{ "id": "R44519", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44519", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 604735, "date": "2019-09-06", "retrieved": "2019-09-16T22:10:27.841177", "title": "Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status", "summary": "Congressional interest in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding has continued as Members debate ways of funding priorities without breaching discretionary spending limits set in law.\nSince the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated $2 trillion in discretionary budget authority designated as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) in support of the broad U.S. government response to the 9/11 attacks and for other related international affairs activities. This figure amounts to 9.5% of total discretionary spending during this period.\nCongress has used supplemental appropriation acts or designated funding for emergency requirements or OCO/GWOT\u2014or both. These funds are not subject to limits on discretionary spending set forth in congressional budget resolutions or to the statutory discretionary spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-125). The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA; P.L. 99-177) allows emergency funding to be excluded from budget control limits. The BCA added the OCO/GWOT designation to the BBEDCA exemption, thereby providing Congress and the President with an alternate way to exclude funding from the BCA spending limits.\nWhile there is no overall statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT spending, both Congress and the President have fundamental roles in determining how much of the spending to provide each fiscal year. Congress must designate any such funding in statute on an account-by-account basis. The President is also required to designate it as such after it is appropriated to be available for expenditure. Debate over what should constitute OCO/GWOT or emergency activities and expenses has shifted over time, reflecting differing viewpoints about the extent, nature, and duration of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Funding designated for OCO/GWOT has also been used to fund base-budget requirements of the Departments of Defense and State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and to prevent or respond to crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters.\nSome defense officials and policymakers argue OCO funding allows for flexible response to contingencies, and provides a \u201csafety valve\u201d to the spending caps and threat of sequestration\u2014the automatic cancellation of budget authority largely through across-the-board reductions of nonexempt programs and activities\u2014under the BCA. Critics, on the other hand, have described OCO/GWOT as a loophole or \u201cgimmick\u201d\u2014morphing from an account for replacing combat losses of equipment, resupplying expended munitions, and transporting troops through war zones, to a \u201cslush fund\u201d for activities unrelated to contingency operations.\nCongress appropriated $77 billion for OCO in FY2019, amounting to 5.6% of all discretionary appropriations. \nIn the 116th Congress, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L. 116-37) raised discretionary budget caps for defense and foreign affairs agencies in FY2020 and FY2021. BBA 2019 also specified OCO/GWOT funding targets for the next two fiscal years. Defense OCO/GWOT targets were set at $71.5 billion for FY2020 and $69 billion for FY2021. Nondefense OCO/GWOT targets were set at $8 billion for both FY2020 and FY2021. Congress\u2019s decisions on OCO/GWOT designations will affect how much agency funding is available for military operations and foreign affairs activities overseas, how much is subject to the BCA caps, and how much is incorporated into regular budgets and long-term budget projections.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44519", "sha1": "aad793aef21285316c5e6d76eb886afd2b97b6f1", "filename": "files/20190906_R44519_aad793aef21285316c5e6d76eb886afd2b97b6f1.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_1186aa4d3fc4c34fc198ac9aaebf5a0d49b967ac.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/7.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_50cbc333d91b7d788b3e636b0168b7df37779167.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/4.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_bee31aa021dc5028a968a9d6af21a9ae526624e7.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/6.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_178939c190341c1f274e78f7d96d9275e2f3578d.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_c123379b5dfa55681a960acc2ea250555b7aebaa.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/8.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_4d07638c5fead2f0a0e62a830e49faf18faf2b03.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/9.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_2f007454a8e45765a9f240f9c7c99d4dd6a83e55.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/11.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_67941ab5249df15a3d38928b4b838d6f9dfc4072.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/5.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_c481a002a0a7dad55b7212d20e3d8c07644f1310.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/10.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_f78aac9885790eeab542bb1c57d0665624381c11.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/3.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_b09ddaae20e2a7969a273e603b3186c0005ca42c.