Order Code RL33405
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and
Appropriations
Updated May 31, 2006
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The House passed its version of the FY2007 defense authorization bill, H.R.
5122, on May 11. The bill authorizes $513 billion for national defense, including
$50 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the first
months of the fiscal year. The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its
version of the bill, S. 2766, on May 4. It also authorizes $513 billion, including
emergency funding. Senate floor action appears likely in June. House subcommittee
markup of the defense appropriations bill is tentatively scheduled for June 7.
The White House released its FY2007 budget request on February 6, 2006. The
request included $513.0 billion in new budget authority for national defense, of
which $50 billion was a placeholder for a later budget amendment for costs of
overseas operations, $441.2 billion was for regular programs of the Department of
Defense (DOD), $17.0 billion was for Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons
programs, and $4.8 billion was for defense activities of other agencies.
In congressional action on key issues —
! Both the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee added
substantially to proposed troop levels for ground forces, including
30,000 to Army and 5,000 to Marine Corps active duty end-strength,
and 17,000 to Army National Guard end-strength.
! The House bill does not support Administration proposals to rein in
personnel pay and benefits. It increases the proposed military pay
raise from 2.2% to 2.7%, rejects a proposal to reduce DOD medical
costs by increasing retiree medical fees and co-pays, and expands
reservists’ access to the TRICARE medical insurance program. The
Senate committee agreed to a 2.2% raise, but, as in the House,
rejected increased TRICARE fees and co-pays.
! As in the past, the committees were unwilling to support proposed
cuts in major weapons programs. Neither committee agreed to halt
production of the C-17 cargo aircraft, and both restored funds to
develop an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
! In its initial allocation of funds to the subcommittees, the House
Appropriations Committee provided $4 billion less than the
Administration requested for defense appropriations. Last year
Congress cut $8.5 billion from the request for regular defense
programs, but additional funding for Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated
the impact of those reductions.
Additional issues may emerge as Congress continues work on the FY2007
defense bills. At the end of last year, Iraq policy became a focus of congressional
debate, and it may come up again as mid-term elections near. The overall level of
defense spending may also be a matter of debate.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the FY2007 Defense
Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Highlights of the FY2007 Defense Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Headlines: Potential Issues in Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Congressional Action on Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Congressional Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FY2006 National Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the House Armed
Services Committee Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of House Floor Action . . . . 24
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of Senate Armed
Services Committee Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix A: Additional Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2000-FY2011,
Excluding Supplementals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Tables
Table 1A. Status of FY2007 Defense Authorization, H.R. 5122, S. 2769 . . . . . . 1
Table 1B. Status of FY2007 Defense Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Administration Request for National Defense for FY2007,
Budget Authority, Discretionary and Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Congressional Budget Resolution, Recommended National Defense
Budget Function Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 4. FY2007 National Defense Authorization, House and Senate Action
by Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 5. FY2007 Department of Defense Appropriations, House and Senate
Action by Bill and Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 6. Initial House 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

Table A1. Administration Projection of National Defense Funding,
FY2007-FY2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table A2. Proposed Missile Defense Funding, FY2007-FY2011 . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table A3. Authorized and Actual Active Duty End-Strength,
FY2004-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table A4. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs:
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table A5. Emergency Funding, Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table A6. Authorization of Emergency Funds for Procurement and R&D:
Line Item Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

---

Defense: FY2007 Authorization and
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The House passed its version of the FY2007 defense authorization bill, H.R.
5122, on May 11, by a vote of 396-31. The Senate Armed Services Committee
marked up its version of the bill, S. 2766, on May 4. Senate floor action has not yet
been scheduled. House defense appropriations subcommittee markup of the defense
appropriations bill is tentatively scheduled for June 7. On May 4, the House
Appropriations Committee reported its initial allocations of funds to subcommittees
under Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. The allocation to the defense
subcommittee is $4 billion below the Administration request. In action on related
bills, the House passed the Military Quality of Life/Veterans Affairs appropriations
bill, H.R. 5385, on May 19. As passed, the bill provides $58 billion for the
Department of Defense, including funds for military construction and family housing,
for some military personnel accounts, for some military operation and maintenance
accounts, and for the defense health program.
Status of Legislation
Congress began action on the annual defense authorization bill with House
markup of its version of the measure on May 3 and passage by the full House on
May 11. The Senate marked up its version of the bill on May 4. Tables 1A and 1B
track congressional action on the FY2007 defense authorization and appropriations
bills.
Table 1A. Status of FY2007 Defense Authorization,
H.R. 5122, S. 2769
Full Committee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
5/11/06
5/3/06
5/4/06
109-452
109-254
396-31
5/5/06
5/9/06

---

CRS-2
Table 1B. Status of FY2007 Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
6/7/06
(sched.)
Earlier in the year Congress began, but did not complete, action on the annual
congressional budget resolution. The Senate passed its version of the resolution,
S.Con.Res. 83, on March 16. The House Budget Committee reported its version of
the resolution, H.Con.Res. 376, on March 31, and floor action began on April 6. But
the leadership halted debate in the face of internal Republican opposition to the
measure. On May 18, a compromise was announced, and the House approved the
measure by a vote of 218-210.
On May 18, the House also approved a measure “deeming” the provisions of the
budget resolution, including the cap of $872.8 billion in total discretionary spending,
to be in effect for purposes of subsequent House action. The “deeming” resolution
was included in the rule (H.Res. 818) governing debate on the FY2007 Interior and
Environment appropriations bill (H.R. 5386).
In action on related legislation, the House passed the Military Quality of
Life/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, H.R. 5385, on May 19. The bill provides
$58 billion for the Department of Defense, including funds for military construction
and family housing, for some military personnel accounts, for some military
operation and maintenance accounts, and for the defense health program. In the
Senate, the military personnel, O&M, and defense health funds are provided in the
regular defense appropriations bill, and the military construction and family housing
funds are provided in the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the
FY2007 Defense Budget Request
The following series of tables show congressional action on defense budget.
Additional details will be added as congressional action proceeds.
Table 2 shows the Administration’s FY2007 national defense request, by
appropriations title, separating discretionary and mandatory amounts. The total for
FY2006 includes a $70 billion placeholder for supplemental appropriations. That
amount will be adjusted when Congress completes the pending supplemental bill
(H.R. 4939). The total for FY2007 includes a $50 billion placeholder for a budget
amendment for overseas operations. If the $50 billion placeholder is removed, the
total discretionary request for the Department of Defense is $439.3 billion. This was
the amount most often referred to in DOD press releases as the FY2007 Department
of Defense request when the budget was released in February.

---

CRS-3
Table 2. Administration Request for National Defense for
FY2007, Budget Authority, Discretionary and Mandatory
(billions of dollars)
2005
2006
2007
Actual
Estimate
Request
National Defense Discretionary (Function 050)
Department of Defense — Military Discretionary (Subfunction 051)
Military personnel
119.7
113.5
110.8
Operation and maintenance
178.6
177.7
152.0
Procurement
96.6
86.2
84.2
Anticipated funding for the Global War on Terror*
—
70.0
50.0
Research, development, test and evaluation
68.8
71.0
73.2
Military construction
7.3
8.9
12.6
Family housing
4.1
4.4
4.1
Revolving, management, and trust funds and other
3.8
4.8
2.4
Total, Department of Defense — Military
478.9
536.6
489.3
Discretionary
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)
Department of Energy defense-related activities
17.0
16.2
15.8
Formerly utilized sites remedial action
0.2
0.1
0.1
Defense nuclear facilities safety board
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities Discretionary
17.2
16.4
16.0
Defense-Related Activities (Subfunction 054)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1.2
2.3
2.3
Other discretionary programs
2.4
3.0
2.2
Total, Defense-Related Activities Discretionary
3.7
5.3
4.5
Total, National Defense Discretionary
499.8
558.3
509.7
National Defense Mandatory (Function 050)
Department of Defense — Military Mandatory (Subfunction 051)
Concurrent receipt accrual payments
1.5
2.3
2.4
Research, development, test, and evaluation
—
—
0.3
Revolving, trust and other DoD mandatory
5.0
0.8
0.8
Offsetting receipts
-1.5
-1.6
-1.5
Total, Department of Defense — Military Mandatory
5.0
1.5
1.9
Atomic Energy Defense Activities Mandatory (Subfunction 053)
Energy employees occupational illness compensation
0.7
1.7
1.0
program and other
Defense-Related Activities Mandatory (Subfunction 054)
Radiation exposure compensation trust fund
0.1
0.1
0.0
Other mandatory programs
0.2
0.2
0.3
Total, Defense-Related Activities Mandatory
0.3
0.3
0.3
Total, National Defense Mandatory
6.0
3.6
3.3
Total, National Defense (Function 050)
505.8
561.8
513.0
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government,
FY2007, Table 27-1.
*Note: These are placeholder amounts for a request for supplemental appropriations for FY2006, now
pending before Congress, and for a budget amendment for FY2007, not yet submitted.

---

CRS-4
Table 3 shows congressional recommendations for defense budget authority and
outlays in versions of the annual budget resolution — S.Con.Res. 83 as passed by the
Senate and H.Con.Res 376 as passed by the House. These amounts are not binding
on the appropriations committees, however.
Table 3. Congressional Budget Resolution, Recommended
National Defense Budget Function Totals
(billions of dollars)
FY2007*
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Administration Request
Budget Authority
513.0
485.2
505.3
515.3
526.1
Outlays
527.4
494.4
494.3
507.4
522.7
Senate Budget Committee Reported
Budget Authority
545.4
481.7
501.8
511.9
522.8
Outlays
550.5
514.8
508.1
511.2
521.9
Senate Passed
Budget Authority
549.4
483.0
502.8
512.9
523.9
Outlays
554.5
516.0
509.1
512.2
523.0
House Budget Committee Reported
Budget Authority
512.9
484.7
504.8
514.9
525.8
Outlays
534.9
505.5
505.9
512.6
524.9
Sources: Office of Management and Budget; S.Con.Res. 83; H.Con.Res. 376.
*Note: For FY2007, the Administration request includes $50 billion for a planned budget amendment
for overseas operations. The Senate recommended levels for FY2007 assume $82 billion for overseas
operations. The House committee-reported level assumes $50 billion, as in the request.

