uncle sam still wants you: trends in u.s. buying power and

Uncle Sam Still Wants You: Trends in U.S. Buying Power and

What It Means for Asia

November 3, 2017

Washington, D.C.

2

Rosamond Xiang (moderator) – Housing and Urban Development

Jun Jin – Agency for International Development

Nooree Lee – Covington & Burling LLP

Jade Totman – The Boeing Company

Eric Yeo – Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Panelists

3

U.S. Buying Power - Overview of Budget Priorities under the Trump Administration and 115th Congress

Recent Trends in Regulatory Compliance

Impact of “America First Foreign Policy”

Scrutiny in your supply chain

Overcoming Differences in Cultural Norms

Agenda

4

Direct Impact on Bottom Lines

Maintaining the Industrial Base

Advancing Policy Objectives

Domestic and Foreign

Why U.S. Buying Power Matters

5

in billions FY16(Actual)

FY17(Est. June 2017)


Revenues 3,268 3,315 3,531

Outlays 3,853 4,008 4,094

Mandatory 2,428 2,536 2,566

Discretionary 1,185 1,203 1,222

Interest 240 269 307

Deficit (585) (693) (563)

Level Setting on the Federal Budget

Source: CBO, June 2017.

Note: Includes off-budget revenue/outlays; slightly underrepresents the deficit.

6

Mandatory Outlays


Note: Breakdowns are not exhaustive, highlights certain major programs.

Where Does the Money Go?




Mandatory 2,428 2,536 2,566

Social Security 910 939 988

Medicare 692 701 711

Medicaid 368 385 410

Income Programs 304 297 292

Fed. Retirement 164 162 160

7

Discretionary Outlays


Where Does the Money Go?




Discretionary 1,185 1,203 1,222

Defense 607 634 634

Nondefense 560 572 551

8

Decline in Defense Spending Since BCA Enacted

Source: CRS (FY18 Defense Budget Issues for Congress), June 2017.

Defense Outlay as Percentage of GDP

9

White House and Congress Seek Increased Defense Spending

Source: CRS (FY18 Defense Budget Request Basics), June 2017.

10

Obama efforts hampered by sequestration

Trump leads US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy in limbo

Ship building – is a 350-ship Navy possible?

275 ships currently, prior goal of ~300

Accelerate next-gen ballistic missile submarines?

Increased base support needs in Asia Guam

Yokosuka (Japan), Chinhae (ROK), Sembawang (Singapore)

Is the Pivot to the Pacific Over?

11

Up in the air: the F-35 Program has been called DoD’s ”Too Big to Fail” and symbolizes doing business under the Military-Industrial Complex.

Down to earth: the Trump Infrastructure Initiative opens up new avenues to do business with the government.

Federal dollars trickle down to state and local opportunities.

Alternative financing and contracting methods such as public-private partnerships.

Buy American remains a strong mandate.

Regulatory barriers get relaxed—see the policy change in environmental permitting process.

How do You Spend a Trillion Dollars?

12

The Republican regulatory reform agenda:

Executive Order, Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs, Jan. 30, 2017 (“two for one”).

The GOP Congress has been using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996 to roll back some Obama-era regulations.

Chevron deference is on the chopping block: Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA), S. 1577, 115th Cong. (2017) and Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, HR 5, 115th Cong., §§107, 202.

Future of Government Contracts Regulations

13

America First Foreign Policy: Impact on Spending

14

The old: two cornerstone statutes

Buy American Act (BAA)

Trade Agreement Act (TAA)

The new:

Enforcement of such preferences are now a priority

Tension with reality of globalsupply chains and evolving technologies.

Terra incognita for IT as services and software development.

America First Foreign Policy: Something Old and Something New

15

41 U.S.C. §§ 8302-8305; FAR 25.003 Applies to contracts for goods or supplies above $3K

Restricts acquisition of goods that are not “domestic end-products”

The test:

The end product must be “manufactured” in the United States; and

The “cost of its components” produced or manufactured in United States must exceed 50% of the cost of all components.

Exceptions: Allowance to acquire a foreign-end product Unreasonable price

Unavailable

Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items

Backup Slide: Buy American Act

16

Requires the USG to buy US-made end products or services, or a designated country’s end products or services.

WTO GPA signatories (excludes India and China)

Rule for Country-of-Origin Test:

(i) it is wholly the product of that country, or

(ii) it has been “substantially transformed” into a new and different article of commerce in the origin country.

The catch: “substantially transformed” is a case-by-case analysis based on a totality of circumstances, with no one determinative factor.

Backup Slide: Trade Agreement Act

17

E.O. on Buy American and Hire American (Apr. 8, 2017).

June 30, 2017 Memorandum on the Assessment and Enforcement of Domestic Preferences in Accordance with Buy American Laws.

E.O. 13806 on the Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency (July 21, 2017).

End of the Transpacific Partnership (impacts on Vietnam/Malaysia)

The Trump Administration also (ostensibly) prioritizes rebuilding America’s infrastructure.

Trump Administration Policies

XRZ11

XRZ11 Do we want to talk about the new China sanctions?Xiang, Rosamond Z, 8/23/2017

18

Does Buy American + government spending = stronger manufacturing base?

Tensions with existing supply chain realities

Maintain industrial base

Fault lines within the Federal market:

The domestic preferences vs. best value

Congress and acquisition policymakers have been pushing to lower the barriers to enter the federal market.

Long-term policy in favor of commercial buying and encouraging innovation from outside the government.

Panel Discussion: Impact of BAA/TAA

19

Challenging applying BAA/TAA to emerging technologies

Case study: software development

At what stage of software development does “substantial transformation” take place?

Software build is usually considered as the step. Customs Advisory Ruling, Country of Origin of Imported Software, No. HQ H192146 (June 8, 2012).

What about software as a service?

The CBP has been relying on old (and scarce) precedents in ruling on the country of origin.

Panel Discussion: Emerging Technologies

20

Recent rules have evidenced USG’s inclination to push down the work of policing the supply chain—why?

Ramifications for business:

Look out for requirements both up and down the supply chain.

Inadvertently becoming a government contractor

Hot topics in government contracts supply chain management:

Rule against counterfeit electronic parts in the supply chain

Anti-human trafficking rule

Government Scrutiny of your Supply Chain

21

Senate Armed Services Committee Report (2012)

“Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs . . . It underscores China’s failure to police the blatant market in counterfeit parts – a failure China should rectify.”

Many regulations already limited US purchasing from China

The Counterfeit Electronic Parts Rule

22

Who is covered:

Prime defense contractors that are covered under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS).

Their subcontractors and suppliers, even if not CAS-covered and/or commercial businesses.

DFARS 202.101:

“[A]n unlawful or unauthorized reproduction, substitution, or alteration” that has been knowingly misrepresented as “an authentic, unmodified electronic part” from the original manufacturer, a source with the express written authority of the original manufacturer or current design activity.

The very fine print: many shades of counterfeiting

“Unlawful or unauthorized substitution”

“Suspect counterfeit electronic part”

“Obsolete electronic part”

Backup Slide: The Counterfeit Electronic Parts Rule

23

Covered DoD contractors must have a cradle-to-grave detection and avoidance system that minimizes risks to USG:

Inspections and tests of parts that would conform to government and industry standards

Tracking of electronic parts from original manufacturer to the government

Rapid detection, reporting and quarantining of counterfeit parts.

Flow-down requirements to other vendors of electronic parts in the supply chain.

Control of obsolete parts to keep authentic and qualified parts in stock.

Other systemic requirements such as training, staying current with counterfeiting trends, and process to abolish counterfeit parts proliferation

Backup Slide: Counterfeit Parts Rule: #Caveat Emptor

XRZ13

XRZ13 Xiang, Rosamond Z, 8/26/2017

24

For prime contractors

If there is a “significant deficiency,” the Government can disapprove the contractor’s purchasing system or withhold payment.

Disallowance of costs associated with counterfeit parts and remedying them.

False Claims liability

For lower-tier suppliers:

FCA liability and criminal penalties still apply

Liability for indemnifying their primes.

Backup Slide: Counterfeit Parts Rule: The Real Deal

25

A global challenge and a human tragedy:

85 million children engaged in hazardous work (Int’l Labor Org.)

139 goods from 75 countries are by forced and child labor (DOL)

Combatting Trafficking in Persons

Summary of Key Risk Factors

1. Hazardous/undesirable work2. Vulnerable, low-skilled, easily replaced workforce 3. Migrant workforce 4. Presence of labor contractors, recruiters, agents, or

other middlemen in labor supply chains 5. Long, complex, and/or non-transparent product supply

chain6. Substantial sourcing or subcontracting in high risk

countries

Source: Verité

XRZ14

XRZ14 Xiang, Rosamond Z, 8/26/2017

26

The USG is just as vulnerable as any other global corporate buyer with a long supply chain.

