Order Code RL33999
Defense: FY2008 Authorization
and Appropriations
Updated November 9, 2007
Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense. For both defense authorization and
appropriations, this report summarizes the status of the bills, their scope, major issues,
funding levels, and related congressional activity. This report is updated as events warrant
and lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered as well as related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at [http://apps.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?
PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=221&from=3&fromId=73].
Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The President’s FY2008 federal budget request, released February 5, 2007,
included $647.2 billion in new budget authority for national defense. In addition to
$483.2 billion for the regular operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), the
request included $141.7 billion for continued military operations, primarily to fund
the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for the nuclear weapons and
other defense-related programs of the Department of Energy, and $5.2 billion for
defense-related activities of other agencies. On July 31, 2007, the President
requested an additional $5.3 billion for war-fighting costs, and on October 22 he
requested an additional $42.3 billion for that purpose.
The $483.2 billion requested for DOD’s “base” budget — that is, the request for
regular operations excluding the cost of ongoing combat activity — is $46.8 billion
higher than the agency’s base budget for FY2007, an increase of 11% in nominal
terms and, by DOD’s reckoning, an increase in real purchasing power of 8.0%.
The House passed on May 17 its version of the authorization bill, H.R. 1585,
approving $1.2 billion more than the President’s request. The Senate Armed Services
Committee reported its counterpart bill, S. 1547, on June 5. The Senate substituted
the text of that measure for the House-passed text of H.R. 1585 when it took up the
latter bill on July 9. After unsuccessfully attempting to force a vote on amendments
requiring withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Majority Leader, Senator Reid,
set the bill aside on July 18. The Senate resumed consideration of the defense
authorization bill on September 17 and, in the course of the that week, adopted
dozens of non-controversial amendments. However, the Senate rejected several
amendments relating to the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq that were debated
under agreements requiring 60 votes for adoption of the amendment. The Senate
passed the authorization bill October 1 by a vote of 92-3, setting the stage for a
conference with the House to reconcile differences between the versions passed by
the two chambers.
In related action, the House passed its version of the FY2008 defense
appropriations bill on August 5. The bill, H.R. 3222, would appropriate $448.7
billion in discretionary budget authority for DOD’s “base” budget, excluding the cost
of military construction which is funded in a separate bill (H.R. 2642, S. 1645) and
excluding projected FY2008 war costs, which the House plans to deal with in a
separate bill. The bill would provide $3.5 billion less in discretionary budget
authority than the President requested for operations within the scope of that
legislation.
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3222 , which also would appropriate
$452.5 billion in discretionary budget authority, by voice vote on October 4, 2007.
House-Senate conferees on H.R. 3222 concluded on November 6 a conference
report that would appropriate $460.3 billion. On November 8, the House adopted the
conference report by a vote of 400-15 and the Senate adopted it by voice vote.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Acquisition
Valerie Grasso
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Aviation Forces
Christopher Bolkcom
7-2577
cbolkcom@crs.loc.gov
Arms Control
Amy Woolf
7-2379
awoolf@crs.loc.gov
Arms Sales
Richard Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Base Closure
Daniel Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Pat Towell
7-2122
ptowell@crs.loc.gov
Defense Budget
Stephen Daggett
7-7642
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Gary Pagliano
7-1750
gpagliano@crs.loc.gov
Defense Industry
Daniel Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Michael Davey
7-7074
mdavey@crs.loc.gov
Defense R&D
John Moteff
7-1435
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Edward Bruner
7-2775
ebruner@crs.loc.gov
Ground Forces
Steven Bowman
7-7613
sbowman@crs.loc.gov
Andrew Feickert
7-7673
afeickert@crs.loc.gov
Health Care; Military
Richard Best
7-7607
rbest@crs.loc.gov
Richard Best
7-7607
rbest@crs.loc.gov
Intelligence
Al Cumming
7-7739
acumming@crs.loc.gov
Military Construction
Daniel Else
7-4996
delse@crs.loc.gov
Military Personnel
David Burrelli
7-8033
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Military Personnel;
Charles Henning
7-8866
chenning@crs.loc.gov
Reserves
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Steven Hildreth
7-7635
shildreth@crs.loc.gov
Missile Defense
Andrew Feickert
7-7673
afeickert@crs.loc.gov
Naval Forces
Ronald O’Rourke
7-7610
rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Weapons
Jonathan Medalia
7-7632
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Peace Operations
Nina Serafino
7-7667
nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Readiness
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Space, Military
Patricia Figliola
7-2508
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov
War Powers
Richard Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Defense Appropriations: Conference Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
War-Fighting Costs Excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Personnel Costs and Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Shipbuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ground Combat Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Long-Range Strike and Nuclear Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ballistic Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the FY2008 Defense Budget
Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FY2008 Defense Budget Request and Outyear Plans: Questions of Affordability
and Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Issues in the FY2008 Global War on Terror Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Additional FY2008 War Funding Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Congressional Action on Administration’s War Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authorizers Categorize “War” Funding Differently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authorizers Shift Funds to Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Administration Proposes More Funding for MRAP Vehicles . . . . . . . 22
Appropriations Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Other War-Related Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FY2008 GWOT Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Broad Definition of Reconstitution or Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Force Protection Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Questions Likely About Funding For Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Oversight Concerns About Cost to Train and Equip Afghan and Iraqi
Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Coalition Support and Commanders Emergency Response Program . . . . . 33
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Military Construction Overseas and Permanent Basing Concerns . . . . . . . 34
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Potential Issues in the FY2008 Base Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Congressional Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
FY2008 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill . . . . . . . . . . 43
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Other FY2008 Defense Budget Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Administration Objections to the House Version of H.R. 1585 . . . . . . . . . 54
FY2008 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Armed
Services Committee Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Force Expansion and Pay Raise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Tricare and Other Health Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Ballistic Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
FCS and Other Ground Combat Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Nuclear Weapons and Long-range Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Acquisition Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Defense Authorization: Highlights of Senate Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Defense Authorization: Final Senate Debate and Passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of the House Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Selected Floor Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of Senate Committee Action . . . . . . . 74
Personnel Increase and Pay Raise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Tricare Fees and the Defense Health Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Long-Range Strike and Nuclear Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Shipbuilding Costs and the Littoral Combat Ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Selected Other Weapons Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of Senate Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Iraq Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Border Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Other Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Overall Defense Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Military Operations: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
U.S. Military Personnel and Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Defense Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Defense Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix: Funding Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
List of Tables
Table 1A. Status of FY2008 Defense Authorization, H.R. 1585/S. 1547 . . . . . . 8
Table 1B. Status of FY2008 Defense Appropriations Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. FY2008 National Defense Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. Congressional Budget Resolution, H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21,
Recommended National Defense Budget Function (050) Totals . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. FY2008 Defense Authorization, House and Senate Action by Title . . . 12
Table 5. FY2008 Department of Defense Base Budget Within the Scope of
the Defense Appropriations Bill,House and Senate Action by Title . . . . . 13
Table 6. House and Senate 302(b) Allocations of FY2008 Total
Discretionary Budget Authority, Defense vs Non-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 7. Expected Adjustments to FY2008 War Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 8. DOD’s Global War on Terror, FY2006-FY2008 by Function . . . . . . . 27
Table 9. House Floor Action on Selected Amendments: FY2008
Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table A1. Congressional Action on Selected Army and Marine Corps
Programs: FY2008 Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table A2. Congressional Action on Shipbuilding: FY2008 Authorization . . . . 87
Table A3. Congressional Action on Selected Aircraft Programs: FY2008
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table A4. Congressional Action on Missile Defense Funding:
FY2008 Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table A5. Congressional Action on Selected Army and Marine Corps
Programs: FY2008 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table A6. Congressional Action on Shipbuilding: FY2008 Appropriations . . . 95
Table A7. Congressional Action on Selected Aircraft Programs:
FY2008 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Table A8. Congressional Action on Missile Defense Funding:
FY2008 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Defense: FY2008 Authorization
and Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On November 8, Congress cleared for the President the conference report on
H.R. 3222, the FY2008 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3222), which would
provide $460.3 billion in new budget authority for activities of the Department of
Defense. The House approved the compromise version of the bill by a vote of 400-15
and the Senate adopted it by voice vote.
In general, the bill funds only DOD’s so-called “base budget” – its activities
other than the conduct of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
only exception to that rule is the conference report’s inclusion of $11.6 billion to
purchase Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, which are designed
to better protect their occupants against land-mines than conventional vehicles. The
conference report also includes a continuing resolution that would allow federal
agencies to continue operating, through December 14, 2007 even if their regular
appropriations bills for FY2008 have not been enacted.
Because none of the regular FY2008 appropriations bills had been enacted by
October 1, when the new fiscal year began, a continuing resolution (H. J. Res 52),
passed by the House September 26 by a vote of 404-14 and by the Senate September
27 by a vote of 94-1, provided for continued funding the government through
November 16. Funding for DOD under that continuing resolution is based on the
amount appropriated in the FY2007 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-289), which
funded both the DOD base budget and a so-called bridge fund of $70 billion to pay
for war costs in the opening months of the fiscal year. H.J.Res. 52 also provided an
additional $5.2 billion to purchase MRAP vehicles.
Neither the House-passed nor the Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3222
addressed the President’s request to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2008, which will be dealt with in a separate bill. Budget
amendments in July and October have increased the President’s initial request for
$141.7 billion to cover war-fighting costs in FY2008 to $189.3 billion.
Democratic congressional leaders have said they would take up a war-cost
appropriations bill early in 2008. However, they may debate during the week of
November 11 a bill that would provide a “bridge fund” of about $50 billion to ensure
that operations will not be hampered by want of funds pending enactment of the
planned war-cost bill next year. House leaders have said they would try to attach to
the bridge fund bill provisions aimed at reducing the combat role of U.S. troops in
Iraq. In May of 2007, the President successfully resisted congressional efforts to put
CRS-2
similar limitations on the FY2007 war-cost supplemental appropriations bill (H.R.
1591). (See CRS Report RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for
Defense, Foreign Affairs and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, et al.)
House-Senate conferees also agreed on a conference report to the FY2008
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill ( H.R. 2642/S. 1645)
that includes $21.4 billion for DOD military construction and family housing
programs. However, that bill was attached the conference report on H.R. 3043, the
FY2008 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill. The House approved the
combined conference report November 6 by a vote of 269-142, but the Senate
rejected it November 7 on a point of order. (For full coverage, see CRS Report
RL34038, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2008
Appropriations, by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath Viranga Panangala.)
House-Senate conferees are working on the companion FY2008 National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585). The House passed its version of the FY2008
defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585) on May 17, by a vote of 397-27. The Senate
passed its version of the measure October 1, by a vote of 92-3.
Defense Appropriations: Conference Report
The conference report on H.R. 3222 would provide $460.3 billion to cover the
cost of all DOD activities in FY2008 except for military construction (which
routinely is funded in separate legislation) and the cost of ongoing military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The conference report does, however, include $11.6 billion
in emergency funding to accelerate the procurement of Mine-Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles, which are being rushed to U.S. units in Iraq and
Afghanistan because they provide better protection for their occupants against land
mines and roadside bombs compared with the protection afforded by conventional
troop carriers.
The conference report also includes a short-term continuing resolution that will
allow federal agencies to continue operating through December 14, 2007, even if
their FY2008 appropriations bill has not been enacted. In general, the CR allows
agencies to spend money at the same rate as if their FY2007 appropriation had simply
been extended. However, it provides infusions of additional funds for three
programs:
! $3 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s “Road Home” program, intended to assist
persons whose homes were damaged by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita;
! $2.9 billion for disaster relief efforts of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA);
! $500 million for the wildfire fighting efforts by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
CRS-3
War-Fighting Costs Excluded. Pursuant to legislation requiring that funds
for combat operations be included in the FY2008 DOD funding request, the
President’s budget submission to Congress in February 2007 included $141.7 billion
for war-fighting costs, an amount increased by budget amendments in July and
October to a total of $189.3 billion. Early in the year, however, Democratic leaders
in the House and Senate said they would insist on dealing with the cost of the war in
legislation separate from the regular DOD appropriations bill that would fund the
Pentagon’s “base” budget for FY2008. By October, when the House and Senate were
moving toward a conference on H.R. 3222, House Democratic leaders had taken the
position that the cost-of-war appropriations bill would not be considered until early
in 2008.
From the start of combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001 through FY2007,
the Administration had relied on supplemental appropriations requests to fund war
costs. Congress had added to the regular defense appropriations bills for FY2006 and
FY2007 so-called “bridge funds” to cover the cost of combat operations in the first
several months of the fiscal year, eliminating any risk that a shortage of funds
pending action on the supplemental funding bill might impede the combat
effectiveness of troops in the field.
The President and some Republican congressional leaders said the decision by
Democratic leaders to defer action on the funding request for FY2008 war-fighting
costs created a risk of causing just such a debilitating gap in funding for units in the
field. But despite Republican objections, the conference report on H.R. 3222
included no bridge fund to sustain operations pending congressional action on a war-
cost appropriations bill early next year.
Personnel Costs and Medical Care. The House and Senate versions of
H.R. 3222 both approved the requested FY2008 increment of a multi-year plan to
increase the active-duty strength of the Army and Marine Corps by a total of 63,000
soldiers and 29,000 Marines.1 Both versions also had funded a 3.5 percent military
pay raise to take effect January 1, 2008, rather than the 3.0 percent increase
requested. The conference report adds to the President’s request $309 million to pay
for the larger pay hike.
As requested, the conference report includes $10.9 billion to cover the future
post-retirement medical care of current service members under the Tricare-for-life
program. It would add to the President’s request $1.9 billion to cover Tricare costs
the administration had planned to cover by increasing the fees and co-payments
charged participants in the program. It also would add to the request $379 million
that the Administration had deducted from the cost of the armed services’ health care
programs as an “efficiency wedge” to encourage the services to reduce their medical
costs.
1 The proposed increase in active-duty end-strength often is referred to a “Growing the
Force.”
CRS-4
It would add to the budget request $70 million to fund projects authorized under
the “Wounded Warriors” legislation that has been passed by both the Senate and the
House to improve the care of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including
particularly those suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain
Injury.
Shipbuilding. The conference report provided a total of $14.6 billion for ship
construction, was only $242 million more than the President had requested. In
addition to $13.6 billion provided for the Navy’s shipbuilding and modification
account, this total includes $756 million for supply ships designed to replenish
combat vessels underway on the high seas (funded in the National Defense Sealift
Fund) and $210 million for a small, high-speed troop transport being purchased by
the Army. (See Table A6, below)
In the reports accompanying their respective versions of the FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Bill, the Appropriations committees of both the House and Senate
warned that the Navy may not be able to reach its goal of having 313 ships in service
because several types of ships currently under construction are significantly over
budget and behind schedule. One reason for these chronic shortcomings, the
conferees said, was the Navy’s practice of beginning construction of the lead ship of
a new class before the type’s design is completed. They directed the Secretary of the
Navy to certify to the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations
committees – before the first ship of any class is built in any shipyard – that the
requisite design and development work has been completed.
Although the House version of H.R. 3222 had added to the bill $3.1 billion for
four ships the Administration had not requested – a transport for amphibious landing
forces and three supply ships -- the conferees added to the budget request only $350
million for long-leadtime components that could be used in those four vessels.
Both versions of the bill, as well as the conference report, also added funds to
buy a nuclear power plant and other components for a Virginia-class submarine –
items that could be used either to equip a second submarine in FY2009, in addition
to the one currently slated for funding, or to remain available as spares.
The conferees singled out as a “classic example” of poor Navy management the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, intended to produce 55 relatively small but
versatile warships that would comprise about 20 percent of the Navy’s hoped-for
313-ship fleet. Although Congress has appropriated funds for six of the ships, only
two are to be built with those funds because of cost increases and technical problems.
Although the Navy’s FY2008 budget requested $911 million for three additional
LCSs, the conference report would provide $340 million for one ship.
Ground Combat Vehicles. The conference report would provide nearly $3.4
billion – $206 million less than was requested – to continue development of the
Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, a digitally-networked fleet of manned and
robotic ground and air vehicles slated to be the Army’s next generation of combat
equipment. The conferees also endorsed the Army’s plan to “spin out” of FCS some
new technologies that could enhance the performance of existing combat equipment.
CRS-5
The conference report would provide the $100 million requested to begin that
process. (See Table A5)
The House bill had added to the budget request $1.1 billion to buy enough
Stryker armored combat vehicles to equip an eighth brigade, in addition to the seven
planned. The conferees agreed that the Army needs additional Stryker vehicles for
many purposes, but recommended that the question of additional purchases be dealt
with in the FY2008 war-cost appropriations bill, slated for consideration next year.
To continue development of the Marine Corps’s Expeditionary Fighting
Vehicle, an amphibious armored troop carrier, the conference report provides $253.2
million, a reduction of $35 million from the request, which the conferees attributed
to delays in the program.
Long-Range Strike and Nuclear Weapons. The conference report would
cut from the request $175 million intended to equip Trident II submarine-launched
long-range missiles with non-nuclear warheads that could quickly strike targets at
great distances. Since Trident missiles heretofore have only carried nuclear warheads,
critics had warned that, in a crisis, adversaries might interpret the launch of such a
missile as a nuclear attack. Also dropped was $50 million requested for a project
called Falcon that also was intended to develop a long-range, non-nuclear strike
capability.
To replace these two programs, the conference report created a $100 million
fund to develop long-range, precisely-targetable, non-nuclear weapons.
The conference report also reshuffled the funding requested to upgrade an
existing long-range strike weapon — the B-2A stealth bomber. The bomber’s main
target-finding radar must be replaced because it operates at a frequency slated for
commercial use. Because development of the new radar is running behind schedule,
however, the conferees reduced the amount requested to buy the new system by $100
million, while adding $38 million to the radar R&D effort.
The conference report also added to the budget request $10 million to adapt the
B-2A to carry a newly developed conventional bomb weighing 30,000 pounds, which
is intended for attacks on command posts and other targets buried deep underground.
It also added $5.8 million to adapt the bomber to carry a new satellite-guided bomb
so small that a B-2A could carry upwards of 200 of the weapons. (See Table A7)
The conference report also eliminates $15 million that was requested to adapt
Trident II missiles to carry a proposed new type of nuclear weapon, called the
Reliable Replacement Warhead.
Ballistic Missile Defense. For all missile defense-related R&D and
procurement, the conference report provides $9.9 billion, a reduction of $368 million
from the request. (See Table A8)
Two of the projects for which the conferees cut the funding request are
controversial because, critics say, they could elicit undesirable responses from
potential adversaries:
CRS-6
! The conference report cut $85 million from the $310 million
requested to deploy in Europe an anti-missile battery similar to those
deployed in Alaska and California. The Russian government has
protested this plan to position 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and
a radar in the Czech Republic, despite the insistence of the U.S.
government that the system is intended to guard against long-range
missiles that might be launched from Iran.
! It also denies the $10 million requested for the Space Test Bed, a
precursor to developing space-based anti-missile interceptor
missiles.
Other Issues. The conference report also included the following actions
relating to the President’s FY2008 DOD budget request:
! It adds to the budget $480 million to continue developing a jet
engine developed by General Electric and Rolls Royce as a possible
alternative to the Pratt & Whitney engine that currently powers the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
! It provides none of the $500 million requested for the Global Train
and Equip program, under which DOD assists the military forces of
foreign governments in developing counter-terrorist capabilities.
! It provides $120 million of the $500 million requested for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO),
charged with countering the roadside bombs that are the chief source
of U.S. casualties in Iraq.
! It adds to the budget $247 million for Operation Jump Start, the
program under which National Guard personnel are assigned to
secure U.S. borders.
The conference report also directed the Pentagon to exercise more vigorous
oversight of private contractors hired to provide services and added to the budget
request $48 million to increase the number of DOD employees managing service
contractors. It also directed the Secretary of Defense to develop within 90 days of the
bill’s enactment standards of medical and mental and moral fitness that would be
applied to private contractor employees performing security functions on a DOD
contract.
Overview of Administration FY2008 Budget Request
On February 5, 2007, the White House formally released to Congress its
FY2008 federal budget request, which included $647.2 billion in new budget
authority for national defense. In addition to $483.2 billion for the regular operations
of the Department of Defense (DOD), the request includes $141.7 billion for
continued military operations abroad, primarily to fund the campaigns in Iraq and
CRS-7
Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for the nuclear weapons and other defense-related
programs of the Department of Energy, and $5.2 billion for defense-related activities
of other agencies. (Note: The total of $647.2 billion for national defense includes
an adjustment of -$275 million for OMB scorekeeping. DOD figures for the base
budget do not add to the formal request in OMB budget documents.)
The requested “base” budget of $483.2 billion for DOD — excluding the cost
of ongoing combat operations — is $46.8 billion higher than the agency’s base
budget for FY2007, an increase of 11% in nominal terms and, by DOD’s reckoning,
an increase in real purchasing power of 7.9%, taking into account the cost of
inflation.
In requesting an additional $141.7 billion to cover the anticipated cost for all
of FY2008 of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration has
complied with Congress’ insistence that it be given time to subject that funding to the
regular oversight and legislative process. Nevertheless, since the Administration has
requested that these funds be designated as “emergency” appropriations, they would
be over and above restrictive caps on discretionary spending, even though the
FY2008 combat operations funding request of $141.7 billion is 29% as large as the
regular FY2008 DOD request.
On July 31, the Administration increased its request for DOD war-fighting costs
in FY2008 by $5.3 billion to procure MRAP vehicles. On October 22, the
Administration increased its war-costs request by an additional $42.3 billion,
bringing the total to $189.3 billion.
Status of Legislation
Congress began action on the annual defense authorization bill with the House
Armed Services Committee approving its version of the bill (H.R. 1585) in a session
that began May 9, and with House passage on May 17. The Senate Armed Services
Committee marked up its version, S. 567, on May 24 and reported the measure as a
clean bill (S. 1547) on June 5.
CRS-8
Table 1A. Status of FY2008 Defense Authorization, H.R. 1585/S. 1547
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.
5/17/07
10/1/07
5/9/07 5/24/07
110-146
110-77
397-27
92-3
5/11/07
6/5/07
Table 1B. Status of FY2008 Defense Appropriations Bill
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
10/4/07
H.Rept.
11/8/07
8/5/07
11/8/07
7/12/07 9/11/07 110-279
110-155
(Voice
110-434
(Voice
395-13
400-15
7/30/07
9/14/07
Vote)
11/6/07
vote)
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the
FY2008 Defense Budget Request
The following tables provide a quick reference to congressional action on
defense budget totals. Additional details will be added as congressional action on the
FY2008 defense funding bills proceeds.
! Table 2 shows the Administration’s FY2008 national defense budget
request by budget subfunction and, for the Department of Defense,
by appropriations title. The total for FY2007 also represents, in part,
requested funding. It includes $93.4 billion in FY2007 supplemental
appropriations that the Administration requested in February 2007.
In May, however, Congress actually approved $99.4 billion for the
Department of Defense, $6.0 billion more than the Administration
had asked for.
! Table 3 shows the recommendations on defense budget authority and
outlays in the House and Senate versions of the annual budget
resolution, H.Con.Res. 99 and S.Con.Res. 21. These amounts are not
binding on the Armed Services or Appropriations committees.
! Table 4 shows congressional action on the FY2008 defense
authorization bill by title. Technically, this table shows the budget
authority implications of the provisions of the bill. For mandatory
programs, the budget authority implication is the amount of budget
authority projected to be required under standing law. The table
CRS-9
also follows the common practice of the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees, which is to show as the “budget authority
implication” of the bill, the amounts expected to be available for
programs within the national defense budget function not subject to
authorization in the annual defense authorization bill. Except for
some mandatory programs, the authorization bill does not provide
funds but rather authorizes their appropriation. Appropriations bills
may provide more than authorized, less than authorized, or the same
as authorized, either in total or for specific programs.
Appropriations bills may provide no funds for programs authorized
and may provide funds for programs not authorized. In practice,
defense appropriations bills often follow the amounts authorized,
however.
! Table 5 shows congressional action on the FY2008 defense and
military construction appropriations bills. The table does not show
funding for defense-related activities of agencies other than the
Defense Department, except for about $1.0 billion for the
intelligence community. In particular, it does not include $17.4
billion requested for defense-related nuclear energy programs
(nuclear weapons and warship propulsion) of the Energy
Department.
! Table 6 shows House and Senate Appropriations Committee
allocations of funds under Section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act, for defense and military construction/veterans affairs
appropriations bills compared to allocations for other, non-defense
bills. The “302(b)” allocations are a key part of the appropriations
and budget process. A point of order holds against any bill that
exceeds its 402(b) allocation. In recent years, appropriations have
trimmed allocations for the defense appropriations bill, freeing up
more money for non-defense appropriations. The effect on defense
was mitigated by the available of emergency appropriations for
defense. In effect, emergency appropriations for war costs have been
used indirectly to finance higher non-defense appropriations.
CRS-10
Table 2. FY2008 National Defense Budget Request
(billions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Supp
Total
FY2008
Enacted
Request* with Supp
Request
Department of Defense
Base Budget
Military Personnel
111.1
—
111.1
118.9
Operation and Maintenance
127.7
—
127.7
143.5
Procurement
81.1
—
81.1
100.2
Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
75.7
—
75.7
75.1
Military Construction
8.8
—
8.8
18.2
Family Housing
4.0
—
4.0
2.9
Revolving & Management Funds
2.4
—
2.4
2.5
Other Defense Programs*
23.7
—
23.7
23.3
Offsetting Receipts/Interfund Transactions
-1.8
-1.8
-1.4
General Provisions/Allowances
3.6
—
3.6
-0.3
Subtotal — DOD Base Budget
436.4
—
436.4
483.2
War-Related Funding
Military Personnel
5.4
12.1
17.5
17.1
Operation and Maintenance
39.1
37.5
76.6
73.1
Procurement
19.8
25.3
45.2
36.0
Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
0.4
1.4
1.9
2.9
Military Construction
—
1.9
1.9
0.9
Family Housing
—
—
—
0.0
Revolving & Management Funds
—
1.3
1.3
1.7
Other Defense Programs*
0.1
1.3
1.4
1.3
Intelligence Community Management
0.0
0.1
0.1
—
Iraqi Freedom Fund
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
1.5
5.9
7.4
2.7
Iraq Security Forces Fund
1.7
3.8
5.5
2.0
Joint IED Defeat Fund*
1.9
2.4
4.4
4.0
Mine Resistant Ambush Prot., vehicles
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
Subtotal — DOD War-Related
70.0
93.4
163.4
146.9
OMB vs DOD Scorekeeping Adjustment
—
—
—
-0.3
Total DOD (Base and War-Related)
506.4
93.4
599.8
629.9
Department of Energy Defense Related
17.0
—
17.0
17.4
Department of Energy
15.8
—
15.8
15.9
Formerly utilized sites remedial action
0.1
—
0.1
0.1
Defense nuclear facilities safety board
0.0
—
0.0
0.0
Energy employees occupational illness comp.
1.1
—
1.1
1.4
Other Defense Related
5.2
—
5.2
5.2
FBI Counter-Intelligence
2.5
—
2.5
2.5
Intelligence Community Management
0.9
—
0.9
1.0
Homeland Security
1.5
—
1.5
1.4
Other
0.3
—
0.3
0.3
Total National Defense
528.6
93.4
622.0
652.5
Sources: FY2007 enacted calculated by CRS based on congressional conference reports and
Department of Defense data; FY2007 supplemental from Department of Defense; FY2008 request
from Department of Defense and Office of Management and Budget. DOD Base and War-Related
Total and National Defense Total reflect OMB figures that differ slightly from DOD estimates. The
FY2008 request does not reflect an anticipated budget amendment adding $42 billion to the request.