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/2.png": "files/20190906_R44519_images_773d8413f9a7f4ffcb7f3409de6c239e47c097b0.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44519", "sha1": "1762b6e8b197440264981a44ab806537f7c6e803", "filename": "files/20190906_R44519_1762b6e8b197440264981a44ab806537f7c6e803.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4837, "name": "Defense Authorization" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4896, "name": "State & Foreign Operations Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4925, "name": "Readiness, Training, Logistics, & Installations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 589830, "date": "2019-01-15", "retrieved": "2019-01-16T23:11:54.783151", "title": "Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status", "summary": "Congressional interest in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding has continued as Members debate ways of funding priorities without breaching discretionary spending limits set in law.\nSince the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 trillion in discretionary budget authority designated as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) in support of the broad U.S. government response to the 9/11 attacks and for other related international affairs activities. This figure amounts to approximately 9.4% of total discretionary spending during this period.\nCongress has used supplemental appropriation acts or designated funding for emergency requirements or OCO/GWOT\u2014or both\u2014in statute. These funds are not subject to limits on discretionary spending in congressional budget resolutions or to the statutory discretionary spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-125). The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA; P.L. 99-177) allows emergency funding to be excluded from budget control limits. The BCA added the OCO/GWOT designation to the BBEDCA exemption, thereby providing Congress and the President with an alternate way to exclude funding from the BCA spending limits.\nWhile there is no overall statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT spending, both Congress and the President have fundamental roles in determining how much of the spending to provide each fiscal year. Congress must designate any such funding in statute on an account-by-account basis. The President is also required to designate it as such after it is appropriated to be available for expenditure. Debate over what should constitute OCO/GWOT or emergency activities and expenses has shifted over time, reflecting differing viewpoints about the extent, nature, and duration of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Funding designated for OCO/GWOT has also been used to fund base-budget requirements of the DOD and State Department and to prevent or respond to crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters.\nSome defense officials and policymakers argue OCO funding allows for flexible response to contingencies, and provides a \u201csafety valve\u201d to the spending caps and threat of sequestration\u2014the automatic cancellation of budget authority largely through across-the-board reductions of nonexempt programs and activities\u2014under the BCA. Critics, however, have described OCO/GWOT as a loophole or \u201cgimmick\u201d\u2014morphing from an account for replacing combat losses of equipment, resupplying expended munitions, and transporting troops through war zones, to a \u201cslush fund\u201d for activities unrelated to contingency operations.\nCongress appropriated approximately $103 billion for OCO in FY2017 (8.5% of all discretionary appropriations), $78 billion for OCO in FY2018 (5.5% of all discretionary appropriations), and $68.8 billion for OCO so far in FY2019. Discretionary appropriations for FY2019 are not yet final; a continuing resolution expired December 21, 2018.\nFollowing passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), which raised discretionary budget caps for defense and foreign affairs agencies in FY2018 and FY2019, the Administration proposed shifting some OCO funding into the base, or regular, budget. Although Congress has generally not followed Administration requests for reduced funding for foreign affairs and domestic activities and has increased funding for defense, the President has asked cabinet secretaries to propose spending cuts of 5% in FY2020. Such proposals, if requested in a budget submission, may create difficult choices for Congress in FY2020 and FY2021\u2014the final two years of the BCA discretionary spending limits. Congress\u2019s decisions on OCO/GWOT designations will affect how much agency funding is available for military operations and foreign affairs activities overseas, how much is subject to the BCA caps, and how much is incorporated into regular budgets and long-term budget projections.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44519", "sha1": "510dd4628ec2a0c8cd7479d42a13dad0bea14391", "filename": "files/20190115_R44519_510dd4628ec2a0c8cd7479d42a13dad0bea14391.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/4.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_6f5a44988e780435138ca0a6cbca36dc49a6cdbe.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/7.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_e8639db76366187a2eebd0e9157f3290b8b26570.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/6.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_5ed37b631328ddfeff20a6be3b18020e02812607.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_7d3420d2033b2cd064c259f86eb5757a51fb69a2.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/8.