel with increasing contributions to retirement by new federal
retirees. Military retirees would receive a “catch-up” increase at age 62 that would raise their
benefit level to an amount including a full CPI adjustment, and then receive Cost of Living
Adjustments at the CWI.5 According to CBO, this change would save the Department of Defense
$6.235 billion over the decade.6
There are several potential scenarios that Congress may face in January 2014. On January 15,
2014, the current CR (P.L. 113-46) lapses so Congress needs to either extend the current CR or
pass individual or an omnibus appropriations act to avoid a government shutdown. To avoid a
sequester, Congress needs to appropriate defense spending that complies with BCA limits that are
in effect.
If the new limits are adopted, and if Congress provides defense spending at the current CR for the
full year, then there would be no sequester because the new defense limit matches the CR.
According to press reports, the Department of Defense is currently spending at that level. If
Congress adopts the new limits but provides defense appropriations that exceed BCA limits,
however, then OMB would levy a sequester to ensure compliance with BCA limits.
Under current BCA spending limits (without assuming passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013), a sequester would reduce defense spending by $20 billion, about 3.8% overall in mid-
January 2014 to bring appropriations into compliance with the BCA. (The percentage cut to
affected accounts, excluding exempted military personnel, would be about 5.8%.) This estimate
reflects the amount by which the current CR exceeds the estimated $476 billion cap set in the
Budget Control Act.7 If the new limits are adopted and matched by appropriations, the threat of a
sequester would disappear.
In other words, to the extent that defense appropriations breach or exceed whatever BCA limits in
effect, OMB must levy a sequester of whatever size is necessary to ensure compliance with BCA
limits.8

5 See Sec. 403 of the Bipartisn Budget Act of 2013 as introduced. The CPI-W tracks price changes for urban
consumers; see http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm.
6 CBO, “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as posted on the House Rules Committee website, December 10, 2013,”
December 11, 2013;
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Bipartisan%20Budget%20Act%20of%202013.pdf.
7 H.R. 2775/P.L. 113-46 set the FY2014 Continuing Resolution spending at the FY2013 enacted level with
sequestration. CBO estimated that post-sequester level as $518 billion in “CBO’s Estimate of Discretionary Budget
Authority for Fiscal Year 2013, Showing Amounts for Defense and Nondefense Programs,” supplementing Table 3 in
Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023, May 2013. The FY2014 defense caps is shown as $497 billion
in Table 1-5, “Discretionary Spending Projected in CBO’s Baseline,” in The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal
Years 2013 to 2023, February 2013; http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-
BudgetOutlook.pdf.
8 If the current level of appropriations breaches caps set in budget law, 2 U.S.C. §901 (§251 of the Deficit Control Act
of 1985) requires that there be a sequestration within 15 calendar days after Congress adjourns to “eliminate a breach
within that category . . . “ Since the Constitution requires that a new session start by January 3 of each year, the latest a
FY2014 sequester could occur would be January 18, 2014 assuming the previous session ended at midnight January 2,
2014.
Congressional Research Service
2

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

In action on the FY2014 National Defense Authorization (NDAA), the House, by a vote of 350 to
69, passed H.Res 441, which adopted H.R. 3304, effectively, a conference version of FY2014
National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate is slated to take up the House bill on December
18th. Details about the changes to the NDAA will be in the next update.
Earlier, on October 17, 2013, the FY2014 Continuing Resolution (CR, P.L. 113-46) appropriated
funds allowing the Department of Defense (DOD) and all other federal agencies to resume their
normal operations through January 15, 2014, after a 16-day government shutdown went into
effect because no FY2014 appropriations had been provided for the new fiscal year. In general,
the CR allows DOD and other agencies to spend—during that period—at the rate at which each
appropriations account was funded by P.L. 113-6, the FY2013 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, taking into account the amount sequestered by the March 1, 2013,
OMB order mandated by the Budget Control Act, enacted in 2011 (P.L. 112-25).9 For DOD, the
current CR provides about $495 billion.
Before passage of the CR, the Department of Defense (DOD), like most other agencies, was
subject to a lapse in appropriations during which agencies are generally required to shut down
because Congress had not acted on legislation to fund the federal government in FY2014 prior to
the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2013. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
however, identified a number of exceptions to the requirement that agencies cease operations,
including a blanket exception for activities that “provide for the national security.”
As a result, during the lapse in appropriations, some DOD personnel were "excepted" from
furloughs, including all uniformed military personnel and some civilians, while other civilian
DOD employees were furloughed and, thus, not permitted to work. Normally, "excepted" military
and civilian personnel would continue to work but would not be paid until after appropriations are
provided by law. Shortly before and during the shutdown, however, Congress passed and the
President signed into law two pieces of legislation that appropriated funds to pay all active-duty
military and some DOD civilian personnel costs in the absence of an enacted appropriation, and
to provide death gratuities:
• The Pay Our Military Act (P.L. 113-39; H.R. 3210), signed by the President on
September 30, 2013, provided funds to pay all active-duty military personnel,
most DOD civilians and possibly some private sector employees working for
DOD;
• The Honoring the Families of Fallen Soldiers Act, (P.L. 113-444; H.J.Res. 91),
signed by the President on October 10, 2013, provided funds to pay death
gratuities to survivors of military personnel who die while on active duty.
DOD Operations During a Government Shutdown
For information and analysis of the impact on DOD of a lapse of appropriations, including an analysis of special DOD-
related legislation that operated during the funding lapse in the fal of 2013 during the period October 1-October 17,

9 As typically has been the case with continuing resolutions in recent years, the FY2014 act funded activities for a time
certain (in this case, through January 15, 2014) under a formula commonly referred to as a "funding rate." Under a
funding rate, the amount of budget authority available for an account is calculated as the total amount of budget
authority annually available based on a reference level (in this case, the post-sequester amounts resulting from the
FY2013 consolidated appropriation bill), multiplied by the fraction of the fiscal year for which the funds are made
available by the continuing resolution—in this case, about 24.6% (90 days out of a 366-day fiscal year that includes the
29-day February of a leap year).
Congressional Research Service
3

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

see CRS Report R41745, Government Shutdown: Operations of the Department of Defense During a Lapse in
Appropriations
, by Amy Belasco and Pat Towel .
For military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) that are covered by the FY2014
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama Administration requested authorizations
for discretionary budget authority (BA) totaling $632.7 billion, including:
• $526.6 billion for the so-called “base budget”—that is, for costs not associated
with combat activities;
• $80.7 million for war costs, officially designated “Overseas Contingency
Operations” (OCO);
• $18.9 billion for defense-related nuclear energy programs conducted by the
Department of Energy; and
• $7.4 billion for other defense-related activities. (See Table 3.)
For DOD’s base budget, both the version of the FY2014 NDAA passed by the House (H.R. 1960)
and the version of the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 20, 2013 (S.
1197), differ from the President’s overall request by less than $50 million. The House bill, passed
by a vote of 315-108 on June 14, 2013, would authorize hundreds of millions of dollars more than
requested for various purposes, including a military pay raise, shipbuilding, and ballistic missile
defense. However, that gross increase was almost entirely offset by several reductions which,
according to the House Armed Services Committee, would have no adverse impact on DOD
programs because—in each of the affected accounts—previously appropriated funds could be
used in lieu of the requested new budget authority.
For war costs—designated as “overseas contingency operations” (OCO)—S. 1197, reported by
the Senate committee on June 20, 2013, would make few changes to the Administration’s request.
The House-passed bill, on the other hand, would add $5.4 billion to the request. (See Table 1 and
Table 10.)
For analysis of congressional action on the authorization bill, see the section of this report entitled
“FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act.”
For the FY2014 DOD Appropriations bill, which funds all discretionary DOD military programs
except military construction, the Administration requested a total of about $589.5 billion10 for the
base budget and OCO, combined. The version of the bill passed by the House on June 24, 2013,
would make a net reduction of about $4.2 billion to the request while the version reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 1429) would make a net reduction of about $2.2 billion.
For analysis of congressional action the defense appropriations bill, see the section of this report
entitled “FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill.”

10 Summary tables in House and Senate Appropriations Committees’ reports on their respective versions of the FY2014
DOD appropriations bill differ slightly in their presentations of the Administration request. Most of the difference
reflects the committees’ different treatments of an Administration proposal to rescind $1.28 billion appropriated in
FY2013. For additional detail, see text box “Differing Presentations of FY2014 Budget Request, below.
Congressional Research Service
4

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 1. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1960; S. 1197)
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate
Re
port
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
113-102
113-44
5/22-
6/12-
315-108
23/2013
13/2013
6/7/2013
6/14/2013 6/20/2013


Table 2. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2397; S. 1429)
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate
Re
port
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
113-113
315-109
113-85
6/5/2013 6/12/2013 6/24/2013
8/1/2013

Budgetary Context: BCA Spending Caps
FY2014 is the third consecutive year for which Congress and the President have had to come to
terms with the spending caps that were set in law by the BCA for each year in the decade
FY2012-FY2021.11 Enacted in 2011 to resolve the impasse that summer about raising the debt
limit, the BCA required reductions in discretionary spending totaling about $2.1 trillion through
FY2021 in return for raising the debt limit by the same amount. A first tranche of reductions
amounting to $900 billion—half of which came from National Defense agencies (primarily DOD
but also including Department of Energy and other defense-related activities in other agencies)—
was reflected in the Administration’s FY2013 budget, which complied with initial caps set in the
BCA. Additional reductions of $1.2 trillion, also falling equally on defense agencies and non-
defense agencies—are to be achieved through a sequester in FY2013 and by automatic reductions
to appropriations that would apply each year between FY2014 and FY2021 unless enacted
appropriations in any year meet that year’s BCA limits. To the extent that annual appropriations
exceed or breach the BCA caps, a sequester would reduce funding to the level of the caps by
across-the-board cuts.
President Obama sent Congress his FY2014 budget request on April 10, 2013, more than two
months later than the legally prescribed date for submission of the budget. Uncertainties
surrounding the final outcome of the legislative battle over appropriations for the preceding year
accounted for the delay. The FY2013 appropriations for DOD and all other federal agencies were
not enacted until March 26, 2013, when the President signed the Consolidated and Further

11For each year in the decade FY2012-FY2021, the BCA caps require roughly equal reductions (from a projected
baseline) in appropriations for defense agencies and non-defense agencies. From FY2013 onward, the category of
“defense” agencies is defined, for purposes of this law, as being those agencies funded in the “National Defense”
budget function (Function 050). The Department of Defense (DOD) typically accounts for more than 95% of spending
in Function 050. See the text box, “Estimated impact on DOD of Budget Caps,” below.
Congressional Research Service
5

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933/P.L. 113-6). The amounts specified in that
legislation were not final but, rather, were the points of departure for further reductions (by a
process of “sequestration”) required to comply with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA),
which was enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25).12 BCA caps apply only to the defense base
budget, not to OCO funding.
Unless current law is amended to change the BCA spending caps –as is being proposed in the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which would set limits at the current CR levelor the required
reductions are achieved some other way, the Administration’s $552 billion national defense
budget request for FY2014 (excluding war costs) would have to be reduced by $53.8 billion
(about 9.8%) to a total of $498.1 billion in order to comply with BCA limits. If defense
appropriations exceed the BCA limit, they would be reduced to the BCA level by an across-the-
board sequester to currently appropriated levels that would begin in early to mid-January 2014.
Although the President’s FY2014 national defense budget request does not meet the defense
limits set in the BCA that would avoid a sequester under current law, the Administration argues
that the President’s budget would achieve—through a combination of revenue increases and
reductions to entitlement programs—the $1.2 trillion total reduction through FY2021 that would
result from the annual BCA caps. As a part of the Administration’s overall program, the BCA
would be amended to defer application of the spending caps, thus accommodating the President’s
FY2014 defense budget request.13
Consistent with the President’s budget request, the House-passed FY2014 budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 25) proposed $552 billion for national defense (excluding war costs). Subsequently,
the House Appropriations Committee reported—and the House passed—the three appropriations
bills that would provide defense funding up to that level: Defense (H.R. 2397, passed July 24,
315-109), Energy and Water (H.R. 2609, passed July 10, 227-198), and Military Construction-
Veterans Administration (H.R. 2216, passed June 4, 421-4).
To achieve the FY2014 savings mandated by the BCA, the House budget resolution proposes
higher cuts to non-defense spending as well as changes to entitlement programs which would
bring discretionary spending for the year to $967 billion, the discretionary total allowed by BCA.
But, within that total, the BCA establishes separate limits (or caps) for defense and non-defense
spending. The House-recommended defense levels exceed the BCA defense cap so, if they were
to become law, a 9.8% sequester cut would be levied in January 2014, unless Congress amended
the BCA to change the currently binding limits.
Similarly, the Senate’s FY2014 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 8) sets the total for national
defense at $552 billion—as requested by the President—and the defense-related bills reported by
the Senate Appropriations Committee are consistent with this level. Like the House budget
resolution, the Senate measure assumes that BCA’s limit on overall discretionary spending for
FY2014 would be met. In contrast to the House resolution, however, the Senate resolution
proposes to compensate for defense spending above the BCA level with a combination of revenue
increases and entitlement spending reductions similar to those proposed by the Administration.

12The reductions pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA) were mandated by the Office of Management and Budget
(OBM) sequestration order of March 1, 2013.
13See Chapter entitled “Reducing the Deficit in a Smart and Balanced Way” in OMB, The Budget of the United States
Government, FY2014; http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/reducing.pdf
Congressional Research Service
6

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

However, if the level of national defense spending allowed by the Senate resolution were to be
enacted, there would be a $53.8 billion sequester cut to discretionary spending in early January
2014—unless the current BCA caps were amended by law.
Thus, Congress essentially faces several choices—to reduce the defense discretionary
requestthrough targeted appropriations actions that meet the current BCA limits or adjusted limits
or to rely instead on a sequester that would require across-the-board cuts to each program,
project, and activity, of any amount that exceeds those limits as occurred in FY2013. By adjusting
the FY2014 limits,the low point in the spending path set in the Budget Control Act for the
FY2012-FY2021 decade—could be avoided. In that event, however, greater savings in later years
or alternate sources of savings would need to be adopted.14 If Congress adopted a year-long CR
rather than a full defense bill as has been the case for many years, there could be additional
mismatches between this year’s request and last year’s appropriations.15
Estimated DOD Impact of Budget “Caps”
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) and the annual congressional budget resolutions al set discretionary
spending caps for “budget functions”—broad categories of activity that encompass all relevant funding, regardless of
the agency performing the activity. The “National Defense” function (Function 050) encompasses military functions of
DOD (i.e., it excludes the domestic public works program of the Army Corps of Engineers) as wel as defense-related
activities of the Department of Energy and other agencies. In recent years, DOD funding has accounted for about
96% of the Function 050 total.
To analyze the implications for DOD funding plans of the legally binding BCA spending cap on the broader National
Defense category, CRS estimated the DOD share of the Function 050 funding cap for each future year in the BCA
and in any congressional budget resolution. In this report, those estimates are arrived at by using data from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine for each year in the period FY2014-FY2021 what percentage of the
Administration’s projected Function 050 budget request consists of the projected DOD request. For purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that DOD spending would account for the same share of Function 050 spending in that year.
The data from which this report calculates an imputed DOD share of Function 050 caps are in OMB’s FY2014:
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government
, Table 32-1 “Policy Budget Authority and Outlays by Function,
Category, and Program,” accessible at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Sequestration Flexibility in FY2014 and FY2013 Experience
DOD officials have contended that sequestration would have serious adverse impacts on the
services’ combat readiness and modernization not only because of the size of the funding cuts
required but also because of the relatively arbitrary way in which the reductions are made.16 In a
fiscal year in which a sequester is triggered to reduce spending to the levels enacted in the BCA,
by law the reduction must be achieved by cutting a uniform percentage from the “budgetary

14 This was the path followed in the American Taxpayers Relief Act (ATRA), enacted in early January 2013; Congress
reduced the defense sequester required in FY2013 from $55 billion to $43 billion and delayed implementation from
January 1 to March 1, 2013. To offset the lower savings, however, Congress increased the size of the cuts required in
FY2014 and FY2015 and made other changes to mandatory and revenue programs. For additional background, see
CRS Report R42884, The “Fiscal Cliff” and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, coordinated by Mindy R.
Levit.
15 Last spring when DOD was still under a CR and also faced a sequestration, the services raised considerable concerns
about mismcatches, particularly a shortfall in Operation and Maintenance and an excess in Procurement, as well as the
sequester.
16 Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by Undersecretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter and Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. James A. Winnefeld, “Hearing on the Defense Strategic Choices and
Management Review,” August 1, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
7

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

resources” of every program, project, and activity (PPA) in every budget account, except for those
budget accounts and PPAs that, by law, either are exempt from a sequester or are subject to a
special sequester rule. “Budgetary resources” include new budget authority for both the base
budget and OCO and budget authority appropriated in previous fiscal years but not yet
obligated.17
The sequestration process allows DOD some flexibility in implementing a sequester in ways that
DOD used to limit the impact on readiness, investment accounts, and war funding in FY2013 and
which might have similar results if sequestration were to be required for FY2014:
• The President has authority to exempt the military personnel accounts from a
sequester, as he did in FY2013 and as OMB informed Congress on August 9,
2013, he will do, should a sequester occur in FY2014.18 Exercising this option
could allow DOD to avoid involuntary separations of military personnel, but does
not reduce the total amount that must be sequestered from DOD funds and, thus,
entails correspondingly larger cuts from other DOD accounts.
• House and Senate conferees on the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) defined as a single PPA the entire Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) account of each service and reserve component.19
Therefore, DOD has considerable flexibility in allocating cuts within those
relatively large blocks of money. So, DOD could make proportionally larger
reductions in some O&M-funded activities—facilities maintenance and training,
for example—in order to allow proportionally smaller reductions in other O&M-
funded activities such as operational training or support for front-line combat
units.
• DOD could avoid or minimize sequestration cuts in funds for war operations in
Afghanistan because, although Congress authorizes and appropriates separate
amounts for base budget funding and OCO funding, most funding of both sorts is
co-mingled in the PPAs that are subject to sequestration. Thus a service could
reduce its O&M funding for OCO by a proportionately smaller fraction provided
it was offset by a proportionately larger reduction in the service’s base budget
O&M spending. DOD did, however, choose to reduce OCO funding by $5.3
billion to meet the FY2013 sequester. This may have reflected a transfer into
OCO accounts in mid-May 2013 to meet unanticipated higher needs (see
below).20

17 See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan
S. Lynch.
18 See OMB notification letter at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/letters/military-
personnel-letter-biden_080913.pdf.
19 The House and Senate came to agreement on the enacted version of the bill through a process of sequential
amendments rather than by a formal conference committee, so— technically speaking—there was no conference report,
in which conferees could elaborate (in a so-called “joint explanatory statement”) on their intent in drafting the law.
Nevertheless, the terms of the final bill were the product of negotiations between House and Senate conferees who
drafted a “joint explanatory statement” which they inserted in the Congressional Records of March 6, 2013 and March
11, 2013. The definition of each O&M account as a single PPA is found at Congressional Record, March 6, 2013, p.
H1029 and Congressional Record, March 11, p. S1316.
20 CRS analysis of DOD, “May 2013 Prior Approval Request, Reprogramming Action, FY13-09,” approved May 17,
2013; see http://comptroller.defense.gov/execution/reprogramming/fy2013/prior1415s/13-
09_PA_May_2013_Prior_Approval_Request_Implemented.pdf; and CRS analysis of OSD,C table, “DOD Base and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• In some of DOD’s investment accounts, unobligated balances of funds
appropriated in earlier budgets were reduced by proportionally larger amounts to
allow proportionally smaller reductions to newly appropriated budget authority.
Among the 21 procurement accounts, budget authority appropriated for FY2013
was cut by an average of 5.2% while unobligated funds were cut by an average of
11.2%.21 Since DOD budget authority appropriated for procurement and most
other activities expires if not obligated within a certain number of years,
sacrificing older budget authority allowed DOD to retain more budget authority
that would be available for a longer period.
• After sequestration, DOD could and did use established reprogramming
procedures, which require prior approval by the congressional defense
committees in some cases, to shift funds among accounts. In May 2013, the
department requested congressional approval of reprogrammings that shifted
nearly $9 billion to meet more essential expenses by tapping funds that had been
appropriated to other programs.22 This included shifting some $5.1 billion of
OCO funding, about $3.0 billion of which came from cancelled lower priority
OCO needs, with the remainder from the base budget.23
Sequestration Alternatives in FY2014
In recent months, many observers, including DOD witnesses and some Members of Congress,
have raised particular concerns about sequesters, arguing that because they require largely across-
the-board cuts to programs, this would not reflect priorities in defense spending. One way to
avoid a sequester would be if both houses of Congress passed a budget resolution that amended
the BCA caps and achieved savings elsewhere.
Alternatives under Current Law
If current budget law is not changed, however, there are still several ways that the Administration
and Congress could avoid a sequester in FY2014 or later years of the decade. These include:
• Congress could appropriate amounts for defense that meet the lowered cap of
$498 billion for FY2014 before a sequester would go into effect. This could
reflect a joint budget resolution passed by both houses of Congress that would
presumably be followed by new 302(a) allocations of overall discretionary
budget authority and new 302(b) suballocations to individual appropriations
subcommittees. With the current CR (P.L. 113-46) slated to expire on January 15,

