Order Code RL32924
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations
May 17, 2005
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense. It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope,
major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events
warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS
products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document is available to
congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].

---

Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
On February 7, 2005, the Administration released its FY2006 federal budget
request. The request includes $441.8 billion in new budget authority for national
defense, of which $421.1 billion is for military activities of the Department of
Defense (DOD), $17.5 billion for atomic energy defense activities of the Department
of Energy, and $3.2 billion for defense-related activities of other agencies. The
FY2006 request does not include funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere. On May 5, the House, and on May 10, the Senate,
approved a conference agreement on a bill (H.R. 1268, P.L. 109-13) providing
FY2005 supplemental appropriations for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, of
$76 billion for the Department of Defense.
Congress annually considers a defense authorization bill and related
appropriations measures. The authorization covers national defense programs that
are funded in several appropriations bills, including defense appropriations (by far
the largest), the new military quality of life/veterans affairs (MQL/VA) bill, and the
energy and water appropriations bill for Department of Energy nuclear weapons
programs, with much smaller amounts in some other bills. This CRS report primarily
covers the defense authorization and appropriations bills and some parts of the
MQL/VA bill that are still funded in the defense bill in the Senate.
Formal Congressional action on the FY2006 defense authorization began the
week of May 9, when the subcommittees of the House Armed Services Committee
began to mark up parts of the bill (H.R. 1815). Full committee markup is expected
on May 18 and floor action the week of May 23. The Senate Armed Services
Committee completed marking up its version of the bill (unnumbered as yet) on May
12.
Key defense policy issues in Congress this year may include:
! Whether Congress should provide additional funding for ongoing
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the FY2006 defense bills;
! Whether the appropriations committees should trim defense in order
to curtail cuts in non-defense discretionary programs;
! Whether Congress should require a substantial increase in active
duty end-strength, particularly in the Army;
! Whether Congress should increase funding for Navy shipbuilding or
restructure shipbuilding programs;
! Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination of some
major acquisition programs;
! Whether Congress should approve Department of Energy plans to
study new nuclear weapons; and
! Whether Congress should restrict assignment of women to combat
support units.
This report will be updated regularly as Congressional action on annual defense
funding measures proceeds.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Acquisition
Valerie Grasso
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Aviation Forces
Christopher Bolkcom
7-2577
cbolkcom@crs.loc.gov
Arms Control
Amy Woolf
7-2379
awoolf@crs.loc.gov
Arms Sales
Richard Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure
David Lockwood
7-7621
dlockwood@crs.loc.gov
Stephen Daggett
7-7642
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Defense Budget
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Gary Pagliano
7-1750
gpagliano@crs.loc.gov
Defense Industry
Daniel Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Michael Davey
7-7074
mdavey@crs.loc.gov
Defense R&D
John Moteff
7-1435
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Edward Bruner
7-2775
ebruner@crs.loc.gov
Ground Forces
Steven Bowman
7-7613
sbowman@crs.loc.gov
Health Care; Military
Richard Best
7-7607
rbest@crs.loc.gov
Richard Best
7-7607
rbest@crs.loc.gov
Intelligence
Al Cumming
7-7739
acumming@crs.loc.gov
Military Construction
Daniel Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Robert Goldich
7-7633
rgoldich@crs.loc.gov
Military Personnel
David Burrelli
7-8033
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Military Personnel;
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Reserves
Steven Hildreth
7-7635
shildreth@crs.loc.gov
Missile Defense
Andrew Feickert
7-7673
afeickert@crs.loc.gov
Naval Forces
Ronald O’Rourke
7-7610
rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Weapons
Jonathan Medalia
7-7632
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Peace Operations
Nina Serafino
7-7667
nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Readiness
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Space, Military
Marcia Smith
7-7076
msmith@crs.loc.gov
Louis Fisher
7-8676
lfisher@crs.loc.gov
War Powers
Richard Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview: What the Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills Cover . . . . 1
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Features of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Continued Growth in Military Personnel and in Operation
and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Slower Growth in Procurement and RDT&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-753) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Long-Term Defense Budget Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Key Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Should Ongoing War Costs be Funded in Regular or in
Supplemental Appropriations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Guns versus Butter — 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Military Personnel Pay and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Increases in Active Duty End-Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Navy Shipbuilding — A Budgetary “Ship Wreck”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Retiring an Aircraft Carrier and Reducing the Carrier Force to 11 . . . . . . . 20
C-130J Aircraft Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
F/A-22 Fighter Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Oversight of Programs with Cost Increases and Schedule Delays . . . . . . . . 22
Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Army Modularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Civilian Personnel Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Easing Environmental Regulations Affecting Military Facilities . . . . . . . . 25
New Nuclear Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Women in Combat and Other “Social Issues” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Base Closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CRS Defense Budget Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CRS Defense Budget-Related Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Concurrent Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A: Funding Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

List of Tables
Table 1a. Status of FY2005 Defense Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 1b. Status of FY2005 Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 1. National Defense Budget Authority by Title,
FY2005-FY2006, Administration Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. National Defense Budget Authority and Outlays,
FY2000-FY2010, Administration Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Department of Defense Budget Authority by Title,
FY2005-FY2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Major Program Adjustments in PBD-753 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5. Initial House 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table A1. FY2006 Defense Appropriations by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The House Armed Services Committee began subcommittee markup of the
FY2006 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1815) the week of May 9, 2005. Full
committee markup is scheduled for May 18. The Senate Armed Services Committee
completed marking up its version of the authorization (unnumbered as yet) on May
12. Senate floor action is expected the week of May 23. Also on May 12, the House
Military Quality of Life/VA appropriations subcommittee marked up the FY2006
MQL/VA appropriations bill, which includes funding for military construction,
defense health, and other defense programs, and the House energy and water
subcommittee marked up its bill, which includes funding for nuclear weapons
programs of the Department of Energy.
Overview: What the Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Bills Cover1
Congress provides funding for national defense programs in several annual
appropriations measures, the largest of which is the defense appropriations bill.
Congress also acts every year on a national defense authorization bill, which
authorizes programs funded in several regular appropriations measures. The
authorization bill addresses defense programs in almost precisely the same level of
detail as the defense-related appropriations, and congressional debate about major
defense policy and funding issues often occurs mainly in action on the authorization.
The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of
the Department of Defense (DOD), including pay and benefits of military personnel,
operation and maintenance of weapons and facilities, weapons procurement, and
research and development, as well as for other purposes. Most of the funding in the
bill is for programs administered by the Department of Defense, though the bill also
provides (1) relatively small, unclassified amounts for the Central Intelligence
Agency retirement fund and intelligence community management, (2) classified
amounts for national foreign intelligence activities administered by the CIA and by
other agencies as well as by DOD, and (3) very small amounts for some other
agencies.
1 Because the defense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely related, this
report tracks congressional action on both measures.

---

CRS-2
At the beginning of the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee
undertook a substantial reorganization that moved the Defense Health Program,
environmental restoration programs, and military facilities maintenance accounts
from the jurisdiction of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and placed them
under the jurisdiction of the newly-named Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs Subcommittee. The Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently adopted
a reorganization plan that kept the same accounts within the defense appropriations
bill, though it assigned military construction and veterans affairs programs to a
renamed Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. This report
will continue to track funding levels of the programs moved out of the defense
appropriations bill by the House, as they still fall within both the Department of
Defense and overall National Defense budget functions.
Several other appropriations bills also provide funds for national defense
activities of DOD and other agencies. This report does not generally track
congressional action on defense-related programs in these other appropriations bills,
except for a discussion of action on some Department of Energy nuclear weapons
programs in the energy and water appropriations bill.
Status of Legislation
On April 28, both the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement
on the FY2006 congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95). The budget
resolution recommends an overall level of funding for national defense and allocates
$843 billion to the appropriations committees as the total amount available in
discretionary funds for all regular FY2006 appropriations bills, including defense.
The House Armed Services Committee began subcommittee markup of the
FY2006 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1815, the week of May 9, with full
committee markup scheduled on May 18. The Senate Armed Services Committee
completed full committee markup of its version of the bill (unnumbered as yet) on
May 12.
Table 1a. Status of FY2005 Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
House
Senate
Markup
House
Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public
Passage
Passage
Report
Report
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

---

CRS-3
Table 1b. Status of FY2005 Defense Authorization
Full Committee
Conference Report
House
Markup
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approval
Passage
Public Law
Report
Report Passage Report
House
Senate
House
Senate
5/18/05 5/12/05
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Overview of the Administration Request
On February 7, 2005, the Administration released its FY2006 federal budget
request. The request includes $441.8 billion in new budget authority for national
defense, of which $421.1 billion is for military activities of the Department of
Defense (DOD), $17.5 billion for atomic energy defense activities of the Department
of Energy, and $3.2 billion for defense-related activities of other agencies (see Table
1). The FY2006 request does not include funding for ongoing military operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. On February 14, 2005, the Administration
submitted a supplemental appropriations request for FY2005 that included $74.9
billion for DOD.2
Table 1. National Defense Budget Authority by Title,
FY2005-FY2006, Administration Projection
(billions of current year dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
Estimate
Request
Military Personnel
105.6
111.3
Operation and Maintenance
138.4
148.4
Procurement
78.3
78.0
RDT&E
68.8
69.4
Military Construction
6.1
7.8
Family Housing
4.1
4.2
Other
0.8
1.9
Subtotal, Department of Defense
402.0
421.1
Department of Energy, Defense-Related
18.0
17.5
Other Defense-Related
3.6
3.2
Total, National Defense
423.6
441.8
FY05 Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 109-13)
75.9
Source: Office of Management and Budget and H.R. 1268, as enacted.
2 See CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.