Decade-old rule with basic prohibitions established before 2015

Engage in “severe” forms of trafficking

Procure commercial sex acts during the period of the performance of the contract

Use forced labor in performance of the contract

Rule significantly expanded in 2015

Human Trafficking: The Basics

27

The rule was expanded in 2015 with the following protections:

Require basic disclosures about pay, location, key terms and conditions of employment, e.g., hazardous nature of the work;

Regulate use of recruiters and prohibit recruitment fees;

Require return transportation after employment ends when an employee was brought into a particular country specifically to work on a USG contract or subcontract;

Required to furnish housing that meet at minimum the host country’s housing and safety standards;

Protect the employee’s access to ID or immigration documents;

Provide any work documents, such as contracts, in writing if required by law.

FAR 52.222-50

Backup Slide: Anti-Human Trafficking after 2015

28

Extends to government contracts, subcontracts, and COTS items.

Mandatory flow-down clause requires subcontractors to monitor their supply chain, too.

Requirements:

Compliance plan

Train employees through an awareness program.

Immediately notify the government upon receipt of “credible information” about violations by agents or employees of the contractor.

Cooperate fully with government audits and investigations such as disclosures and access to information or witnesses.

Backup Slide: Anti-Human Trafficking after 2015

29

Expanded obligations of compliance, due diligence and monitoring:

Compliance plan for detecting, monitoring and preventing trafficking in persons

Required due diligence on agents and subcontractors on prohibited practices

Post-due diligence certification to the government required:

No violation

If there is a violation, the contractor or its sub has taken the appropriate remedial actions and referrals.

Backup Slide: #Code Red: Overseas Contracts over $500K

30

What is “recruitment fees”?

2016 proposed definition responds to the concern that “recruitment fee” is too vague, but still encompasses a broad range of activities under recruitment.

Cultural gray zone.

The Trump Administration has reaffirmed the commitment to combatting human-trafficking. FAR 52.222-50 may stay.

Risks and the requisite due diligence vary by country, sector, and individual supply chains.

Panel Discussion: Anti-Human Trafficking: Gray Areas and Looking Ahead

31

US legal regime may conflict with local customs:

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.

Anti-Kickback Act. 41 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.

Prohibition on Contingent Fees. FAR 52.203-5.

Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales. FAR 52.203-6.

Government contracts regulations shift more often and more drastically.

Executive Orders can result in rapid changes to government contracts industry, such as Obama’s Contractor Minimum Wage EO (13658).

Panel Discussion: Overcoming Cultural Norms

32

Program Chairs

Nooree Lee

Covington & Burling LLP

[email protected]

Rosamond Xiang

Housing and Urban Development

[email protected]

Contact Information

DC: 6514589-1

Timed Agenda for CLE Accreditation CLE Title: Uncle Sam Still Wants You: Trends in U.S. Buying Power and What It Means for Asia Presenters: Rosamond Xiang (moderator) – Housing and Urban Development Jun Jin – Agency for International Development Nooree Lee – Covington & Burling LLP Jade Totman – The Boeing Company Eric Yeo – Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. All panelists are licensed attorneys and government contracts-focused attorneys. CLE Topic: This program will educate attendees on the recent trends in the U.S. federal

budget and government contracts regulations under the Trump Administration and the 115th Congress and how those trends impact businesses with ties to Asia.

Total Time: 75 Minutes Segment 1: 15 minutes Mr. Lee will provide an overview of the U.S. federal budget for FY2017 and the proposed FY2018 budget. This overview will include an analysis of the differences in the defense spending proposals of the White House and the 115th Congress. Mr. Lee will also discuss the impact of the U.S. exit from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and how that decision interacts with the Trade Agreements Act. Segment 2: 15 minutes Ms. Xiang will provide an overview of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act before transition into a discussion of recent enforcement trends under both statutes. Segment 3: 15 minutes Messrs. Totman and Yeo will discuss the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act and supply chain matter generally and the practical impacts on for in-house counsel at government contractors. Segment 4: 15 minutes Ms. Xiang will provide an overview of the Human Trafficking rule and the Counterfeit Electronic Parts rule. Segment 5: 15 minutes Mr. Jin will lead a panel discussion on a comparative analysis of cultural norms in procurement in different legal systems.

Panel 308: Uncle Sam Still Wants You: Trends in U.S. Buying Power and What It Means

Explanation for the Use of Secondary Materials for CLE Purposes

The CLE materials for the above panel include various outside sources in addition to the

Powerpoint presentation. We believe that these sources are relevant for the following reasons. First, government contracts is a highly regulated and complex field where it is helpful to provide the context of our discussions, including budget numbers and relevant authorities. Second, given the breadth of this field, we cannot cover everything in 75 minutes, but we aim to generate interest in this topic. Therefore, we have provided further reference for those among the audience who would like to look more into this area of the law.

FY2018 Defense Budget Request: The Basics

Lynn M. Williams, Coordinator

Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy

Pat Towell

Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget

June 9, 2017

Congressional Research Service

7-5700

www.crs.gov

R44866


Congressional Research Service

Contents

FY2018 Defense Budget Request ................................................................................................... 1

Limits on the FY2018 Defense Budget Request ............................................................................. 3

FY2018 DOD Military Base Budget Request ................................................................................. 5

Selected FY2018 Defense Budget Issues .................................................................................. 6 Military Personnel ............................................................................................................... 6 Long-Range and Nuclear-Armed Weapons ........................................................................ 8 Missile Defense and National Security Space Programs .................................................... 9 Ground Forces ..................................................................................................................... 9 Naval Forces ..................................................................................................................... 10 Combat Air Forces ............................................................................................................. 11 Military Construction ........................................................................................................ 12

2018 Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request ............................................................. 12

Unfunded Priority Lists (UPLs) .................................................................................................... 14

Figures

Figure 1. FY2018 Budget for National Defense (050) .................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Selected Alternative FY2018 National Defense Budget Proposals ................................. 4

Figure 3. Active-duty End-Strength, 2001-2017 ............................................................................. 7

Figure 4. Increases in Basic Pay, 2001-2018 ................................................................................... 8

Tables

Table 1. FY2018 DOD Military Request (Subfunction 051) .......................................................... 2

Table 2. Administration Proposed Discretionary Limits: FY2018-FY2027 .................................... 3

Table 3. FY2018 DOD Military Base Budget Request ................................................................... 5

Table 4. Troop Levels for Overseas Contingency Operations ....................................................... 13

Table 5. FY2018 DOD Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request ................................. 14

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 15


Congressional Research Service 1

FY2018 Defense Budget Request On May 23, 2017 the Trump Administration released its federal budget request for fiscal year

(FY) 2018. The Administration proposed a total budget of $677.1 billion for national defense-

related activities of the federal government (budget function 050). Of the national defense total,

$667.6 billion is discretionary spending provided, for the most part, by the annual appropriations

bill drafted by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate.1 The remaining $9.6

billion is mandatory spending, that is, spending for entitlement programs and certain other

payments. Mandatory spending is generally governed by statutory criteria and it is not provided

by annual appropriation acts.2

As has been typical in recent years, about 95% of that total ($646.9 billion) is for military

activities of the Department of Defense (DOD)—referred to as subfunction 051. The balance of

the function 050 request comprises $21.8 billion for defense-related atomic energy-defense

activities of the Department of Energy (designated subfunction 053) and $8.4 billion for defense-

related activities of other agencies (designated subfunction 054) of which about two-thirds is

allocated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See Figure 1.

1 The budget includes $6.4 billion to fund medical insurance for military retirees under the TRICARE for Life program.

This annual TRICARE for Life payment occurs automatically, on the basis of permanent law rather as part of an annual

appropriation, but, in terms of congressional budgeting rules, it is “discretionary” funding. 2 Congressional Budget Office, https://www.cbo.gov/content/what-difference-between-mandatory-and-discretionary-

spending.



Figure 1. FY2018 Budget for National Defense (050)

(dollars in billions)

Source: OMB Analytical Perspectives (Table 25-1).

Note: Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. OCO is Overseas Contingency Operations

The term base budget refers to activities the Pentagon would pursue if U.S. forces were not

engaged in combat (or combat-like) operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. In

principle, the remainder of the DOD budget request funds the expected incremental cost of those

contingency activities. Appropriations designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)

are not subject to the discretionary spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011

(BCA/P.L. 112-25).3

For FY2018, the Administration proposes a DOD budget totaling $639.1 billion, of which $574.5

billion comprises the discretionary base budget and $64.6 billion is designated as OCO funding.