(...continued)
OCO funding by account as appropriated, and post-sequester,” November 2013.
21 Capital Alpha, “FY13 Sequestration Cuts Applied Unevenly With Some Surprises,” June 18, 2013 accessed at
http://www.capalphadc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-18-sequester-surprises.pdf
22 Inside Defense, “Draft Reprogramming would Shift $9 Billion, Cut $4 Billion From Modernization,” May 16, 2013.
23 CRS analysis of DOD, “May 2013 Prior Approval Request, Reprogramming Action, FY13-09,” approved May 17,
2013; see http://comptroller.defense.gov/execution/reprogramming/fy2013/prior1415s/13-
09_PA_May_2013_Prior_Approval_Request_Implemented.pdf; and CRS analysis of OSD,C table, “DOD Base and
OCO funding by account as appropriated, and post-sequester,” November 2013.
Congressional Research Service
9

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

2014, Congress might pass individual appropriations bills, an omnibus funding
bill, or another CR by that time.24
• Section 258B of the Deficit Control Act of 1985 allows the President to submit a
report, within five calendar days of the beginning of a new session, detailing an
alternative way to meet the defense sequester caps (i.e., a spending plan that
would reduce outlays by the same total amount that would result from an across-
the board sequester). Congress would consider a resolution approving the
alternative plan within five calendar days, under expedited procedures that would
preclude a Senate filibuster.
Legislative Proposals
Bills have been introduced that would provide additional flexibility for DOD (and other agencies,
in some cases) to meet lower BCA caps by setting higher transfer caps that DOD could use after a
sequester went into effect in order to ensure that its higher priority programs were protected.
Introduced by Representatives Cooper and Ryan on July 31, 2013, H.R. 2883, the Defense
Flexibility Act, would permit the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds into an account as
necessary to meet “urgent national priorities” up to the amount sequestered in that account. The
transfer language in the bill states:
(b) Transfer Authority- In addition to any transfer authority otherwise available, and subject
to subsections (c) and (d), of the amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense in any
of fiscal years 2014 through 2021, the Secretary of Defense may transfer any appropriation
subject in such a fiscal year to reduction under a sequestration order issued pursuant to
section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 between
such appropriations, to address an urgent national priority or the consequences of a national
emergency resulting from such sequestration, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
(c) Limitation- The amount transferred to an appropriation under subsection (b) shall not
exceed the amount by which such appropriation is reduced under the sequestration order
referred to in such subsection.25
Some Members may raise concerns that this bill would undermine congressional prerogatives to
set funding priorities because the amount of transfer authority could be substantially higher than
current annual limits for DOD transfers: $4 billion for the base budget and $3.5 billion for OCO
spending in FY2013.26
A second alternative, S. 465, introduced by Senator Collins last March, would give all agencies
flexibility to propose an alternative to the FY2013 sequestration that would meet the caps. The
bill requires that this “notice of implementation” be submitted to their respective authorization

24 Within 15 days of the end of a congressional session, budget law requires that OMB to determine whether budget
caps are breached and if necessary, order a sequestration. Since the Constitution requires that Congress meet on
January 3 of each year (unless an alternate date is set), the latest date that the old congressional session could end
would be midnight January 2. This would mean that a breach determination for FY2014 could be made as late as
January 18, 2014. CRS Report R42977, Sessions, Adjournments, and Recesses of Congress, by Richard S. Beth and
Jessica Tollestrup.
25 H.R. 2883.
26 Joint Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, March 11, p. S1520 and S1543.
Congressional Research Service
10

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

and appropriation committees for approval before going into effect. Including such a requirement
could be unconstitutional because it would constitute a legislative veto. If agencies voluntarily
submitted such proposed changes, as occurs in current reprogramming and transfers, that would
be permissible. S. 465 also would give DOD additional flexibility in multiyear contracts and
changes in production rates if a CR limiting those changes is still in effect.27
DOD Forecast of FY2014 BCA Impact
In a July 10, 2013, letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and senior
committee Republican James M. Inhofe, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel predicted “serious
adverse effects” on DOD if its FY2014 base budget were reduced by $52 billion from the amount
requested to comply with the BCA cap on defense spending for that year.28
In the letter—written in response to the two Senators’ request—Secretary Hagel said his
projections assumed that the entire $52 billion reduction would be applied to the $526.6 billion
base budget request, with the $79.4 billion OCO request held harmless. The projection also
assumed that DOD would be given a free hand to allocate the reduction, rather than applying the
sequestration formula of program-by-program cuts. Even making those assumptions, Hagel
asserted, “the cuts are too steep and abrupt to be mitigated by flexibility, no matter how broadly
defined.”
Secretary Hagel described the five-page document presenting the projected BCA impact as a
“high-level summary” of an early version of DOD’s approach to accommodating lower annual
budgets than the Administration had projected. He said it was “guided by” inputs from the armed
services and by preliminary results of a Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR)—a
DOD-wide assessment Secretary Hagel had ordered to develop budget projections for FY2015-
FY2019 that would try to adhere to the Administration’s strategic goals at lower funding levels
than those currently projected.
Following are some of the negative consequences that Secretary Hagel predicted if DOD were
required to cut the President’s FY2014 DOD base budget request by $52 billion—nearly 10%:
• The reduction in military personnel spending likely would be disproportionately
small—that is, appreciably lower than 10%—because the savings in military pay
that would result from involuntary separation of military personnel would be
largely offset by the cost of severance payments for those with more than six
years of service, according to DOD.
• To cut military personnel costs by 10% would require what Secretary Hagel
described as “an extremely severe package of ... actions” including halting the
intake of any new personnel, ending all transfers from one base to another, and
freezing promotions.

27 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/query/z?c113:S.465: This interpretation reflects consultation with CRS procedural
experts.
28 Defense Secretary Hagel’s July 10 letter is available on the web-site of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
Carl Levin at http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/dod-responds-to-levin-hagel-request_for-guidance-
on-defense-budget-cuts/?section=alltypes.
Congressional Research Service
11

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• While DOD would minimize cuts to those operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs most directly tied to training and combat readiness, it would impose civilian
hiring freezes and reduce scheduled maintenance of facilities, as it had done in
FY2013, and would have to consider laying off civilian employees, Secretary
Hagel said.
• Because of the practical difficulties in applying a proportionate reduction to
military personnel costs, accounts funding procurement, R&D, and military
construction likely would take disproportionately large cuts, with individual
projects subject to reductions of 15% or 20%, he said.
BCA Impact on DOD as FY2014 Begins
On September 30, 2013, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said that the department
would begin operating in FY2014—starting October 1, 2013—as though its FY2014 budget were
limited by the BCA cap and, thus, was more than $50 billion lower than the President’s FY2014
request:
Last year [FY2013], we didn’t start the fiscal year executing as though we had sequester,
because we were ready to do so, but we didn’t want to start until we had to, because
operating under sequester’s harmful. It wasn’t until January [2013], after the Christmas deal
collapsed last year, that we began to execute—that is, to curb spending—in recognition of
the fact that sequester was then...likely to kick in.
Once again, this year, it’s looking like we need to be ready to go. And so our plan is to begin
the fiscal year executing at the [BCA] cap levels, because it’s much easier to start that way
and then ramp up your expenditure later in the year [if the caps are lifted] than it is to go the
other way.29
More recently, after passage of the FY2014 CR setting defense spending levels at the FY2013
level, or some $30 billion below the request but $20 billion above the BCA caps, DOD
Comptroller Robert Hale announced that DOD would be spending at—or slightly below—the CR
level.30
In recent testimony to House and Senate committees, DOD witnesses have argued that there
could be a variety of negative effects, particularly in terms of readiness and maintaining current
planned procurement schedules, if BCA budget caps remained in effect. Witnesses have also
raised concerns that a year-long CR, which pegs funding levels to FY2013 levels, would create
problems because of year-to-year program changes.
DOD FY2013 Post-Sequester Funding and the FY2014 Request
The FY2013 DOD sequester totaled $37.2 billion, including $32.0 billion cut from its base
budget and $5.3 billion from OCO BA. The sequester tapped all available DOD BA except
military personnel accounts. Available BA included not only new BA appropriated in FY2013 in

29 Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter, “Remarks on the U.S;-India Defense Partnership at the Center for
American Progress,” September 30, 2013, accessed at http://www.cq.com/doc/newsmakertranscripts-4353176.
30 Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and Under Secretary Hale in the Pentagon Briefing Room,
October 17, 2013, accessed at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5321.
Congressional Research Service
12

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933/P.L. 113-46), but also
prior year unobligated BA from previous years, reflecting the fact that BA in DOD’s investment
accounts (procurement, RDT&E, and military construction) can be obligated (or placed on
contract) over several years.31
Compliance with budget caps is measured by budget authority (BA) or funding amounts as scored
by CBO. Scoring includes all cuts—both reductions to new FY2013 BA and rescissions which
cancel unobligated BA from prior years—because it reflects when legislative action is taken. As
scored, DOD’s FY2013 base funding totaled $495.2 billion after all sequester cuts.
Rescission of prior year unobligated balances, however, cancels BA that was provided for
programs in earlier years. Such reductions do not reduce resources available for current fiscal
year programs or activities. The total DOD FY2013 sequester to its base budget was $32.0 billion
including $26.2 billion in new BA cuts and $5.8 billion in rescissions of prior year unobligated
balances.32 So while DOD’s FY2013 post-sequester base budget funding is scored as $495.2
billion (including the full $32.0 billion reduction by sequester), funding available to carry out
FY2013 programs and activities totaled $501 billion (excluding the $5.8 billion rescission) (see
Table 5 – move it here?).
If DOD complies with the current FY2014 BCA caps, annual funding would decrease by an
additional $20 billion or about 4% from the FY2013 post-sequester level. BCA caps for defense
reach their lowest point for the decade in FY2014, increasing by roughly $10 billion annually
from FY2015 to FY2021, not quite sufficient to cover expected inflation.
Some observers would argue that the FY2013 sequester created harmful effects on readiness and
investment accounts and that additional spending is necessary to offset those effects. Others
might argue that providing for a one-year annual increase in FY2014 would undermine efforts
currently underway in the Department of Defense to determine the best way to accomodate lower
spending levels evident in the Strategic Choices and Management Review undertaken by
Secretary Hagel this summer.
FY2014 National Defense Budget Overview33
The Obama Administration’s FY2014 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 10, 2013,
includes $641.12 billion for National Defense programs (budget function 050), including military
operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), defense-related nuclear energy programs
conducted by the Department of Energy, and other defense-related activities. Of that total,
$625.15 billion is requested for programs falling within the scope of the annual National Defense

31 Availability (or life) varies with the type of account with two years for RDT&E accounts, three years for all
procurement accounts except shipbuilding available for five years, and five years fo military construction accounts.
32 CRS analysis based on table provided by DOD that segregates sequester cuts from unobligated and new FY13 BA
and by base and OCO BA.
33 In this section of the report, statements concerning the National Defense budget refer to OMB’s National Defense
“budget function”—designated function 050—which is one of several “functions” (or categories) intended to
encompass all relevant federal funding, regardless of the agency performing the activity. Function 050 includes funding
for military activities of DOD (i.e., not including Army Corps of Engineers public works) as well as the defense-related
activities of the Energy Department and other agencies. In recent years, DOD has accounted for about 96% of the
Function 050 total.
Congressional Research Service
13

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Authorization Act, with the remainder either permanently authorized or falling outside the
jurisdiction of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. (See Table 3.)
The Administration’s budget includes $607.36 billion for discretionary DOD budget authority,
including $526.64 billion for “base” defense budget costs (day-to-day operations other than war
costs), and $80.72 billion for “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO)—largely in
Afghanistan. The Administration’s initial FY2014 budget presentation included “placeholder”
totals for OCO funding. The actual OCO request for that year was submitted to Congress as an
addendum in May 2013.
Included in the DOD discretionary budget is $6.68 billion for the annual accrual payment to the
fund that underwrites payments from the so-called “TRICARE for Life” program to Medicare-
eligible military retirees. TRICARE is DOD’s medical insurance program.34
Also included in the $632.74 billion National Defense discretionary total is $17.96 billion for
defense-related programs of the Energy Department. This includes funds for renovation of the
existing nuclear weapons stockpile, environmental cleanup of past nuclear weapons work, and
work related to the development and construction of nuclear powerplants for warships.
The remaining $7.41 billion of discretionary funding for National Defense is requested for
defense-related activities in other agencies, the largest share of which ($4.80 billion) is for FBI
activity, including counterintelligence operations.
Table 3. FY2014 National Defense Budget Function (050); Administration Request
budget authority in billions of dollars; numbers may not add due to rounding
Discretionary
Mandatory
Department
Funding
Funding Total
Department of Defense (DOD)
526.64 6.45
533.09
Base Budget
Department of Energy;
17.97 1.36
19.33
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Department of Justice and
7.41 0.60
8.01
Other Defense-related Activities
National Defense, Base Budget
552.02
8.41
560.43
DOD Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
80.72
0.00
80.72
National Defense, Total
632.74
8.40
641.14
DOD Subtotal (Base Budget plus OCO)
607.36
6.45
613.81
Source: Based on Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. S. Government
(FY2014), Table 31-1; OCO data from DOD FY14 Budget, Overview, Addendum A: Overseas Contingency
Operations, May 2013
.
Notes: The amounts summarized by the table include some funds that are not covered by the annual legislation
that authorizes and appropriates funds for DOD, which are the bills that are the focus of this report. The
“Mandatory” column includes certain offsetting receipts.

34 Although the TRICARE for Life accrual payment is “discretionary” funding and is authorized annually, the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) provides a permanent, indefinite
appropriation to this fund each year of whatever amount is deemed necessary by a board of DOD actuaries.
Congressional Research Service
14

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

The Administration’s overall National Defense budget for FY2014 also includes $8.40 billion in
mandatory spending. The lion’s share of this amount—$7.13 billion—is the annual payment into
the military retirement fund to cover payments to retirees who have become eligible for additional
benefits in recent years as a result of legislation that has narrowed limitations on “concurrent
receipt” of both military retired pay and disability annuity from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.35
When President Obama submitted his FY2011 budget request in February, 2010, he had projected
requesting for DOD’s base budget a total of $6.26 trillion in discretionary budget authority over
the 10-year period FY2011-FY2020. The Administration reduced its DOD funding projections in
each of the three succeeding budgets. (See Figure 1)
Figure 1. Successive Administration DOD Budget Plans, FY2011-FY2014
amounts of budget authority in billions of current dollars
800
700
600
FY2011 budget plan
500
FY2012 budget plan
400
FY2013 budget plan
FY2014 budget plan
300
Reduced BCA caps
(current law)
200
100
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Source: Data for FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014 budget plans from DOD Comptrol er, National Defense Budget
Estimates for FY2014 (The Green Book)
, Table 1-12, “Discretionary Budget Authority for Past Defense Budgets to
the Present as reported by OMB.” Data for FY2011 budget plan from OMB, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the
U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011
, Table 32-1, “Policy Budget Authority By Function, Category, and Program.”
Notes: Implication for DOD of the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) is a CRS estimate. See
“CRS-Estimated DOD Budget ‘Caps’,” above.

35 For background, see CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress, by Lawrence
Kapp.
Congressional Research Service
15

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

The 10-year plan accompanying DOD’s FY2012 budget request incorporated $178 billion of
“efficiencies” that were to be realized in the first five years of that period. Enactment of the
Budget Control Act (BCA) in 2011, however, created a new frame of reference that has shaped
much of the subsequent debate over DOD budgets, with the FY2012 request serving as a baseline
against which subsequent reductions have been measured.
Congressional Research Service
16

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 4. DOD Budget Plans and BCA Caps
amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority
Total
Reduction
2012-
from

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021
FY2012 Plan
FY2012
553.03 570.73 586.35 598.17 610.58 621.57 632.76 644.15 655.74 667.54 6,140.61 n/a
Budget
Plan
Estimated
530.36 495.20 475.07 487.95 498.12 509.97 522.36 534.74 548.07 561.41 5,163.23 977.38
BCA Cap
FY2013
530,55 525,43 533,55 545,93 555,91 567,34 579,29 592,396 605,43 617,91 5,653.39 486.88
Budget
Plan
FY2014
530.42 525.43 526.62 540.84 551.37 559.97 568.57 577.15 586.73 596.30 5,563.39 577.22
Budget
Plan
Additional Reduction (from FY2012 Total) Required







400.16
to Meet BCA Cap Total
Source: Data for FY2012 and FY2014 DOD budget plans are from DOD Comptrol er, National Defense Budget
Estimates for FY2014 (The Green Book)
, Table 1-12; “Estimated BCA Cap” is a CRS estimate. CRS estimate. See
“CRS-Estimated DOD Budget ‘Caps’,” above.
For the 10-year period from FY2012 to FY2021, the caps set by the BCA would require a
reduction in DOD discretionary spending of $977 billion (15.9%) from the total that was
projected by the FY2012 DOD 10-year plan (assuming that DOD accounts for the same
percentage of the National Defense Budget Function in each year as in the Administration’s
projected budgets). Under the FY2013 DOD budget plan, funding for the FY2012-FY2021
decade would total $5.65 trillion, a reduction of $487 billion (or 7.9%) compared with the
FY2012 plan. Under DOD’s FY2014 budget plan, projected spending for that decade would
decline by an additional $90 billion, bringing the cumulative total reduction (compared with the
FY2012 plan) to $577 billion (or 9.4%).
To realize the total reduction in DOD spending for FY2012-FY2021 required by the BCA caps,
an additional reduction of $400 billion would be required.
Congressional Research Service
17

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Figure 2. Estimated DOD Funding Projections, FY2013-2021
amounts are discretionary budget authority in billions of current dollars
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
post-
sequester
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
FY2013
DOD budget
496
527
541
551
560
569
577
587
596
Senate bud res
527
534
541
548
555
563
571
579
House bud res
527
541
551
564
576
589
602
615
Lowered BCA cap
475
488
498
510
522
535
548
561

Source: DOD data derived from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The
Green Book”), Table 5-4, Table 2-1, and Table 1-12. Data on the “Lowered BCA cap” derived from P.L. 112-25
(“Budget Control Act of 2011”). Data on House and Senate budget resolutions derived from H.Con.Res. 25
(House budget resolution for FY2014), and S.Con.Res. 8 (Senate budget resolution for FY2014).
Notes: Implications for DOD of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), the Senate budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 8) and the House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 25) are CRS estimates. See text box, “Estimated
DOD Impact of Budget ‘Caps’,” above.
Based on DOD’s sorting of its spending between the base budget and OCO, the base budget—
measured in current dollars (i.e., not adjusting for the cost of inflation)—increased at a relatively
steady rate between the late 1990s and 2010. After reaching a high point in 2010, the base budget
declined in FY2012 and FY2013 because of BCA budget limits. Unless the BCA cap for FY2014
is modified, it would require a further reduction of National Defense spending from the amount
requested by the Administration, with DOD’s share of the reduced amount estimated to reach
$475 billion. From FY2015 through FY2020, the BCA, the President’s FY2014 budget
projection, and the FY2014 budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate all project a
steady increase in DOD funding.
Allowing for the cost of inflation as estimated by OMB, the Administration’s projection of
discretionary DOD budget authority thru FY2021 would provide a higher level of “real”
purchasing power than the department’s average annual budget (in FY2014 dollars) for the period
since the end of the Vietnam War (FY1976-FY2012). In turn, the average DOD budget for that
36-year period—which included the last 15 years of the Cold War—is higher in real terms than
Congressional Research Service
18