---

CRS-5
Table 4 shows congressional action on the FY2007 defense authorization bill
by title. It is important to note that the authorization bill does not directly provide
funds for most defense programs (the exception being some mandatory programs).
Rather, it authorizes the appropriation of funds. In the appropriations bills, Congress
may provide more, less, or the same as the amounts authorized to be appropriated.
Table 4. FY2007 National Defense Authorization,
House and Senate Action by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House
Senate-
Senate
Conf.
House
House-
Versus
Senate
Comm.
Versus
Versus
Request
Passed Request Request
Rept’d Request
Conf. Request
Military Personnel
110.8
109.8
-1.0
110.8
112.0
+1.3
—
—
Operation & Maintenance
130.1
129.8
-0.3
130.1
129.5
-0.6
—
—
Procurement
84.2
85.9
+1.7
82.9
85.7
+2.8
—
—
RDT&E
73.2
74.1
+0.9
73.2
74.2
+1.0
—
—
Military Construction
12.6
13.0
+0.4
12.6
13.2
+0.6
—
—
Family Housing
4.1
4.1
-0.0
4.1
4.1
-0.0
—
—
Revolving & Management
2.4
2.5
+0.1
2.3
2.3
0.0
—
—
Other Defense Programs*
22.2
22.4
+0.3
23.4
23.3
-0.1
—
—
Mandatory Programs
1.9
1.9
-0.0
1.9
2.9
+1.0
—
—
Rescissions/Inflation Savings
—
-1.8
-1.6
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
—
—
Total Department of Defense
441.5
441.7
+0.2
441.5
446.5
+4.9
—
—
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
17.0
16.5
-0.5
17.0
16.4
-0.6
—
—
Other Defense-Related Activities
4.8
4.7
-0.0
4.8
4.7
-0.0
—
—
Total National Defense
463.3
462.9
-0.4
463.3
467.7
+4.4
—
—
Emergency Authorization
50.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
—
—
Total Including Emergency
513.3
512.9
-0.4
513.3
517.7
+4.4
—
—
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Office of Management and Budget; H.Rept. 109-452, S.Rept. 109-254.
*Note: Other Defense Programs include Defense Health Program; Drug Interdiction; Chemical Weapons
Demilitarization; and Office of the Inspector General.

---

CRS-6
Table 5 shows congressional action on the FY2007 defense and military
construction/VA appropriations bills. This table does not show funding for defense-
related activities of agencies other than the Defense Department, except for about
$600 million for intelligence provided in the defense appropriations bill. Notably,
it excludes about $17 billion requested for Department of Energy nuclear weapons
programs. The House Military Quality of Life/VA appropriations bill includes funds
for Military Personnel and for Operation and Maintenance accounts that are provided
in the defense appropriations bill in the Senate. In the Senate bill the Basic
Allowance for Housing is in the Military Personnel Title, Facilities Sustainment and
Environmental Restoration are in the Operation & Maintenance Title, and Defense
Health is in the Other Defense Programs Title.
Table 5. FY2007 Department of Defense Appropriations,
House and Senate Action by Bill and Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
House
Senate
Conf
House
House
Versus
Senate
Versus
Versus
Request
Comm. Request Request
Senate Request
Conf. Request
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill
Military Personnel
97.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Operation and Maintenance
122.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Procurement
82.9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
RDT&E
73.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Revolving and Management Funds
12.6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other Defense Programs*
0.9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Related Agencies
0.9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total Regular Appropriations
390.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Additional Appropriations for War
50.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total with Additional for War
440.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
DOD Programs in Military Quality of Life/VA and Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bills
Military Construction
12.6
11.9
-0.7
—
—
—
—
—
Family Housing
4.1
4.0
-0.1
—
—
—
—
—
Basic Allowance for Housing
13.5
13.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
Facilities Sustainment
6.2
6.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
Environmental Restoration
1.4
1.4
—
—
—
—
—
—
Defense Health Program
21.0
21.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total Department of Defense
58.8
58.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
Grand Total for Department of Defense in Defense and Military Construction Appropriations
Total Regular Appropriations
449.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total With Additional for War
499.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Source: Office of Management and Budget.
*Note: Other Defense Programs include Defense Health, Drug Interdiction, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, and
DOD Inspector General in the Senate bill and all but Defense Health in the House bill. In DOD briefing charts, Chemical
Weapons Demilitarization is shown in Procurement and the other accounts are shown in Operation and Maintenance.

---

CRS-7
Overview of the Administration Request
On February 6, 2006, the White House formally released its FY2007 federal
budget request to Congress. The request included $513.0 billion in new budget
authority for national defense in FY2007, of which $50 billion was a placeholder for
a later budget amendment to cover costs of overseas military operations, $441.2
billion was for regular operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), $17.0 billion
was for Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons programs, and $4.8 billion
was for defense-related activities of other agencies (see Table 2 above).
The $50 billion placeholder is not intended to cover the full costs of military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in FY2007. Rather, it is a “bridge
fund” to cover costs in the initial months of FY2007. Remaining costs for the rest
of the year will, if Congress agrees, be covered by a later supplemental appropriations
bill. On its own initiative, Congress provided a $25 billion bridge fund in the
FY2005 defense appropriations act and a $50 billion bridge fund in FY2006. In each
year, the White House later requested additional supplemental funds. In February
2006, the Defense Department requested $67 billion for overseas military operations
in FY2006 in addition to the $50 billion appropriated last fall and $5 billion for DOD
for domestic disaster costs. Congress is now considering that request.1
Along with the FY2007 budget request, the Pentagon released the results of the
congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of defense policy.
The year-long QDR was not a budget exercise, but it identified the kinds of military
capabilities that senior DOD officials believe should be emphasized in years to come,
and it endorsed a number of budget decisions that were reflected in the FY2007 DOD
request to Congress.
Highlights of the FY2007 Defense Budget Request
Aspects of the Defense Department’s FY2007 request that appear to be of most
immediate concern to Congress include:
(1) The Administration continues to request large amounts for Iraq
and Afghanistan through “additional” or “emergency supplemental”
appropriations not subject to limits on total discretionary federal
spending and not subject to the full congressional authorization and
appropriations review process. In the FY2007 budget, the Administration has,
for the first time, requested part of the funding to carry on military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan before the start of the fiscal year in the form of a $50 billion budget
amendment to the FY2007 request. In this, the Administration has followed
Congress’s lead — Congress provided a “bridge fund” of $25 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill and of $50 billion in FY2006.
By submitting a budget amendment, the Administration gains a more direct and
formal voice in proposing how to allocate the additional funds. The Administration
1 For a full discussion, CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq
and Other International Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief, Paul M. Irwin and
Larry Nowels, coordinators.

---

CRS-8
will continue, however, to request more additional funding in an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill to be submitted next year. Both the “bridge fund”
and later supplemental appropriations will be requested over and above proposed
limits on overall discretionary spending.
The key point remains this: Either in the form of a bridge fund or of emergency
supplemental appropriations, the Administration is requesting that additional war
funding not count against restrictive caps on regular annual defense and non-defense
appropriations. War expenditures, however, have become a very large part of total
annual defense spending, and, for that matter, of total defense and non-defense
appropriations. For FY2006, Congress approved a $50 billion bridge fund for war
costs last fall and is now considering supplemental appropriations of $67 billion, for
a total of $117 billion. A few comparisons may help put this amount into
perspective.
! Regular DOD appropriations for FY2006 were $411 billion, so the
$117 billion for war increases defense funding by 28%.
! In last year’s budget resolution, the FY2006 cap on total “non-
emergency” appropriations, both for defense and for non-defense
programs, was $843 billion, which was subsequently trimmed by 1%
to $835 billion. So the $117 billion for war adds 14% to federal
discretionary funding.
! At the end of last year’s budget cycle, Congress imposed an across-
the-board cut of 1% in all appropriations bills, which trimmed
federal spending by $8.4 billion, 7% of the amount it is providing for
war costs.
An equally important point is that DOD requests for “additional” or
“emergency” war appropriations are not subject to nearly the extent of review that
Congress exercises over regular defense spending. The Administration decision to
submit a budget amendment for a bridge fund is, at most, only a limited step in the
direction of greater oversight. The amendment has not been submitted in advance
of House action on the FY2007 defense authorization bill. Moreover, neither
supplemental appropriations requests nor budget amendments are supported by the
kind of detailed budget justification material that Congress expects to be provided
with regular DOD funding requests. In part because of that, there appears to be a
growing sentiment in Congress to the effect that full funding for ongoing military
operations should be considered through the regular, annual defense authorization
and appropriations process.

---

CRS-9
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2000-FY2011,
Excluding Supplementals
(2) The regular DOD appropriations request for FY2007 is for $439.3
billion, $28.5 billion above the FY2006 enacted amount, an increase of
7%. Viewed in this way, the FY2007 budget appears to carry on the substantial
defense buildup that has been underway for the past several years. But the story is
a bit more complicated than that. The increase appears so large in part because
Congress cut the FY2006 request by $8.5 billion — a $4.4 billion cut in the regular
process and an additional across-the-board reduction of $4.1 billion at the end of the
appropriations process.2 Moreover, in an effort to stay within tight limits on overall
appropriations for FY2007, the Office of Management and Budget trimmed DOD’s
FY2007 budget by $3.8 billion compared to the amount that was planned last year
for FY2007. Out-year budget projections for the regular defense budget show
spending leveling off to very modest rates of growth. The average increase between
FY2005 and FY2011 is 1.7% per year above inflation, far below the 5% per year
growth between FY2001 and FY2005 (see Figure 1).
That said, when additional and supplemental appropriations for war are
included, total defense spending is continuing to grow. The total increase in defense
between FY2005 and FY2006 will be about $56 billion if Congress approves the
pending FY2006 supplemental. The increase between FY2006 and FY2007 could
be as great.
2 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32924, Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations, by Stephen Daggett.

---

CRS-10
So, the summary story line might be termed the “tale of two budgets.” The
budget is getting very tight for programs that are funded strictly within the regular
defense budget — military service officials have testified that the congressional cuts
in the FY2006 defense budget are requiring substantial reductions in some
operations. At the same time, supplemental appropriations are soaring, and money
is readily available for programs that are tied to the war effort.
(3) The Administration’s FY2007 request rejects congressional
proposals to increase Army and Marine Corps end-strength and cuts
Air Force and Navy personnel levels. For FY2006 Congress authorized
active duty end-strength of 512,400 for the Army of 179,000 for the Marine Corps.
By the end of FY2007, however, the Defense Department plans to restore Army and
Marine Corps end-strength to the pre-FY2004, pre-Iraq, “base-line” level — 482,400
for the Army, which is 30,000 troops lower than the current authorization, and
175,000 for the Marine Corps, which is 4,000 lower. Many Members of Congress
have urged that the current authorized levels be made permanent in order to ease the
pace of operations on ground forces. The Administration vigorously opposes a
permanent increase, however, arguing that costs are high and that forces can be
organized more efficiently to provide required combat troops.
Meanwhile, the Air Force plans to eliminate at least 40,000 full-time equivalent
positions over the next five years through a mixture of reductions in active duty,
reserve, and civilian personnel. And the Navy is cutting 12,000 active duty personnel
between FY2006 and FY2007. Though no additional Navy cuts have been
announced formally, it is widely expected that the Defense Department will trim an
additional 20,000 or so positions from the Navy over the next few years.
(4) The Administration’s FY2007 request provides funds for 333,000
Army National Guard (ARNG) troops rather than the 350,000 authorized
and reflects a decision to reduce the number of combat brigades in the
ARNG from 34 to 28. The Army has been unable to recruit and retain enough
troops in the National Guard to reach its authorized end-strength. In the FY2007
request, the Army has requested funding only for 333,000 troops, though, after the
budget was released, Army officials said that they would shift money into personnel
and other related accounts if recruitment and retention improves. In its future plans,
however, the Army projects ARNG end-strength of 333,000.
A more controversial issue is the Army plan to reduce the number of new,
modularized ARNG combat brigades. As Army officials explain, the purpose of the
change is to fully man the new brigades within authorized ARNG end-strength and
to fully equip the combat units within available budget constraints. The change will
likely mean that ARNG units in some states that will not, as had been planned, be
outfitted as new, more capable combat brigades, will lose personnel. The units that
remain, therefore, will also likely have less ability to carry out state disaster response
and homeland defense missions. As a result, state governors and some National
Guard leaders have been very critical of the plan.
(5) The FY2007 request includes only a modest 2.2% pay raise for
troops and proposes increases in medical care fees and co-pays for
under-age-65 military retirees. Since 1999, Congress has approved substantial