*Note: FY2007 supplemental amount is shown here as requested.
CRS-11
Table 3. Congressional Budget Resolution, H.Con.Res. 99/
S.Con.Res. 21, Recommended National Defense Budget
Function (050) Totals
(billions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Administration Projection
Budget Authority
622.4
647.2
584.7
545.0
551.5
560.7
Outlays
571.9
606.5
601.8
565.3
556.4
549.5
House-Passed (H.Con.Res. 99)
National Defense Base Budget (Function 050)
Budget Authority
525.8
507.0
534.7
545.2
550.9
559.8
Outlays
534.3
514.4
524.4
536.4
547.6
548.2
Allowance for Overseas Operations and Related Activities (Function 970)
Budget Authority
124.3
145.2
50.0
—
—
—
Outlays
31.5
114.9
109.4
42.3
13.6
4.5
Senate-Passed (S.Con.Res. 21)
Budget Authority
619.4
648.8
584.8
545.3
551.1
559.9
Outlays
560.5
617.8
627.0
572.9
558.4
551.8
Conference Report (S.Con.Res. 21)
National Defense Base Budget (Function 050)
Budget Authority
525.8
507.0
534.7
545.2
550.9
559.8
Outlays
534.3
514.4
524.4
536.4
547.6
548.2
Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (Function 970)
Budget Authority
124.2
145.2
50.0
—
—
—
Outlays
31.9
115.9
109.8
41.7
13.6
4.5
Sources: CRS from H.Con.Res. 99; S.Con.Res. 21; Office of Management and Budget.
CRS-12
Table 4. FY2008 Defense Authorization, House and Senate Action by Title
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
House
Senate
House
House
vs
Senate
Senate
vs
Request
Passed
Request
Request Reported Request
Department of Defense Base Budget
Military Personnel
116,279.9 115,489.9
-790.0 116,279.9 120,228.0 +3,948.1
Operation and Maintenance
142,854.0 142,514.1
-339.9 142,854.0 143,492.2
+638.2
Procurement
100,223.0 102,678.6 +2,455.6 100,223.0 109,859.5 +9,636.5
Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
75,117.2
73,456.3
-1,660.9
75,117.2
74,659.0
-458.2
Military Construction & Family Housing
21,165.2
21,224.3
+59.1
21,165.2
21,781.4
+616.2
Other Programs*
23,530.9
25,162.6 +1,631.7
25,149.7
25,220.2
+70.5
Revolving & Management Funds
2,453.1
2,887.2
+434.1
2,496.0
2,458.2
-37.8
Unallocated Reductions/Inflation Savings
—
-205.0
-205.0
—
-1,627.0
-1,627.0
Subtotal, Discretionary
481,623.3 483,208.1
+1,584.8 483,285.0 496,071.5 +12,786.5
Offsetting Receipts/Interfund/Trust Funds
1,791.0
1,707.0
-84.0
2,586.5
2,586.5
—
Subtotal — DOD Base Budget
483,414.3 484,915.1
+1,500.8 485,871.5 498,658.0 +12,786.5
Other Defense-Related
Atomic Energy Defense-Related
17,319.3
17,027.3
-292.0
16,927.1
16,925.2
-1.9
Defense-Related Activities
—
—
—
4,159.0
4,159.0
—
Department of Homeland Security
1,142.0
1,142.0
—
—
—
—
Department of Justice (FBI)
2,437.0
2,437.0
—
—
—
—
Selective Service
22.0
22.0
—
—
—
—
Intelligence Community Management
705.4
705.4
—
—
—
—
Maritime Administration
154.4
154.4
—
—
—
—
National Science Foundation
67.0
67.0
—
—
—
—
Department of Commerce
14.0
14.0
—
—
—
—
CIA Retirement & Disability
262.5
262.5
—
—
—
—
Radiation Exposure Trust Fund
31.0
31.0
—
—
—
—
Subtotal — Other Defense-Related
22,154.6
21,862.6
-292.0
21,086.2
21,084.3
-1.9
Total National Defense Base Budget
505,568.8 506,777.7
+1,208.8 506,957.7 519,742.3 +12,784.6
War-Related Funding (Title IV of H.R. 1585; Titles XV and XXIX of S. 1547)
Military Personnel
17,070.3
17,471.8
+401.5
17,070.3
12,922.0
-4,148.3
Operation and Maintenance
73,099.1
72,219.1
-880.0
72,867.5
72,015.5
-852.0
Procurement
35,956.6
36,327.5
+370.9
35,956.6
28,303.4
-7,653.1
Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
2,857.4
2,151.1
-706.2
2,857.4
1,950.3
-907.0
Military Construction
907.9
695.5
-212.4
907.9
752.7
-155.3
Revolving & Management Funds
1,681.4
1,681.4
—
1,690.4
1,689.6
-0.8
Defense Health Program
1,022.8
1,022.8
—
1,022.8
1,022.8
—
Drug Interdiction
257.6
257.6
—
257.6
257.6
—
Inspector General
4.4
4.4
—
4.4
4.4
—
Iraqi Freedom Fund
107.5
107.5
—
107.5
107.5
—
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
2,700.0
2,700.0
—
2,700.0
2,700.0
—
Iraq Security Forces Fund
2,000.0
2,000.0
—
2,000.0
2,000.0
—
Joint IED Defeat Fund
4,000.0
4,000.0
—
4,000.0
4,500.0
+500.0
Strategic Readiness Fund
—
1,000.0 +1,000.0
—
—
—
Other
151.1
151.1
—
373.7
323.7
-50.0
Subtotal — War-Related
141,816.1 141,789.8
-26.2 141,816.1 128,549.6 -13,266.5
Total Including War-Related
647,384.9 648,567.5
+1,182.6 648,773.7 648,291.9
-481.9
Sources: CRS, from H.Rept. 110-146, DOD, OMB, House Armed Services Committee, S.Rept. 110-77. Neither the
“House Request” nor “Senate Request” column reflects budget amendments that increased War-Related Funding.
*Note: Shows “Budget Authority Implication” amounts in committee reports. “Other Programs” includes defense health,
drug interdiction, chemical demilitarization.
CRS-13
Table 5. FY2008 Department of Defense Base Budget Within the Scope of
the Defense Appropriations Bill,House and Senate Action by Title
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Defense Appropriations Bill
Title I: Military Personnel
105,404
105,018
105,522
105,292
Title II: Operation and Maintenance
142,854
137,135
142,679
140,062
Title III: Procurement
99,623
99,608
99,225
98,202
Title IV: Research, Development, Test, &
Evaluation
75,117
76,231
75,382
77,271
Title V: Revolving & Management Funds
2,454
3,842
2,397
2,702
Title VI: Other Programs*
25,750.0
26,099.0
26,316
26,316
Title VII: Related Agencies
968.0
946.0
972
988
Title VIII: General Provisions (Net)
--
-199.0
-2,024
-1,743
sutotal – DOD Base Budget (included in
scope of FY2008 Defense Appropriations
Bill H.R. 3222)
452,169
448,680
450,469 449,091
Scorekeeping (Health Accrual)
10,876.0
10,876.0
10,876
10,871
Total with Health Accrual
463,045.0
459,556.0
461,345 459,962
MRAP Emergency Funds
--
--
--
11,630.0
Total including MRAP and Health Accrual
463,045.0
459,556.0
461,345.0
471,592.0
Sources: Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2008, March 2007, Table 3-1; House
Appropriations Committee, report on FY2008 Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 3222, H.Rept. 110-279, July 30, 2007;
Senate Appropriations Committee, pre-markup draft of report on FY2008 Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 3222,
September 12, 2007; House Rules Committee website, text of (unnumbered) conference report on H.R. 3222, Nov. 7,
2007
Table excludes amounts requested for War-Related Funding.
*“Other Programs” include defense health, chemical agents and munitions destruction, drug interdiction, joint improvised
explosive device defeat fund, rapid acquisition fund, and office of the inspector general.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
CRS-14
Table 6. House and Senate 302(b) Allocations of FY2008
Total Discretionary Budget Authority, Defense vs Non-Defense
(millions of dollars)
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee/
FY2007 FY2008
House
vs.
Senate
vs.
Bill
Enacted Request 6/8/2007 Request 6/14/2007 Request
Defense
419,612 462,879
459,332
-3,547
459,332
-3,547
Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs
49,752
60,745
64,745
+4,000
64,745 +4,000
Total Defense and Mil
Con/VA
469,364 523,624
524,077
+453
524,077 +453
Total Other/Non-Defense
Discretionary
403,354 409,225
428,976 +19,751
428,976 +19,751
Total Discretionary
872,718 932,849
953,053 +20,204
953,053 +20,204
Source: House Appropriations Committee, “Report on the Suballocation of Budget Allocations for
Fiscal Year 2008,” H.Rept. 110-183, June 8, 2007; Senate Appropriations Committee, “Allocation
to Subcommittees of Budget Totals from the Concurrent Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008,” S.Rept.
110-86, June 18, 2007.
FY2008 Defense Budget Request and Outyear
Plans: Questions of Affordability and Balance
Several aspects of the Department’s FY2008 budget request and its projected
budgets through FY2013 raise questions about the affordability of DOD’s plan as a
whole and about the balance of spending among major elements of the defense
budget.
(1) DOD’s funding plan for FY2008-FY2013, excluding the cost of military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, projects that the department’s base budget will
increase in real purchasing power, after adjusting for inflation, by 8.0% between
FY2007 and FY2008 and by another 3.5% in FY2009 before declining slightly over
each of the following four years. But the tightening fiscal squeeze on the federal
government may put strong downward pressure on the defense budget; and the
unbudgeted funds needed for ongoing military operations abroad may compound the
problem. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) agree that the
current mix of federal programs is fiscally unsustainable for the long term.2 The
nation’s aging population combined with rising health costs are driving an increase
in spending for federal entitlement programs which, in turn, will fuel rising deficits
compounded by a steadily increasing interest on the national debt. The upshot is that,
2 See CRS Report RL33915, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, by Philip D. Winters. See
also OMB, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2008, February 2007,
pp. 16-21; CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008-2017, January
2007, pp. 10-11; GAO, The Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: January 2007 Update,
GAO-07-510R.
CRS-15
if total federal outlays continue to account for about 20% of the GDP and federal
revenues remain at about their current level, total federal spending on discretionary
programs, in terms of real purchasing power, would have to be sharply reduced to
meet the goal of a balanced federal budget by 2012 and then to cover the rising costs
of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security resulting partly from the retirement of
baby boomers.
To protect DOD from this fiscal vise, some have recommended that the defense
budget (excluding the cost of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) be
sustained at 4% of GDP — a share of the national wealth that DOD last claimed in
FY1994.3 But that proposal would have to overcome the thus far intractable political
challenges of increasing federal revenues, reducing discretionary non-defense
spending, and/or restraining the growth of entitlement costs.
(2) Although the Administration has submitted a budget proposal to cover the
cost of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in FY2008 that is separate from
its “base” budget request for the year, it may be difficult, as a practical matter, for
Congress to subject the request for cost-of-war appropriations to the same oversight
it applies to regular, annual defense spending requests. If the congressional defense
committees mark up the FY2008 defense funding bills on their usual schedules, as
the House and Senate Armed Services committees are doing with respect to the
annual defense authorization bill, they will have had to review in less than four
months both the President’s $482 billion request for the base DOD budget and the
additional $142 billion requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The burden
may be compounded by the fact that the congressional defense committees may not
have time-tested analytical tools with which to scrutinize the request for ongoing
combat operations, as they do for reviewing the base budget. Moreover, for most of
that four month period, Members of Congress, and the defense funding committees
in particular, have been deeply preoccupied with debate over the Administration’s
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1591) to pay for combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, legislation that has become the vehicle for
congressional efforts to reduce the involvement of U.S. troops in Iraq.
In addition, since DOD does not include the forecast cost of ongoing operations
in its projections of defense budget requests in future years, except for a $50 billion
placeholder for FY2009 included in the FY2008 request, Congress has not been
given a clear sense of how severely the federal government’s overall fiscal squeeze
may constrain future defense budgets.
(3) DOD projects that its total budget will remain approximately constant, in
real terms, from FY2009 through FY2013. But for years, most of the major
components of the defense budget have shown a steady cost growth, in excess of the
cost of inflation. Thus, the relatively flat defense budgets planned would have to
accommodate other types of costs that also seem to be escalating almost
uncontrollably, notably including (1) the rising cost of health care for personnel still
on active service, retirees and their dependents, (2) operations and maintenance costs
3 Baker Spring, “Defense FY2008 Budget Analysis: Four Percent for Freedom,” The
Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder no. 2012, March 5, 2007.
CRS-16
that have been increasing since the Korean War at an average of 2.5% per year above
the cost of inflation, and (3) new weapons that are expected to dramatically enhance
the effectiveness of U.S. forces, but which carry high price tags to begin with and
then, all too often, substantially overrun their initial cost-estimates.4
(4) One of the most powerful drivers of DOD’s internal cost squeeze, the steady
increase in the cost of military personnel, would be compounded by the President’s
recommendation — in line with congressional proposals — to increase active-duty
Army and Marine Corps end-strength. Between FY1999 and FY2005, the cost of
active-duty military personnel, measured per-service-member, grew by 33% above
inflation, largely because of congressional initiatives to increase pay and benefits.
A large fraction of the increased cost is due to increases in retired pay and greatly
expanded medical benefits for military retirees.
This year, the Administration has proposed (and the congressional defense
committees have urged for years) an increase in active-duty end-strength that would
add 92,000 soldiers and Marines to the rolls, thus increasing the services’ fixed costs
by at least $12 billion annually (once the start-up costs of the policy have been
absorbed). At the same time, the Navy and Air Force are cutting personnel levels to
safeguard funds for weapons programs. The Air Force is cutting about 40,000 full-
time equivalent positions and the Navy about 30,000. One issue is whether these cuts
will be used, directly or indirectly, not to pay for Air Force and Navy weapons
programs, but for Army and Marine Corps end-strength increases.
(5) The Navy’s ability to sustain a fleet of the current size within realistically
foreseeable budgets may especially problematic. After years of criticism from
Members of Congress who contended that the Navy was buying too few ships to
replace vessels being retired, the service released in February a long-range
shipbuilding plan that would fall just short of the Navy’s current goal of maintaining
a fleet of 313 ships. But the plan assumes that the Defense Department, which
bought seven ships in FY2007 and is requesting the same number in FY2008, would
buy between 11 and 13 ships in each of the following five years. The plan assumes
that amount appropriated for new ship construction would rise from a requested
$12.5 billion in FY2008 to $17.5 billion in FY2013 (in current-year dollars).5
Considering the fiscal demands likely to put downward pressure on future
defense budgets, funding the Navy’s plan may be challenging. But even if the Navy
4 In a review of 64 major weapons programs, the GAO found that their total cost had grown
by more than 4.9% annually, in real terms. The total estimated cost of the 64 programs in
FY2007 was $165 billion more (in FY2007 dollars) than had been projected in FY2004. See
GAO-07-406SP, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, March
2007, p. 8. According to the GAO analysis, a major reason for that unbudgeted cost
increase was that many programs depend on technologies that promise transformative
combat effectiveness, but which have not been adequately developed before they are
incorporated into the design of a new weapon. Ibid., p. 9.
5 Although most Defense Department shipbuilding is funded in the “Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy” (SCN) appropriation, certain types of non-combatant vessels are funded
in other appropriation accounts, particularly the National Defense Sealift Fund, which is
under Revolving and Management Funds.
CRS-17
got the annual shipbuilding budgets it plans to request, it might not be able to buy all
the ships it plans as quickly as it plans to do so, because of escalating costs and
delays in some of the new types of ships slated to comprise the future fleet. In the
past, Navy cost and schedule forecasts later proven to be overly optimistic have led
to long-range shipbuilding plans that promised increases in shipbuilding budgets in
the “out-years” that have not been realized. Unachievable shipbuilding plans may
discourage the Navy and Congress from weighing potential tradeoffs between, on the
one hand, construction of promising new designs and, on the other hand, building
additional ships of types already in service and upgrading existing vessels.
(6) The services’ plans to modernize their tactical air forces suffer from the type
of excessive budgetary and technological optimism that also afflicts the shipbuilding
plan. Roughly midway through a 40-year, $400 million effort to replace the post-
Vietnam generation of Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter planes with
versions of the Air Force’s F-22A, the Navy’s F/A-18E/F, and the tri-service F-35
(or Joint Strike Fighter), the services’ plans have been buffeted by escalating costs,
slipping schedules and external budget pressures. In the case of the F-22A, this
produced a current budget plan that will buy only 183 planes rather than the 381 the
Air Force says it needs. Similarly, the Navy and Marine Corps have reduced the total
number of F-35s they plan to buy from 1,089 to 680.
Adjustments like this are easier to make with aircraft budgets that fund dozens
of units annually costing tens of millions of dollars apiece than it is with shipbuilding
budgets that fund a handful of units each year, many of which cost upwards of a
billion dollars apiece. But while it may be easier for the services to deal with the
consequences of optimistic tactical aircraft recapitalization plans than it is for the
Navy to manage the shipbuilding program, there is a similar underlying problem. If
the services’ long-range plans assume budgets, costs, technical breakthroughs and
production schedules that will not be realized, a service may delay and, ultimately,
increase the cost of upgrades to planes already in service that will have to be kept
combat-ready until the new craft are fielded:
The military services accord new systems higher funding priority, and the legacy
systems tend to get whatever funding is remaining after the new systems’ budget
needs are met. If new aircraft consume more of the investment dollars than
planned, the buying power and budgets for legacy systems are further reduced
to remain within DOD budget limits. However, as quantities of new systems have
been cut and deliveries to the warfighter delayed, more legacy aircraft are
required to stay in the inventory and for longer periods of time than planned,
requiring more dollars to modernize and maintain aging aircraft.6
6 Government Accountability Office, Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs a Joint and Integrated
Investment Strategy, GAO-07-415, April 2007, p. 13.
CRS-18
Issues in the FY2008
Global War on Terror Request7
For the seventh year of war operations since the 9/11 attacks, DOD originally
requested $141.7 billion, 29% of the amount it is requesting for all routine DOD
activity in FY2008. For the first time since the 9/11 attacks, the Administration has
submitted a request for war funding for the full year to meet a new requirement
levied in the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-
364).8 Since FY2003, Congress has funded war costs in two bills, typically a bridge
fund included in the regular DOD Appropriations Act to cover the first part of the
fiscal year and a supplemental enacted after the fiscal year has begun.9
On July 31, 2007, the Administration requested an additional $5.3 billion to
purchase Mine Resistant Ambush Program vehicles (MRAPs), bringing the total to
$147 billion for FY2008. On September 26, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
announced that the administration would be requesting an additional $42.3 billion.
With those funds, the total request for FY2008 would be $189.3 billion, 14% above
the FY2007 enacted level and 62% above the FY2006 enacted level.
The Administration’s original FY2008 Global War on Terror (GWOT) request
of $141.7 billion is similar to its FY2007 funding request for FY2007 war costs with
certain exceptions: funds are not included to support the higher troop levels
announced by the president in January 2007 or to increase the size of the Army and
Navy (included in the baseline) and lesser amounts are requested to train Afghan and
Iraqi security force (see Table 7). In testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates
characterized the FY2008 GWOT request as “a straightline projection for forces of
140,000 in Iraq” because funding for the surge is only included through September
30, 2007, the end of FY2007.10 In mid-September 2007, General Petraeus
recommended and the President decided to extend the current troop increase of about
30,000 in Iraq for an additional four months in FY2008.
On September 26, 2007, Secretary Gates announced that the Administration will
be submitting a request for an additional $42 billion for war costs in FY2008,
including about $6 billion for the extension of the troop surge. If troop levels were
to fall further later in the year — as Secretary Gates recently suggested might occur
— less funds might be needed.
7 Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in the U.S. Defense Budget.
8 Section 1008, P.L. 109-364.
9 See Table A1 in CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global
War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco; in FY2003, war funds were
provided in the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations (P.L. 108-7) as well as the FY2003
Supplemental see also CRS Report RS22455, Military Operations: Precedents for Funding
Contingency Operations in Regular or in Supplemental Appropriations Bills, by Stephen
Daggett.
10 Senate Appropriations Committee, Hearing on Supplemental War Funding, February 27,
2007, transcript, p. 11.
CRS-19
On September 26, 2007, the House passed H.J.Res. 52, a continuing resolution
to fund government operations temporarily until passage of the regular appropriations
acts. That resolution includes funds for both DOD’s baseline program and war costs,
as well as the $5.3 billion requested for MRAPS in late July. Both the House and
Senate are expected to pass a continuing resolution to fund FY2008 government
operations before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2007.
According to DOD, the original FY2008 war request includes $109.7 billion for
Iraq and $26.0 billion for Afghanistan and other counter-terror operations.11 That
request supports a total of 320,000 deployed personnel including 140,000 in Iraq and
20,000 in Afghanistan. DOD does not explain the difference between the 160,000
military personnel deployed in Iraq and in Afghanistan and the additional 160,000
deployed elsewhere supporting those missions.12
Additional FY2008 War Funding Request
In testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary Gates
announced some of the major elements that would be part of the Administration’s
new request had not yet been submitted. Table 7 below shows the additional
amounts beyond the levels currently being considered by Congress. The main
elements of the anticipated request reportedly will be
! $6.3 billion for operations (presumably to extend the surge for four
months);
! $13.9 billion more for force protection including additional MRAPs;
! $8.9 billion more for reconstituting the force;
! $6.4 billion to enhance ground forces;
! $3.3 billion in emergency requests;
! $1.0 billion for military construction;
! $1.0 billion for training and equipping Iraq security forces;
! $.9 billion for military intelligence; and
! $.2 billion for coalition support and Commanders Emergency
Response Program.
Additional details are not currently available. At the Senate Appropriations
Committee hearing on September 26, 2007, Senator Byrd stated that the committee
expected DOD to submit detailed justification material for the new request.
11 DOD, FY2008 Global War on Terror Request, February 2007, p. 74. [http://www.dod.mil/
comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Global_War_On_Terror_
Request.pdf].
12 DOD, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental Request for the Global war on Terror, February
2007, pp. 15-16, pp. 76-80; [http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_
supplemental/FY2007_Emergency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT.pdf]; DOD,
FY2008 Global War on Terror Request, February 2007, pp. 15-16, and pp. 63-67;
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Global
_War_On_Terror_Request.pdf].
CRS-20
Table 7. Expected Adjustments to FY2008 War Request
(in billions of dollars)
Original
Total
New
Category
Request &
FY2008
Request
MRAP Amdt.
Request
Operations
70.6
6.3
76.9
Factory Restart
—
0.1
0.1
Force Protection (including MRAP)
16.6
13.9
30.5
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
4.0
.3
4.3
Security Forces
4.7
1.0
5.7
Coalition Support & Cmdrs. Emergency
Response Program
2.7
0.2
2.9
Military Construction
0.7
1.0
1.7
Military Intelligence
2.7
.9
3.7
Reconstituting the Force
37.6
8.9
46.5
Enhancing Ground Forces
1.6
6.4
8.0
Emergency Requests
5.9
3.3
9.2
TOTAL
147.0
42.3
189.3
Sources: FY2008 DOD Global War on Terror Request, including Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and
Air Force adjustment requests, August 2007.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Action on Administration’s War Requests
Both the House and Senate include funds for DOD’s war or Global War on
Terror (GWOT) request in a separate title in their respective versions FY2008
authorization bills (H.R. 1585 and S. 1547). The House passed its bill on May 17,
2007, and the Senate began consideration of the bill on July 9, 2007, pulled the bill
from the floor after several days of debate over Iraq amendments, and resumed
consideration of the bill on September 17.
House Appropriations Committee Chair Congressman Murtha has announced
that the House will consider war funding in a separate bill. The timing of the
FY2008 supplemental is unclear. The President has not formally submitted a request
for the additional $42.3 billion that Secretary Gates announced in a Senate
Appropriations Committee hearing on September 26, 2007. If H.J.Res. 52, the
continuing resolution passed by the House is enacted, then DOD’s $5.3 billion
request for 1,520 MRAPs would be funded. In its report on DOD’s FY2008
Appropriation (H.Rept. 110-279), the House Appropriations Committee deferred
consideration of some $2.0 billion in DOD’s baseline request to the GWOT bill on
CRS-21
the grounds that these were war-related requests, a move that could increase the
amount of emergency war funding.
Authorizers Categorize “War” Funding Differently. The House and
Senate bills adopt different approaches to war funding. The House accepts DOD’s
designation of funds requested for GWOT and provides the full $141.7 billion
requested while the Senate bill approves the full amount but transfers some $13.4
billion of the GWOT-requested funds to DOD’s baseline program. Thus, the Senate-
reported version — currently on hold after several days of floor consideration in July
— provides $128.3 billion for GWOT, ostensibly a cut of some $13.4 billion to the
GWOT request. In fact, however, almost all of the programs in DOD’s GWOT
request are included in the baseline program.
The SASC report recommends the transfer from GWOT to the baseline program
on the grounds that funds provided for military personnel, procurement, and military
construction that are dedicated to “growing the force,” and funds for weapon system
upgrades that pre-date the Afghan and Iraq conflicts should both be considered part
of DOD’s baseline or regular program rather than valid war-related requirements.
According to its report, the SASC transfers are intended to identify the full
amount of funding for the expansion of the Army and Marine Corps that was
originally justified by the Administration as a way to meet the need for more military
personnel for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Originally rationalized as a way
to lengthen periods between deployments, it is now being proposed as a permanent
long-term expansion of the Army and Marine Corps.
The FY2008 GWOT request includes $4.1 billion for military personnel, $689
million in operating and maintenance costs, and $169 million for military
construction to pay, equip and house an increase of 92,000 Army and Marine Corps
troops by 2012.13 If the United States significantly decreases the number of troops in
Iraq, it is not clear that the Army and Marine Corps would need to be larger unless
additional large-scale deployments are anticipated for the future.
The weapon system upgrades transferred by the Senate authorizers — for
example, $515 million for upgrades to CH-47 Army helicopters, $1.4 billion for
Bradley fighting vehicles, and $1.3 billion for Abrams tanks — are programs that
were underway before 9/11 and could be considered part of the Army’s ongoing
modernization efforts. DOD also includes funds for these programs in its baseline
request. DOD has argued that much of its war-related procurement request is for
reconstitution or reset — the replacement of equipment that is expected to wear out
sooner because of the stress of combat action. These replacements are typically
upgraded versions rather than strictly replacements and hence contribute to
modernization.
At the same time as the SASC transfers GWOT funds to the baseline program,
the Committee expresses some concern that growth in the size of the Army and
Marine Corps may “come too late to impact the war in Iraq.” Nevertheless, the SASC
13 CRS calculations based on S.Rept. 110-77.
CRS-22
endorses the transfers to the base budget as a way to capture “integrated” costs and
not obscure the “true cost that the actual end strength presents.”14
Authorizers Shift Funds to Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicles. The two authorizing bills largely endorse DOD’s request with one major
exception — both recommend an increase of $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected Vehicles (MRAP), a troop transport vehicle considered to be more
effective than uparmored HMMWVs in withstanding attacks from Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs) and now deemed an urgent new war requirement. This
increase would be offset by cuts to GWOT programs deemed of lower priority. On
July 31, 2007 — after the House and Senate authorizers reported — the
Administration requested an additional $5.36 billion for MRAP — including testing
and transportation as well as procurement costs — but did not propose any offsets
from either DOD’s baseline or GWOT requests.
