Order Code RL34473
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and
Appropriations
Updated June 18, 2008
Pat Towell and Stephen Daggett
Specialists in Defense Policy and Budgets
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/
level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].


Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The President’s FY2009 federal budget request, released February 4, 2008,
included $611.1 billion in new budget authority for national defense. This total
included $515.4 billion in discretionary new budget authority for the base budget of
the Department of Defense (DOD) — i.e., activities not associated with combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget included an additional $2.9 billion
in mandatory spending for the DOD base budget and $22.8 billion for non-war-
related defense costs of the Department of Energy and other agencies. In addition to
the $541.1 billion requested for the base line (i.e., non-war cost) budget, the request
also included $70 billion to cover war costs in the first part of FY2009.
On April 30 the Senate Armed Services Committee approved its version of the
FY2009 defense authorization bill (S. 3001), authorizing the appropriation of $612.5
billion in new budget authority for national security programs, including $542.5
billion for the base line budget and a $70 billion allowance for war-related costs.
The Senate committee approved without major change the funding requests for
several programs that have been the subject of controversy, including the Army’s
Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Air Force’s
KC-45A mid-air refueling tanker. The committee bill would add to the request $497
million to either continue or terminate production of the Air Force’s F-22 fighter. It
also would add to the request $465 million to continue development of an alternate
engine for the F-35 Joint Strike fighter and $35 million to improve the engine
currently slated for installation in the planes. The Senate may take up the bill before
the July Fourth recess.
In related action, the House passed its version of the defense authorization bill
(H.R. 5658) on May 22 authorizing $612.5 billion, including $70 billion for war-
related costs. The bill would deny authorization of the $2.5 billion requested for a
third ship of the DDG-1000 class. Instead, it would allocate those funds to buy an
LPD-17-class amphibious landing transport, and two T-AKE-class supply ships and
to purchase either components to be used in another DDG-1000 or components that
would be used to continue production of DDG-51 class destroyers, the type the DDG-
1000 is intended to supplant. The bill also would cut $200 million from the $3.6
billion requested for the Army’s Future Combat Systems.
In addition to authorizing $3 billion requested to buy 20 F-22 fighters in
FY2009, the House bill would authorize $523 million that was not requested but
which would buy components that would allow the purchase of 20 additional F-22s
in FY2010. It also added to the Administration’s request authorization for $3.9
billion for 15 C-17 cargo planes. The bill would authorize $832 million of the $894
million requested for the KC-45A refueling tanker, a reduction the House Armed
Services Committee said would not delay the program.
This report will be updated as developments warrant.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Telephone
E-Mail
Valerie Grasso
7-7617
vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Acquisition
Moshe Schwartz
7-1463
mschwartz@crs.loc.gov
William Knight
7-6247
wknight@crs.loc.gov
Aviation Forces
Anthony Murch
7-0432
amurch@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
Defense R&D
John Moteff
7-1435
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Edward Bruner
7-2775
ebruner@crs.loc.gov
Ground Forces
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
David Burrelli
7-8033
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Military Personnel
Charles Henning
7-8866
chenning@crs.loc.gov
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
National Guard &
Lawrence Kapp
7-7609
lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Reserves
Steven Hildreth
7-7635
shildreth@crs.loc.gov
Missile Defense
Andrew Feickert
7-7673
afeickert@crs.loc.gov
Naval Forces
Ronald O’Rourke
7-7610
rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear Weapons
Jonathan Medalia
7-7632
jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Peace Operations
Nina Serafino
7-7667
nserafino@crs.loc.gov
Readiness
Amy Belasco
7-7627
abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Space, Military
Steven Hildreth
7-2508
shildreth@crs.loc.gov
War Powers
Richard Grimmett
7-7675
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov


Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Highlights of the House-Passed Defense Authorization Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Highlights of the Senate Committee-Reported Defense Authorization Bill . 2
Overview of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Comparison and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Potential Issues in the FY2009 Base Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Military Pay Raise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Army and Marine Corps End-Strength Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TRICARE Fees and Co-pays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
War Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Projected Navy Strike Fighter Shortfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
LPD-17-Class Ship Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Funding for DDG-1000 Destroyers versus Other Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Littoral Combat Ship Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
CG-X Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Reliable Replacement Warhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Long-Range Non-Nuclear Prompt Global Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Future Combat Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
F-22 Fighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C-17 Cargo Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Congressional Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill . . . . . . . . . . 19
Pay Raise, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Tanker, Cargo, and Patrol Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fighter Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Future Combat Systems (FCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Anti-Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Shipbuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Iraq Policy Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Other Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Agreements with Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Long-term Cost of Operations in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Detainee Interrogations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Intelligence on Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Contracting Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Bill . . . . . . . . . . 27
End-Strength, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Shipbuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Fighter Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
UAVs and Surveillance Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Anti-Missile Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Other Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and Senate
Versions of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Department of Defense Baseline Budget Discretionary Budget
Authority, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2A. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2B. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. DOD Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Side-By-Side Comparison of Iraq Policy Provisions in House and
Senate Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table A-1. FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act:House and Senate
Action by Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table A-2. FY2009 Ballistic Missile Defense Funding: Authorization . . . . . . . 38
Table A-3. House and Senate Action on Selected Aircraft Programs:
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected Shipbuilding Programs:
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