---

CRS-11
increases in military pay and benefits. Compared to economy-wide indices,
uniformed military personnel now cost as much as 33% more, above inflation, than
in the late 1990s.3 In the FY2007 budget, the Administration is proposing measures
to rein in the growth of pay and benefits. The proposed 2.2% military pay raise is the
lowest since 1994. And the Administration has proposed increasing fees and co-pays
for under-age-65 military retirees who are eligible for medical care through the
military Tricare program. This is the first proposed increase in medical co-pays since
the current Tricare medical care system for retirees and dependents was established
in 1995.
(6) The FY2007 request proposes a few reductions in major
weapons programs, some of which have been controversial in
Congress. With the Defense Department carrying out its Quadrennial Defense
Review in 2005, many expected some substantial changes in long-term budget
priorities, including some cuts in major weapons programs. The QDR did not,
however, make many far-reaching changes in on-going programs, and only a few
reductions in weapons plans are reflected in the FY2007 budget request. Two have
so far been controversial in Congress —
! A decision to halt procurement of the C-17 cargo plane in FY2007
after buying 180 of the aircraft since the program began in the mid-
1980s; and
! A decision to drop plans to develop and buy engines for the F-35
joint strike fighter from two manufacturers and, instead, just to buy
engines from one company.
(7) The Quadrennial Defense Review did not result in decisions on
major, ongoing defense budget and program-related issues. The official
Department of Defense report on the 2005-2006 Quadrennial Defense Review,4
which was released along with the Administration’s budget request in February,
stated plainly that the year-long QDR exercise was not intended to be a systematic
assessment of major defense programs. Instead, it was designed to provide a vision
of the national security challenges facing the nation and to identify the kinds of
military capabilities that are needed.
True to its word, the QDR report announced very few major program decisions,
though it did mention some. Perhaps the most significant is to add 15,000 special
operations troops, though without increasing overall military end-strength. For the
most part, the QDR report simply endorsed ongoing initiatives, though often with
wording carefully designed to keep options for policy-makers open. The result is to
leave undecided some very far-reaching defense policy issues.
! For the Navy, the QDR report endorsed increasing “green” and
“brown” water capabilities, construction of new prepositioning
3 For a discussion, see CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for
FY2006 and Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.
4 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February, 2006. Available
at [http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf].

---

CRS-12
ships, 11 rather than 12 deployable aircraft carriers, construction of
two attack submarines per year at lower than current prices, and the
conversion of a number of Trident II submarine-launched missiles
to carry conventional (non-nuclear) warheads. But the report said
nothing about other naval force issues. Notably, it did not mention
the recently-released Navy shipbuilding plan for a combat fleet of
313 ships. Many question whether that plan is affordable.
! Regarding fighter aircraft acquisition plans in the Air Force, Navy,
and Marine Corps, the QDR report endorsed a revised Air Force
plan to stretch out F-22 procurement, but otherwise did not mention
the number of short-range fighter and ground attack aircraft needed
in the long term. The report put a great deal of emphasis on the need
for long-range, prompt, global strike capabilities. This may appear
to be at odds with plans to continue large investments in shorter-
range strike aircraft that may have limited access to areas of combat
in future conflicts, but the report did not address the issue.
! The report endorsed the Army’s plan to reorganize into more
deployable, modular combat brigades, but notably did not make an
explicit commitment to provide the full funding needed to
modularize all active and reserve combat units as the Army has
planned5. The report also endorsed the capabilities being developed
in the Army’s Future Combat System development program, but,
notably, did not explicitly endorse the program as a whole.
! The report said very little at all about satellites and other space
programs. The only mention of a space program was to endorse an
Air Force plan to restructure the Transformational Communications
Satellite (TSAT) program to incorporate less risky technology.
Other space programs have experienced problems like those in the
TSAT program, but these are not mentioned. Space programs
overall have grown dramatically as a share of the defense budget,
and cost growth in major programs has been pandemic. And a major
policy issue is how to protect space based systems from future
threats and whether the U.S. security will be advanced by developing
offensive space capabilities. The QDR discusses none of these
issues.
Headlines: Potential Issues in Congress
Last year, congressional action on the annual defense authorization and
appropriations bills featured extensive debates, first, over policy toward treatment of
military detainees, and, toward the end of the year, over the pace of troop
withdrawals from Iraq. This year, a continued debate over Iraq policy has reemerged
5 For an overview of Army modularization, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular
Redesign: Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.

---

CRS-13
in congressional consideration of the FY2006 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R.
4939). An amendment to the bill in the Senate proposes accelerated withdrawals if
the Iraqi government fails to meet established deadlines in the political process. The
debate over Iraq may well be renewed when Congress takes up FY2007 bills.
In addition to Iraq policy, other issues may emerge. What follows is a very brief
list of some of the issues that may come up, based on early debate about the FY2007
defense budget.
! Funding cuts in the regular FY2007 defense appropriations bill:
Last year, Congress trimmed $4.4 billion from the regular FY2006
defense appropriations bill and applied the money to non-defense
appropriations. Later, at the end of the process, Congress trimmed
defense appropriations by an additional $4.1 billion as part of an
across-the-board 1% cut in all appropriations, as an offset for
Katrina-related funding. This year, the Senate took a step to avoid
similar guns versus butter trade-offs in the FY2007 budget by adding
$3.7 billion to the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) cap on total
discretionary spending. But, as last year, there appears to a
considerable amount of opposition in Congress to proposed cuts in
non-defense appropriations, and the defense bill may be seen as a
source of offsetting funds because of the amount of money available
for defense in emergency funding for overseas operations.
! Limits on emergency funding: The Senate-passed FY2007 budget
resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) puts a cap of $90 billion on total
emergency funding. War costs, including $50 billion that the
Administration plans to request as an attachment to the regular
FY2007 defense appropriations bill, plus a later emergency FY2007
supplemental request expected next February, together with requests
for funds for Katrina-recovery, bird flu, border security, agricultural
disaster relief, and other purposes, will almost surely exceed the cap
by a substantial amount. If Congress ultimately approves such a cap,
anything above $90 billion would require offsetting rescissions,
including, quite likely, cuts in regular defense funding.
! Providing full funding for overseas operations in regular defense
funding bills: Both last year and the year before, the Senate added
advisory language to the defense appropriations bill urging the
Administration to request full funding for ongoing military
operations in the regular authorization and appropriations bills. The
Administration did not concur. But there may be more support in
Congress for that approach now, and Congress may try to ensure that
full funding for operations is in next year’s FY2008 request.
! Army and Marine Corps end-strength: The Administration is
proposing ground force active duty end-strengths at the pre-2004
baseline level. Congress added 30,000 to Army and 4,000 to Marine
Corps end-strength in FY2006, and there appears to be a great deal

---

CRS-14
of support in Congress, particularly, but not only, among Democrats,
for a permanent end-strength increase.
! Funding for Army National Guard end-strength: The FY2007
Army request trims about $500 million from Army personnel
accounts and additional amounts from operation and maintenance
accounts to reflect a troop level of 333,000 in the Army National
Guard rather than the 350,000 authorized. Congress may mandate
a higher force level.
! 2.2% pay raise: Every year between 2001 and 2006, Congress
approved an increase in basic pay of ½% above the employment cost
index (ECI), a measure of the average growth of nationwide pay and
benefits. An increase of ECI + ½% was mandated for 2004, 2005,
and 2006 in the FY2004 national defense authorization act (P.L.
108-136). Now that provision has expired, and the normal pay raise,
established in Section 1009 of Title 37, U.S.C., is equal to the ECI.
The Administration, accordingly, has requested a pay raise equal to
the ECI, which, for calendar year 2007, is 2.2%. If approved, that
would be the lowest pay raise since 1994. There is considerable
sentiment in Congress to provide more.
! Increased TRICARE fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees:
There is also considerable sentiment in Congress against the
Administration’s proposed increases in fees and co-pays for
TRICARE for retirees. The Administration argues, however, that
rising medical benefits threaten to drive up military personnel costs
substantially, and that concern has gained some traction in
Congress.6
! Flexibility for the Defense Department to provide support to
foreign nations: The Defense Department made a number of
legislative proposals to expand its flexibility to provide various
kinds of support to foreign nations that, in the past, have generally
been provided through foreign assistance programs. Several of these
proposals expand or make permanent temporary measures that
Congress has approved in bills providing funds for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The most expansive DOD proposal is to permit
the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the Secretary of State,
to use up to $750 million of defense funds per year to build the
capacities of foreign militaries to engage in counter-terrorist
operations or to participate in or support stability operations in
which the United States is engaged.7
6 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Fees: Background
and Options for Congress, by Richard Best.
7 DOD’s legislative proposals for inclusion in annual defense authorization bills are formally
sent to Congress by the DOD Office of Legislative Counsel. The FY2007 proposals are
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
! Funding for National Guard and reserve equipment: Funding for
Guard and reserve units has become a more contentious issue in
recent years, particularly as states look to National Guard units as the
front line in possible homeland defense missions.
! Adding a representative of the Guard and reserve components
to the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Several Senators have sponsored a
bill to establish a 4-star rank reserve officer to serve on the JCS.
The services have opposed such a measure.
! Retiring an aircraft carrier: The Defense Department wants to
reduce the number of deployable aircraft carriers from 12 to 11. Last
year, Congress included a provision in the FY2006 defense
authorization act to prohibit such a reduction. Senator Warner, the
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, now supports
retiring a carrier, but there is still some opposition. The issue may
be resolved in action on the pending FY2006 supplemental
appropriations bill, if Congress approves a Warner amendment to
permit retirement of the U.S.S. Kennedy aircraft carrier. If not, the
issue may come up in action on the FY2007 defense bills. The
Senate has also addressed the issue in FY2007 appropriation
authorization. See below.
! Halting C-17 production: The Defense Department has not
requested funds for new C-17 cargo aircraft in FY2007, which
would end production after 180 aircraft have been produced. The
Air Force, however, included in its FY2007 unfunded priorities list
(UPL) a proposal for 7 C-17s as replacements for aircraft that may
be lost due to excessive wartime use. Some legislators want to keep
production lines open for the foreseeable future.
! B-52, F-117, and U-2 retirements: The Air Force has proposed
cutting the number of active B-52s from 94 to 56 and retiring F-117
stealth attack aircraft and U-2 reconnaissance planes. In the past,
Congress has repeatedly rejected Air Force proposals to retire B-52s.
7 (...continued)
posted on the internet at [http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/olc/legispro.html]. The
proposal for authority to build the capacity of foreign military forces is in the third package
of proposals, dated April 13, 2006. In the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L.
109-163, Congress provided one-year authority for DOD to spend up to $200 million to
build the capacity of foreign militaries. DOD’s FY2007 legislative proposal would change
the FY2006 provision in some ways. It would make the authority permanent, it would
increase the maximum funding to $750 million, it would require concurrence of the
Secretary of State rather than of the President, and it would allow the waiver of provisions
in other laws that would otherwise prohibit assistance to specific countries or for specific
purposes.