Although there appears to be widespread agreement that the MRAP is more
effective against IED attacks, the vehicle is still undergoing operational testing and
the first 100 vehicles produced failed testing. Testing is continuing on the original
configuration and a second phase of testing is underway at Aberdeen Test Center for
MRAP II that is to be capable of stopping explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), the
newest threat in Iraq.
About 200 vehicles are currently in theater. According to press reports, the
services are planning a rapid expansion of production to meet a requirement
estimated to be from 18,000 to 23,000 vehicles, enough to replace every uparmored
HMMWV in theater. Several variants are being tested and as many as 20 contractors
may compete for the large buy. Of the estimated requirement in theater, about 60%
are slated for the Army and 30% for the Marine Corps. The Army and Marine Corps
have not yet decided whether MRAPs are a long-term or temporary requirement.15
Administration Proposes More Funding for MRAP Vehicles. On July
31, 2007, the Administration requested an additional $5.3 billion for the FY2008
Global War on Terror (GWOT) in order to purchase 1,520 Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles and provide additional parts for other MRAPs already
on order. According to the Administration, this would enable DOD to ramp up to the
14 S.Rept. 110-77, pp. 433 and 325.
15 Inside the Navy, “CENTCOM, SOCOM and Pentagon Direct Bulk of New MRAP fleet
to Army,” August 6, 2007; Inside the Navy, “Aberdeen Commander Says MRAP II won’t
Slow Ongoing MRAP I Testing,” August 6, 2007; Inside Defense, “Congress OKs MRAP
Reprogramming; Additional production orders Expected;” Inside Defense, “Pentagon Eyes
More than A Dozen New Potential Vendors for MRAP II,” August 1, 2007.
CRS-23
maximum feasible production rate and deliver about 8,000 vehicles in theater by May
2008.16 DOD is expected to request an additional $10 billion more for MRAPs.17
Currently, DOD has a total of about $4.3 billion in funding for MRAP vehicles
and associated testing and support including some $3.2 billion in the FY2007
Supplemental (including $1.2 billion added by Congress) and a recently-approved
$1.1 billion reprogramming of FY2007 funds. If the Administration’s new request
for FY2008 is approved, DOD would have a total of $10.2 billion for MRAP
vehicles.18 DOD has not yet indicated the total number of MRAPs, presumably
because the services have not yet decided the mix of the different variants undergoing
testing to be purchased; current figures suggest that an individual MRAP would cost
over $1 million apiece compared to about $350,000 for an uparmored HMMWV.
Appropriations Action. As passed by the House on August 5, 2007, the
FY2008 DOD Appropriations Act, H.R. 3222, does not address DOD’s war request.
House leaders plan to propose a separate bill at a later date. In their report, the House
appropriators promises to address the following issues as part of its consideration of
FY2008 war funding:
! Funding for additional C-17 transport aircraft (included in earlier
supplementals but not considered a war cost by DOD);
! Funding for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles;
! Funding for additional Blackhawk MEDEVAC helicopters;
! Funding for the Global train and Equip Program, a new program to
train foreign security forces facing insurgencies in countries other
than Iraq or Afghanistan;
! Funding to enhance the readiness of stateside units in the strategic
reserve that would be available for contingencies other than Iraq and
Afghanistan;
! Shortfalls in funding for the Defense Health Program because of
“efficiency” wedges included in DOD’s request;
! Shortfalls in funding for Basic Allowance for Housing.19
The House appropriators did, however, defer some $2.0 billion in baseline requests
to the war bill slated for September, characterizing some requests for ammunition,
modifications and tactical vehicles as war rather than baseline requirements, a mirror
image of Senate authorization action that transferred funds from DOD’s war request
to its baseline program.
16 White House, Letter from President George W. Bush to Speaker of the House, Nancy
Pelosi transmitting OMB Estimate No. 5, “FY2008 Revised Emergency Proposals,” July 31,
2007.
17 Testimony by Secretary Robert Gates before Senate Appropriations Committee,
September 26, 2007.
18 CRS calculations based on H.Rept. 110-279, H.Rept. 110-146, and S.Rept. 110-77, and
OMB request of July 31, 2007.
19 H.Rept. 110-279, p. 3.
CRS-24
The actions by Senate authorizers and House appropriators underline one of the
dilemmas in war funding that has continued for several years — how to distinguish
between programs that are necessary because of war requirements and those that are
dedicated to enhancing capabilities that DOD considers necessary to meet longer-
term requirements, including potential future counter-insurgency struggles. One sign
of this concern is the requirement by the HAC for a DOD report that outlines the
assumptions underlying reset requirements to repair and replace war-worn equipment
and explains “how recapitalization and upgrade requirements are related to war needs
rather than ongoing modernization.”20
Both the Senate authorizers and the HAC appropriators show concern about
potential overlaps between war and baseline requirements, with the Senate
authorizers concerned that DOD’s definition of war costs is too broad and the House
appropriators suggesting that DOD defined war requirements too narrowly. The
HAC cut $2.0 billion from DOD’s baseline request, arguing these items should be
considered war-related. The items include:
! $180 million for special pay for language skills and hardship duty;
! $1.1 billion in procurement for heavy Army trucks and night vision
devices, Marine Corps Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), upgrades
to C-130 aircraft and war consumable, Hellfire missiles for Predator
(armed) UAVs, Air Force ammunition and trucks;
! $500 million for the Global Train and Equip program, a program to
equip and train foreign security forces other than Iraq or Afghanistan
who face counter-insurgency threats; and
! $100 million for a “Rapid Acquisition Fund,” intended to make it
easier for DOD to procure urgently needed items.
This $2.0 billion that the HAC proposes to transfer from DOD’s baseline
request to GWOT effectively frees up funding for other programs desired by the
appropriators and makes it easier for DOD to cut $3.5 billion from the DOD request
as is required by each appropriation committee to comply with the overall caps on
discretionary spending set in S.Con.Res. 21, the FY2008 Budget Resolution (see
Table 3).21 Although DOD’s GWOT request is also addressed in the budget
resolution, the amount can be adjusted more easily than for DOD’s baseline program.
Other War-Related Provisions. As part of its markup of the H.R. 3222, the
House appropriators include several general provisions related to war, several of
which have been included in previous appropriations acts. These provisions include:
! a prohibition on spending any funds in the act to train foreign
security forces who engage in gross violations of human rights (Sec.
8060);
! a requirement for separate budget justification materials for named
operations costing more than $100 million (Sec. 8085);
20 H.Rept. 110-279, p. 163.
21 Each appropriation committee sets 302 (b) allocations for its subcommittees that together
meet the total for discretionary spending set by the 302(a) levels set in the budget resolution.
CRS-25
! a requirement for written notification of the period of mobilization
for all activated reservists (Sec. 8089);
! a provision prohibiting spending funds for permanent bases in Iraq
or to control Iraqi oil resources (Sec. 8103);
! a 90% limitation on operation and maintenance obligations until
DOD submits a report on contractor services; and
! a requirement that the cost of ongoing operations be included in the
budget request; and
! a new requirement that DOD provide monthly reports of “boots on
the ground,” in Iraq and Afghanistan or military personnel deployed
in-country.22
FY2008 GWOT Request
In its original request, DOD’s justification language and funding levels for the
FY2008 GWOT request are almost identical to those included in its FY2007
Supplemental request in several categories such as military operations and
reconstitution of war-worn equipment, citing the same force levels and the same
examples. For example, DOD’s request for $70.6 billion in FY2008 funds special
pays, benefits, subsistence, the cost of activating reservists, and the cost of
conducting operations and providing support for about 320,000 deployed military
personnel serving in and around Iraq and Afghanistan assuming the same operating
tempo as in FY2007.23 The original FY2008 GWOT request did not include the
roughly $4 billion additional cost for the “plus-up” or increase of five Army brigades
or about 30,000 troops announced by the president on January 10, 2007 completed
in June 2007.24
The revised DOD request announced by Secretary Gates includes an additional
$6.3 billion for operations, presumably to cover the costs of the retaining the
additional five combat brigades in country in the first part of the year and then
redeploying those forces home by July 2008.
Should force levels decline later in the year — a decrease of 30,000 or five
additional brigades was broached by Secretary Gates in mid-September and in
testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee — some of these additional funds
might not be necessary.25 In July testimony, the Congressional Budget Office
projected that a four-month surge as proposed by the President could cost about $10
22 See sections of H.R. 3222 listed and H.Rept. 110-279, p. 27.
23 DOD, FY2008 Global War on Terror Request, February 2007, pp. 15 and 17; online at
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Glob
al_War_On_Terror_Request.pdf].
24 This CRS estimate includes adjustment to DOD’s estimate of $5.6 billion to reflect later
reprogrammings by DOD for excess costs for activating reservists and depot maintenance
and excludes the cost of an additional Marine Expeditionary Force in FY2007.
25 Philadelphia Inquirer, “Bush Says U.S. Will Shift More Troops to Support Role,”
September 14, 2007, and Secretary Robert Gates testimony before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, September 26, 2007.
CRS-26
billion between FY2007 and FY2010 and that a 12 month surge would cost about
$22 billion.26 These estimates are substantially higher than DOD estimates because
CBO assumed a greater number of support troops would be required than did DOD
and CBO projected its cost estimates farther into the future.
Congressional Action. The House authorizers cut $881 million from
DOD’s $6 billion request for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or
LOGCAP, which provides base camp services on the grounds that a 14% increase
was not justified given the fact that the FY2008 request is predicated on a straight-
line projection from FY2007 — without the temporary increase in military personnel
this year. At the same time, the HASC added $401 million to the Military Personnel
request to cover the cost of an additional 36,000 Army and 9,000 Marine Corps
personnel suggesting that the committee expects the higher levels in FY2007 to
persist.27
Reflecting readiness concerns, the HASC sets up a Defense Readiness
Production Board whose mission is to identify critical readiness requirements. DOD
is also given authority to use multiyear procurement contracts of up to $500 million
authority for items deemed of critical readiness importance without statutory
approval and even if DOD would not save money (Section 1701 to Section 1708,
H.R. 1585). The bill also authorizes $1 billion for these purposes.28
The SASC transfers $4.1 billion from DOD’s GWOT request in Title XV for
higher Army and Marine Corps force levels adopted originally to meet OIF/OEF
needs to the base budget, with the rationale that these increases or “over strength”
are no longer appropriately considered temporary emergency expenses. The
committee reduces the DOD O&M request from $72. 9 billion to $72.0 billion with
the change reflecting a transfer of $712 million to the base budget to “grow the
force.”29
26 CBO, Testimony to the House Budget Committee, July 31, 2007; online at
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8497/07-30-WarCosts_Testimony.pdf].
27 H.Rept. 110-146, p. 469.
28 H.Rept. 110-146, pp. 481-482.
29 S.Rept. 110-77, p. 489 and pp. 515-516, and DOD, FY2008 Global War on Terror
Request, February 2007, p. 75.
CRS-27
Table 8. DOD’s Global War on Terror,
FY2006-FY2008 by Function
(billions of dollars)
FY2008
Request
FY2007 FY2007
vs.
FY2007 FY2007
Total
Total
FY2007
FY2006
Bridge
Supp.
with
Request FY2008 Total w/
Type of Expense
Enacted Enacted Request Request vs FY06 Request Request
Incremental Pay and
Benefits and operating and
67.2
30.5
39.2
69.8
2.6
70.6
0.8
support Costs
Temporary Troop Plus-up
and Increased Naval
0.0
0.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
0.0
-5.6
Presence
Reconstitution or Reset
19.2
23.6
13.9
37.5
18.4
37.6
0.0
Force Protection
5.4
3.4
8.0
11.3
6.0
11.2
-0.1
Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat
3.3
1.9
2.4
4.4
1.0
4.0
-0.4
Fund
Accelerating Modularity
5.0
0.0
3.6
3.6
-1.4
1.6
-2.1
Infrastructure & equipment
for Perm. Inc. in Size of
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
-1.7
Army and MC
Equip and Train Afghan
4.9
3.2
9.7
12.9
8.0
4.7
-8.2
and Iraq Security Forces
Coalition Support
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.9
0.7
1.7
-0.2
Commanders Emergency
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.0
Response Fd
Military Construction
Overseas in Iraq and
0.2
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.7
-0.4
Afghanistan
Military Intelligence
1.5
0.8
2.7
3.5
2.0
2.7
-0.8
Non-DOD Classified and
5.6
5.1
3.6
8.8
3.2
5.9
-2.8
Non-GWOT
Regional War on Terror
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
-0.3
GRAND TOTAL
114.4
70.0
93.4
163.4
49.0
141.7
-21.7
Sources: DOD, FY2008 Global War on Terror Request, February 2007, Table 2, p. 75, online at
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Global_War_O
n_Terror_Request.pdf]. Table 2 does not reflect budget amendments that increased the
Administration’s request for War-Related Funding.
CRS-28
Broad Definition of Reconstitution or Reset
As in FY2007, DOD is requesting $37.6 billion for reconstitution which appears
to encompass a broader set of requirements than the standard definition of reset —
the repair and replacement of war-worn equipment when troops and equipment are
re-deployed or rotated.30 Within reconstitution, DOD includes not only equipment
repair and replacement of battle losses and munitions, but also replacement of
“stressed” equipment, upgrading of equipment with new models, additional
modifications, and new or upgraded equipment as well an expansion of the supply
inventory ($900 million) that assumes that currently high stock levels will need to be
continued.
Of the $37.6 billion reconstitution request, $8.9 billion is for equipment repair
including $7.8 billion for the Army $1.3 billion for the Marine Corps, amounts
similar to DOD’s request in FY2007 and fairly similar to earlier DOD projections.31
The remaining $28.7 billion is for procurement. In a report to Congress in September
2006, DOD estimated that equipment replacement in FY2008 would be about $5.0
billion for the Army and about $500 million for the Marine Corps, levels
substantially below the $21.1 billion for the Army and $7.2 billion for the Marine
Corps requested for FY2008.
This four-fold increase in Army and ten-fold increase in Marine Corps
reconstitution requirements in FY2008 may reflect both an expanded definition of
what constitutes war-related equipment replacement and a DOD decision to request
more than one year’s requirement in FY2008 as occurred in the FY2007
Supplemental where requirements were front loaded according to OMB Director,
Rob Portman.32 With the exception of force protection equipment (much of which
is funded in O&M), DOD appears to characterize all of its FY2008 war procurement
30 For DOD definition, see DOD, Financial Management Regulation, Volume 12, Chapter
23, pp. 23-21; [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/fmr/12/12_23.pdf]; CBO defines
reset as the repair or replacement of war-worn equipment; see CBO, Letter to Rep. Skelton,
“The Potential Costs Resulting from Increased Usage of Military Equipment from Ongoing
Operations,” March 18, 2005; available online at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/61xx/doc
6160/03-18-WornEquip.pdf].
31 In a September 2006 report to Congress, DOD estimated repair requirements at $8.0
billion for the Army and $830 million for the Marine Corps in FY2008, see Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Long-Term Equipment Repair Costs: Report to the Congress,
September 2006, pp. 24-25; DOD, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, Global War on Terror Request,
Exhibits for FY2008, all appropriations, Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance,
Construction, Revolving and Management Funds, Procurement, Research, Development,
Test & Evaluation, February 2007; [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/
fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Global_War_On_Terror_Request/FY_2008_GW
OT_Request_-_Funding_Summary_(All_Appropriations).pdf] Department of the Army,
Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Emergency Supplemental, Global War on Terrorism
(GWOT)/Regional War on Terrorism (RWOT), Exhibit O-1, pp. 2 and 7.
32 Testimony of OMB Director Rob Portman before the House Budget Committee, Hearing
on the FY2008 DOD Budget, February 6, 2007, p. 41 of transcript.
CRS-29
request as reconstitution (see Table 8) including upgrades and replacement of current
equipment that would normally considered part of peacetime modernization.
With over $8 billion in war-related procurement funds from previous years still
to be put on contract, Congress could choose to delay some of the items requested by
DOD, as was the case in Congressional action on the FY2007 where some requests
were deemed “premature” or not emergencies.33 The FY2008 war request may also
reflect a response to the concerns of Service witnesses raised in testimony over the
last year or two that Congress would need to appropriate funds for equipment
replacement for two years after forces are withdrawn.34
In both FY2007 and FY2008, the services request includes replacement for
various aircraft and helicopters — both battle losses and anticipated replacements for
“stressed” aircraft. Under DOD’s standard budget guidance, the services are only to
request new major weapon systems for combat losses that have already been
experienced unless they get specific approval for an exception, which appears to be
the case for both the FY2007 and the FY2008 requests where the services have
requested replacements for “stressed” aircraft rather than combat losses. In the case
of the FY2008 request, particularly, DOD would not have information about combat
losses. In response to congressional doubts, the administration withdrew its request
for six new EA-18 electronic warfare aircraft and two JSF aircraft in the FY2007
Supplemental.
Another issue is whether replacing older aircraft no longer in production with
new aircraft just entering or scheduled to enter production is a legitimate emergency
requirement since systems would not be available for several years. Under their
expanded definition, DOD’s request includes replacement of MH-53 and H-46
helicopters with the new V-22 tilt rotor aircraft, replacement of an F-16 with the new
F-35 JSF, and replacement of older helicopters with the Armed Reconnaissance
Helicopter, a troubled program not yet in production which the Army is considering
terminating.35 In addition, the FY2008 request includes replacement of stressed
aircraft with 17 new C-130Js, modification upgrades to C-130 aircraft, F-18 aircraft,
AH-1W and CH-46 helicopters.
Congressional Action. With a few exceptions, the House authorizers
supported the Administration’s procurement request. The exceptions include the
transfer of funds from various programs deemed lower priority to provide an
33 CRS calculation based on BA appropriated and Defense Finance Accounting Service,
Supplemental & Cost of War Execution reports as of February 28, 2007; see CRS Report
RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other
Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Pat Towell,
Rhoda Margesson, Susan B. Epstein, and Bart Elias.
34 House Armed Services Committee, Costs and Problems of Maintaining Military
equipment in Iraq, January 31, 2007, hearing transcript; House Armed Services Committee,
Army and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and Rotorcraft, hearing
transcript, June 27, 2006.
35 House Armed Services Committee, Air Land Subcommittee, “Opening Statement at
Markup by Chair Neil Abercrombie,” May 2, 2007.
CRS-30
additional $4.1 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush program (see below) as well
as cuts to the Air Force’s F-35 and C130J aircraft requests and the Army’s request
for Armed Reconnaissance helicopters. On the other hand, the House added $2.4
billion for additional C-17 cargo aircraft that will keep the production line open, an
issue raised in previous years.
In its report, the SASC reduces GWOT funding for procurement from $36.0
billion to $28.3 billion including the following.
! $4.6 billion in transfers to the base budget;
! $1.9 billion in program cuts, primarily delays in troubled programs
such as the V-22 (-$493 million), UH-1Y/Ah-1Z (-$123 million),
and C-130J aircraft (- $468 million); and
! $4.7 billion in program adds, echoing House action by adding $4.1
billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Program (MRAP), now a
high priority because of its success in protecting soldiers against
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
The programmatic cuts also reflect committee questions about DOD’s plan for rapid
production buildups for these programs.36 The committee’s transfer of procurement
to the base budget may be designed to give greater visibility to the full spending on
individual programs. Since most of DOD’s FY2008 GWOT procurement request
reflects anticipated replacement needs and upgrades rather than war losses, and with
production lead times of two to three years, the committee may believe that the war-
related connection for the requests are less clear.
Force Protection Funding
DOD’s original FY2008 request includes about $11 billion in funding for force
protection in both FY2007 and FY2008 primarily for body armor, armored vehicles,
protecting operating bases and surveillance operations. The original FY2008 request
is almost identical to FY2007 and includes:
! $3.5 billion to purchase an additional 320,000 body armor sets
reaching a cumulative total of 1.7 million original and upgraded sets
meeting 100% of total requirements as well as the new Advanced
Combat helmet, earplugs, gloves and other protective gear;
! $7.0 billion for protection equipment and activities including
munitions clearance, fire-retardant NOMEX uniforms, unmanned
aerial vehicles, aircraft survivability modifications, route clearance
vehicles; and
! funding for more uparmored HMMWVs ($1.3 billion), armored
security ($301 million) and mine protection vehicles ($174 million);
and
36 S.Rept. 110-77, pp. 511 and 513.
CRS-31
! $585 million for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles
(MRAPs), a truck with a V-shaped hull which has proven effective
against IEDs.37
There has been considerable controversy in Congress about whether DOD has
provided adequate force protection in a timely fashion with Congress typically adding
funds for more body armor, more uparmored HMWWVs, and other force protection
gear. In the FY2007 Supplemental, Congress added $1.2 billion to DOD’s request
for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP) providing a total of $3.0
billion.38 In response to this controversy, the Administration recently submitted an
amended GWOT request for an additional $5.3 billion for MRAPS in order to ramp
up production sooner (see discussion above).
Congressional Action. The House bill authorizes $4.6 billion for MRAPS,
an increase of $4.1 billion over the request to be financed by taking funds from
programs deemed lower priority such as a $1 billion transfer from Bridge to Future
Networks, an upgraded command and communication support system that has
experienced problems. In addition, the HASC requires DOD to submit reports every
30 days on MRAP requirements, contracting strategy, and other matters.39
Like the House, the SASC adds $4.1 billion to DOD’s request for MRAP. At
the same time, the committee raises concerns about the differences between the Army
and Marine Corps MRAP strategies with the Army envisioning 1:7 replacements of
MRAPS for uparmored HMMWVs and the Marine Corps 1:1 replacements. The
SASC endorses most of DOD’s force protection request and increases funding for
night vision devices to meet an unfunded Army requirement.40
Questions Likely About Funding For Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund
In FY2008, DOD is requesting an additional $4.0 billion for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, similar to the FY2007 level, for a special
37 DOD lists $700 million in force protection funding for armored vehicles in its justification
but this appears to be an understatement; see FY2008, Exhibit P-1 for listing of individual
items; DOD, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, Global War on Terror Request, Exhibits for FY2008,
all appropriations, February 2007; [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/
defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Global_War_On_Terror_Request/
FY_2008_GWOT_Request_-_Funding_Summary_(All_Appropriations).pdf]. For MRAP
funding, see Other Procurement accounts of each service and Defensewide and
Procurement, Marine Corps in Office of the Secretary of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008
Global War on Terror Request, Exhibits for FY2008, Exhibit P-1, Procurement, February
2 0 0 7 ; [ h t t p : / / w w w . d e f e n s e l i n k . m i l / c o m p t r o l l e r / d e f b u d g e t / f y 2 0 0 8 /
fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Global_War_On_Terror_Request/FY_2008_GWOT_Req
uest_-_Funding_Summary_(All_Appropriations).pdf].
38 CRS calculation based on H.Rept. 110-107, conference report on H.R. 1591, April 24,
2007; see Congressional Record, April 24, 2007.
39 H.Rept. 110-146, pp. 427 and 466-467.
40 S.Rept. 110-77, pp. 509-510.
CRS-32
new transfer account set up in recent years to coordinate research, production and
training of ways to combat Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), the chief threat to
U.S. forces. With the funding approved in the FY2007 Supplemental (H.R.
2206/P.L.110-28), the Joint IED Defeat Fund would receive a total of $7.6 billion.
If the FY2008 request is approved, the total would reach $12.1 billion, including both
the $500 million in DOD’s base budget and $4 billion in the GWOT request.
Although Congress has been supportive of this area and endorsed DOD’s
request in the FY2007 Supplemental, both houses have raised concerns about the
management practices of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) including its financial practices, its lack of a spending plan, service
requests that duplicate JIEDDO work, and its inability to provide specific
information to Congress. In the original FY2007 Supplemental conference report, the
conferees note that Congress “will be hard-pressed to fully fund future budget
requests unless the JIEDDO improves its financial management practices and its
responses” suggesting that the FY2008 request could be met with some skepticism.41
The FY2008 GWOT justification is almost identical to that for the FY2007
Supplemental.
Congressional Action. The House authorizers endorse DOD’s request for
an additional $4 billion for the Joint IED Defeat Fund included in the GWOT
request. At the same time, the SASC also transfers $500 million funded in the base
budget for that fund to Title XV classifying all JIEDD funds as war-related. In
response to concerns raised by the GAO as well as the appropriators about the
management of the funds, including duplication with service programs, lack of an
overall strategy, and organizational structure, the SASC requires a management plan
for the office from DOD within 60 days of enactment. The SASC also calls on the
office to provide $50 million in funds and work with other DOD offices on blast
injury research and treatment on medical responses to IEDs as well as requiring a
report on these efforts by March 1, 2008.42
Oversight Concerns About Cost to Train and Equip Afghan
and Iraqi Security Forces
For training and equipping, the FY2008 GWOT request includes an additional
$2.7 billion to expand Afghanistan’s 31,000 man Army and 60,000 man police force
and an additional $2.0 billion for more equipment and training for Iraq’s 136,000
man Army and 192,000 man police force. Including the funds in the FY2007
Supplemental would bring the total to $19.2 billion for Iraq and $10.6 billion for
Afghanistan.
41 H.Rept. 110-107, p. 133; H.Rept. 110-60, p. 106; S.Rept. 110-37, pp. 25-27; in the
Congressional Record, May 24, 2007 (p. H5806), House Appropriations Chair Obey
includes materials instructing DOD to follow the committee reports for H.R. 1591 unless
the final version of H.R. 2206 differs; there was no conference report on the final version
of H.R. 2206.
42 S.Rept. 110-77, pp. 516-517 and Sec. 1510, S. 1510.
CRS-33
Although the FY2008 GWOT requests are considerably lower than the amounts
requested for FY2007 — $2 billion vs. $5.5 billion for Iraq and $2.7 billion vs. $7.4
billion for Afghanistan — Congress has voiced concerns about the progress and the
total cost to complete this training. While the final version of the FY2007
supplemental dropped a House-proposal to set a 50% limit on obligations until
various reports were submitted, OMB is required to submit report every 90 days on
the use of funds and estimate of the total cost to train Iraq and Afghan Security forces
within 120 days of enactment. The FY2007 Supplemental also requires that an
independent organization assess the readiness and capability of Iraqi forces to bring
“greater security to Iraq’s 18 provinces in the next 12-18 months....” 43
Congressional Action. In the authorization act, the House endorses the
funding request but requires various reports on progress in training Iraqi security
forces within 90 days of enactment and every three months thereafter (Sec. 1225,
Title XII) as well as requiring a report on progress toward security and stability in
Afghanistan within 90 days of enactment (Sec. 1232, Title XII).
Like the House, the SASC approves DOD’s funding request but requires
quarterly reports, prior congressional notification of transfers from the funds, and the
concurrence of the Secretary of State for assistance provided from the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund or the Iraq Security Forces Fund.44
Coalition Support and Commanders Emergency Response
Program
In FY2008, DOD requests $1.7 billion for coalition support for U.S. allies like
Pakistan and Jordan which conduct border counter-terror operations, and for the U.S.
to provide lift to its allies. DOD also requests $1 billion for the Commanders
Emergency Response Program (CERP) where individual commanders can fund
small-scale development projects, in both cases funding levels similar to FY2007.
While Congress has consistently supported the CERP program, it has voiced
skepticism about the amounts requested for coalition support. In FY2007, for
example, Congress has proposed cutting the Administration’s request for $950
million to $500 million on the grounds that DOD has not defined the use of these
funds for a new “Global train and equip” program authorized in FY2006.45
Congressional Action. In H.R. 1585, the House reauthorize CERP but do
not set a funding limit on the program and do not address coalition support limits.