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_c8d99c063434c77d28eda8ae12e2d89ded11dc91.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/9.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_88a481af748533f3556d0956ccea79d0e6f2c8ba.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/5.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_c481a002a0a7dad55b7212d20e3d8c07644f1310.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/10.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_7ef7ade72102c6367e4297f7354ce30080c05c3e.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_6c37ae1d1c0ddbe8f80f202882500f4e7c78ea78.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/3.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_64e5efebeb4e4ff1751bdfa1c285b683c3f0beb1.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44519_files&id=/2.png": "files/20190115_R44519_images_1ae946b8674d0a20a97828428c532f0f325bd65e.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44519", "sha1": "d0b81fbca4a711477d68ba095eb183950313a32c", "filename": "files/20190115_R44519_d0b81fbca4a711477d68ba095eb183950313a32c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4837, "name": "Defense Authorization" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4896, "name": "State & Foreign Operations Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4925, "name": "Readiness, Training, Logistics, & Installations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458848, "date": "2017-02-07", "retrieved": "2017-02-10T18:22:12.847821", "title": "Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status", "summary": "The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that through FY2016 Congress has appropriated $1.6 trillion for DOD war-related activities since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. When combined with an estimated $123.2 billion in related State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations, the DOD, Department of State (DOS), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have received an estimated $1.7 trillion for activities and operations in support of the broad U.S. government response to the 9/11 attacks.\nFunding for these activities has been largely provided through supplemental appropriation acts or has been designated as an \u201cemergency\u201d or \u201cOverseas Contingency Operation/Global War on Terror\u201d (OCO/GWOT) requirement in annual agency budget requests\u2014or both. Funds designated as such are not subject to procedural limits on discretionary spending in congressional budget resolutions or to the statutory discretionary spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). While there is no overall statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT-designated spending, both Congress and the President have a fundamental role in determining how much OCO/GWOT and emergency spending is provided each fiscal year. Congress must designate any such funding as OCO/GWOT in statute on an account by account basis. The President is also required to designate it as such after it is appropriated in order for it to be available for expenditure.\nDefinitions of what constitutes emergency or OCO/GWOT activities and expenses have shifted over time, reflecting differing viewpoints about the extent, nature, and duration of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding designated OCO/GWOT has also been recently used to fund base budget requirements of the DOD and DOS and to provide funding to prevent or respond to crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters. The first use of an OCO/GWOT designation in budgetary law was in the 2011 BCA. Prior to the BCA, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) only allowed \u201cemergency\u201d requirements to be excluded from budget control limits. The BCA added the designation \u201cOverseas Contingency Operation/Global War on Terror\u201d to the BBEDCA exemption, thereby providing Congress and the President with an alternate way to exclude funding from the BCA limits without using the \u201cemergency\u201d designation. \nThe FY2017 OCO Request\nThe Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) raised the BCA discretionary spending limits for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY2017 for both the defense and nondefense categories, and also specified an expected level for OCO spending for those years. The President\u2019s February 2016 OCO budget request of $58.8 billion for defense activities and $14.9 billion for non-defense OCO matched BBA-directed levels for FY2017. However, the Administration submitted an amendment in November 2016, raising both the defense and non-defense requests by $5.8 billion each to $64.6 billion and $20.7 billion, respectively. The Administration stated that the additional resources are needed to maintain approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan and to fund additional troops and requirements in Iraq/Syria.\nThe DOD Comptroller indicated that the majority of the original $58.8 billion in FY2017 OCO request for DOD centers on supporting Operation Freedom\u2019s Sentinel in Afghanistan, Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria, and increased efforts to support European allies and deter Russian aggression\u2014all while supporting what is referred to as a \u201cpartnership-focused approach to counterterrorism.\u201d However, the President\u2019s FY2017 DOD OCO request also includes $5.1 billion for base budget activities\u2014normal military operations and procurement that could not be funded in the DOD\u2019s base budget due to the BCA statutory limits.