Defense: FY2009 Authorization and
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On May 22, 2008, by a vote of 384-23, the House passed its version of the
FY2009 national defense authorization bill (H.R. 5658), which would authorize
$542.4 billion for national defense-related activities of DOD and other federal
agencies and an additional $70 billion for costs related to military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Earlier, on April 30, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved its version
of the FY2009 defense authorization bill (S3001), also authorizing the appropriation
of $612.5 billion in new budget authority for national security programs, including
$542.5 billion for the base line budget and a $70 billion allowance for war-related
costs. Senate floor consideration of the defense bill could begin at any time.
Highlights of the House-Passed Defense Authorization Bill
Among the changes the House-passed bill would make to the budget proposed
by the Administration is denial of the $2.5 billion authorization requested for a third
ship of the DDG-1000 class. The House bill would, instead, allocate those funds to
buy an LPD-17-class amphibious landing transport and two additional supply ships
and to purchase either components to be used in another DDG-1000 or components
that would be used to continue production of DDG-51 class destroyers, the type the
DDG-1000 is intended to supplant.
The bill also would add $722 million to the $3.4 billion requested for
acquisition of Virginia-class submarines. The request would buy one sub in FY2009
and components (including a nuclear powerplant) to be used in another sub slated for
purchase in FY2010. The bill, by comparison, would let the Navy buy enough “long
lead-time components” in FY2009 to allow the purchase of two subs in FY2010, thus
accelerating by one year the time when the Navy could begin buying subs at the rate
of two per year.
The House bill authorized the request for $832 million to continue development
of a new mid-air refueling tanker for the Air Force, but denied $62 million requested
for long lead-time components to begin production of the planes. According to the
House Armed Services Committee, Air Force officials said elimination of the long
lead-time funding would not delay the program. The bill also cut $200 million from
the $3.6 billion requested to continue development of the Army’s Future Combat
Systems (FCS) program, an effort to develop a new generation of digitally-linked
vehicles for ground combat.

CRS-2
The bill added to the Administration’s request $3.9 billion for 15 additional C-
17 cargo planes in FY2009 and $523 million for components that would be needed
to continue procurement of F-22 fighters in FY2010. For both programs, the
Administration’s FY2009 request includes neither the funds that would be needed to
continue production beyond FY2009 nor the funds that would be needed to shut
down either production line.
The bill included a provision that would exempt it from the President’s
executive order prohibiting agencies from complying with congressional earmarks
that are not specified in statutory language. As is customary, the more than 500
earmarks associated with H.R. 5658 are specified in the report (H Rept 110-652)
issued by the House Armed Services Committee, which drafted the bill and which
had reported it to the House on May 16.
In a Statement of Administration Policy issued May 22, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) cited the provision exempting the bill from the
executive order dealing with earmarks as one of many provisions which, if included
in the final version of the bill, would cause the President’s advisors to recommend
a veto. Other provisions of H.R. 5658 cited by OMB as potential reasons for a veto
are reductions totaling more than $700 million in the $10.8 billion requested for
missile defense programs, prohibition of proposed increases in health care fees and
copays paid by some military retirees, and a provision requiring that any agreement
with the Iraqi government concerning the legal status of U.S. military personnel in
that country include a requirement that Iraq pay some of the costs of those forces.
See below for a more detailed discussion of the bill’s provisions.
Highlights of the Senate Committee-Reported Defense
Authorization Bill

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved without major change the
funding requested for several programs that have been the subject of controversy,
including the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Navy’s DDG-1000
destroyer, and the Air Force’s KC-45A mid-air refueling tanker. The committee bill
would add to the request $497 million to either continue or terminate production of
the Air Force’s F-22 fighter. It also would add to the request $465 million to continue
development of an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike fighter and $35 million
to improve the engine currently slated for installation in the planes.
President Bush’s Executive Order 13457 prohibits agencies from complying
with congressional earmarks not specified in statutory language; S. 3001 includes a
provision (Section 1002) that would incorporate into the bill the detailed funding
tables in the accompanying committee report, which would circumvent E.O. 13457.
These funding tables spell out how the Senate intends DOD and the services to
allocate the lump sums authorized for each appropriations account; for instance, the
accounts for procurement of aircraft for the Army and for research and development
for the Navy.