Unlike the House, the SASC sets a $977 million cap for the Commanders’
Emergency Response Program (CERP), DOD’s request. The SASC also supports the
$1.4 billion limit on coalition support to reimburse allies and a $400 million limit on
43 H.Rept. 110-107, Sec. 1313 and Sec. 1320 of H.R. 1591 and H.Rept. 110-60, p. 101; see
also Congressional Record, May 24, 2007, p. H5776ff.
44 S.Rept. 110-77, p. 506, sections 1511 and 1512.
45 H.Rept. 110-107, p. 126; see also H.Rept. 110-37, p. 22.
CRS-34
“lift and sustain” funds to provide support services to nations supporting OIF and
OEF operations as requested (see S. 1510, Sec. 1532 and Sec. 1533).
Military Construction Overseas and Permanent Basing
Concerns
For war-related military construction and family housing, DOD requests $908
million in FY2008 compared to $1.8 billion in FY2007. Although the funding level
is lower than the previous year, the same concerns about permanent basing in Iraq
continue to be voiced. Some of the FY2008 projects requested — such as building
bypass roads, power plants and wastewater treatment plants in Iraq and providing
relocatable barracks to replace temporary housing and constructing fuel storage
facilities to replace temporary fuel bladders — have been rejected previously as
either lacking sufficient justification.46
Although Congress approved most of the projects requested in the FY2007
supplemental, the FY2007 supplemental included a prohibition on obligating or
expending any funds for permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq. In the past,
Congress has rejected projects similar to those requested in FY2008 as insufficiently
justified or as implying some kind of permanency.
Congressional Action. In H.R. 1585, the House reduces the FY2008
GWOT request for military construction by $212 million, rejecting utility projects
such as power plants and wastewater collection facilities perceived as indicating a
permanent presence.47 The House also extends the congressional prohibition on using
funds for permanent basing in Iraq or to control Iraqi oil resources (Sec. 1222, H.R.
1585).
The SASC approves all DOD’s requests for projects in Iraq and Afghanistan but
transfers $169 million requested for state-side projects to the base budget.48 Like the
House, the SASC also extends the provision prohibiting the United States from
establishing permanent bases in Iraq or taking control of Iraqi oil resources (Sec.
1531, S. 1547). In its appropriations bill, the House includes the same prohibition.
Potential Issues in the
FY2008 Base Budget Request
Following is a brief summary of some of the other issues that may emerge
during congressional action on the FY2008 defense authorization and appropriations
46 DOD, FY2008 Global War on Terror Request, February 2007, p. 58-60; available at
[http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2008_Glob
al_War_On_Terror_Request.pdf].
47 H.Rept. 110-146, p. 470.
48 S.Rept. 110-77, pp. 587-588.
CRS-35
bills, based on congressional action on the FY2007 funding bills and early debate
surrounding the President’s FY2008 budget request.
! Military Pay Raise. The budget request would give military
personnel a 3% pay raise effective January 1, 2008, thus keeping
pace with the average increase in private-sector wages as measured
by the Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index (ECI). Some,
contending that military pay increases have lagged civilian pay hikes
by a cumulative total of 4% over the past two decades or so, have
called for a 3.5% raise to close that so-called pay-gap. Defense
Department officials deny any such pay-gap exists, maintaining that
their proposed 3% increase would sustain their policy of keeping
military pay at about the 70th percentile of pay for civilians of
comparable education and experience. Congress mandated military
pay-raises of ECI plus ½% in FY2000-FY2006. But for FY2007,
the Administration requested an increase of 2.2%, equivalent to ECI,
and Congress ultimately approved it, rejecting a House-passed
increase to 2.7%.
! Army and Marine Corps End-Strength Increases. The budget
request includes $12.1 billion in the FY2008 base budget and an
additional $4.9 billion in the FY2008 war-fighting budget toward the
Administration’s $112.3 billion plan to increase active-duty end-
strength by 65,000 Army personnel and 27,000 Marines by 2013.
Most of the additional personnel are slated for assignment to newly
created combat brigades and regiments, which would expand the
pool of units that could be rotated through overseas deployments,
thus making it easier for the services to sustain overseas roughly the
number of troops currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
recommendation marks a new departure for the Administration,
which has resisted for several years calls by the congressional
defense committees for such an increase in troop-strength. On the
other hand, the proposal might be challenged by Members who
wonder how the services, in a time of tightening budgets, will afford
the roughly $13 billion annual cost of the additional troops. The
proposal also might be opposed by Members skeptical of future
extended deployments on the scale of the current missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
! Tricare Fees and Co-pays. For the second year in a row, the
Administration’s budget proposes to increase fees, co-payments and
deductibles charged retirees under the age of 65 by Tricare, the
Defense Department’s medical insurance program for active and
retired service members and their dependents. The increases are
intended to restrain the rapid increase in the annual cost of the
Defense Health Program, which is projected to reach $64 billion by
FY2015. The budget request also reduces the health program budget
by $1.9 billion, the amount the higher fees are expected to generate.
The administration contends that these one-time increases would
compensate for the fact that the fees have not be adjusted since they
CRS-36
were set in 1995. The Administration also is requesting a provision
of law that would index future increases in Tricare fees to the
average rate of increase in health care premiums nationwide. As was
the case last year, the Administration proposal is vehemently
opposed by organizations representing service members and retirees,
which contend that the Defense Department has failed to adequately
consider other cost-saving moves and that retiree medical care on
favorable terms is appropriate, considering the unique burdens that
have been borne by career soldiers and their dependents. Any future
Tricare fee increases, some groups contend, should be indexed to
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than to the much
more rapid rise in health insurance premiums. Last year, Congress
blocked the proposed fee increases for one year and established a
study group to consider alternative solutions to the problem of rising
defense health costs. That panel is slated to issue interim
recommendations in May, 2007.49
! National Guard Representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A
number of National Guard units have been stripped of equipment
needed for other units deploying to Iraq, leaving the units at home
ill-prepared either to train for their military mission or to execute
their domestic emergency role as the agent of their state governor.
Some Members of Congress and organizations that speak for the
Guard contend that this situation reflects the regular forces’
dismissive attitude toward Guard units, which should be
counterbalanced by making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and elevating him to highest
military rank — general (4 stars) — from his current rank of
lieutenant general (3 stars). Congress has rejected these proposals
before, but in March a congressionally chartered commission
studying National Guard and reserve component issues endorsed the
higher rank, while opposing the Joint Chiefs membership.
! National Guard Stryker Brigades. Governors, Members of
Congress and National Guard officials from several states have
called on Congress to equip additional Guard combat units with the
Stryker armored combat vehicle, which currently equips five active-
duty Army brigades and one National Guard brigade (based in
Pennsylvania). Stryker brigades deployed in Iraq report the eight-
wheeled armored cars to be rugged under fire and agile; and because
they move on oversize tires rather than metal caterpillar tracks like
the big M-1 tanks and Bradley troop carriers that equip some Guard
units, Strykers would be more versatile in domestic disaster-
response missions, since they could travel on streets and roads
without tearing them up. Perhaps as important as the Stryker units’
vehicular capability is the surveillance and information network that
49 See CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Fees: Background and Options for
Congress, by Richard A. Best Jr.
CRS-37
is part of a Stryker brigade. It cost about $1.2 billion to equip the
Pennsylvania Guard unit as a Stryker brigade.
! Future Combat Systems. The FY2008 budget request contains
$3.7 billion to continue development of the Army’s Future Combat
System (FCS), a $164 billion program to develop a new generation
of networked combat vehicles and sensors that GAO and other
critics repeatedly have cited as technologically risky. That critique
may account for the fact that, last year, Congress cut $326 million
from the Administration’s $3.7 billion FY2007 request for the
program. Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also highlight
the concern of some that FCS will be a more efficient way to fight
the kind of armored warfare at which U.S. forces already excel while
offering no clear advantage in fighting the sort of counter-
insurgency operations that may be a major focus of U.S. ground
operations for some time to come.50 Particularly because the FY2008
request includes the first installment of procurement money for FCS
($100 million), critics may try once again to slow the project’s pace,
at least for the more technologically exotic components not slated
for deployment within the next five years.
! Nuclear Power for Warships. Congress may use the FY2008 bills
to continue pressing the Navy to resume the construction of nuclear-
powered surface warships. All U.S. subs commissioned since 1959
have had nuclear-powerplants because they give subs the extremely
useful ability to remain submerged, and thus hard to detect, for
weeks at a time. All aircraft carriers commissioned since 1967 also
have been nuclear-powered ships. But because nuclear-powered
surface ships cost significantly more to build and operate than oil-
powered ships of comparable size, the Navy has built no nuclear-
powered surface vessels since 1980, and has had none in
commission since 1999. Proponents of nuclear power long have
contended that this focus on construction costs has unwisely
discounted the operational advantages of surface combatants that
could steam at high speed for long distances, without having to
worry about fuel consumption. In recent years, they have cited rising
oil prices to argue that nuclear-powered ships may not be much more
expensive to operate than oil-fueled vessels. In 2006, a Navy study
mandated by the FY2006 defense authorization bill (P.L. 109-163,
Section 130) concluded that nuclear power would add about $600
million to $700 million to the cost of a medium-sized warship, like
the Navy’s planned CG(X) cruiser, and that such a ship’s operating
cost would be only 0-10% higher than an oil-powered counterpart,
provided crude oil costs $74.15 or more, per barrel (as it did a
50 See CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS-38
various times during 2006).51 Congress might add to the FY2008
bills provisions that would require certain kinds of warships to be
nuclear-powered in the future. Alternatively, it might require the
Navy to design both oil-powered and nuclear-powered versions of
the CG(X), the first of which is slated for funding in the FY2011
budget.
! Littoral Combat Ships. Congress will closely scrutinize the
Navy’s most recent restructuring of its plan to bulk up the fleet with
a large number of small, fast Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) intended
to use modular packages of weapons and equipment to perform
various missions. In FY2005-FY2007, Navy budgets funded six
LCSs being built to two different designs by two contractors,
Lockheed and Northrop Grumman. The Navy plans to select one of
the two designs which would account for all the LCSs built
beginning in FY2010. But in March 2007, responding to escalating
costs in the first few LCS ships under construction, the Navy
restructured the program, cancelling contracts for three of the ships
already funded and reducing the number of LCS ships requested in
the FY2008 budget from three to two. In the FY2008 defense bills,
Congress might endorse the Navy’s action, add funds for additional
ships in FY2008, or take additional steps to ensure that LCS
construction costs are under control before additional ships are
funded.52
! Virginia-Class Submarines. Members may try to accelerate the
Navy’s plan to begin in FY2012 stepping up the production rate of
Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines from one ship per
year to two. Because of the scheduled retirement after 30 years of
service of the large number of Los Angeles-class subs commissioned
in the 1980 and 1990s, the Navy’s sub fleet will fall short of the
desired 48 ships (out of a total fleet of 313 Navy vessels) from 2020
until 2033. In addition to approving the Navy’s FY2008 request for
$1.8 billion to build a sub for which nuclear reactors and other
components were funded in earlier years and $703 million for
reactors and components that would be used in subs slated for
funding in future budgets, Congress may add more so-called “long
lead” funding for an additional sub for which most of the funding
would come in FY2009 or FY2010. The Navy says it would need an
additional $400 million down payment in FY2008 to make it
feasible to fund an additional sub in FY2010.53 But Navy officials
51 See CRS Report RL33946, Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background, Issues
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
52 See CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Oversight Issues
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
53 See CRS Report RL32418, Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement
Rate: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS-39
also argue that buying an additional sub before 2012 could throw
future Navy budgets out of balance.
! F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter). Congress may reject the
Administration’s proposal to drop development of the General
Electric F-136 jet engine being developed as a potential alternative
to the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine slated to power the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. Congress has backed development of an alternate
engine for the F-35 since 1996 and last year rejected the
Administration’s proposal to terminate the program, adding $340
million to the FY2007 defense funding bills to continue the alternate
engine program.54 Defense Department officials, noting that they
would save $1.8 billion by ending the alternate engine program,
contend that because of improvements in the process of designing
and developing jet engines, it would not be imprudent to rely on a
single type of engine to power what likely will be the only U.S.
fighter plane in production after about 2015. Many Members are
skeptical of that argument, citing the poor reliability demonstrated
in the late 1970s by the Pratt & Whitney F-100 engine that powered
both the F-15 and F-16, a problem the caused Congress to mandate
development of an alternative (GE-built) engine. Supporters of the
dual engine approach also contend that competition between the two
engine manufacturers produced significant savings in F-15 and F-16
engine costs, a claim disputed by some analyses.
! C-17 Production and C-5 Upgrades. There appears to be strong
support in Congress for fielding a larger fleet of long-range cargo
jets big enough to heavy Army combat gear than Defense
Department plans would fund. As in past years, the result may be a
combination of congressional actions that would (1) restrict the
ability of the Air Force to retire older C-5A planes and (2) fund
additional C-17 planes, beyond the 190 the Air Force plans to buy.
In March 2006, the Defense Department’s first “post 9/11” review
of its long-range transportation needs concluded that the services’
long-range airlift needs could be met, with acceptable risk, by the
Air Force’s plan to upgrade fleet of 109 C-5s (divided between “A”
and newer “B” models) and to buy a total of 180 C-17s. Rejecting
the department’s analysis on several grounds, Congress barred
retirement of any C-5s and added 10 C-17s to the FY2007 defense
funding bills. The most conspicuous change in this issue since then
has been the Administration’s decision to enlarge the Army and
Marine Corps, a move which, arguably, requires a larger airlift
fleet.55
54 See CRS Report RL33390, Proposed Termination of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F136
Alternate Engine, by Christopher Bolkcom.
55 See CRS Report RS20915, Strategic Airlift Modernization, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS-40
! Air Force Tanker Procurement. The $315 million requested in
FY2008 to develop a new mid-air refueling tanker to replace the Air
Force KC-135s well into their fifth decade of service may become
a vehicle for congressional action intended to bolster the position of
either Boeing or the team of Northrop Grumman and Airbus, who
are competing for the contract in a contest scheduled to be decided
late in 2007. Immediately at issue is a contract for 179 refueling
planes. But follow-on contracts may bring the number of planes
ultimately purchased to 540. 56
! New Nuclear Warhead. Differences over the future role of nuclear
weapons in U.S. national security planning may crystalize into a
debate over the $119 million requested in the FY2008 national
defense budget to continue development of a so-called Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW), which is intended to replace
warheads that were built in the 1970s and 1980s and have been kept
in service longer than initially planned. That total includes $89
million for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the
Department of Energy and $30 million for the Navy. The new
warhead is intended to be easier to maintain than aging types now in
service and to be deployable without breaking the moratorium on
nuclear test explosions the U.S. government has observed since
1992. Supporters argue that RRW is needed because of concerns that
maintenance of currently deployed warheads may prove increasingly
difficult in the long term. On the other hand, critics of the RRW
program contend that fielding new warheads of an untested type
might build political pressure to resume testing eventually.
Moreover, they contend, that the program to extend the service life
of existing warheads without testing has proven successful for more
than a decade and should become even more reliable because of
advances in understanding of the physics of current weapons. Since
the funds requested in FY2008 would allow the RRW program to
cross a critical threshold, from design and cost analysis to the start
of detailed development work, Members who want to rein in the
program have a strong incentive to use the FY2008 funding bills to
do it.57
! Non-Nuclear Trident Missile Warhead. Months after Congress
denied most of the $127 million requested in FY2007 to develop a
non-nuclear warhead for the Trident long-range, submarine-launched
ballistic missile, the administration has requested $175 million for
the program in FY2008. The argument in favor of the program is
that it would allow U.S. forces to quickly strike urgent or mobile
targets anywhere in the world, even if no U.S. forces were located
56 See CRS Report RS20941, Air Force Aerial Refueling, by Christopher Bolkcom.
57 See CRS Report RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background
and Current Developments, and CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable
Replacement Warhead Program and the Life Extension Program, both by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS-41
nearby. On the other hand, some skeptics of the program argue that
the system would require precise, virtually real-time intelligence
about targets that may not be available and that other countries —
including some like Russia and China that are armed with long-
range, nuclear-armed missiles — might misinterpret the launch of
a conventionally-armed U.S. missile as an indication that they were
under nuclear attack. Some Members may try to slow the program,
as Congress did last year.58
! Missile Defense Budget. If only because it is the largest acquisition
program in the budget, the $8.9 billion requested in FY2008 for the
Missile Defense Agency would draw close scrutiny because of the
stringent budget limits within which the defense committees are
working. But there also may be some efforts to cut that request that
are rooted in the long-running debate that continues over how soon
missile defense would be needed, and over the relative effectiveness
of the many anti-missile systems under development. Efforts are
likely to reduce funding for some of the more technologically
challenging programs, such as the Airborne Laser (ABL), which has
encountered several delays and for which the Administration has
requested $549 million in FY2008.59 Another possible target for
congressional cuts is the $300 million requested to begin work on a
third anti-missile site in Eastern Europe. Touted by the
Administration as a defense against a possible threat from Iran, the
proposal to field anti-missile interceptors in Poland has been
denounced by Russia.
! Revisiting BRAC. Because of well-publicized cases of inadequate
care received by some Iraq War veterans at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, which is slated for realignment as one of the
recommendations made by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) Commission, and approved by President George W. Bush,
critics of some other BRAC actions may be encouraged to try to
slow or reverse those decisions. If successful, such efforts might
unravel the entire base closure process, which was designed to
prevent Members from politicking to save any one particular base
from closure. Since 1989, the requirement that Congress and the
President deal with each of the four sets of recommended closures
as a package, on a “take it or leave it” basis, has highlighted the
potential savings of the entire package of closures while preventing
supporters of any one base from rounding up support for saving their
site from closure on the grounds that, considered in isolation, closing
it would save very little. But since the furor over Walter Reed has at
least prompted some public calls for reconsidering that particular
58 See CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.
59 See CRS Report RL32123, Airborne Laser (ABL): Issue for Congress, by Christopher
Bolkcom and Stephen A. Hildreth.
CRS-42
BRAC decision, critics of other closures may argue that changes in
circumstance since 2005 require a re-look at other parts of the
BRAC package. In addition, jurisdictions anticipating a large
population influx as they acquire organizations formerly housed at
installations being closed, may seek impact assistance to expand
their transportation, utility, housing, and education infrastructures.
! Contract Oversight. Because of several recent cases in which high
profile weapons acquisition programs have been hobbled by
escalating costs and technical shortcomings, Members may want to
review the management of individual programs and the evolution
over the past decade or so of the Defense Department’s acquisition
management process with an eye toward using the FY2008 funding
bills to strengthen the government’s hand in dealing with industry.
Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and Chief of Naval
Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen have declared that the Navy
intends to reclaim some of the authority over ship design it has
ceded to industry and Members may look for ways to jump-start that
effort as they deal with, for instance, the troubled Littoral Combat
Ship (LCS) program. Similarly, Members intent on imposing
congressional priorities on the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS)
may question the amount of managerial discretion the Army has
vested in the Lead System Integrator: a private entity — in this case,
a team of Boeing and SAID — hired to manage a large, complex
program that consists of more than a dozen vehicles and sensors
linked by a computer network. One rationale for the outsourcing to
industry of management roles previously filled by Pentagon
acquisition managers is that the Defense Department no longer has
the in-house expertise needed to manage such complicated
acquisitions. Some Members may want the Defense Department to
come up with a long-term plan to restore enough in-house expertise
to make the government a smarter customer.60
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of
Congressional Action to Date
Congressional Budget Resolution
Congress has completed, work on the annual congressional budget resolution,
which includes recommended ceilings for FY2008 and the following four fiscal years
on budget authority and outlays for national defense and other broad categories (or
“functions”) of the federal government. These functional ceilings are neither binding
on the Appropriations committees nor do they formally constrain the authorizing
committees in any way. But the budget resolution’s ceiling on the so-called “050
60 See CRS Report RS22631, Defense Acquisition: Use of Lead System Integrators (LEIS)
— Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Valerie Bailey Grasso.
CRS-43
function” — the budget accounts funding the military activities of DOD and the
defense-related activities of the Department of Energy and other agencies — may
indicate the general level of support in each chamber for the President’s overall
defense budget proposal.
The House version of the budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 99), adopted March 29,
2007, by a vote of 216-210 that broke basically along party lines, recommended for
FY2008 a ceiling of $507 billion in budget authority for the 050 function and an
additional allowance of $145 billion for “overseas deployments and other activities.”
Together, the two amounts add up to an overall ceiling on defense-related budget
authority in FY2008 of $652 billion, essentially the amount the President requested.
The House budget resolution also included non-binding policy recommendations that
(1) opposed the Administration’s request to increase retirees’ medical fees and (2)
called for a reduction in the administration’s $9.8 billion budget request for missile
defense.
The Senate version of the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21), adopted March 23
by a vote of 52-47 that basically followed party lines, recommended for FY2008 a
ceiling on defense-related budget authority of $649 billion, slightly less than the total
that was requested for both the regular FY2008 defense budget and the cost of
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The conference report on the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21) set budget
authority ceilings of $507 billion for the 050 function and an additional $145 billion
for overseas deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Appropriations designated as
being necessary for overseas deployments in excess of $145 billion would be exempt
from budget caps in the House. In the Senate, they would be subject to a point of
order which could be waived by a supermajority of 60 votes.
The conference report also accepted the House-passed provisions opposing the
proposed increase in retirees’ medical fees and calling for a reduction in the missile
defense budget. Both chambers adopted the conference report on May 17, the House
by a vote of 214-209 and the Senate by a vote of 52-40.
FY2008 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the effort of some
Members of Congress to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is one of the
most contentious issues on the country’s political agenda, the version of the FY2008
defense authorization bill passed May 17 by the House (H.R. 1585) includes no
provisions relating to any deadline for ending U.S. deployments in Iraq. However,
the bill would require several reports on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill would require the top U.S. military commander in Iraq and the U.S.
ambassador to provide Congress with a detailed assessment of the situation in that
country covering various issues, including an assessment of Iraqi security forces and
a review of trends in attacks by insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters on U.S. and allied
forces.
CRS-44
The bill also includes several provisions focused on operations in Afghanistan,
including a requirement the Secretary of Defense send Congress a detailed plan for
achieving sustained, long-term stability in that country. The bill also would require
creation of a special inspector general to oversee U.S.-funded reconstruction efforts
in Afghanistan, paralleling the office that has uncovered instances of waste and fraud
in Iraqi reconstruction efforts.
In addition, the bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
to review the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Organization, created to coordinate
efforts to neutralize roadside bombs and car bombs, which have been responsible for
more U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq than any other factor. The bill also would cut from
the military construction request $212 million for facilities such as powerplants and
wastewater treatment plants which, the House Armed Services Committee said in its
report on H.R. 1585 (H.Rept. 110-146), implied an intention to continue U.S.
deployments for a prolonged period.
Other FY2008 Defense Budget Issues. Some of the hundreds of changes
the House made to the President’s FY2008 defense request in H.R. 1585 reflect
broader themes, some of which the House has struck in its action on earlier defense
budget requests:
The bill would fund the proposed expansion of the active-duty Army and Marine
Corps and would compensate the troops more generously. After years of rejecting
recommendations by many Members to increase the number of ground troops, the
Administration has launched a plan to increase the permanent end-strength of the
Army and Marine Corps by a total of 92,000 troops by 2012. H.R. 1585 would
authorize the two services to accelerate the buildup, but would not require them to
do so. In addition to funding that end-strength increase, the bill would increase
military pay by 3.5%, instead of the 3.0% increase requested, and would bar for the
second year in a row a proposed increase in medical care fees for retirees.
It would mandate several actions intended to improve the quality of military
medical care, particularly for service members in outpatient status. The bill
incorporates the text of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007,
passed by the House March 28, 2007, among the provisions of which are (1)
requirements for more proactive management of outpatient service members, (2)
requirements for regular inspections of housing facilities occupied by recovering
service members and reports on other aspects of military medical care, and (3) a one-
year ban on the privatization of jobs at any military medical facility.
The bill would shore up current combat capabilities, in part with funds diverted
from the budget request for technologically advanced weapons programs that
promise increased military capability in the future. It would add funds to the
requests for anti-missile systems designed to protect forces in the field from the sort
of short-range and medium-range missiles deployed (or nearly deployed) by potential
adversaries such as North Korea and Iran. At the same time, it would slice funding
from the amounts requested for the Airborne Laser and for development of space-
based anti-missile weapons, more innovative weapons intended for use against long-
range missiles that those adversaries have not yet fielded. Similarly, it would cut
several hundred million dollars from the request for the Army’s Future Combat
CRS-45
System program, targeting some of its more exotic elements, while adding funds to
expand production of Stryker armored combat vehicles and Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) troop carriers. It also would extend production of the C-17, long-
range, wide-body cargo jet, adding funds for 10 more airplanes.
The House bill would slow some acquisition programs to allow a more orderly
process of setting their requirements and testing their effectiveness. For instance, the
bill would require an operationally realistic test of the communications and sensor
network that is essential to the Army’s FCS program before the system goes into
production. It also would defer production of a medium-range cargo plan, the Joint
Cargo Aircraft, until the Pentagon completes a study of its requirement for aircraft
of that type. In addition, the bill would slow development of a new troop carrier,
slated to replace the High-Mobility, Multi-purpose, Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV),
until some of the technologies slated for use in the new vehicle are more mature.
The bill also would slow some programs that might draw adverse international
reactions. It would reduce funding for development of a new Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) and for construction of a new production facility for plutonium to
be used in nuclear warheads, programs some have said would complicate U.S. efforts
to bar the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It also would eliminate funding to deploy
anti-missile interceptors in Europe, a plan to which Russia has objected. In addition,
the bill would reduce funding for development of a non-nuclear warhead for Trident
submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the launch of which — some critics warn —
might be mistakenly interpreted as the launch of a nuclear attack.
Some other highlights of H.R. 1585 include the following:
! Tricare Fee Freeze. As the FY2007 authorization bill did, this bill
would bar for one year proposed increases in Tricare fees (including
pharmacy fees). The House Armed Services Committee noted that
a commission appointed to study alternative Tricare cost controls is
not scheduled to complete its work until the end of the year. The bill
also would authorize an increase in Tricare funding by $1.9 billion,
the amount by which Pentagon officials reduced the Tricare budget
request in anticipation of the higher fees.
! Health Care Improvements. The bill would create an initiative to
improve care of service members suffering traumatic brain injury,
which is a relatively frequent result of roadside bomb attacks on U.S.
vehicles in Iraq. It also would allow the Navy to reduce its number
of medical personnel by only 410, rather than the reduction of 900
the budget assumed. The bill also incorporates the provisions of
H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007, passed by
the House March 28 which, among many other provisions, would do
the following: mandate the assignment of case managers to
outpatient service members and require regular reviews of their
cases; create toll-free hotlines on which service members and their
families can report deficiencies in military-support facilities;
establish standardized training programs for Defense Department
personnel engaged in evaluating wounded service members for
CRS-46
possible discharge on grounds of disability; establish a separate fund
to support the treatment of wounded or injured service members and
their return to service or their transition to civilian life; mandate
development of policies to reduce the likelihood that personnel in
combat will experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or
other stress-related illnesses; require regular inspections of all living
quarters occupied by service members recovering from wounds; and
prohibit for one year any effort to convert jobs at a military medical
facility from military to civilian positions. In addition, the bill would
require a long-term longitudinal study of health and behavioral
problems experienced by service members deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It also would require that the annual budget for Walter
Reed Army Medical Center not be reduced below the level spent in
FY2006 until replacement facilities are available to provide the same
level of care provided at Walter Reed in that year.