The $574.5 billion request for DOD is a 10% increase from the FY2017 enacted level (see Table

1).

Table 1. FY2018 DOD Military Request (Subfunction 051)

budget authority in billions of discretionary dollars

FY2017 Enacted FY2018 Request

FY2017-FY2018 Change

Percentage Change

Base $523.2 $574.5 + $51.3 +10%

OCO $82.8 $64.6 - $18.2 - 22%

Total $606.0 $639.1 + $33.1 + 5.5%

3 For more information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R42506, The Budget Control Act of 2011 as

Amended: Budgetary Effects, by Grant A. Driessen and Marc Labonte.



Source: Department of Defense, FY2018 Budget Overview and CBO Estimate on the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31).

Notes: Totals may not reconcile due to rounding.

Comparison of FY2017 Appropriations with FY2018 Request

Any comparison of the FY2018 request to FY2017 enacted amounts should be done with

consideration that Division C of P.L. 115-31 included $14.8 billion in OCO appropriations in Title

X–Additional Appropriations. With exception of $2.1 billion for counter-ISIL activities, amounts

included in Title X were generally provided in response to the Trump Administration’s March

2017 request for $24.7 billion in additional base budget authority for DOD.

Limits on the FY2018 Defense Budget Request The current national defense (budget function 050) discretionary limit set by the Budget Control

Act of 2011 (BCA\P.L. 112-25) is $549.0 billion for FY2018. The Trump Administration

proposes $603.0 billion for base budget national defense discretionary spending in FY2018—$54

billion more than the BCA limit. In the absence of the appropriate statutory changes to BCA,

defense appropriations at the proposed level would trigger sequestration.4

A New Foundation for American Greatness—President’s Budget FY 2018 specifies that the

Administration proposes to raise the defense discretionary caps for FY2018-FY2021 to

accommodate the budget proposal.5 This document also indicates that the Administration seeks

limits on discretionary spending through FY2027—six years beyond the period of the Budget

Control Act (see Table 2).

The Administration’s proposal would offset the requested increases in defense spending with

reductions to nondefense spending. The proposed caps represent a cumulative increase in national

defense (function 050) spending of $463 billion over the period FY2018-FY2027. These

increases in defense are countered by a reduction in non-defense spending of $1.5 trillion over the

same period. In total, the President’s budget proposes a $1 trillion cumulative reduction in federal

discretionary spending by establishing such limits.6

Table 2. Administration Proposed Discretionary Limits: FY2018-FY2027

budget authority in billions

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Current BCA Limits

Defense 549 562 576 590 ― ― ― ― ― ―

Non-defense 516 530 543 556 ― ― ― ― ― ―

Proposed Limits

4 For information about sequestration see CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process:

Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch. 5 Office of Management and Budget, A New Foundation for American Greatness – President’s Budget FY 2018,May

23, 2017, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf. 6 The BCA places limits on discretionary spending in two categories: defense (budget function 050) and non-defense

(all other discretionary spending). For more information see CRS Report R44039, The Budget Control Act and the

Defense Budget: Frequently Asked Questions, by Lynn M. Williams.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/z?d115:H.R.244:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/R?d115:FLD002:@1(115+31)



2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Defense 603 616 629 642 655 669 683 697 712 727

Non-defense 462 453 444 435 426 417 409 401 393 385

Source: Office of Management and Budget, A New Foundation for American Greatness—President’s Budget FY 2018,

Table S-7.

Notes: The Administration’s estimates through FY2022-FY2027 based on stated assumptions that programs will

“grow at current services growth rates consistent with current law.” See footnotes 1-9 to the source table (S-7).

The Trump Administration’s proposed increase in base budget national defense spending—above

the current statutory cap for FY2018—falls between two other notable FY2018 budget proposals

that also would have exceeded the current BCA defense spending cap: the Obama

Administration’s projected $584.5 billion budget, and a projected budget of $640.3 billion,

proposed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (see Figure 2).7

Figure 2. Selected Alternative FY2018 National Defense Budget Proposals

amounts in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority

Source: CRS analysis of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), as amended; National Defense Budget

Estimates for FY2017 (Green Book); Office of Management and Budget, America First: A Budget Blueprint to

Make America Great Again, March 16, 2017; and Senator John McCain, "Restoring American Power," January 16, 2017.

Note: The Obama Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) included a placeholder for Overseas Contingency

Operations indicating that funding would be needed, but no actual estimates were provided.

7 On January 16, 2017, Senator John McCain, released a defense budget proposal for FY2018-FY2022. Many,

including House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry have endorsed the McCain funding levels for FY2018.

See "Restoring American Power: SASC Chairman John McCain releases defense budget white paper," press release,

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=AA148EA0-8753-4483-8BEB-3D812D51F055.

201, and Aaron Mehta and Joe Gould, "McCain, Thornberry rip White House budget plan on defense," Defense News,

February 27, 2017 at http://www.defensenews.com/articles/analysts-new-white-house-plan-to-boost-defense-with-

domestic-cuts-wont-happen.




FY2018 DOD Military Base Budget Request The DOD’s base budget request for FY2018 was a net of $51.3 billion higher than the amount

appropriated in FY2017, which is primarily driven by the DOD’s stated goal to “prioritize

readiness by directing funding to specific items including end strength, training, maintenance, and

munitions.”8 DOD documents supporting the request state that the budget:

Sustains increased manning levels for the Army and Marine Corps as directed by

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA/P.L. 114-

328);

Provides additional funding for operating forces, logistics, maintenance, training, and

spares;

Provides additional shipyard capacity and aviation depot maintenance for the Navy, as

well as increased funding for spares, training targets and ranges;

Funds additional end strength increases for the Air Force and Navy specifically to

address readiness challenges.9

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the DOD base budget request by appropriations title. DOD’s

request for procurement increased by 5.7% over the FY2017 enacted base level to $108.8 billion.

Additionally, the DOD budget request of $82.7 billion for Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation (RDT&E) spending is an 11% increase from the FY2017 enacted level ($74.8 billion).

Combined with the requested procurement amounts, DOD’s investment and modernization efforts

increased slightly from $183.6 billion in enacted FY2017 appropriations to $197.7 billion.

The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding request also increases by about 11% from

$200.3 billion in FY2017 appropriations to $223.3 billion in the FY2018 request. The O&M

Overview states that the budget “funds a joint force in FY2018 with the capacity and capability

to:

1. Get Ready: FY 2017 added resources to improve near term readiness

2. Get Balanced: FY 2018 budget request builds on readiness improvements in the FY 2017

budget and adds resources to balance the force

3. Get Bigger and More Lethal: The goal in FY 2019 will be to sustain the gains in

FY2017/FY2018 and, informed by the new defense strategy, build further to achieve a bigger

more lethal and ready force.”10

Table 3. FY2018 DOD Military Base Budget Request


Title

FY2017 Enacted

FY2018 Request Change

Percentage Change

Military Personnel $135.7 $141.7 + $6.0 +4.4%

Operation and Maintenance $200.3 $223.3 + $23.0 +11.5%

8 Department of Defense, FY2018 Defense Budget Overview, at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/

defbudget/fy2018/fy2018_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf 9 Ibid. 10 Department of Defense, FY2018 Budget Estimates, Operation and Maintenance Overview, June 2017.



Title

FY2017

Enacted

FY2018

Request Change

Percentage

Change

Procurement $108.8 $115.0 + $6.2 + 5.7%

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $74.8 $82.7 + $7.9 +10.6%

Revolving and Management Funds and Other $1.5 $2.1 + $0.6 +39.0%

Military Construction/Family Housing $7.7 $9.8 + $2.1 + 27.3%

General Provisions (net) - $5.6

Total $523.2 $574.5 + $51.3 + 9.8%


Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31), Table 1 Discretionary Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2017, with

Adjustments.

Notes: Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. Military personnel amounts include amounts for Military-

eligible retiree health care (MEHRC) accruals.

Selected FY2018 Defense Budget Issues

Military Personnel

Continuing the basic thrust of a congressional initiative in the FY2017 National Defense

Authorization Act (NDAA), the budget request would sustain the currently authorized end-

strength of the active-duty components of the Army and Marine Corps.11

Active duty end

strengths of those two services increased gradually in the years after 2001, but those increases

accelerated between 2006 and 2010 in response to the tempo of operations in Iraq and

Afghanistan. The active duty end-strengths of the two services peaked in 2011, the Army at

slightly more than 566,000 and the Marine Corps at slightly less than 203,000.