CRS-3
The bill incorporates $2.0 billion worth of reductions to the Administration’s
military personnel and operation and maintenance budget requests which, according
to the committee, would have no adverse impact on DOD operations. This includes
cuts of $1.1 billion from military personnel accounts and $212 million from
operations and maintenance accounts based on an historic pattern of DOD requesting
more for those amounts than it spent in a given year, reductions totalling $198
million based on what the committee said was an erroneously high request for
civilian pay, and a reduction of $497 million in the amount requested for depot
maintenance of Air Force planes.
On several important military personnel questions, S. 3001 agrees with the
House-passed FY2009 authorization bill (H.R. 5658). Both bills approve the
requested addition of 12,000 troops to the active-duty end-strength of the Army and
Marine Corps, as a step toward a planned increase of 92,000 troops over the FY2007
level. Similarly, both bills authorize a 3.9% raise in military pay effective January 1,
2009, rather than the 3.4% raise in the budget request, an increase that costs an
additional $316 million. Like the House bill, S. 3001 prohibits the Administration’s
proposed increase in fees, co-payments, and pharmacy prices charged some military
retirees by DOD’s TRICARE health insurance system.
Unlike the House bill, S. 3001 authorizes $2.5 billion requested for a third
DDG-1000 class destroyer. However the Senate bill also would expand the
Administration’s shipbuilding plan, rejecting the request for $103 million to shut
down production of LPD-17 class amphibious landing transports and adding to the
bill $273 million for long lead-time components that would allow the Navy to budget
for an additional LPD-17 in FY2010. It also adds $79 million to the $1.3 billion
requested for long lead-time components to allow the Navy to begin budgeting for
two submarines per year starting in FY2011.
The committee also cited delays in helicopter carriers at the Northrop Grumman
shipyard in Pascagoula, MS, that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina, and provided
only $178 million of the $348 million requested for an LHA(R) class helicopter
carrier slated to be part of the planned Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future). Also,
citing delays in finalizing the design of a new class of cruisers (designated CG(X))
that would replace the Aegis cruisers in the anti-aircraft and missile defense mission,
the committee cut $121 million from the $313 million requested to prepare to begin
building the first CG(X) in FY2011.
Reflecting widespread uncertainty about the future of the F-22 fighter program,
in addition to authorizing $3.1 billion, as requested, to buy 20 aircraft, the bill
authorizes $497 million to be used either to shut down the F-22 production line or
to buy long lead-time components that would allow the Air Force to build 20
additional planes in FY2010. The bill also authorizes, as requested, $3.1 billion to
continue development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $3.3 billion to buy 16 of the
planes, and $396 million for long lead-time components to support future purchases.
But it also adds to the budget request $500 million to continue the three-year long
congressional effort to make DOD fund development of a General Electric engine
that could replace the Pratt & Whitney engine currently used in the F-35.

CRS-4
Citing warnings by the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force that the retirement
of older fighter planes combined with delays in fielding the F-22 and F-35 could
leave the services short of planes to equip their squadrons, the committee included
in the bill a provision (Section 171) requiring DOD to give Congress annually a
30-year plan detailing projected changes in its inventory of all major types of aircraft.
The committee also urged the Navy to prepare to sign a multi-year contract for more
F/A-18E/F strike fighters than it currently plans to buy, as a hedge against delays in
the acquisition of F-35s.
Because the losing contractors have filed an official protest of the Air Force’s
selection of the Boeing Chinook as its new search and rescue helicopter (designated
CSAR-X) intended to retrieve downed pilots from enemy territory, the bill authorizes
$265 million of the $305 million requested to develop the aircraft and none of the
$15 million requested to buy long lead-time components in preparation for
manufacture. The bill also authorizes the $1.0 billion requested to continue
development of the VH-71, intended to replace the aging helicopters that serve the
White House. In view of delays in the program, the committee also directs the Navy
to submit to Congress a detailed report on the status of the program.
Following the same general approach as the companion House bill, S. 3001
would authorize less for anti-ballistic missile defenses than the administration
requested. Of the $10.9 million requested, the House bill would authorize $9.9 billion
and the Senate bill $10.2 billion (Table A-2). Moreover, within those overall totals,
both bills authorize more than was requested for systems that are ready, or nearly
ready, for deployment to deal with existing short-range and medium-range missiles.
On the other hand, both bills authorize less than requested for programs that would
not enter production that soon, many of which are intended to deal with
intercontinental-range missiles.
Among the reductions the bill would make in anti-missile programs are cuts of:
! $269 million (undistributed) from the Missile Defense Agency;
! $10 million, the entire amount requested, for the Space Test Bed;
and
! $50 million of $354 million requested for the Multiple Kill Vehicle,
intended to let one interceptor knock out several attacking warheads.
S. 3001 authorizes the funds requested to begin deploying in Europe a variant
of the defense against intercontinental-range missiles currently deployed in Alaska
and California. However, the bill includes a provision (Section 232) that would bar
use of the funds to buy interceptor missiles for that deployment or to begin
construction on-site until (1) Poland and the Czech Republic have formally ratified
agreements to allow the American sites on their territory and (2) the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that the interceptor slated for deployment at the
European site — which is a considerably modified variant of the version already
deployed — has been successfully tested in operationally realistic flight tests.
See below for a further, more detailed discussion of the committee bill.