---

CRS-4
The FY2006 request represents an increase of 4.3% over the FY2005 enacted
level (excluding the pending supplemental) in nominal terms, and of 1.9% after
adjusting for inflation. This rate of growth is considerably slower than earlier in the
Bush Administration. Between FY2000 and FY2005, funding for national defense
grew by 38% in nominal terms or about 23% after inflation, an annual inflation-
adjusted growth rate of 4.2%. Administration figures show relatively slow rates of
real growth in the baseline defense budget (excluding supplemental appropriations)
for the next several years (see Table 2).
Table 2. National Defense Budget Authority and Outlays,
FY2000-FY2010, Administration Projection
(current and constant FY2006 dollars in billions)
Budget Authority
Outlays
Constant
Real
Constant
Real
Fiscal
Current
FY2006
Growth/
Current
FY2006
Growth/
Year
Dollars
Dollars
Decline
Dollars
Dollars
Decline
2000
304.1
358.0
+1.4%
294.5
345.2
+4.2%
2001
335.5
383.7
+7.2%
305.5
347.5
+0.7%
2002
362.1
403.1
+5.1%
348.6
386.2
+11.1%
2003
456.2
493.8
+22.5%
404.9
438.8
+13.6%
2004
490.6
516.8
+4.6%
455.9
480.1
+9.4%
2005
423.6
433.5
-16.1%
465.9
476.5
-0.7%
2006
441.8
441.8
+1.9%
447.4
431.3
-6.1%
2007
465.4
454.3
+2.8%
448.9
427.9
-2.1%
2008
483.9
461.0
+1.5%
466.1
435.7
+1.3%
2009
503.8
468.1
+1.5%
487.7
443.2
+2.1%
2010
513.9
465.6
-0.5%
504.8
443.2
+0.9%
Note: Includes supplemental appropriations for FY2000 through FY2004, but does not
include supplemental appropriations for FY2005 and beyond.
Source: CRS calculations based on Office of Management and Budget data and deflators
from the Department of Defense.
Key Features of the Administration Request
Within the defense budget, three aspects of the Administration’s FY2006
request stand out:
! Continued growth in military personnel and in operation and
maintenance costs;
! A slowdown in growth of funding for RDT&E and procurement; and
! Some substantial last-minute changes in projected funding for major
weapons programs when, in December, 2004, the Office of
Management and Budget instructed the Defense Department to trim
a net of $30 billion from the total Defense Department FY2006-
FY2011 six-year plan.

---

CRS-5
Continued Growth in Military Personnel and in Operation and
Maintenance Costs. As Table 1 shows, the FY2006 request for the Department
of Defense is $19.1 billion higher than the FY2005 baseline budget (i.e., excluding
supplemental appropriations). Of that increase, $5.7 billion is for military personnel
and $10.0 billion is for operation and maintenance (O&M). So, over 80% of the
requested DOD increase between FY2005 and FY2006 is for military personnel and
O&M. The growth in personnel and operating accounts reflects an ongoing trend.
Between FY2000 and FY2005, increases in military personnel and operation and
maintenance funding accounted for 60% of the overall, relatively larger increase in
the Department of Defense budget. This still left substantial amounts to boost
weapons acquisition. But as budgets level off, continuing increases in personnel and
operations may limit the new funding available for weapons programs.3
Slower Growth in Procurement and RDT&E. In the FY2006 request, the
Administration proposes $78.0 billion for procurement, a decrease of $300 million
compared to the FY2005 baseline level, and $69.4 billion for RDT&E, an increase
of $600 million. After adjusting for inflation, both represent real reductions in
funding (see Table 3).4 Over the next few years, the Administration plan calls for
only very modest growth in weapons acquisition in the regular defense budget — an
increase in procurement funding is offset by a decline in RDT&E. In all,
procurement plus RDT&E spending increases by 7.3% after adjusting for inflation
over the next six years, about 1.2% per year real growth.
Table 3. Department of Defense Budget Authority by Title, FY2005-FY2011
(discretionary budget authority in billions of constant FY2006 dollars)
Change % Change
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY05-11
FY05-11
Military Personnel
107.2
108.9
108.6
108.6
108.9
109.1
109.1
+1.9
+1.7%
Operation & Maintenance
139.9
147.8
150.5
153.4
155.5
155.7
156.2
+16.3
+11.0%
Procurement
79.7
78.0
89.7
97.3
98.9
102.4
106.9
+27.2
+34.8%
RDT&E
70.2
69.4
65.4
63.8
68.0
63.3
53.8
-16.4
-23.7%
Military Construction
6.1
7.8
12.0
13.0
10.4
9.7
9.8
+3.7
+47.3%
Family Housing
4.2
4.2
3.8
2.9
2.5
2.5
2.4
-1.7
-41.6%
Revolv & Mgmt Fds/Other
2.1
3.2
2.4
1.6
3.6
3.1
5.3
+3.2
+99.2%
Total
409.5
419.3
432.5
440.6
447.8
445.7
443.5
+34.0
+8.1%
Note
Procurement + RDT&E
149.9
147.4
155.1
161.1
166.9
165.7
160.7
+10.8
+7.3%
Note: Does not include supplemental appropriations.
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of Defense data.
3 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges
for FY2006 and Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.
4 It is important to note, however, that the FY2004 and FY2005 supplemental appropriations
bills include large amounts for procurement, especially for the Army, only a small part of
which is to replace combat losses, and the FY2006 supplemental may include additional
procurement funds as well. The FY2004 supplemental provides $5.5 billion for
procurement, the FY2004/FY2005 “bridge” fund in the FY2005 appropriations bill provides
$1.4 billion, and the FY2005 supplemental provides $17.4 billion.

---

CRS-6
One additional point is important to note. The Administration plan also projects
only modest real growth in operation and maintenance of about 1.8% per year over
the next six years, substantially below the historical growth rate of 2.6%. If, as in
the past, projections of O&M savings prove to be too optimistic, then funds may
migrate from acquisition programs into O&M to protect readiness.5
Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-753). The implications of
constraints on weapons funding became rather dramatically apparent in December,
2004, when the Defense Department made a number of significant changes in its
long-term acquisition plans to meet budget targets established by the White House.
In the last few weeks before the President’s FY2006 budget was to be submitted to
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructed the Defense
Department to cut $55 billion from its FY2006-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP). At the same time, OMB told the Pentagon to add $25 billion to the
FY2007-FY2011 Army budget to cover costs of an ongoing reorganization plan,
known as Army Modularization (see below for a further discussion). The net result
was a reduction of $30 billion in the DOD budget over the next six years.
To effect these reductions, DOD issued Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-
753), which prescribed adjustments to be incorporated into the FY2006 budget
submission in order to meet the OMB mandate. Table 4 lists the major program
changes in PBD-753.
As Table 4 shows, the proposed reductions are heavily weighted towards the
out-years — especially FY2009 and FY2010 — and minimized in FY2007. Several
of these cuts have been controversial in Congress, particularly the Navy shipbuilding
reductions and termination of the C-130J. The fate of these and other programs may
be a major focus of congressional attention in action on this year’s defense bills. As
the House Armed Services Committee was beginning to mark up the defense
authorization bills, the Defense Department announced that it had decided not to
terminate C-130J production.
5 Ibid.

---

CRS-7
Table 4. Major Program Adjustments in PBD-753
(millions of dollars)
Program
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
TOTALS
Virginia Class
+64.3
-299.9
-482.1
-2,077.7
-1,482.7
-994.6
-5,272.7
Submarine
DD(X) Destroyer
—
+115.3
+78.6
-1,728.2
-1,240.0
+196.0
-2,578.3
Carrier Retirement
134.3
-157.3
-288.3
-276.4
-304.3
-306.5
-1,198.5
LPD-17
+140.0
+284.8
-1,200.0
-51.7
-126.0
—
-952.9
Amphibious Ship
V-22 Osprey
-275.4
-504.3
-425.7
-88.1
+21.5
+19.0
-1,253.0
C-130J Cargo
-25.7
-431.1
-753.4
-1,215.9
-1,306.7
-1,263.7
-4,996.5
Plane
F/A-22 Fighter
—
-2.0
-11.0
-3,919.0
-3,711.0
-2,830.0
-10,473.0
Joint Common
-271.3
-209.7
-350.1
-454.8
-518.0
-568.9
-2,372.8
Missile (JCM)
Missile Defense
-1,000.0
-800.0
-800.0
-800.0
-800.0
-800.0
-5,000.0
Transformational
-200.0
-200.0
—
—
—
—
-400.0
Satellite (TSAT)
Space Based Radar
-16.0
+15.0
-64.0
+143.0
+171.0
+343.0
+592.0
E-10A Aircraft
-300.0
-300.0
—
—
—
—
-600.0
Contractor Support
-2,000.0
-2,000.0
-2,000.0
-2,000.0
-2,000.0
-2,000.0
-12,000.0
Army Business
-1,500.0
-1,500.0
-1,500.0
—
—
—
-4,500.0
Reengineering
WMD
+295.0
+322.0
+453.0
+439.0
+371.0
+218.0
+2,098.0
Countermeasures
Army Modularity
—
+5,000.0
+5,000.0
+5,000.0
+5,000.0
+5,000.0
+25,000.0
Other Changes
-1,030.2
-452.7
-978.8
-1,326.1
-1,438.3
-865.7
-6,091.8
TOTAL
-5,985.0
-1,119.9
-3,321.8
-8,355.9
-7,363.5
-3,853.4
-29,999.5
Note: Negative (-) amounts represent proposed cuts, positive (+) amounts represent proposed adds.
Long-Term Defense Budget Challenges
Over the next several years, the defense budget will be under a considerable
amount of pressure due to several long-term trends. These include
! Relatively moderate rates of growth in defense spending in
Administration budget projections and continued downward pressure
on the budget due to efforts to constrain budget deficits;
! Recent large increases in military personnel costs that have made
uniformed personnel more than 30% more expensive than in 1999;
! Continued growth in operation and maintenance costs;
! Cost growth in a number of major weapons programs and recent cuts
in major weapons due to budget constraints; and
! new perceptions of threats to U.S. security that may lead the
Pentagon to alter its budget priorities substantially.