Beginning with the budget for 2012, the Obama Administration proposed—and Congress

generally approved—a drawdown in the two services, with the Army heading for a goal of

450,000 and the Marines toward a goal of 182,100.12

The FY2017 NDAA changed that trajectory,

rejecting proposals by the Obama Administration to continue the Army and Marine Corps

reductions. Instead, that bill increased the Army’s authorized end-strength to 476,000—an

increase of 16,000 over the budget request—and increased the Marine Corps end-strength to

185,000, an increase of 3,000 over the request.

The FY2018 budget request would continue those limits for the Army and Marine Corps and

would slightly increase the limits for the Navy and Air Force, increasing each service by 4,000 to

a total of 327,900 for the Navy and 325,100 for the Air Force.

All told, the FY2018 request would increase the active-duty end-strength of the armed forces to

1,314,000, an increase of 6,000 over the FY2017 end-strength cap. By one widely-used rule-of-

11 The term “end strength” refers to the authorized strength of a specified branch of the military at the end of a given

fiscal year (i.e., on September 30). Authorized strength means “the largest number of members authorized to be in an

armed force, a component, a branch, a grade, or any other category of the armed forces.” the law also permits the

service secretaries to exceed this maximum amount by up to 2%, and the Secretary of Defense to increase this

maximum amount by up to 3%. 10 U.S.C. §115. 12 Department of Defense, FY2013 Budget Request Overview, February 2017, p 4-13.




thumb, the annual pay and benefits for each additional active-duty service member cost about

$100,000. On that assumption, requested end-strength increase would cost about $600.0 million,

annually. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3. Active-duty End-Strength, 2001-2017

Click and type sub-title, or delete

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center and FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328).

Notes: This table includes actual end-strengths for FY2001 through FY2016 and authorized end-strength for

FY2017.

The FY2018 request proposes a 2.1% increase in basic pay for military personnel instead of the

2.4% increase that would occur automatically unless a different rate either is set by the President

or enacted by law. Title 37 of United States Code provides a permanent formula for an automatic

annual increase in basic pay that is indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index

(ECI) for “wages and salaries” of private industry workers.13

In most years from 2001 through 2010, increases in basic pay were above ECI. From 2011

through 2014, raises were equal to ECI as per the statutory formula. From 2014 through 2016, the

rate of military pay raises slowed as the President invoked his authority to set an alternative pay

adjustment below the ECI, and Congress did not act to overturn those decisions. In 2017 the

President proposed a pay raise that was lower than the ECI, but Congress included in the FY2017

NDAA a provision that set the pay raise at the ECI rate. The FY2018 budget would increase basic

pay by 2.1%—the same rate as in FY2017—rather than 2.4% reflecting the ECI. The lower pay

raise is estimated to save $200.0 million in FY2018 (see Figure 4).

13 The automatic adjustment is equal to the increase in the ECI from the 3rd quarter of the third preceding year to the

3rd quarter of the second preceding year. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10260, Defense Primer: Military

Pay Raise, by Lawrence Kapp.




Figure 4. Increases in Basic Pay, 2001-2018

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index. National Defense Authorization Acts for FY2001

– FY2018.

Notes: This table does not include other pay increases that were enacted through basic pay table reforms.

Long-Range and Nuclear-Armed Weapons

The budget request would sustain the current plan to each leg of the “triad” of long-range,

nuclear-armed weapons modernize over the course of the next decade.14

The budget includes

$2.00 billion to continue development of the B-21 long-range bomber, which the Air Force

describes as one of its top three acquisition priorities. Acquisition of the plane is slated to begin in

2023. The new bomber—like those currently in U.S. service—could carry conventional as well as

nuclear weapons.15

For the latter role, the budget includes $451.3 million to continue

development of the Long Range Standoff Weapon, a cruise missile that would replace the 1980s-

vintage Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) currently carried by U.S. bombers.

The budget includes a total of $1.88 billion—$1.04 billion in R&D funding plus $842.9 million

in procurement funds—to continue developing and preparing for construction of a dozen

Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarines intended to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class

missile submarines, slated to begin retiring in 2028. The budget also includes $1.3 billion to

continue refurbishing the Trident II (or D-5) missiles that arm the submarines.16

Also requested is $215.7 billion to continue developing a new, land-based intercontinental

ballistic missile (ICBM) that in 2029 would begin replacing the Minuteman III missiles currently

in service.

14 For background and further analysis, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background,

Developments, and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf. 15 DOD contends that, since the number of long-range bombers the Air Force operates is driven by their conventional

mission, only a portion of the new bomber’s cost should be attributed to the nuclear force modernization. 16 For background and additional information see CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement)

Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.



In general, the funding requests for modernization of the nuclear weapons force continue the

established scope and pace of activity. However, those plans could change as a result of the

Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, which is expected to be completed later this year.

Missile Defense and National Security Space Programs

The FY2018 budget request includes a total of $9.2 billion for defense against ballistic missiles,

of which $7.9 billion would be allocated to the Missile Defense Agency, more than three-quarters

of which is for research and development.

A total $1.04 billion is requested for the Ground-Based Mid-course Defense System (GMD),

which will comprise 44 interceptor missiles deployed in Alaska and California by the end of

FY2017. These interceptors are intended to intercept long-range ballistic missiles launched

toward U.S. territory. An additional $822.8 million is requested to develop improvements to the

GMD system, including an upgraded interceptor missile and improved radar to be deployed in the

mid-2020s. Also requested is $259.4 million for a more far-reaching upgrade that would allow

each GMD interceptor to destroy multiple targets.17

For procurement, operations, and additional development work associated with the Theater High-

Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system, intended to intercept medium-range missiles, as well as

aircraft, the budget requests a total of $796.8 million.

A total of $1.71 billion is requested for the anti-missile version of the Aegis system, developed by

the Navy and deployed on ships and land-based sites in Poland and Romania.

The Administration is also seeking $6.9 billion in funding for National Security Space activities,

which includes $1.9 billion to continue acquiring satellite launchers under the Evolved

Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program and developing a replacement for the Russian-made

rocket engine used since the early 2000s in some EELV launchers.18

Ground Forces

The Administration’s FY2018 budget request signals adjustments in the force structure of U.S.

ground forces. Some indicators of this shift are several reductions from previous projections in

the vertical lift aircraft programs, the modernization of current ground combat vehicles and the

fielding of several new ground vehicles, and a continued increase in the quantity of the Army’s

unmanned aerial assets, specifically with MQ-1 Grey Eagles. The FY2018 budget, as compared

to FY2017 projections, shifts its priorities towards the AH-64 Apache by adding 5 aircraft to the

program, while reducing the CH-47 Chinook program by 7 aircraft, the UH-60 Blackhawk

program by 12 aircraft, and the UH-1 Huey program by 5 aircraft.

Both the Army and the Marine Corps are heavily investing in a new ground utility vehicle called

the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). During FY2018, the DOD plans initially to field 2,110

vehicles with the Army, 527 vehicles with the Marine Corps, and 140 vehicles with the Air Force

as a partial replacement for the current High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) at a

17 For background and additional information see CRS Insight IN10655, Current Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

Issues, by Steven A. Hildreth, Current Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Issues, by Steven A. Hildreth, and CRS Report

RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald

O'Rourke. 18 For background on the EELV program – including information regarding concerns over U.S. reliance on the

Russian-built RD-180 engine – see CRS Report R44498, National Security Space Launch at a Crossroads, by Steven

A. Hildreth.



total cost of $1.14 billion. The total original planned procurement, concluding in FY2040, was for

59,000 JLTVs, but Marine leadership recently said it wanted to increase its requirement from

5,500 to 9,091 JLTVs. In addition to the JLTV, the Army is requesting 107 Armored Multi-

Purpose Vehicles (AMPV) at a cost of $647.4 million to begin replacing an aging M-113 Armored

Personnel Carrier (APC) fleet.19

Similarly, the Marine Corps is requesting $340.5 million to begin fielding 26 Amphibious Assault

Vehicles (ACV) 1.1, an updated, wheeled partial replacement for their legacy Amphibious Assault

Vehicle (AAV). The Marine Corps’ plan is to field 204 ACV 1.1s, and then begin fielding an ACV

1.2, a tracked version of the vehicle.20

Naval Forces

The Navy’s proposed FY2018 budget, as amended on May 24, 2017, requests the procurement of

nine new ships, including one Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, two Virginia-class

attack submarines, two DDG-51 class destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one TAO-

205 class oiler, and one towing, salvage, and rescue ship. (The Navy announced on May 24,

2017, that it was amending its budget submission to include two LCSs for FY2018, rather than

the one LCS shown in the Navy’s original budget submission, which was delivered on May 23,

2017.) With one exception, these are the same ships that the Navy’s FY2017 budget submission

projected would be requested for FY2018. The exception is that the Navy’s FY2017 budget

submission projected an FY2018 request for one LCS rather than two (and consequently a total

FY2018 request for eight new ships rather than nine).