CRS-5
Overview of the Administration Request
On February 4, 2008, the Administration released its federal budget request for
FY2009 which included $606.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for national
defense.1 This includes $515.4 billion for the so-called base budget of the
Department of Defense (DOD) — the cost of routine activities excluding U.S.
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes a lump-sum request for $70
billion to cover war costs in the first part of the year.
The national defense total also includes $16.1 billion for nuclear weapons and
other defense-related programs of the Department of Energy and $5.2 billion for the
defense-related activities of other agencies.
Because it has not submitted a request for funds to cover the full anticipated
costs of operations associated with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration is not
in compliance with a provision of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364, Section 1008) which requires the President to
include in future annual budget requests funds to cover the anticipated cost of
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration’s DOD budget request for
FY2008, sent to Congress in February 2007, included a request for $141.7 billion
(subsequently increased to $189.3 billion) to cover anticipated war costs for the entire
fiscal year.
Administration officials raise three arguments to justify the inclusion in the
FY2009 request of a $70 billion funding wedge for war costs rather than an amount
expected to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the whole year. First, they
point out that, at the time the FY2009 request was sent to Congress, legislators had
not yet acted on $102.5 billion worth of the FY2008 war cost request. Second, they
note that the President will not decide until this coming summer whether to reduce
the number of U.S. troops in Iraq below the level deployed in early 2007, before the
“surge” of additional forces that currently are being withdrawn. Third, officials note
that a new president, who will be elected in November and take office in January
2009, will be responsible for U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan during most of
FY2009.
Pressed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin during a
February 5 hearing to provide an estimate of war costs for all of FY2009, Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates observed that a simple extrapolation of the FY2008 costs
would amount to $170 billion, but he added that he had no confidence in that
projection because of the uncertainties concerning U.S. combat operations.
1 The budget request includes an additional $4.3 billion in mandatory spending for the
national defense function of the budget (Function 050).

CRS-6
The House may act the week of May 5 on an FY2008 supplemental
appropriations bill that would deal with the balance of the President’s FY2008 war
costs funding request.2
Comparison and Context
The President’s $515.4 billion request for DOD’s FY2009 base budget is $35.9
billion more than Congress appropriated for the FY2008 base budget, a nominal
increase of 7.5 %. Adjusting for the cost of inflation, the FY2009 request would
provide a real increase of 5.4 %. Roughly two-thirds of the proposed increase would
go to the accounts that pay for current operations: funding for military personnel
would increase by $8.8 billion over the FY2008 appropriation, to $125.2 billion;
operations and maintenance funding would increase by $15.6 billion, to $179.8
billion (see Table 1).
The FY2009 base budget request is $3.3 billion larger than the base budget
request for that year the Administration had projected in February 2007. However,
compared with the earlier projection, the actual request for procurement was lower
by $6.3 billion and the military construction request was lower by $2.7 billion. On
the other hand, the operations and maintenance request was $5.4 billion higher and
the R&D request $2.4 billion higher than had been forecast in February 2007.
Table 1. Department of Defense Baseline Budget
Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2008-FY2009
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Enacted
Request
(Excluding
(Excluding
War Funds) War Funds)
Change
Military Personnel
116,478
125,247
+8,769
Operation and Maintenance
164,187
179,787
+15,600
Procurement
98,986
104,216
+5,231
Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
76,536
79,616
+3,080
Military Construction
17,763
21,197
+3,434
Family Housing
2,867
3,204
+337
Revolving & Management Funds
2,692
2,174
-518
Total DOD
479,508
515,440
+35,932
Source: Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request: Summary Justification,
February 2008.
2 For congressional action on the supplemental request, see CRS Report for Congress
RL34275, FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global War on Terror Military
Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes
, by Stephen Daggett, et al. For policy
issues raised by that request, see CRS Report for Congress RL33110, The Cost of Iraq,
Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11
, by Amy Belasco.