---

CRS-8
Taken together, these trends pose some potentially daunting, though by no
means unprecedented, challenges for Congress and the Defense Department in
shaping the defense budget. These issues are reviewed in CRS Report RL32877,
Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and Beyond, by Stephen
Daggett. Though Congress seldom addresses these matters directly, long-term
budget pressures underlie many of the issues that Congress will grapple with this
year.
Key Issues for Congress
Last year, the paramount issue in congressional debate about the FY2005
defense budget was whether Congress should provide funding for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan before early in calendar year 2005, when the Bush Administration
said it planned to request supplemental appropriations. Ultimately, as a separate title
of the FY2005 defense appropriations bill, Congress provided $25 billion for ongoing
operations as a bridge until it could act on FY2005 supplemental funding after the
turn of the year. And most recently, Congress has approved an additional $76 billion
in supplemental appropriations to cover the remainder of FY2005.6
With action barely completed on FY2005 funding, advance funding for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has again become an issue as Congress takes up
the FY2006 budget. So far, in the FY2006 congressional budget resolution,
H.Con.Res. 95, Congress specifically exempted $50 billion in emergency spending
for military contingency operations from a potential point of order in the Senate. But
this does not limit the amount Congress may provided this year for Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2006. While the budget resolution specifically sets aside $50
billion, it also exempts any amount for military contingency operations from
spending limits in the House and any amount for any defense purpose in the Senate
(see below for a detailed discussion). As Congress takes up the FY2006
authorization and appropriations bills, the question is whether to provide another
bridge fund for operations in FY2006, and, if so, how much, or whether, perhaps,
to provide the full estimated costs.
A number of other issues also have been on the agenda in Congress this year,
including,
! Whether the appropriations committees should trim defense in order
to curtail cuts in non-defense discretionary programs;
! Whether Congress should provide additional military personnel
benefits, including (1) greater access to DOD-provided health
insurance for non-deployed military reservists and their dependents
and (2) permanently increased death gratuities and insurance;
! Whether Congress should require a substantial increase in active
duty end-strength, particularly in the Army, to ease pressures on the
force caused by operations abroad;
6 See CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.

---

CRS-9
! Whether Congress should increase funding for navy shipbuilding or
should approve advance appropriations or other novel funding
mechanisms;
! Whether Congress should accept or reject Administration plans to
retire an aircraft carrier and reduce the number of deployable carriers
from 12 to 11;
! Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination of C-
130J cargo aircraft procurement (which the Administration has
recently withdrawn);
! Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination, after
FY2008, of F/A-22 fighter procurement;
! How Congress should exercise oversight over a number of major
weapons programs in which cost have grown or development has
been delayed, including the Army Future Combat System, missile
defense, the multi-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and a number of
space-launch and satellite systems;
! Whether Congress should restructure priorities in the
Administration’s missile defense development program;
! How the Army plans to manage and to finance a far-reaching
reorganization of its combat forces to increase the number of
deployable combat brigades and to turn brigades, rather than
divisions, into the major unit of action in future operations;
! Whether Congress should take steps to regulate the Defense
Department’s restructuring its civilian personnel system following
Congress’s approval in the FY2004 National Defense Authorization
Act of the Pentagon’s request for broad authority to reform civil
service pay and performance rules;
! Whether Congress should approve the Defense Department’s request
for changes in environmental laws and regulations governing
military training in addition to changes Congress in the FY2004
defense authorization;
! Whether Congress should approve Department of Energy plans to
study new nuclear weapons, including the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, and should establish guidelines for the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program;
! Whether Congress should require changes in DOD policies affecting
a number of “social issues,” including the deployment of women in
combat support units, abortions at military facilities abroad, and
handling of sexual abuse cases;
! Whether Congress should take any action to restrict military base
closures, even as the a formal base closure process is beginning; and
! Whether Congress should take any action on a number of other
issues, including treatment of military detainees, acquisition of
tanker aircraft, and strengthening of defense “Buy American”
requirements.
The following discussion provides background information on each of these issues
and discusses congressional action to date.

---

CRS-10
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
The FY2006 defense budget request does not include funding for ongoing
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration submitted a
supplemental FY2005 budget request to Congress on February 14, 2005, a week after
it submitted its regular FY2006 budget, and Congress agreed to provide $76 billion
for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in FY2005. The FY2006 regular
request, however, covers only DOD’s normal peacetime funding requirements.
Administration officials have said they again plan to request funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2006 in a supplemental appropriations measure to be submitted
early next year. This may be a key issue in Congress this year.
Should Ongoing War Costs be Funded in Regular or in
Supplemental Appropriations? The central issue is whether Congress should
continue to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with supplemental
appropriations or move these costs into the regular defense budget. Critics of using
supplementals argue that the monthly costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
have long since become predictable and therefore belong in the regular defense
budget. They have also expressed concern about what appears to some to be an
increasing number of programs being financed in the supplemental but that do not
fall within what is directly related to costs of ongoing operations including costs of
reorganizing the Army and some weapons acquisition.7 Critics complain, finally, that
because supplemental legislation tends to move through Congress quickly, there is
little time for Congress to exercise oversight, and supplementals are not subject to
review by the authorizing committees.
The Administration continues to favor the use of supplementals to fund military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for a number of reasons. Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld has argued that “Supplemental appropriations are prepared much closer to
the time the funds are needed....This allows for somewhat more accurate estimates
of costs [than in the regular budget cycle], and more importantly, quicker access to
the needed funds.”8
The Administration has also argued that if costs for Iraq and Afghanistan were
included in the regular budget, they would be difficult to remove once operations
ceased. On February 9, 2005, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director
Joshua Bolten told the Senate Budget Committee that “as a budgeting matter, it is
very important that we not let [war costs] float into the base, because then I think we
will have been fiscally irresponsible in not preventing those costs from being
permanently in the defense base.”9
7 Senator John McCain, quoted in Inside the Army, “Lawmakers Question Proposed FY2006
Budget, Calling Request ‘Skewed’”, February 14, 2005.
8 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services
Committee, February 16, 2005.
9 Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten, testifying before the Senate
Budget Committee, February 9, 2005.

---

CRS-11
One element of the debate is what precedents earlier operations provide. In
2003, a CRS memo reported that the initial funding for most conflicts — from World
War II, to Korea, to Vietnam, to the 1991 Persian Gulf War — was generally
provided through supplemental appropriations.10 That memo did not, however,
address funding for wars after the initial phases. On that question, the precedents are
mixed. While the Korean conflict was financed mainly with supplementals, World
War II and Vietnam were funded both with supplementals and with regular
appropriations. In Vietnam, the Administration first asked for a $700 million
supplemental for FY1965 in May of 1965; then for a $1.7 billion addition to the
regular FY1966 defense appropriations bill, which was requested as a budget
amendment in the summer of 1965; and then, in January of 1966, as troop levels in
Southeast Asia were climbing, a supplemental of $12.3 billion for FY1966 and
regular appropriations of $10.3 billion for FY1967, both requested when the FY1967
budget was submitted.
So, in the case of Vietnam, the Johnson Administration asked for emergency
supplementals when necessary, but also requested funds in regular appropriations
bills as soon as those bills were on the congressional agenda, even though troop
levels were in flux and the duration of the conflict could not be foreseen.
Most recently, CRS reviewed precedents for funding of ongoing military
contingency operations in the 1990s. CRS reported that in action on the FY1996
defense appropriations bill, Congress, on its own initiative, decided to include
funding for ongoing operations in Southwest Asia in regular appropriations bills
rather than in supplementals, and it directed the Administration to request funding
for ongoing military operations in regular bills in the future. Subsequently, in the
FY1997 defense budget and in later requests, the Clinton Administration included
funding for ongoing operations, including operations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia, and
Kosovo, in the regular defense budget.11
Congressional action. In floor debate on the FY2005 supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, Senator Byrd offered an amendment, SA 464,
expressing the sense of the Senate that funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
after FY2006 should be requested and appropriated in regular annual funding bills.
The amendment passed by a vote of 61-31 on April 28, 2005. Notably, Senator
Stevens, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator
Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, both supported the
amendment.
If Senator Warner and Senator Stevens subsequently choose to propose funding
for Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular FY2006 defense bills, there appear to be no
procedural hurdles in the way. Funding caps in the FY2006 congressional budget
10 CRS Congressional Distribution Memo, “Budgeting for Wars in the Past,” March 27,
2003, by Stephen Daggett.
11 CRS Congressional Distribution Memo, “Funding for Military Contingency Operations
in the Regular Defense Appropriations Bills in the 1990s,” April 6, 2005, by Stephen
Daggett. See also CRS Report RL32141, Funding for Military and Peacekeeping
Operations: Recent History and Precedents, by Jeff Chamberlin.