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

was the department’s average budget since the 1991 war with Iraq (FY1992-FY2012). (See
Figure 3.)
Figure 3. Projected DOD Purchasing Power in Perspective, 1976-2021 (Base Budget)
amounts are discretionary budget authority in billions of FY1914 dollars
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
DOD discretionary
Senate budget resolution
(Base budget only for 2001-21)
(DOD impact estimated)
House budget resolution
reduced BCA cap
(DOD impact estimated)
(DOD impact estimated)
average 1992-2012, DOD base budget
average 1976-2012, DOD base budget

Source: CRS analysis of inflation-adjusted amounts based on budget data from DOD Comptrol er, National
Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green Book”), Table 5-4, Table 2-1, and Table 1-12. Other data are
from P.L. 112-25 (“Budget Control Act of 2011”), H.Con.Res. 25 (House budget resolution for FY2014), and
S.Con.Res. 8 (Senate budget resolution for FY2014). Defense deflators from OMB, Historical Tables: Budget of
the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2014. Table 10-1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the
Historical Tables, 1940-2018,” converted to base year 2014.
Notes: Implications for DOD of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), the Senate budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 8), and the House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 25) are CRS estimates. See “CRS-Estimated DOD
Budget ‘Caps’,” above.
FY2014 DOD Base Budget Highlights
According to DOD officials, the Administration’s $526.6 billion request for discretionary
spending in DOD’s FY2014 base budget is intended both to sustain current U.S. strategy and
continue down-sizing the Army and Marine Corps as one element of that strategy. It incorporates
a range of cost-reduction initiatives and various efforts to restrain the growth of personnel costs.
Congressional Research Service
19

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

However, the budget request would create relatively few major perturbations of planned weapons
acquisition programs.36 (See Table 5.)
Move to p. 12?
Table 5. DOD Discretionary Base Budgets, FY2012-FY2014
dollar amounts in billions of current dollars in budget authority
FY2013 Post-
Sequester (as
scored)a
and FY2014
Continuing
FY2013 Post-
FY2014
FY2012 Enacted
Resolution
Sequester Resources
Administration

Appropriation
(P.L. 113-46)
Availableb
Request
Military Personnelc
141.68 135.39
135.39
137.08
Operation and
199.21 193.04
193.98
Maintenance
209.44
Procurement
102.26
92.17
95.85
99.31
RDT&E
71.51
63.35
63.98
67.52
Military
11.37 7.67
8.04
Construction
9.47
Family Housing
1.68
1.46
1.53
1.54
Revolving and
2.70 2.15
2.22
2.28
Management Funds
Total: Base
530.41 495.22
500.99
526.64
Budget
Source: Data for FY2012 and FY2014 Administration Request from DOD Comptrol er, National Defense Budget
Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green Book”)
, Table 2.1, pp. 40-41. Data for the two FY2013 columns are from DOD
Comptrol er data provided to CRS showing track from enacted level to post-sequester level with separate
figures for base budget and OCO funding.
a. Amounts “as scored” reflect sequester cuts to both new FY2013 BA and to unobligated balances from prior
years that are credited in FY2013. FY2014 CR reflects scored levels because unobligated balances from
prior year cancel ed by the FY2013 sequester are not available to finance FY2014 programs.
b. Resources funds available for FY2013 programs and activities including only sequester cuts from FY2013 BA.
c. Includes annual accrual payment into the budget account that funds TRICARE-for-Life, which is the program
that allows military retirees who are eligible for Medicare to remain enrolled in DOD’s TRICARE medical
insurance program. TRICARE-for-Life funds are not provided by the annual defense appropriations bills but,
rather, by permanent law according to calculations by DOD actuaries ($6.68 billion in FY2014).
At the request of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Senator James M.
Inhofe, the committee’s ranking minority Member, DOD agreed to present a plan for cutting $52
billion (about 10%) from the FY2014 base budget request, to meet the legally binding BCA
spending cap.37 In addition, Secretary Hagel launched in April a DOD-wide Strategic Choices and

36 DOD Comptroller, Overview: U.S. Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, April 2013, pp. 2-1 to
2-7.
37 Senators Carl Levin and James M. Inhofe, Letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, May 2, 2013, accessed at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Management Review (SCMR) intended to develop three alternative DOD budget plans for
FY2015-FY2019: one based on the Administration’s current budget projection, a second based on
annual funding levels that were 5% lower, and a third based on annual funding levels lower by
10%.
Sustaining Current Strategy
In January 2012, the Obama Administration issued a new Strategic Guidance document to inform
DOD planning and budgeting.38 Among the premises drawn from that document to underpin the
Administration’s FY2014 base budget request are the following:
• DOD will maintain a large enough force to win a major conventional war in one
region while, concurrently, being able to inflict enough damage on an aggressor
in a second region to deter a second attack.
• DOD will not maintain an active-duty force large enough to conduct large-scale
stability operations on a prolonged basis such as recent operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Those campaigns required a large enough force so that upwards of
100,000 troops at a time could be periodically deployed and then rotated back
home for rest and retraining.
• In a departure from the practice in recent years of having forces concentrate on
training for the types of missions being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan,
forces will train for operating across the spectrum of conflict, from major
conventional wars to peacekeeping and stability operations.
• DOD will try to improve its ability to help other countries bolster their own
security forces to partner more effectively with U.S. forces in missions of mutual
interest.39
• DOD will “rebalance” its global posture to emphasize operations in the Asia-
Pacific region and the Middle East.40
Military Personnel
The Administration’s FY2014 budget would continue the ongoing reduction in number of active-
component Army and Marine Corps personnel to a planned total of 672,100 personnel by the end
of FY2017. At that point, the combined, active-duty end-strength of those two services would
exceed by more than 18,000 troops their combined end-strength at the end of FY2001, before the
services’ post-9/11 expansion. In effect, the plan would remove the 92,000 personnel that were
added to the two ground combat-oriented services in 2007. (See Table 6.)

(...continued)
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press/releases/upload/SASC-Budget-letter-to-Hagel-050313.pdf.
38For further analysis, see CRS Report R42146, In Brief: Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance
(DSG)
, by Catherine Dale and Pat Towell.
39For further analysis, see CRS Report R42516, In Brief: Clarifying the Concept of “Partnership” in National Security,
by Catherine Dale.
40For further analysis, see CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing”
Toward Asia
, coordinated by Mark E. Manyin
Congressional Research Service
21

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 6. Active Component Authorized End-Strength
FY2001
FY2013
FY2014
FY2017
Army 480,000
552,100
520,000
490,000
Navy 372,642
322,700
323,600
319,500
Marine Corps
172,600
197,300
190,200
182,100
Air Force
357,000
329,460
327,600
328,600
Total 1,382,242
1,401,600
1,361,400
1,320,200
Source: Data for FY2001 from H.Rept. 106-945, Conference Report on H.R. 4205, Enactment of Provisions of
H.R. 5408, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 777; Data for
FY2013 and FY2014 from DOD Comptrol er, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green Book”),
Table 3-2, p. 53; Data for FY2017 from DOD Comptrol er, Briefing on the FY2013 Budget Request, accessed at
http://comptrol er.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request.pdf, slide 9.
Notes: In the Administration’s FY2014 budget request, 490,000 Army personnel and 182,000 Marines would be
funded in the base budget with the remainder of each service—30,000 Army and 8,100 Marines—being funded
with OCO appropriations.
As DOD had done in its FY2013 budget request, it proposed to fund in the FY2014 base budget
only the “enduring end-strength” of the two services—that is, the number of personnel they
would have after the drawdown is complete in 2017: 490,000 for the Army and 182,000 for the
Marine Corps. On grounds that the additional Army and Marine personnel were a legacy of the
expansion of those services to deal with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—an expansion now being
largely reversed—the remaining personnel would be funded out of appropriations to cover war
costs (OCO).
Military Pay and Allowances
The budget request would provide a 1% raise in military basic pay, which typically accounts for
between two-thirds and three-quarters of active-duty services members’ cash compensation (the
balance of which typically consists of allowances for housing and living costs and various special
pays and bonuses intended to attract and retain personnel with certain skills).41 DOD estimates
that this 1% raise would save $540 million in FY2014 (and nearly $3.5 billion through FY2018)
compared with the 1.8% increase in basic pay that would occur, automatically, under the terms of
37 U.S.C. 1009, which provides that military basic pay will increase by the same annual
percentage as pay in the private sector as measured by the Labor Department in the Employment
Cost Index (ECI).
Congress can, by law, establish a different pay raise than the ECI and the President asserts that he
has authority under subsection (e) of 37 U.S.C. 1009 to set an alternative pay adjustment.42 On
August 30, 2013, the President sent a letter to Congress stating, “I have determined it is

41 See CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
42 Section 1009 (e) allows the President to submit a plan for an alternative pay adjustment to Congress before
September 1 of the year preceding the pay raise. This provision does not explicitly state that any such plan overrides
the automatic adjustment tied to the ECI, but it could be argued that the authority nonetheless exists because subsection
(e) refers to “alternative pay adjustments as the President considers appropriate” and subsection (b) states that “an
adjustment under this section [1009] shall have the force and effect of law.”
Congressional Research Service
22

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

appropriate to exercise my authority under 1009(e) of Title 37, United States Code, to set the
2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent.”43
When the Obama Administration presented its FY2013 budget request in February 2012, it had
announced plans to increase military basic pay at the ECI rate for FY2014 and to begin proposing
pay increases below the ECI rate in FY2015.
TRICARE Fees
As it had done in its FY2013 budget request, the Administration included in its FY2014 DOD
budget the creation of some new fees and increases in others for beneficiaries of TRICARE,
DOD’s medical insurance program. TRICARE covers more than 9.6 million active duty and
retired servicemembers as well as their dependents and survivors.
DOD justifies the proposed increases on the argument that, while the costs to beneficiaries
remained largely unchanged between 1996 and 2012, DOD’s medical costs grew from $19 billion
in FY2001 to a projected $49 billion in FY2014.44 Congress had rejected most of the fee increases
proposed for FY2013, but approved a proposed increase in pharmacy copayments.
The TRICARE fee increases proposed for FY2014 would not affect servicemembers currently on
active duty except that their dependents would be liable for increased pharmacy copayments.
Most of the other proposed fee increases would apply to military retirees under the age of 65,
although a proposal to create a new TRICARE for Life enrollment fee was included in the
Administration’s request for the first time.
“Efficiency” Initiatives
According to DOD, the FY2014 base budget request incorporates some two dozen “efficiency”
initiatives that would reduce spending by a total of $17.03 billion over the period FY2014-
FY2018.45 Five of those proposals account for about 80% of the projected five-year savings,
namely:
• $8.90 billion—more than a quarter of the total reduction—would come from
reduced estimates of the cost of DOD’s TRICARE medical insurance program,
with the cuts based partly on a decline in the rate of medical care cost growth and
partly on an Administration plan to reorganize some DOD facilities (FY2014
savings of $1.37 billion);
• $2.77 billion would be cut from projected payrolls for DOD civilians, partly on
the assumption that annual pay raises will be lower than previously projected and
partly on the assumption that Congress will approve the closure of some bases
and medical facilities (FY2014 savings of $356 million);

43 Letter available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-pay-
plan-members-uniformed-services.
44 See CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, by Don J. Jansen.
45 DOD Comptroller, Operation and Maintenance Overview: Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Estimates, April 2013, pp. 210-
235. This CRS report discusses separately additional savings projected by the Administration to result from base
closures and reduced military construction.
Congressional Research Service
23

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $1.20 billion would be saved by reducing enlistment bonuses and the budget for
recruitment advertising, capitalizing on the improved recruiting environment
created by a weak domestic economy46 (FY2014 savings of $213 million);
• $625 million would be saved as a result of scaling down Army deployments in
the Balkans (FY2014 savings of $106 million);
• $447 million would be saved by reducing the Navy’s projected operation and
maintenance budgets on grounds that the service routinely has requested more
funding in those accounts than it has spent in recent years (FY2014 savings of
$87 million).
Weapons Acquisition Reductions
The FY2014 request incorporates reductions in planned acquisition spending for some five dozen
weapons programs by a total of $15.62 billion over the period FY2014-FY2018. Some of the
reduction would result from the cancellation of some programs and reductions in the number of
items that would be purchased, or the rate at which they would be purchased. Still other savings
are projected to result from wider use of multi-year procurement contracts.
Most of the proposed changes would yield savings of less than $150 million each over the five-
year period, but 10 of the changes—each projected to save more than $500 million—account for
nearly 60% of the projected five-year savings, namely:
• $2.06 billion would come from dropping plans to develop a “Block IIB” version
of the SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptor (FY2014 savings of $216 million);
• $1.72 billion would come from cancellation of the Precision Tracking Space
System, a satellite network intended to provide targeting data on incoming
ballistic missiles (FY2014 savings of $270 million);
• $1.35 billion would be saved by deferring until FY2019 the construction of a new
“IIIB” version of the Apache attack helicopter (upgrading existing Apaches to
that standard, in the meantime) (FY2014 savings of $475 million);
• $1.09 billion would come from using Atlas rockets for some planned satellite
launches instead of more expensive Delta rockets (FY2014 savings of $106
million);
• $684 million would be saved in the near term by slowing procurement of the
Navy’s SM-6 anti-cruise missile interceptor until more ships are equipped with a
new version of the Aegis weapons control system that is needed to fully exploit
the capabilities of the SM-6 (FY2014 savings of $58 million);
• $683 million would come from a reduction in the overhead cost budgeted for the
carrier-launched version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (FY2014 savings of $8
million);

46 See CRS Report RL32965, Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2011 and FY2012 Results for Active and
Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel
, by Lawrence Kapp.
Congressional Research Service
24

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $598 million would come from reducing the number of the Navy’s F/A-18
fighters that would be rebuilt to like-new condition (FY2014 savings of $48
million);
• $593 million would be saved by reducing the Marine Corps ammunition
inventory consistent with the retirement of one of three flotillas of pre-positioned
supply ships carrying supplies and equipment for Marine combat units (FY2014
savings of $229 million);
• $528 million would come from savings as a result of buying DDG-51-class
destroyers on a multi-year contract (FY2014 savings of $67 million); and
• $526 million would come from savings as a result of buying C-130J cargo planes
on a multi-year contract (FY2014 savings of $83 million).
Proposed Base Closures
Over the FY2014-FY2018 period, DOD projects a total reduction in military construction budgets
of $4.13 billion compared with previous projections. Some of those cutbacks are slated to result
from the closure of some bases and medical facilities as a result of a Base Realignment and
Closure Commission (BRAC), which Congress is asked to authorize. Congress rejected a BRAC
proposal included in the FY2013 budget request.
FY2014 OCO Budget Highlights
The Administration’s $79.44 billion request for war costs (OCO) represents a reduction of about
3% from the amount appropriated by Congress for war costs in FY2013 (after sequestration).
(See Table 7.)
Table 7. Administration’s FY2014 Discretionary OCO Budget Request
amounts in billions of dollars
FY2013 Post-
Sequester
(as scored)a
and FY2014

FY2014
continuing
FY2013 Post-
Request as
FY2012 Enacted
resolution
Sequester Resources
Amended

Appropriation
(P.L. 113-46)
Availableb
May 2013
Military Personnelc
11.29
14.26
14.26
9.85
Operation and
86.78 58.38 58.38 63.63d
Maintenance
Procurement
16.05
8.89
9.33
5.62e
RDT&E
0.53
0.19
0.19
0.07f
Military Construction
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
Revolving and
0.44 0.24 0.24 0.26
Management Funds
Total: OCO Budget
115.08
81.96
82.40
79.44
Congressional Research Service
25

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Source: Data for FY2012 from DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2014 (“The Green
Book”)
, Table 2.1, pp. 40-41. Data for the two FY2013 columns are from DOD Comptrol er data provided to
CRS showing track from enacted level to post-sequester level with separate figures for base budget and OCO
funding. Data for FY2014 request from DOD Comptrol er, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal
Year 2014 Budget Request, Addendum A, Overseas Contingency Operations
, Table 1, “OCO Funding by
Appropriations Title,” p. 11.
a. Amounts “as scored” reflect sequester cuts to both new FY2013 BA and to unobligated balances from prior
years that are credited in FY2013. FY2014 CR reflects scored levels because unobligated balances from
prior year cancel ed by the FY2013 sequester are not available to finance FY2014 programs.
b. Resources funds available for FY2013 programs and activities including only sequester cuts from FY2013 BA.
c. Includes annual accrual payment into the budget account that funds TRICARE-for-Life, which is the program
that allows military retirees who are eligible for Medicare to remain enrolled in DOD’s TRICARE medical
insurance program. TRICARE-for-Life funds are not provided by the annual defense appropriations bills but,
rather, by permanent law according to calculations by DOD actuaries ($164 million in OCO funds in
FY2014).
d. Assumes Congress will transfer to this account an additional $486 million that Congress had added to the
FY2013 DOD appropriation to keep in service several Aegis cruisers the Administration wants to retire.
e. Assumes Congress will transfer to this account an additional $749 million that Congress had added to the
FY2013 DOD appropriation to continue purchasing C-27 cargo planes, a program the Administration wants
to terminate.
f.
Assumes Congress will transfer to this account an additional $44 million that was appropriated for
unspecified R&D program in FY2004.
Although the OCO funding request for FY2014 would drop by 3% compared with the pre-
sequester FY2013 appropriation, the number of U.S. personnel deployed in Afghanistan would
decline by 39% and the total number of personnel supported by the OCO budget (including forces
outside Afghanistan that support operations in that country, in the Philippines and in the Horn of
Africa) would drop by about 20%. (See Table 8.)
Table 8. OCO Funding and Troop Level Trends: FY2008 through FY2014 Request
Proposed OCO Funding
Proposed U.S. Troops
by Country
by Country
amounts in billions of dollars
thousands of personnel
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Iraq
148
94
62
45
10
3
1
Iraq
154
141
96
47
9
0
0
Afghanistan
39
52
100
114
105
85
78

Afghanistan
33
44
84
98
90
63
38

Source: DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request,
Addendum A, Overseas Contingency Operations, Figure 2, “OCO Funding and Troop Level Trends,” p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
26

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

According to DOD’s functional breakdown of the FY2014 OCO budget (see Table 9), three
components that, in sum, account for more than 80% of the total request would decline by less
than 10% compared with the pre-sequester FY2013 appropriation:
• $25.7 billion for U.S. force operations (including force protection);
• $21.8 billion for activities outside Afghanistan to support operations inside that
country; and
• $8.9 billion to purchase equipment to replace war losses (including 4 Apache
attack helicopters and 11 Chinook transport helicopters), replenish ammunition
supplies, and refurbish equipment worn out by use in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to DOD, those costs are declining at a slower rate than U.S. troop levels in
Afghanistan because of expenses associated with closing bases in that country and returning
thousands of cargo containers, vehicles, and other pieces of equipment to the United States and
refurbishing the equipment as necessary.47

47 DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, Addendum A,
Overseas Contingency Operations
, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
27

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 9. OCO Funding by Mission Category
amounts in billions of dollars
FY2013 Enacted
FY2013 Enacted

Appropriation

PRE-SEQUESTERR
FY2014 Request
Operations and Force Protection
27.7 25.7
In-Theater Support
23.0 21.8
Military Intelligence Program
4.4 3.8
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
5.1 7.7
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
0.3 0.3
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)
0.2 0.1
Coalition Support Funds
2.1 2.0
Procurement and Equipment Reset
11.1 8.9
Temporary End-Strength
5.8 5.1
Other
9.5 5.3
Prior-Year Cancellations
-2.0 -1.3
Net Total
87.2 79.4
Source: DOD Comptroller, Overview: United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request,
Addendum A, Overseas Contingency Operations
, Figure 3. “OCO Functional/Mission Category Breakout,” p. 5. Post-
sequester estimates are not available.
Afghanistan’s Army, projected to number 195,000 at the end of FY2013, and its National Police,
projected to number 157,000 at the end of FY2013, are expected to remain at those levels through
FY2014. The OCO budget request would increase U.S. support for those forces by 50% (to $7.7
billion) over the pre-sequester FY2013 appropriation. According to DOD, the increase is
associated with the Afghan forces’ assumption of responsibility for security as well as continued
efforts to improve their operational capabilities.48
Ship and Aircraft Retirements
The Administration’s FY2014 OCO budget request would require $80.7 billion in budget
authority. However, the Administration proposes to reduce the budgetary impact of the request by
covering part of the costs by rescinding or cancelling $1.3 billion appropriated for FY2013 to
retain in service Navy ships and Air Force cargo planes that the Administration’s FY2013 budget
request would have retired.
Thus, the FY2014 request proposes to reverse Congress’s decision to reject the Administration’s
FY2013 proposals to retire seven Aegis cruisers and two amphibious transport ships and to
mothball the fleet of C-27 cargo planes. To fund its FY2014 OCO budget, it would use:

48 Ibid., p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
28

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $486 million that Congress had added to the FY2013 DOD appropriation to keep
in service the ships the Administration wanted to retire;
• $749 million that Congress had added to the FY2013 bill to continue purchasing
and operating C-27s; and
• $44 million that had been appropriated for unspecified R&D program in FY2004.
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA)

For DOD’s FY2014 base budget, the totals authorized by both the version of the FY2014
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House on June 14, 2013 (H.R. 1960),
and the version reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 20, 2013 (S. 1197),
differ by less than $50 million from the $526.57 billion requested by the President. However, the
similar net totals reflected differences between the two bills in the mixes of specific additions and
reductions that produced those similar net totals.
The House bill, passed by a vote of 315-108, would authorize hundreds of millions of dollars
more than requested for each of several purposes, including a military pay raise, shipbuilding, and
ballistic missile defense. However, those gross increases were almost entirely offset by several
gross reductions which, according to the House Armed Services Committee, would have no
adverse impact on DOD programs because—in each of the affected accounts—previously
appropriated funds could be used in lieu of the requested new budget authority.
The Senate committee bill, on the other hand, would add a total of more than $1.5 billion to
Operation and Maintenance accounts—to improve readiness, the committee said—while largely
offsetting that gross increase with cuts taken from the amounts requested for military construction
and military personnel accounts.
For OCO funding (or “war costs”), S. 1197, as reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, would make few changes to the Administration’s $80.72 billion request. The House-
passed bill, on the other hand, would authorize $5.04 billion more than was requested, including
the following increases:
• $1.68 billion for depot maintenance;
• $1.50 billion to “reset” (i.e., rehabilitate, reequip, and retrain) Army units after
their deployment in Afghanistan;
• $535.9 million for higher than budgeted fuel costs;
• $453.0 million for additional training and other “readiness” related O&M costs;
• $340.9 million to to replace FY2013 OCO funds that were reprogrammed to
other OCO uses; and
• $400 million for equipment for National Guard and reserve component units.
(See Table 10.)
The House-proposed increases in OCO funds would not count against the caps set by the Budget
Control Act. However, OCO funds would be subject to sequestration, if that occurs.
Congressional Research Service
29

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Table 10. FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1960; S. 1197)
(amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
FY2014
Senate-

FY2014
FY2014
committee
FY2014
Administration
House-passed
reported
Conference

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Report
Base Budget
Procurement 98,227
99,666
98,151

Research and Development
67,520
68,079
67,541

Operations and Maintenance
175,098
174,672
176,632

Military Personnel
137,077 136,896
136,807

Defense Health Program and Other
Authorizations
37,639 37,362
37,775

Military Construction and Family
Housing
11,012 10,056
9,662

Subtotal: DOD Base Budget
526,572
526,732
526,568

Atomic Energy Defense Activities
(Energy Dept.)
17,858 17,696
17,842

TOTAL: FY2013 Base Budget
544,430
544,428
544,411

Subtotal: Overseas Contingency
Operations
80,722 85,766
80,704

GRAND TOTAL:
FY2013 NDAA
625,153 630,194
625,115

Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960), June 7, 2013, pp. 363-67; Senate Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-
44;. Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013,
pp. 268-72.
NDAA: The Broad Outlines
Like the defense authorization act for FY2013 (H.R. 4310, P.L. 112-239), both the House-passed
and Senate committee-reported versions of the FY2014 NDAA would make relatively few
individual additions to the authorization levels proposed by the Administration for specific
procurement and R&D programs, compared with the annual defense authorization bills enacted in
the first decade of this century. That difference reflects the stringent bars against “earmarks”
currently observed in both the House and the Senate.
Proposed Administration Savings
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the bill each would reject the
Administration’s proposal to retire several Navy ships ahead of schedule—a proposal that
Congress had rejected in the FY2013 budget. The House bill also would authorize a higher
military pay-raise than the Administration requested; but both versions of the bill would support
several of the Administration’s other cost-cutting proposals.
Congressional Research Service
30

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Following are actions incorporated in various versions of the FY2014 NDAA related to selected
Administration savings. (See Table 11.)
Table 11. Selected Administration Cost Cutting Initiatives
Senate
Administration
House-passed
Committee-
Conference

Proposal
H.R. 1960
reported S. 1197
Report
Annual Raise in Military
1.0%
1.8% (added cost of
1.0%
Basic Pay
$580.0 million)
Recruiting and Retention
Reduce FY2014 request Add $5.4 million for
no change

Bonuses and Advertising
by $213 million
bonuses for flight
paramedics in Army
Reserve and
National Guard
DOD Civilian Pay
Cut by $346.1 million
Cut an additional
no change

compared with current
$341.5 million
policy
(lower projection of
number of
employees)
TRICARE medical
Cut by $1.37 billion
Add $164 million
Add $218 million

insurance costs
Retirement of seven
Cancel $486 million (of
Bar retirement of
Reject

Navy cruisers and two
$1.4 billion) that
the seven cruisers
Administration
amphibious landing
Congress added to the
and one of the two
proposal and
transport ships (proposal
FY2013 DOD
amphibious ships;
direct DOD to use
rejected by Congress in
appropriation to keep
Authorized use of up funds appropriated
FY2013 budget)
in service the ships the
to $915 million (of
in FY2013 to
Administration wanted
the funds authorized
continue operating
to retire. Use those
in FY2013 to keep
the ships
funds to cover part of
the ships in service)
the cost of the FY2014
to modernize the
budget request
cruisers
Retirement of C-27 cargo Cancel $749 million
no change
no change

planes (proposal rejected
that Congress had
by Congress in FY2013
added to the FY2013
budget)
bill to continue
purchasing and
operating C-27s; Use
those funds to cover
part of the cost of the
FY 2014 budget request
AH-64 Apache helicopter
Defer until FY2019 the
no change
no change

manufacture of new
AH-64s; Continue
upgrade of existing
helicopters to AH-64
Block IIIB configuration;
Reduce FY2014 request
by $475 million
Congressional Research Service
31

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Senate
Administration
House-passed
Committee-
Conference

Proposal
H.R. 1960
reported S. 1197
Report
UH-72 Lakota helicopter
Buy the final 10 UH-72s Add $135 million to
no change

for non-combat missions
in FY2014 in lieu of
buy 21 additional
planned 31 in FY2014
UH-72s in FY2014
and 10 more in FY2015;
Reduce projected
FY2014 request by
$163 million
Standard SM-3-IIB anti-
Cancel development of
no change
no change

ballistic missile
a new variant of the
interceptor
SM-3 IIA anti-missile
interceptor; Reduce
FY2014 request by
$216 million
Precision Tracking Space
Cancel development of
no change
no change

System (PTSS) missile
PTSS missile defense
defense tracking satellite
tracking satellite;
Reduce FY2014 request
by $270 million
Other Congressional Additions
Both versions of the NDAA would authorize more than was requested for several large O&M
accounts in which the Administration’s budget assumed costs would be reduced by “efficiencies.”
The Senate committee-reported S. 1197 would add $1.8 billion to these amounts, while the
House-passed H.R. 1960 would add $5.6 billion, of which $4.6 billion was added to the
authorization for OCO funding.
Following are actions selected increases to the Administration’s DOD budget request that would
be authorized by various versions of the FY2014 NDAA. (See Table 12.)
Table 12. Selected Additions to the Administration Request
Administration
Conference

proposal
House-passed bill
Senate-passed bill
Report
Facilities
$9.38 billion request
Add $1.01 billion for Add $323 million for

maintenance and
assumes unspecified
facilities maintenance
facilities maintenance
upgrades
efficiencies
and repair
and repair
Depot
$14.04 billion
Add $1.68 billion
Add $608 million for

maintenance
request assumes
million for depot
depot maintenance
unspecified
maintenance (nearly
efficiencies
all OCO funding)
“Reset” of
Request $2.24 billion
Add $1.50 billion for
no change

equipment
for Army “reset” (in
reset (OCO funding)
deployed in
OCO funding)
Afghanistan and
Iraq
Congressional Research Service
32

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Administration
Conference

proposal
House-passed bill
Senate-passed bill
Report
Other “add-backs” n/a
Add $341 million to
Add $848 million for

replace FY2013
additional training
OCO funds that
and other readiness-
were reprogrammed
related O&M costs
to other OCO uses;
Add $453 million for
additional training
and other readiness-
related O&M costs
(OCO funding)
Fuel costs
Request assumes
Add $536 million for
no change

unspecified
fuel costs. (OCO
efficiencies
funding)
Ballistic Missile
Request $1.03 billion
Add $140 million;
no change

Defense system
to continue
require construction
deployed in Alaska
upgrading Ballistic
of the third site for
and California to
Missile Defense
defense of U.S.
intercept inter-
system deployed in
territory against
continental
Alaska and California
long-range ballistic
missiles aimed at
to intercept inter-
missiles
U.S. territory
continental missiles
Three Israeli
Request $96 million
Add $173 million
Add $150 million

missile defense
to continue
systems
development of the
three missile defense
systems
“Iron Dome”
Request $220 million
Add $15 million to
no change

Israeli system
for procurement
facilitate U.S.
designed to
production of Iron
intercept short-
Dome
range rockets and
artillery shells
Upgrades to
Request $171 million
Add $168 million to
no change

Abrams tanks and
for Bradley mods and continue M-1A2 SEP
Bradley troop
$178 million for
upgrades
carriers
Abrams mods but no
funds for more
complex upgrade of
Abrams tanks to so-
cal ed M-1A2 SEP
configuration
Virginia-class
Request $2.93 billion
Add $492 million to
no change

nuclear submarine
to fully fund one sub
fully fund the second
and partly fund a
sub
second
Equipment for
Request $4.25 billion
Add $400 million for
no change

National Guard
distributed through
procurement in the
and reserve
the appropriations
National Guard and
component forces
accounts that fund
Reserve Equipment
equipment for active-
Account (NGREA)
component forces
(OCO funds)
Congressional Research Service
33

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Funding Offsets
As is customary in annual NDAAs, both the House-passed H.R. 1960 and the Senate committee’s
S. 1197 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.
Following are selected examples of funding offsets incorporated into various versions of the
FY2014 NDAA. (See Table 13.)
Table 13. Selected Congressional Funding Offsets in the FY2014 NDAA
Conference

House-passed bill
Senate-passed bill
Report
Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
Approve $4.76
Cut request by $150

funding to cover the cost of military
billion, as requested
million
personnel transferred between bases
FY2014 cost of some programs can
Cut $2.51 billion, of
Cut $30 million

be partly covered by unobligated and
which $584 million is
unexpended balances for those
from military
programs from prior fiscal years
construction
accounts
Funding requests deemed by the
Cut $623 million
Cut $187 million

committees to be not adequately
justified or to be premature
Programs requesting more than they
no change
Cut $370 million

historically have spent in one year
(“under-execution”)
Military Personnel Issues (Authorization)
Military Personnel Policy Issues
For additional background and analysis of selected military personnel issues dealt with in the FY2014 NDAA (end-
strength, pay raise, TRICARE fees, chaplains’ rights, and reserve component mobilization), see CRS Report R43184,
FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Don J. Jansen.
Both H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, and S. 1197, as reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, incorporate Administration proposals to reduce the statutory ceilings on the number
of military personnel at the end of FY2014 by just over 40,000 troops in the active components
(to a new total of 1.36 million), and by just over 8,000 troops in the National Guard and other
reserve components (to a new total of 833,700). However, the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees each expressed concern over the Administration’s plan to cut an additional 41,200
personnel from the active components by FY2017, with more than 90% of that net reduction
coming from the Army and Marine Corps.49

49 For additional background and analysis on the Administration’s manpower plan, see CRS Report R42493, Army
Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
34

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Military Pay Raise
The Senate committee’s bill includes a provision (Section 601) that would authorize for FY2014
the 1% raise in military basic pay called for by the budget request. On the other hand, the House
Armed Services Committee called for a 1.8% military pay raise, as would happen automatically
under existing law, which ties the annual raise in military basic pay to the Labor Department’s
Employment Cost Index (ECI). DOD estimated that the higher raise would increase FY2014
military personnel costs by $540 million.
However, the President asserts that the law that ties pay raises to the ECI50 includes a provision
giving him authority to specify an alternative pay raise, and he has done so for FY2014.51
Sexual Assault Prevention and Treatment
Sexual Assault-Related Provisions
For more extensive description and analysis of sexual assault-related provisions of H.R. 1960 and S. 1197 relating to
sexual assault, see CRS Report R43213, Sexual Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected
Legislative Proposals
, by R. Chuck Mason.
In response to several high-profile cases involving sexual assaults within the Armed Forces, the
House-passed and Senate committee-approved versions of the FY2014 NDAA each included
several provisions that would address the issue. Some of these provisions would change the
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) pertaining to sexual assault while
others would change the rules governing (1) the disposition of sexual assault allegations within
the military and (2) the conduct of courts-martial.
Corresponding provisions of the House and Senate bills differ in some respects, particularly in the
types of alleged crimes to which they would apply. Following are selected aspects of the sexual
assault issue that would be addressed by one or both bills (Table 14).
Table 14. Selected Sexual Assault-related Provisions, FY2014 NDAA
Senate
House-
committee-
Conference

passed bill
reported bill
report
Establishment of mandatory minimum sentences for
Section 533
Section 554

conviction by court-martial of a sex-related crime
Appointment of a Special Victims’ Counsel to provide
Section 536
Section 539

victims of alleged sex-related offenses with
independent legal representation, drawn from outside
the military services
Prohibition of a commander’s consideration of the
Section 546
Section 565

“character and military service” of the accused in
deciding whether to prosecute an al eged offense

50 37 U.S.C. 1009.
51 See, above, “Military Pay and Allowances.”
Congressional Research Service
35

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Senate
House-
committee-
Conference

passed bill
reported bill
report
Limitation of a commander’s authority to grant
Section 531
Section 555

clemency
Right of a complaining witness to be heard in the
Section 544
Section 556

clemency phase of the proceedings
Provisions Relating to Chaplains Corps and Conscience
As passed by the House, H.R. 1960 included a provision (Section 529) providing that, if a
military chaplain were called upon to lead a prayer in some context other than a religious service,
he or she would have the right to close the prayer “according to the traditions, expressions and
religious exercises” of the chaplain’s faith tradition. During debate on the bill, the House rejected
an amendment that would have authorized the appointment of military chaplains who are
endorsed by recognized non-theistic or non-religious organizations.52
The House bill also includes a provision that would expand the scope of Section 533 of the
FY2013 NDAA (P.L. 112-239). As originally enacted, that provision of law requires the Armed
Forces to accommodate expressions of individual servicemembers’ beliefs unless the beliefs or
expressions threaten good order and discipline. The FY2014 NDAA passed by the House includes
a provision (Section 530) that would exempt from protection only those expressions of belief that
actually harm good order and discipline.
On the other hand, S. 1197 included a provision (Section 512) that would narrow the scope of
Section 533 by exempting from protection any expressions of individual belief that “could have
an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline.”
Another provision of H.R. 1960 (Section 530E) would require “advance written notice of any
meeting to be held between Department employees and civilians for the purpose of writing,
revising, issuing, implementing, enforcing, or seeking advice, input, or counsel regarding military
policy related to religious liberty.”
TRICARE
Neither the House nor Senate versions of the FY2014 NDAA would authorize the
Administration’s proposals to:
• Raise the premiums paid by military retirees to participate in TRICARE, DOD’s
private-sector health insurance program for active-duty and retired services
members, their dependents, and their survivors;
• Index increases in TRICARE’s “catastrophic cap”—the maximum annual amount
a beneficiary should have to pay—to the National Health Expenditure index,
which is a federal government barometer of changes in health care costs; and

52 See House amendment number 169 in Table 15.
Congressional Research Service
36

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• Introduce enrollment fees for certain TRICARE programs, including TRICARE
for Life, the program that covers Medicare-eligible military retirees.
In addition, the Senate bill would add $218 million to the requested TRICARE authorization for
FY2014, which would restore funds the budget request assumed would not be needed because of
the proposed fees.
DOD has announced its intention to cut off TRICARE Prime coverage in certain areas of the
United States. The House bill (Section 711) would guarantee that TRICARE beneficiaries
currently enrolled in the TRICARE Prime program—an HMO-like option—could continue to
participate in that program, even if DOD bars additional beneficiaries from joining the program in
the area in which the current beneficiary resides. The House bill also would increase the
TRICARE authorization for FY2014 by $164 million to cover the cost of “grandfathering” those
current TRICARE Prime enrollees who would be affected if Section 711 were not enacted into
law.
Assignment of Women in the Military53
The NDAA for FY2011 (P.L. 111-383) included a provision (Section 535) requiring the Secretary
of Defense to submit to Congress a report on changes in laws, policies, and regulations that would
be needed to ensure that women have an “equitable opportunity” to serve in the Armed Forces.
The report, due April 15, 2012, has not been submitted to date. However, in February 2013, then-
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta rescinded DOD’s so-called “combat exclusion rule,” which
barred the assignment of female military personnel to ground combat units. Panetta also directed
the services to open all military assignments to women by January 1, 2016, unless by then they
had requested specific exceptions which, in turn, would be subject to approval by the Secretary of
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The House-passed FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 1960, includes Section 530D expressing the sense of
Congress that by September 2015, the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force “should
develop, review, and validate individual occupational standards, using validated gender-neutral
occupational standards, so as to assess and assign members of the Armed Forces to units,
including Special Operations Forces.” The House bill also would require (Section 530C) that the
report that was due of April 15, 2012, be submitted no later than 60 days after enactment of the
FY2014 NDAA.
In its report on S. 1197, the Senate Armed Services Committee praised DOD for “moving toward
an assignment system that is gender-neutral and performance-based.” Moreover, the committee
encouraged DOD “to work toward full integration of women in all military occupations to the
maximum extent practicable, consistent with military capabilities required for our nation’s
defense.” However, the committee also expressed concern “that women may not always be
afforded the opportunity to serve a full career.” It directed DOD to submit a report examining:
• retention rates and career progression opportunities for female servicemembers;
• “causes of voluntary mid-career separation, especially those related to
childbirth”; and

53 For additional background on issues related to the assignment of women in the military, see CRS Report R42075,
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, by David F. Burrelli.
Congressional Research Service
37

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• personnel management options that might better accommodate servicemembers’
personal and family goals, including the use of temporary assignments to the
reserve components.
Reserve Component Mobilization Guarantees
The House and Senate versions of the bill each include provisions that were triggered by
instances in which reserve component units that had been mobilized for deployment overseas had
their deployments cancelled on relatively short notice, in some cases causing significant cost and
inconvenience to members of the affected units.
In the House bill, Section 511 would require the secretaries of the military departments to provide
at least 120 days’ notice to reserve units or individual reserve component members if they are to
be mobilized for deployment in connection with a contingency operation or if, after such
notification has been given, the deployment is cancelled or otherwise altered. If such notification
is not given, a report would have to be submitted to the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees explaining the reasons and providing the names of the affected units or individuals.
In the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Section 508 would require the
Secretary of Defense to personally approve any decision to cancel a planned reserve unit
deployment within 180 days of the unit’s scheduled deployment if an active duty unit is to be
deployed, instead, to perform the same mission. In those cases, the provision also would require
notification of the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees and the
governors of the affected states.
Ground Combat Systems (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected ground force equipment is
summarized in Appendix Table A-3. Following are highlights:
Current Generation Vehicles (M-1, Bradley, and others)
The House bill would increase by $274 million the total authorized for procurement of tanks and
other armored combat vehicles. In its report on H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee
said the budget request for armored vehicles was too anemic to sustain the specialized network of
suppliers and assembly plants needed to build such equipment.
While a number of armored vehicle programs currently are underway, DOD projects a surge in
demand for production capacity in about 2019, when new programs are slated for funding. Until
then, the Administration maintains, foreign sales combined with projected DOD purchases will
keep the production lines warm. The House committee said reliance on foreign sales to keep the
industrial base intact was too risky, and that the additional vehicles for which it would provide
authorization could replace older equipment in some units.
As passed by the House, H.R. 1960 would add to the budget request authorization for $168
million to upgrade M-1 tanks with improved digital communications, night-vision equipment,
armor, and transmissions. DOD has not budgeted for this program since FY2012, but Congress
funded it in FY2013 in the absence of an Administration request. The House bill also would
authorize:
Congressional Research Service
38

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $178.1 million, as requested, for less complex modifications to other M-1 tanks;
• $158.0 million, as requested, for upgrades to Bradley armored troop carriers;
• $374.1 million, as requested, to wind up production of the Stryker wheeled
armored combat vehicle.
• $186.0 million, $75.0 million more than the $116.0 million requested, for so-
called armored recovery vehicles, designed to tow disabled 70-ton tanks off the
battlefield; and
• $94.0 million, $31.0 million more than the $63.0 million requested, to buy
assault breacher vehicles, which are M-1 tank chassis equipped with a bulldozer
and other gear for clearing a path through a minefield.
The Senate bill would authorize no funds for the M-1 upgrade program or the amounts requested
for the other programs listed.
Next Generation Vehicles: GCV, AMPV, MPC, and JLTV
H.R. 1960 and S. 1197 each would authorize the amounts requested to develop four new types of
battlefield vehicles for use by the Army and Marine Corps:
• $592.2 million for the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) intended to
replace some Bradley troop carriers;54
• $116.3 million for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle intended to replace the
thousands of Vietnam War-era M-113 tracked vehicles still in use for various
Army utility tasks;55
• $137.0 million for the Marines’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle, intended to replace
the 1970s-designed AAV-7 amphibious troop carrier;56 and
• $134.6 million for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), slated to replace the
ubiquitous HMMWV (Humm-Vee).57
Since the Marine Corps has deferred plans to field a simpler armored troop carrier, not designed
for amphibious landings, both bills would drop the requested $20.9 million authorization for this
program, designated the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC).

