{ "id": "R44039", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44039", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, CRSReports.Congress.gov, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 605691, "date": "2019-09-30", "retrieved": "2019-10-10T22:24:38.131659", "title": "The Defense Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Enacted on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 as amended (P.L. 112-25, P.L. 112-240, P.L. 113-67, P.L. 114-74, P.L. 115-123, and P.L. 116-37) sets limits on defense and nondefense discretionary spending. As part of an agreement to increase the statutory limit on public debt, the BCA aimed to reduce annual federal budget deficits by a total of at least $2.1 trillion from FY2012 through FY2021, with approximately half of the savings to come from defense.\nThe spending limits (or caps) apply separately to defense and nondefense discretionary budget authority. Budget authority is provided by law to a federal agency to obligate money for goods and services. The caps are enforced by a mechanism called sequestration. Sequestration automatically cancels previously enacted appropriations (a form of budget authority) by an amount necessary to reach prespecified levels. The defense spending limits apply to national defense (budget function 050) but not to funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or as emergency requirements.\nSome defense policymakers and officials argue the BCA spending restrictions impede the Department of Defense\u2019s (DOD\u2019s) ability to adequately resource military personnel and equipment for operations and other national security requirements. Others argue the limits are necessary to curb rising deficits and debt.\nCongress has repeatedly amended the legislation to raise the spending limits with two-year budget agreements. Most recently, on August 2, 2019, President Donald Trump signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L. 116-37). The bill amended the BCA to increase defense discretionary spending caps by the largest amount to date\u2014by $90.3 billion, to $666.5 billion in FY2020; and by $81.3 billion, to $671.5 billion in FY2021. BBA 2019 also specified nonbinding Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) defense funding targets of $71.5 billion for FY2020 and $69 billion for FY2021.\nThe annual federal budget deficit decreased from $1.1 trillion (6.7% of Gross Domestic Product) in FY2012 to $779 billion (3.9% of GDP) in FY2018, but is projected to increase to $1 trillion (4.5% of GDP) in FY2021. Meanwhile, federal debt held by the public has increased from $11.3 trillion (70.3% of GDP) in FY2012 to $15.7 trillion (77.8% of GDP) in FY2018, and is projected to further increase to $18.8 trillion (82.4% of GDP) in FY2021.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44039", "sha1": "2b6552f22a6cc9fe609a19334e99e471f6f32f38", "filename": "files/20190930_R44039_2b6552f22a6cc9fe609a19334e99e471f6f32f38.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190930_R44039_images_c1fe283eb194063d75adfa4b484cde111fd1bc8b.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190930_R44039_images_e3011d107608f967864a1bd744567e84331108f9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/2.png": "files/20190930_R44039_images_0deea359820af6032a5b72fe273362f205d6ecb6.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44039", "sha1": "1e30a8550b347d3db7f7e585db6f14af6add016f", "filename": "files/20190930_R44039_1e30a8550b347d3db7f7e585db6f14af6add016f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" } ] }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Defense Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions", "retrieved": "2020-09-07T12:25:16.274269", "id": "R44039_18_2019-09-27", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-09-27_R44039_738bef7c374d6e1211d6789a6de2c7eb276738e0.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44039/18", "sha1": "738bef7c374d6e1211d6789a6de2c7eb276738e0" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-09-27_R44039_738bef7c374d6e1211d6789a6de2c7eb276738e0.html" } ], "date": "2019-09-27", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44039", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 582846, "date": "2018-07-13", "retrieved": "2018-07-17T13:33:35.166640", "title": "The Defense Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Enacted on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 as amended (P.L. 112-25, P.L. 112-240, P.L. 113-67, P.L. 114-74, and P.L. 115-123) sets limits on defense and nondefense spending. As part of an agreement to increase the statutory limit on public debt, the BCA aimed to reduce annual federal budget deficits by a total of at least $2.1 trillion from FY2012 through FY2021, with approximately half of the savings to come from defense.\nThe spending limits (or caps) apply separately to defense and nondefense discretionary budget authority. Budget authority is authority provided by law to a federal agency to obligate money for goods and services. The caps are enforced by a mechanism called sequestration. Sequestration automatically cancels previously enacted appropriations (a form of budget authority) by an amount necessary to reach prespecified levels. The defense spending limits apply to national defense (budget function 050) but not to funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or emergencies.