---

CRS-12
resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, do not appear to be a barrier. To be permissible in view
of caps on overall discretionary spending established by the budget resolution, the
appropriations bills would have to designate funding for operations abroad as either
as “defense emergency appropriations” (in the Senate) or as funding for “contingency
operations in support of the global war on terrorism” (in the House and, for up to $50
billion, in the Senate).
The budget resolution allows a point of order to be made against a provision in
an appropriations bill that designates funds as an “emergency” unless the funding
meets certain restrictive criteria. To constitute an emergency, under §402 (c) funding
must be
(A) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial);
(B) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time;
(C) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;
(D) .... unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(E) not permanent, temporary in nature.12
Presumably, a point of order could apply against funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
under that provision.
But other sections of the budget resolution essentially void that possibility.
Under §402(a), in the House, if funding is designated as being for “contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism,” then caps on spending do not
apply. Under §402(b)(11), in the Senate, up to $50 billion for contingency operations
in support of the global war on terrorism is specifically exempted from spending
caps. That would appears to limit additional funding for Iraq and Afghanistan to $50
billion. But under §402(b)(10) any discretionary appropriations for defense
designated as emergency appropriations are exempted from a point of order, which
makes the $50 billion figure moot.
So the budget resolution provides no specific restriction on the amounts that
may be appropriated for military operations abroad — the spending limits that the
resolution establishes do not apply to additional funds for that purpose.
That said, in its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the Senate
Armed Services Committee provided $50 billion in additional funding for operations
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Guns versus Butter — 302(b) Allocations
Last year, for the first time in many years, Congress debated a high-profile
proposal to trim defense spending as part of broader efforts to reduce the federal
budget deficit. In the Senate, the Budget Committee reported a budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 95) that recommended $7 billion less for defense than the
Administration had requested. On the floor, however, the Senate voted
overwhelmingly to restore the funds by a margin of 95-4. In the House, Budget
12 H.Con.Res. 95, §402 (c).

---

CRS-13
Committee Chairman Jim Nussle considered but then dropped a proposal to
recommend $2 billion less for defense than the Administration requested.
But even though the FY2005 budget resolution did not recommend a reduction,
in the end, appropriators trimmed about $2 billion from the Administration request
in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4613. P.L. 108-287), making that
amount available partly for other defense bills, including military construction, and
partly for non-defense programs. This has been a recurring process. The
appropriations committee defense cuts in FY2005 did not go as far in FY2004, when
the committee rescinded $3.5 billion in funds in the regular FY2004 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2658, P.L. 108-87) and another $1.8 billion in the FY2004
omnibus appropriations measure (H.R. 2673, P.L. 108-199) as means of offsetting
funding in non-defense bills. The $1.8 billion rescission in the omnibus bill,
however, was later restored in the emergency funding title of the FY2005 defense
appropriations bill.
This year the debate on the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) did not
feature a face-to-face showdown over defense spending like the one last year. But,
again, as last year and as in the FY2004 budget, in the end, overall deficit pressures
may lead the appropriations committees to trim defense as a means of moderating
cuts in non-defense programs needed to keep within caps on total discretionary
spending.13 Budget constraints may well become progressively more severe over the
next few years.14
Congressional action. Under Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act, the annual congressional budget resolution must specify the total amount of
discretionary funds available to the appropriations committees. The committees are
then required by Section 302(b) to report back how those funds will be allocated
among the various subcommittees. These reports, thus, are known as the “302(b)
allocations.” Budget limits are enforced by establishing a point of order against a
reported bill or an amendment to a bill that would exceed each subcommittee’s
302(b) allocation, though the full appropriations committees may, and often do,
revise the allocations over the course of the year. So the 302(b) allocations are a
critical part of the appropriations process that determine how much will be available
in total for each bill.
The FY2006 congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) provides a 302(a)
allocation to the appropriations committees of $843.02 billion. On May 5, House
Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis released his proposed initial 302(b)
allocations (see Table 5). For the defense subcommittee, the allocation is $363.44
billion, which is $3.28 billion below the Administration request for programs under
the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. For the military quality of life/veterans affairs
subcommittee, the allocation is $85.158 billion, which is $1.05 billion above the
request. The 302(b) allocations do not determine how the funds will be divided
among programs under each subcommittee, so some of the extra money for the
13 See Andrew Taylor, “Lewis May Shift Defense Spending,” CQ Today, April 26, 2005.
14 See CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and
Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.

---

CRS-14
MQL/VA subcommittee could be for the Department of Defense and some for the
Department of Veterans Affairs. The allocations allow about $2.9 billion more for
non-defense programs than the request — in effect, roughly $3 billion is shifted from
defense to non-defense programs.
Table 5. Initial House 302(b) Allocations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
Allocation
Allocation
Enacted
Request
Allocation
vs FY2005 vs Request
Defense
352,424
366,720
363,440
+11,016
-3,280
[Less rescissions and other savers]
[5,164]
[ — ]
[5,000]
[-164]
[+5,000]
[Defense program level]
[357,588]
[366,720]
[368,440]
[+10,852]
[+1,720]
Military Quality of Life/VA
79,279
84,108
85,158
+5,879
+1,050
Other Subcommittees
387,578
391,475
394,422
+6,844
+2,947
Total discretionary spending
819,281
842,303
843,020
+23,739
+717
Source: House Appropriations Committee, May 5, 2005.
In releasing it’s initial allocations, however, the House Appropriations
Committee made one key argument about the defense total. The allocation to the
defense subcommittee assumes that the defense appropriations bill will include $5
billion of rescissions of prior year defense funds which can be applied to offset
increases in FY2006 programs in the defense appropriations bill. If so, the $3.28
billion cut from the request would be more than offset by rescissions, and there
would be room for a $1.72 billion increase in actual programs.
Others may quibble with this argument. One quibble is that there are often
rescissions of prior year funds in all appropriations bills, and they are normally
applied as offsets to increases in new funds elsewhere in each bill. In effect, the
initial House 302(b) allocations require that defense rescissions be available partly
to offset increases in total non-defense appropriations compared to the
Administration’s request. A different quibble is that defense rescissions may later
be “backfilled” by increased emergency supplemental appropriations later in the
process. The FY2004 omnibus appropriations bill, for example, rescinded $1.8
billion in prior year defense funds to offset non-defense amounts. The
Iraq/Afghanistan emergency funding provisions of the FY2005 defense
appropriations bill, however, repealed the rescission. So, in effect, emergency
defense appropriations were used to offset increased FY2004 non-defense funding.
Military Personnel Pay and Benefits
Beginning in 1999 and continuing through last year, Congress has repeatedly
enhanced retirement, health, and other benefits for military personnel, sometimes
with Administration support and sometime over its objections. Benefit increases
have included

---

CRS-15
! “TRICARE for Life,” which provides full medical coverage to
Medicare-eligible military retirees;
! concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability
benefits for those with a 50% or greater disability;
! repeal of a 1986 law that reduced retirement benefits for new
military enlistees;
! a phased-in plan to fully offset off-base housing costs;
! and increased imminent danger pay and family separation
allowances.
Last year, Congress approved two additional measures — a program to provide
health insurance to deactivated reservists for a period of time if they agree to reenlist
and elimination of a provision that reduced benefits to survivors of military retirees
after the survivors qualified for Social Security at age 62. Collectively, the measures
enacted since 1999, along with substantial military pay raises, have increased the cost
of active duty military personnel by more than 30% above inflation since 1999.15
This year, again, a number of proposals to improve military personnel benefits
have been on the agenda, and others may arise. In particular, Congress may renew
last year’s debate over health benefits for military reservists. In the FY2005
authorization, Congress approved a program to provide federal health insurance for
specified periods of time to families of deactivated reservists who reenlist. Congress
rejected proposals to guarantee access to health insurance for all reservists. This
issue may come up again this year.
Congressional action. In the FY2005 supplemental appropriations bill
(H.R. 1268), Congress approved a permanent increase to $100,000 in the death
gratuity for service members killed the line of duty, made retroactive to October 7,
2001; a payment of $150,000 to survivors of service members killed in combat zones
since October 7, 2001; and an increase in the maximum amount of insurance for
service members from $250,000 to $400,000. These provisions apply only through
September 30, 2005, however.
In action on the supplemental, the Senate also approved a measure to make up
any loss in pay for federal employees who are called to active duty as members of the
military reserves. The House, however, did not include such a provision, and the
conference agreement rejects the Senate measure. This issue may come up again in
action on the FY2006 defense bills.
In its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services
Committee provided a permanent increase in the death gratuity to $100,000 and in
the maximum life insurance benefit to $400,000.
15 See CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and
Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.