54 For background and additional analysis see CRS Report R41597, The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
55 For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle
(AMPV): Background and Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
56 For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
57 For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report RS22942, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV): Background
and Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
39

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Naval Systems (Authorization)
In their reports on H.R. 1960 and S. 1197, respectively, the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees each expressed concern that, because of budgetary limits, DOD might not be able to
fund the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan.58 Each committee highlighted in particular the
challenge of replacing the current fleet of Trident missile-launching submarines even within the
DOD budgets through FY2021 that were projected by the Obama Administration, let alone within
the tighter budgets that might result from the current budget battles. In a House Armed Services
Seapower Subcommittee hearing on September 12, 2013, Rear Admiral Richard P. Breckenridge,
director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, said that, on top of currently projected
shipbuilding budgets, the Navy would need an additional $60 billion over 15 years to replace the
missile subs.
In its report on H.R. 1960, the House committee noted that DOD’s annual 30-year shipbuilding
plan, sent to Congress in April 2013, assumed that during the middle decade of that period
(namely, 2024-2033) annual shipbuilding budgets would average nearly $20 billion in constant
dollars. The committee directed DOD to submit a 30-year plan that assumed annual shipbuilding
budgets of $16 billion (in constant dollars), which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says
was the average annual shipbuilding budget over the past 30 years.
As reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, S. 1197 included provisions that would:
• require DOD to submit an assessment of the strategic risk to national security if
the number of ships in the annual 30-year plan do not meet DOD’s stated goals
(Section 1021); and
• require the Chief of Naval Operations to report on the number and capability of
combat ships needed to meet current and prospective threats over the next 30
years (Section 1022).
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected naval systems is summarized in
Appendix Table A-5. Following are highlights:
Aircraft Carriers59
The House and Senate versions of the NDAA each would authorize a total of $3.48 billion, as
requested, to sustain a fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers by the end of this decade.60
Slightly less than half that total would provide partial funding for two ships currently under
construction:

58 For additional background and analysis of the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy
Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
59 For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke
60 The FY2006 NDAA (P.L. 109-163, Section 126) established a requirement in law that the Navy maintain no fewer
than 12 operational carriers (codified at 10 U.S.C. 5062b). The FY2007 NDAA (P.L. 109-364, Section 1012) amended
the law to reduce the requirement to 11 carriers. The FY2010 NDAA (P.L. 111-84, Section 1023) provided that the
number of carriers could drop to 10 in the interval between the retirement of the carrier Enterprise and the
commissioning of the carrier Gerald R. Ford, currently under construction.
Congressional Research Service
40

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $944.9 million for the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), authorized in FY2013 and
currently slated for completion in FY2022 at an estimated total cost of $11.33
billion; and
• $588.1 million for the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), authorized in FY2008 and
currently slated for completion in FY2015 at an estimated total cost of $12.8
billion.61
The balance of the carrier-related funding would partially fund major overhauls for two existing
ships, about halfway through their projected 50-year service lives. This would entail refueling
their nuclear reactors and upgrading key electronic and weapons systems, for which the House
and Senate bills would authorize, as requested:
• $1.71 billion for work on the Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), slated for completion
in FY2016 at a total cost of $4.57 billion; and
• $245.8 million from preliminary work on the George Washington (CVN 73), on
which work is scheduled to begin in FY2016.
Both bills also would increase the legislative cap on spending for the Ford (CVN 78), raising it
from $11.76 billion to $12.90 billion.
Attack Submarines and Missile Submarines
The House-passed H.R. 1960 and Senate Armed Services Committee-reported S. 1197 each
would authorize, as requested, a total of $6.92 million to continue construction of Virginia-class
submarines, to design and develop a new ballistic-missile sub to replace the Ohio-class ships
currently in service, and to design an enlarged version of the Virginia-class that would greatly
increase the ship’s payload of Tomahawk land-attack missiles. The House-passed H.R. 1960
would increase the total submarine-related authorization by $492 million to compensate for the
amount that the sequestration process cut from the FY2013 appropriation for Virginia-class subs.
About three-quarters of the total amount requested would fund continued construction of the
Virginia-class subs, including:
• $2.93 billion to fully fund one sub and to provide about two-thirds of the cost of
a second, for which the remaining $953 million will be requested in the FY2015
budget. The House bill added $492 million—the amount of the FY2013
sequester—to this request.62
• $2.35 billion for long lead-time components that would be used in two additional
subs for which the bulk of the funding will be included in the FY2015 budget.
The remainder of the sub-related funding, endorsed by both bills, is for R&D programs:

61 In the DOD budget documentation, NDAA and DOD appropriations bill for FY2014, funding for CVN 79 is
included in the Carrier Replacement Program while funding for CVN 78 is included in a separate budget line entitled
“Completion of Prior Year Shipbuilding Programs.”
62 For additional background and analysis on the Virginia-class submarine program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy
Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
41

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $1.08 billion to continue developing a next-generation ballistic missile sub
($787.6 million) and the associated nuclear powerplant ($296.1 million);63 and
• $59.1 million to continue developing the Virginia Payload Module—an extension
of the sub’s hull by nearly 100 feet to accommodate four large vertical launch
tubes, each of which could accommodate seven Tomahawk missiles.
Destroyers64
Both versions of the NDAA would support the budget request for construction of new Navy
destroyers, but the House version would add to the request funds that would roughly offset the
funds removed by sequester from the destroyer programs in FY2013. Following are highlights:
• For two DDG-51-class ships, the budget requested $1.62 billion; the Senate bill
would increase the authorization by $100 million, and the House bill by $332
million (which is nearly the amount cut from this program in FY2013 by
sequestration);
• To complete construction of three DDG 1000-class destroyers, authorized in
FY2007-FY2009, the Senate bill would authorize $231.7 million, as requested,
and the House would add $79.3 million, slightly more than was sequestered from
the program in FY2013; and
• To continue developing a new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), intended
to improve the missile defense performance of a new version of the DDG-51 (so-
called “Flight III” ships), both versions of the NDAA would authorize $240.1
million, as requested. In addition, however, the House Armed Services
Committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on whether a
larger version of AMDR mounted on a larger ship than a destroyer would serve
the missile defense mission better than the smaller version slated to be installed
on Flight II DDG-51s, beginning in FY2016.
Littoral Combat Ships65
H.R. 1960 and S. 1197 each would authorize $1.78 billion as requested for procurement of four
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), which are fast, relatively small ships intended to deal with hostile
submarines, minefields, and small attack boats in “littoral”—that is, “near to shore”—waters.
Both bills also would authorize $143.1 million, as requested, to continue acquisition of the
interchangeable weapons modules intended to equip the ships for either mine-sweeping, sub-
hunting, or surface combat. But each bill also would require the Navy to report on certain aspects
of the program.

63 For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
64 For background and additional analysis on destroyer programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-
1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
65 For background and additional analysis on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
42

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

The House bill (Section 321) would require a detailed report by the Navy on its plan to sustain the
ships for extended periods in areas far from U.S. shipyards—for example, in Singapore—using
private contractors rather than U.S. government personnel for routine maintenance. In its report,
the House Armed Services Committee called on the Government Accountability Office to review
the Navy’s plan for sustainment of the LCS.
The Senate bill (Section 125) would require a report by the Navy on its plans for how the ships
would be used, how they compare with other U.S. warships and with the ships of potential
adversaries in terms of their combat survivability, and how their capability in a particular mission
compares with the capability of the older equipment they are slated to replace.
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Authorization)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected aircraft and long-range missile
programs is summarized in Appendix Table A-9. Following are some highlights:
Long-Range Weapons and Provisions Related to Arms Control
The House-passed version of the FY2013 NDAA includes several funding reductions and policy
provisions reflecting opposition to the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia,
approved by the Senate in 2010, and to President Obama’s announcement in his 2013 State of the
Union Address that he would seek agreement with Russia for additional reductions in nuclear
arms.66
The Senate committee bill would authorize as requested a total of $1.09 billion to sustain the Air
Force’s long-range bomber fleet,67 including (for both procurement and R&D):
• $423.7 million to upgrade the 20 B-2 bombers (including $303.5 million to
improve the stealth planes’ defensive electronics);
• $151.8 million to modernize B-1s;
• $135.0 million to upgrade B-52s; and
• $379.4 million to develop a new, stealthy bomber slated to enter service in the
mid-2020s.68
The House-passed version of the bill would authorize the requested bomber funding except that it
would deny authorization for $500,000 that would modify B-52s in accordance with the New
START treaty.

66 For background and additional analysis on New START and prospective future nuclear arms control agreements see
CRS Report R41219, The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, by Amy F. Woolf and CRS Report
R43037, Next Steps in Nuclear Arms Control with Russia: Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.
67 For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R43049, U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and
Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Michael A. Miller
68 For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report RL34406, Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background
and Issues for Congress
, by Jeremiah Gertler.
Congressional Research Service
43

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Similarly, the Senate bill would authorize, as requested, a total of $1.47 billion for an ongoing
program of refurbishing Trident II nuclear-armed, submarine-launched ballistic missiles by
replacing their solid-fuel rocket motors and other aging components. The House bill would
reduce the authorization by $717,000 for activities related to New START compliance.
Both versions of the NDAA would authorize, as requested, $65.4 million to continue the
Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, aimed at developing a ballistic missile or other
vehicle that could strike a distant target with a non-nuclear warhead on short notice.69 However,
the Senate committee added to its bill a provision (Section 211) barring the use of funds to
develop a submarine-launched missile for this mission until 60 days after DOD reports to
Congress on how it would manage the risk that an adversary might assume that any missile
launched from a submarine carried a nuclear warhead.
In addition to reducing the authorization request by a total of $1.22 million to block funding
associated with New START compliance, H.R. 1960 included several provisions that would put
conditions on U.S. compliance with that treaty and on prospective further reductions in U.S.
nuclear weaponry. Among these provisions are:
• Section 1051, which would bar the use of any funds in FY2014 to eliminate one
of the three “legs” of the U.S. nuclear “triad” of land-based ballistic missiles,
sub-launched ballistic missiles, and intercontinental bombers;
• Section 1052, which would prohibit the Administration from implementing arms
reductions required by New START until it reports to Congress—as required by
the FY2012 NDAA (P.L. 112-81, Section 1042a)—its plan for allocating the
required cuts among the three legs of the triad;
• Section 1054, which would bar additional reductions in the U.S. nuclear force,
below those required by New START, unless they were required by a treaty
ratified by the Senate or by a law enacted by Congress; and
• Section 1056, which would require that DOD retain the ability to reinstall
multiple warheads on Minuteman III ICBMs, which had be modified—under the
terms of New START—to carry one warhead rather than the three for which it
was designed.
Carrier-Based UAVs
The FY2014 budget request includes a total of $167.7 million for two Navy R&D programs
aimed at developing a fleet of long-range, armed, drone aircraft to fly reconnaissance and attack
missions from aircraft carriers. Of that total, the Senate version of the NDAA would authorize, as
requested:
• $21.0 million to conclude the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) project,
which has tested the feasibility of operating large drones off carriers using full-
sized, experimental X-47 aircraft, one of which autonomously landed on the
carrier George H. W. Bush on July 10, 2013; and

69 For background an additional analysis, see CRS Report R41464, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-
Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues
, by Amy F. Woolf.
Congressional Research Service
44

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

• $146.7 million for the Unmanned Carrier-launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS) project, which is intended to produce an operational weapon.
In its report on H.R. 1960, the House Armed Services Committee contended that the Navy was
acting prematurely in retiring the X-47s before they had been used to explore all the technical
challenges that the operators would encounter when the UCLASS drones were deployed. The
committee was particularly critical of the Navy’s decision to drop a planned effort to refuel an X-
47 in midair while the drone was fully under the control of its on-board computers, with no
intervention by a human pilot.
Accordingly, H.R. 1960 would increase the UCAV authorization by $20.0 million—to $41.0
million—and would include a provision (Section 217) requiring the Navy to conduct mid-air
refueling tests with the X-47. The House bill also would authorize, as requested, $146.7 million
for UCLASS.
Missile Defense (Authorization)
The FY2014 budget request included $7.68 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the
bulk of it for R&D efforts aimed to developing an array of sensors to detect ballistic missiles in
flight and weapons to destroy them. The House-passed bill would increase the total MDA
authorization by $435.4 million, with most of the additional funding directed to several Israeli
defense systems and to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) currently deployed in
Alaska and California, which is intended to protect U.S. territory against a small number of
intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from North Korea or Iran. The Senate committee-
reported NDAA would increase the MDA authorization by $150.0 million, directing the
additional funds to the same Israeli systems.
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected missile defense programs is
summarized in Appendix Table A-1. Following are highlights:
Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD)
The budget request includes $1.03 billion for the GMD system: some of which is intended to pay
for refurbishing and upgrading the 30 interceptor missiles currently deployed; some to prepare for
deployment of 14 additional interceptors at the existing launch site in Alaska, as the
Administration has announced it may do; and some to survey locations for a potential third
launch site for missile interceptors on the East Coast. The FY2013 NDAA (P.L. 112-239, Section
227) required DOD to develop a plan for deploying interceptors at an East Coast site, on the
grounds that it would increase the likelihood that the GMD system could intercept U.S.-bound
missiles from Iran or North Korea.
The budget also requests $315.2 million for the network of long-range radars on which the GMD
system relies for target data.
The Senate bill would authorize the GMD request and would add to the radar request $30.0
million to deploy an additional radar for defense of U.S. territory (Section 234). It also includes a
provision (Section 231) requiring a DOD report evaluating the cost and effectiveness of various
enhancements to the current GMD system, including the planned deployment of 14 additional
interceptors and the creation of an East Coast launch site.
Congressional Research Service
45

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

By contrast, the House bill would begin funding both the expansion of the GMD interceptor
arsenal and construction of a third launch site on the East Coast. It would add to the $1.03 billion
GMD request $107.0 million to begin acquisition of 14 additional interceptors and $140.4 million
to begin work on the East Coast interceptor site. H.R. 1960 also includes a provision that would
require completion by FY2018 of a third GMD site “designed to complement existing sites in
Alaska and California [and] to deal more effectively with the long-range ballistic missile threat
from the Middle East” (Section 232).
Israeli Defenses
The House and Senate bills each would authorize significantly more than the $98.0 million
requested for three Israeli programs intended to intercept short-range and medium-range ballistic
missiles. H.R. 1960 would add $188.0 million while S. 1197 would add $150.0 million.
Both bills would authorize $220.3 million, as requested, to continue acquiring for Israel a fourth
weapons system, dubbed “Iron Dome,” designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery
shells. But the House bill also would authorize DOD to use $15.0 million to gear up for U.S.
production of the Iron Dome system (Section 237).
NATO Missile Defense Cost
H.R. 1960 included a provision (Section 238) that would require the President to negotiate with
other leaders of NATO, an agreement that the alliance would pay half the cost of deploying and
operating a U.S.-designed regional missile defense system intended to protect Europe.
Provisions Relating to Wartime Detainees70
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the FY2014 NDAA each contain
provisions relating 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. Among the
detainee-related provisions in H.R. 1960 are:
• Section 1033, restricting the conditions under which detainees can be transferred
to other countries through December 31, 2014;
• Section 1040D, barring transfer of detainees to Yemen through December 31,
2014;
• Section 1032, barring the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the
United States to house detainees; and
• Section 1040C, barring the use of funds to provide new or improved recreational
facilities for detainees.
During floor debate on H.R. 1960, the House rejected by a vote of 200-226 an amendment that
would have eliminated indefinite military detention for any detainee held in the United States by

70 This section was prepared by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service.
Congressional Research Service
46

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

requiring an immediate trial in a state or federal court for any person detained under authority of
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution (P.L. 107-40).
The Senate bill (S. 1197) would relax some of the restraints in current law on the treatment of
detainees. For example, it would allow the expiration of the current prohibition on constructing or
modifying facilities in the United States to house detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay.
The bill also contains:
• Section 1033, extending the current prohibition on releasing Guantanamo
detainees in the United States but allowing them to be transferred to the United
States for detention and trial; and
• Section 1031, allowing the transfer to other countries of certain classes of
detainees, including those who have been ordered released by a competent U.S.
court and those who have been tried and either were acquitted or have served
their sentence.
On November 19, 2013, the Senate rejected two amendments related to detainee issues:
• Amendment 2255 (Senator Ayotte) would have dropped from the bill several
committee provisions, thus leaving intact the provisions of current law that bar
transfer to any other place of any detainees currently held at Guantanamo;
rejected by a vote of 43-55 (with 60 votes required for passage); and
• Amendment 2175 (Senator Levin) stipulated that any detainee transferred to the
United States for trial would be barred from requesting asylum while on U.S.
territory; rejected by a vote of 52-46 (with 60 votes required for passage).
Detainee Issues
For background and further analysis of detainee-related provisions in H.R. 1960 and S. 1197, see CRS Report R42143,
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 and Beyond: Detainee Matters, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John
Garcia.
House Floor Amendments
Following are selected amendments on which the House took action during its consideration of
H.R. 1960
Table 15. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2014 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 1960)
House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Defense Budget
Nolan H.Amdt.
reduce by $60 billion the total amount authorized by the bill
rejected

159
71-353
Van Hollen
H.Amdt.
reduce by $5 billion the OCO authorization in the bill
rejected

171
191-232
Coffman H.Amdt. shift $250 million from the Defense Rapid Innovation Program to
rejected

145
funding for training and readiness
206-220
Congressional Research Service
47

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Afghanistan
McGovern H.Amdt. express sense of Congress that, if the President decides to leave U.S.
agreed to

149
troops deployed in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, Congress 305-121
should authorize the deployment by vote no later than June 1, 2014
Johnson H.Amdt.
bar use of authorized funds to establish a base for the permanent
agreed to

166
stationing of U.S. forces in Afghanistan
voice vote
(en bloc 7)
Blumenauer H.Amdt. streamline the process for awarding special immigrant visas to
agreed to

174
Iraqis and Afghans who have assisted U.S. forces and expressing sense
420-3
of the House that this program should be extended through 2018
Braley H.Amdt.
require the President to send Congress a report on the long-term
agreed to

165
cost of the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,
voice vote
(en bloc 6)
including the cost of veterans’ care
Lewis H.Amdt.
require that the cost to each taxpayer of the wars in Iraq and
agreed to

165
Afghanistan be posted on the DOD website
voice vote
(en bloc 6)
Sexual Assault
Frankel H.Amdt.
make it a crime under UCMJ to abuse one’s position in the chain
agreed to

146
of command to rape or sexually assault a subordinate
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Turner H.Amdt.
establish mandatory minimum sentences of dismissal or discharge agreed to

147
from service and imprisonment for certain sex-related offenses by
voice vote
military personnel
Jackson Lee H.Amdt.
require posting at DOD installations of information on sexual
agreed to

153
assault prevention and response
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
Lowey H.Amdt.
require inclusion of sexual assault prevention in the ethics
agreed to