\nSome defense policymakers and officials argue the spending restrictions impede the Department of Defense\u2019s (DOD\u2019s) ability to adequately prepare military personnel and equipment for operations and other national security requirements. Others argue the limits are necessary to curb rising deficits and debt.\nAfter lawmakers did not reach a deficit-reduction deal and triggered steeper reductions to the initial BCA caps, Congress repeatedly amended the legislation to raise the spending limits. Most recently, President Donald Trump on February 9, 2018, signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123). The bill amended the BCA to increase discretionary defense spending caps by the largest amounts to date\u2014by $80 billion to $629 billion in FY2018 and by $85 billion to $647 billion in FY2019. It did not change the spending limits for FY2020 and FY2021.\nThe annual federal budget deficit decreased from $1.1 trillion (6.8% of Gross Domestic Product) in FY2012 to $665 billion (3.5% of GDP) in FY2017, but is projected to increase to $1.1 trillion (4.9% of GDP) in FY2021. Meanwhile, federal debt held by the public has increased from $11.3 trillion (70.4% of GDP) in FY2012 to $14.7 trillion (76.5% of GDP) in FY2017, and is projected to further increase to $19 trillion (83.1% of GDP) in FY2021.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44039", "sha1": "aa16d963f57d40a1787bf18a3415f7de0cd9a333", "filename": "files/20180713_R44039_aa16d963f57d40a1787bf18a3415f7de0cd9a333.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180713_R44039_images_6126a9bc14a3f27880b2569a59017e262c466ca0.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180713_R44039_images_6b78d4da59c4e6c475f79dee4e03f22446bd3b84.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/2.png": "files/20180713_R44039_images_4394e73a5c80516cb7fe388b9041b320121ddcb4.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44039", "sha1": "89eeaa3cb5597b342c910c0fe44525003e32a950", "filename": "files/20180713_R44039_89eeaa3cb5597b342c910c0fe44525003e32a950.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577303, "date": "2017-04-21", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T13:39:33.625445", "title": "The Budget Control Act and the Defense Budget: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Following lengthy congressional deliberations on deficit reduction, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA/P.L. 112-25) was enacted on August 2, 2011. The BCA contained several measures intended to reduce the budget deficit by $2.1 trillion over the period FY2012-FY2021. The BCA established limits on the level of discretionary spending in order to achieve projected savings of approximately $1.0 trillion over the period. In addition, the BCA required approximately $1.1 trillion in savings to be generated from a plan developed by the congressionally established, bipartisan, Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction. \nThe BCA limits apply separately to defense and nondefense discretionary budget authority and are enforced by a mechanism called sequestration. Sequestration automatically cancels previously enacted spending to reduce discretionary spending to the limits specified in the BCA. The defense limits apply to the national defense budget (function 050), but do not restrict amounts provided for \u201cemergencies\u201d or \u201cOverseas Contingency Operations.\u201d \nCalls to remove or raise the limits on defense spending have greatly intensified following the November 2016 presidential election. Senior members of the House and Senate have called for action to eliminate the threat of sequestration to defense and related legislation (H.R. 1441 and H.R. 1745) has been recently introduced in the House. On March 16, 2017, President Trump submitted budget proposals for defense that exceed the BCA limits for FY2017 and FY018, requesting Congress increase or remove the caps. \nThis report addresses several frequently asked questions related to the BCA and the defense budget. \nFor more information see CRS Report R42506, The Budget Control Act of 2011 as Amended: Budgetary Effects, by Grant A. Driessen and Marc Labonte; CRS Insight IN10389, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015: Adjustments to the Budget Control Act of 2011, by Grant A. Driessen; CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch; and CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and 2002, by Megan S. Lynch.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44039", "sha1": "9b58a0a8cfd3430d1c814a6efce36456a2d6bd35", "filename": "files/20170421_R44039_9b58a0a8cfd3430d1c814a6efce36456a2d6bd35.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/3.png": "files/20170421_R44039_images_f311a365c886483a18f3b3a5fe3cbc201fabcdce.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/4.png": "files/20170421_R44039_images_08971048b2612eade53446dba5d9c5a3dbcbcbd2.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170421_R44039_images_dfeffbb0e287d5389cdf355012bb4e4a54d4a015.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170421_R44039_images_f697890d94eb8ccb3de2ff2bb46798f695a5980c.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44039_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170421_R44039_images_76509d94ec3f7bf9d039d30429f66d9c41013343.