---

CRS-16
! Stretching out F-22 procurement: The Air Force has requested
stretching out F-22 production until F-35 procurement begins. The
financing mechanism that it has proposed, however, violates long-
standing DOD and Office of Management and Budget policy that
requires full funding of complete end-items of equipment in annual
appropriations for procurement programs. The stretch-out will
increase total procurement costs, even though the Air Force wants
to negotiate a multi-year contract for the remaining production. In
the past, Congress has rejected Air Force proposals that violate the
full funding policy, though it has supported incremental funding for
more costly Navy ships.8
! Eliminating funds to develop a second engine supplier for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: DOD has proposed eliminating
development of an alternate engine for the F-35. This would save
about $1.7 billion in development costs through FY2011, according
to the Air Force,9 but it would also eliminate the benefits of ongoing
competition between engine producers. Congress has held several
hearings on the issue. Even senior DOD officials testifying on the
matter have acknowledged being unenthusiastic about the proposal.
! A new refueling aircraft for the Air Force: While studies have
found that current KC-135 refueling aircraft remain reliable, the Air
Force wants a new tanker, arguing that possible corrosion of KC-135
air frames is a danger. Most recently, DOD has approved an initial
request for information from industry about tanker options, the first
step in acquiring a new aircraft.10
! Converting Trident II missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads:
The Quadrennial Defense Review placed a new, high priority on
capabilities to strike targets promptly at long range. In the short
term, DOD is proposing to convert several Trident II missiles to
carry non-nuclear warheads for rapid strike missions.11 Congress
has balked at providing the funds requested for the program until it
can address key questions. In addition, beginning some time after
8 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding
Policy — Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen
Daggett.
9 Jon Steinman and Tony Capaccio, “Pentagon Plans To Scrap F-35 Backup Engine, Cut
Costs,” Bloomberg.com, December 29, 2005.
10 Megan Scully, “Air Force Launches Latest Effort To Replace Aging Tankers,” National
Journal Congress Daily PM, April 25, 2006
11 For a thorough discussion and extensive background on the program, see CRS Report
RL33067, Conventional Warheads For Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf. Also see Michael R. Gordon, “Pentagon Seeks
Nonnuclear Tip For Sub Missiles,” New York Times, May 29, 2006, pg. 1.

---

CRS-17
2015, DOD is proposing to build a new, long-range strike system,
which could be a manned or unmanned bomber.
! Satellite and other space program acquisition: For the past
several years, Congress has expressed its displeasure with large cost
growth and extensive schedule delays in a number of DOD space
programs. Congress has cut funds substantially and mandated
restructuring of some particular programs, including the
Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) and Space
Radar programs. Press accounts have also reported large changes in
the highly classified Future Imagery Architecture program.12 The
Administration has announced a plan to restructure the TSAT
program to rely on less risky technology.13 The continuing issue for
Congress is whether changes in space programs have reduced risk
sufficiently and how fast new programs should proceed.
! Missile defense funding and testing: Missile defense remains the
largest acquisition program in the defense budget. Congress has
been reluctant to cut funding in the past, though it has trimmed some
programs and defense committees have expressed concern about the
testing program. The Missile Defense Agency now deploying
ground-based interceptors in Alaska though the deployed system has
not been tested as an integrated whole. One issue for Congress may
be whether to tie funding to the test program.
! Acquisition reform: Last year, Congress approved a measure
intended to improve tracking of cost growth in weapons programs
by requiring that the Defense Department report changes compared
to original estimates of the costs rather compared to periodically
rebaselined program estimates. The result has been to show a
substantial number of acquisition programs with cost growth
exceeding or approaching levels that would trigger a program review
under the requirements of the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Last
year Congress rejected, however, a requirement that programs with
excessive cost growth be reevaluated compared to alternatives.
Congressional Action on Major Issues
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date
12 Andy Pasztor, “U.S.’s Lofty Plans For Smart Satellites Fall Back To Earth: Big Delays
and Cost Overruns Give Washington Pause; Technical Setbacks Loom; Reconsidering 1970s
Designs,” Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2006, pg. 1.
13 The Government Accountability Office raised some questions about the restructured
program – Government Accountability Office, Space Acquisitions: DOD Needs Additional
Knowledge as it Embarks on a New Approach for Transformational Satellite
Communications System, GAO-06-537, May 24, 2006, available on line at:
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-537.

---

CRS-18
Congressional Budget Resolution. In March, Congress began action on
the annual congressional budget resolution, but it has not yet completed a conference
agreement. For amounts recommended for national defense in the House and Senate
resolutions, see Table 3 above.
The Senate Budget Committee reported its version of the budget resolution on
March 10, and the full Senate approved the measure, S.Con.Res. 83, with
amendments, on March 16. The committee recommended a level of defense
spending about $3.7 billion below the Administration request. In floor action, the
Senate adopted amendments that added $4 billion to the recommended defense total.
The Senate also approved an amendment by Senator Lott to add $3.7 billion to the
enforceable cap on total discretionary funding. This was intended to avoid cuts in
defense appropriations as offsets for higher levels of non-defense spending.
The Senate measure also put a limit of $90 billion on total emergency funding
in FY2007, which is substantially below the amount that appears likely to be
requested to finance ongoing military operations and domestic disaster-response
commitments. This effort in the Senate to place constraints on emergency spending
may be a harbinger of battles later in this year’s appropriations process and in next
year’s budget debate.
The House Budget Committee reported its version of the budget resolution,
H.Con.Res. 376, on March 31. The committee measure recommended the
Administration-requested level of defense spending. The leadership did not bring
the measure to the floor in April in the face of internal Republican opposition. In
May, Republicans agreed on a measure that may provide room for a substantial
increase in funding for some domestic discretionary programs while officially still
adhering to the Administration’s proposed cap on total discretionary spending. The
House passed the revised measure on May 18 after rejecting several alternative
budget resolutions. The House resolution includes a cap only on non-defense
emergency funding.
FY2006 National Defense Authorization. The House Armed Services
Committee marked up its version of the FY2007 defense authorization bill, H.R.
5122, on May 3, and the House passed the measure on May 11. Highlights of the
committee’s bill and of floor action follow.
The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the bill,
S. 2766, on May 4 and reported it on May 9. Floor action in the Senate has not yet
been scheduled. Highlights of the committee bill follow.
Table 4, above, shows the amounts authorized in each version of the bill by
title. Tables A4 and A5 in the Appendix to this report compare House and Senate
authorized funding for selected major weapons programs.
It is important to note, however, that the annual defense authorization act does
not provide funding for these programs, only the appropriations acts do. The
appropriations acts may provide more, less, or the same as the amounts authorized
for various programs; may provide money for programs not authorized, including

---

CRS-19
new starts of programs; and may put restrictions on the use of funds that are not in
the authorization or that are at odds with provisions in the authorization.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of the House
Armed Services Committee Bill
Among the very broad range of issues that the House authorization bill
addresses, a few major points stand out. One is that the House Armed Services
Committee appears to have put somewhat more emphasis than DOD on maintaining
current military capabilities than on pursuing long-term defense transformation. This
is particularly true for some programs in which the risk of delays and cost growth in
weapons development appears high. The committee seems more inclined to support
the current Army modularization program, for example, than to continue investing
increasing amounts in the Future Combat System. Similarly, the committee slightly
trimmed higher risk missile defense technologies in favor of more immediately
deployable systems. And the committee continued, as it has in past years, to cut
funding for satellite programs that may be seen as reaching too far ahead with
technologically risky approaches, though cuts in the Transformational
Communications Satellite (TSAT) and the Space Radar were not nearly as large as
congressional cuts in the past two years.
Another key point is that the committee supports larger Army, Marine Corps,
and Army National Guard force levels than the Administration wants. This may be
a major policy issue this year, and it has very large long-term budget implications.
Also, as in the past, the committee has been reluctant to support proposed cuts
in weapons programs. It did not agree to halt production of the C-17 cargo aircraft,
for example, and it restored funds to develop an alternative, second engine supplier
for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee also did not fully support Administration proposals to rein in the
cost of personnel pay and benefits, and it added a substantial new health benefit for
reservists. The committee increased the proposed military pay raise from 2.2% to
2.7%, it rejected the DOD proposal to reduce health care costs by increasing under-
65 retiree medical fees and co-pays, and it made all reservists, except federal
employees covered by the government health insurance program, eligible to enroll
in the TRICARE medical insurance program with a fee of 28% of the cost. The
committee did approve one measure to increase co-pays for some prescription drug
purchases.
Significantly, the Committee did not approve a number of Administration
proposals to give regional combatant commanders greater authority – and resources –
to build the capabilities of foreign military forces. The Senate Armed Services
Committee, in contrast, approved most of the Administration’s proposals, although
with some restrictions.
Finally, the committee slowed down two programs that might be seen to have
negative international diplomatic consequences — one to develop a laser that might
be used as an anti-satellite weapon and the other a high-profile Administration

---

CRS-20
proposal to convert some Trident II missiles to carry conventional (non-nuclear)
warheads.
Highlights of committee action include:
! $50 billion bridge fund for overseas operations: The committee
approved $50 billion in emergency funding for costs of military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in FY2007. In
FY2006, total costs of overseas operations were almost $120 billion,
so average monthly $12 billion. If that rate continues, the bridge
fund will cover costs for the first five months of FY2006 — i.e.,
through January, 2007. Additional funds will then be needed to
cover costs for the remaining seven months of the year.
! Ground force end-strength: The committee bill increases Army
end-strength by 30,000 (to 512,400), and Marine Corps end-strength
by 5,000 (to 180,000). The bill also authorizes funding for an end-
strength of 350,000 for the Army National Guard, 17,000 above the
request. End-strength may be a major dispute between Congress and
the Administration this year.
! Pay raise: The bill provides a pay raise of 2.7% for uniformed
personnel, rather than the 2.2% requested.
! Tricare fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: The bill rejects
increases in retiree fees and co-pays through December 31, 2007 and
establishes a task force to consider ways to control DOD medical
costs.
! Tricare for reservists: The committee added an amendment in full
committee markup to allow all reservists — except federal
employees eligible for the government health insurance system —
to enroll in Tricare by paying 28% of the cost of the program (the
same cost share as federal employees pay). Last year, in the
conference on the FY2006 authorization bill, Congress rejected a
similar Senate amendment. Instead, Congress made Tricare
available, with a fee of 50% of the cost, to reservists who were
unemployed or who did not have access to employer-provided health
insurance. This is especially significant because the House has now,
for the first time, approved Tricare for reservists in its version of the
defense authorization – the Senate has approved it for the past two
years.
! Budget scoring of TRICARE-for-Life costs: In the FY2001
national defense authorization act, P.L. 106-398,Congress made
over-65 military retirees eligible to receive medical care through the
DOD TRICARE program as a supplement to Medicare. This has
proved to be an expensive increase in benefits. In FY2007, the DOD
budget includes more than $11 billion for contributions to the
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to cover the actuarially