! National Guard and Reserve Issues. The bill would elevate the
chief of the National Guard Bureau, a position that currently carries
with it the rank of lieutenant general, to the rank of general, and
would designate that officer as an advisor to the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, the bill
would not make the Guard Bureau chief a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, as some supporters of the National Guard have
advocated. The bill also would authorize an addition of $1.1 billion
to the $1.1 billion requested for equipment for the National Guard
and reserve component forces, an increase intended to address
equipment shortfalls. budget in order to fill Guard and reserve
equipment shortages. The chief of the National Guard Bureau has
estimated that, for the Guard alone, equipment shortfalls would cost
$2 billion to fill. In addition, the bill would authorize the addition of
$30 million to upgrade the engines on F-16s flown by National
Guard squadrons. The bill also would require the Secretary of
Defense to send Congress quarterly reports on the readiness of
National Guard units to perform both their wartime mission and the
domestic missions the would be called on in response to a natural
disaster or domestic disturbance. It also would require the Army to
submit to Congress a report on the desirability of equipping
additional National Guard units with Stryker vehicles.
! Training. The bill would authorize an additional $250 million for
training not covered by the budget request. The committee warned
that the readiness of ground combat forces in particular was
suffering because their training was focused heavily on the type of
mission they would perform in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than on
the full spectrum of missions they might have to execute.
! Maintenance and Readiness. The bill would add to the budget
request $165 million for additional major overhauls of ships, planes,
vehicles and electronic equipment beyond what the budget would
cover. It also would create a $1 billion Strategic Readiness Fund to
CRS-47
allow the services to address equipment shortages that resulted in
critical readiness shortfalls. To better focus attention on readiness
problems, the bill would create a Defense Readiness Production
Board to identify shortages of equipment or supplies anticipated to
last for two years or longer. It also requires DOD to report the
current readiness of ground forces and prioritize the steps that will
be taken to improve the state of readiness.
! Special Forces Priorities. Several provisions of the bill reflect a
concern by some Members that the services’ special operations
forces have been emphasizing “direct action” (efforts to kill or
capture terrorists) at the expense of “indirect action” (training other
countries’ security forces and developing working relationships with
them to help set conditions that inhibit the spread of terrorism). The
bill would require the Special Operations Command to send
Congress an annual report on its plan to meet its requirements for
indirect action. It also would authorize additional funds for
“irregular warfare support” research aimed at better understanding
radical Islamist strategies and the cultures in which terrorists seek a
foothold.
! Civilian Employees. The bill would change the rules governing so-
called A-76 cost competitions to determine whether functions
currently performed by federal employees should be contracted out
to private companies. The House Armed Services Committee said
that the changes, which would tend to advantage federal employees
in such a contest, were needed to ensure a fair and balanced cost
comparison. The bill also would require a recently created personnel
system for civilian DOD employees to provide rights of collective
bargaining and appeal rights which are provided by the civil service
system. It also would impose limits on the new system’s “pay for
performance” compensation rules.
! Armored Troop Carriers. The bill would increase by $4.1 billion
— to $4.6 billion — the amount authorized to equip Army, Marine
Corps and Special Operations units with Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles, shaped and armored to better protect
troops from roadside bombs. It approved the requests for $2.3
billion to buy armored HMMWV vehicles and $1.1 billion for
add-on armor to protect personnel in other vehicles from roadside
bombs.
! Ground Combat Vehicles. The bill would cut $857 million from
the $3.56 billion requested to continue developing the Army’s
Future Combat System (FCS), a networked set of ground vehicles,
unmanned aircraft and sensors that would make up the next
generation of ground combat equipment. FCS supporters contended
that the cut would cripple the program; but proponents of the
reduction contended that the cuts were aimed at more exotic
components not slated to enter service for years, sparing elements of
CRS-48
FCS that would be available sooner. The bill also approved the
request for $4 billion to upgrade M-1 tanks and Bradley armored
troops carriers currently in service. It would authorize $88 million
of the $288 million requested for the Expeditionary Fighting
Vehicle, a Marine Corps effort to develop a new amphibious combat
vehicle, work on which has been suspended pending a DOD review.
! Communication Programs Slowed. The bill would cut $2.1 billion
from the $2.6 billion requested for the Joint Network Node (JNN),
an effort to develop for ground troops an internet-based mobile
voice, video and data link that would be used pending development
of a more ambitious communications network system designated
Warfighter Information Network - Tactical (WIN-T). The House
Armed Services Committee contended that JNN could not usefully
absorb the amount requested. Moreover, the committee insisted that
JNN, which had been launched as an interim system start managed
under relatively informal procedures, begin to operate under the
more demanding procedures applied to major systems purchases and
that the procurement of future lots of the system by competed. The
bill also would cut $102 million from the $222 million requested to
develop the follow-on communication system, WIN-T. On the other
hand, the bill authorized the $964 million requested to develop a
satellite-based, long-range communications network linked by
lasers.
! Combat Jets. The bill would authorize production 11 of the 12 F-35
tri-service fighters requested. It would use the $230 million thus
saved from the $2.7 billion F-35 procurement request plus $250
million diverted from the $3.5 billion R&D request to continue
development of an alternative jet engine, a project the budget would
terminate. The bill also would authorize the amounts requested for
20 Air Force F-22 fighters ($3.2 billion, plus $744 million for R&D)
and 18 EA-18Gs, which are electronic-jamming versions of the
Navy’s F/A-18E/F fighter ($1.3 billion, plus $273 million for R&D).
It would authorize 33 of the 36 F/A-18E/Fs requested ($2.6 billion,
a $182 million reduction from the request).
! Long-Range Cargo Jets. The bill would add to the budget $2.4
billion for 10 additional C-17 wide-body, long-range cargo jets.
DOD’s budget would have ended production of the planes, as would
its FY2007 budget, which Congress also overrode to keep the C-17
production line running. In addition, the bill would repeal existing
law that bars DOD from retiring any of its C-5 cargo jets. The bill
would allow the Air Force to begin retiring older C-5s once the
production of C-17s, plus remaining C-5s comprised a total
long-range cargo fleet of 299 planes.
! Shipbuilding. The bill included a provision requiring that all new
classes of cruisers, submarines and aircraft carriers be
nuclear-powered, although the requirement could be waived in any
CRS-49
case in which the Secretary of Defense determined it not to be in the
national interest. The bill added to the budget request $1.7 billion for
a San Antonio-class amphibious landing transport (in addition to the
$1.4 billion requested for one of the ships), $400 million for a
T-AKE class supply ship (in addition to the $456 million requested
for one), and $588 million to buy the nuclear power plant and other
components of an additional Virginia-class submarine, for which the
bulk of the funds would have to be provided in a future budget (in
addition to the $1.8 billion approved as requested for one sub and
the $703 million requested for another set of long-leadtime sub
components). The bill also authorized $711 million for two smaller
warships, designated LCS, which is what the Navy wanted after it
dropped from its FY2008 budget request funding for a third ship of
the class because of escalating costs in construction of earlier ships
of the type. The committee also directed the Navy to report on the
underlying causes of the LCS cost-overruns and on steps that were
being taken to prevent their recurrence. The bill also authorized the
amounts requested to begin work on a nuclear-powered carrier ($2.7
billion), to complete two DDG-1000-class destroyers that were
partly funded in the FY2007 budget and to buy components for use
in future ships of this type ($2.8 billion), and to complete a
helicopter carrier designed to support amphibious landings, some
funds for which were provided in the FY2007 budget ($1.4 billion).
! Missile Defense. The bill would cut a total of $764 million from the
$8.8 billion requested for the Missile Defense Agency. The largest
cut in a single missile defense program was $250 million cut from
the $548 million requested to continue development of an airborne
laser (ABL). The bill also would cut $160 million from the $300
million requested to field in Eastern Europe a third cluster of
anti-missile interceptor rockets. The cut would block construction of
the planned launch silos in Poland. The bill also would authorize a
total of $2.5 billion, slightly more than was requested, for Patriot
and Aegis systems designed to protect U.S. forces and allies against
short-range and medium-range missiles currently deployed by North
Korea, Iran and many other countries. It would deny $10 million
requested to begin development of space-based anti-missile
interceptor missiles.
! Nuclear Weapons and Non-proliferation. The bill would cut $45
million from the $119 million requested to develop a new nuclear
warhead — the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) — to replace
aging warheads current deployed. The House Armed Services
Committee said it wanted to slow development of the new weapon
pending a report on future U.S. nuclear weapons deployments,
which the bill would create a blue-ribbon panel to prepare. The bill
also would authorize $142 million of the $175 million requested to
develop a non-nuclear warhead for the Trident submarine-launched
missile. The committee wanted to defer production of the weapon
pending study of how it would be used and how the risk could be
CRS-50
minimized that launch of a conventionally-armed Trident would be
misinterpreted as nuclear attack.
! Roles and Missions. The bill would require the Defense
Department to review every four years the division of labor — the
allocation of “roles and missions” — among the four armed services
and other Pentagon agencies, identifying the “core competencies” of
each service or agency. It also would make several changes in the
Defense Department’s long-range budget and weapons planning
processes with the aim of ensuring that future weapons programs be
given the go-ahead only if they met the requirements of an agreed-on
mission and were to be used by an organization with the appropriate
core competency to perform that mission. The bill also would direct
the Secretary of Defense to decide whether or not to designate one
of the armed services to manage all medium altitude and high
altitude unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs, for the sake of
efficiency. Air Force officials have contended that their service
should get that role, a move the other services have strongly
opposed.
! Prospective Ban on Future Use of LSIs. The bill would prohibit
the awarding of new contracts for any Lead System Integrator (LSI)
on a major system, as of the start of FY2011. The bill would require
the Secretary of Defense to send Congress by October 1, 2008, a
plan to develop among government acquisition employees the skills
needed to perform “inherently governmental functions” in managing
major acquisition programs.
! Environmental Issues. The bill would require future periodic
revisions of long-range national strategic plans to take account of the
impact on U.S. interests of global climate change. The committee
said that the strategic, social, political, and economic consequences
of climate change could increase political instability in parts of the
world. The bill also would require GAO to report on the extent to
which the readiness of U.S. forces has improved as the result of
several waivers from various environmental laws granted to the
Defense Department.
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action
House debate on H.R. 1585, which began on May 16 and was concluded May
17, was governed by a rule (H.Res. 403) that allowed consideration of 50
amendments covering a wide range of subjects.
Iran Policy. The House rejected two amendments that would have restricted
the use of funds authorized by the bill to plan or carry out military operations against
Iran. An amendment by Representative Andrews of New Jersey that would have
prohibited the use of funds authorized for the military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan to plan military operations in Iran was rejected by a vote of 202-216.
An amendment by Representative DeFazio, rejected by a vote of 136-288, would
CRS-51
have prohibited the use of funds authorized by the bill from being used for military
action against Iraq unless (1) Congress specifically authorized such an attack or (2)
there was a national emergency resulting from an Iranian attack on U.S. territory,
forces or allies.
Ballistic Missile Defense. The House also rejected (1) an amendment by
Representative Tierney that would have cut an additional $1.1 billion from the $8.1
billion authorized for ballistic missile defense (rejected 127-299) and (2) an
amendment by Representative Franks that would have added $764 million to the
missile defense authorization (rejected 199-226). Immediately before it passed the
bill, however, the House adopted by a vote of 394-30 a motion to recommit the bill
to committee with instructions that it be amended to increase the missile defense
authorization by $205 million for projects that would integrate U.S. and Israeli
missile defense programs. A motion to “recommit with instructions” has the
practical effect of an amendment.
Guantanamo Detainees. An amendment by Representative Moran, requiring
the Pentagon to report to Congress on the capacity of detention facilities at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on the number and status of detainees at that facility,
was adopted by a vote of 220-208. An amendment by Representative Holt requiring
that the interrogation of detainees by military personnel be videotaped was rejected
by a vote of 199-229.
BRAC Consequences. An amendment by Representative Moran, specifically
overriding the deadline set by the BRAC process for completing all job relocations
resulting from the most recent round of base closures and realignments, would
prohibit any movement of military or civilian personnel from leased office space in
Arlington, Virginia to Fort Belvoir, Virginia until the secretary of the Army certifies
to Congress that the necessary improvements have been made in the transportation
infrastructure near the latter site.
Following is a summary (Table 9) of House action on selected amendments
offered during floor action on H.R. 1585.
Table 9. House Floor Action on Selected Amendments:
FY2008 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1585
Sponsor
Summary
Outcome
Saxton,
Requires DOD to perform federal background checks for
Included in
LoBiondo,
all unescorted visitors who seek entry to a military
an en bloc
Smith, Andrews
installation or facility, and employees of vendors and/or
amendment;
contractors who do business on a military installation or
Agreed,
facility. The background checks will require a search in
voice vote
the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
database, confirmation that they are not on a terrorist
watch list, and collaboration with DHS to verify US
citizenship status.
CRS-52
Sponsor
Summary
Outcome
Snyder
Increases the funding for the Army National Guard
Included in
military personnel account to fund the Yellow Ribbon
an en bloc
Reintegration Program by $50,000,000, with an offsetting
amendment;
reduction of $50,000,000 from the Air Force JSTARS
Agreed,
program.
voice vote
Andrews
Requires DOD to use renewable energy to meet at least
Included in
25% of its electricity needs by 2025, unless the Secretary
an en bloc
determines a waiver is in the best interest of DOD.
amendment;
Agreed,
voice vote
Andrews
Prohibits funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq
Rejected,
and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan
202-216
a contingency operation in Iran .
Franks, Cantor,
Increases by $764 million the amount authorized for
Rejected,
Putnam
ballistic missile defense.
199-226
Johnson, Jr.,
Increases by $169,000,000 the amount authorized for
Included in
Hank (GA)
construction of medical support facilities at Fort Belvoir,
an en bloc
VA, and Bethesda (MD) Naval Medical Center, to be
amendment;
offset by unspecified reductions in other construction
Agreed,
authorized by the bill.
voice vote
DeFazio,
Prohibits funding authorized by the bill or any other act
Rejected,
Paul, Hinchey,
from being used to take military action against Iran
136-288
Lee
without specific authorization from Congress unless there
is a “national emergency created by an attack by Iran upon
the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed
forces.”
Moran
Requires the Office of the Secretary of Defense to submit
Agreed,
a report identifying the current capacity at Department of
220-208
Defense facilities to securely hold and try before a military
commission the detainees currently held at Guantanamo
Bay. The report shall include the Department’s estimated
number of detainees that will be 1) charged with a crime,
2) subject to a release or transfer, or 3) held without being
charged with a crime, but whom the Department wishes to
detain. The report shall also describe actions required by
the Secretary and Congress to ensure that detainees who
are scheduled for release are released no later than
December 31, 2007.
Woolsey
Requires the Secretary of Defense to issue a report on the
Rejected,
continued use, need, relevance, and cost of weapons
119-303
systems designed to fight the Cold War and the former
Soviet Union.
Moran
Requires that the transportation infrastructure necessary to
Included in
accommodate the large influx of military personnel and
an en bloc
civilian employees to be assigned to Fort Belvoir, VA, as
amendment;
part of the BRAC process, be substantially completed
Agreed,
before the relocation of these employees.
voice vote
CRS-53
Sponsor
Summary
Outcome
Jackson-Lee
Requires the Secretary of Defense to study and report back
Included in
to Congress on the financial and emotional impact of
an en bloc
multiple deployments on the families of those soldiers who
amendment;
serve multiple tours as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Agreed,
and Operation Enduring Freedom.
voice vote
Jackson-Lee
Requires the Secretary of Defense to take the necessary
Included in
steps to ensure that Army National Guard and Reserve
an en bloc
ROTC scholarships are available to students attending
amendment;
historically black colleges and universities, and
Agreed,
Hispanic-serving institutions.
voice vote
LaHood
Allows a member of the Armed Forces to request a
Included in
deferment of a deployment to a combat zone if their
an en bloc
spouse also is deployed to a combat zone and the couple
amendment;
has minor dependent children.
Agreed,
voice vote
Allen
Requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on
Included in
the Department’s policies on administering and evaluating
an en bloc
multiple vaccinations within a 24-hour period to active
amendment;
duty members and members of the reserve components
Agreed,
and to perform a study on the safety and effectiveness of
voice vote
multiple vaccinations within a 24-hour period.
Tierney
Reduces the $8.1 billion authorized for Missile Defense
Rejected,
Agency (MDA) activities by $1.084 billion from specified
127-299
programs.
Holt
Requires the videotaping of interrogations and other
Rejected,
pertinent interactions between military personnel and/or
199-229
contractors and detainees arrested and held. Provides
access to detainees for representatives of the International
Red Cross and Red Crescent, the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on
Torture.
King
Stipulates that the bill’s prohibition on the establishment
Rejected,
of permanent military bases in Iraq in should not be
201-219
construed to prohibit the from establishing a temporary
military base or installation by entering into basing rights
agreements with Iraq.
Michaud,
Includes emergency contraception in the Basic Core
Included in
Langevin,
Formulary, a list of drugs that must be included at all
an en bloc
Ryan, Harman,
military health care facilities.
amendment;
Shays, Davis,
Agreed,
Sanchez
voice vote
(Loretta)
Lipinski
Requires the Department of Defense, to the maximum
Included in
extent deemed feasible, to install energy efficient lighting
an en bloc
during the normal course of building maintenance or
amendment;
whenever a building is significantly altered or constructed.
Agreed,
voice vote
CRS-54
Sponsor
Summary
Outcome
Braley
Requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of
Included in
(1) the feasability of a pilot program on family support
an en bloc
services for National Guard and Reserve members, and (2)
amendment;
the feasibility of entering into a contract with a private
Agreed,
sector entity to enhance support services for children of
voice vote
National Guard and Reserve members who are deployed.
Walz
Requires the Department of Defense to study and report
Included in
back to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees
an en bloc
within nine months on the participation rate of service
amendment;
members in the federal tuition assistance program and to
Agreed,
assess the extent to which the program affects retention
voice vote
rates.
Administration Objections to the House Version of H.R. 1585
In a Statement of Administration Policy issued May 16, the Office of
Management and Budget objected to several features of H.R. 1585 including the
addition of funds for C-17 cargo planes and other systems not requested, the
reduction in the amounts requested for the Army’s FCS program and others systems,
and the increase from 3% to 3.5% in the annual military pay increase.
The Administration statement specifically warned that the President’s senior
advisers would recommend he veto the final version of the authorization bill if it
included provisions in the House-passed bill that would restore some of the collective
bargaining and grievance rights for DOD civilian employees that had been eliminated
in a recently created personnel system. In the same terms, the statement warned of
a veto if the final bill included provisions of H.R. 1585 that would tighten some
existing restrictions and impose additional restrictions on the Defense Department’s
purchases from foreign companies.
The statement, which was released before House passage of the bill, also warned
of a veto if the House adopted amendments to the bill that would limit the
Administration’s options for dealing with Iran or with detainees at Guantanamo. It
did not specifically say that a veto would be triggered by the amendments regarding
Iran and Guantanamo that the House adopted.
FY2008 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate
Armed Services Committee Bill
The version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill reported June 5 by the
Senate Armed Services Committee (S. 1547) would trim $481.9 million from the
President’s budget, authorizing $648.3 billion. Unlike its House counterpart,
however, the Senate committee shifted billions of dollars between those parts of the
bill funding the Pentagon’s “base budget” — its routine, peacetime expenses — and
those parts funding current combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (namely, Titles
XV and XXIX).
CRS-55
Saying it wanted to clearly identify the cost of the war, the committee
transferred from the cost-of-war sections of the bill to the base budget sections a total
of $16 billion. Most of those funds are to cover procurement and military personnel
activities associate with the planned expansion and modernization of the Army and
Marine Corps over the next several years.
On the other hand, the committee shifted from the base budget to Title XV
nearly $4.7 billion to cover expenses it said should be attributed to the cost of war.
That amount included $4 billion to accelerate production of MRAP vehicles intended
to better protect troops against roadside bombs and $500 million (in addition to the
$4 billion requested) for the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO).
The Senate committee’s bill also would make $2.5 billion in cuts which, the
panel said, would have no adverse impact on Pentagon operations. These reductions
included the following.
! $1.6 billion based on the assumption that lower-than-anticipated
inflation would result in lower-than budgeted costs;
! $682 million which, the committee said, agencies could offset with
funds drawn from unobligated funds left over from prior
appropriations; and
! $208 million intended to reduce the cash balances carried by the
revolving funds that are used to operate several maintenance and
other support activities.
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the bill includes no
provisions calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, it would require
reports on several aspects of the U.S. involvement in that region. One provision
would expand the scope of a provision of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that requires the Pentagon to report to
Congress the estimated cost of “resetting” Army units that have been deployed in Iraq
of Afghanistan. The new provision would require that report to include the cost of
resetting the additional units deployed in recent months as part of the troop “surge.”
Another provision of S. 1547 would require that the effect of the troop surge be
factored into another report that was mandated by the FY2007 authorization bill, an
analysis by the GAO of the impact of the deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan on the
ability of the Army and Marine Corps to provide the forces needed to carry out the
plans of regional commanders for other contingencies.
S. 1547 would require that DOD report to Congress every six months on the
strategy for achieving U.S. goals in Afghanistan. It also would require reports on (a)
U.S. strategy for encouraging Pakistan to eliminate safe havens for violent Islamist
extremists near its border with Afghanistan and (b) DOD’s efforts to ensure that the
governments of Iraq and neighboring states will protect Iraqi refugees as well as
DOD’s plans to promote protection of such refugees after a drawdown of U.S. troops.
In addition, the bill would require the secretaries of State and Defense, in
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to report on the threat posed
CRS-56
to the United States by ungoverned areas as well as on the intelligence capabilities
and skills needed to manage that threat, and what needs to be done to improve the
two departments’ capabilities for that purpose.
Force Expansion and Pay Raise. Like H.R. 1585, the Senate Committee’s
bill supports the Administration’s proposal to expand the active duty Army and
Marine Corps by a total of 92,000 active-duty personnel (compared with their pre-
9/11 end-strength) by 2012. The Senate committee bill also would authorize $12.3
billion in the DOD base budget requested to pay, train, and equip the additional
troops brought into the services by the end of FY2008.
But the Senate Armed Services Committee also expressed concern that the
planned increase might be completed too late to ease the burden imposed on U.S.
forces by deployments to Iraq and that by the time the additional combat units were
ready to deploy, they might no longer be required. On the other hand, the committee
warned, planned manpower reductions in the Navy and Air Force might go too far
and too fast, with those services sacrificing needed personnel to free up funds for new
weapons.
Like the House bill, S. 1547 would compensate the troops more generously than
the budget recommended, authorizing a military pay raise of 3.5% rather than the 3%
raise the administration proposed, at an additional cost of $302 million. In its formal
Statement of Administration Position on H.R. 1585, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) cited the House bill’s authorization of a 3.5% pay raise as one of
many features of that bill to which it objected.
Tricare and Other Health Issues. The Senate committee bill also rejected
the Administration’s proposal to increase Tricare medical insurance fees and
copayments and pharmacy fees for military retirees. It would add $1.9 billion to the
budget for the DOD health care system to compensate for the loss of revenue from
higher fees, which the budget had assumed. The committee said the proposed fee
hikes were premature, pending the report of a DOD Task Force on the Future of
Military Health Care and a GAO audit of DOD health care costs and proposed cost-
saving measures, both of which were mandated by the FY2007 defense authorization
bill. The committee included in the bill a provision requiring that drugs sold through
the Tricare retail pharmacy system be priced at federally discounted prices.
The committee also directed the Secretary of Defense to reevaluate the Navy’s
plan to reduce its corps of medical professionals by more than 900 billets in 2008-
2012, in light of the planned addition of 26,000 active-duty personnel to the Marine
Corps.
The committee expressed concern over the results of an Army study of the
mental health of soldiers and Marines deployed in Iraq which found that soldiers
deployed more than once experienced higher levels of stress, that lengthy
deployments were associated with higher rates of mental illness and marital
problems, that the suicide rate among soldiers who had been deployed to Iraq in
2003-06 was nearly half again as high as the Army-wide suicide rate, and that
approximately 10% of soldiers and Marines interviewed reported mistreating non-
combatants in Iraq or damaging their property needlessly.
CRS-57
In its report on S. 1547, the panel directed DOD to report what it was doing to
address the Army study’s findings. The committee also instructed the Secretary of
Defense to assess the effectiveness of assigning mental health professionals to
combat battalions, in hopes of reducing the stigma associated with seeking mental
health services in the military.
On June 14, after it had reported the authorization bill, the Senate Armed
Services Committee reported the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act (S.
1606), intended to correct shortcomings in DOD’s medical care for outpatients which
had been spotlighted by news reports of problems at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center. On July 12, the Senate adopted by a vote of 94-0 an amendment to the
defense authorization bill that consisted of a modified version of the text of S. 1606.
In its report on S. 1547, the Senate Armed Services Committee also directed
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO) to spend at least $50
million in FY2008 to fund research on the diagnosis and treatment of blast injuries.
Ballistic Missile Defense. Like the House bill, S. 1547 would reduce
overall funding for ballistic missile defense and would reduce funds for more
technologically advanced defenses against prospective long-range threats while
adding funds for defenses against short-range and medium-range missiles currently
deployed by some hostile countries and capable of striking U.S. forces and allies
overseas.
Within a total of $10.1 billion authorized for anti-missile defense (a reduction
of $231 million from the request), the bill would add a total of $315 million to the
amounts requested for systems several defenses against current missile threats,
including the Army’s Patriot PAC-3 and THAAD and the Navy’s Aegis Standard
Missile-3. The largest of several reductions that bill would make to the amounts
requested for more technologically challenging systems was a cut of $200 million
from the $548.8 million requested for the Airborne Laser. The bill also would deny
$10 million requested as an initial step toward developing space-based anti-missile
interceptors.
The bill also would deny the $85 million of the $310 million requested to begin
deployment of anti-missile interceptors in Poland and an associated radar in the
Czech Republic. Calling the proposed deployment “premature,” the committee
included in the bill a provision requiring a federally funded research and development
center (FFRDC) to assess the options for missile defense on Europe. (For a summary
of actions taken on funding levels for principal missile defense programs, see Table
A4 in Appendix A.)
Another provision would bar deployment in Alaska of more anti-missile
interceptors than the 40 already authorized until the secretary of Defense certifies to
Congress that the anti-missile system has demonstrated in realistic flight tests that it
has a high probability of being operationally effective. Other provisions would
require that the Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation have the same
access to test data for missile defenses as for other weapons and that the GAO
continue to report to Congress annually on the missile defense system’s progress
toward meeting its cost, performance and schedule goals.
CRS-58
FCS and Other Ground Combat Systems. In contrast to H.R. 1585,
which would cut $867 million from the $3.7 billion requested for the Army’s Future
Combat Systems program, S. 1547 not only approved the request for FCS, but added
to it $115 million. Most of the increase was earmarked to resume work on a armed
and cargo-carrying robot vehicles that the Army had dropped from the project, a
change the Senate Armed Services Committee criticized as being budget-driven.
FCS, currently envisioned as a set of 14 types of manned and robotic ground
vehicles, unmanned aircraft and sensors knit into an integrated fighting unit by a
dense web of data links, embodies the thrust of the Army’s plan to modernize its
combat force. The wide divergence between the House and Senate bills over the FCS
funding level for FY2008 apparently is rooted in a profound disagreement between
the House and Senate Armed Services committees over the program’s future.
