Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations

Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget


Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense

President Obama requested $613.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Defense in Fiscal Year 2013, which is $31.8 billion less than had been appropriated for the agency in FY2012. The end of U.S. combat in Iraq and the declining tempo of operations in Afghanistan accounted for the bulk of the overall reduction: The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)—DOD activities in those two countries—was $88.5 billion, which is $26.6 billion less than was provided for those operations in FY2012.

However, the Administration’s $525.4 billion request for DOD’s so-called “base budget”—funds for all DOD activities other than OCO—was $5.2 billion less than was provided for FY2012 and $45.3 billion less than the FY2013 base budget the Administration had projected a year earlier, in February of 2011. The proposed reduction in the base budget—and planned reductions of more than $50 billion per year through FY2021, compared with the FY2011 projection—reflected the Administration’s effort to reduce federal spending as required by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, enacted on August 2, 2011 (P.L. 112-25). All told, the Obama Administration’s February 2012 projection would reduce DOD budgets by $486.9 billion over a 10-year period (FY2012- FY2021), compared with its February 2011 plan. (See “

FY2013 Defense Budget Overview.”)

According to the Administration, the FY2013 DOD budget request was consistent with the initial spending caps set by the BCA. However, both H.R. 4310, the version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House on May 18, 2012, and H.R. 5856, the companion DOD appropriations bill for FY2013, reported by the House Appropriations Committee on May 25, 2012, exceeded the Administration request for those bills —by $3.7 billion in the case of the authorization bill and by $3.1 billion in the case of the appropriation bill.

On the other hand, S. 3254, the version of the NDAA reported June 4, 2012, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the version of the DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5856) reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 2, 2012, kept FY2013 DOD funding within the initial BCA caps.

Neither the House nor the Senate considered either an NDAA or a DOD appropriations bill for FY2013 that conformed to the lowered BCA caps on defense spending.

The compromise version of the authorization bill (H.R. 4310), enacted on January 2, 2013 as P.L. 112-239, would authorize $544.9 billion for DOD’s base budget—roughly splitting the difference between the House and Senate bills—and would authorize $88.5 billion for war costs.

In general terms, the House-passed and Senate committee-reported versions of the first DOD appropriations bill for FY2013 (H.R. 5856) paralleled the House and Senate versions of the FY2013 NDAA, respectively. However, the Senate did not act on that bill. For nearly the first six months of FY2013, DOD and other federal agencies had been funded by a continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 117; P.L. 112-175). On March 21, 2013, Congress sent to the White House H.R. 933, the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, which the President signed into law (P.L. 113-6) on March 26, 2013. Division C of that legislation is the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY2013 (See “DOD Appropriations Overview”). Although the amount provided by that section of the bill was $287.4 million more than the Administration’s request for programs covered by that division of H.R. 933, the overall level of DOD funding provided by H.R. 933 (including funds provided for military construction in Division E) exceeded the request by $323.8 million.

Since the total DOD funding level for FY2013 of $607.7 billion exceeds the BCA spending cap, that law requires that DOD funds be reduced (or “sequestered) by $35.0 billion before the end of the fiscal year. As of May 15, 2013, the Administration has not allocated the required reduction among specific DOD programs. All FY2013 appropriations amounts cited in this report reflect the amounts appropriated by H.R. 933 prior to sequestration.

Date of Report: May 17, 2013
Number of Pages: 86
Order Number: R42607
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Current Legislative Issues

Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy

The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The mission of the COPS program is to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) reauthorized the COPS program through FY2009 and changed the COPS program from a multigrant program to a single-grant program.

The COPS program awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States so they can hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies. Authorized appropriations for the COPS program expired in FY2009. As such, Congress could consider legislation to reauthorize the COPS program. Debate about reauthorization of the program could be contentious because the COPS program is one of the primary means for providing federal assistance to state and local law enforcement, but at the same time, Congress is considering ways to reduce discretionary spending in order to shrink the federal budget deficit. This report provides an overview of issues Congress may consider if it chooses to take up legislation to reauthorize the COPS program.

If Congress considers the future of the COPS program, there are several issues it might discuss, including the following:

• Given current trends in violent crime and research findings on the ability of additional law enforcement officers and COPS grants to reduce crime, should Congress consider changing the focus of the COPS program away from providing grants to hire additional officers and toward providing grants to support law enforcement’s operations? 
• Did the COPS Office meet its goal of placing 100,000 new officers on the street? What does this mean for oversight of the program? 
• Are hiring grants a cost-effective way of combating crime? 
• Should Congress eliminate or modify the requirement that half of the total appropriation for hiring grants be awarded to small law enforcement agencies and the other half be awarded to large law enforcement agencies? Also, should Congress eliminate or modify the requirement that each state receive at least 0.5% of the total appropriation for hiring grants? 
• Is there programmatic overlap between the COPS Office of Justice Programs (OJP) grant programs? 
• Should funding for the COPS program be appropriated as currently authorized in statute?

Date of Report: May 14, 2013
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R40709
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Crime and Forfeiture: In Short

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

Forfeiture has long been an effective law enforcement tool. Congress and state legislatures have authorized its use for over 200 years. Every year, it redirects property worth billions of dollars from criminal to lawful uses. Forfeiture law has always been somewhat unique. Legislative bodies, commentators, and the courts, however, had begun to examine its eccentricities in greater detail because under some circumstances it could be not only harsh but unfair. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), P.L. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000), was a product of that reexamination.