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44039", "sha1": "2ce61ce7800cd1484067c5d421141a5e1460b8eb", "filename": "files/20170421_R44039_2ce61ce7800cd1484067c5d421141a5e1460b8eb.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 447477, "date": "2015-07-22", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:45:28.549653", "title": "Defense Spending and the Budget Control Act Limits", "summary": "Enacted on August 1, 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA) as amended (P.L. 112-75, P.L. 112-240, P.L. 113-67) sets limits on defense spending between FY2012 and FY2021 that are playing a significant role in the debate about the appropriate level of defense spending. Each year, if Congress enacts a spending level that exceeds BCA caps for the defense base budget, the President is required to sequester or levy across-the-board cuts to each type of defense spending to meet the BCA caps. These spending levels are sometimes referred to as revised or \u201csequester\u201d caps. War-designated funding (for \u201cOverseas Contingency Operations\u201d) is not subject to BCA caps.\nUnder these limits, national defense spending decreased from the $578 billion requested in the FY2012 President\u2019s Budget to $553 billion in FY2012 and $518 billion in FY2013, including a sequester. In the next two years, Congress complied with revised BCA caps, providing $521 billion in FY2014 and the same amount in FY2015, thus basically setting a nominal freeze in spending for three years (without an increase to cover inflation). At the FY2015 low point of the BCA path, defense spending would be equivalent in real terms (the same purchasing power) to the level between FY2007 and FY2008 and would be somewhat below the recent FY2010 high point.\nFor FY2016, the BCA caps for defense are slated to rise from $521 billion to $523 billion, a continuation of the nominal freeze for the base budget. In FY2016, the President requested funding of $561 billion, $38 billion above the BCA defense cap. To the extent that FY2016 enacted appropriations for defense exceed this cap, a sequester will be triggered, requiring largely across-the-board decreases under current law.\nFollowing the nominal freeze, BCA caps provide annual increases in defense spending starting in FY2017 that average $13 billion, rising from $523 billion in FY2016 to $644 billion by FY2021, the last year of the BCA caps. These increases would provide sufficient funds to more than offset the effects of inflation, setting defense spending at about .005% real growth each year through FY2021.\nThe current debate in Congress has centered on whether to (1) adjust the BCA defense caps upward; (2) move base budget spending to accounts designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) that are not subject to spending limits; (3) reduce the defense spending in the Administration\u2019s request to comply with BCA revised caps; or (4) use some combination of these approaches, all in order to avoid a sequester. While DOD and other policymakers contend that BCA caps could make it difficult to meet future threats, other policymakers argue that defense spending could be reduced to comply with the caps and still provide DOD with the necessary capabilities. \nThe recently passed conference version of the FY2016 budget resolution would meet sequester caps by transferring $38 billion from the defense base budget request to accounts designated for Overseas Contingency Operations that are exempt from the caps. This approach has been characterized as budget gimmickry and has reignited debate about whether war funding is a \u201cslush fund.\u201d The House-passed version (H.R. 1735) of the FY20166 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) moves $38.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds requested in the base budget request to funds to be designated as OCO, and the Senate-reported version moves $39.0 billion in the same fashion. The Administration signaled that the President\u2019s advisors will recommend a veto of both H.R. 1735 and S. 1376 in part because of these transfers, which are characterized as risking \u201cundermining a mechanism meant to fund incremental costs of overseas conflicts and fails to provide a stable, multi-year budget on which defense planning is based.\u201d\nThe FY2016 House-passed Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2685, H.Rept. 114-139), passed on June 11, 2015, and the Senate-reported bill (S. 1558, S.Rept. 114-63) both move $37.5 billion from the base request to OCO-designated accounts in Title IX. In statements of Administration Policy on both H.R. 2685 and S. 1558, OMB Director, Shaun Donovan, states that the President\u2019s senior advisors would recommend a veto of these bills for the transfer as well as other reasons, as well as recommending a veto of \u201cany other legislation that implements the current Republican budget framework, which blocks the investments needed for our economy to compete in the future.\u201d \nThis raises the possibility that all appropriations bills could face a veto prospect. The Senate was unable to bring up its DOD appropriations bill earlier in July, and discussion is ongoing about the need for a budget deal that would raise BCA caps with offsetting reductions elsewhere. If a deal is not reached, the prospect arises of a continuing resolution and possible government shutdown in October when the fiscal year begins.