In its report on H.R. 1585, the House panel said that the Army might not be able
to afford FCS given the cost of enlarging the force, resetting combat units that have
been fighting in Iraq and paying for other improvements launched in the context of
the post-9/11 world — large costs that were not foreseen when the Army launched
FCS in 1999. On the other hand, the Senate committee, in its report on S. 1547,
hailed FCS as the answer to the Army’s need for lethal combat units that could
quickly be transported to distant trouble spots, and warned against relying on
“marginal modernization of the current force.”
The Senate committee’s bill also would authorize the $1.4 billion requested to
upgrade existing Bradley troop carriers and the $1.3 billion requested to upgrade M-1
tanks. It would add $775 million to the $1.4 billion requested to buy new Strykers
— large wheeled fighting vehicles more lightly armored than Bradleys.
In addition, the bill would cut $100 million from the $288 million requested to
continue development of the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an
amphibious troop carrier. The House bill cut $200 million from the request for the
program, which DOD has suspended for review.
Nuclear Weapons and Long-range Strike. The Senate committee cut
from the budget request some of the funds requested to develop the Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW), a program to develop a family of nuclear warheads
intended to be easier to maintain than those currently in service. The first version
would equip the Trident II submarine-launched missile. In addition to the $88.8
million in the Energy Department budget specifically assigned to RRW, the
Committee said that funding in other parts of the Energy budget for RRW-associated
activities brought the total requested to support the program to $238.1 million. In
addition, the Navy’s budget request included $30 million to begin modifying Trident
missiles and submarines to carry the new warhead. The Senate Committee bill
authorized a total of $195 million in Energy Department funds and $15 million in
Navy funds to continue work on RRW. But the Committee emphasized that this did
not mark a commitment to acquire the new warhead and that the funds were to be
used only for preliminary design work and cost estimation.
A decision whether to proceed with the new warhead, the Committee said,
should await a fundamental review of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and should be
CRS-59
made only in the context of actions to reaffirm a U.S. commitment to nuclear
nonproliferation. The bill would require the next presidential administration to
conduct a nuclear posture review, which would be the first one since 2001. It also
would express the sense of Congress that the United States should take several steps
to assert its commitment to nonproliferation, including ratifying the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate rejected on October 13, 1999.
S. 1547 denied a total of $208 million requested for two efforts to develop long-
range, non-nuclear weapons intended to quickly strike targets anywhere around the
globe. One of the projects was an effort to develop a non-nuclear warhead for the
Trident submarine-launched missile and the other was to develop a Common Aero
Vehicle, a rocket-launched, unmanned, maneuverable space craft intended to carry
a half-ton payload thousands of miles in 30 minutes. A launch of either of those
weapons might easily be confused with the launch of a nuclear-armed missile, the
committee said. As an alternative, the committee added to the budget the same
amount it had cut from the two programs — $208 million — for a new program,
Prompt Global Strike, to explore a wide range of non-nuclear options for carrying out
that mission. But the committee insisted that any such weapon be distinctively
different from existing U.S. nuclear weapons.
Acquisition Reform. The bill includes several provisions intended to reduce
the risk of weapons acquisition programs running over budget or behind schedule.
For example, one provision could potentially limit the use of multi-year contracts for
weapons programs. Many Pentagon managers and defense industry officials argue
that a multi-year contract yields a lower unit-price because the contractor can plan for
a stable production run over several years. But critics say they are hard to oversee
and make it difficult for DOD to put pressure on poorly performing contractors. S.
1547 would allow a multi-year acquisition contract only if it resulted in savings of
10% (in most cases) compared to the anticipated cost of purchasing the same number
of items in a series of annual contracts.
Another provision would require the manager of a major acquisition program
to notify senior DOD officials of any changes in the program that call into question
the rationale for those officials’ prior certification that the program had reached
“Milestone B” in the Pentagon’s acquisition process. Milestone B certification is, in
effect, the point at which DOD leaders authorize development of a specific product
with the aim of purchasing it.
The bill would designate DOD’s senior civilian acquisition and budget officials
as advisors to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, a committee comprising the
second ranking officers in each service under the chairmanship of the vice-chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which reviews the criteria set for major acquisitions.
It also would require GAO to report to the Armed Services and Appropriations
committees on any recommended changes in DOD’s acquisition process.
Other Provisions. Other highlights of S. 1547 include the following.
! The bill would require a comprehensive review of the “space
posture” of the United States for the period 2009-2019. The
CRS-60
committee expressed concern that most military space capabilities
are undergoing modernization simultaneously and that all of them
are behind schedule and over budget.
! It would increase from lieutenant general to general the rank of the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, as recommended by a
congressionally-chartered Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves.
! It would require DOD to assess the risks of projected climate change
to the department’s facilities, capabilities and missions.
! It would require within 90 days of enactment a technical assessment
by DOD’s senior civilian technology and weapons testing officials
of commercially available body armor. Press reports have
highlighted claims by one manufacturer that his body armor, called
Dragon Skin, is superior to the armor currently purchased by the
Army.
! It would require the secretary of defense to contract with a non-
profit, non-partisan organization to conduct a study of the process
for interagency coordination among government agencies concerned
with national security.
Defense Authorization: Highlights of Senate Floor Action
The Senate had the FY2008 defense authorization bill under consideration July
9-13 and July 16-18 when the legislation before it was H.R. 1585, the version of the
bill passed May 17 by the House. However, for all practical purposes, the legislative
text the Senate was debating during that period was a not-yet-adopted amendment to
the bill (S.Amdt. 2011) which would substitute for the House-passed language of
H.R. 1585, the language of S. 1547, the version of the defense authorization bill
reported June 5 by the Senate Armed Services Committee.61 Although the Senate
had not yet adopted the substitute amendment during this period, the other
amendments it considered all were drafted as amendments to the substitute
amendment (i.e., as amendments to the text of S. 1547).
July Floor Debate. Debate over the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq
dominated the early days of Senate action on H.R. 1585. The context for the Senate’s
consideration of Iraq-related amendments to the bill was an administration report on
the Iraqi government’s progress toward 18 benchmarks of progress toward improved
domestic security and political reconciliation in that country. The report, which was
released by the White House on July 12 but had been the subject of widespread press
coverage for some days before its publication, was the first of two mandated by the
FY2007 supplemental funding bill (H.R. 2206/P.L. 110-28).62
61 For highlights of the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, see “FY2008
Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Armed Services Committee Bill” section,
below.
62 See CRS Report RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign
Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, et al.
CRS-61
The report concluded that the Iraqi government had made “satisfactory
progress” toward eight of the 18 specified benchmarks, including constitutional
reform, the creation of regional governments and the allocation of $10 billion for
economic reconstruction, among others. But it also found that the Iraqi government
had not made satisfactory progress toward eight other benchmarks, including several
that are related to political reconciliation, such as liberalization of the
“deBa’athification” process, enactment of legislation that would fairly distribute
revenue from the country’s petroleum resources, and disarmament of sectarian
militias.63
The President and supporters of the Administration’s Iraq policy said there were
signs that the U.S. strategy in Iraq is succeeding and that, in any case, Congress
should take no action prejudicial to the strategy until it receives the second report on
Iraqi progress toward the benchmarks, due September 15.64
Also contributing to the context in which the Senate considered Iraq-related
amendments to the defense bill was a CRS analysis which concluded that the Defense
Department’s monthly obligations to pay for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and
related areas had risen from an average of $8.7 billion in FY2006 to $12.0 billion in
the first half of FY2007.65
During Senate debate on the authorization bill July 9-13, 16-18, the Senate
agreed by unanimous consent that several controversial, Iraq-related amendments
would require 60 votes for adoption — in effect anticipating that the amendments
would not come to a vote without the 60 votes needed to win a cloture vote.
However, on July 18, after the Senate rejected 52-47 a motion to invoke cloture on
an amendment by Senators Levin and Reed that would have mandated the withdrawal
of most U.S. troops from Iraq by April 30, 2008, Senator Reid sought unanimous
consent for the Senate to take up the Levin-Reed proposal and other Iraq-related
amendment with each to be the subject of an up-or-down vote to be decided by a
simple majority. When that proposal was objected to, Senator Reid set aside the
authorization bill.
The Levin-Reed amendment would have required the President to begin
withdrawing most U.S. forces from Iraq 120 days after enactment of the bill with
most of the troops out of the country by April 30, 2008. U.S. troops would be
allowed to remain in Iraq as a “limited presence” (of unspecified size) only to train
63 For background on the status of domestic security and economic and political
reconciliation in Iraq, see CRS Report RS21968, Iraq: Government Formation and
Benchmarks, by Kenneth Katzman, CRS Report RL34064, Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation,
Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard, and CRS Report RL31339,
Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, by Kenneth Katzman.
64 Press conference by president George W. Bush, July 12, 2007,
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712-5.html].
65 See CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on
Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
CRS-62
Iraqi Security Forces, to protect U.S. personnel and installations, and to conduct
targeted counterterrorism operations.66
Following are highlights of other Senate floor action on the Defense
Authorization bill in July:
Troop Deployment Duration Amendments. The Senate considered
several amendments that dealt with the fact that Army units are being deployed in
Iraq for longer tours of duty (and are being sent back to Iraq after shorter periods at
home) than the service’s policy calls for. The Army’s official policy is to deploy
troops into an operational theater for no more than 12 months at a time and to allow
time between deployments (called “dwell time”) of at least two years for active-duty
soldiers and five years for reserve and National Guard troops. But to sustain the
number of personnel currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and related theaters, the
Army has had to deploy units for 15 months at a time and units are being returned to
the combat areas so quickly that some units’ dwell time is no longer than their
previous deployment.
On July 11, the Senate rejected three amendments bearing on the issue of
deployment duration and dwell time.
! An amendment by Senator Webb that would have required that
service members be allowed a dwell time of at least the same
duration as their preceding deployment and reserve component units
be allowed a dwell time at least three times as long as their
deployment was withdrawn after a cloture motion failed on a vote of
56-41, with 60 votes required for approval.
! An amendment by Senator Hagel that would have required that
Army troops (including reserve component personnel) be deployed
for no more than 12 months at a time and that active-duty and
reserve Marines deploy for no more than seven months at a time
(which is the Marine Corps goal) was rejected by a vote of 52-45,
the Senate having agreed that the amendment would require 60 votes
for adoption.
! An amendment by Senator Graham, expressing the sense of
Congress that Army personnel should be deployed for no more than
15 months at a time was rejected by a simple majority vote of 41-55.
Improving Health Care for Wounded Warriors. By a vote of 94-0, the
Senate adopted an amendment by Senator Levin and others that incorporated a
modified version of S. 1606, the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act,”
which the Senate Armed Services Committee had reported on June 18. The bill was
the committee’s response to press accounts of poor treatment of outpatients at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Among the provisions of this
66 On the motion to invoke cloture on the Levin-Reed amendment, 53 senators voted aye, but
the Majority Leader, Senator Reid, subsequently changed his vote to “nay” so that, under
the Senate’s rules, he would be eligible to offer a motion to reconsider the vote, if and when
the Senate resumes action on the defense authorization bill.
CRS-63
amendment (which was modified, prior to its adoption, by the Senate’s adoption of
eight second-degree amendments), are these.
! The bill would require the secretaries of Defense and Veterans
Affairs to develop a comprehensive policy on the care of service
members transitioning from the DOD health care system to the VA
and would establish an interagency office to implement a system of
electronic medical records to be used by both departments.
! The bill would require various pilot projects to test alternative
systems for rating the level of disability of wounded service
members and veterans, which could replace the separate disability
rating systems currently used by DOD and VA.
! In addition, the amendment provides that service members who are
retired because of medical disability, and who receive a DOD
disability rating of 50% or more, would be authorized to continue
receiving the medical benefits available to active duty personnel for
three years after the retired member leaves active duty.
! To develop improved methods for diagnosis, treatment and
rehabilitation of service members with Traumatic Brain Injury or
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the amendment would authorize $50
million.
On July 25, the Senate passed as a freestanding bill, by unanimous consent, the
Wounded Warrior amendment to the defense bill, as it had been amended on the
Senate floor. The language of the Senate amendment was substituted for the text of
H.R. 1538, a House-passed bill that was similar in scope to S. 1606, the freestanding
Senate bill that had been the basis for the Senate’s Wounded Warriors amendment.67
As passed by the Senate, H.R. 1538 also was amended to authorize a 3.5% military
pay raise effective January 1, 2008, as would be authorized by the Senate version of
the defense authorization bill.
Other Amendments Acted on in July. The Senate also adopted the
following amendments to the defense authorization bill.
! An amendment by Senator Sessions declaring it to be U.S. policy to
deploy, as soon as technologically possible, a defense against
ballistic missiles launched from Iran was adopted by a vote of 90-5.
! An amendment by Senator Lieberman requiring a report on the
Iranian government’s support for attacks against coalition forces in
Iraq was adopted by a vote of 97-0.
67 See CRS Report RL34110, Comparison of “Wounded Warrior” Legislation: H.R. 1538
as Passed in the House and the Senate, by Sarah A. Lister, Sidath Viranga Panangala, and
Richard A. Best Jr.
CRS-64
! An amendment by Senator Dorgan that would increase to $50
million the reward offered for the capture of Osama bin Laden was
adopted by a vote of 87-1.
! An amendment by Senator Cornyn expressing the sense of the
Senate that it is in the national security interests of the United States
that Iraq not become a failed state and a haven for terrorists was
adopted by a vote of 94-3.
Iraq Debate Resumed in September. The Senate resumed consideration
of the FY2008 authorization bill on September 17, one week after General David
Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and U.S. ambassador to Baghdad
Ryan Crocker testified before the Armed Services and foreign affairs committees of
the House and Senate on the situation in Iraq following the “surge” of some 30,000
additional U.S. troops in the spring. The thrust of their testimony was the increase in
U.S. troops had improved security in some parts of the country. However, they
acknowledged that there was little evidence so far of the political reconciliation that
the increased security had been intended to foster. They warned that too hasty a
withdrawal of U.S. troops would vitiate what progress had been achieved, and
Petraeus told the committees he would recommend that size of the U.S. force be
reduced to its “pre-surge” level by the summer of 2008.
In a televised address on September 13, President Bush announced that he
planned to accept General Petraeus’s recommendation to gradually reduce the size
of the U.S. force in Iraq. Democratic Party leaders in the Senate and House said they
would try to accelerate the pace at which U.S. forces disengaged from combat in Iraq.
However, during the week of September 17, the Senate rejected three Democratic-
sponsored amendments that would have forced a more substantial withdrawal from
Iraq than the President or General Petraeus had called for, each of which was
considered under an agreement requiring 60 votes for adoption:
! A amendment by Senator Webb that would have required that
service members be allowed a dwell time of at least the same
duration as their preceding deployment and that reserve component
units be allowed a dwell time at least three times as long as their
preceding deployment was rejected September 19 by a vote of 56-44,
with 60 votes required for adoption under the unanimous consent
agreement governing the vote. This amendment differed from the
Webb amendment that had been withdrawn July 11 in that it
exempted special operations personnel from the deployment limits.
! An amendment by Senator Feingold requiring the President to begin,
within 90 days of enactment, withdrawal from Iraq of all U.S. troops
not required for four, specific missions (one of which was the
conduct of targeted operations of limited duration against terrorists),
was rejected September 20 by a vote of 28-70.
! An amendment by Senators Levin and Reed requiring that the
withdrawal of troops, except those required for specific, limited
missions, begin within 90 days of enactment and be completed
CRS-65
within nine months of enactment was rejected September 21 by a
vote of 477-47.
The Senate also rejected September 19 by a vote of 55-45, under an agreement
requiring 60 votes for adoption, an amendment by Senators McCain and Graham that
would have expressed the sense of the Senate in non-binding support of the dwell
time limitations that the Webb amendments would have made mandatory.
The Senate did adopt on September 26, by a vote of 75-23, an amendment by
Senator Biden expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should support
a political settlement among Iraqi factions based on the provisions of the Iraqi
Constitution that create a federal system of government.
Petraeus Advertisement Amendments. The Senate also voted on two
amendments addressing the controversy sparked by a full-page advertisement in the
September 10 issue of The New York Times, purchased by the anti-war advocacy
group MoveOn.org, which charged General Petraeus with promoting a dishonestly
positive view of the situation in Iraq in order to bolster political support for President
Bush’s policies. An amendment by Senator Cornyn condemning any attack on the
integrity of General Petraeus or any other member of the armed forces and
specifically repudiating the MoveOn.org ad was adopted September 20 by a vote of
72-25.
Also on September 20, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Boxer that
denounced any attack on the honor or patriotism of anyone who had served honorably
in the armed forces, citing in particular the MoveOn.org advertisement and other
advertisements in prior years that had attacked Senator Kerry and former Senator
Max Cleland, was rejected by a vote of 51-46 because it was conducted under an
agreement requiring 60 votes for adoption of the amendment.
Habeas Corpus for Detainees. On September 9, an amendment by
Senators Leahy and Spector that would have restored to detainees the right of habeas
corpus was withdrawn after a motion to invoke cloture failed by a vote of 56-43,
short of the three-fifths majority of voting senators required by Senate rules.68
Federal Role in Prosecuting Hate Crimes. On September 27, by a vote
of 60-39, the Senate adopted a cloture petition to end debate on an amendment by
Senators Kennedy and Smith incorporating the text of S. 1105, the Mathew Shephard
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The amendment would authorize
federal agencies to assist states, localities and Indian tribes in the prosecution of hate
crimes and it would include in that class crimes based on gender identity or sexual
orientation. Subsequently, the amendment was adopted by voice vote.
By a vote of 96-3 the Senate also adopted an amendment by Senator Hatch to
require a comprehensive study of the incidence of hate crimes and to authorize grants
to support states and local jurisdictions in prosecuting such crimes.
68 See CRS Report RL33180, Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in
Federal Court, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Kenneth R. Thomas.
CRS-66
Selected Other Amendments Acted on in September. The Senate
rejected on September 27, by a vote of 26-69, an amendment by Senator Coburn that
would have barred the use of funds for the National Drug Intelligence Center in
Johnstown, PA, except to close the facility and relocate some of its activities.
The following amendments to H.R. 1585 are among the dozens that the Senate
agreed to by unanimous consent after it resumed consideration of the bill in
September:
! By Senators Kyl and Lieberman expressing the sense of the Senate
that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps should be designated
as a terrorist group.
! By Senator Clinton requiring a report on the planning and
implementation of U.S. policy toward Darfur.
! By Senator Coleman to increase from 2% to 3% the amount by
which the reserve component forces can exceed their statutory end-
strength limits.
! By Senator Inhofe repealing a provision of the American Service
Members’ Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7426) the limits the
provision of U.S. military assistance to countries that are party to the
International Criminal Court.
! By Senator Inhofe providing that members of the armed forces and
veterans out of uniform may render the military salute to the flag.
! By Senator Clinton requiring the President to submit a detailed
report on (1) the physical security of all nuclear weapons world-
wide, the radioactive materials used to make nuclear weapons, and
sites where either weapons or material are stored; (2) a plan to
improve the level of security, with priority going to those sites at
which the risk of theft or loss of weapons or material was greatest;
and (3) an assessment of progress toward implementing that plan;
! By Senators Warner and Webb amending a provision of the
authorization bill as reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee to provide that funds authorized by the bill could not be
used to begin new military assistance projects with Thailand until 15
days after the Secretary of Defense notified the Armed Services and
Appropriations committees of his intent to provide such aid. The
Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the bill would have
prohibited the provision of any military assistance to Thailand until
the President certified to Congress that a democratically-elected
government had taken office in that country, in place of the military
junta that took power in September 2006.
! By Senators Cornyn and Dole specifying the subjects to be covered
by a study of the interagency process for carrying out national
CRS-67
security policy, for which study the bill would authorize the
Pentagon to provide up to $3 million in matching funds.
! By Senator Menendez to require a DOD Inspector General to report
on the physical security of DOD installations.
! By Senator Biden to require a report on certain facilities and
resources needed to provide stability in Darfur.
! By Senator Schumer to authorize an additional $162.8 million for
counter-drug operations, including reduction on poppy production
in Afghanistan, with offsetting reductions in other authorizations.
! By Senators McCaskill and Collins to broaden the legal protections
against reprisals for employees of DOD contractors who disclose
information believed to demonstrate gross mismanagement, waste,
or a violation of law relating to a DOD contract.
! By Senator Chambliss to require the Secretary of Defense to provide
a plan for addressing gaps and projected gaps in DOD’s acquisition
work force because of current or projected shortages of employees
with certain competencies.
! By Senator Bond to restrict the issuance of security clearances to
persons who are drug addicts, mentally incompetent, or convicted
felons.
! By Senator Boxer to require periodic reports on the readiness of
National Guard units to respond to domestic emergencies.
! By Senator Kyl to require in a legislatively mandated annual report
on Chinese military capability inclusion of information about
China’s capabilities for asymmetric warfare, including cyberwarfare.
! By Senator McCaskill to provide for periodic independent
management review of DOD contracts for services.
! By Senator Boxer to require the implementation of the
recommendations of the Department of Defense Task Force on
Mental Health.
! By Senator Salazar to require a report on the necessity, costs, and
benefits of expanding Army training operations at the Pinyon
Canyon Maneuver Site near Ft. Carson, Colorado.
! By Senator Akaka to require a report on plans of the Secretary of the
Army and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to replace the monument
at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery and
to bar replacement of the tomb until 180 days after Congress has
received the report.
CRS-68
! By Senator Coburn to prohibit the use of congressional earmarks for
awarding no-bid contracts and non-competitive grants.
! By Senator Webb, to establish a Commission on Wartime
Contracting that would investigate the process of contracting for the
reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, the logistical support of U.S.
and allied troops in those countries, and the conduct of intelligence
and security operations in those countries.
! By Senator Cardin to require the Secretaries of State and Defense to
prepare reports assessing U.S. capability to provide training and
command guidance to an international humanitarian intervention
force.
! By Senators Kennedy and McCain requiring the Navy to use a
fixed-price contract in purchasing future Littoral Combat Ships
(LCS) and limiting to $460 million the cost to the government of
each of the two LCS ships authorized by this bill.
! By Senator Lautenberg to prohibit through FY2008 proposed
increases in Tricare health system fees and pharmacy co-payments
charged to certain military retirees.
! By Senator Biden to authorize an additional $23.6 billion to the
purchase of 15,200 Mine-Resistance, Ambush Protected (MRAP)
troop carriers.
! By Senator Kennedy to streamline the process for granting refugee
status to Iraqi nationals who have assisted U.S. forces during
military operations in Iraq.
Defense Authorization: Final Senate Debate and Passage
The Senate passed its version of the FY2008 defense authorization bill (H.R.
1585) October 1, by a vote of 92-3, concluding a debate that occupied the Senate for
two weeks in July and resumed September 17.
The only Iraq-related amendment to the bill the Senate adopted was one by
Senator Biden expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should support
a political settlement in Iraq based on provisions of the Iraqi Constitution that
provide for a federal system of government. That amendment was adopted September
26 by a vote of 75-23.
Although the Senate considered several amendments that would have reduced
or eliminated the role of U.S. combat troops in Iraq, none of the amendments to
which the administration objected was adopted. Although some amendments gained
the support of more than a majority of voting senators, all of those were considered
CRS-69
under terms of unanimous consent agreements requiring 60 votes for adoption of the
amendment.69
The version of the authorization bill that was before the Senate was the version
reported June 5 by the Senate Armed Services Committee as S. 1547. However, not
until just before it passed the authorization bill on October 1 did the Senate adopt by
unanimous consent the amendment that replaced the language of the House-passed
version of the bill with the language of S. 1547. In general, amendments to the
authorization bill that the Senate debated were drafted as amendments to the not-yet-
adopted substitute amendment.
Among several amendments adopted by unanimous consent in the last week of
Senate debate on H.R. 1585 were the following:
! An amendment by Senator Reed specifies that the $470 million the
bill would add to the President’s request for long-leadtime
components for nuclear-powered attack submarines was intended to
allow the procurement of two Virginia-class submarines in FY2010,
instead of the one currently planned by the Administration.
! An amendment by Senator McCain requires the Air Force to conduct
a pilot program testing the use of commercial fee-for-service aerial
refueling for certain missions.
! An amendment by Senator Kennedy requires regular reports on (1)
steps taken to mitigate the threat to U.S. troops of Explosively
Formed Projectiles, (2) the production of Mine-Resistant, Ambush-
Protected (MRAP) vehicles, and (3) the Army’s long-range plan to
modernize its fleet of tactical wheeled vehicles.
! An amendment by Senator Kennedy changes the rules governing
competitions conducted pursuant to OMB Circular A-76 to
determine whether a particular activity should be conducted by
federal employees or by a private contractor.
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of the House Bill
The FY2008 defense appropriations bill passed August 5 by the House would
provide a total of $459.6 billion for the DOD base budget (excluding funds for
military construction), a reduction of $3.55 billion from the corresponding portion
of the President’s budget request. That total includes $10.9 billion in mandatory
funding to cover the anticipated future cost of providing post-retirement medical care
for current service members under the Tricare-for-life program.
69 For highlights of the FY2008 defense authorization bill as reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee and for highlights of the Senate debate on the bill in July and earlier in
September, see below.
CRS-70
Although the Appropriations Committee approved a smaller total amount than
the President requested, it was able to include within its total several major
initiatives, because it made cuts from the request totaling more than $9 billion
which, the committee said, would not adversely affect Pentagon operations.
The funds excluded from the bill include $2 billion worth of requests the House
Appropriations Committee put off for consideration as part of a separate bill to fund
war-fighting costs, to be marked up in September. Among the items deferred, which
the Committee said were more appropriately part of DOD’s FY2008 war request, are
requests for night vision equipment, ammunition, trucks and equipment to protect
cargo planes from anti-aircraft missiles, special pay for language proficiency and
hardship duty and $500 million requested for a “global train and equip” program to
train the security forces of foreign countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Committee also made cuts in the President’s request totaling nearly $7
billion which it described either as reflecting facts of life or as an incentive for the
Pentagon to manage service contracts more aggressively, to reduce costs. Among the
major reductions included in this total are:
! $1.6 billion cut from the Army’s $28.9 billion request for operations
and maintenance on grounds that the service managed its budget for
FY2007 in ways that, according to the Committee, inflated its
FY2008 budget request by that amount, without providing Congress
any justification for the increase;
! $1.2 billion, a 5% reduction in the amount requested for service
contracts, a savings the committee said could be achieved by more
alert Pentagon oversight;
! $630 million in the Navy and Air Force training budgets for units
that had been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan;
! $510 million to reflect a Pentagon civilian payroll that was smaller
than the budget assumed;
! $551 million trimmed from various budget accounts that had a track
record of unspent funds at the end of a fiscal year;
! $300 million in the Marine Corps procurement budget that the
Committee described as “excess to requirements;”
! $420 million to reduce the cash balance carried by the Army’s
revolving fund that is used to operate various maintenance and
support activities.
Force Expansion. The Committee approved funds requested for the FY2008
portion of DOD’s plan to add 92,000 active-duty personnel to the Army and Marine
Corps by FY2012. The bill includes $1 billion to pay for adding to the force 7,000
soldiers, 5,000 Marines, and 1,300 National Guard personnel in FY2008.
CRS-71
It also would provide $6.3 billion requested to buy equipment for the additional
units that are being formed. However, the Committee warned the services to include
in future budget requests only enough additional equipment for the additional troops
funded in that year’s budget.