---

CRS-21
determined cost of future benefits for current uniformed personnel.
In the FY2005 defense authorization, P.L. 108-375, Congress
approved a measure intended to count those costs not as expenses of
the Defense Department, but as costs to the general treasury. The
provision expressed the sense of Congress that the shift in costs
should not reduce the defense budget, but should, instead, permit an
increase in funding for weapons programs and other defense
priorities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however,
continued to score the contributions as discretionary funds in the
Department of Defense budget, though as permanent rather than as
annual appropriations.14 OMB also urged the chairmen of the House
and Senate Budget Committees to direct the Congressional Budget
Office to score the contributions in the same way, and both chairmen
agreed. In its version of the FY2007 authorization, the House
Armed Services Committee included a provision directly mandating
that the costs of TRICARE-for-Life contributions not be scored as
part of the DOD budget after FY2007.
! Death gratuity for federal civilian personnel: The bill provides
the same death gratuity for civilian personnel killed in support of a
military operation as for uniformed personnel. The FY2006
National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-163) increased the
military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000.
! Funding for readiness: The committee objected to cuts in ship
steaming days, flying hours, and depot maintenance and shifted $856
million from other programs in service operation and maintenance
accounts to finance increases in these readiness-related activities.
! Army Future Combat System development: The committee
expressed concern about cost growth, schedule delays, and the long-
term affordability of the FCS program, cut $326 million from the
$3.7 billion requested, and mandated a formal DOD review of
program with a go/no go decision to be made by the end of 2008.
! Army modularization: The committee expressed concern about the
affordability of the Army’s program to build a new modular brigade-
centered force structure in view of potentially competing costs of the
FCS and of resetting the force after Iraq. The committee added
funds for M-1 tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades, saying
that these programs were required to support modularization. It also
required the Army to provide a long-term funding profile.
14 For OMB’s rationale, see Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives:
Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2006, Chapter 6, pp. 422-425, on line at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf.

---

CRS-22
! Guard and reserve equipment: The committee added $318 million
for Army National Guard (ARNG) equipment to support its addition
of 17,000 to ARNG end-strength.
! Navy shipbuilding: The committee added $400 million in advance
procurement to support building two Virginia-class submarines in
FY2009, rather than the one now planned. The committee also
mandated a submarine fleet of 48 boats, which is what the Navy
currently plans. The committee also approved funding for 2 DD(X)
destroyers and provided that contracts may be signed simultaneously
with two shipyards. Last year, the committee had proposed
eliminating the DD(X). Notably, the committee rejected an
amendment in the full committee markup by Representative JoAnne
Davis to provide advance funding for common long-lead items for
three new aircraft carriers. Though the committee appears to support
the Navy’s 313 ship plan, it does not seem ready to lock in funding
for some aspects of the Navy program.
! F-22 procurement profile: The committee rejected the Air Force
plan for incremental procurement of the F-22 and added $1.4 billion
in FY2007 ($2 billion was requested) to cover the full cost of buying
20 complete aircraft.
! F-35 alternate engine and development concurrency: The
committee rejected the Air Force proposal to halt development of an
alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and added $408
million for second engine R&D. The committee also trimmed $241
million from long-lead funding for aircraft to be procured in
FY2008, citing excessively concurrent development and
procurement in the program.
! C-17 procurement: The committee added $300 million for three C-
17s, which would keep production lines open. The committee also
required the Air Force to operate at least 299 heavy-lift cargo
aircraft. So the committee would mandate at least seven more C-
17s.
! B-52 and U-2 retirements: The committee prohibited any B-52
retirements until a replacement capability is available (which is not
planned until some time after 2015) and prohibited retirement of any
U-2s unless DOD certifies that the aircraft are not needed to mitigate
any reconnaissance gaps identified in the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
! Missile defense: The committee cut a net total of $185 million from
missile defense R&D. It added $20 million for ground-based mid-
course defense (GMD) testing and $40 million for Navy ship-based
interceptor systems. It cut $100 million from the boost-phase
Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, $56 million for activating
a third GMD site in Europe since no site has been agreed to, $65

---

CRS-23
million from the multiple kill vehicle program, and $41 million for
a high-altitude airship sensor program. The committee also
prohibited expenditure of $200 million for the GMD program until
the system has completed two successful intercept tests. The
committee also included a policy provision requiring a report on the
purpose, costs, vulnerability, and international diplomatic
implications of space-based interceptors.
! Space systems: The committee cut $80 million from the
Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) program and
$30 million from the Space Radar, reflecting continued
congressional concern about technical risks in both programs. The
committee provided $20 million and established a new office to
promote development of new, low-cost, rapidly deployable satellites.
! Anti-satellite weapons: The committee included a policy provision
that prohibits the use of funds to develop laser space technologies
for anti-satellite weapons. This provision may be a response to Air
Force development of such capabilities at a laser and optics test
facility in New Mexico.15
! Trident II missile conversion: The committee included a policy
provision requiring consultations with allies about the Quadrennial
Defense Review decision to convert Trident II missiles to carry
conventional warheads.
! Information technology funding cut: The committee cut $341
million from DOD information technology programs, which total
$31 billion, as one means of offsetting increases in other programs.
! VH-71 Presidential helicopter funding cut: The committee
trimmed $39 million from the program due to development delays.
! Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs: The
committee required the Energy Department to submit a report on
plans to transform the nuclear weapons production complex and
specified a number of policy objectives.
! Cooperative threat reduction with the former Soviet Union: The
committee cut $35 million for a U.S. supported Russian system to
convert plutonium to non-weapons-grade fuel because of concerns
that the system could, in fact, produce more plutonium. And the
committee cut another $115 million from $290 million requested for
another plutonium conversion technology.
15 William J. Broad, “Administration Conducting Research Into Laser Weapon,” New York
Times, May 3, 2006.

---

CRS-24
! Acquisition of programs with large cost growth: The committee
approved an amendment in full committee markup that would
require DOD to allow competing contractors to make challenge bids
for work on programs that exceed critical cost growth ceilings —
currently 25% growth over original estimates.
! DOD support for foreign nations: The committee included in the
bill a DOD proposal to allow up to $200 million a year to be used
for logistical support of foreign nations engaged in combined
military operations with the United States and to permit DOD to
provide equipment temporarily to foreign military forces in
combined operations. It did not include the DOD proposal to use
defense funds to build the capacity of foreign militaries for counter-
terrorism or stability operations, as the Senate Armed Services
Committee did (see below for a discussion), nor did it approve other,
related Administration proposals.
! Provisions restricting acquisition of foreign-made items in
defense acquisition: As it has in the past, the House Armed
Services Committee included a number of provisions in its version
of the authorization bill to limit defense acquisition of foreign-made
goods. One provision, Section 812, would prohibit defense
contracts with a foreign company that has received government
subsidies. Another, Section 831, would prohibit procurement of a
specialty metal or item critical to national security unless it is
reprocessed, reused, or produced n the United States. Section 832
would establish a board to identify items critical to national security.
! Prohibition on procurement of items from companies that
provide defense goods to China: The House committee also
included a provision, Section 1211, that would prohibit defense
purchases from any company that provides material on the U.S.
Munitions List to China.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of House Floor
Action
On May 9, the House Rules Committee considered almost 100 proposed floor
amendments to the authorization bill. In an initial rule on the bill, it permitted just
eight of them, and in a second rule, permitted 27 more – 12 as part of three en bloc
amendments and another 15 amendments that were debated separately. Democrats
objected to the Rules Committee’s refusal to permit several amendments, including
an amendment by Representative Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the Armed
Services Committee, that would have reversed a measure in the committee bill that
increased co-pays for some prescription drug purchases.
Perhaps the most high profile amendment to pass (by a vote of 252-171) was a
proposal by Representative Goode to permit the Secretary of Defense to assign

---

CRS-25
military personnel to support the Department of Homeland Security in border
protection. Mr. Goode has offered a similar amendment for the past several years,
and before that, Representative Traficante perennially offered a similar measure. The
amendment has often passed in the House but has never been accepted in the final
conference agreement. This year, there was an extensive floor debate. And after its
approval, the President proposed a program to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops
to support border operations.
The House repeated another perennial debate over an amendment by
Representatives Andrews, Davis (CA), Sanchez (CA), and Harman to permit
privately funded abortions for U.S. military personnel or their dependents at military
hospitals overseas. It was rejected by a vote of 191-237.
The House also rejected, by a vote of 124-301, an amendment by Representative
Tierney to cut $4.7 billion from the Missile Defense Agency budget and allocate the
funds to other defense priorities.
And the House rejected, by a vote of 202-220, a motion by Representative
Salazar to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to report back a measure
that includes an amendment to change current procedures under which Survivor
Benefit Plan benefits are reduced. Under current law, benefits to survivors of those
who die while in service are reduced by the amount of Veterans Affairs benefits.
Other amendments permitted by the rule were all approved by voice vote. One
measure that passed was to require a study of the health impact of past ocean
dumping of chemical weapons.16 In general debate on the bill, both Democrats and
Republicans on the Armed Services Committee repeated lauded the committee bill
as a bipartisan measure that was approved in the committee by a vote of 62-1.
FY2007 Defense Authorization — Highlights of Senate Armed
Services Committee Bill
The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the defense
authorization, S. 2769, on May 4. A few themes stand out in the markup.
One is that the Senate committee approved 30,000 more troops than requested
for the Army and 5,000 more for the Marine Corps and also authorized 350,000
troops for the Army National Guard (ARNG), 17,000 above the number for which
the Army requested funding. The House also approved the same, higher end-strength
for ground forces. Congress and the Administration may be on a collision course
over the issue.
The Senate committee also undertook a number of initiatives to strengthen
government-wide capabilities to engage in counter-terrorism and stability operations.
One potentially far-reaching initiative is to agree to an Administration proposal to
expand the authority of regional military commanders to train and equip foreign
16 For a discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL33432, U.S. Disposal of Chemical
Weapons in the Ocean: Background and Issues for Congress, by David Bearden.