CRS-7
Status of Legislation
Congress has begun action on the annual defense authorization bill with the
Senate Armed Services Committee approving its version (S. 3001) on April 30 and
Senate floor action possible after the Memorial Day recess. The House Armed
Services Committee marked up its version of the bill (H.R. 5658) on May 14. The
House may take up that bill the week of May 19.
Table 2A. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization
Full Committee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
H. Rept.
5/22/08
S.Rept.
5/14/08 4/30/08
110-652
384-23
110-335
Action on the FY2009 defense appropriations bill has not yet been scheduled.
Table 2B. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% Debate
Over the past few months, a number of senior military officers, as well as
research groups and advocacy organizations, have been arguing that defense spending
needs to be substantially higher in the next few years to avoid drastic cuts in major
weapons programs or in the size of the force. Many have called for a baseline
defense budget, not including war-related costs, pegged to about four percent of
Gross Domestic Product — an amount that would be anywhere from $70 to $180
billion per year higher over the next few years than the current Administration plan.3
3 For an example of the 4% argument, see Jim Talent and Mackenzie Eaglen, “Providing
for the Common Defense: Four Percent for Freedom,” Heritage Foundation, December 13,
(continued...)

CRS-8
Senior leaders of the military services have been particularly vocal in arguing
for substantial increases in the defense budget. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
Admiral Michael Mullen, has, for some time, urged 4% of GDP for defense. For the
past two years, the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force have argued that the
Air Force needs an average of $20 billion more each year for the next several years
in weapons acquisition accounts. In the past few months, senior Army officials have
pointed out that the Army budget, including war costs, has grown to over $230
billion. Though it may come down some, they say, if forces in Iraq and elsewhere
are brought home, several more years of spending at near that level will be needed
to repair, replace, and upgrade equipment consumed by the war-time pace of
operations. For their part, Navy leaders now calculate that the long-term shipbuilding
plan they have proposed for the past few years will, in the future, cost an average of
$20 billion a year in FY2007 prices, an increase of about 40% over earlier estimates.4
These arguments for a substantial increase in the defense budget, however, come
at a time when, by historical standards, military spending appears to be very robust.
Between FY1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending reached its
zenith, and FY2008, the baseline Department of Defense budget, not including war
costs, has increased by almost 40% above inflation (see Table 2). After adjusting for
inflation, the requested FY2009 baseline DOD budget is more than $100 billion, or
about 20%, greater than the average during the Cold War (measured from the end of
the Korean War in FY1954 through FY1990). Requested funding for weapons
acquisition (procurement plus R&D) in FY2009 is more than $45 billion — or about
one-third — higher than the annual Cold War average.
3 (...continued)
2007. The target is not intended to be very precise — proponents have not specified, for
example, whether the 4% goal applies to just the Defense Department budget or to the
national defense budget function — a difference, in itself, of $22-23 billion each year.
4 For Admiral Mullen’s views, see Geoff Fein, “National Discussion Needed On Whether
To Boost DoD Spending Above 4 Percent, Chairman Says,” Defense News, February 1,
2008. For statements by Air Force leaders, see Erik Holmes, “Fewer Airmen, Less Cash:
With Fleet Continuing to Age, Wynne Says Drawdown Savings Are Less than Expected,”
Air Force Times, October 1, 2007. For costs of the Navy shipbuilding plan, see CRS Report
RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for
Congress
, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS-9
Table 3. DOD Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2013
(amounts in billions of dollars)
Current Year Dollars
Constant FY2009 Dollars
Total
Base
Total
Base
Supplemental
Supplemental
DOD
DOD
DOD
DOD
FY1998
258.3
255.4
2.8
357.2
353.2
3.9
FY1999
278.4
269.3
9.1
375.1
362.9
12.2
FY2000
290.3
281.8
8.6
381.4
370.1
11.2
FY2001
318.7
299.3
19.4
405.8
381.1
24.6
FY2002
344.9
328.7
16.2
427.7
407.5
20.1
FY2003
437.7
375.1
62.6
526.0
450.8
75.2
FY2004
470.9
401.4
69.5
547.9
467.0
80.9
FY2005
483.9
381.9
101.9
540.7
426.8
113.9
FY2006
536.5
412.4
124.0
580.3
446.1
134.2
FY2007
603.0
431.7
171.3
635.5
455.0
180.5
FY2008
670.5
481.2
189.3
686.3
492.6
193.8
FY2009
588.3
518.3
70.0
588.3
518.3
70.0
FY2010
527.0
527.0