A total of $4.46 billion is requested to continue acquisition of Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-

powered aircraft carriers. This includes a $2.6 billion increment to continue work on the second

ship of the class (slated for delivery in 2024 at a total cost of $11.4 billion) and $1.9 billion to

begin work on a third ship of the class, slated for delivery in 2027.[1]

To continue a multi-year buy of Virginia-class attack submarines, the budget includes a total of

$5.3 billion that includes the bulk of the funding for two subs and advance procurement funding

for subs slated for funding in future budgets.[2]

To continue a planned multi-year buy of DDG-51-class destroyers, the budget includes $3.5

billion for two ships. These “Flight III” versions of the DD-51 design will incorporate a new

radar intended to enhance the ability of their Aegis air defense systems to intercept ballistic

missiles.[3]

The budget as originally released on May 23 includes $636 million to procure one LCS. On May

24, the Navy amended its budget to request to include two LCSs. The Navy states that an

additional $541 million will be needed to convert the one-ship LCS buy into a two-ship buy. The

19 For more information see CRS Report RS22942, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV): Background and Issues for

Congress, by Andrew Feickert and CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV):

Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert. 20 For background and additional information see CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle

(ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert. [1] For background and additional information see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier

Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. [2] For background and additional information see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack

Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. [3] For background and additional information see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer

Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.



Navy states that it will work to identify this additional funding from within its budget, and will

print budget errata sheets. The Navy’s FY2018 request, as amended on May 24, is thus for two

LCSs and 1.2 billion.[4]

The FY2018 budget request also includes $466 million to complete funding of an oiler designed

to refuel ships at sea for which $73 million had been provided in the FY2017 budget. The

FY2018 request also includes $75 million in advance procurement funding for an oiler to be

funded in a future budget. [5]

The request also includes $1.7 billion to complete funding of an LHA-type assault ship designed

to carry a Marine Corps unit and the helicopters and aircraft to carry them ashore. The FY2017

Defense appropriation provided $1.6 billion for this ship.

Combat Air Forces

The budget request includes $10.8 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter program, funding

procurement of 70 aircraft (46 F-35A, 20 F-35B, and 4 F-35C). The request would also fund

continued development of the air vehicle and the F135 propulsion system, and also support

development and operational testing.21

To compensate for the slower-than-planned fielding of the F-35—a so-called “5th generation”

design incorporating stealth and other advanced technologies—the budget request includes funds

to mitigate a shortfall in the Navy’s fleet of strike fighters. The Administration requests $1.3

billion for 14 Navy F/A-18s. The budget does not indicate F/A-18 purchases in future budget

years. However, the Navy’s Unfunded Priority List includes an additional 10 F/A18s as the

service’s top priority should additional funding be available.

The Air Force continues investments in modification of in-service aircraft—often referred to as

legacy aircraft—with 23% of their aircraft procurement budget ($3.5 billion) allocated to the

effort. Modifications include continued modernization of legacy fighters such as F-22A, F-15,

and F-16s. The Air Force budget maintains the A-10 fleet at its FY2017 inventory levels (143

active, 85 National Guard, 55 reserve).

The KC-46A aerial refueling tanker program continues into the fourth year of Low-rate Initial

Production (LRIP), with $3.1 billion for the procurement of 15 additional aircraft and support of

continued development and testing.

The request also invests in several surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft:

MQ-1 Gray Eagle (Army) - $164.8 million for 11 aircraft,

MQ-9 Reaper (Air Force) - $709.3 million for 16 aircraft,

P-8 Poseidon (Navy) - $1.4 billion for 7 aircraft, and MQ-4 Triton (Navy) - $636.3 million for 3 aircraft.

[4] For background and additional information see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF)

Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. [5] For background and additional information see CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler

Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. 21 For background and additional information see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, by

Jeremiah Gertler.



Military Construction

For military construction (MILCON) and family housing in FY2018, the Administration has

requested $9.8 billion in the base budget and $.6 billion in OCO funds, for a total of $10.4 billion.

This compares with $8.2 billion appropriated for these programs for FY2017 and $9.1 billion for

FY2016. Approximately half of the Trump administration’s requested OCO funds are for

European Reassurance Initiative construction projects, primarily in Luxembourg, Hungary, and

Slovakia (specified projects only).

Since FY2012, funding for projects within U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Pacific

Command (PACOM) areas of operations have generally constituted the majority (80%-95%) of

all appropriated amounts.22

In the President’s FY2018 request, projects within EUCOM make up

51% of requested appropriations, projects within PACOM account for 40%, and projects within

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) account for 8% of the total.

DOD’s requested increase in military construction funds would continue an upward trend that

began in FY2015. The Department has indicated it would use the additional amounts in FY2018

to address key priorities that include: the bed-down of new missions (such as the arrival of Joint

Strike Fighters at various locations); support to combatant commands (such as improvements to

existing air bases); medical facility recapitalization (at Fort Bliss, Fort Leonard Wood, Walter

Reed, and Rhine Ordnance Barracks), and; quality of life improvements (such as the replacement

of Department of Defense schools).

Family Housing funds within the MILCON appropriation have generally remained level since

FY2014, following a period of steep decline with the privatization of most of the DOD’s

government owned housing within the United States.23

The Administration has also requested authorization to conduct a Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC) round in 2021. DOD has also recommended revising the legislation to include a

requirement that the Secretary of Defense certify that the elimination of excess infrastructure as a

primary objective, and that net savings would be achieved within five years of implementation.

As further justification for a new BRAC round, senior officials have cited the need to revise

stationing requirements to account for anticipated changes in force structure.

2018 Overseas Contingency Operations Budget

Request The FY2018 President’s budget request includes $64.6 billion for Overseas Contingency

Operations (OCO) spending. The request reflects a $5.1 billion reduction from the FY2017

request of $69.7 billion. By comparison, defense appropriations for OCO in FY2017 totaled

$82.8 billion, of which approximately $18 billion was intended to fund base budget

requirements.24

(See Table 5.)

22 Amount for U.S. Northern Command excluded. 23 At enduring installations overseas, family housing funds still support more than 36,000 units. 24 H.R. 244 Division C, Title X included $2.2 billion in funding for Counter-ISIL Train and Equip Fund and Counter

ISIL OCO Transfer Fund. CRS analysis of CBO estimate for Divisions A-L of H.R. 244, the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2017(P.L. 115-31), the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017(P.L.

114-254), and the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017 (P.L. 114-328).



According to DOD budget justification documents, the FY2018 OCO request would maintain a

U.S. presence in Afghanistan, sustain personnel deployed to the Middle East to conduct

operations against ISIL, build the capacity of the Iraqi and Syrian opposition forces, and support

partner nations in counterterrorism efforts.25

The request is based on force level projections in

Table 4.

Table 4. Troop Levels for Overseas Contingency Operations

average annual troop strength

Force FY2016 Actual FY2017 Enacted FY2018 Request

Afghanistan (OFS) 9,737 8,674 8,448

Iraq (OIR) 3,550 5,765 5,765

In-theater support 55,831 62,486 56,310

In CONUS/Other Mobilization 15,991 13,085 16,611

Total 85,109a 90,010 87,134

Source: Department of Defense, FY2018 Defense Budget Overview.

Note: In-theater support includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Horn of Africa, and ERI.

a. FY2016 Enacted Total (85,109) was reported as 85,108 in the FY2018 Defense Budget Overview

Of the Administration’s $64.6 billion request for OCO funding, over 70% ($45.9 billion) is

designated for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (Afghanistan) and overall U.S. Central Command

theater posture. The funding requested would maintain 8,448 U.S. military personnel in

Afghanistan for train, advise, and assist (TTA) and counterterrorism efforts. Included in this

amount is $4.9 billion for the Afghan Security Assistance Fund to continue training and equipping

of Afghan security forces, including procurement of aviation assets to support Afghan air force

modernization.