\nThe original FY2017 OCO request for the State Department included funding needed to \u201cprovide support to, respond to, recover from, or prevent crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters.\u201d Specifically, the DOS request included funding to contribute to peacekeeping missions and special political missions, increase efforts to destroy the Islamic State, and sustain security programs and embassy construction at high risk posts. The November 2016 request seeks an additional $5.8 billion for State and USAID to \u201csupport the Administration\u2019s counter-ISIL and counterterrorism objectives ... and respond to relief and recovery needs, as well as provide additional humanitarian assistance for areas liberated from ISIL and other unforeseen needs.\u201d\nFY2017 Congressional Action\nThe House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2017 provided for an additional $18.0 billion in base budget requirements in the OCO authorization\u2014funding that would be exempt from the spending caps set by the BCA. However, the House and Senate conference agreement on the FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328) authorizes a total of $8.3 billion in OCO funding for base budget requirements ($5.1 billion requested by the Administration and $3.2 billion added by Congress) without an equivalent increase in spending for nondefense programs. The Obama Administration and the minority leadership in both congressional chambers objected to allowing an increase in defense spending by raising the defense cap\u2014or adding OCO spending for defense\u2014without providing a comparable increase for nondefense spending in the overall federal budget. \nHaving not reached agreement on most FY2017 annual appropriations bill before the start of the fiscal year, Congress enacted two continuing resolutions to provide temporary funding for federal programs. The first, the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2017, and Zika Response and Preparedness Act (H.R. 5325/P.L. 114-223), provided budget authority through December 9, 2016, for programs and activities for which regular appropriations bills for FY2017 had not been enacted. The second, the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 2028/P.L. 114-254) was enacted December 12, 2016. Division A of H.R. 2028 extends H.R. 5323 through April 28, 2017, and provides DOD and State/USAID OCO budget authority at a rate of operations equivalent to the FY2016 appropriated level. Division B of H.R. 2028 is a supplemental security assistance appropriations bill, providing an additional $5.8 billion for DOD and $4.3 billion for DOS, available through September 30, 2017, unless otherwise specified. \nFor additional information on related FY2017 budget issues see CRS Report R44428, The Federal Budget: Overview and Issues for FY2017 and Beyond, by Grant A. Driessen, CRS Report R44454, Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations, by Pat Towell and Lynn M. Williams, CRS Report R44636, FY2017 Defense Spending Under an Interim Continuing Resolution (CR): In Brief, by Lynn M. Williams and Sean I. Mills, and CRS Report R44391, State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2017 Budget and Appropriations, by Susan B. Epstein, Marian L. Lawson, and Cory R. Gill.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44519", "sha1": "b59d05b1fd0fba4262d2eacf2fbe97eacf9702f8", "filename": "files/20170207_R44519_b59d05b1fd0fba4262d2eacf2fbe97eacf9702f8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44519", "sha1": "9bd2b335f86c7bab9423bd72c8c0ce80d6b87844", "filename": "files/20170207_R44519_9bd2b335f86c7bab9423bd72c8c0ce80d6b87844.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4837, "name": "Defense Authorization" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4896, "name": "State & Foreign Operations Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4925, "name": "Readiness, Training, Logistics, & Installations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453354, "date": "2016-06-13", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:53:31.447960", "title": "Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status", "summary": "The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that Congress has appropriated $1.6 trillion for war-related operational costs of the DOD since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. When combined with an estimated $123.2 billion in related State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations, the DOD, Department of State (DOS), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have received an estimated $1.7trillion for activities and operations in support of U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks.\nFunding for these activities has been largely provided through supplemental appropriation acts or has been designated as an \u201cemergency\u201d or \u201cOverseas Contingency Operation/Global War on Terror\u201d (OCO/GWOT) requirement in annual agency budget requests\u2014or both. Funds designated as such are not subject to procedural limits on discretionary spending in congressional budget resolutions or to the statutory discretionary spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). While there is no overall statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT-designated spending, both Congress and the President have a fundamental role in determining how much OCO/GWOT and emergency spending is provided each fiscal year. Congress must designate any such funding as OCO/GWOT in statute on an account by account basis. The President is also required to designate it as such after it is appropriated in order for it to be available for expenditure.