---

CRS-26
military forces and to provide humanitarian and other assistance to foreign nations.
These activities have traditionally been managed by the State Department under legal
authorities that include, among other things, human rights conditions. In bills
funding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress has temporarily provided some
of this authority, but the Administration wants Congress to write it into permanent
law. The committee restricted funding for the most far-reaching measure to two
years, saying that the program it should be regarded as a pilot project with an
assessment to follow. The committee also required consultations with ambassadors
and did not agree to allow waivers of human rights and other restrictions on
assistance.
The Senate committee appeared more supportive of the Army Future Combat
System (FCS) than the House committee, and provided the full $3.7 billion requested
for the program. The committee did, however, mandate a review of the program,
including an independent cost estimate of the program itself and of all associated
Army programs. If the most recent Army cost estimates for the FCS appear unstable,
Congress may consider ending or substantially restructuring the program.
Highlights of the committee markup include:
! Total funding: The Committee authorized $517.7 billion for
defense, including $50.0 billion in emergency funding overseas
operations and $467.7 billion in budget authority for DOD, DOE and
other non-emergency programs. The total is $3.7 billion above the
request and above the House authorization.
! Army and Marine Corps end-strength: The committee authorized
end-strengths of 512,400 for the Army, 30,000 above the request,
and of 180,000 for the Marine Corps, 5,000 above the request.
! Army National Guard end-strength: The committee also approved
an end-strength of 350,000 for the ARNG, 17,000 above the request,
and stipulated that, if the Army fails to recruit and retain enough
personnel to meet the authorized level, and money saved may be
used only to procure ARNG equipment.
! Military pay raise: The committee approved the requested pay raise
of 2.2% rather than the 2.7% raise the House authorized.
! TRICARE fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: As did the
House, the Committee rejected increases in retiree TRICARE fees
and co-pays. The Committee also required the Government
Accountability Office to carry out a full audit of DOD health care
costs, including comparisons of the Administration’s proposed fee
increases with increases in federal civilian health insurance fees.
! Flexibility for DOD to support foreign nations for counter-
terrorism operations: The Senate committee agreed to a number
DOD’s proposals to allow regional combatant commanders
flexibility to use DOD funds to train and equip foreign militaries and

---

CRS-27
to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to foreign
governments in support of counter-terrorism operations, though with
some amendments. In particular, the committee agreed to make
available $200 million per year for the next two years, rather than
$750 million per year indefinitely, to build the capabilities of foreign
militaries. The committee specified that no more than $50 million
per year could be used by any one regional combatant commander,
and required detailed consultations with U.S. ambassadors. The
committee also required the President to develop a plan to better
coordinate interagency counter-terrorism practices. With the
appropriations committees cutting foreign operations funding for the
State Department and AID, the Defense Department is, in effect
taking on many roles that the State Department formerly carried on.
! Detainee treatment: The committee required an official
government-wide coordinated legal opinion on whether specified
interrogation techniques constitute cruel and inhuman treatment.
! Use of armed forces for domestic activities: The committee
proposed amendments to the Insurrection Act that would make it
easier for the President to employ the armed forces to respond to
domestic emergencies, such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
! UAV policy: The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
develop a comprehensive policy on UAVs and to give UAVs a
preference in developing new systems.
! Navy shipbuilding: The committee added $1.5 billion to the
shipbuilding request for a total of $12 billion. Increases include
accelerating LPD procurement, increased advance procurement
funds for the CVN-21 carrier and the LHA(R) amphibious ship. The
committee included $50 million in advance procurement funding for
long-lead items for three new CVN-21-class carriers, a measure that
the House committee specifically rejected in a vote in the full
committee markup.
! Permitting a reduction from 12 to 11 deployable aircraft
carriers: The committee bill includes a provision repealing last
year’s requirement that the Navy maintain 12 deployable carriers.
If approved this would allow retirement of the USS Kennedy.
! Continued C-17 production: As in the House bill, the committee
bill rejects the DOD proposal to terminate C-17 production. The
Senate bill authorizes funds for 2 aircraft in FY2007 and advance
procurement for continued production later.
! Army Future Combat System (FCS) funding: As opposed to the
House, the Senate committee authorized the full $3.7 billion
requested for FCS development. The committee also, however,
required a review of the program, including an independent cost

---

CRS-28
estimate, though not with a view to a go/no go decision, as the
House mandated.
! Readiness: The committee used the $50 billion emergency “bridge”
fund as a means of adding funds to regular service accounts to
correct some readiness-related shortfalls. The committee added
$515 million in the emergency funds, for example, for Navy
operations, $231 million for Army operations, and $106 million for
Marine Corps operations. So, in effect, the committee is
ameliorating constraints on the regular service budgets by adding
funds for regular military operations to the emergency fund.
! Acquisition reform: The committee approved several measures to
reform defense acquisition procedures, though none nearly so far-
reaching as the House committee measure to recompete projects
with excessive cost growth. One Senate committee measure is to
align the tenure of program managers with the progress of their
programs and another to require that incentive payments be more
directly linked to acquisition outcomes.
! Land exchanges to build buffers around military facilities: The
Defense Department has long been concerned about the
encroachment of civilian development on military facilities. The
Senate committee approved a measure to allow DOD to exchange
excess land for other land that would be a buffer for military sites.
! Cooperative threat reduction with former Soviet states: In
contrast to the House authorization, the Senate committee made no
reductions in the $1.7 billion requested for Department of Energy
nonproliferation programs (which finance plutonium purchases and
reprocessing, for example) or the $372 million for the Department
of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
! R&D science and technology funding target: Congress has
required that the Defense Department invest 3% of the overall
budget in basic science and technology (S&T) R&D programs.
DOD has perennially fallen short of that target. The Senate
committee included a provision requiring annual growth of 2% per
year above inflation in S&T accounts.
! Missile defense funding: The Senate committee approved the full
$9.3 billion requested for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) R&D
programs (see Table A2 for details of the request), but, like the
House, shifted funds away from longer-term, more risky programs
to near term projects. The committee added $200 million for
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) flight testing and $100
million for the Navy interceptor system. It cut $200 million from the
$406 million requested for the boost-phase Kinetic Energy
Interceptor.

---

CRS-29
! Space systems: The committee expressed support for DOD’s
restructuring of the Transformational Communications Satellite
(TSAT) program, but trimmed $70 million from the program (an 8%
cut) saying that it could not be executed. The committee also cut
$66 million (a 24% cut) from the Space Radar program and
expressed concern about the lack of a cost sharing agreement with
the intelligence community.
! Long-range strike/Trident II missile conventional warhead: The
committee expressed support for DOD’s plan to develop prompt
global strike capabilities, and provided the full $127 million
requested to convert Trident II missiles to carry non-nuclear
warheads. But, like the House committee, the Senate committee was
concerned about the international diplomatic issues and prohibited
expenditure of more than $32 million on conversion until the
Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State,
provides a report on the matters at issue.
! B-52 retirements: The committee prohibited the proposed
retirement of B-52 bombers until the Air Force reports on force
requirements, but also approved a measure that (1) permits the
retirement of up to 18 B-52H aircraft, (2) requires that remaining B-
52Hs all be equipped with the specific upgrades, and (3) says the
committee expects no additional B-52H retirements.
! F-35 Joint Striker Fighter alternative engine: Like the House, the
Senate committee added $400 million to continue development of
an alternate second engine for the F-35.
! F-35 schedule delays: The committee cut $1.2 billion from F-35
procurement funds due to schedule delays.
! F-22 funding: Like the House, the Senate committee rejected the
Air Force plan to stretch out F-22 production and to provide funding
incrementally rather than financing the full cost of deployable
aircraft in the year for which funding is requested. The committee
added $1.4 billion for full funding for the requested 20 F-22s.
Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations
Ultimately, the total amount provided for national defense in the regular
appropriations bills (not including emergency appropriations) is determined by the
allocation of funds among appropriations subcommittees. Under Section 302(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the annual congressional budget resolution
allocates a specific amount of discretionary budget authority to the appropriations
committees. Under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the appropriations committees
are required to report back on the allocation of the total to the subcommittees.

---

CRS-30
The House-committee-passed FY2007 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 376,
approves a total of $872.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is $475
million below the Administration request, and the resolution allocated that amount
to the appropriations committee under Section 302(a) of the Budget Act. The Senate-
passed budget resolution approves $877.0 billion in discretionary spending, $3.7
billion above the Administration request, and allocates the total to the appropriations
committee.
On May 4, the House Appropriations Committee reported its initial
subcommittee allocations under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act. Table 6 shows
the committee action. It is important to note that these allocations may be revised
periodically as congressional action on the appropriations bills proceeds.
The initial House allocations trim $4.0 billion from the defense subcommittee,
compared to the Administration request, $824 million from the Military Quality of
Life/VA subcommittee, and $2.4 billion from the foreign operations subcommittee.
These cuts, compared to the request, in defense and foreign affairs allow increases,
again compared to the Administration request, mainly in Labor-HHS appropriations
and homeland security appropriations. Last year, Congress trimmed $4.4 billion
from DOD programs in the regular appropriations bills. The initial House allocations
appear to follow the same approach.
Table 6. Initial House 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Allocation
FY2006
FY2007
Versus
Enacted
Request Allocation
Request
Agriculture
16.8
17.3
17.8
+0.5
Defense
358.3
381.4
377.4
-4.0
Energy and Water Development
30.2
29.5
30.0
+0.5
Foreign Operations
20.7
23.7
21.3
-2.4
Homeland Security
30.3
31.0
32.1
+1.1
Interior/Environment
25.9
25.5
25.9
+0.4
Labor, HHS, Education
141.1
137.8
141.9
+4.1
Legislative
3.8
4.2
4.0
-0.2
Military Quality of Life/VA
85.0
95.5
94.7
-0.8
Science, State, Justice, Comm
57.2
59.7
59.8
+0.1
Transportation, Treasury, HUD
64.1
67.6
67.8
+0.2
Total 302(a) Allocation
833.3
873.3
872.8
-0.5
Source: House Appropriations Committee.

---

CRS-31
For Additional Reading
CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on
Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief, coordinated by Paul
M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.
CRS Report 98-756C, Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills:
FY1970-FY2006, by Thomas Coipuram Jr.
FY2007 Defense Budget Issues for Congress: Slides from a CRS Seminar, February
10, 2006, by Stephen Daggett, Ronald O’Rourke, and Charles A. Henning. Available
on line at [http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/documents/WD00005.pdf].
CRS Report RS20851, Naval Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress,
by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32513, Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime
Prepositioning Ship Programs: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32418, Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement
Rate: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL33161, The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and the Army’s
Future Combat System (FCS): Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by
Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL33390, Proposed Termination of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F136
Alternate Engine by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Issue Brief IB92115, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RS20859, Air Force Transformation, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background,
Status, and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.

---

CRS-32
CRS Report RL30685, Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program, by Christopher
Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads For Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RS21754, Military Forces: What is the Appropriate Size for the United
States?, by Edward F. Bruner.
CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Fees: Background and Options for
Congress, by Richard A. Best Jr.
CRS Issue Brief IB10089, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers,
by Charles A. Henning.
CRS Report RL33432, U.S. Disposal of Chemical Weapons in the Ocean:
Background and Issues for Congress, by David Bearden.

---

CRS-33
Appendix A: Additional Tables
Table A1. Administration Projection of National Defense Funding,
FY2007-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Military Personnel
115,824
113,147
114,603
117,879
121,166
124,589
Operation and Maintenance
178,346
152,646
159,338
165,260
171,925
174,523
Procurement
86,185
84,197
99,776
108,622
111,708
117,722
Research, Development, Test, and
71,046
73,444
74,388
75,128
73,232
70,626
Evaluation
Military Construction
8,936
12,613
12,872
12,592
11,957
10,644
Family Housing
4,439
4,085
3,182
3,108
2,960
2,967
Other
3,374
1,118
31
1,178
949
3,150
Anticipated Funding for War on
70,000
50,000
-
-
-
-
Terror
051 Subtotal, Department of
538,150
491,250
464,190
483,767
493,897
504,221
Defense — Military
053 Atomic energy defense
18,101
17,017
16,238
16,608
16,388
16,736
activities
054 Defense-related activities
5,564
4,758
4,794
4,878
4,979
5,150
Total, National defense
561,815
513,025
485,222
505,253
515,264
526,107
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, FY2007,
February 2006; Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2007, March 2006.