The budget request includes $13.0 billion to maintain a force level of 5,765 personnel in Iraq and

Syria and support Operation Inherent Resolve. Of the amount requested, $1.8 billion would fund

the Counter Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund (CTEF)—$1.3 billion for Iraq

train and equip (T&E) activities and $500 million billion for Syria T&E. The budget also includes

$850 million for Security Cooperation (SC) efforts aimed at building partner capacity to conduct

counterterrorism, perform crisis response and other security activities.26

The OCO request also includes $4.8 billion to enhance U.S. presence in Eastern Europe, often

referred to as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). The Administration states that the

funding is to provide “near-term flexibility and responsiveness to the evolving concerns of U.S.

allies and partners in Europe and helps to increase the capability and readiness of U.S. allies and

partners.”27

The majority of the requested funding (81%) would enhance U.S. presence in the

region, providing $1.7 billion to increase U.S. military personnel presence in Europe and $2.2

billion to increase prepositioned stocks of U.S. military equipment in the region. The request also

25 Department of Defense, FY2018 Defense Budget Overview, at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/

defbudget/fy2018/fy2018_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf. 26 Formerly known as the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund; transitioned to broader authority that includes

counterterrorism, crisis response, border security and other security cooperation support to partner nations by

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328). 27 Department of Defense, FY2018 Defense Budget Overview, at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/

defbudget/fy2018/fy2018_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf.



includes $150 million to “continue train, equip, and advise efforts to build Ukrainian capacity to

conduct internal defense operations to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”28

Table 5. FY2018 DOD Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request


Title FY2017 Enacted FY2018 Request

Military Personnel $3.8 $4.3

Operation and Maintenance $60.9 $48.7

Procurement $15.7 $10.2

RDT&E $1.9 $0.6

Revolving and Management Funds $0.4 $0.1

Military Construction $0.4

Total OCO Budget $82.8 $64.6


Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244/P.L. 115-31), Table 1 Discretionary Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2017, with

Adjustments.

Notes: Totals may not reconcile due to rounding. Enacted amounts include $14.8 billion in “Additional

Appropriations” provided in H.R. 244, Division C, Title X.

Unfunded Priority Lists (UPLs) Section 1064 of FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA/ P.L. 114-328) added 10

U.S.C. §222a to the U.S. Code, requiring each of the armed forces and the combatant commander

to provide report on unfunded priorities.29

The statute defines “unfunded priority” as a program,

activity, or mission requirement that

1. is not funded in President’s budget for the fiscal year under consideration;

2. is necessary to fulfill a requirement associated with an operational or contingency plan or

other validated requirement; and

3. would have been recommended for funding if additional resources were available, or the

requirement had emerged since the budget was formulated.30

The military services submitted their FY2018 unfunded priority lists (UPLs)—totaling $32

billion—to Congress on June 1, 2017. The Army identified $12.7 billion in unfunded priorities,

including $2.3 billion in funding for activities the Army associated as “Warfighter Readiness.” 31

The Army’s UPL also identified additional funding needed for munitions ($2.3 billion), increased

capacity to grow end-strength ($3.1 billion), weapon systems investments for

modernization/improved lethality ($4.9 billion), and military construction ($579 million). Of the

28 Ibid. 29 10 U.S.C. §222a requires the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air

Force, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the commanders of the combatant commands to submit a report on

their unfunded priorities to the congressional defense committees within 10 days of the President’s budget submission. 30 10 U.S.C 222a. 31 For example, the “Warfighter Readiness” category included increased funding for manning, training, sustainment,

infrastructure and equipment.



https://insidedefense.com/node/187412



$4.9 billion in unfunded weapon systems investments, the Army cited air and missile defense,

long-range fires, and munitions as their top priorities.

The Air Force reports $10.7 billion in unfunded priorities including $504 million in personal

protective gear for Airmen (helmets, vests, and ruggedized footwear), night vision devices,

communications equipment, and increased funding for training. Also listed are $6.7 billion in

“Readiness/Modernization” needs including 14 additional F-35s, three additional KC-46s,

funding for an EC-130 avionics update, and additional investments in legacy aircraft

modification/modernization programs. The Air Force UPL also cites shortfalls in Nuclear

Deterrence Operations ($360 million), Space ($772 million), Cyberspace ($563 million) and

Infrastructure ($1.8 billion).

The Navy’s unfunded priorities total $5.5 billion. The Navy’s report to Congress prioritizes

weapons systems purchases with requirements for $740 million for 10 F/A-18’s, $1.0 billion for 6

additional P-8A Poseidon Aircraft, $390 million for four CMV-22s, and $300 million for 5 ship-

to-shore vessels and other weapon systems. Aviation logistics funding is at the bottom of the list,

with no mention other of shortfalls in major ship repair/overhaul or depot maintenance.

Like the Navy, the Marine Corps stated unfunded priorities are heavily weighted toward aviation

system procurements. Of the stated $3.1 billion in unfunded priorities, $2.4 billion is associated

with aircraft and aviation systems procurement (six additional F-35s, four additional KC-130Js,

two additional CH-53Ks, two additional MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, seven additional AH-1Z

helicopters, and two C-40A transport aircraft). The Marine Corps report also cites $482 million in

unfunded “Ground” priorities, including military construction, facilities sustainment, night optics,

and training munitions.

Author Contact Information

Lynn M. Williams, Coordinator

Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy

[email protected], 7-0569

Pat Towell

Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget

[email protected], 7-2122

Acknowledgments

Samuel G. Butler, Research Fellow, contributed to this report.

mailto:[email protected]

FY2018 Defense Budget: Issues for Congress Kathleen J. McInnis Analyst in International Security

Pat Towell Specialist in Defense Policy and Budget Lynn M. Williams Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy Kristy Kamarck Analyst in Military Manpower Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs

June 5, 2017

February 23, 2016

CRS-2

• Strategic Context / U.S. Role in the World • The FY2018 Defense Budget Overview • The FY2018 Budget in Historical Context • Military Personnel Matters • Weapons Procurement Matters • Talk to the Experts

Agenda

CRS-3

FY2018 Defense Budget: Strategic Context

Kathleen McInnis Analyst in International Security

CRS-4

2016...

CRS-5

2015 National Military Strategy

• Revisionist States

• Violent Extremist Organizations

“..[G]lobal disorder has significantly increased, while some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode.”

-The Chairman’s Foreword to the 2015 National Military Strategy

CRS-6

Possible Oversight Questions for Congress • Are DOD’s priorities right, strategically

and programmatically? • Can programmatic decisions enable

DOD to meet current & emerging challenges?

• Is DOD appropriately configured to meet current and emerging security challenges?

• Is the interagency appropriately resourced to meet national objectives?

CRS-7

The FY2018 Defense Budget Overview

Pat Towell Specialist in Defense Policy and Budget

CRS-8

Unless otherwise specified, all funding amounts in this briefing

refer to Budget Authority

CRS-9

FY2018 President’s Budget Request

National Defense Budget Function 050

$677.1B

CRS-10

FY2018 Defense Budget Request

$646.9B

$21.8B

$8.4B

DOD Military (051)

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053)

Other Defense-related (054)

$677.1B =

Totals may not reconcile due to rounding.

CRS-11


$582.4B

$21.8B

$8.4B

$64.6B DOD Military (051)



Base Budget OCO


$677.1B =

CRS-12


$574.5B

$20.6B

$7.9B

$7.8B

$1.2B

$0.6B




Discretionary Mandatory

Base Budget OCO $677.1B =


CRS-13

$574.5B

$20.6B

$7.9B

$7.8B

$1.2B

$0.6B





Base Budget OCO

FY2018 Defense Discretionary Budget Request

= $603 B


CRS-14

$20.6B

$7.9B

$7.8B

$1.2B

$0.6B

DOD Military Discretionary Budget

$574.5B $64.6B DOD Military (051)




Base Budget OCO = $639.1 B


CRS-15

DOD Military Base

Discretionary

$574.5B

BCA Effects on DOD Military Funding

DOD accounts for about

95.5% of the base

discretionary

National Defense Budget

Function 050

CRS-16

Discretionary billions of dollars

Selected FY2018 Defense Funding Proposals

CRS-17

Discretionary billions of dollars

Title/Account FY2018 Request

Base OCO Total

Military Personnel $141.7 $4.3 $146.0

Operations & Maintenance $223.3 $48.7 $271.9

Procurement $115.0 $10.2 $125.2

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation $82.7 $0.6 $83.3

Revolving & Management Funds $2.1 $0.1 $2.2

Military Construction $8.4 $0.6 $9.0

Family Housing $1.4 $0.0 $1.4

TOTAL $574.5 $64.6 $639.1

FY2018 DOD Request By Title/Account

CRS-18

1. FY2017 budget amendment request: address “immediate and serious readiness challenges”

2. FY2018 budget request: “focus on balancing the program… while continuing to rebuild readiness”

3. FY2019 budget request: “inform our targets for force structure growth.”

James Mattis, “Implementation Guidance for Budget Directives in the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces,” Department of

Defense, January 31, 2017, emphasis added.