Tricare Fee Hikes Rejected. The bill provides $22.1 billion for operating
costs of the Defense Health Program, including $1.9 billion that the Administration
wanted to cover by increased fees and co-payments charged to military retirees
participating in the Tricare medical insurance program. Although the Administration
requested approval of the proposed higher fees, its budget request for health program
operations ($22.0 billion) did not assume that revenue would be forthcoming. So the
action of the House, in appropriating funds to cover the entire cost of the program,
rather than assuming that $1.9 billion of the costs would be covered by higher fees,
does not constitute a congressional addition to the President’s request.
Other Quality of Life Initiatives.The Committee’s reductions to the
President’s request made room, within an overall spending total lower than the
request, for several initiatives to improve the quality of life of the troops.
To provide a military pay raise of 3.5%, rather than the 3% in the budget
request, the bill would provide $2.2 billion, which is $310 million more than
requested.
It also would add $558 million to the amount requested for military family
support programs, providing a total of $2.9 billion. The Committee’s increase
includes $439 million for family advocacy programs that assist service members and
their families in the prevention and treatment of domestic violence and assists the
families of severely wounded service members. The increase also includes $82
million (in addition to the $525 million requested) to increase the capacity of DOD’s
network of childcare centers and to extend their operating hours and an additional
$38 million (in addition to the $1.6 billion requested) for DOD’s network of schools
for service members’ dependents.
The Committee said that, in the course of cutting its personnel budget to pay for
new weapons, the Air Force had made too large a reduction in the budget for routine
personnel transfers, thus risking a decline in the quality of life and the availability of
professional development opportunities for career service members. Accordingly,
the Committee added $364 million to the Air Force’s so-called “permanent change
of station (PCS)” account, offsetting the cost by cutting the same amount from the
$744 million requested to continue development of the F-22 fighter.
Facilities Improvements . The bill would add $1.25 billion to the Army’s
budget request for maintenance and upgrade of facilities and the improvement of
community services at dozens of bases in the United States and overseas. The
committee said the additional work was required to support the Army’s wide-ranging
program to reorganize its combat units and to reposition some of them.
The bill also would add $142 million to the $126 million requested to improve
perimeter security at DOD facilities.
CRS-72
Shipbuilding Increase. The committee added $3.6 billion to the total of
$14.4 billion requested for ships.70 That net increase included $1.7 billion for an
LPD-17-class amphibious landing transport, in addition to the one ship of that class
in the budget. The increase also included $1.4 billion to buy three supply and
ammunition ships designed to replenish Navy warships in mid-ocean. (See Table
A6, below.)
The committee also added to the bill $588 million to buy a nuclear propulsion
system to be used in a Virginia-class attack submarine funded in some future budget.
The committee expressed the hope that this addition would help the Navy achieve its
long-standing goal of buying two subs per year.
The bill would provide, as requested, $1.8 billion for a submarine, $2.7 billion
to continue work on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier the cost of which is being
spread across several years, and all but $30 million of the $1.8 billion requested to
continue building the first two of a new class of destroyers, designated DDG-1000.
The Committee’s additions to the shipbuilding budget request were partly offset
by funding only one of the three requested Littoral Combat Ships, a reduction of
$571 million, and by providing $76 million of the $210 million requested in the
Army’s budget for a small, high-speed troop transport vessel.
Selected Other Major Weapons Program Changes. The Committee
added to the budget request $1.1 billion to equip an eighth Army brigade with Stryker
armored vehicles. That addition was partly offset by a cut of $228 million from the
amount requested to buy a Stryker version equipped with a 105 mm. cannon. The
committee said development and testing of that vehicle had been delayed. (See Table
A5, below.)
The Committee also added $705 million to the $3.4 billion requested to
continue development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The addition included $480
million to continue development of a alternative engine for the plane. The bill also
would provide the $2.4 billion requested to buy 12 F-35s. (See Table A7, below.)
The bill would add to the budget request $925 million for equipment for
National Guard and reserve units.
Among the significant reductions to the President’s request made by the
Committee are the following:
! $406 million cut from the $3.6 billion requested to continue work on
the Future Combat System, the Army’s plan to renovate its combat
units with 14 types of digitally-linked sensors and manned and
unmanned vehicles;
! $468 million for production of a new, armed scout helicopter;
70 The budget request includes $13.7 billion in the Navy’s shipbuilding account. But it also
includes $456 in a separate fund to buy supply and cargo ships and $210 million in the
Army’s budget to buy a small, high-speed troop transport vessel.
CRS-73
! $175 million requested to develop a conventional high-explosive
warhead for the Trident II, submarine-launched ballistic missile (a
reduction partially offset by the Committee’s addition to the bill of
$100 million to develop a weapon that could strike distant targets
quickly and precisely);
! $100 million of the $290 million requested to develop a helicopter
to rescue downed pilots behind enemy lines (because the Pentagon’s
selection of a winning bidder for the contract is under legal
challenge);
! $298 million from the $8.8 billion requested to develop ballistic
missile defenses, of which $236 million was taken from the $2.52
billion requested to continue work on the “mid-course” anti-missile
system, elements of which have been fielded in Alaska and
California.
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of House Floor Action
Although some critics of the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq had debated
various potential floor amendments to H.R. 3222, none of them were offered during
House debate on the bill, which lasted just over two hours. The 395-13 vote by
which the bill was passed came shortly after 1 a.m. on August 5 almost immediately
following which the House adjourned until after Labor Day.
Selected Floor Amendments. Among the amendments to the FY2008
defense appropriations bill acted on by the House were the following:
! An amendment by Representative Franks that would have restored
$97 million of the $286 million the bill cut from the “mid-course”
anti-missile system, transferring that amount from other projects
funded by the bill, was rejected 161-249.
! An amendment by Representative Sessions to drop a provision of the
bill setting a time limit on cost-studies pursuant to OMB circular A-
76 to determine whether an activity currently performed by federal
employees should be considered for contracting out to private
industry was rejected 148-259.
! An amendment by Representative Inslee barring the use of funds
appropriated by the bill to implement a new personnel system for
civilian Pentagon employees, the National Security Personnel
System, was adopted by voice vote.
! An amendment by Representative Issa, barring the use of funds
appropriated by the bill to disclose the total intelligence budget for
a fiscal year, was adopted by voice vote.
CRS-74
The House also rejected several amendments that would have prohibited the
used of funds provided by the bill for specific projects not requested by the
Administration.
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of Senate Committee
Action
The version of H.R. 3222, the FY2008 defense appropriations bill, approved
September 12 by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would provide $448.7
billion in discretionary budget authority, a reduction of $3.5 billion from the
President’s request for programs falling within the scope of this bill.
The Committee is expected to act on a separate funding bill to cover the cost of
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after the Administration submits
an anticipated amendment to its $147 billion budget request for that purpose. The
budget amendment, which may add $50 billion or more to the request, is expected
to come to Congress later this year.
Personnel Increase and Pay Raise . The Senate Committee’s version of
H.R. 3222 would support the President’s plan to increase the active-duty end-strength
of the Army and Marine Corps by a total of 92,000 troops by FY2012.
The Committee bill would fund a 3.5% pay raise for military personnel and
civilian Defense Department employees, effective January 1, 2008, instead of the 3%
pay raise requested by the President. The bill would add a total of $489 million to
various accounts to cover the additional cost.
Tricare Fees and the Defense Health Program. The $23.49 billion the
Senate Committee’s bill would provide for the Defense Health Program is $949
million more than was requested. The Committee added to the request $1.86 billion
for operating expenses the budget assumed would be covered by an increase in the
fees and pharmacy co-payments charged to some military retirees participating in the
Tricare medical program. Congress has rejected those proposed increases.
The bill also would provide $486 million Pentagon officials had cut from the
health program’s budget as an “efficiency wedge.” In its report on the bill, the
Committee said it “strongly encourages” DOD not to impose on the health program’s
FY2009 budget request a planned “efficiency wedge” of $785 million.
To fund initiatives in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1538, the Dignified
Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, the Committee bill would add to the budget
$73 million to improve treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic
Brain Injury. Many of the initiatives created by H.R. 1538 would require mandatory
funding that would not be included in the annual defense authorization bills but
would have to be offset by reductions to other mandatory spending programs under
the jurisdiction of the defense authorizing committees.71
71 In addition to passing different versions of the “wounded warriors” bill (H.R. 1538) the
(continued...)
CRS-75
Long-Range Strike and Nuclear Weapons. The Committee bill cut from
the request a total of $225 million requested for two programs that would develop
long-range, non-nuclear weapons intended to quickly strike targets anywhere around
the world. The amounts cut were: $175 million to develop a non-nuclear warhead for
the Trident, submarine-launched ballistic missile; and $50 million for the so-called
Falcon program being managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The Committee said the conventional Trident project had the disadvantage that
the launch of a conventionally-armed missile might be mistaken by an adversary as
a nuclear attack. Instead, the Committee added to the budget request $125 million
to develop alternatives for rapid, precise non-nuclear attack on distant targets.
The Committee also cut $15 million from the amount requested to equip Trident
missiles with the first of a family of new nuclear warheads that are intended to be
easier to maintain than those currently in service. This is consistent with action taken
by the Senate Armed Services Committee in its version of the FY2008 defense
authorization bill, a reduction that the Committee said was intended to slow the
controversial program to develop a so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.72
Shipbuilding Costs and the Littoral Combat Ship. The Senate
Committee bill would cut $451 million from the $14.3 billion requested for ships in
the FY2008 budget.73 By contrast, the House-passed version of H.R. 3222 added
nearly $3 billion (and four ships) to the request. (See Table A6, below.)
The Senate Committee endorsed the Navy’s goal of maintaining a fleet of 313
ships. But it decried the chronic cost growth and delays in Navy shipbuilding
programs, blaming those problems on poor management by the service. Whereas the
House Appropriations Committee tried to ease the shipbuilding crunch by adding to
the bill funds for four more ships than the President requested, the Senate Committee
contended that any it would not be possible to build any more ships than currently
were scheduled.
The Senate Committee singled out for special criticism the Navy’s management
of its program to build Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), relatively small vessels that
could be equipped for various missions using modular weapons systems. Of four
LCSs funded in previous budgets, DOD has cancelled one. The FY2008 budget
71 (...continued)
House and Senate each have attached their versions of that bill to their respective versions
of the defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585). So Congress might clear a compromise
version of the “wounded warriors” legislation either as free-standing legislation or as a
component of the defense authorization bill. For discussion of the provisions, see pp. 4-5,
above.
72 For additional information on the Reliable Replacement Warhead see CRS Report
RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead: Background and Current Development, by
Jonathan Medalia.
73 The President’s budget requested $13.7 billion in the Navy’s shipbuilding account. But
it also requested an additional $210 million in Army funds for a high-speed troop transport
and an additional $456 million in a separate sealift fund for a supply ship.
CRS-76
request includes $910 million for three additional ships. But, while endorsing the
potential military value of the ships, the Senate Committee said the Navy would have
to fundamentally change its acquisition strategy to address problems of cost
increases, delays, and performance shortfalls. In addition to denying the requested
$910 million, the Committee included in its bill a provision that would rescind $300
million appropriated in FY2007 for one of the three LCSs still under construction,
thus cancelling a second of the four ships already funded.
On the other hand, the Committee added to the request $81 million to complete
construction of the two remaining ships of the four previously funded and an
additional $75 million to buy components for use in an another LCS for which
funding would be included in the FY2009 budget. In effect, the Committee endorsed
the construction of small, low-cost surface combatants, but directed the Navy to
restructure the entire program.
Selected Other Weapons Programs. The Senate Committee bill would
fully fund the President’s $3.56 billion request to continue development of the
Army’s Future Combat System (FCS), a networked set of ground vehicles, unmanned
aircraft and sensors that would comprise the next generation of ground combat
equipment. The House-passed version of H.R. 3222 would cut $434 million from the
Army’s request for FCS development funding.
Some other highlights of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of
H.R. 3222 include the following:
! Citing uncertainty in the Air Force and DOD about the future of a
program to replace the engines on early-model C-5 cargo planes, the
bill would cut $25 million from the $191 million requested for the
program in FY2008 and would rescind $40 million appropriated for
the project in FY2007.
! Noting that the Air Force’s F-22 fighter is just entering service and
appears to far outstrip any other country’s fighters, the Committee
said Air Force plans to develop upgrades for the plane were
premature. The Committee cut $132 million from the $744 million
requested for additional development work on the F-22.
! The Committee approved the request for $2.4 billion to buy 12 F-35
Joint Strike Fighters, six apiece for the Navy and Air Force. It also
added to the $3.5 billion requested to continue development of the
plane $480 million to continue development of a General Electric jet
engine as an alternative to the Pratt & Whitney engine selected to
power the plane. The increase was partially offset by reductions
totaling $283 million, leaving the Committee bill’s total
appropriation for F-35 development at $3.7 billion.
! The Committee approved $300 million of the $500 million
requested for the so-called Global Train and Equip program which
was authorized in FY2006 as a pilot program to allow the Defense
Department to train and equip allied country’s forces for
CRS-77
counterterrorism missions. The Committee said that this mission
should be funded through the State Department’s budget.
! The bill would provide $242 million of the $468 million requested
for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) program, funding
procurement of 16 of the new craft instead of the 26 in the budget.
The new aircraft are intended to replace aging OH-58 choppers
currently used for reconnaissance. The Committee said that the
program’s growing costs, slipping schedule and continued technical
problems resulted from an overly ambitious production schedule.
The bill also would add to the request $100 million to develop
improvements for the OH-58. The House version of the
appropriations bill would eliminate funding for the ARH.
! Citing technical problems in an Air Force program to replace the
radar on B-2 stealth bombers, the Committee cut $111 million from
the $271 million requested to modify the planes in FY2008 and
rescinded $32 million of the funds appropriated for that purpose in
FY2007. The cuts were partly offset by the Committee’s addition of
$38 million to the Air Force research and development budget to fix
the problems with the program. The bombers’ current radar must be
replaced because it operates in a band of the electromagnetic
spectrum that the increasingly is being used by the private sector.
! The bill would provide $120 million of the $500 million requested
in the based defense appropriations bill for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), enough to fund
the agency through the first quarter of FY2008. The Committee said
that DOD had not produced a requested report defining the
relationship between JIEDDO — set up to coordinate efforts to
defeat the roadside bombs that are a major source of U.S. casualties
in Iraq — and other defense and intelligence agencies. Noting that
the President has requested an additional $4 billion for JIEDDO in
the FY2008 war-fighting budget which Congress will take up in
separate legislation, the Committee told DOD to provide the
congressional defense committees with a comprehensive and
detailed strategic plan for the organization by September 30, 2007.
Defense Appropriations: Highlights of Senate Floor Action
The Senate passed by voice vote, October 4, its version of the FY2008 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 3222), which had been reported September 12 by the Senate
Appropriations Committee. As reported, the bill would provide $448.7 billion in
discretionary budget authority for DOD.74 Amendments adopted by the Senate added
to that total an additional $794 million for DOD and $3 billion for operations of other
federal agencies to secure the U.S.-Mexican border.
74 For highlights of H.R. 3222 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, see
below.
CRS-78
Iraq Deployment. At the outset of the debate, Senator Inouye, Chairman of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Stevens, ranking Republican
on that panel, urged senators not to offer controversial amendments relating to the
deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, pointing out that the bill did not contain funding
for that ongoing operation.
However, Senator Feingold offered an amendment that would have prohibited
the use of funds provided by the bill to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq after June 30, 2008.
The prohibition would not apply to troops engaged in four missions: conducting
operations against Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations, providing security
for U.S. government personnel and installations, training members of the Iraqi
Security Forces, and providing training and equipment to other U.S. forces to
maintain or improve their safety. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 28-68.
Border Security. By a vote of 95-1, the Senate adopted an amendment by
Senator Graham adding to the bill $3 billion for various steps to tighten security on
the U.S. border with Mexico. According to Senator Graham, the funds had been
included in the FY2008 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2638), but that
bill faces a veto threat.
By unanimous consent, the Senate also adopted an amendment by Senators
Hutchison and Cornyn that would modify requirements for a fence along the U.S.-
Mexican border established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.75 The amendment would eliminate
requirements for five stretches of fencing at specific locations required by the Secure
Fence Act in the 109th Congress and instead would require the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to construct not less than 700 miles of reinforced fencing
at the border. This new language would give DHS discretion as to where this fencing
would be constructed, and would mandate that 370 miles of fencing be completed by
December 31, 2008. The amendment would also require DHS to consult with the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, states, local governments,
Indian tribes, and property owners along the border in order to minimize the potential
impact that fencing may have on border communities and the environment; however,
the amendment would not create any right of action for these entities concerning
border fencing.
The Senate also adopted by unanimous consent an amendment by Senator
Sessions increasing by $794 million the budget authority provided by the bill with
the additional funds intended to continue through FY2008 the deployment of
National Guard troops to assist in security operations along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Other Amendments. By a vote of 53-41, the Senate tabled an amendment by
Senator Boxer that would have prohibited the armed services from enlisting anyone
convicted of specific felonies, including arson, hate crimes and sexual misconduct
with a minor. There is a general prohibition on enlisting convicted felons, which the
75 For more information concerning border fencing, please refer to CRS Report RL33659,
Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border, Blas Nuñez-Neto,
Coordinator.
CRS-79
services have authority to waive on a case-by-case basis — an authority which the
amendment would have eliminated for individuals convicted of the specified crimes.
Among several other amendments agreed to by unanimous consent was one by
Senators Reid and McConnell stipulating that it was not a prohibited gift under
recently enacted ethics legislation for an airline to allow members of Congress to
book multiple reservations to allow for the uncertainty of congressional schedules,
although the general public are not allowed this convenience.
For Additional Reading
Overall Defense Budget
CRS Report 98-756, Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills:
FY1970-FY2007, by Thomas Coipuram Jr.
FY2008 Defense Budget: Issues for Congress - Seminar Slides, by Stephen Daggett,
Ronald O’Rourke, David F. Burrelli, and Amy Belasco. February 12, 2007,
MM70099 [http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/MM70099.shtml].
CRS Report RL33405, Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations, by
Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL33900, FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign
Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Connie
Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Pat Towell, Rhoda Margesson, Susan B. Epstein, and
Bart Elias.
CRS Report RL33427, Military Construction, Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs: FY2007 Appropriations, by Daniel H. Else, Christine Scott, and Sidath
Viranga Panangala.
Military Operations: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere
CRS Report RL33837, Congressional Authority To Limit U.S. Military Operations
in Iraq, by Jennifer K. Elsea, Michael John Garcia, and Thomas J. Nicola.
CRS Report RL33803, Congressional Restrictions on U.S. Military Operations in
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, and Kosovo: Funding and Non-Funding
Approaches, by Amy Belasco, Hannah Fischer, Lynn J. Cunningham, and Larry
A. Niksch.
CRS Report RS20775, Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving
U.S. Military Forces and Overseas Deployments, by Richard F. Grimmett.
CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on
Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
CRS-80
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, by Paul M. Irwin
and Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL32170, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,
1798-2006, by Richard F. Grimmett.
CRS Report RL33532, War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance, by
Richard F. Grimmett.
U.S. Military Personnel and Compensation
CRS Report RL33571, The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, by Charles A. Henning, David F. Burrelli,
Lawrence Kapp, and Richard A. Best Jr.
CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, by Richard
A. Best Jr.
CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by
Charles A. Henning.
CRS Report RL33449, Military Retirement, Concurrent Receipt, and Related Major
Legislative Issues, coordinated by Charles A. Henning.
CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi
Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel,
Compensation, and Force Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles A.
Henning.
Defense Policy Issues
CRS Report RS22443, Border Security and Military Support: Legal Authorizations
and Restrictions, by Stephen R. Vina.
CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy
Capabilities - Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy - Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, by David M. Bearden.
CRS Report RS21754, Military Forces: What is the Appropriate Size for the United
States?, by Edward F. Bruner.
CRS Report RS22266, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal
Issues, by Jennifer K. Elsea.
CRS-81
Defense Program Issues
CRS Report RL32123, Airborne Laser (ABL): Issues for Congress, by Christopher
Bolkcom and Steven A. Hildreth.
CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RS22120, Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview, by Steven A.
Hildreth.
CRS Report RL32347, “Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues,
FY2005-FY2007, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RL31673, F-22A Raptor, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL33240, Kinetic Energy Kill for Ballistic Missile Defense: A Status
Overview, by Steven A. Hildreth.
CRS Report RS20851, Naval Transformation: Background and 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 RL32109, Navy DDG-1000 (DD(X)) and CG(X) Ship Acquisition
Programs: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL33955, Navy Force Structure: Alternative Force Structure Studies
of 2005 - Background 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 RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class (CVN-21) Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Oversight Issues
and Options 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 RL31957, Nonproliferation and Threat Reduction Assistance: U.S.
Programs in the Former Soviet Union, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS-82
CRS Report RL32572, Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background
and Current Developments, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL33745, Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense - Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL33543, Tactical Aircraft Modernization: Issues for Congress, by
Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by
Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL31623, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force
Structure, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report RS21048, U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments,
and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.
CRS-83
Appendix: Funding Tables
Table A1. Congressional Action on Selected Army and Marine Corps Programs: FY2008 Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Helicopters
House deletes proc $ and recommends
terminating program. Senate shifts $131
Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter
—
468.3
82.3 —
—
32.3
—
337.3
182.3 —
—
— mn from proc, with $31 mn going to OH-
58D program and $100 for ARH R&D.
Title XV
29
222.6
— —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— House and Senate delete funds
House eliminates Title XV requested funds
Light Utility Helicopter
—
230.5
— —
230.5
—
—
230.5
— —
—
— as well
Senate shifts $370 mn from Title XV to
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter
42
705.4
87.9 42
705.4
87.9
52 1,257.9
87.9 —
—
— base budget
Senate shifts $370 mn from Title XV to
Title XV
39
527.4
— 39
527.4
—
39
157.0
— —
—
— base budget
CH-47 Helicopter
6
190.9
11.2
6
190.9
11.2
6
196.9
11.2 —
—
— —
Senate shifts $516 mn from Title XV to
CH-47 Helicopter Mods
23
579.8
— 23
579.8
—
23 1,110.4
— —
—
— base budget
Title XV
21
635.6
— 21
635.6
—
21
121.1
— —
—
— —
AH-64 Apache Helo Mods
—
711.7
193.7 —
711.7 193.7
—
711.7
193.7 —
—
— —
Title XV
—
25.0
— —
—
25.0
12
417.8
— —
—
— —
CRS-84
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles
Senate transfers $1.4 bn from Title XV to
M-2 Bradley Vehicle Mods
—
182.6
— —
182.6
—
— 1,585.1
— —
—
— base budget
Title XV
—
1,450.5
— —
1,402.5
—
48.0
— —
—
— —
Senate cuts $53 mn from SEP, shifts $1.3
M -1 Abrams Tank Mods
18
641.9
27.6 18
641.9
27.6
253 1,892.1
27.6 —
—
— bn from Title XV to base budget
Title XV
—
1,640.7
— —
1,640.7
—
337.6
— —
—
— —
House cuts $228 mn for gun production
delay, adds $294 mn program increase.
Senate transfers $403 mn from Title XV to
Stryker Armored Vehicle
127
1,039.0
142.5 —
1,104.9 142.5
127 2,099.9
182.5 —
—
— base budget, adds $658 mn for additional
vehicles in base budget. Senate adds $40
mn in R&D for active protection system.
Senate shifts $403 mn for 100 vehicles
Title XV
—
402.8
— —
402.8
—
29
117.0
— —
—
— from Title XV to base budget, adds $117
mn for 29 vehicles to Title XV
2,696.
House cuts $867 mn, 24%, from R&D;
Future Combat System
—
99.6 3,563.4 —
99.6
—
99.6 3,678.4 —
—
—
1
Senate adds $115 mn
Wheeled Vehicles
Hi Mob Multi-Purpose Veh.
—
986.4
— —
986.4
—
—
986.4
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
1,321.6
— —
1,321.6
— 6,690 1,321.6
— —
—
— —
HMMWV Recapitalization
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
Program
Title XV
—
455.0
— —
455.0
—
—
455.0
— —
—
— —
Family of Medium Tact. Veh.
—
1,852.8
2.0 —
1,852.8
2.0
— 1,852.8
2.0 —
—
— —
Title XV
—
185.1
2.0 —
185.1
2.0 3,181
185.1
2.0 —
—
— —
Firetrucks & Associated
—
36.0
— —
36.0
—
—
36.0
— —
—
— —
Equipment
Title XV
—
9.0
— —
9.0
—
10
9.0
— —
—
— —
Family of Heavy Tactical Veh.
—
483.0
1.9 —
483.0
1.9
—
563.7
6.9 —
—
— Senate adds $5 mn R&D
CRS-85
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Title XV
—
1,136.5
1.9 —
1,136.5
1.9 2,747 1,136.5
1.9 —
—
— —
Senate shifts $302 mn from Title XV to
Armored Security Vehicle
—
155.1
— —
155.1
—
—
592.3
— —
—
— base budget
Title XV
—
301.9
— —
228.3
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
Mine Protection Vehicle Family
—
199.1
— —
133.1
—
—
199.1
— —
—
— House shifts $66 mn in proc to Title XV
Title XV
—
174.4
— —
87.2
—
155
174.4
— —
—
— —
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
Veh
House and Senate add $1.5 bn for Army
Title XV
—
—
— —
1,552.0
— 1,552 1,552.0
— —
—
— MRAPs
Truck, Tractor, Line Haul
—
83.9
— —
83.9
—
—
83.9
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
276.0
— —
228.1
—
—
276.0
— —
—
— —
Modification of In-Service
—
32.7
— —
32.7
—
—
32.7
— —
—
— —
Equipment
Title XV
—
1,094.8
— —
1,094.8
—
— 1,094.8
— —
—
— —
Radios
Senate shifts $1.4 bn from Title XV to base
SINCGARS Family
—
137.1
— —
137.1
—
— 1,143.0
— —
—
— budget, but trims $375 mn from total
Title XV
—
1,370.3
— —
615.8
—
—
—
— —
—
— House cuts $754 mn
House cuts $28 mn as Joint Network Node
not ready for full production. Senate shifts
Bridge to Future Networks
—
499.1
16.5 —
471.6
16.5
— 2,125.2
16.5 —
—
— $2.6 bn from Title XV to base budget, but
cuts $1 bn from Joint Network Node.
House cuts $2.1 bn as Joint Network Node
Title XV
—
2,560.6
— —
445.3
—
—
—
— —
—
— not ready for full production
House cuts $20 mn, in part to reflect
Radio, Improved HF Family
—
81.4
— —
61.0
—
—
81.4
— —
—
— revised request
Title XV
—
433.4
— —
325.0
—
—
433.4
— —
—
— House cuts $108 mn
Joint Tactical Radio System
—
—
853.7 —
— 853.7
—
—
853.7 —
—
— R&D in Navy
(JTRS)
CRS-86
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Marine Corps
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
Veh
House and Senate add $2 bn proc, House
Title XV
—
—
— —
1,989.0
35.8
— 1,939.0
— —
—
— adds $36 mn R&D
Light Armor Vehicle Product
—
32.1
— —
32.1
—
—
32.1
— —
—
— —
Improvement Program
Title XV
—
113.0
— —
113.0
—
—
113.0
— —
—
— —
155 mm Towed Howitzer
—
200.9
— —
200.9
—
—
200.9
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
36.0
— —
36.0
—
—
36.0
— —
—
— —
Combat Vehicle Modification Kits
—
194.9
— —
194.9
—
—
194.9
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
4.9
— —
1.1
—
—
4.9
— —
—
— —
Night Vision Equipment
—
42.5
— —
42.5
—
—
42.5
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
142.7
— —
107.7
—
—
142.7
— —
—
— House cuts $35 mn to transfer to MRAP
Radio Systems
—
179.8
— —
89.4
—
—
179.8
— —
—
— House cuts $90 mn
House cuts $35 mn to transfer to MRAP,
Title XV
—
464.6
— —
429.6
—
—
299.6
— —
—
— Senate cuts $165 mn due to slow execution
5/4 Ton Truck HMMWV
—
160.7
— —
160.7
—
—
180.7
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
46.7
— —
46.7
—
—
46.7
— —
—
— —
Physical Security Equipment
—
12.4
— —
12.4
—
—
12.4
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
640.0
— —
340.0
—
—
640.0
— —
—
— House cuts $300 mn for transfer to MRAP
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Armed Service Committee Report on H.R. 1585, H.Rept. 110-146, May 11,
2007; Senate Armed Services Committee Report on S. 1547, S.Rept. 110-77, June 5, 2007.