156
curriculum of the service academies
voice vote
(en bloc 3)
deLauro H.Amdt. require that the annual DOD report on sexual assaults in the military
agreed to

156
include certain information relating to retention of evidence and
voice vote
(en bloc 3)
records relating to sexual assaults
Terrorism / Guantanamo Bay
Broun H.Amdt.
bars use of a drone to kill a U.S. citizen unless that person is
agreed to

165
actively engaged in combat against the United States
voice vote
(en bloc 6)
Goodlatte H.Amdt. in habeus corpus proceedings for U.S. citizens detained pursuant to the
agreed to

150
2001 resolution authorizing the use of military force (AUMF), require
214-211
the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant, with no presumption
that the government’s evidence is accurate
Radel H.Amdt.
require annual DOD report to Congress containing the names of U.S. agreed to

151
citizens detained by military, the justification for their detention,
voice vote
and steps taken to either give them judicial process or release them
Smith
H.Amdt.
eliminate indefinite military detention by providing immediate
rejected

(Wash.)
152
trial in a state or federal court for any person detained under authority 200-226
of the AUMF
Congressional Research Service
48

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Walorski H.Amdt. prohibit the use funds to transfer or release to Yemen any detainees
agreed to

167
held at Guantanamo Bay
236-188
Smith
H.Amdt.
bar funding of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility after
rejected

(Wash.)
168
December 31, 2014
174-249
Ross H.Amdt.
bar use of taxpayer funds to construct or upgrade recreational
agreed to

164
facilities for detainees at Guantanamo Bay
voice vote
(en bloc 5)
Policy Toward Other Countries
Gibson H.Amdt.
delete from the committee-reported bill Section 1251 expressing the
rejected

162
Sense of Congress should ensure robust contingency planning to
123-301
secure U.S. interests in Syria including the consideration of all courses
of action to remove Syria President Assad from power
Walorski H.Amdt. express sense of Congress strongly supporting sanctions on Iran,
agree to

166
supporting U.S. policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear
voice vote
(en bloc 7)
weapons, and declaring that Israel’s security is a vital U.S. national
interest
Rigell H.Amdt.
declare that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize any
agreed to

165
use of military force
voice vote
(en bloc 6)
Ros-
H.Amdt.
expand the scope of a report on U.S. relations with Egypt required by agreed to

Lehtinen
165
the bill and require GAO to comment on the report
voice vote
(en bloc 6)
Connolly H.Amdt. direct the President to sell 66 F-16C/D fighters to Taiwan agreed
to

165
voice vote
(en bloc 6)
Strategic Arms and Arms Control
Polis H.Amdt.
bar the use of funds to expand the missile defense system currently Rejected

170
deployed in Alaska and California unless the system successfully
146-278
intercepts target warheads twice prior to October 1, 2014
Holt H.Amdt.
delete Subtitle C of Title II of the bill (i.e., several legislative provisions
rejected

157
dealing with missile defense R&D) except for Section 237, which
61-362
would authorize $15 million to facilitate U.S. production of the Israeli-
developed Iron Dome system
Cooper H.Amdt.
add authorization totalling $70.5 mil ion, requested by the
rejected

161
Administration but deleted by the House committee, to pay for
195-229
actions required to comply with the New START nuclear arms
reduction treaty

Lummis H.Amdt.
require that currently active ICBM launch silos, if retired from service,
agreed to

143
be maintained in a way to would permit their return to service
235-189
Turner H.Amdt.
express sense of Congress that the President inform Congress of the
agreed to

155
terms of any proposed agreement with Russia concerning U.S.
239-182
nuclear arms or missile defenses
Other
Blumenauer H.Amdt. reduce from 11 to 10 the number of nuclear-powered carriers
rejected

142
the Navy is required to keep in active service
106-318
Congressional Research Service
49

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Coffman H.Amdt. return to the United States one of the Army’s two Armored
rejected

163
Cavalry Regiments currently stationed in Germany
110-313
Langevin H.Amdt. require a report comparing the cost and risks of procuring two types
agreed to

164
of Navy destroyers equipped for missile defense: the DDG-1000
voice vote
(en bloc 5)
class and a new version of the DDG-51 class (designated Flight III)
Polis H.Amdt.
allow the appointment as military chaplains of persons certified by
rejected

169
recognized nontheistic or nonreligious organizations
150-274
Huelskamp H.Amdt. require a report to the House and Senate Armed Services
agreed to

146
Committees anytime DOD officials meet with persons who are not
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
federal employees to discuss the creation or enforcement of DOD
regulations concerning religious liberty
Thompson
H.Amdt.
require a baseline preliminary mental health assessment of
agreed to

(Pa.)
160
individuals before they join the military
voice vote
(en bloc 4)
Fitzpatrick H.Amdt. prohibit termination of military tuition assistance programs
agreed to

146
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Rigell H.Amdt.
lift a moratorium on so-called A-76 competitions to determine
rejected

148
whether to outsource DOD jobs currently performed by federal
178-248
employees
McCollum H.Amdt. bar the use of authorized funds for Army National Guard sponsorship
rejected

158
of professional wrestling or motor sports contests
134-290
DeSantis H.Amdt. prohibit collaborative cybersecurity activities with China agreed
to

160
voice vote
(en bloc 4)
Cardenas H.Amdt. require that DOD investigations of compromised critical
agreed to

164
program information include estimate of resulting economic losses
voice vote
(en bloc 5)
Schakowsky H.Amdt. require that clothes made in Bangladesh that are sold in post
agreed to

166
exchanges be manufactured in factories that comply with fire and
voice vote
(en bloc 7)
building safety standards
DeLauro H.Amdt. bar DOD procurement from Russian arms firm Rosoboronexport
agreed to

175
unless certain conditions are met, including DOD certification that the
423-0
company is not delivering advanced missile defense batteries to Syria

FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bill
Overview (H.R. 2397; S. 1429)
Unlike the more inclusive National Defense Authorization Act, the annual DOD appropriation bill
covers only DOD military activities and excludes military construction, which is funded in the
annual appropriations bill that also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies.
Congressional Research Service
50

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

The House version of the FY2014 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), passed on June 24, 2013,
by a vote of 315 to 109, would provide $585.1 billion for those activities—including both the
base budget and OCO costs—which is nearly $4.4 billion less than the Administration requested.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the bill (S. 1429), reported on July 30, 2013,
would provide $587.5 billion, which is nearly $2.2 billion less than the request. (See Table 16.)
Differing Presentations of FY2014 Budget Request
Summary tables in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees’ reports on their respective versions of the
FY2014 DOD appropriations bill differ slightly in their presentation of the Administration’s FY2014 DOD budget
request.
At issue is an Administration proposal that would, in effect, finance part of the $80.56 billion OCO request by
rescinding $1.28 billion that Congress added to the FY2013 DOD funding bill (P.L. 113-6) for the purpose of
modernizing and continuing to operate several Navy ships the Administration’s FY2013 budget would have retired.
Both committees rejected the proposed rescission and took steps to include those funds in their respective FY2014
bills but recorded them in different places.
The summary table in H.Rept. 113-113, the House Appropriations Committee report on H.R. 2397, adds back the
funding for the ships in the part of the bill funding war costs (OCO). On the other hand, the summary table in S.Rept.
113-85, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s report on S. 1429, includes the addition in DOD’s base (i.e., non-
war) budget.
In Table 16, each committee’s summary of the budget request is presented alongside the summary of that
committee’s version of the DOD appropriations bill.


Congressional Research Service
51


Table 16. FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397; S. 1429)
amounts in thousands of dollars
Senate
House-passed Bill
Committee-
FY2014 Budget
H.R. 2397
FY2014 Budget
reported Bill
Conference Report

Request (House)a
Request (Senate) b
S. 1429
BASE BUDGET
Military Personnel
130,399,881
129,649,180 130,399,881 129,133,927

Operation and Maintenance
175,097,941
174,926,024
175,097,941
178,573,167

Procurementc 98,153,506
98,346,158
98,153,506
98,368,753

Research, Development, Test &

Evaluation
67,520,236 66,399,530 67,520,236 65,806,815
Revolving and Management Funds
2,276,527
2,141,527
2,276,527
2,304,205

Defense Health Program and Other

DOD Programs
35,461,127 36,025,967 35,461,127 36,080,718
Related Agencies
1,082,271
1,066,535
1,082,271
1,082,671

General Provisions (net)
158,000
-2,844,571
-913,571
-1,510,465

Subtotal: BASE BUDGET
510,149,486
505,710,350
509,077,915
509,839,791

Overseas Contingency Operations
79,278,902
79,576,649
80,558,154
77,623,143

GRAND TOTAL
589,428,388
585,286,999
589,636,069
587,462,934

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 113-113, Report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2014 [H.R. 2397], June 17, 2013,
supplemented by communication with committee staff; and Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 113-85, Report to Accompany S. 1429, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill for 2014 [S. 1429], August 1, 2013.
Notes:
a. The relatively minor differences between the House and Senate summaries of the Administration’s FY2014 DOD budget request are analyzed in the text box,
“Differing Presentations of FY2014 Budget Request,” which immediately precedes this table.
b. The relatively minor differences between the House and Senate summaries of the Administration’s FY2014 DOD budget request are analyzed in the text box,
“Differing Presentations of FY2014 Budget Request,” which immediately precedes this table.
c. The Administration also requested in the Procurement account $952.7 million in “advance appropriations” that would not be spent until after FY2014. All of the
congressional defense committees rejected this request.

CRS-52

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

Base Budget
For the FY2014 base budget, H.R. 2397 would add $1.20 billion to the Administration’s request
to offset what the House Appropriations Committee called the budget’s “unrealistic” assumptions
about the extent to which “efficiencies” would reduce the cost of building maintenance, depot
overhauls of major weapons, and other routine operations. The House bill also added to the
amount requested $536 million in anticipation of higher-than-budgeted fuel costs and several
billion dollars for various weapons and R&D programs, including increases of $950 million for a
submarine, $923 million to modernize Navy cruisers the budget would retire, and $667 million
for medical R&D projects.
But those additions would be more than offset by reductions to the base budget request, many of
which the House Appropriations Committee said would have no adverse impact on DOD
operations. Among these are:
• a total of $6.06 billion which the committee deemed to be either in excess of
what was required for a particular program or else not adequately justified;
• a total of $1.10 billion from programs that previously have requested and
received more funds for a given year than they spend; and
• a total of $3.04 billion that would be offset by rescinding the same amount
appropriated in prior years, thus reducing the need for new budget authority.
The Senate committee’s version of the bill would make several relatively large cuts from the base
budget, among which are:
• a total of $5.06 billion which the committee deemed to be either in excess of
what was required for a particular program or else not adequately justified;
• a total of $1.53 billion from programs that either have relatively large, unspent
balances from prior appropriations or have a track record of requesting larger
appropriations for a given year than they typically spend; and
• a total of $578 million71 that would be offset by rescinding the same amount
appropriated in prior years, thus reducing the need for new budget authority.
But the Senate committee would largely offset those reductions by additions to the Administration
base budget request, including:
• a total of $4.19 billion to compensate for assumed efficiencies in the budget
request that the Senate committee deemed unrealistic; and
• $1.16 billion to fund programs the Administration had included in its budget
request for OCO funding.

71 The Administration’s request for the FY2014 base budget included proposed rescissions totaling $1.02 billion. The
Senate committee’s bill would rescind $1.60 billion.
Congressional Research Service
53

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

OCO Funding
For FY2014 war costs, the House-passed H.R. 2397 would appropriate $79.34 billion, which is
$59.3 million more than the Administration’s request. Among the largest increases in the
committee bill are:
• $1.50 billion for equipment for National Guard and reserve units;
• $1.30 billion to accelerate the “reset” process for Army units that had been
deployed in Afghanistan; and
• $1.07 billion for a transfer fund from which amounts could be transferred to
regular appropriations accounts to cover unforeseen OCO costs.
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, the bill would have added $6.3 billion to
the OCO request, but amendments adopted by the House eliminated most of that overall
increase:72
• H.Amdt. 392 (Representative Mulvaney) reduced the committee-reported OCO
amount by $3.5 billion, eliminating all additions to the Administration’s request
except procurement funds for the National Guard and reserve forces.
• H.Amdt. 366 (Representative Terry) reduced the amount appropriated for support
of the Afghan Army and National Policy by $2.6 billion (from the $7.73 billion
requested and approved by the committee) and added $1 billion to Operations
and Maintenance accounts to reduce the need to furlough DOD civilian
employees.
The Senate committee’s bill, S. 1429, would provide $77.62 billion in new budget authority for
OCO, which is $1.66 billion less than the Administration’s request. Among the largest
components of that net reduction are cuts of:
• $1.16 billion for programs the Senate committee funded in the part of the bill that
funds DOD’s base budget;
• $782 million cut from the $7.73 billion request for the Afghan Security Forces
Fund;
• $284 million the committee deemed excess to need for Army basic pay; and
• $227 million for Coast Guard missions in support of the Navy, which the Senate
committee said should be funded through the Department of Homeland Security.
Military Personnel Issues (Appropriations)
Military Compensation
The Senate committee-reported version of the FY2014 DOD appropriations bill (S. 1429) would
fund, as requested, a 1% raise in military basic pay. The House-passed version (H.R. 2397)
includes Section 8126, which would add to the amount requested $580 million to fund a 1.8%

72 For these and other amendments offered during House debate on H.R. 2397, see Table 17.
Congressional Research Service
54

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

basic pay increase, as would be authorized by the House-passed version of the NDAA. On other
military personnel funding issues:
• Both bills would cut the $4.03 billion requested for enlistment and reenlistment
bonuses and special pays—the House bill by $145 million, the Senate bill by
$156 million—on grounds that, in the current civilian jobs market, it was easier
than the budget assumed for the services to recruit and retain talented individuals;
• Both bills would reduce the $4.76 billion requested for “Permanent Change of
Station” funding—intended to cover the cost of transferring servicemembers and
their dependents from one assignment to another—with the House bill cutting
$151 million and the Senate bill cutting $306 million; and
• Both bills also would add to the request $25 million to expand to all the services
the Air Force’s Special Victims’ Counsel program to provide victims of alleged
sex-related offenses with independent legal representation, drawn from outside
the military services (see H.R. 2397, Section 8122; and S. 1429, Section 8115).
Defense Health Program (including TRICARE)
The FY2014 DOD appropriations bills passed by the House and reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee each would add upwards of $500 million to the $33.1 billion
requested in the base budget for DOD’s health care system, which serves 9.6 million beneficiaries
(active-duty and retired military personnel and their dependents).73 Nearly half the request ($16
billion) is for TRICARE, DOD’s insurance program, to fund contracts for private-sector medical
care for active-duty and retired military personnel, their dependents, and their survivors.
Both bills would reduce the TRICARE request on grounds that, in recent years, the program has
requested more than it spent in a given year. Those reductions were more than offset by additions
in each bill to compensate for rejection of proposed TRICARE fee hikes and to provide roughly
$600 million for medical R&D projects. The House bill also would add $225.0 million to the
amount requested for maintenance and repair of medical facilities.
Ground Combat Systems (Appropriations)
Congressional action on authorization of funding for selected ground combat programs is
summarized in Appendix Table A-4. Following are some highlights:
In the reports on their respective versions of the FY2014 appropriations bill, the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees each took note of the planned downturn over the next few
years in the Army’s purchases from the specialized industrial base that builds tanks and other
heavily armored combat vehicles. In S. 1429, the Senate committee added to the request $90.0
million to continue for one more year the conversion of existing M-1 tanks to the M-1A2 SEP
variant, with improved digital communications, night-vision equipment, armor, and transmission.
The House-passed bill included no additional funds for the tank upgrades but included an

73 In addition to the $33.1 billion requested for the Defense Health Program (DHP) in the base budget, the OCO
funding request includes $904 million for DHP.
Congressional Research Service
55

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

additional $75 million for M-88 recovery vehicles—vehicles built on tank chassis that are
intended to tow damaged tanks from the battlefield.
The House and Senate bills each made some reductions in the set of R&D programs intended to
develop a new generation of armored combat vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps:
• For the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle, envisioned as a replacement for the
Bradley armored troop carrier, the House bill would provide $592.2 million, as
requested, while the Senate bill would cut $169.0 million;
• For the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, a replacement for the 1970s-vintage M-
113 tracked vehicle which the Army uses for jobs ranging from mobile command
posts to battlefield ambulances, the Senate bill would provide $116.3 million as
requested, while the House bill would cut $30.0 million; and
• Both bills would cut $14.0 million from the Marine Corps request for $137.0
million to develop a new amphibious assault vehicle.
Naval Systems (Appropriations)
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected naval programs is summarized in
Appendix Table A-6. Following are some highlights:
Submarines
Historically, Congress has insisted on full funding for major weapons programs, with limited
exceptions for so-called long lead-time components, such as the nuclear power plants of
submarines. For aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers, with price tags of several billion dollars
apiece, Congress has allowed “incremental funding”—that is, spreading the cost of the ship
across several budgets. However, it has resisted proposals to use that approach for other types of
ships.
In a similar vein, Congress has rejected proposals to fund ships and Air Force satellites using
“advance appropriations,” that is, funding that Congress appropriates in one year’s appropriations
bill but which will not become available for obligation until a subsequent fiscal year.74
Nevertheless, the Administration is depending on advance appropriations to fund one of two
Virginia-class submarines in the FY2014 budget request.
Of the projected $5.41 billion total cost of two subs:
• $1.53 billion was appropriated as “long lead-time” funding in prior budgets;
• $2.93 billion is requested in FY2014; and
• $952.7 million is budgeted as an “advance appropriation.”
Under DOD’s plan, one of the two subs would be “fully funded” by a combination of long lead-
time funding from prior years and a portion of the funds requested in FY2014. The second sub

74 For additional background and analysis of “advance appropriations,” see CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship
Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke
Congressional Research Service
56

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

would be funded by a combination of long lead-time money, the remainder of the FY2014 request
and the FY2015 “advance appropriation” amount.
In its report on H.R. 2397, the House Appropriations Committee dubbed the advance
appropriation proposal a “funding gimmick” and added to the bill $950.0 million to fully fund the
second FY2014 submarine.
As reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, S. 1429 would add to the amount requested
$277.0 million, the purpose of which is to “maintain critical industrial base” associated with the
Virginia-class subs.
In addition, the Senate bill would deny the $59.9 million requested to continue developing the
Virginia Payload Module, an additional hull section—reportedly about 94 feet in length—that
would be incorporated into future Virginia-class subs carrying four large-diameter, vertical launch
tubes that could carry additional Tomahawk cruise missiles or other payloads, such as unmanned
underwater vehicles. In its report, the committee objected that the modification would disrupt a
smoothly functioning production line for the subs and that DOD had not yet officially approved
the change.
Destroyers
The House and Senate bills each would approve the $1.62 billion requested for a DDG-51-class
destroyer. In addition, the House bill would add $100 million to make up for part of a $304
million shortfall in the program’s account as a result of the FY2013 sequestration.
Both bills would deny a portion of the $240.1 million requested for the Air and Missile Defense
Radar (AMDR) program, intended to replace the current DDG-51 radar on a projected new
version of the ship with a radar better able to track long-range ballistic missiles and low-flying or
stealthy cruise missiles and aircraft. Citing delays in the development program, the House bill
would cut $79.8 million while the Senate bill would cut $87.0 million.
Aircraft and Missile Programs (Appropriations)
Congressional action on appropriation of funds for selected aircraft and long-range missile
programs is summarized in Appendix Table A-10. Following are highlights:
Strike Fighters (Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18)
The House and Senate bills would make relatively minor reductions to the $5.45 billion requested
for procurement of 29 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, of which there are three versions used by the
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, respectively. The House bill would cut $323.4 million while
the Senate bill would cut $278.0 million, the reductions being justified, in each case, on grounds
of efficiency and sound management.
While both bills thus would fund acquisition of 29 F-35s in FY2014, as requested, the Senate bill
also would cut $80.0 million from the $564.8 million requested for long lead-time components
with the intention of slowing the planned increase in production for FY2015. In its report on S.
1429, the Senate Appropriations Committee observed that the DOD budget assumed procurement
in FY2014 of 42 F-35s, an increase of 13 planes (about 45%) over the 29 F-35s funded in the
Congressional Research Service
57