\nDefinitions of what constitutes emergency or OCO/GWOT activities and expenses have shifted over time, reflecting differing viewpoints about the extent, nature, and duration of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding designated OCO/GWOT has also been recently used to fund base budget requirements of the DOD and DOS and to provide funding to prevent or respond to crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters. The first use of an OCO/GWOT designation in budgetary law was in the 2011 BCA. Prior to the BCA, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) only allowed \u201cemergency\u201d requirements to be excluded from budget control limits. The BCA added the designation \u201cOverseas Contingency Operation/Global War on Terror\u201d to the BBEDCA exemption, thereby providing Congress and the President with an alternate way to exclude funding from the BCA limits without using the \u201cemergency\u201d designation. \nThe Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) raised the BCA discretionary spending limits for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 and FY2017 for both the defense and nondefense categories, and also specified an expected level for OCO spending for those years. The President\u2019s FY2017 OCO budget request of $58.8 billion for defense activities matches BBA-directed levels. DOD\u2019s OCO budget primarily pays for deploying and supporting U.S. troops, conducting and supporting military operations, repairing war-worn equipment, and transporting troops and equipment to and from the war zone. In addition, OCO funding finances training for the Afghan and Iraqi security forces and other counterterrorism and partnership-building activities with key foreign partners around the world. \nThe DOD Comptroller has indicated that the majority of the FY2017 OCO request centers on supporting Operation Freedom\u2019s Sentinel in Afghanistan; Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria; and increased efforts to support European allies and deter Russian aggression\u2014all while supporting what is referred to as a \u201cpartnership-focused approach to counterterrorism\u201d and complying with the BCA funding caps. However, the President\u2019s FY2017 DOD OCO request also includes $5.2 billion for base budget activities\u2014normal military operations and procurement that could not be funded in the DOD\u2019s base budget due to the BCA statutory limits.\nThe $14.9 billion in FY2017 OCO funds for the State Department is requested to \u201cprovide support to, respond to, recover from, or prevent crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters.\u201d Specifically, the DOS request includes funding to contribute to peacekeeping missions and special political missions, increase efforts to destroy the Islamic State, and sustain security programs and embassy construction at high risk posts. \nIn its FY2017 budget justification documents, DOS included a request that the BCA caps be further increased, stating that \u201cthe FY2017 President\u2019s Budget assumes that further adjustments to the Budget Control Act\u2019s discretionary spending limits will be needed to sustain these activities in FY2018.\u201d \nIn marking-up the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2017, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) moved an additional $18.0 billion in requirements from the President\u2019s DOD base budget request to the OCO budget. If enacted, the combined actions proposed by the Administration and the HASC would effectively exempt $23.1 billion in FY2017 funding for defense from the spending caps set by the BCA\u2014without providing an equivalent increase in spending for nondefense programs. The Administration and the minority leadership in both congressional chambers have objected to allowing an increase in defense spending by raising the defense cap\u2014or adding OCO spending for defense\u2014without providing a comparable increase for nondefense spending in the overall federal budget. For that reason, the authorization and appropriation of OCO funding for FY2017 looms large over the policy debate as Congress considers the FY2017 federal budget. \nFor additional information on related FY2017 budget issues see CRS Report R44428, The Federal Budget: Overview and Issues for FY2017 and Beyond, by Grant A. Driessen, CRS Report R44454, Defense: FY2017 Budget Request, Authorization, and Appropriations, by Pat Towell and Lynn M. Williams, and CRS Report R44391, FY2017 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Budget Request: In Brief, by Susan B. Epstein, Marian L. Lawson, and Alex Tiersky.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44519", "sha1": "7fa40fd57f87e1e9b40503d92a08335486afa15e", "filename": "files/20160613_R44519_7fa40fd57f87e1e9b40503d92a08335486afa15e.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44519", "sha1": "9b92753d31c152cfe12db0628b6fe250b75d53eb", "filename": "files/20160613_R44519_9b92753d31c152cfe12db0628b6fe250b75d53eb.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4772, "name": "Defense Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4778, "name": "Defense Budgets & Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4837, "name": "Defense Authorization" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4896, "name": "State & Foreign Operations Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4925, "name": "Readiness, Training, Logistics, & Installations" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Economic Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security", "Legislative Process", "National Defense" ] }