---

CRS-16
Increases in Active Duty End-Strength
For the past two years, there has been a vigorous debate, both within Congress
and between the Congress and the Defense Department, about the size of the Army
and the Marine Corps. Many legislators have argued that the Army, especially, is
being stretched very thin by the need to rotate troops into Iraq, and that the number
of ground troops should be increased substantially. In last year’s defense
authorization bill (H.R. 4200, P.L. 108-375), Congress increased statutory Army end-
strength by 20,000 and Marine Corps end-strength by 3,000 in FY2005, and,
importantly, it established the increased totals as legal minimums. The final bill also
authorized, but did not mandate, additional increases of 10,000 in the Army and
6,000 in the Marine Corps over the next four years — it did not set them as
minimums.
Although the Administration opposed the congressionally mandated end-
strength increases, in substance, the provision did not have much effect. Ever since
the Iraq war began, the Defense Department has used standing authority to waive
earlier end-strength limits. And officials have said that they intend to keep an
additional 30,000 active duty troops in the force through FY2006, in part to fill out
units rotating to Iraq and in part as a buffer while the Army carries out a
reorganization that will increase the number of deployable combat units. So the
Defense Department was already planning to keep more additional troops in service
than Congress mandated. Moreover, Congress has not objected to funding the
additional troops with supplemental appropriations, as the Administration has
requested.
The underlying issue, however, is quite substantive, and it has very large long-
term budget implications — a rule of thumb is that an increase of 10,000 troops adds
at least $1 billion a year in personnel costs, not including costs of equipping
additional units. The Defense Department sees the added 30,000 troops as a
temporary measure. Many legislators, however, believe that the size of the Army and
Marine Corps, and even of the Navy and Air Force, should increase even more and
that the increases should be permanent. In Congress so far this year, Senators Reed,
Hagel, McCain, Kerry and others have proposed a measure (S. 530) that would add
30,000 troops to the Army and 5,000 to the Marine Corps in FY2006, in addition to
the troops added in FY2005. In the House, Representatives Tauscher, Skelton, and
others have proposed a measure (H.R. 1666) to add 30,000 to the Army, 12,000 to
the Marine Corps, 2,000 to the Navy, and 1,000 to the Air Force in FY2006, also in
addition to the FY2005 increases. Some outside groups have proposed adding as
many as 25,000 troops per year to the force for the next several years.16
Since the proposed increases in FY2006 go far beyond the 30,000 added troops
the Pentagon currently has in the force, the issues is no longer moot, and the debate
is about, in effect, permanent, substantial, and costly increases in the overall size of
the force. This the Administration strongly resists. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,
in particular, has opposed permanent increases, arguing that much can be done, and
16 Edward Epstein, “Support Grows For Beefing Up U.S. Forces,” San Francisco Chronicle,
April 4, 2005, Pg. 1

---

CRS-17
is already underway, to restructure forces to make up for the number of troops needed
to fill out deployable combat units. Among other things, Rumsfeld wants to
restructure the Army to reduce non-combat positions and shift personnel into the
combat arms. Moreover, the Pentagon has been attempting to transfer substantial
numbers of jobs from military to civilian positions. The Administration argues that
these measures should be fully implemented before coming to any conclusions about
permanently adding to military end-strength.
Congressional action. In subcommittee markup of the defense
authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee’s personnel subcommittee
added 10,000 in end-strength to the Army and 1,000 to the Marine Corps in FY2006.
In its markup, the Senate Armed Services Committee added 20,000 to Army end-
strength in FY2006.
Navy Shipbuilding — A Budgetary “Ship Wreck”?
The Navy’s FY2006 request includes funding for just four new ships —
! one Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine,
! one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS),
! one LPD-17-class amphibious transport ship, and
! one T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo ship.
Last year, the Navy’s plan for FY2006 called for six ships. In addition, in December
2004, in order to meet budget limits established by the Office of Management in
Budget, the Defense Department announced some longer-term changes in Navy
shipbuilding in Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-753). Specifically PBD-753
! reduced the planned procurement rate of DD(X) destroyers in
FY2007-FY2011 to one per year;
! cut planned Virginia-class submarine production in FY2006-FY2011
to one per year rather than increasing to two per year starting in
FY2009;
! eliminated funds for an LPD-17 amphibious ship from the FY2008
plan; and
! delayed by one year to FY2008 planned procurement of a new
aircraft carrier, CVN-21.
The four-ship FY2006 request falls far short of the annual procurement rate the
Navy has, in the past, said is needed to maintain the size of the fleet. The math is
straightforward. Assuming an average service life of 35 years for each ship, a Navy
of 300 ships requires building 300 ÷ 35 = 8.6 ships per year on average. Recently the
Navy has tried to get away from judging its needs on the basis of numbers of ships,
saying that capabilities, rather than numbers, are what matters. But that argument has
not been persuasive in Congress, and, recently, the Navy responded to a
congressionally mandated requirement that it provide an estimate of long-term

---

CRS-18
shipbuilding requirements with a report that showed two alternatives for FY2035,
one with 260 ships and one with 325 ships.17
Planned production appears to lead closer to the lower end of that range, if that
much. Projected production rates grow over the next few years, but only because the
Navy plans to ramp up production of the relatively small Littoral Combat Ship to five
per year by FY2009. Retiring Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vernon Clark, has
pointed to long-term rising shipbuilding costs as the main reason for the Navy’s
difficulties.18
Many Members of Congress, particularly from shipbuilding states, have
expressed alarm about the low rate of Navy shipbuilding. A particular issue has been
a Navy proposal, which was deferred by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, to hold a winner-take-all competition between the two surface
combatant construction shipyards for the right to build all DD(X) destroyers, rather
than to divide the ships between two yards, as for DDG-51 destroyers. Legislators
fear that one shipyard would be forced to close under such a strategy.19
One possible response is for Congress to increase the FY2006 shipbuilding
budget by shifting funds from other programs. Navy officials and some legislators
have also discussed using alternative funding mechanisms for Navy ships as a means
of allowing more new ship construction to start within a limited budget. Defense
acquisition guidelines generally require “full funding” of weapons procurement —
appropriations are required to be sufficient to finance the number of complete,
useable end items of systems Congress has approved.20 There are alternatives to the
full funding policy, however, and these are now being discussed actively for Navy
shipbuilding.
One possibility, which Congress has used for some ships in the past, is partial
or “split” funding, in which Congress appropriates only part of the money needed to
complete a ship and plans to appropriate the remainder in future years. Another is
advance appropriations, in which Congress appropriates funds for the full cost of a
ship, but delays its availability until the start of the next fiscal year. While these
alternative funding mechanisms may smooth out annual Navy shipbuilding numbers,
17 See Department of the Navy, “An Interim Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range
Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2006,” March 2005.
18 See Statement of Admiral Vernon Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the
Senate Armed Services Committee,10 February 2005, pp. 20-21, available on line at
[http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2005/February/Clark%2002-10-05.pdf].
19 See CRS Report RS21059, Navy DD(X) and CG(X) Programs: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and CRS Report RL32109, Navy DD(X), CG(X), and
LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke.
20 See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy — Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen Daggett.

---

CRS-19
they will not allow significantly more ships to be procured, and they may simply
trade a budget problem this year for at least equally severe problems in the future.21
Congressional action. Shipbuilding promises to be one of the key issues
in Congress this year. During Senate consideration of the FY2006 congressional
budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18), Senator Warner proposed an amendment, SA 146,
to increase the resolution’s limit on the total amount of advance appropriations by
$14 billion and to allow advance appropriations to be used for Navy shipbuilding.
The amendment was never brought up on the floor, however, and the conference
report on the budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, does not provide an increase in the
original limit on advance appropriations, though it includes Navy shipbuilding in a
list of accounts for which advance appropriations may be provided in the Senate.
Congress may still provide advance appropriations for ships, but only if other
advance appropriations are reduced, or if there is no objection in the Senate, or if 60
Senators vote to waive the limit.
Later, in the version of supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268) that the
Senate Appropriations Committee reported to the floor, the committee included a
provision that prohibits funds made available in the supplemental or in any prior
Acts, to be used to implement a winner-take-all strategy to acquire the DD(X). The
conference agreement included the Senate measure.
In subcommittee markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the House
Armed Services Committee subcommittee on projection forces took a number of
dramatic steps to restructure Navy shipbuilding. The subcommittee added funds for
three additional ships, including $2.5 billion for 2 DDG-51 destroyers and $384
million for an additional T-AKE dry cargo ship. The subcommittee also provided
$418 million to begin construction of a new LHA(R) amphibious assault ship. The
subcommittee also took steps to rein in the cost of new ships. Most significantly, it
imposed a cost ceiling of $1.7 billion on what it calls the “next generation surface
combatant.” Assuming this applies to the DD(X), then it means that the Navy will
have to design a less costly substitute destroyer. The subcommittee also put a cost
cap on the LHA(R), and it required the Navy to develop a next-generation submarine
that, presumably, will cost less than Virginia-class boats.22
In contrast, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not radically restructure
Navy shipbuilding. In its markup of the FY2006 authorization, the committee added
$175 million in partial funding for the LHA(R) ship, but otherwise did not increase
the number of ships being built in FY2006. The committee also authorized CVN-21
construction to begin in FY2007, the plan last year, rather than in FY2008, as the
Navy now plans. Regarding the DD(X), the committee indicated its continuing
support for the program by adding $50 million for advance procurement of a second
ship, and it provided that the funds are for production at a second shipyard. The
21 For a full discussion see CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding
Approaches — Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
22 House Armed Services Committee, Projection Forces Subcommittee, Press Release,
“House Projection Forces Subcommittee Mark Approved Unanimously Without
Amendment for FY 06 National Defense Authorization Act,” May 11, 2005.