Administration’s Budget Guidance Focus on Readiness

CRS-19

Broadly: “Readiness is the capability of our forces to conduct a full range of military operations to defeat all enemies.... It is generated through manning, training and equipping our units and leader development.”

Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, HASC hearing on The Current State of U.S. Army

Readiness, March 8, 2017. Narrowly: “...current budget levels require…making difficult tradeoffs between force structure, readiness, and modernization.”

General Stephen Wilson, HASC hearing on The State of the Military, February 8, 2017.

“Readiness” Often Used in Two Ways

CRS-20

Activity Army Navy Air Force

Operations & Maintenance +2.6% +4.4% +3.1%

Operations & Maintenance, Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces

+3.8% +5.6% +5.0%

Procurement +11.5% +1.9% +6.0%

Total +2.8% +2.1% +3.1%

Source: Explanatory statement for H.R. 244, p. 26, as posted on the House Rules Committee website. Notes: DOD distinguished in its request between additional appropriations for base and OCO funding. The omnibus designates all of Title X, Additional Appropriations, as OCO funding. This table assumes all Title X funding save the Counter-ISIL Train and Equip Fund and Counter-ISIL OCO Transfer Fund are for base activities. These accounts are not included in the Army numbers.

by Select Accounts Compared to appropriated base funding

“Readiness” in FY2017 Additional Appropriations


CRS-21

Army Navy Air Force

Operations & Maintenance +14.6% +17.3% +4.8%

Operations & Maintenance,

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces +21.9% +21.8% +22.2%

Procurement +4.3% +0.3% +4.3%

Source: DOD Budget Overview Table A-10 and CRS compilation of HR 244. Notes: Figures do not include rescissions from HR 244, Title VIII save for $336 million rescinded from the Army’s O&M accounts.

by Select Accounts Compared to FY2017 Final Appropriations

“Readiness” in the FY2018 Request

CRS-22

The FY2018 Budget in Historical Context

Lynn Williams Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget Policy

CRS-23

$0 B

$100 B

$200 B

$300 B

$400 B

$500 B

$600 B

$700 B

$800 B

$900 B

$1,000 B

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Korean War: 288% buildup, 1950-1952 57% drawdown, 1952-1955

Vietnam War: 54% buildup, 1961-1968 31% drawdown, 1968-1975

Reagan Buildup/ Post Cold War: 65% buildup, 1979-1985 33% drawdown, 1985-1997

Iraq & Afghanistan Wars: 84% buildup, 1997-2010

Billions of FY2018 Dollars

Sources: CRS estimates based on OMB and DOD data Dedicated funding outside DOD “base budget”

DOD Spending in a Historical Perspective FY1950-2017

CRS-24

National Defense Outlays as % of GDP

CRS-25

National Defense (050) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Budget Control Act of 2011 555 546 556 566 577 590 603* 616 630 644

Budget Control Act of 2011 after revision 555 492 502 512 523 536 549 562 576 590

American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

+ 26 518

- 4 498

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

+ 22 520

+ 9 521

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015

+ 25 548

+ 15 551

*Equal to the administration’s FY2018 Defense Budget Request

603 – 549 = $54 B

Budget Control Act of 2011 Statutory Limits Discretionary billions of dollars

CRS-26

Effect of the BCA on DOD Budget Authority

CRS-27

Recent Legislative Action

CRS-28

Military Personnel Matters

Kristy Kamarck Analyst in Military Personnel

CRS-29

Active Component End Strength (FY2001-17) Active Component End Strength Over Time

(FY2001-2016 actual; FY2017 authorized)

480,801

566,045

476,000

377,810

323,900

172,934

202,786

185,000

353,571 321,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

CRS-30

“We will build an active Army of around 540,000”

- Candidate Trump, Sep. 7, 2016

“We were on a path to reduce the active component to 460,000. [In response to the FY17 NDAA] we…increased our enlistments by 6,000,…retained 9,000 more soldiers in the field and we increased our officer accessions by 1,000 to get that 16,000.”

- Lt. Gen. McConville, Deputy Chief of Staff (G-1), HASC Hearing, Feb. 7, 2017

FY2017 requested end-strength = 460,000 FY2017 authorized end-strength = 476,000 Actual strength (March 31, 2017) = 465,056 FY2018 requested end-strength = 476,000

From 2006-2010, the Army increased its strength by about 60,000.

Army Active Component Personnel Strength

CRS-31

“We will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions”


FY2017 requested end-strength = 182,000 FY2017 authorized end-strength = 185,000 Actual strength (March 31, 2017) = 183,866 FY2018 requested end-strength = 185,000

Estimated strength to increase to 36 battalions is approximately 12,000.

(U.S. Naval Institute, December 7, 2016)

“…we need to increase active component end strength to at least 194,000…. An increase of 3,000 Marines per year maintains a rate of growth consistent with effective recruiting and accession.”

- General Walters, Marine Corps Assistant Commandant, HASC Hearing, Feb. 7, 2017

Marine Corps Active Component Personnel Strength

CRS-32

Navy Active Component Personnel Strength FY2017 requested end-strength = 322,900 FY2017 authorized end-strength = 323,900 Actual strength (March 31, 2017) = 322,368 FY2018 requested end-strength = 327,900

“We will build a Navy of 350 surface ships and submarines”


In December 2016, the Navy released a new force-structure goal, calling for a fleet of 355 ships, up from a 2015 goal of 308 ships.

“…the exact number [to man 355 ships] will depend on what the makeup of that new force contract exactly would look like…anywhere from 20 to 40,000 additional sailors.” -Vice Admiral Robert Burke, Chief of Naval Personnel, HASC Hearing, March 17, 2017

CRS-33

Air Force Personnel Strength FY2017 requested end-strength = 317,000 FY2017 authorized end-strength = 321,000 Actual strength (March 31, 2017) = 319,707 FY2018 requested end-strength = 325,100

“We will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft”


General Goldfein, Air Force Chief of Staff, recommended increasing size of the Air Force to 350,000 over 5-6 years.

-USA Today, December 21, 2016

At the end of FY2016, the total force was short 1,555 pilots…the active fighter pilot shortage is projected to exceed 1,000 by the end of FY2017. In the aircraft maintenance field…we expect the shortfall to drop [from 4,000 in FY15] to around 1,500 [in FY17].

-- Lt. Gen. Grosso, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HASC Hearing, May 7, 2017

CRS-34

1. Cost of additional personnel • ~ $100,000 per servicemember per year in military pay

and benefits (methodologies vary) • Other agency costs (e.g., veterans disability, VA health

care, GI Bill) • Recruiting and retention costs

2. Quality of the force

3. Time required to increase manning levels • Training pipelines • Equipment procurement and production (e.g., new ships

and aircraft)

Strength Increases: Key Points

CRS-35

Estimated savings of 2.1% versus 2.4% = $200 million in FY2018, $1.4 billion for FY2018-2022.

Increase in Basic Pay ≥ ECI Increase in Pay = ECI

Increase in Pay ≤ ECI

Increases in Basic Pay, 2001-2018

CRS-36

Proposed changes in three main areas

• Eliminate TRICARE Select grandfathering provisions • Consolidate TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select • Pharmacy Co-Pay Increases

Proposed Compensation Changes in the President’s Budget (Health Benefits)

Contact: Don Jansen, x7-4769

CRS-37

Weapons Procurement Matters

Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs

CRS-38

Nuclear Weapons Programs Key modernization programs continue generally as expected

• Ground-based strategic deterrent (FY17: $114M; FY18: $216M) • B-21 Bomber (FY17: $1.4B; FY18: $2B) • Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine (FY17: $1.89B; FY18: $1.93B) • Long-range standoff missile (FY17: $96 million; FY18: $451M) • National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

o Total Weapons Activities (FY17: $9.3B; FY18: $10.2B) o Directed Stockpile Work (includes life extension programs) (FY17: $3.3B; FY18:

$3.97B)

All show funding increases over FY17, but some rates of change differ from expectations

• DOD funding changes do not appear to reflect changes in scope, pace, priority of programs

• NNSA funding changes address perceived shortfalls in prior funding in some areas

Budget recognizes Nuclear Posture Review could alter pace, scope of some programs