\nTo count as OCO and be exempt from BCA caps, individual accounts in appropriations bills must include an OCO designation and the President must designate such funds as OCO after enactment. It is not clear whether the Administration would do that. The recently reported FY2016 Defense Appropriations bill (unnumbered) also moves $38.3 billion from the base request to OCO-designated accounts. \nSince enactment, both Congress and the Administration have adapted to the BCA caps. While Congress has raised the caps in the near term to ease DOD\u2019s adjustment, it has left intact caps in later years. The Administration has made substantial adjustments to BCA limits by reducing its defense budget plans, shrinking the savings required to meet BCA caps for the decade from $1.0 trillion in savings to $180 billion.\nWith four of the ten years of the BCA limits completed, the gap between the FY2016 Administration plan for total defense spending and BCA limits now in effect has narrowed. Over three-quarters of the savings needed are already incorporated in current Administration plans as of the FY2016 budget. To close this gap for the six remaining BCA years, Congress would have to reduce the Administration\u2019s FY2016 plan by an average of 5% instead of the 16% originally required.\nThere are a variety of savings approaches that DOD could take to adapt to BCA spending limits, such as:\ntemporary cuts (as were typical of the FY2013 sequester);\nrecurring savings from force structure decreases or compensation restraints: both would contribute enduring savings; and\nefficiency savings that reduce the cost of carrying out various programs and activities.\nIn a report to Congress last year, DOD outlined how it would meet the 4% cut of $115 billion in BCA cuts for FY2015-FY2019, its planning horizon at the time. DOD\u2019s plan would rely heavily on cuts to its modernization programs, and would make significant cuts to service readiness programs. In adapting to the BCA, DOD faces uncertainties in its future projections of cost, exacerbated by long-term trends in rising costs per troop that it is beginning to reverse.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44039", "sha1": "59ba8e28fe0d4fa7b0cfca1be0095e9c60915ba4", "filename": "files/20150722_R44039_59ba8e28fe0d4fa7b0cfca1be0095e9c60915ba4.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44039", "sha1": "2197c038eb22cb308e3972be57908ca23876ba1e", "filename": "files/20150722_R44039_2197c038eb22cb308e3972be57908ca23876ba1e.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 221, "name": "Defense Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689404/", "id": "R44039_2015Jun03", "date": "2015-06-03", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "Defense Spending and the Budget Control Act Limits", "summary": "This report discusses the Budget Control Act, which sets limits on defense spending between FY2012 and FY2021. The current debate in Congress has centered on whether to adjust the BCA defense caps upward; move base budget spending to accounts designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) that are not subject to spending limits; reduce the defense spending in the Administration's request to comply with BCA revised caps; or use some combination of these approaches, all in order to avoid a sequester.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150603_R44039_6137573e9dffd20eba97801853ced9dae08042de.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150603_R44039_6137573e9dffd20eba97801853ced9dae08042de.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense economics", "name": "Defense economics" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress and military policy", "name": "Congress and military policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense budgets", "name": "Defense budgets" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689467/", "id": "R44039_2015May19", "date": "2015-05-19", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "Defense Spending and the Budget Control Act Limits", "summary": "This report discusses the Budget Control Act, which sets limits on defense spending between FY2012 and FY2021. The current debate in Congress has centered on whether to adjust the BCA defense caps upward; move base budget spending to accounts designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) that are not subject to spending limits; reduce the defense spending in the Administration's request to comply with BCA revised caps; or use some combination of these approaches, all in order to avoid a sequester.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150519_R44039_5608e9bb83fddfc29d9c56e7f942219d25506f7d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150519_R44039_5608e9bb83fddfc29d9c56e7f942219d25506f7d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense economics", "name": "Defense economics" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress and military policy", "name": "Congress and military policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense budgets", "name": "Defense budgets" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Economic Policy", "Intelligence and National Security", "Legislative Process", "National Defense" ] }