---

CRS-20
committee specifically prohibited a “winner-take-all” acquisition strategy for the
DD(X).
Retiring an Aircraft Carrier and Reducing the Carrier Force to
11
PBD-753 not only trimmed the long-term Navy shipbuilding plan, it also
proposed retiring the USS Kennedy, one of two conventionally-powered aircraft
carriers still in service. This would reduce the number of carriers in the fleet from
12 to 11. The Navy insists that it would still be able to meet its overseas stationing
requirements and its requirements to surge forces in a crisis. Like the Navy
shipbuilding cuts, the proposal to retire the Kennedy, which is based in Florida, has
been controversial in Congress. One element of the debate is whether it is wise to
retire a conventionally powered ship, since the United States has long deployed one
carrier in Japan, and Japan has objected to visits by nuclear-powered ships in the
past. The Navy’s other conventionally-powered carrier, the Kitty Hawk, is scheduled
for retirement in FY2008.23
Congressional action. In floor action on the FY2005 supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, the Senate approved (by 58-38 on April 20, 2005) an
amendment by Senator Warner, SA 498, requiring that funds provided to the Navy
in the supplemental be available for repair and maintenance to extend the service life
of the Kennedy and that prohibits funds in the supplemental to be used to reduce the
number of aircraft carriers below 12 until the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
is submitted to Congress. The QDR is required no later than February of next year.
The conference agreement approved the measure with minor changes. An
amendment that would have applied these restrictions to funding provided in prior
acts was ruled out of order, and the issue may well come up again in action on
FY2006 bills.
In its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the Senate Armed
Services Committee directed the Navy to retain 12 carriers until 180 days after the
completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review and also directed the Navy to
perform maintenance and repair of the USS John F. Kennedy to extend the life of the
ship.
C-130J Aircraft Termination
PBD-753 proposed some other cuts in major weapons programs. One decision,
though it has now been reversed, was to terminate procurement of the C-130J cargo
plane after purchasing 12 more KC-130J variants for the Marine Corps in FY2006.
C-130 aircraft are a mainstay of U.S. airlift fleet. The C-130J is a new variant, with
substantially greater capabilities, but which has had significant problems in meeting
operational requirements. Both the DOD Inspector General and the DOD Director
of Operational Testing have issued reports that are quite critical of current safety and
mission performance of the aircraft, and it is now being used in only restricted roles.
23 See CRS Report RL32731, Navy Aircraft Carriers: Proposed Retirement of USS John F.
Kennedy — Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

---

CRS-21
The decision to terminate C-130J procurement was controversial in Congress.
The C-130 has historically had support not only from Georgia, where it is produced,
but from advocates of Air National Guard units all over the country where the aircraft
is deployed. For its part, the Defense Department from the start appeared somewhat
less firm in its determination to terminate the C-130J than on other PBD-753
decisions. Shortly after the budget request was formally released in February, senior
Pentagon officials said that the Department planned to review its C-130J decision in
the course of examining overall air lift requirements.24 Finally, just as the House
Armed Services Committee was beginning subcommittee markup of the FY2006
defense authorization, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld sent a letter to Congress
reversing the decision to terminate the production.
Congressional action. In floor action on the FY2005 supplemental (H.R.
1268) the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Chambliss to prohibit any
funds provided in the act from being used to terminate the C/KC-130J contract. The
Pentagon’s decision not to terminate C-130J production, however, leaves unresolved
how to divided up FY2006 funding between the Marine Corps KC-130J variant and
the Air Force C-130J.
It its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services
Committee reduced Marine KC-130J procurement from the 12 requested to 4 and
shifted $735 million to the Air Force to buy 9 C-130J airlift aircraft.
F/A-22 Fighter Termination
PBD-753 also proposed terminating production of the Air Force F/A-22 fighter
after FY2008. This would stop the program after about 180 aircraft have been
produced. Air Force budget plans after FY2008 included funds for 96 additional
aircraft, and the Air Force wanted more — it’s latest goal was about 381. The Air
Force has also been discussing additional aircraft, modified substantially for bombing
missions.
The F/A-22 has been the Air Force’s top priority program.25 It is designed to be
the best air superiority fighter aircraft in the world in the future. Air Force officials
have continued to argue against the cuts, insisting that the whole issue should be
reviewed in the QDR. But officials outside the Air Force have so far provided little
encouragement.
Congressional action. While there has been some opposition to the F/A-22
cuts in Congress, so far there have been no related legislative proposals. The planned
cuts in funding for the program, however, do not begin until the FY2008 budget, and
production ceases only in FY2009, so there remains some time to consider the
program’s fate.
24 Dave Ahearn, “C-130J May Gain New Lease On Life: Rumsfeld,” Defense Today,
February 17, 2005.
25 For an overview of the program and a review of key issues, see CRS Report RL31673,
F/A-22 Raptor, by Christopher Bolkcom.

---

CRS-22
Oversight of Programs with Cost Increases and Schedule
Delays
A perennial issue for Congress is what to do about programs that have
consistently and repeatedly been delayed or in which costs have grown substantially
beyond original projections. Sometimes Congress has intervened to reduce or
restructure funding for such programs. At other times, it has held oversight hearings
to determine whether problems are under control.
Navy ships are certainly not the only troubled programs in the defense budget.
Delays and cost growth have plagued a number of high profile weapons programs in
recent years, including the F/A-22 aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,26 and a
several satellite and space launch programs, including the Space-Based Infrared
System-High (SBIRS-High), the Space Surveillance and Tracking System (SSTS,
which was formerly SBIRS-Low),27 the Transformational Communications Satellite
(TSAT), the Space Based Radar (now called the Space Radar), and the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). Costs of the Army’s multi-faceted Future
Combat System have also been climbing, and the General Accounting Office has
raised questions about the maturity of technologies being pursued.28
Last year, Congress cut requested funding for TSAT by $300 million, a 39%
reduction, requiring the Air Force to restructure the program, and it cut requested
funding for the Space Based Radar by $253 million, a 77% reduction, essentially
terminating the development effort. This year, the Defense Department has again
asked for funding both for TSAT and for the renamed Space Radar.
Congressional action. The Senate Armed Services Committee Airland
Subcommittee, chaired by Senator McCain, has held a number of hearings on the
Army Future Combat System (FCS). Recently the Army announced that it was
planning to revise the type of contract under which the FCS was being developed.
It will use a more traditional contract to which standard acquisition regulations will
apply.
In initial House Armed Services Committee subcommittee markup, the FCS, in
particular, has reportedly been cut significantly. In effect, the FCS and some other
programs that Congress considers to be suffering from problems may end up being
“bill payers” for increases in Navy shipbuilding and some other accounts. In
contrast, in its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate Armed
Services Committee approved the full $3.4 billion requested for FCS.
26 See CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status,
and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.
27 See CRS Report RS21148, Military Space Programs: Issues Concerning DOD’s SBIRS
and STSS Programs, by Marcia S. Smith.
28 See CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.

---

CRS-23
Missile Defense
Missile defense is the largest acquisition program in the Defense Department’s
current six-year plan, with a projected budget of more than $60 billion over the
FY2006-FY2011 period. The Administration is requesting $8.7 billion for missile
defense acquisition in FY2006. PBD-753 directed the missile defense agency to
reduce planned funding by $5 billion over the six-year period, with a cut of $1 billion
in FY2006 and $800 million per year each year thereafter. As a result, there have
been some significant changes in the long-term development plan. In FY2006, the
biggest reduction is in funding for a program known as the Ballistic Missile Defense
System Interceptor, a program to develop a high-acceleration booster and warhead
known as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). Congress trimmed funding for the
KEI last year, and some have questioned whether a program aimed, in large part, at
allowing interceptors to destroy enemy missiles in the boost phase is practical at all.
KEI funding remains in future budget plans, however.
Missile defense is often a matter of debate in Congress. A key issue recently has
been whether the testing program is adequate. In December, 2002, the White House
announced a decision to accelerate deployment of an initial, limited-capability,
ground-based interceptor system to be operational by the fall of 2004. The Missile
Defense Agency is currently in the process of deploying 20 interceptor missiles in
Alaska and, for test purposes, in California, but the Defense Department has not yet
declared the system operational. Recent tests of the deployed missile and warhead
have failed, and the booster-warhead combination that is being deployed has yet to
tested successfully at all. Another recurrent issue in Congress is whether funding for
more long-term and uncertain technologies, such as space-based interceptors, should
be reduced in favor of increased funding for more immediately deployable systems,
such as the Patriot PAC-3 short range missile defense.
Congressional action. In preliminary markup of the FY2006 defense
authorization bill (H.R. 1815), the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces
subcommittee, Representative Spratt offered an amendment to require the Missile
Defense Agency to schedule a missile defense interceptor test as soon as possible.
The issue may come up again on the floor.
Army Modularization
The Army is undertaking a wholesale reorganization of its combat forces. The
reorganization is designed to create a more flexible and more readily deployable
force based primarily on separate modular brigades that can be deployed individually
or in combination, rather than on divisions composed of three combat brigades and
associated support elements. By the end of FY2007, the Army plans to increase the
number of deployable brigades in the active duty force from 33 to at least 43 and
possibly as many as 48 “Brigade Units of Action.” The Army National Guard will
also be reorganized from a force with 15 separate brigades and 19 divisional brigades
into one with 33 deployable Brigade Units of Action.29
29 For an overview of the plan and a review of key issues, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S.
(continued...)