---

CRS-34
Table A2. Proposed Missile Defense Funding, FY2007-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Total
PE Number and Title
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY07-11
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) RDT&E
0603175C Ballistic Missile Defense
207
183
214
223
228
1,055
Technology
0603881C Ballistic Missile Defense
1,038
904
682
754
469
3,847
Terminal Defense Segment
0603882C Ballistic Missile Defense
2,877
2,650
2,397
2,148
1,685
11,758
Midcourse Defense Segment
0603883C Ballistic Missile Defense Boost
632
577
456
457
687
2,809
Defense Segment
0603884C Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors
515
589
647
326
220
2,298
0603886C Ballistic Missile Defense System
406
425
895
1,202
1,675
4,603
Interceptors
0603888C Ballistic Missile Defense Test
600
595
629
635
656
3,114
and Targets (includes MILCON)
0603889C Ballistic Missile Defense
507
506
510
507
513
2,542
Products
0603890C Ballistic Missile Defense System
473
501
524
555
573
2,626
Core
0603891C Special Programs - MDA
375
715
630
725
695
3,140
0603892C Ballistic Missile Defense Aegis
1,032
952
980
973
799
4,736
0603893C Space Tracking & Surveillance
391
427
772
958
885
3,433
System
0603894C Multiple Kill Vehicle
165
286
357
413
505
1,726
0603895C BMD System Space Program
-
45
151
167
207
570
0901598C/ 0901585C Management
103
93
92
75
75
438
Headquarters / PRMRF
0207998C Base Realignment and Closure
-
85
19
3
-
107
(BRAC)
Total Missile Defense Agency R&D
9,318
9,536
9,956
10,121
9,873
48,803
RDT&E Army
0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS Combined
330
460
517
592
422
2,320
Aggregate Program
0203801A PATRIOT Product Improvement
11
11
11
12
13
58
Program
RDT&E The Joint Staff
0605126J Joint Theater Air and Missile
52
54
55
56
58
275
Defense Organization
Total Army, Joint Staff R&D
393
524
583
660
492
2,653
Procurement Army
PATRIOT PAC-3
489
473
479
0
0
1,441
PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate
0
90
65
430
674
1,259
Program
PATRIOT Modifications
70
77
50
54
56
307
Subtotal, Army Procurement
559
639
594
484
731
3,006

---

CRS-35
Total
PE Number and Title
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY07-11
Operation and Support
PE Air Force Military Personnel
8
8
9
9
9
42
PE Air Force Operations and Maintenance
12
34
33
34
35
148
PE Air Force Other Procurement
1
11
0
18
26
57


PE Army Op

erations and Maintenance
68
70
71
73
75
358
PE Army Natl Guard Military Personnel
24
25
26
26
26
126
PE Army Natl Guard Operations and
0
0
0
0
0
1
Maintenance
PE Navy Operations and Maintenance
24
24
25
23
24
120
Subtotal Operation & Support
138
173
164
183
195
852
Grand Total Missile Defense R&D,
10,409
10,871
11,296
11,448
11,291
55,314
Procurement, O&S
Sources: Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2007: Missile Defense Agency, and other
budget justification material.
Table A3. Authorized and Actual Active Duty End-Strength,
FY2004-FY2007
(number of personnel at the end of each fiscal year)
Marine
Air
Total
Army
Navy
Corps
Force
Active
FY2004 Actual
482,400
373,800
175,000
359,300
1,390,500
FY2005 Authorized
502,400
365,900
178,000
359,700
1,406,000
FY2005 Actual
492,728
362,941
180,029
353,696
1,389,394
FY2006 Authorized
512,400
352,700
179,000
357,400
1,401,500
FY2007 Request
482,400
340,700
175,000
334,200
1,332,300
FY2007 House
512,400
340,700
180,000
334,200
1,367,300
FY2007 House vs Request
+30,000
0
+5,000
0
+35,000
FY2007 Senate
512,400
340,700
180,000
334,200
1,367,300
FY2007 Senate vs Request
+30,000
0
+5,000
0
+35,000
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2007: Appendix, Feb. 2006, p. 245; H.Rept. 109-452; S.Rept. 109-254.

---

CRS-36
Table A4. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House
Senate
Conference
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
Army/Marine Corps
Armed Recon Helicopter
18
141.4
132.8
18
141.4
132.8
18
141.4
132.8
—
—
— —
Light Utility Helicopter
39
198.7
—
39
198.7
—
39
198.7
—
—
—
— —
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter
38
740.4
127.0
38
870.4
127.0
38
740.4
127.0
—
—
— House adds $115 mn for Army Reserve
aircraft and $15 mn for engine upgrade.
AH-64 Apache Helo Mods
—
794.6
123.4
—
801.6
123.4 —
794.6
123.4
—
—
— House adds $7 mn in proc for upgrades.
CH-47 Helicopter Mods
—
620.0
13.1
—
621.9
13.1 —
620.0
13.1
—
—
— House adds $1.9 mn in proc for upgrades.
M-2 Bradley Vehicle Mods
—
359.7
—
—
506.7
— —
597.7
—
—
—
— House adds $147 mn. Senate adds $238 mn.
—1 Abrams Tank Mods
23
536.0
12.7
23
482.4
12.7
23
707.0
12.7
—
—
— House shifts $182.5 mn to Title XV,*adds
$128.9 mn. Senate adds $170 mn.
Stryker Armored Vehicle
100
796.0
5.4
100
796.0
15.4 100
796.0
5.4
—
—
— House adds $10 mn in R&D.
Future Combat System
—
3,745.6
—
3,419.8 —
3,745.6
—
—
— House cuts $325.8 mn in R&D.
Hi Mob Multi-Purpose Veh.
—
617.4
—
—
582.6
— —
617.4
—
—
—
— House shifts $34.8 mn to Title XV.*
Family of Medium Tactical
—
695.1
1.9
—
695.1
2.3 —
695.1
1.9
—
—
— —
Veh.
Family of Heavy Tactical Veh.
—
353.2
4.0
—
353.2
4.0 —
353.2
4.0
—
—
— —
Armored Security Vehicle
—
155.5
—
—
77.7
— —
155.5
—
—
—
— House shifts $77.5 mn to Title XV.*
Heavy Expanded Tactical Truck
—
220.4
—
—
110.2
— —
220.4
—
—
—
— House shifts $110.2 to Title XV.*
Warfighter Information
—
—
158.2
—
—
118.2 —
100.0
158.2
—
—
— House cuts $40 mn in R&D. Senate adds
Network-Tactical
$100 mn in procurement.
Bridge to Future Networks
—
340.2
—
—
340.2
— —
240.2
—
—
—
— Senate cuts $100 mn.
Joint Tactical Radio System
—
1.3
832.3
—
1.3
832.3 —
1.3
832.3
—
—
— —

---

CRS-37
House
Senate
Conference
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
15
256.2
188.3
15
256.2
188.3
15
256.2
188.3
—
—
— —
Navy Shipbuilding
CVN-21 Carrier Replacement
—
784.1
309.1 —
784.1
309.1 —
834.1
309.1 —
—
— Senate adds $50 mn for long-lead items for 3
Program
ships.
Virginia Class Submarine
1 2,452.1
169.6
1 2,852.1
214.6
1
2,452.1
234.6 —
—
— House adds $400 mn in advance procurement
for 2nd ship in FY2009 and $45 mn in R&D.
Senate adds $65 mn in R&D for affordable
design.
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
— 1,071.6
— — 1,071.6
— —
1,091.6
— —
—
— Senate adds $20 mn for defueling facility
Missile Submarine Conversion
226.2
— —
226.2
— —
226.2
— —
—
— —
DD(X) Destroyer
2 2,568.1
793.3
2 2,568.1
818.3
2
2,568.1
793.3 —
—
— House adds $25 mn in R&D.
DDG-51 Destroyer
—
355.8
— —
555.8
— —
355.8
— —
—
— House adds $200 mn for ship modernization.
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
2
520.7
319.7
2
520.7
319.7
2
520.7
319.7 —
—
— —
LPD-17 Amphibious Ship
—
297.5
— —
297.5
—
1
1,582.5
— —
—
— Senate adds $1.6 bn for 1 ship, cuts $298 mn
for adv. proc.
LHA(R) Amphibious Ship
1 1,135.9
34.5
1 1,135.9
34.5
1
1,310.9
34.5 —
—
— Senate adds $175 mn adv. proc.
Prior Year Shipbuilding
—
577.8
— —
577.8
— —
577.8
— —
—
— —
Other Shipbuilding
—
588.7
— —
593.3
— —
568.7
— —
—
— —
T-AKE Cargo Ship
1
455.0
—
1
455.0
—
1
455.0
— —
—
— —
Total Shipbuilding
711,033.6
—
711,638.2
—
8 12,543.6
— —
—
— —
Aircraft
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, AF
5 1,015.0 1,999.1
5
932.0
1,999.1
5
60.0 1,999.1
—
—
— House cuts $83 mn from advance procurement
to reduce concurrency. Senate cuts all
procurement except $60 mn in adv proc.

---

CRS-38
House
Senate
Conference
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
—
245.0 2,031.0
—
92.0
2,031.0 —
— 2,031.0
—
—
— House cuts $153 mn from advance
procurement to reduce concurrency. Senate
eliminates $245 mn in adv proc to reduce
production rate.
F-22 Fighter, AF
— 2,197.4
584.3
20 3,597.4
584.3 —
3,597.4
584.3
—
—
— House and Senate add $1.4 bn for full funding
of 20 aircraft.
C-17 Cargo Aircraft, AF
12 2,887.6
173.8
15 3,187.4
173.8
14
2,887.6
173.8
—
—
— House adds $300 mn for 3 aircraft. Senate
adds $400 mn for 2 aircraft, cuts $433 mn for
settlement fees, adds $33 mn for adv proc.
C-130J Cargo Aircraft, AF
9 1,044.0
288.8
9 1,044.0
288.8
9
1,044.0
288.8
—
—
— —
KC-130J Aircraft, Navy
4
298.9
—
4
298.9
—
4
298.9
0.0
—
—
— —
C-130 Aircraft Mods, AF
—
217.7
—
—
237.0
— —
217.7
0.0
—
—
— House adds $19.3 mn for upgrades.
C-5 Cargo Aircraft Mods, AF
—
223.1
150.2
—
289.8
150.2 —
223.1
150.2
—
—
— House adds $44.5 mn for upgrades and $22.2
mn for adv proc.
Global Hawk UAV, AF
6
493.2
247.7
6
493.2
247.7
6
493.2
247.7
—
—
— —
Predator UAV, AF
26
229.1
61.5
26
114.5
61.5
26
229.1
61.5
—
—
— House shifts $114.6 mn to Title XV.*
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
12
905.2
372.4
12
905.2
372.4
12
905.2
372.4
—
—
— —
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
30 2,341.2
31.1
30 2,341.2
31.1
30
2,341.2
31.1
—
—
— —
V-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, Navy
14 1,584.5
268.5
14 1,584.5
268.5
14
1,584.5
268.5
—
—
— —
CV-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, AF
2
243.0
26.6
2
243.0
26.6
2
243.0
26.6
—
—
— —
MH-60S Helicopter, Navy
18
548.6
83.7
18
548.6
83.7
24
660.6
83.7
—
—
— Senate adds $118 mn for 6 aircraft.
MH-60R Helicopter, Navy
25
915.7
19.3
25
915.7
19.3
26
943.7
19.3
—
—
— Senate adds $28 mn for 1 aircraft.
E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft, Navy
2
203.6
1.5
2
203.6
1.5
2
203.6
1.5
—
—
— —
T-45 Goshawk Trainer, Navy
12
411.3
—
12
411.3
—
10
347.3
—
—
—
— Senate cuts $32 mn for 2 aircraft.
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, AF
48
305.1
2.2
48
305.1
2.2
48
305.1
2.2
—
—
— —
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, Navy
21
146.1
—
25
175.0
—
21
146.1
—
—
—
— House adds $28.9 mn for 4 aircraft.