Modern forfeiture follows one of two procedural routes. Although crime triggers all forfeitures, they are classified as civil forfeitures or criminal forfeitures according to the nature of the procedure that ends in confiscation. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding. The property is the defendant in the case. Unless the statute provides otherwise, the innocence of the owner is irrelevant—it is enough that the property was involved in a violation to which forfeiture attaches. As a matter of expedience and judicial economy, Congress often allows administrative forfeiture in uncontested civil confiscation cases. Criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding, and confiscation is only possible upon the conviction of the owner of the property.

The Supreme Court has held that authorities may seize moveable property without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing but that real property owners are entitled as a matter of due process to preseizure notice and a hearing. As a matter of due process, innocence may be irrelevant in the case of an individual who entrusts his or her property to someone who uses the property for criminal purposes. Although some civil forfeitures may be considered punitive for purposes of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, civil forfeitures do not implicate the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause unless they are so utterly punitive as to belie remedial classification.

The statutes governing the disposal of forfeited property may authorize its destruction, its transfer for governmental purposes, or deposit of the property or of the proceeds from its sale in a special fund. Intergovernmental transfers and the use of special funds are hallmarks of federal forfeiture. Every year federal agencies transfer hundreds of millions of dollars and property to state, local, and foreign law enforcement officials as compensation for their contribution to joint enforcement efforts.

This is an abridged version of CRS Report 97-139, Crime and Forfeiture, by Charles Doyle, a longer report from which citations, footnotes, and attachments have been stripped.


Date of Report: May 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22005
Price: $19.95

To Order:

RS22005.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

CVN-78, CVN-79, and CVN-80 are the first three ships in the Navy’s new Gerald R. Ford (CVN- 78) class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs).

CVN-78 was procured in FY2008. The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $12,829.3 million (i.e., about $12.8 billion) in then-year dollars. The ship received advance procurement funding in FY2001-FY2007 and was fully funded in FY2008- FY2011 using congressionally authorized four-year incremental funding. The Navy did not request any procurement funding for the ship in FY2012 and FY2013. The Navy is requesting $588.1 million in procurement funding in FY2014, and plans to request another $729.0 million in procurement funding in FY2015, to cover cost growth on the ship.

CVN-79 is scheduled to be procured in FY2013. The ship received advance procurement funding in FY2007-FY2012, and the Navy plans to fully fund the ship in FY2013-FY2018 using congressionally authorized six-year incremental funding. The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget estimates CVN-79’s procurement cost at $11,338.4 million (i.e., about $11.3 billion) in then-year dollars, and requests $944.9 million in procurement funding for the ship.

CVN-80 is scheduled to be procured in FY2018. The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget estimates the ship’s procurement cost at $13,874.2 million (i.e., about $13.9 billion) in then-year dollars. Under the Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget, the ship is to receive advance procurement funding in FY2016-FY2017 and be fully funded in FY2018-FY2023 using congressionally authorized six-year incremental funding.

Oversight issues for Congress for the CVN-78 program include the following:

• the impact on Navy shipbuilding programs of the March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding and unobligated prior-year funding; 
• the potential impact on Navy shipbuilding programs of a possible sequester later this year or early next year on FY2014 funding and unobligated prior-year funding; 
• cost growth in the CVN-78 program; 
• where the estimated procurement costs of CVNs 78, 79, and 80 now stand in relation to the legislated procurement cost caps for the ships, and whether the cost caps should be amended; 
• the potential for a two-ship block buy on CVN-79 and CVN-80; and 
• CVN-78 program issues that were raised in a December 2012 report from the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).

Date of Report: May 14, 2013
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: RS20643
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS20643.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program

Jeremiah Gertler
Specialist in Military Aviation

On February 24, 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced the Boeing Company as the winner of a competition to build 179 new KC-46A aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force, a contract valued at roughly $35 billion. Prior to the announcement, the program had been known as KC-X.

The KC-46A acquisition program is a subject of intense interest because of the dollar value of the contract, the number of jobs it would create, the importance of tanker aircraft to U.S. military operations, and because DOD’s previous attempts to acquire a new tanker since 2001 had ultimately failed.

DOD’s KC-46A acquisition strategy poses potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following: What are the effects of budget cuts on executability of the KC-46A program? What if any effect will the announced closure of Boeing’s Wichita, KS, plant have on the KC-46 program? What alternatives does the Air Force have to extend KC-135 service life if the KC-46 is delayed? 

FY2013 defense authorization bill: H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, recommended approving the Administration’s request for $1,815.6 million in research and development funding for the Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft program. S. 3254, as passed by the Senate, recommended $1,728.5 million, $87.1 million less than the Administration’s requested funding level for KC-X. The FY2013 conference report set funding at $1,738.5 million, $77.1 million less than the Administration’s request, citing excess prior-year funds. 

FY2013 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 112-493 of May 25, 2012), recommended approving the Administration’s request for $1,815.6 million in research and development funding for the Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft program. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 112-196 of August 2, 2012), recommended $1,738.5 million for the Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft, a reduction of $77.1 million from the Administration request. The explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on H.R. 933 put funding at $1,738.5 million.


Date of Report: May 14, 2013
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: RL34398
Price: $29.95


To Order:

RL34398.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.