514.8
514.8

FY2011
533.1
533.1

508.5
508.5

FY2012
542.4
542.4

504.7
504.7

FY2013
552.7
552.7

501.8
501.8

Source: Total DOD budget and deflators from Department of Defense, National Defense Budget
Estimates Fiscal Year 2009
, March 2009; supplemental appropriations by CRS.
The disconnection between the size of the budget and the appeals for more
money appears even more striking when amounts that have been appropriated for war
costs are added to the equation. On top of a baseline DOD budget that has grown
from $255 billion in FY1998, in current year prices not adjusted for inflation, to
almost $520 billion in FY2008, supplemental appropriations for war-related costs
that have grown from $19.4 billion in FY2001, with an initial response to the 9/11
attacks, to $63 billion in FY2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, to an estimated $189
billion in FY2008. While large portions of the supplementals have been consumed
by war-related operating costs, substantial amounts have also been devoted to buying
new equipment, particularly for the Army and the Marine Corps. Although the bulk
of this acquisition has been for force protection communications, and transportation,
the effect has been to modernize much of the basic equipment stock of both services,
in effect augmenting their baseline budgets.
The fact that so large a level of spending appears to the military services to be
so inadequate has several explanations — and the policy implications are,
accordingly matters of varying interpretation.5 Reasons include —
5 These issues were discussed in a CRS seminar on the FY2009 defense budget on February
11, 2008. A video of the seminar is available on line or as a DVD to congressional offices.
See “FY2009 Defense Budget: Issues for Congress, Online, Video,” at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/MM70107.shtml]. The seminar slides illustrate
points discussed below, and are available at “FY2009 Defense Budget: Issues for Congress:
(continued...)

CRS-10
! Future baseline budgets are widely expected to decline: The
Administration plan to balance the federal budget by FY2012
includes limits on defense as well as non-defense spending. White
House budget projections accommodate an increase of about 5%
above inflation in the FY2009 DOD budget, but project a cumulative
decline of about 3% between FY2009 and FY2012. Many unofficial
projections of the deficit situation are less sanguine than the
Administration’s, so many analysts expect, at best, a flat baseline
defense budget for the foreseeable future.6 Increased costs in part of
the budget, therefore, will necessarily come at the expense of
resources available in other areas.
! Supplemental appropriations are expected to decline as well: While
plans to withdraw from Iraq are uncertain, the military services
expect that supplemental appropriations will come down within a
few years. Costs for training and equipment maintenance that have
been covered in supplementals, then, will migrate back into the
baseline budget at the expense of other programs, and money to
further upgrade ground forces will have to be found elsewhere.
! Costs of military personnel have grown dramatically in recent years:
Since the end of the 1990s, Congress has approved substantial
increases in military pay and benefits, including pay increases of ½
percent above civilian pay indices in 7 of the past 8 years, three
rounds of “pay table reform” that gave larger raises to personnel in
the middle grades, increased housing allowances to eliminate on-
base and off-base disparities, DOD-provided health insurance for
Medicare-eligible military retirees (known as “TRICARE” for Life),7
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability
benefits that had earlier been offset, elimination of a reduction in
retiree survivor benefits that had occurred at age 62, and large
increases in enlistment and reenlistment bonuses and special pays.
While bonuses and some other payments may decline in the future,
most of the past increases in pay and benefits have been built into
the basic cost of personnel. CRS calculates that uniformed
personnel now cost 40% more, after adjusting for inflation, than in
FY1999.8
5 (...continued)
A Powerpoint Summary,” at [http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/documents
/WD06002.pdf].
6 See, for example, the annual 10 year projections of defense spending by the Government
Electronics and Information Technology Association, at [http://www.geia.org/].
7 TRICARE is a DOD-run health insurance program for military dependents.
8 This reflects the military personnel budget divided by the number of active duty personnel,
indexed for inflation using the consumer price index. See the slides cited in Footnote 6 for
a graph that illustrates the trend.

CRS-11
! Operating costs continue to grow above base inflation: Historically,
military operation and maintenance budgets, which pay for
everything from personnel training, to weapons repairs, to facility
operations, to health care, have increased relative to the size of the
force by about 2.5% per year above inflation. These increases are
not as large as in some areas of the civilian economy, such as health
care, but they do not reflect gains in productivity that are common
in other sectors of the economy. Continued growth in operating
costs, which is now widely seen as a fact of life in defense planning,
erodes the availability of resources for weapons modernization and
other priorities.
! Increasing generational cost growth in major weapons programs: It
is generally expected that new generations of weapons will be more
expensive than the systems they replace as weapons technology
advances. The rate of generational cost growth, however, is
becoming a matter of increasing concern within the Defense
Department. New stealthy aircraft, multi-mission ships, advanced
space systems, and networked missiles, guns, and vehicles appear to
be getting more expensive than their predecessors at a greater rate
than in the past. Unless budgets increase more rapidly than costs,
trade-offs between the costs of new weapons and the size of the
force may be required.
! Poor cost estimates: The difficulties engendered by accelerating
inter-generational weapons cost growth are exacerbated by poor cost
estimation. The Government Accountability Office has documented
frequent, substantial increases in costs of major defense systems
compared to original development estimates. A side-effect of
inaccurate cost projections is to exacerbate instability in the overall
defense budget, which entails inefficient production rates for major
weapons programs and increased costs due to changing production
plans.9
! New requirements based on the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan: The
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to very large increases in
equipment requirements for ground forces, particularly for force
protection, communications, and transportation. National Guard
combat units that earlier were equipped with older systems cascaded
from active units are now seen as part of the rotation base that
require equally modern equipment. And full sets of current
equipment are also expected to be available not only for next-to-
deploy units, but also for units as they begin to reset from overseas
rotations. A key lesson of the war is that what used to be called
9 For GAO’s most recent annual overview of defense acquisition cost growth, see
Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon
Programs
, GAO-08-467SP March 31, 2008, at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items
/d08467sp.pdf].