• NPR expected by end of year

CRS-39

FY2018 request for BMD is $9.2B • Missile Defense Agency (MDA) request is $7.9B

• Increase of $379M from FY2017 request • GMD test—first ICBM-range intercept test since 1984 • THAAD in South Korea • Hawaii Aegis test site

FY2018 request for National Security Space is $6.9B • EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) System

• Russian rocket engine replacement

Contact: Steve Hildreth, x7-7635

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Space Control

CRS-40

• FY2018 request close to FY2017 projection • 11 more major aircraft than projected, mostly unmanned

• Most reductions from vertical lift programs • 7 fewer CH-47 Chinook • 12 fewer UH-60 Black Hawk (Army) • 5 fewer H-1 upgrades (Marines) • 5 additional AH-64 Apache (Army)

Contact: Jeremiah “J.J.” Gertler, x7-5107

Aircraft FY2017 to FY2018 Changes

• Most additions are surveillance & reconnaissance systems • 11 MQ-1 Gray Eagle (Army) • 16 MQ-9 Reaper (Air Force) • 1 P-8 Poseidon (Navy)

• F-35 is DOD’s largest procurement program • 46 Air Force • 4 Navy • 20 Marine Corps

CRS-41

Army and Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) • FY2018 request (Base and OCO)

• Army: 2,110 vehicles, $827.9 M (RDT&E and proc.) • USAF: 140 vehicles, $60.5M (proc. only) • USMC: 527 vehicles, $254.3M (RDT&E and proc.)

• Total planned procurement (FY2015-FY2040) • Army: 49,909 vehicles • Marines: will increase from initial requirement of 5,500 to 9,091 vehicles (+65%)

Army Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) • BAE Systems delivered prototypes to Army in 2016 for testing • FY2018 request (Base and OCO)

• 107 vehicles, $647.4M (RDT&E and proc.) • Total planned procurement for

• Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs): 2,936 vehicles • Echelons above brigade: 1,922 vehicles • Totals could change based on proposed ABCT increase

Contact: Andrew Feickert, x7-7673

Ground Forces Equipment

CRS-42

Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) Version 1.1 • Supplement to the legacy Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV)

• BAE Systems and SAIC have delivered first ACV 1.1 prototypes for testing • Down select to single vendor expected in 2018

• FY18 request (Base): 26 vehicles, $340.5M (RDT&E and Proc.) • Total planned procurement: 204 • Plan to follow ACV 1.1 with a fully amphibious tracked ACV Version 1.2 vehicle

• To replace AAVs and operate from Navy amphibious ships

Contact: Andrew Feickert, x7-7673

AAV Version - Current ACV Version 1.1

Ground Forces Equipment

CRS-43

Navy’s new 355-ship force-level goal • Time needed to reach 355 • Additional funding needed • Industrial base ability to take on additional work • Employment impact of additional shipbuilding work • Navy desire to first improve readiness

Contact: Ronald O’Rourke, x7-7610

Ships

CRS-44

FY2018 request: 9 ships • 1 CVN-78 aircraft carrier • 2 Virginia-class SSNs • 2 DDG-51 destroyers • 2 Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) • 1 TAO-205 class oiler • 1 TATS tug/salvage ship LCS request was increased from 1 to 2 on May 24 • Budget docs show request and funding for 1

• $541 million needed to turn 1-ship buy into 2-ship buy • Errata sheets will be printed

FY2018 request is same as FY2017 budget’s projection for FY2018 • Except for LCS (which was projected at 1)


Ships

CRS-45

Options for FY2018 plus-ups to start toward 355 ships • AP to accelerate next aircraft carrier; potential block buy • AP for additional Virginia-class SSNs in future years • 1 or 2 additional DDG-51 destroyers • 1 or 2 additional LCSs • 1 additional TAO-205 oiler

LCS/Frigate program • Annual procurement rate and total planned procurement quantity • Requirements, design, builder(s) of frigate; transition to frigate

Columbia-class SSBN • Navy use of procurement authorities in National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund

Use of FY2017 funding for procurement of additional LPD-17


Ships

CRS-46

QUESTIONS?

CRS-47

Backup Slides

CRS-48

Proposed Compensation Changes in the President’s Budget (Housing Allowances)

Housing Allowance (BAH) reductions continue this year. • In 1996, housing allowances covered about 80% of average

housing costs. • Statutory changes in 1998 and 2000 resulted in BAH covering

100% of average housing costs by 2005. • For FY2015, Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to

reduce BAH rates by up to 1% of the national average monthly housing costs.

• For FY2016, Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to reduce BAH rates by up to 5% of the national average monthly housing costs; phased in at 1% increments over 4 years. DoD will apply a “save pay” provision during implementation.

Contact: Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609

CRS-49

Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, FY2017-FY2018 (current dollars, in millions)

Appropriation Account

FY2017 Base + OCO

Enacted

FY2018 Base

Request

FY2018 OCO

Request

FY2018 Base + OCO

Request

Change FY2017 (Base + OCO)-FY2018 (Base + OCO)

Dollar Percent

TITLE IV + OCO

Army, RDT&E $ 8,675 $ 9,425 $ 119 $ 9,545 $ 869 10

Navy, RDT&E 17,541 17,675 130 17,805 264 2

Air Force, RDT&E 28,154 34,914 135 35,050 6,896 24

Defense-Wide, RDT&E 19,221 20,491 226 20,717 1,496 8

Operational Test and Evaluation 190 211 - 211 21 11

Subtotal, Title IV $73,781 $82,717 $ 611 $83,328 $9,547 13

Other Titles

Defense Health Programs 2,102 673 - 673 -1,429 -68

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction 516 839 - 839 324 63

National Defense Sealift Fund - 19 - 19 19 na

Inspector General 3 3 - 3 0 -11

Total, RDT&E $76,401 $ 84,251 $ 611 $ 84,862 $ 8,461 11

Sources: CRS analysis of Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, RDT&E Programs (R-1), May 2017; CRS analysis of explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-31, as published in the Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, Volume II, H3391-H3703; Division B, P.L. 114-254. Note: Columns may not sum to subtotal or total due to rounding.

Budget Activity

FY2017 Base + OCO

Enacted

FY2018 Base

Request

FY2018 OCO

Request

FY2018 Base + OCO

Request

Change FY2017(Base + OCO)-FY2018 (Base + OCO)

Dollar Percent

Basic Research (6.1) $ 2,276 $ 2,229 - $ 2,229 $ -48 -2

Applied Research (6.2) 5,296 4,973 - 4,973 -323 -6

Advanced Technology Development (6.3) 6,456 5,997 25 6,022 -434 -7

Adv. Component Development & Prototypes (6.4) 15,376 17,451 59 17,510 2,134 14

System Development & Demonstration (6.5) 12,781 14,671 58 14,728 1,947 15

RDT&E Management Support (6.6) 4,575 6,085 - 6,085 1,509 33

Operational Systems Development (6.7) 26,987 31,311 469 31,780 4,793 18

Undistributed DARPA Reduction -50 - - - 50 -100

Undistributed FY2017 Supplemental OCO 82 - - - -82 -100

Total, Title IV & OCO RDT&E $73,781 $ 82,717 $611 $83,328 $9,547 13

By Appropriation Account By Budget Activity, Title IV + OCO Only

Under the President’s FY2018 request, budget activities 6.1-6.3 (broadly referred to as the DOD “Science and Technology” budget) would decrease by $755 million (5.4%) from the FY2017 level.*

* Includes FY2017 undistributed DARPA reduction of $50 million. Contact: John Sargent, x7-9147

CRS-50

Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence • Includes most funding for the intelligence-related programs,

projects, and activities of the 17 component organizations of the U.S. intelligence community

• Includes two major elements: o National Intelligence Program (NIP) o Military Intelligence Program (MIP)

• Detailed budgets for the NIP and the MIP are highly classified

• Title 50 requires annual public disclosure of aggregate NIP budget request

• Secretary of Defense has also publicly disclosed aggregate MIP budget request in recent years

Contact: Heidi Peters, x7-0702

CRS-51

Annual NIP and MIP Budget Request: FY2012-FY2017

Source: CRS, derived from information made available by OMB, ODNI, and DOD. National defense budget request figures derived from OMB Historical Table 5.1 (Budget Authority By Function and Subfunction: 1976-2022), as released with the FY2018 President’s Budget Request, and includes all national defense (budget function 050) discretionary spending.

Nominal dollars

$100B

$200B

$300B

$400B

$500B

$600B

$700B

$800B

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Military IntelligenceProgram (MIP)National IntelligenceProgram (NIP)Total IntelligenceBudgets

National Defense Budget Request