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

FY2014 budget request. By reducing funding for long lead-time components, the Senate bill is
intended to reduce the number of F-35s funded in the FY2015 budget request to 36, which would
be an increase of about 25% over the number requested in FY2014.
Both the House and Senate bills also would add to the amount requested $75.0 million for long
lead-time components that would support the purchase in FY2015 of 22 F/A-18E/F Navy
fighters, the type of plane the F-35 is slated eventually to replace on Navy carriers. In its report,
the Senate Appropriations Committee opposed DOD’s decision to end F/A-18E/F production,
noting that the plane would be the “backbone” of the Navy’s carrier air wings for the next 25
years. Keeping the F/A-18E/F in production would maintain the U.S. fighter production base and
would hedge against the risk that the F-35 might be delayed, the committee said.
Missile Defense Programs (Appropriations)
H.R. 2397 would make a net addition of $323.0 million to the Missile Defense Agency’s $7.68
billion FY2014 budget request while S. 1429 would give the agency a net increase over the
request of $227.4 million. Each bill would add $173.0 million to the $95.8 million requested for
continued development of three Israeli anti-missile systems designed to intercept short-range and
medium-range missiles ballistic missiles.
In addition, the House bill would add $177.2 million to the $1.03 billion requested for the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) currently deployed in Alaska and California, which is
intended to protect U.S. territory against a small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles
launched from North Korea or Iran. Of the additional funds, $107.0 million is intended to
accelerate procurement of 14 additional GMD interceptor missiles and $70.2 million is to
expedite consideration of deploying additional interceptors at a third site, located on the East
Coast.
The Senate bill would appropriate a total of $1.03 billion for GMD, as requested. However,
within that total, it would shift $142.9 million from the R&D account to the operation and
maintenance account.
For the Israeli Iron Dome system, designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells,
both bills would provide $220.3 million, the amount requested.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (OCO)
The House bill would provide the $7.73 billion requested for the Afghan Security Forces Fund,
which pays for training, equipping, and sustaining the Afghan military and national police.
But the Senate bill would cut from the request a total of $781.8 million intended to purchase
aircraft for Afghanistan’s Air Force, including:
• $365.0 million to purchase Russian-built Mi-17 helicopters from
Rosboronexport, a Russian state-owned company that also has supplied arms to
Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The bill also includes a general provision
(Section 8113) that would bar DOD from doing business with Rosboronexport.
• $416.8 million to purchase an additional 20 Super Turcano turboprops, ground-
attack planes built by the Brazilian firm Embraer, 20 of which had been
Congressional Research Service
58

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

purchased with FY2012 funds. In its report, the Senate Appropriations
Committee said DOD had not identified a requirement for more than the 20
planes initially planned for.
House Floor Amendments to FY2014 DOD Appropriations Bills
Following are selected amendments on which the Senate took action during its consideration of
H.R. 2397:
Table 17. Selected House Floor Amendments to FY2014 DOD Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2397)
House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Overall Budget Reductions
Lee
H.Amdt.
Reduce the total amount appropriated by 1% rejected

(CA)
383
109-317
Terry Reduce the appropriation for the Afghan Security Forces
agreed to

Fund by $2.6 billion and add $1.0 billion to the Defense-wide
voice vote
O&M account to reduce the need to furlough DOD civilian
employees
Mulvaney H.Amdt.
Reduce the OCO appropriation by $3.5 billion, eliminating all agreed to

392
additions to the President’s request except procurement funds for
215-206
National Guard and reserve component units
Medical Funding Increases
Sessions H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to create a pilot program to assist
agreed to

349
servicemembers suffering from TBI or PTSD
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Grayson H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to increase funding for research on prostate
agreed to

349
cancer
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Jackson Lee
H.Amdt.
Move $500,000 to increase funding for PTSD treatment agreed
to

351
voice vote
Jackson Lee
H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to increase funding for research on breast
agreed to

354
cancer
voice vote
Other Funding Increases
Nugent H.Amdt.
Move $11 million to increase funding to develop a cruise missile
rejected

359
equipped with a high-powered microwave
93-327
Bridenstine H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to increase funding for the National Guard
agreed to

349
State Partnership Program
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
McKinley H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to increase funding for the National Guard’s
agreed to

349
Youth Challenge Program
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Strategic Arms and Arms Control
Polis H.Amdt.
Cut $107 million added by committee to buy 14 U.S.-based GBI
rejected

356
anti-missile interceptors
141-272
Congressional Research Service
59

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Blumenauer H.Amdt.
Cut $85 million (10%) from the amount appropriated to develop a
rejected

357
replacement for Trident missile submarines
49-372
Nadler H.Amdt.
Cut $70 million added by committee to begin work on an East
rejected

362
Coast missile defense site
173-249
Quigley H.Amdt.
Bar operation of more than 300 ICBMs (reducing the force by
rejected 142-

384
one-third)
283
Lamborn H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to conduct an environmental impact study on
agreed to

389
ICBM bases
voice vote
Rogers H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds provided by the bill to carry out the nuclear
agreed to

395
force reductions required by the New START Treaty
voice vote
Turner H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to reduce the number of strategic nuclear agreed to

398
bombers and missiles except pursuant to the Arms Control and
voice vote
Disarmament Act of 1961
Brooks H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to carry out any agreement with the Russian
agreed to

406
Federation regarding U.S. missile defenses
voice vote
Detainee issues
Moran H.Amdt.
Delete from the bill several provisions that would restrict the
rejected

365
Administration’s treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
175-247
Walorski H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to agreed to

399
Yemen
238-185
Nadler H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds for further detention at Guantanamo Bay of
rejected

403
prisoners already cleared for release
176-242
Nadler H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds for additional construction or expansion of
rejected

404
detainee facilities at Guantanamo Bay
187-237
Afghanistan Issues
Lee
H.Amdt.
Reduce by $2.6 billion the Afghan Security Forces Fund and add
agreed

(NE)
366
$1.0 billion for DOD operations to reduce civilian furloughs
voice vote
Walberg H.Amdt.
Reduce by $79 million to Afghan Infrastructure Fund
agreed to

369
283-139
H.Amdt.
Reduce by $10 million the Afghan Security Forces Fund and add
agreed to

349
$10 million for suicide prevention
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Cicilline H.Amdt.
Reduce by $60 million the Afghan Security Forces Fund and add
agreed to

370
$14 million for research on TBI, psychological health, and
voice vote
(en bloc 3)
substance abuse
Cicilline H.Amdt.
Reduce by $279 million (i.e., to $0) the Afghan Infrastructure Fund
rejected

371
184-237
Cohen H.Amdt.
Reduce by $139 million the Afghan Infrastructure Fund
agreed to

372
249-173
Coffman H.Amdt.
Reduce by $554 million the Afghan Security Forces Fund (thus
agreed to

373
eliminating contract with Soviet arms export firm to buy 30
346-79
Russian-built Mi-17 helicopters for Afghan forces’ use)
Garamendi H.Amdt.
Reduce Afghan Security Forces Fund by $2.6 billion, the amount
rejected

374
the committee bill would add to the President’s request
150-276
Congressional Research Service
60

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Rigell H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds appropriated to the Afghan Infrastructure
agreed to

376
Fund for any project on which construction has not commenced by 332-94
date of enactment
DeLauro H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to train Afghan Security Forces to operate or
agreed to

382
maintain Russian-built Mi-17 helicopters
333-93
Jones H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to carry out activities under the United States-
rejected

386
Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, unless authorized by
177-246
Congress
Schiff H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds after December 31, 2014, for the use of force
rejected

407
pursuant to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force
185-236
resolution (P.L. 107-40)
Provisions Relating to Other Countries in the Middle East and South Asia
Poe H.Amdt.
Reduce by $600 million funds for Pakistan provided by the bill (a
rejected

367
reduction of 50%)
186-237
Rohrabacher H.Amdt.
Bar any funds appropriated by the bill from being provided to
rejected

396
Pakistan
voice vote
Radel H.Amdt.
Provide that none of the funds may be used with respect to Syria
agreed to

410
in contravention of the War Powers Act
voice vote
Massie H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds for DOD military operations in Egypt agreed
to

411
voice vote
Sexual Assault-Related Issues
Speier H.Amdt.
Investigate cases of possible retaliation against military personnel agreed to

408
who report a sexual assault
voice vote
Speier H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to improve training of DOD personnel who
agreed to

409
investigate allegations of sexual assault
voice vote
Kline H.Amdt.
Bar the enlistment of persons convicted of rape, sexual assault,
agreed to

355
or other sex crimes
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
NSA Surveillance Issues
Pompeo H.Amdt.
Bar use of funds for operations of the National Security Agency rejected

412
409-12
Amash H.Amdt.
Terminate authority for blanket collection of records under the rejected

413
Patriot Act
205-217
Other Issues
Velazquez H.Amdt.
Move $10 million to reduce hazing and suicide in the military
agreed to

349
voice vote
(en bloc 1)
Hunter H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to plan or carry out the removal of any part of agreed to

355
the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
Nunes H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to reduce force structure at Lajes Field in
agreed to

355
the Azores
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
Congressional Research Service
61

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations

House
Disposition
Principal
Amdt.
Disposition
in Conf.
Sponsor
Number Summary in House
Rept.
Grayson H.Amdt.
Bar the awarding of any contract to a contractor within three years agreed to

355
of the contractor’s conviction of fraud or other crimes against
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
the federal government
Grayson H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to engage in any act defined by 18 U.S.C.
agreed to

355
2340A as torture or conspiracy to commit torture
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
Grayson H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to produce any net increase in the number of
agreed to

355
admirals and generals
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
LoBiondo H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds for DOD aviation demonstration teams
agreed to

355
(e.g., Navy “Blue Angels”) to perform outside the United States
voice vote
(en bloc 2)
Heck H.Amdt.
Move $15 million to prepare for U.S. production of the Israeli
agreed to

360
“Iron Dome” defense against short-range rockets
voice vote
Fleming H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to appoint chaplains not endorsed by a
agreed to

375
recognized religious organization
253-173
Wittman H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to plan or carry out a “base closure and
rejected

379
realignment” (BRAC)
voice vote
Flores H.Amdt.
Exempt DOD from existing law (42 U.S.C. 17142) that bars federal
agreed to

380
agencies from purchasing any fuel that produces more
237-189
greenhouse gases over its life-cycle than conventionally
produced petroleum-based fuels
LaMalfa H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to pay any fine levied against a military base by
agreed to

388
the California Air Resources Board
235-288
Lamborn H.Amdt.
Bar sequestration-related furloughs of DOD civilians
agreed to

390
voice vote
Meadows H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to pay salaries of recess appointees until
agreed to

391
they are confirmed by the Senate
voice vote
Palazzo H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to rebase any Air Force, Air Force
rejected

393
Reserve, or Air National Guard aircraft until 60 days after the voice vote
report of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air
Force.
Palazzo H.Amdt.
Bar the use of funds to plan or carry out furloughs of dual status
agreed to

394
military technicians
voice vote
Stockman H.Amdt.
Prohibit joint military exercises with the Peoples Republic of
rejected

397
China
137-286
Bonamici H.Amdt.
Bar the disposal of C-23 aircraft operated by the National Guard
agreed to

400
264-154
Hanabusa H.Amdt.
Bar implementation of an enrol ment fee for TRICARE for Life
agreed to

401
voice vote


Congressional Research Service
62


Appendix. Selected Program Funding Tables
Table A-1. Congressional Authorization Action on Selected FY2014 Missile Defense Programs
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
Committee-
PE Number
FY2014
House- Passed
Reported
(for R&D
Program Element Administration
Authorization
Authorization
Conference
projects only)
Title
Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Report Notes

0603175C BMD
Technology

House transfers $70 million for
309.2 239.2 279.2
“Common Kill Vehicle” to a new
program element
Common
Kill 0.0 70.0 0.0


Vehicle
0603274C Special
Programs
40.4
40.4
40.4

0603881C BMD
Terminal
269.0 269.0 269.0


Defense Segment
0603882C BMD
Midcourse

House adds $140.4 million to
Defense Segment
expedite work on East Coast missile
1,033.9
defense site and $107.0 million in

1,281.3 1,033.9
procurement funds for long lead-time
components of 14 additional GBI anti-
missile interceptors
0603884C BMD
Sensors

Senate adds $30 million for additional
315.2 315.2 345.2
U.S.-based radar
0603890C BMD
Enabling


Programs
377.6 377.6 377.6
0603891C
Special Programs
286.6
286.6
286.6


0603892C AEGIS
BMD
937.1
937.1
937.1

0603893C
Space Tracking &


Surveillance System
44.9 44.9 44.9
CRS-63


Senate
Committee-
PE Number
FY2014
House- Passed
Reported
(for R&D
Program Element Administration
Authorization
Authorization
Conference
projects only)
Title
Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Report Notes

0603895C
BMD System Space


Programs
6.5 6.5 6.5
0603896C
BMD Command and


Control, Battle
Management and
418.4 418.4 418.4
Communications
0603898C BMD
Joint


Warfighter Support
47.4 47.4 47.4
0603904C Missile
Defense


Integration &
Operations Center
52.1 52.1 52.1
(MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
13.9
13.9
13.9

0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band


Radar (SBX)
44.5 44.5 44.5
0603913C Israeli
Cooperative

Both bills increase R&D funds for
Programs
95.8 268.8 245.8
four Israeli-developed anti-missile
systems.
0603914C BMD
Tests
375.9
375.9
375.9

0603915C BMD
Targets
495.3
495.3
495.3

0604880C Land-based
SM-3
129.4
129.4
129.4

0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA


Co-Development
308.5 308.5 308.5
0901598C Management
HQ-


MDA
37.7 37.7 37.7
Subtotal, MDA RDT&E,
5,639.3
6,074.7
5,789.3


CRS-64



THAAD, Fielding
581.0
581.0
581.0


Aegis BMD
580.8
580.8
580.8


AN/TPY-2 radar
62.0
62.0
62.0


Aegis Ashore, Phase III
131.4
131.4
131.4


Iron Dome
220.3 220.3 220.3

Israeli system designed to intercept
mortar shells and short-range rockets
Ground-based Interceptors (GBI)

House adds $107 million for long
[U.S.-based anti-missile defense]
0.0
107.0
0.0
lead-time components of 14
additional GBI interceptors
Subtotal, MDA Procurement
1,575.5
1,682.5
1,575.5


THAAD, O&M
92.0
92.0
92.0


Aegis BMD O&M
18.4
18.4
18.4


Bal istic Missile Defense Radars. O&M
145.8
145.8
145.8


Subtotal, MDA, O&M
256.2
256.2
256.2


Aegis Ashore Site
85.0 80.0 85.0


Deveselu, Romania
AN/TPY-2 radar site
15.0 15.0 15.0


(classified location)
Missile Defense Field
82.0 82.0 82.0


Ft. Greely, Alaska
Missile Defense Radar Upgrade


Clear, Alaska
17.2 17.2 17.2
MDA Minor Construction and


Planning and Design
`12.9 12.9 12.9
Subtotal, MDA, Military


Construction
212.1 207.1 212.1
Total,


Missile Defense Agency
7,683.1 8,220.5 7,833.1
CRS-65


0102419A Aerostat
Joint 98.5 98.5 98.5


Project Office
Patriot Missile (PAC-3) procurement
540.4
540.4
540.4


Total, Selected Army Missile Defense
638.9 608.9 638.9

Grand Total, Selected Missile Defense
8,322.0
8,829.4
8,472.0


Source: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960), June 7, 2013; Senate
Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-44;. Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013.

Table A-2. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Missile Defense Funding Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2014
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request

Appropriation Report
Notes
0603175C
BMD Technology
309.2
199.2
237.8

House transfers $70 million for
“Common Kill Vehicle” to a new program
Common
Kill
Vehicle
element; Senate splits funding for the
0.0 70.0 0.0
element into six parts, including Common
Kill Vehicle ($70 million)
0603274C Special
Programs
40.4
40.4
40.4


0603881C BMD
Terminal

Defense Segment
269.0 269.0 269.0

0603882C BMD
Midcourse
House adds $70.2 million to accelerate
Defense Segment
work on a third anti-missile site in U.S.
and $107.0 million in procurement funds
1,033.9 1,211.1 891.0

for long lead-time components of 14
additional GBI anti-missile interceptors
Senate transfers $143 million to MDA
O&M funding
CRS-66


PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2014
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request

Appropriation Report Notes
0603884C BMD
Sensors
315.2
361.8
345.2

0603890C BMD
Enabling
377.6 372.6 377.6

Programs
0603891C
Special Programs
286.6
266.6
286.6


0603892C AEGIS
BMD
937.1
937.1
910.1

0603893C
Space Surveillance &

Tracking System
44.9 44.9 44.9

0603895C
BMD System Space

Programs
6.5 6.5 6.5

0603896C
BMD Command and

Control, Battle
Management and
418.4 418.4 405.5

Communications
0603898C
BMD Joint Warfighter

Support
47.4 47.4 47.4

0603904C Missile
Defense

Integration &
Operations Center
52.1 52.1 52.1

(MDIOC)
0603906C Regarding
Trench
13.9
13.9
13.9


0603907C Sea-Based
X-Band

Radar (SBX)
44.5 44.5 44.5

0603913C Israeli
Cooperative
House and Senate add $173 million for
Programs
95.8 268.8 268.8
three Israeli anti-missile systems
0603914C BMD
Tests
375.9
375.9
375.9

0603915C BMD
Targets
495.3
491.4
495.3

0604880C Land-based
SM-3
129.4
129.4
129.4

CRS-67


PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2014
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request

Appropriation Report Notes
0604881C
Aegis SM-3 Block IIA
308.5 308.5 308.5

Co-Development
0901598C Management
HQ-
MDA
37.7 37.7 37.7

Subtotal, MDA RDT&E,
5,639.3
5,862.4
5,789.3


THAAD, Fielding
581.0
576.0
576.9


Aegis BMD
580.8
580.8
580.8


AN/TPY-2 radar
62.0
62.0
62.0


Aegis Ashore, Phase III
131.4
131.4
131.4


Subtotal, MDA Procurement
1,575.5
1,677.5
1,575.5


THAAD, O&M
92.0
90.6
78.0


Aegis BMD O&M
18.4
18.4
18.4


Ballistic Missile Defense Radars. O&M
145.8 145.8 145.8

Midcourse Defense (U.S. bases)
- -
142.0


Subtotal, MDA, O&M
256.2
254.8
384.2


Aegis Ashore Site
85.0 80.0 85.0

Desevelu, Romania
Missile Defense Field
82.0 82.0 82.0

Fort Greely, Alaska
Missile Defense Radar Upgrade
17.2 17.2 17.2

Clear, Alaska
An/TPY-2 radar site
(classified location)
15.0 15.0 15.0

MDA Minor Construction and
Planning and Design
12.9 12.9 12.9

CRS-68


PE Number
Senate
(for R&D
FY2014
House- Passed
Committee-
projects
Program Element
Administration
Appropriation
Reported
Conference
only)
Title
Request

Appropriation Report Notes
Subtotal, MDA, Military
Construction

212.1 207.1 212.1

(Funded in H.R. 2216)
Total, Missile Defense Agency
7,683.1
8,000.8
7,961.1


0102419A Aerostat
Joint

Senate appropriates the total requested
Program Office
98.5 83.5 98.5
but divides it between two program lines
Patriot Missile (PAC-3) procurement
540.4
740.4
540.4


Total, Selected Army Missile

Defense
638.9 608.9 638.9

Grand Total, Selected Missile Defense
8,322.0
8,609.7
8,600.0


Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 113-113, Report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2014 (H.R. 2397), June 17, 2013; and
Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 113-85, Report to Accompany S. 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014 (S. 1429), August 1, 2013.
Table A-3. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Army, Marine Corps Ground Combat Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
Committee-
House-passed
reported
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Conference report
Notes

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D


# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $
$

M-2 Bradley
- 158.0 76.2
- 158.0 76.2
- 158.0 76.2



Mods
M-1 Abrams
- 178.1 101.3
- 178.1 101.3
- 178.1 101.3



tank Mods
CRS-69


Senate
Committee-

House-passed
reported
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Conference report
Notes
M-1 Abrams
- -
- - 168.0 - - -
-

House
continues
tank Upgrade
funding upgrade to
modernize National
Guard units and keep
industrial base warm
Stryker
- 374.1 50.0
- 374.1 50.0
- 374.1 50.0


Armored

Vehicle
Ground
- -
592.2
- -
592.2
- -
592.2


Combat

Vehicle
Armored
- -
116.3
- -
116.3
- -
116.3


Multi-Purpose

Vehicle
Amphibious
-
-
137.0

137.0 -
-
137.0


Combat

Vehicle
Marine
- -
20.9
- -
0.1 - -
0.0

personnel

Carrier
Joint Light
- -
134.6
- -
134.6
- -
134.6


Tactical

Vehicle
Paladin
18 260.2 80.6 18 260.2 80.6 18 219.5 121.3


howitzer

Upgrade
Hercules
- 111.0 - - 186.0 - - 111.0 -

House
increases
recovery
procurement funding to
vehicle
keep industrial base
warm
CRS-70


Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960), June 7, 2013; Senate
Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-44;. Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013.
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Army Ground Combat Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House-passed
Senate
FY2014
Appropriation
Committee-reported
Appropriation

Request

Appropriation
Conference report
Notes

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D


# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $

M-2
Bradley
Mods

- 158.0 76.2 - 158.0 76.2 - 158.0 76.2



M-1 Abrams tank Mods
-
178.1
101.3
-
178.1
101.3
-
178.1
101.3




M-1 Abrams tank Upgrade
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90.0
-




Stryker
Armored
Vehicle
- 374.1 50.0 - 374.1 50.0 - 419.1 50.0



Ground
Combat
Vehicle - -
592.2
- -
592.2
- - 423.2

Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicle
- -
116.3
- - 86.3
- - 116.3

Amphibious Combat
Vehicle
- -
137.0
123.0
- - 123.0

Marine
personnel
Carrier - - 20.9
- - 0.0
- - 0.0

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
-
-
134.6
-
-
133.3
-
-
134.6




Paladin howitzer Upgrade
18
260.2
80.6
18
217.2
80.6
18
219.5
121.3




Hercules
recovery
vehicle 32
111.0 - 53
186.0 - 32
111.0 -


Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 113-113, Report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2014 (H.R. 2397), June 17, 2013; and
Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 113-85, Report to Accompany S. 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014 (S. 1429), August 1, 2013.
CRS-71


Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Shipbuilding and Modernization Programs: Authorization
amounts in millions of dollars
Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Authorization
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Notes

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D

# $ $ # $ $
# $ $ # $ $
CVN-21 Carrier a
- 944.9 132.1 - 944.9 132.1 - 944.9 132.1


Carrier Refueling Overhaulb
-
1,951.2 - -
1,951.2 - -
1,951.2 -

Virginia-class
submarine
2 5,285.3 121.6 2 5,777.3 131.6 2 5,285.3 121.6


SSBN(X)
- - 1,083.7
- - 1,083.7
- - 1,083.7


DDG-1000
Destroyer
- 231.7 187.9 - 311.0 187.9 - 231.7 187.9


DDG-51 Destroyer
Both bills add funds to
offset impact of
1
2,004.1 - 1
2,336.1 - 1
2,104.1 -
sequestration on FY2013
funding for three ships
Air and Missile Defense
House committee calls for
Radar (AMDR)
report on whether it would
be more useful to mount
- - 240.1
- - 160.3
- - 240.1

the radar on ships larger
than DDG-51 class
destroyers
Cruiser modernization
-
10.5
- 10.5
- 10.5




236.5
236.5
236.5
Destroyer
modernization
-
286.0 -
286.0 -
286.0



Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
4
1,793.0
4 1,793.0
4 1,793.0




406.4
382.0

LCS Combat Modules
-
143.0
-
143.0
-
143.0




Afloat Forward Staging Base
1
524.0
-
1
524.0
-
1
579.3
-




Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960, June 7, 2013; Senate
Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-44;. Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013.
CRS-72


Notes:
a. Procurement request includes $944.9 million for USS John F. Kennedy, projected to cost $11.33 billion in toto (including $3.93 billion appropriated in FYs 2007-13
and $6.46 to be requested in budgets for FY2015-FY2018). Request also includes $588.1 billion for cost increases on USS Gerald R. Ford, currently projected to cost
$12.83 billion in toto (including $11.51 appropriated in FYs 2001-11 and $729.0 million for cost increases to requested in FY2015).
b. Request includes $1.71 billion (of estimated total cost of $4.57 billion cost) to refuel and modernize USS George Washington and $245.8 million (of estimated total
cost of $4.74 billion) to refuel and modernize USS Abraham Lincoln.

Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Shipbuilding and Modernization Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)

House-passed
Senate
Notes
FY2014
Appropriation
Request
Appropriation
Committee-reported
Conference report

Appropriation

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D

# $ $ # $ $ # $ $
# $ $

CVN-21 Carrier a -
944.9
132.1
-
944.9
132.1
-
917.7
132.1


Carrier Refueling
- 1,951.2 - - 1,855.1 - - 1,929.1 -



Overhaulb
Virginia-class submarine
House adds $950 million to
2 5,285.3 121.6 2 6,235.3 121.6 2 5,285.3 61.7

fully fund two subs; Senate
denies R&D funds for
“combat module”
SSBN(X)
- - 1,083.7
- -
1,083.7
- - 1,058.7


DDG-1000
Destroyer - 231.7 187.9 - 231.7 187.9 - 231.7 187.9



DDG-51
Destroyer 1 2,004.1 - 1 2,004.1 - 1 1,995.1 -


Air and Missile

Defense Radar
- - 240.1
- - 160.3
- 188.9

(AMDR)
Cruiser modernization
-
10.5
236.5
-
734.1
236.5

10.5
236.5



House adds $724 million to
CRS-73


Destroyer
upgrade cruisers the budget
modernization
- 286.0
- 286.0
208.4


would retire
Littoral Combat Ship
House and Senate approve
(LCS)
4 1,793.0
4 1,793.0 202.6 4 1,793.0 202.6

separately the R&D
406.4
amounts requested for LCS
LCS Combat Modules
ships and for combat
- 143.0
- 130.8 203.8 - 125.3 203.8


modules,
Afloat Forward Staging
1 524.0 - 1 562.0 - 579.3 -


Base
Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 113-113, Report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2014 (H.R. 2397), June 17, 2013; and
Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 113-85, Report to Accompany S. 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014 (S. 1429), August 1, 2013.
Notes:
a. Procurement request includes $944.9 million for USS John F. Kennedy, projected to cost $11.33 billion in toto (including $3.93 billion appropriated in FY2007-FY2013
and $6.46 to be requested in budgets for FY2015-FY2018). Request also includes $588.1 billion for cost increases on USS Gerald R. Ford, currently projected to cost
$12.83 billion in toto (including $11.51 appropriated in FY2001-FY2011 and $729.0 million for cost increases to requested in FY2015).
b. Request includes $1.71 billion (of estimated total cost of $4.57 billion cost) to refuel and modernize USS George Washington and $245.8 million (of estimated total
cost of $4.74 billion) to refuel and modernize USS Abraham Lincoln.
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)

Senate
Committee-
House-passed
reported
Authorization
FY2013
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Notes

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D

# $ $
# $ $
# $ $
# $ $

Advanced EHF

Satellite
- 379.6 272.9
- 379.6 272.9
- 379.6 272.9


GPS III Satellite
2
477.6 604.8
2 477.6 604.8
2 477.6 604.8


CRS-74



Senate
Committee-
House-passed
reported
Authorization
FY2013
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report
Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Notes
Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle
5 1,852.9 28.0 5 1,852.9 28.0 5 1,852.9 28.0


(EELV)
SBIR
High
- 583.2 352.5
- 583.2 352.5
- 583.2 372.5


“Space
Fence” - - 377.7
- - 377.7
- - 377.7


Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960), June 7, 2013; Senate
Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-44;. Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013.
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2013 Space Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
Committee-
House-passed
reported
Appropriation
FY2013
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report

Request



Notes

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D

# $ $
# $ $
# $ $
# $ $

Advanced EHF
- 379.6
272.9
- 379.6 258.9
- 379.6
272.9



Satellite
GPS III
2 477.6 604.8
2 433.4 571.8
2 472.6 604.8


Satellite
Evolved

Expendable
5 1,852.9 28.0 5 1,842.9 25.0 5 1,702.9 28.0


Launch
Vehicle (EELV)
SBIR
High
- 583.2
352.5
- 583.2 322.8
- 583.2
322.8



CRS-75


Senate
Committee-
House-passed
reported
Appropriation
FY2013
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report

Request


Notes
“Space
Fence”
- -
377.7
- - 327.7
- -
377.7


Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 113-113, Report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2014 (H.R. 2397), June 17, 2013; and
Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 113-85, Report to Accompany S. 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014 (S. 1429), August 1, 2013.
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Authorization
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197

Notes

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D

# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Fixed Wing Tactical Combat Aircraft
F-35A Joint Strike




Fighter and Mods,
AF (conventional
19 3,424.5 816.3 19 3,424.5 816.3 19 3,424.5 816.3
takeoff version)
F-35B Joint Strike




Fighter, Marine
6 1,370.4 512.6 6 1,370.4 512.6 6 1,370.4 512.6
Corps (STOVL
version)
F-35C Joint Strike




Fighter, Navy
4 1,230.3 534.2 4 1,230.3 534.2 4 1,230.3 534.2
(Carrier-based
version)
F-35
Fighter
Mods - 336.0 33.0 - 336.0 33.0 - 336.0 33.0


CRS-76


Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Authorization
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Notes
[F-35 Joint Strike
29 6,361.1 1,896.1 29 6,361.1 1,896.1 29 6,361.1 1,896.1



Fighter, total]
F-22
Fighter
Mods - 285.8 459.6 - 285.8 459.6 - 285.8 459.6


F-15
Fighter
Mods - 354.6 244.3 - 354.6 244.3 - 354.6 244.3


F-16
Fighter
Mods - 11.8 177.3 - 11.8 177.3 - 11.8 177.3


EA-18G Electronic




Warfare Acft.
21 2,001.8 11.1 21 1,956.8 11.1 21 2,001.8 11.1
F/A-18E/F Fighter



House adds $75 million
for long lead-time funding
- 206.6 131.1 - 281.6 131.1 - 206.6 131.1
to support procurement
of 24 planes in FY2015
F/A-18 Fighter Mods




- 910.9 - - 910.9 - - 910.9 -
A-10 Attack Plane
-
47.6 9.6 - 47.6 9.6 - 47.6 9.6

Mods
Long-Range Strike Aircraft and Missiles
Long-Range Strike

(Aircraft)
- - 379.4
- - 379.4
- - 379.4

B-1B
Bomber
Mods - 132.2 19.6 - 132.2 19.6 - 132.2 19.6


B-2A Bomber Mods
-
20.0
403.7
-
20.0
403.7
-
20.0
403.7




B-52
Bomber
Mods - 111.0 24.0 - 110.5 24.0 - 111.0 24.0


Trident II Missile

Mods
- 1,140.9 98.1 - 1,126.8 122.0 - 1,140.9 98.1


Conventional

Prompt Global
- - 65.4
- - 65.4
- - 65.4

Strike
CRS-77


Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Authorization
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Notes
Fixed-Wing and Tilt-Rotor Cargo, Transport, and Tanker Aircraft
C-130 variants,
18 2,308.1 29.1 18 2,371.1 55.1 18 2,355.4 29.1


including Mods
C-5
Mods,
- 1,024.4 61.5 - 1,024.4 61.5 - 1,024.4 61.5


C-17
Mods
- 143.2 109.1 - 143.2 109.1 - 143.2 109.1


KC-46
tanker
- -
1,558.6
- - 1,558.6
- -
1,558.6


V-22 Osprey,

including Mods
21 2,001.8 89.79 21 2,001.8 89.79 21 2,001.8 89.79


Fixed-Wing Surveillance Aircraft
E-8C
Joint
Stars
- 57.5 13.2 - 57.5 13.2 - 57.5 23.1

P-8A
Poseidon
16 3,503.1 317.4 16 3,503.1 317.4 16 3,503.1 317.4


P-3/EP-3
Mods
- 96.0 4.5 - 118.0 4.5 - 118.0 4.5


E-2D
Hawkeye
5 1,263.6 152.0 5 1,228.6 152.0 5 1,263.6 152.0


E-3A AWACS Mods
-
197.1
186.3
-
197.1
186.3
-
197.1
186.3




Rotary-Wing Aircraft (including SOF)
UH-60
Blackhawk 65 1,163.0 79.9 65 1,163.0 79.9 65 1,146.0 99.9


Blackhawk Mods
-
74.1
-
-
74.1
-
-
74.1
-




AH-64 Apache

Block III
46 901.4 124.8 46 901.4 124.8 46 901.4 124.8


Apache
Mods
- 53.6 - - 53.6 - - 53.6 -

CH-47
Chinook
38 1,286.0 50.6 38 1,286.0 50.6 38 1,286.0 50.6


Chinook Mods
-
149.8
-
-
149.8
-
-
149.8
-




Light Utility

Helicopter
10 96.2 - 31 231.3 - 10 95.2 -


CRS-78


Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Authorization
FY2014
Authorization
Authorization
Conference report

Request
H.R. 1960
S. 1197
Notes
OH-58 Kiowa
17 347.8 69.8 17 347.8 69.8 17 347.8 69.8


Upgrade
Huey/SuperCobra
Upgrades
26 850.5 47.1 26 850.5 47.1 26 850.5 47.1


MH-60R/S
Seahawk 37 1,252.2 51.4 37 1,252.2 51.4 37 1,252.2 51.4


CH-53K
- - 503.2
- - 503.2
- - 503.2


Combat Rescue

Helicopter
- - 393.6
- - 393.6
- - 393.6

Unmanned Aerial Systems (including SOF)
Predator and

Reaper
31 1,055.6 144.4 41 1,135.6 144.4 31 1,004.1 156.4


Global
Hawk
- 118.3 773.7 - 118.3 773.7 - 118.3 773.7


Unmanned Combat

Air Vehicle (UCAV)
- - 21.0
- - 41.0
- - 21.0

Unmanned Carrier-

Launched Airborne
Surveillance and
- - 146.6
- - 146.6
- - 146.6

Strike (UCLASS)
Fire
Scout
2 75.1 48.7 2 75.1 48.7 2 75.1 48.7

Shadow
- 148.3 12.7 - 148.3 12.7 - 148.3 12.7


Raven
- 16.1 2.4 - 16.1 2.4 - 16.1 2.4

RQ-21
25 66.6 11.1 25 66.6 11.1 25 66.6 11.1


Sources: House Armed Services Committee, H.Rept. 113-102, Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960), June 7, 2013; Senate
Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 113-44; Report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (S. 1197), June 20, 2013.
CRS-79


Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2014 Aircraft and Long-Range Missile Programs: Appropriation
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Appropriation
FY2014
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report

Request


Comments

Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D Procurement R&D


# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $

Fixed Wing Tactical Combat Aircraft
F-35A Joint Strike

Fighter and Mods,
AF (conventional
19 3,424.5
816.3 19 3,227.3 798.5 3,226.6 796.3


takeoff version)
F-35B Joint Strike

Fighter, Marine
Corps (STOVL
6 1,370.4
512.6 6 1,303.6
497.7 1,319.5
492.6


version)
F-35C Joint Strike

Fighter, Navy
(Carrier-based
4 1,230.3
534.2 4 1,170.9
522.7 1,122.0
514.2


version)
F-35 Fighter Mods
-
336.0
33.0
-
138.7
10.0

336.0
5.9




F-35 Joint Strike

Fighter, total
29 6,361.1
1,896.1 29 5,840.5 1,828.9 29 6,004.1
1,809.0


F-22
Fighter
Mods - 285.8
459.6 - 279.7
446.5 - 285.8
459.6


F-15
Fighter
Mods - 354.6
244.3 - 339.6
234.3 - 354.6
244.3


F-16
Fighter
Mods - 11.8
177.3 - 11.8
167.3 - 11.8
177.3


EA-18G Electronic
21 2,001.8 11.1 21 1,870.4 11.1 21 1,781.8 21



Warfare Acft.
F/A-18E/F
Fighter - 206.6
131.1 - 281.6
124.6 - 281.6 -



F/A-18 Fighter Mods
-
910.9
-
-
806.9
-
-
823.6
-




CRS-80


Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Appropriation
FY2014
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report

Request


Comments
A-10 Attack Plane
- 47.6
9.6 - 47.6 9.6 - 47.6 9.6



Mods
Long-Range Strike Aircraft and Missiles
Long-Range Strike

(Aircraft)
- -
379.4
- -
379.4
- -
379.4


B-1B
Bomber
Mods - 132.2
19.6 - 132.2
19.6 - 121.2
19.6



B-2A Bomber Mods
-
20.0
403.7
-
20.0
361.3
-
20.0
403.7




B-52 Bomber Mods
-
111.0
24.0
-
105.9
24.0

99.1
21.0




Trident II Missile

Mods
- 1,140.9
98.1 - 1,092.9
98.1 - 1,140.9
98.1


Conventional

Prompt Global
- -
65.4
- -
65.4
- -
65.4

Strike
Fixed-Wing and Tilt-Rotor Cargo, Transport, and Tanker Aircraft
C-130 variants,

including Mods
18 2,308.1 29.1 18 2,185.1 55.1 18 2,297.5 29.1



C-5 Mods,
-
1,024.4
61.5
-
986.4
61.5
-
922.2
61.5




C-17
Mods
- 143.2
109.1 - 143.2
106.1 - 143.2
109.1



KC-46
tanker
- -
1,558.6
- -
1,558.6
- -
1,558.6



V-22 Osprey,

including Mods.
21 2,001.6 89.8 22 2,063.1 89.8 21 2,001.6 89.8



Fixed-Wing Surveillance Aircraft
E-8C Joint Stars
-
57.5
13.2
-
57.5
23.2
-
57.5
23.1




P-8A
Poseidon
16 3,503.1
317.4 16 3,483.6 302.4 16 3,503.1 240.4


P-3/EP-3 Mods
-
96.0
4.5
-
88.9
4.5
-
118,0
2.7




CRS-81


Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Appropriation
FY2014
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report

Request


Comments
E-2D
Hawkeye
5 1,263.7
152.0 5 1,224.2
147.0 5 1,263.7
124.0



E-3A AWACS Mods
-
197.1
186.3
-
197.1
176.9
-
142.6
186.3




Rotary-Wing Aircraft (including SOF)
UH-60 Blackhawk
65 1,163.0 79.9 73 1,309.0 79.9 65 1,148.9 79.9



Blackhawk
Mods
- 155.6 - - 155.6 - - 155.6 -




AH-64 Apache
46 901.4
124.8 46 901.4 124.8 46 901.4 124.8



Block III
Apache
Mods
- 53.6 - - 53.6 - - 53.6 -



CH-47
Chinook
38 1,286.0 50.6 38 1,286.0 50.6 38 1,270.2 50.6



Chinook
Mods
- 169.6 - - 169.6 - - 169.6 -




Light Utility
10 96.2 - 31 231.3 - 10 171.2 -




Helicopter
OH-58 Kiowa
17 347.8 69.8 17 347.8 69.8 17 213.6 69.8



Upgrade
Huey/SuperCobra

Upgrades
26 850.5 47.1 26 821.2 47.1 26 821.0 47.1


MH-60R/S
Seahawk 37 1,252.2 51.4 37 1,216.7 49.4 37 1,252.2 51.4



CH-53K
- -
503.2
- -
494.2
- -
471.3



Combat Rescue

Helicopter
- -
393.6
- -
333.6
- -
201.6


Unmanned Aerial Systems (including Mods)
Predator and


Reaper
31 1,055.6
144.4 40 1,091.3 144.4 31 996.6 143.9

Global Hawk
-
120.1
773.7
-
52.1
803.7
-
56.9
749.7




CRS-82


Senate
House-passed
Committee-reported
Appropriation
FY2014
Appropriation
Appropriation
Conference report

Request


Comments
Unmanned Combat
- -
21.0
- -
21.0
- -
21.0


Air Vehicle (UCAV)
Unmanned Carrier-

Launched Airborne
Surveillance and
- -
146.6
- -
96.9
- -
133.7


Strike (UCLASS)
Fire
Scout
2 75.1
48.7 2 74.1 12.5 2 75.1 48.7



Shadow
- 148.3
12.7 - 144.0
12.7 - 148.3
12.7



Raven
- 16.2
2.4 - 16.2 2.4 - 15.5 2.3



RQ-21
25 66.6 11.1 25 66.6 11.1 25 66.6 9.1



Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 113-113, Report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2014 (H.R. 2397), June 17, 2013; and
Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 113-85, Report to Accompany S. 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for 2014 (S. 1429), August 1, 2013.

CRS-83

Defense: FY2014 Authorization and Appropriations



Author Contact Information

Pat Towell, Coordinator
Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-2122
abelasco@crs.loc.gov, 7-7627


Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
War costs
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Intelligence John
Rollins
7-5529
jrollins@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
Cyberwarfare Catherine
Theohary
7-0844
ctheohary@crs.loc.gov


Congressional Research Service
84