CRS-12
“minor procurement” for ground forces was substantially under-
capitalized.
! A broader range of national security challenges: A common
presumption before 9/11 was that forces trained and equipped for
traditional conflicts between national armies would be able to cope
with what were seen as less demanding other challenges such as
stability operations. Now the view is that forces must be designed
not only for traditional conflicts, but for insurgencies and other
irregular wars, support of allies, threats of catastrophic attacks by
non-state actors with weapons of mass destruction, and entirely new
kinds of disruptive attacks on specific U.S. and allied vulnerabilities.
The effect has been to broaden requirements without, necessarily, an
attendant offsetting reduction in older force goals.
When these factors are taken as a whole, it is not so surprising that military
planners discover some shortfalls. But, for Congress, it may not be so obvious that
the principle answer is simply to provide more money for defense. As a practical
matter, the arguments for more money that senior military leaders have begun to lay
out appear most likely to become matters of debate in Congress once the next
Administration takes office. The next Secretary of Defense, and the 111th Congress,
may, very early on, face a contentious debate about defense resources.
More money is one alternative. Other alternatives may include backing away
from plans to add 92,000 active duty troops to the Army and Marine Corps; shifting
resources among the military services to reflect new challenges rather than allocating
them roughly the same proportions every year; reviewing requirements for expensive
new technologies in view of the presence or absence of technologically peer or near
peer competitors; and shifting resources from military responses to global threats
toward non-military means of prevention. The defense budget environment,
however, appears likely to be troubling enough that it will force some attention to
these matters earlier in the term of the next President rather than much later.
Potential Issues in the FY2009 Base
Budget Request
Following is a brief summary of some of the other issues that may emerge
during congressional action on the FY2009 defense authorization and appropriations
bills, based on congressional action in prior years and early debate surrounding the
President’s pending request.
Military Pay Raise
The budget includes $2 billion to give military personnel a 3.4% pay raise
effective January 1, 2009, an increase that would keep pace with the average increase
in private-sector wages as measured by the Labor Department’s Employment Cost

CRS-13
Index (ECI), as required by law.10 For several years, some have contended that
service members’ pay should increase at a faster rate than the annual increase in the
ECI in order to compensate for a lag in military pay resulting from budget-
constrained pay hikes in the 1990s. DOD officials deny that any such pay-gap exists,
but Congress typically has sided with the advocates of larger increases. For every
fiscal year but one since FY2000, Congress has mandated a military pay increase
one-half percent higher than the rate of increase in the ECI.
Army and Marine Corps End-Strength Increases
The budget includes $20.5 billion to pay for the costs in FY2009 of the $112
billion multi-year plan to increase active-duty end-strength by a total of 92,000 Army
and Marine Corps personnel. Most of the additional personnel are slated for
assignment to newly created combat units — Army brigade combat teams and
Marine regiments — which would enlarge the pool of units available for overseas
deployment. This would make it easier for the services to sustain overseas roughly
the number of troops currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan while allowing
soldiers and Marines to spend more time between deployments at their home bases
for rest and retraining. The plan has been challenged by some who note that, after the
initial investment costs have been covered, the additional units would cost about $13
billion annually, in a time when the total DOD budget is expected to be relatively
flat. It also has been criticized by some who contend that the Army in particular
needs more units organized and trained especially for counter-insurgency and
advisory missions more than it needs additional traditional combat units.11
TRICARE Fees and Co-pays
For the third consecutive year, the Administration’s budget assumes that part of
the cost of the Defense Health program — $1.2 billion in the pending FY2009
request — will be covered by an increase in fees, co-payments and deductibles
charged to retirees under the age of 65 who participate in TRICARE, DOD’s medical
insurance program for active and retired service members and their dependents. The
increases are intended partly to restrain the rapid growth of DOD’s annual health-care
budget — projected to reach $64 billion by FY2015 — and partly to compensate for
the fact that TRICARE fees have not been increased since 1995.12 This year, as in
the two previous years, the proposed fee increases are vehemently opposed by
organizations representing service members and military retirees who argue that
giving medical care to retirees on favorable terms is appropriate given the unique
hardships of a military career. Congress rejected the proposed fee hikes in the
10 See CRS Report for Congress RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and
Answers
, by Charles A. Henning.
11 See CRS Report RL34333, Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Force or Specialized
Units? Background and Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
12 For background, see Government Accountability Office report GAO-07-647, Military
Health Care: TRICARE Cost-Sharing Proposals Would Help Offset Increasing Health Care
Spending, but Projected Savings Are Likely Overestimated
, May 2007.