---

CRS-39
House
Senate
Conference
Request
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
# $ $ # $ $ # $ $ # $ $
Comments
Missiles/Space
Trident II Missile Mods, Navy
—
957.6
124.5
—
919.6
124.5 —
957.6
124.5
—
—
— House cuts $38 mn for conversion to
conventional warhead.
Tactical Tomahawk, Navy
350
354.6
18.6
350
354.6
18.6 350
354.6
18.6
—
—
— —
Mobile User Objective System,
—
—
655.3
—
—
655.3 —
—
655.3
—
—
— —
Navy
Jt Air-to-Surface Standoff Msl.,
234
187.2
40.9
234
187.2
40.9 234
187.2
40.9
—
—
— —
AF
Minuteman III Mods, AF
—
691.7
45.5
—
691.7
45.5 —
711.7
45.5
—
—
— Senate adds $20 mn for propulsion
replacement.
Advanced EHF Satellite, AF
—
—
633.3
—
—
633.3 —
—
633.3
—
—
— —
Wideband Gapfiller Satellite,
1
414.4
37.7
1
414.4
37.7
1
414.4
46.2
—
—
— Senate adds $8.5 mn in R&D for command
AF
and control.
Evolved Expendable Launch
4
936.5
18.5
4
936.5
18.5
4
936.5
18.5
—
—
— —
Vehicle, AF
Space-Based Infrared System-
—
—
668.9
—
—
668.9 —
—
668.9
—
—
— —
High, AF
Transformational
—
—
867.1
—
—
787.1 —
—
797.1
—
—
— House cuts $80 mn and Senate cuts $70 mn
Communications Satellite, AF
due to excessive risk.
Space Radar, AF
—
—
266.4
—
—
236.4 —
—
200.0
—
—
— House cuts $30 mn and Senate cuts $66 mn
due to excessive risk.
Sources: DOD; H.Rept. 109-452; S.Rept. 109-254.
*Note: Title XV of the bill authorizes emergency funding for overseas operations. See Table A6 for procurement and R&D programs authorized in Title XV.

---

CRS-40
Table A5. Emergency Funding, Authorization
(millions of dollars)
House
Senate
Conference
Total Procurement
5,166.3
2,126.7
—
Army Procurement
3,773.8
1,755.1
—
Aircraft
232.4
404.1
—
Missiles
—
450.0
—
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles
1,029.7
214.4
—
Ammunition
328.3
—
—
Other
2,183.4
686.6
—
Navy/Marine Corps Procurement
955.4
319.8
Weapons
131.4
—
Ammunition
143.2
—
—
Other
44.7
—
—
Marine Corps
636.1
319.8
—
Air Force Procurement
296.9
51.8
—
Aircraft
201.6
—
—
Missiles
32.7
—
—
Other
62.7
51.8
—
Defense-Wide Procurement
140.2
—
—
Total
140.2
—
—
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
37.5
—
—
Army
25.5
—
—
Air Force
7.0
—
—
Defense-Wide
5.0
—
—
Operation and Maintenance
31,983.3
32,246.2
—
Army
22,397.0
22,124.5
—
Army National Guard
50.0
59.0
—
Navy
1,834.6
2,349.6
—
Marine Corps
1,485.9
1,544.9
—
Air Force
2,823.0
2,779.9
—
Air National Guard
15.4
—
—
Defense-Wide
3,377.4
3,388.4
—
Other Programs
3,450.2
8,291.2
—
Defense Health Program
950.2
960.2
—
Classified Programs
2,500.0
3,000.0
—
Joint IED Defeat Fund
—
2,100.0
—
Iraqi Freedom Fund
—
2,231.0
—
Military Personnel
9,362.8
7,335.9
—
Army
6,869.9
5,467.0
—
Army Reserve
150.0
—
—
Army National Guard
100.0
—
—
Navy
333.0
321.0
—
Marine Corps
749.4
466.1
—
Air Force
1,071.8
1,081.8
—
Air National Guard
36.7
—
—
Benefits
52.0
—
—
Grand Total
50,000.0
50,000.0
—

---

CRS-41
Table A6. Authorization of Emergency Funds for
Procurement and R&D: Line Item Detail
(millions of dollars)
House
Senate
Conference
Total Procurement
5,166.3
2,126.7
—
Army Procurement
3,773.8
1,755.1
—
Aircraft
232.4
404.1
—
AH-64 Helicopters
49.5
—
—
UH-60 Battle Losses
—
71.0
—
CH-47 Helicopter
82.9
333.1
—
Joint IED Defeat Surveillance Platform
100.0
—
Missiles
—
450.0
Upgrade Patriot Battalions to Configuration 3
—
400.0
Additional PAC-3 Missiles (16)
—
50.0
—
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles
1,029.7
214.4
Bradley Base Sustainment
380.0
—
Stryker
41.5
—
—
Stryker SLAT Armor
24.4
—
—
Abrams Upgrades (from Title I)
182.5
—
—
Abrams Upgrades
187.3
136.5
—
Abrams Urban Survivability Kits
77.0
77.9
—
Machine Guns (from Title I)
39.9
—
—
Machine Guns/Carbines
55.2
—
—
Phalanx Mods
42.0
—
—
Ammunition
328.3
—
Other Procurement, Army
2,183.4
686.6
Up-Armor HMMWVs
500.0
508.0
Up-Armor HMMWVs, Protection Measures
364.0
—
—
Armored Security Vehicles
83.0
—
—
Armored Security Vehicles (from Title I)
77.8
—
—
Heavy Expanded Mobility Trucks (HEMTT)
Mods
25.0
125.0
—
HEMTT ESP Mods (from Title I)
110.2
—
—
HMMWV Recapitalization (from Title I)
34.8
—
—
Fuel Tank Fire Suppression Kits
19.4
—
—
SINCGARS Radios (from Title I)
58.3
—
—
SINCGARS Radios
31.6
—
—
CSEL Radios (from Title I)
8.3
—
—
CSEL Radios
35.6
—
—
Improved HF Radios (from Title I)
45.7
—
—
Improved HF Radios
50.6
—
—
Land-Mobile Radios
30.0
—
Prophet Ground
48.3
—
—
Tactical Unmanned Aerial System (from Title I)
50.2
—
—
Counter-Mortar Radar
10.5
—
—
Night Vision Devices (from Title I)
160.5
—
—
Night Vision Devices
20.9
—
—
AN/TMQ-52 Profiler
23.6
23.6
—
FireFinder Radars (from Title I)
9.6
—
—
Force XXI Battle Command Sys (from Title I)
80.1
—
—
Force XXI Battle Command System
52.0
—
—

---

CRS-42
House
Senate
Conference
Route Clearance Team Equipment (from Title I)
68.1
—
—
HMMWV & Truck Trainers, National Guard
25.0
—
—
Joint IED Defeat Electronic Countermine
109.7
—
—
Manual Transport Robotic System
16.8
—
—
C-RAM
66.2
—
—
Navy/Marine Corps Procurement
955.4
319.8
Weapons, Navy
131.4
—
Hellfire II Missile, MC
122.0
—
—
Pioneer UAV Sustainment
9.4
—
—
Ammunition, Navy/Marine Corps
143.2
—
—
Other Procurement, Navy
44.7
—
—
ScanEagle UAV
39.7
—
—
Satcom Terminals
5.0
—
—
Marine Corps Procurement
636.1
319.8
AAV Armor Kits
7.0
—
—
HIMARS Add-On Armor
170.7
85.3
—
Small Arms Mods
50.0
—
—
Weapons Under $5 mn (from Title I)
4.5
—
—
TOW Bunker Buster Missiles
30.6
—
—
Night Vision Equipment
48.1
—
—
Night Vision Equipment (from Title I)
6.9
—
—
Radio Systems
120.4
—
—
Radio Systems (from Title I)
26.8
—
—
Up-Armor HMMWVs
84.7
—
—
Up-Armor HMMWVs (from Title I)
36.2
—
—
Cougar and Buffalo
100.0
—
Assault Breacher Vehicles
12.0
12.0
—
AAV7A1 Product Improvement
22.5
—
Gunner Protection Kits
100.0
EOD Systems
16.3
—
—
EOD Systems (from Title I)
7.4
—
—
MTVR Training Devices
3.9
—
—
Virtual Convoy Trainer
5.5
—
—
Biometric Automated Toolkits
2.3
—
—
ULCANS
3.0
—
—
Air Force Procurement
296.9
51.8
—
Aircraft
201.6
—
—
Predator UAV (from Title I)
114.6
—
—
Predator UAV
80.0
—
—
U-2 Aircraft
7.0
—
—
Missiles
32.7
—
—
Predator Hellfire Missiles (from Title I)
32.7
—
—
Other Procurement, Air Force
62.7
51.8
—
HMMWV Armored (from Title I)
4.2
—
—
HMMWV Up-Armored (from Title I)
5.7
—
—
HMMWV Up-Armored
51.8
51.8
U-2
1.0
—
—
Defense-Wide Procurement
140.2
—
—
MH-47 Reconstitution
4.1
—
—
Time Delay Firing Device
7.5
—
—
Persistent Predator Operations
13.4
—
—

---

CRS-43
House
Senate
Conference
Predator Payload Integration
6.0
—
—
Specialized Ballistic Protection
2.2
—
—
Counter Ambush Weapons System
6.3
—
—
MH-47 Radio Frequency Countermeasures
44.0
—
—
M134DT Mini-Gun Replacement
13.9
—
—
Miniature Multi-Band Beacons
8.9
—
—
Small Arms Laser Acquisition Marker
5.3
—
—
Clip-On Night Vision Device
12.6
—
—
Special Weapons Observation System
6.0
—
—
Thermal Clip-On Night Vision Device
10.0
—
—
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
37.6
—
—
Army
25.5
—
—
C-RAM
25.5
—
—
Air Force
7.0
—
—
U-2
7.0
—
—
Defense-Wide
5.1
—
—
Pacific Wind
4.1
—
—
Specialized Ballistic Protection
1.0
—
—
Sources: H.Rept. 109-452; S.Rept. 109-254

---