CRS-87
Table A2. Congressional Action on Shipbuilding: FY2008 Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Comments
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
CVN-21 Carrier Replacement
1
2,848.4
232.2
1
2,848.4
232.2
1
2,828.4
232.2
—
—
— —
House adds $588 mn adv proc, Senate adds
Virginia Class Submarine
1
2,498.9
224.0
1
3,086.9
224.0
1
2,968.9
224.0
—
—
— $470 mn in adv proc for building 2 boats in
FY2010
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
—
297.3
— —
297.3
— —
297.3
—
—
—
— —
Missile Submarine Refueling
—
230.4
— —
230.4
— —
230.4
—
—
—
— —
Overhaul
Request is for 2nd increment of funding for
DD(X)/DDG-1000 Destroyer
—
2,953.5
503.4 —
2,953.5
512.4 —
2,953.5
503.4
—
—
— 2 ships started in FY2007.
Senate cuts $30 mn for premature request
DDG-51 Destroyer
—
78.1
— —
78.1
— —
48.1
—
—
—
— for close out costs
House cuts 1 ship, $200 mn, Senate cuts 1
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
3
910.5
217.5
2
710.5
217.5
2
480.0
217.5
—
—
— ship, $431 mn
LPD-17 Amphibious Ship
1
1,398.9
4.3
2
3,098.9
4.3
1
1,398.9
4.3
—
—
— House adds $1.7 bn for 2nd ship
Request is for 2nd increment of funding to
LHA(R) Amphibious Ship
—
1,377.4
5.9 —
1,377.4
5.9 —
1,377.4
5.9
—
—
— complete 1st ship of class.
Outfitting
—
419.8
— —
419.8
— —
379.8
—
—
—
— Senate cuts $40 mn
Service Craft
—
32.9
— —
32.9
— —
32.9
—
—
—
— —
LCAC Service Life Extension
—
98.5
— —
98.5
— —
98.5
—
—
—
— —
Prior Year Shipbuilding
—
511.5
— —
511.5
— —
511.5
—
—
—
— —
In National Defense Sealift Fund. House
T-AKE Cargo Ship
1
456.1
—
2
912.2
—
1
456.1
—
—
—
— adds $456 mn for 2nd ship
Total Navy Shipbuilding
7 14,112.2 1,187.3
8 16,656.3 1,196.3
7 14,061.7 1,187.3
—
—
— —
Joint High Speed Vessel (Army)
1
210.0
24.0
1
210.0
24.0
1
210.0
24.1
—
—
— —
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Armed Service Committee Report on H.R. 1585, H.Rept. 110-146, May 11,
2007; Senate Armed Services Committee Report on S. 1547, S.Rept. 110-77, June 5, 2007.
CRS-88
Table A3. Congressional Action on Selected Aircraft Programs: FY2008 Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
House adds $240 mn in R&D for 2nd
engine, cuts $125 mn program decrease.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, AF
6
1,421.7 1,780.9
6
1,421.7 1,895.9
6
1,421.7 2,001.2 —
—
— Senate adds $240 mn for 2nd engine, cuts
$20 mn for excess fee
Title XV
1
230.0
— —
—
— —
—
— —
—
— House and Senate delete funds
House adds $240 mn in R&D for 2nd
engine, cuts $125 mn program decrease.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
6
1,232.2 1,707.4
6
1,232.2 1,592.4
6
1,232.2 1,927.7 —
—
— Senate adds $240 mn for 2nd engine, cuts
$20 mn for excess fee.
F-22 Fighter, AF
20
3,579.4
743.6 20
3,579.4
743.6
20
3,579.4
743.6 —
—
— —
C-17 Cargo Aircraft & Mods,
—
471.8
181.7 —
471.8
181.7 —
471.8
181.7 —
—
— —
AF
Title XV
—
72.0
— 10
2,492.0
— —
72.0
— —
—
— House adds $2.4 billion for 10 aircraft
C-130J Cargo Aircraft, AF
9
686.1
74.2
9
686.1
74.2
9
686.1
74.2 —
—
— —
House cuts $132 mn, Senate cuts $468 mn
Title XV
17
1,356.3
— 17
1,224.3
—
13
888.3
— —
—
— for 4 aircraft
KC-130J Aircraft, Navy
4
256.4
—
4
256.4
—
4
256.4
— —
—
— —
Title XV
7
495.4
—
7
495.4
—
7
495.4
— —
—
— —
House cuts $200 mn as program decrease.
KC-135 Tanker Replacement
—
—
314.5 —
—
114.5 —
—
174.5 —
—
— Senate cuts $140 mn and directs use of
(KC-X), AF
prior year funds for execution.
F-15 Mods
—
19.2
— —
19.2
— —
19.2
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
152.9
— —
130.9
— —
130.9
— —
—
— House cuts $22 mn
C-130 Aircraft Mods, AF
—
522.4
— —
534.4
— —
536.4
— —
—
— —
Title XV
—
86.3
— —
86.3
— —
86.3
— —
—
— —
C-5 Cargo Aircraft Mods, AF
—
398.7
203.6 —
403.4
205.6 —
398.7
203.6 —
—
— —
Title XV
—
75.0
— —
75.0
— —
75.0
— —
—
— —
Global Hawk UAV, AF
5
577.8
298.5
5
577.8
298.5
5
577.8
298.5 —
—
— —
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
18
1,318.8
272.7 18
1,318.8
272.7
18
1,318.8
272.7 —
—
— —
Senate shifts $714 mn for 12 aircraft from
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
24
2,104.0
44.9 24
2,104.0
44.9
36
2,817.5
44.9 —
—
— Title XV to base budget
CRS-89
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D Procurement
R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Title XV
12
713.5
— —
531.5
— —
—
— —
—
— House cuts $182 mn
V-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, Navy
21
1,959.4
118.0 21
1,959.4
118.0
21
1,959.4
118.0 —
—
— —
CV-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, AF
5
495.0
16.7
5
495.0
16.7
5
495.0
16.7 —
—
— Senate deletes funds
Title XV
5
492.5
—
5
492.5
— —
—
— —
—
— —
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
20
518.5
— 20
518.5
—
20
518.5
— —
—
— —
Senate deletes — says not to ramp up
Title XV
6
123.4
—
6
123.4
— —
—
— —
—
— production rate
MH-60S Helicopter, Navy
18
503.6
44.0 18
503.6
44.0
18
503.6
44.0 —
—
— —
Title XV
3
88.0
—
3
88.0
—
3
88.0
— —
—
— —
MH-60R Helicopter, Navy
27
997.6
78.2 27
997.6
78.2
27
997.6
78.2 —
—
— —
Title XV
6
205.0
—
6
205.0
—
6
205.0
— —
—
— —
E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft, Navy
—
57.3
22.7 —
57.3
22.7 —
57.3
22.7 —
—
— —
T-45 Goshawk Trainer, Navy
—
32.5
— —
32.5
— —
32.5
— —
—
— —
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, AF
39
245.9
12.6 39
245.9
12.6
39
245.9
12.6 —
—
— —
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, Navy
44
295.3
— 44
295.3
—
44
295.3
— —
—
— —
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Armed Service Committee Report on H.R. 1585, H.Rept. 110-146, May
11, 2007; Senate Armed Services Committee Report on S. 1547, S.Rept. 110-77, June 5, 2007.
CRS-90
Table A4. Congressional Action on Missile Defense Funding: FY2008 Authorization
(millions of dollars)
Senate
FY2008
House-
House vs
Senate
vs
Request
Passed
Request Reported Request Comments
RDT&E Missile Defense Agency
0603175C Ballistic Missile Defense Technology
118.6
108.6
-10.0
122.6
+4.0 Senate adds $4 mn for printed components
Senate adds $105 mn for THAAD, $35 mn for
0603881C Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment
962.6
962.6
—
1,127.6
+165.0 Arrow, $25 mn for short-range missile
House cuts $160 mn and Senate cuts $85 mn
0603882C Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment
2,520.1
2,360.1
-160.0
2,435.1
-85.0 from European site
House cuts $250 mn and Senate cuts $200 mn
0603883C Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment
548.8
298.8
-250.0
348.8
-200.0 from Airborne Laser
0603884C Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors
778.2
728.2
-50.0
778.2
— House cuts $50 mn for excessive cost
0603886C Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptor
227.5
177.5
-50.0
227.5
— House cuts $50 mn as program reduction
0603888C Ballistic Missile Defense Test & Targets
586.2
586.2
—
586.2
— —
House and Senate cut $50 mn from BMDS
0603890C Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Core
482.0
432.0
-50.0
432.0
-50.0 Core
House cuts $170 mn as program decrease,
0603891C Special Programs - MDA
323.3
153.3
-170.0
173.3
-150.0 Senate cuts $150 mn.
House adds $78 mn for production capability,
interceptors, and BSP Upgrade, Senate adds
0603892C AEGIS BMD
1,059.1
1,137.1
+78.0
1,134.1
+75.0 $75 mn.
House cuts $75 mn due to schedule, Senate
0603893C Space Tracking & Surveillance System
331.5
331.5
—
276.5
-55.0 cuts $55 mn
0603894C Multiple Kill Vehicle
271.2
229.2
-42.0
271.2
— House cuts $42 mn as program reduction
House and Senate cut $10 mn from space test
0603895C Ballistic Missile Defense System Space Programs
27.7
17.7
-10.0
17.7
-10.0 bed
0603896C Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle
Management, and Communication
258.9
258.9
—
258.9
— —
CRS-91
Senate
FY2008
House-
House vs
Senate
vs
Request
Passed
Request Reported Request Comments
0603897C Ballistic Missile Defense Hercules
53.7
53.7
—
53.7
— —
0603898C Ballistic Missile Defense Joint Warfighter Support
48.8
54.8
+6.0
48.8
— House adds $6 mn as program increase
0603904C Ballistic Missile Defense Joint National Integration Center
104.0
104.0
—
104.0
— —
0603906C Regarding Trench
2.0
2.0
—
2.0
— —
0901585C Pentagon Reservation
6.1
6.1
—
6.1
— —
0901598C Management HQ - MDA
85.9
85.9
—
85.9
— —
Subtotal R&D, Missile Defense Agency
8,795.8
8,087.8
-708.0
8,489.8
-306.0 —
RDT&E Army/Joint Staff
0604869A Patriot/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program (CAP)
372.1
372.1
—
372.1
— —
0203801A Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program
30.2
30.2
—
30.2
— —
0605126J Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization
53.7
53.7
—
53.7
— —
Subtotal R&D, Army, Joint Staff
402.4
402.4
—
402.4
— —
Procurement Army
7152C49100 Patriot System Summary
472.9
484.7
+11.8
547.9
+75.0 Senate adds $75 mn for 25 extra missiles
0962C50700 Patriot Mods
570.0
570.0
—
570.0
— —
Subtotal, Procurement
1,042.9
1,054.7
+11.8
1,054.7
+75.0 —
Total Missile Defense R&D & Procurement
10,241.1
9,544.9
-696.2
9,544.9
— —
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Armed Service Committee Report on H.R. 1585, H.Rept. 110-146, May 11,
2007; Senate Armed Services Committee Report on S. 1547, S.Rept. 110-77, June 5, 2007.
CRS-92
Table A5. Congressional Action on Selected Army and Marine Corps Programs: FY2008 Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procuremen
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
R&D
Comments
t
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Helicopters
House terminates proc program. Shifts
$47 mn to OH-58D helicopter R&D.
Senate supports program, shifts $100 mn
to ARH R&D and $31 mn to OH-58D
Armed Recon Helicopter
—
468.3
82.3 —
—
129.3
—
242.3
182.3 12
175.8
— modification, and cuts $95 mn from proc
due to delays. Conferees accept Senate
shifts from procurement to R&D and cut
procurement by an additional $161 mn. to
slow procurement rate
Light Utility Helicopter
—
230.5
— —
230.5
—
—
230.5
— —
230.5
—
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter
52
887.5
87.9
52
887.5
87.9
52
887.5
87.9 52
887.5
87.9
CH-47 Helicopter
6
190.9
11.2
6
190.9
11.2
6
190.9
21.2
6
190.9
21.2
CH-47 Helicopter Mods
—
579.8
— —
579.8
—
—
579.8
— —
579.8
AH-64 Apache Helo Mods
—
711.7
193.7 —
713.2
193.7
—
714.7
193.7 —
714.1
193.7
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles
M-2 Bradley vehicle Production
—
182.6
— —
182.6
—
—
182.6
— —
182.6
—
and Mods
M -1 Abrams Tank Mods
18
641.9
27.6
18
589.0
35.1
—
589.0
36.4 —
589.0
—
CRS-93
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procuremen
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
R&D
Comments
t
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
House adds $1.1 bn in proc for additional
(8th) brigade, cuts $228 mn for delay in
Stryker Armored Vehicle
127 1,039.0
142.5 127
1,912.9
142.5
127 1,029.0
142.5 —
925.0
142.5 artillery version. Conferees cut $114 mn.
for the delayed version and defer issue of
additional Stryker units.
Future Combat System
—
99.6 3,563.4 —
102.1
3,092.3
—
99.6 3,565.0 —
101.6 3,357.4
Army Wheeled Vehicles
Hi Mob Multi-Purpose Veh.
—
986.4
— —
987.4
—
—
909.1
— —
948.5
—
HMMWV Recapitalization
—
—
— —
5.0
—
—
—
— —
4.0
—
Program
Family of Medium Tact. Veh.
— 1,852.8
2.0 —
1,852.8
4.8
— 1,852.8
4.5 —
1,852.8
3.0
Firetrucks & Associated
—
36.0
— —
36.0
—
—
36.0
— —
36.0
— —
Equipment
Family of Heavy Tactical Veh.
—
563.7
1.9 —
563.7
2.9
—
563.7
11.9 —
563.7
12.7
Armored Security Vehicle
—
281.4
— —
283.9
—
—
284.9
— —
284.2
—
Mine Protection Vehicle Family
—
199.1
— —
199.1
—
—
199.1
— —
199.1
— —
Truck, Tractor, Line Haul
—
83.9
— —
83.9
—
—
83.9
— —
83.9
— —
Modification of In-Service
—
32.7
— —
32.7
—
—
32.7
— —
32.7
— —
Equipment
Radios
SINCGARS Family
—
137.1
— —
150.1
—
—
148.6
— —
149.6
—
House shifts $134 mn from proc to WIN-
T R&D (not shown in this table) but adds
Bridge to Future Networks
—
499.1
16.5 —
368.1
16.5
—
365.1
16.5 —
365.1
16.5 back $3 mn. to proc. Senate cuts $134 mn
as excess to need, does not add to R&D
CRS-94
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procuremen
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
R&D
Comments
t
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Radio, Improved HF Family
—
81.4
— —
61.0
—
—
81.4
— —
71.2
—
Joint Tactical Radio System
—
—
853.7 —
—
853.7
—
—
853.7 —
—
853.7 —
(JTRS)
Marine Corps
House cuts $100 mn from R&D because
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
288.2
288.2
190.2
253.2 of program delays. Conferees cut $35 mn
for same reason
Light Armor Vehicle Product
—
32.1
— —
32.1
—
—
32.1
— —
32.1
— —
Improvement
155 mm Towed Howitzer
—
200.9
— —
179.9
—
—
174.5
— —
174.5
—
Night Vision Equipment
—
42.5
— —
40.6
—
—
40.6
— —
40.6
—
Radio Systems
—
179.8
— —
176.2
—
—
158.7
— —
158.7
— .
5/4 Ton Truck HMMWV
—
180.7
— —
157.1
—
—
157.1
— —
157.1
— .
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Rules Committee website, text of (unnumbered) conference report on
H.R. 3222, Nov. 7, 2007
CRS-95
Table A6. Congressional Action on Shipbuilding: FY2008 Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
CVN-21 Carrier Replacement
1
2,848.4
232.2
1
2,828.4
234.7
1
2,828.4
232.2
1 2,828,4 236.2
Virginia Class Submarine
House adds $588 mn in adv proc to buy 2
1
2,498.9
224.0
1
3,086.9
250.0
1
2,968.9
229.0
1
3,086.9 249.1 per year by 2012. Senate adds $470 mn in
adv proc. Conferees adopt House position
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
—
297.3
— —
297.3
— —
297.3
—
—
297.3
— —
Missile Submarine Refueling
—
230.4
— —
230.4
— —
230.4
—
—
230.4
— —
Overhaul
DD(X)/DDG-1000 Destroyer
—
2,953.5
503.4 —
2,923.5
511.4 —
2,958.3
519.4
— 2,927.4 524.6
DDG-51 Destroyer
—
78.1
— —
78.1
— —
48.1
—
—
48.1
—
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
House deletes $571 mn for two ships, adds
$11.5 mn R&D. Senate deletes $910 mn for
3 ships, mandates new program, adds $75
3
910.5
217.5
1
339.5
229.0 —
75.0
300.5
1
339.5 309.3 mn in adv proc for new ship in FY2009,
adds $83 mn in R&D to cover full cost of
ships 1 and 2, funded previously. Conferees
approve funding for one ship.
LPD-17 Amphibious Ship
House adds $1.7 bn for additional ship.
1
1,398.9
4.3
2
3,091.9
4.3
1
1,398.9
4.3
1 1,441.9
— Conferees add $50 million for long-lead
time items for an additional ship
LHA(R) Amphibious Ship
—
1,377.4
5.9 —
1,375.4
5.9 —
1,377.4
5.9
— 1,375.4
— —
Special Purpose Riverine craft
—
—
— —
4.5
— —
0.0
—
—
0.0
— —
Outfitting
—
419.8
— —
405.0
— —
379.8
—
—
379.8
—
Service Craft
—
32.9
— —
32.9
— —
32.9
—
—
32.9
— —
LCAC Service Life Extension
—
98.5
— —
98.5
— —
98.5
—
—
98.5
— —
Prior Year Shipbuilding
—
511.5
— —
511.5
— —
511.5
—
—
511.5
— —
CRS-96
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement R&D Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
DOD and committee documents count the
Total Navy Shipbuilding
refueling of an existing missile submarine as
6 13,656.1 1,187.3
5 15,303.8 1,235.3
3 13,205.4 1,187.3
4 13,598.0
n/a equivalent to procurement of an additional
ship (i.e., by that reckoning, the conference
report would fund five ships)
T-AKE Cargo Ship
House adds $1.4 bn. for 3 ships. Conferees
(funded in Title V, National
1
456.1
—
4
1,866.1
—
1
456.1
—
1
756.1
— add $300 mn. for long lead-time
Defense Sealift Fund)
components for three additional ships
Joint High Speed Vessel, Army
House cuts $134 mn for funding in advance
(funded in Other Procurement,
1
210.0
24.1
1
76.0
24.1
1
210.0
24.1
1
210.0 24.1 of need
Army account)
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Rules Committee website, text of (unnumbered) conference report on H.R.
3222, Nov. 7, 2007
CRS-97
Table A7. Congressional Action on Selected Aircraft Programs: FY2008 Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procuremen
Procurement
R&D Procurement R&D Procurement
R&D
R&D Comments
t
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
House and Senate R&D adds include $240
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, AF
6
1,421.7 1,780.9
6
1,421.7 2,137.4
6 1,421.7 1,879.3
6 1,421.7 2,004.3 mn for alternative engine, which conferees
accept
House and Senate R&D adds include $240
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
6
1,232.2 1,707.4
6
1,232.2 2,038.9
6 1,232.2 1,805.8
6 1,232.2 1,905.8 mn in R&D for alternative engine, which
conferees accept
House cuts $364 mn R&D, shifts to MilPers,
Senate cuts $132 mn from R&D saying
F-22 Fighter, AF
20
3,579.4
743.6
20
3,579.4
379.6
20 3,579.4
611.4 20 3,579.4 611.4 upgrades are premature and overhead is
excessive. Conferees adopt Senate position
House cuts $100 mn from proc for delay in
radar modification. Senate and conferees
agree to Air Force request to shift $38 mn
from proc to R&D because of radar delay, for
B-2A Mods
316.1
244.0
216.1
289.2
202.6
292.0
213.6
297.8 which reason Senate cuts an additional $73
mn from proc and conferees cut $62 mn.
Senate and conferees add $10 mn to R&D to
adapt B-2 to carry 30,000 lb. conventional
bomb
Congress may consider procurement of
C-17 Cargo Aircraft & Mods, AF
—
471.8
181.7 —
375.8
181.7 —
471.8
181.7 — 441.8 181.7 additional planes in warfighting supplemental
appropriations bill
C-130J Cargo Aircraft, AF
9
686.1
74.2
9
686.1
74.2
9
686.1
74.2
9 686.1
74.2 —
KC-130J Aircraft, Navy
4
256.4
—
4
253.5
—
4
256.4
—
4
253.5
— —
CRS-98
Request
House
Senate-Reported
Conference
Procuremen
Procurement
R&D Procurement R&D Procurement
R&D
R&D Comments
t
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
House transfers $200 mn to fund for
KC-135 Tanker Replacement (KC-
—
—
314.5 —
—
114.5 —
—
314.5 —
—
114.5 procurement of replacement tankers.
X), AF
Conferees adopt House position
House cuts $111 mn proc for delay of initial
Global Hawk UAV, AF
5
577.8
298.5
3
466.8
260.5
5
577.8
291.5
5
577.8
276.5 production
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
18
1,318.8
272.7
18
—
274.7
18 1,318.8
272.7 18 1,317.1 274.3 —
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
24
2,104.0
44.9
24
2,089.1
50.9
24 2,104.0
48.9 24 2,089.1
52.9
V-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, Navy
21
1,959.4
118.0
21
1,959.4
118.0
21 1,959.4
118.0 21 1,959.4 118.0 —
CV-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, AF
5
495.0
16.7
5
495.0
16.7
5
495.0
16.7
5 495.0
16.7 —
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
20
518.5
—
20
414.5
—
20
440.9
—
20
418.5
—
MH-60S Helicopter, Navy
18
503.6
44.0
18
503.6
40.0
18
503.6
39.0 18
503.6
39.0
MH-60R Helicopter, Navy
27
997.6
78.2
27
997.6
78.2
27
997.6
78.2 27
997.6
78.2 —
Because contract award is delayed, House cut
$100 mn and Senate cut $192 mn. Conferees
CSAR-X Helicopter, Air Force
290.1
190.1
98.1
105.0 cut $86.1 mn and transferred an additional
$99 mn to proc account to upgrade existing
search-and-rescue copters.
E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft, Navy
—
57.3
22.7 —
52.6
22.7 —
38.5
22.7 —
52.6
—
T-45 Goshawk Trainer, Navy
—
32.5
— —
32.5
— —
32.5
— —
32.5
— —
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, AF
39
245.9
12.6
39
245.9
12.6
39
245.9
15.6 —
245.9
15.0
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, Navy
44
295.3
—
44
295.3
—
44
295.3
— 44
295.3
— —
VTUAV, Navy
3
37.7
— —
—
—
3
37.7
—
3
37.7
— House eliminates proc funds
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Rules Committee website, text of (unnumbered) conference report on H.R.
3222, Nov. 7, 2007
CRS-99
Table A8. Congressional Action on Missile Defense Funding: FY2008 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2008
House-
Senate-
Conference Comments
Request
Passed
Passed
RDT&E Missile Defense Agency
0603175C Ballistic Missile Defense Technology
118.6
101.6
131.6
109.2
0603881C Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment
962.6
1,032.6
1,037.6
1,052.2
House shifts $50 mn to command and control, cuts
$238 mn of which $85 mn for European site
construction, $54 mn for European site equipment,
and $97 mn for schedule delay. Senate shifts $166
mn for SBX radar to separate line, cuts $85 mn for
0603882C Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment
2,520.1
2,233.9
2,318.8
2,258.8 European site construction, adds $50 mn for
ground-based defense upgrades. Conferees cut $85
mn. for European site construction, transfer to
other lines $166 million for SBX radar and $50
mn. for command and control, and add $40 mn. for
upgrades
Senate and conferees shift $166 mn from
060XXXXC SBX Afloat X-Band Radar
—
—
166.3
166.3 midcourse defense to separate SBX line.
0603883C Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment
548.8
498.2
548.8
513.8
0603884C Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors
778.2
611.7
753.2
590.2
0603886C Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptor
227.5
372.9
197.5
342.5
0603888C Ballistic Missile Defense Test & Targets
586.2
586.2
636.2
626.2 .
0603890C Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Core
482.0
431.8
387.4
416.8
0603891C Special Programs - MDA
323.3
198.3
198.9
198.3
0603892C AEGIS BMD
1,059.1
1,116.1
1,059.1
1,134.1
House, Senate and conferees all made reductions to
0603893C Space Tracking & Surveillance System
331.5
286.2
272.5
233.1 slow the project and eliminate funds deemed
premature
CRS-100
FY2008
House-
Senate-
Conference Comments
Request
Passed
Passed
0603894C Multiple Kill Vehicle
271.2
274.3
221.2
231.5
House and Senate cut $10 mn from space test bed,
Senate cuts $5 mn from space experimentation
0603895C Ballistic Missile Defense System Space Programs
27.7
17.7
12.7
16.7 center. Conferees cut $10 mn for space test bed and
$4 mn from space experimentation
0603896C Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle
258.9
460.7
248.9
450.7
Management, and Communication
0603897C Ballistic Missile Defense Hercules
53.7
52.8
53.7
52.8
0603898C Ballistic Missile Defense Joint Warfighter Support
48.8
50.2
48.8
49.7
0603904C Ballistic Missile Defense Joint National Integration
104.0
79.1
104.0
79.1
Center
0603906C Regarding Trench
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0901585C Pentagon Reservation
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
0901598C Management HQ - MDA
85.9
85.9
80.9
80.9
Missile Defense Agency, total
8,795.8
8,497.9
8,485.8
8,611.0
RDT&E Army/Joint Staff
0604869A Patriot/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program (CAP)
372.1
372.1
372.1
372.1
0203801A Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.2
0605126J Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization
53.7
53.7
53.7
53.7
RDT&E Army/Joint Staff, total
456.0
456.0
456.0
456.0
Procurement Army
7152C49100 Patriot System Summary
472.9
472.9
472.9
472.9
CRS-101
FY2008
House-
Senate-
Conference Comments
Request
Passed
Passed
0962C50700 Patriot Mods
570.0
570.0
276.0
423.0
Procurement Army, total
1,042.9
1,042.9
748.9
859.9
Total, Missile Defense. R&D and Procurement
10,294.8
9,996.6
9,690.8
9,926.9
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2008, February 2007; Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2008, February 2007;
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY2008, February 2007; House Rules Committee website, text of (unnumbered) conference report on H.R.
3222, Nov. 7, 2007
w
g
p
h
p
s
cr