---

CRS-24
The Army projects that its modularization plan will cost $48 billion over the
seven-year FY2005-FY2011 period.30 In FY2005 and FY2006, the Army has not
included funds to cover the costs in its regular or baseline budget. Instead, it has
asked for $5 billion in the FY2005 supplemental to cover costs and plans to request
supplemental funds for FY2006 as well. PBD-753 directed the Defense Department
to add $5 billion annually beginning in FY2007 to the Army’s regular budget to
cover modularization costs thereafter.
Congress has generally supported the Army reorganization, though some
questions have been raised about it. The big issue has been whether to include
funding in supplementals or in regular appropriations, but his appears to have been
resolved. A key unanswered question is whether the Army will be able to fill out the
deployable brigade structure without a permanent increase in end-strength. Through
FY2006, the Defense Department is keeping 30,000 troops in the force above earlier
end-strength levels, in part as a rotation base for Iraq and in part to provide a buffer
as the Army reorganizes. Costs are being covered in supplemental appropriations.
After FY2006 the Army plans to fill out units without additional end-strength by
reassigning personnel within the force and by shifting military jobs to civilians.
Many in Congress doubt that the Army will be able to fill out the new brigades in the
future simply by reassigning personnel.
Another key issue is whether, in the long run, the new Army force design will
meet strategic requirements. Among others, retired Army Colonel Douglas
MacGregor, who was one of the original champions of a brigade-centered force, has
argued that the new brigades are not sufficiently well-equipped to have the necessary
flexibility.31
Congressional action. In the conference agreement on the FY2005
supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, Congress provided the full $5 billion
requested for Army modularization.
Civilian Personnel Policy
In the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136), Congress
agreed to an Administration request to give the Secretary of Defense very broad
authority to reorganize DOD’s civilian personnel system. DOD is now implementing
changes. Some of the steps the department has taken to date have led to
disagreements with some employees and some unions. Last year, Congress
considered, but ultimately did not act on amendments to the personnel legislation to
29 (...continued)
Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
30 See testimony of Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey and Army Chief of Staff General
Peter Schoomaker before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, March 2, 2005.
31 Col. MacGregor has proposed brigades of 5,000 to 6,000 troops, which would be 30-60%
larger than 3,800 troop brigades the Army plans. See Elaine M. Grossman, “General
Unscrambles New Jargon for Reformulated Army Divisions,” Inside the Pentagon, February
12, 2004.

---

CRS-25
ensure certain traditional civil service procedures. Similar measures may be
proposed this year. In addition, Congress has frequently taken steps to regulate
procedures for privatizing civilian defense jobs.
Congressional action. No action to date.
Easing Environmental Regulations Affecting Military
Facilities
For the past four years, the Defense Department has proposed a number of
legislative measures, under the rubric of the Readiness and Range Preservation
Initiative, to ease the application of several environmental statutes to military
training. In the FY2003 defense authorization (P.L. 107-314), Congress agreed to
amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as it applies to accidental injuries to birds
caused by military aircraft. In the FY2004 defense authorization (P.L. 108-136) ,
Congress agreed to changes in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and in the
Endangered Species Act. Last year, the Administration proposed somewhat revised
versions of proposals it made in prior years to amend the Clean Air Act, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress did
not act on those proposals, however.
This year, the Defense Department has again proposed a package of legislative
changes in environmental statutes affecting military training facilities. One DOD
proposal would exempt missions generated by military readiness activities from
requirements to “conform” to State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for achieving federal
air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. A second proposal would provide that
military munitions on operational ranges may not be defined as “solid waste” under
RCRA and CERCLA. In effect, this would allow munitions and munitions-related
contamination to remain on a training range indefinitely, as long as the range
remained operational.
Congressional action. No action to date.
New Nuclear Weapons
Last year, in after vigorous floor debates, both the House and the Senate rejected
amendments to the defense authorization bill to eliminate funds for studies of new
nuclear weapons, including funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
and the Advanced Concepts Initiative (ACI) to study low yield weapons. The
conference agreement on the FY2005 Energy and Commerce appropriations bill
(Division C of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447),
however, eliminated requested funds both for RNEP and for ACI.
This year, the Administration is again requesting funds for studies of the RNEP,
though the request is substantially lower than in the past, and the Department of
Energy (DOE) has removed from its long-term funding plan a budget wedge for
RNEP development that totaled almost $500 million between FY2005 and FY2009.
The FY2006 request includes $4 million for RNEP in the FY2006 Department of

---

CRS-26
Energy (DOE) budget and $4.5 million in the Air Force. Budget projections also
include $14 million for RNEP in DOE in FY2007, and $3.5 million in the Air Force.
Projections after FY2007 show no additional funding, though it could be restored at
any time.32
The FY2006 budget includes no funds for ACI, but another potential issue has
emerged. The conference agreement on the FY2005 energy and water appropriations
bill did not provide funds for ACI, but instead made the $9 million requested
available for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program that was intended,
as the conference report explains, to “improve the reliability, longevity, and
certifiability of existing weapons and their components.” But in testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Linton
Brookes, the Director of DOE nuclear weapons programs, implied that the RRW
program might be used to develop a entirely new, more reliable warhead.33 This
prospect raised alarm among arms control groups and may become a matter fo debate
in Congress.
Congressional action. In preliminary markup of the FY2006 defense
authorization bill (H.R. 1815), the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces
subcommittee eliminated RNEP funds from the Department of Energy (DOE) budget
and added the money to the Air Force. A press release by subcommittee Democrats
said that the purpose is to direct funding to non-nuclear, “conventional,” “bunker
buster” weapons. The subcommittee also established a policy for the RRW program,
which Representative John Spratt said requires that the goal of the program be to
reduce the likelihood of a return to nuclear testing and to shrink the nuclear arsenal.
He did not, however, rule out development of a new warhead.
The Senate Armed Services Committee took the opposite approach. In its
version of the FY2006 authorization bill, it provided the $4.0 million requested for
RNEP in DOE, but eliminate Air Force funding. In its markup of the FY2006 energy
and water appropriations bill (unnumbered as yet), the House energy and water
appropriations subcommittee also eliminated funds for RNEP from the Department
of Energy budget. The subcommittee also increased funding for the RRW program
from $9 million to $27 million.
Women in Combat and Other “Social Issues”
Matters that are broadly defined as “social issues” often arise within the military
and, accordingly, in congressional consideration of annual defense bills. In the past,
Congress has addressed matters as diverse as gays in the military, women in combat,
housing of male and female recruits during basic training, and sale of potentially
32 See CRS Report RL32347, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and Plan,
FY2005-FY2010, by Jonathan Medalia and CRS Report RL32599, ‘Bunker Busters’:
Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Debate, by Jonathan Medalia.
33 See Statement of Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Before The Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 4, 2005, at [http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/
2005-04-04_Brooks_SASC_testimony.pdf].

---

CRS-27
offensive magazines on military bases. Congress perennially debates proposals to
repeal a prohibition on privately funded abortions in military hospitals overseas for
personnel or dependents who otherwise might not have access to abortions at all.
Recently, in view of reports that cases of sexual abuse within the military are not
uncommon, there has been an extensive discussion in Congress of the adequacy of
the Defense Departments policy on sexual abuse and its handling of abuse cases.
A key social issue in Congress this year may be whether women should continue
to serve in units that directly support combat operations and that are deployed along
with combat units in military operations. Currently women are not permitted to serve
in combat roles in the Army, but are often assigned to support units that are
physically collocated with combat units. As a result, women have sometimes been
involved in fighting and have suffered some casualties. In Iraq, 35 women have died,
which is about 2.2% of the total number of U.S. military personnel killed.
Congressional action. In House Armed Services Committee subcommittee
markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the personnel subcommittee
approved by a 9-7 vote a measure that would bar women from some combat support
units.
Base Closures
In the FY2003 defense authorization bill, Congress approved a new round of
military base closures to be carried out in calendar year 2005, and both last year and
the year before, Congress, in some cases quite narrowly, rejected proposals to repeal
or limit the base closure law. The congressionally approved closure process is now
underway. Even so, there has been some discussion in Congress about last-minute
measures to delay or derail the process.
Congressional action. No action to date.
Other Issues
A number of other issues may also be on the agenda. Over the past couple of
years, Congress has debated what steps it might take to uncover and prevent abuses
of military detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Congress has had a vigorous debate in the past couple of years about proposals to
upgrade or replace the Air Force’s fleet of tanker aircraft. A proposal to lease up to
100 Boeing KC-767 tanker aircraft has been rejected, and the question now is what,
if anything, to do instead. And for the past two years, Congress has considered
measures intended to strengthen “Buy American” requirements for purchases of
military equipment. Any or all of these issues could come up again in Congress this
year.
Congressional action. No action to date.

---

CRS-28
For Additional Reading
CRS Defense Budget Products
Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and Beyond. CRS Report
RL32877.
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and
Other Activities. CRS Report RL32783.
The Cost of Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security. CRS Report
RS21644.
CRS Defense Budget-Related Products
Air Force Transformation. CRS Report RS20859.
‘Bunker Busters’: Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
Debate. CRS Report RL32599.
The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress.
CRS Report RL32888.
Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy — Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress. CRS Report RL31404.
F/A-22 Raptor. CRS Report RL31673.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues. CRS
Report RL30563.
Military Forces: What is the Appropriate Size for the United States? CRS Report
RS21754.
Military Space Programs: Issues Concerning DOD’s SBIRS and STSS Programs.
CRS Report RS21148.
Naval Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress. CRS Report RS20851.
Navy Aircraft Carriers: Proposed Retirement of USS John F. Kennedy — Issues and
Options for Congress. CRS Report RL32731.
Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and
Issues for Congress. CRS Report RL32418.
Navy DD(X) and CG(X) Programs: Background and Issues for Congress. CRS
Report RS21059.

---

CRS-29
Navy DD(X), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight Issues and
Options for Congress. CRS Report RL32109.
Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches — Background and
Options for Congress. CRS Report RL32776.
Potential Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for
Congress. CRS Report RL32665.
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and Plan, FY2005-FY2010. CRS
Report RL32347.
U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress. CRS Report RL32476.
Legislation
Concurrent Budget Resolution
H.Con.Res. 95 (Nussle).
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for
FY2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for FY2005, and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Reported by the
House Committee on the Budget (H.Rept. 109-17), March 11, 2005. Agreed to in
House (218-214), March 17, 2005. Agreed to in Senate in lieu of S.Con.Res. 18 with
an amendment (Unanimous Consent), April 4, 2005. Conference report (H.Rept.
109-62) filed, April 28, 2005. Conference report agreed to in House (214-211) and
in the Senate, (52-47), April 28, 2005.
S.Con.Res. 18 (Gregg).
An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States Government for FY2006 and including the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 2010. Original measure reported to Senate by
Senator Gregg, without written report, March 11, 2005. Agreed to in Senate:
Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments (51-49), March 17, 2005.
Defense Authorization
H.R. 1815 (Hunter).
To authorize appropriations for FY2006 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2006, and for other
purposes.

---

CRS-30
Appendix A: Funding Tables
Table A1. FY2006 Defense Appropriations by Account
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
Enacted
Request
Difference
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
91,614,333
84,961,976
-6,652,357
Military Personnel, Army
26,039,540
24,455,295
-1,584,245
Military Personnel, Navy
20,876,556
19,439,196
-1,437,360
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
8,527,529
7,845,913
-681,616
Military Personnel, Air Force
21,145,141
20,254,837
-890,304
Reserve Personnel, Army
3,373,773
2,938,703
-435,070
Reserve Personnel, Navy
1,881,750
1,583,061
-298,689
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
584,128
480,592
-103,536
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
1,392,169
1,243,560
-148,609
National Guard Personnel, Army
5,467,656
4,669,104
-798,552
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
2,326,091
2,051,715
-274,376
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
112,842,432
118,982,941
+6,140,509
Operation and Maintenance, Army
23,797,606
23,491,077
-306,529
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
28,353,957
29,414,918
+1,060,961
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
3,106,145
3,250,966
+144,821
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
26,121,823
29,705,435
+3,583,612
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
17,354,619
18,338,069
+983,450
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
1,789,987
1,783,012
-6,975
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
1,164,228
1,182,907
+18,679
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
175,070
189,829
+14,759
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
2,189,534
2,445,922
+256,388
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
4,058,342
4,118,175
+59,833
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
4,242,096
4,554,300
+312,204
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account
10,000
20,000
+10,000
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
10,825
11,236
+411
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
59,000
61,546
+2,546
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account
409,200
415,549
+6,349
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
77,679,803
76,635,410
-1,044,393
Aircraft Procurement, Army
2,854,541
2,800,880
-53,661
Missile Procurement, Army
1,307,000
1,270,850
-36,150
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Army
2,467,495
1,660,149
-807,346
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
1,590,952
1,720,872
+129,920
Other Procurement, Army
4,955,296
4,302,634
-652,662
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
8,912,042
10,517,126
+1,605,084
Weapons Procurement, Navy
2,114,720
2,707,841
+593,121
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and
888,340
872,849
-15,491
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
10,427,443
8,721,165
+1,706,278
Other Procurement, Navy
4,875,786
5,487,818
+612,032
Procurement, Marine Corps
1,432,203
1,377,705
-54,498
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
13,648,304
11,973,933
+1,674,371
Missile Procurement, Air Force
4,458,113
5,490,287
+1,032,174

---

CRS-31
FY2005
FY2006
Enacted
Request
Difference
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
1,327,459
1,031,207
-296,252
Other Procurement, Air Force
13,071,297
14,002,689
+931,392
Procurement, Defense-Wide
2,956,047
2,677,832
-278,215
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
350,000
— -
-350,000
Defense Production Act Purchases
42,765
19,573
-23,192
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
69,932,182
69,356,040
-576,142
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
10,698,989
9,733,824
-965,165
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
17,043,812
18,037,991
+994,179
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
20,890,922
22,612,351
+1,721,429
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
20,983,624
18,803,416
-2,180,208
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
314,835
168,458
-146,377
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
2,378,836
3,119,844
+741,008
Defense Working Capital Funds
1,174,210
1,471,340
+297,130
National Defense Sealift Fund: Ready Reserve Force
1,204,626
1,648,504
+443,878
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
2,484,074
2,511,255
+27,181
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army
1,372,990
1,405,827
+32,837
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
906,522
895,741
-10,781
Office of the Inspector General
204,562
209,687
+5,125
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
557,866
599,444
+41,578
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund
239,400
244,600
+5,200
Intelligence Community Management Account
310,466
354,844
+44,378
National Security Education Trust Fund
8,000
— -
-8,000
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
-4,845,012
63,000
+4,908,012
Additional transfer authority (Sec 8005)
[3,500,000]
[4,000,000]
[+500,000]
Indian Financing Act incentives (Sec 8021)
8,000
— -
-8,000
FFRDCs (Sec 8028)
-125,000
— -
+125,000
Disposal & lease of DOD real property (Sec 8034)
25,000
— -
-25,000
Overseas Mil Fac Invest Recovery (Sec 8038)
1,000
— -
-1,000
Rescissions (Sec 8049)
-779,637
— -
+779,637
Expired Shipbuilding & Conv Funds, Navy (Sec 8056)
— -
18,000
+18,000
Travel Cards (Sec 8082)
44,000
45,000
+1,000
Special needs students (Sec 8104)
5,500
— -
-5,500
Fisher House (Sec 8093)
2,000
— -
-2,000
CAAS/Other Contract Growth (Sec 8094)
-300,000
— -
+300,000
Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services (Sec8095)
-500,000
— -
+500,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy (Sec 8098)
34,000
— -
-34,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (Sec 8098)
40,000
— -
-40,000
IT cost growth reduction (Sec 8105)
-197,500
— -
+197,500
Working Capital Funds Cash Balance (Sec8107)
-316,000
— -
+316,000
Ctr for Mil Recruiting Assessment & Vet Emp(Sec 8108)
6,000
— -
-6,000
Various grants (Sec 8113)
51,425
— -
-51,425
Assumed management improvements (Sec 8122)
-711,000
— -
+711,000
Transportation Working Capital Fund (Sec 8123)
-967,200
— -
+967,200
MCAGCC health demonstration program (Sec 8126)
2,500
— -
-2,500
Ship transfer authority (Sec 8129)
— -
— -
— -

---

CRS-32
FY2005
FY2006
Enacted
Request
Difference
Contract offsets (Sec 8130)
-50,000
— -
+50,000
Budget withholds (Sec 8131)
-350,000
— -
+350,000
Tanker replacement transfer fund (Sec 8132)
100,000
— -
-100,000
Unobligated balances (Sec 8140)
-768,100
— -
+768,100
Travel costs (Sec 8141)
-100,000
— -
+100,000
APN/APAF technical correction (Sec 8142)
— -
— -
— -
TOTAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
352,644,514
356,229,910
+3,585,396
Notes: Military Personnel accounts in FY2006 request do not include costs of accrual payments to the military retirement
fund for costs of age 65-and-older health care.
Source: House Appropriations Committee.

---