CRS-14
FY2007 and FY2008 budget proposals, and the Senate Armed Services Committee
has done so in drafting its version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill.
War Funding
As has been the case in recent years, this year it appears that funding for military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere will be provided in emergency
supplemental appropriations bills rather than through the regular defense
authorization and appropriations process. A second supplemental FY2008
appropriations bill, which the House plans to take up the week of May 5, is widely
expected to include a $65-70 billion “bridge fund” to cover essential operational
costs well into calendar year 2009 — quite likely though June or July.13 This would
leave it to the next Administration to decide to how much to request in a second, full
year supplemental to finance equipment reset, equipment upgrade, and some other
costs.
The FY2009 defense authorization, however, may also formally approve
FY2009 war-related funding in a separate title of the bill. The Senate Armed
Services Committee included $70 billion for war costs in Title XV of its bill, and the
House Armed Services Committee may do the same. While this will have no direct
effect on funding, which is determined by appropriations bills in any event, some
policy measures may be included in the authorization. In its markup of the
authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee includes provisions
requiring that much of the reconstruction assistance provided to Iraq, a large amount
of which is included in the Defense Department budget,14 be delivered as loans rather
than grants.
Projected Navy Strike Fighter Shortfall
Some analyses of the number of F-18 strike fighters available to the Navy show
a substantial shortfall of aircraft from about the middle of the next decade until about
2025, when the full planned number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters becomes available.
The number of available aircraft, however, depends on assumptions about the
number of hours that current aircraft can fly, and at what cost for maintenance,
upgrades, and overhauls. Boeing has recently offered to sell additional F/A-18E/F
versions of the aircraft to the Navy for about $50 million apiece, as much as 10%
cheaper than planned for additional aircraft, if the Navy agrees to buy 170 aircraft in
a multiyear contract that would have early termination penalties. Several Members
of Congress have expressed concerns about the potential shortfall and may propose
13 CRS calculates that $55-$60 billion in supplemental funding, if allocated mainly to Army,
Marine Corps, and Air Force operation and maintenance, to Army personnel, to the JIED
Defeat Fund, and to the Afghanistan and Iraq Security Forces Funds, would be enough to
carry on operations through the end of July, 2009.
14 DOD provided assistance includes reconstruction grants distributed by local U.S. military
commanders through the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP), which
totaled $850 million in FY2007 for both Iraq and Afghanistan, and security assistance
provided through the Iraq and Afghanistan Security Forces Funds, which, together, totaled
$5.5 billion for Iraq and $7.4 billion for Afghanistan in FY2007.

CRS-15
that the FY2009 authorization approve a new multiyear deal. Future funding for the
additional aircraft, however, might compete with funds for other projects, particularly
if defense budgets level off in the 2010s.15
LPD-17-Class Ship Procurement
For the past two years, the Marine Corps has included a request for an additional
LPD-17-class amphibious ship, which would be the 10th to be bought, at the top of
its unfunded priorities list. There has been some support in Congress for adding a
10th LPD, but funding might have to come at the cost of financing for surface
combatant ships such as the DDG-1000 destroyer. Support for shifting money from
the DDG-1000 to LPDs or other ships that have been in production for some time
comes partly from advocates of the Marine Corps and from legislators who represent
the Gulf coast, where the ship would be built. In addition, there has been some
support for a shift because the cost and design of the LPD-17 — as for TAKE
auxiliary ships and DDG-51 destroyers — has been stable for some time.16
Funding for DDG-1000 Destroyers versus Other Ships
A directly related issue is whether Congress will agree to continue funding
DDG-1000 acquisition. The Administration’s FY2009 request includes $2.6 billion
for a third DDG-1000. Several legislators on the defense committees have proposed
eliminating the funds and using the money instead to buy a mix of LPD-17, TAKE
auxiliary ships, and DDG-51 destroyers. This would spread available shipbuilding
money more widely to sustain the industrial base, provide funding to programs in
which costs are stable and more predictable, and also allocate funds to less expensive
ships that might be built, in the long run, in larger numbers to sustain the Navy’s 313
ship fleet.
Littoral Combat Ship Funding
The Administration has also requested $920 million for two Littoral Combat
Ships (LCS). This is a relatively small, lower cost ship with a common hull to
support modular designs for several purposes. It is intended to be bought in large
numbers over time for operations in relatively close-to-shore waters. The program
has suffered significant cost growth, however, raising questions about the number of
ships that can be afforded. Last year, Congress cut funding for all but one ship and
shifted the savings to purchase other ships. This year may again be a test of
congressional support for the ship in view of continuing cost issues.17
15 Megan Scully, “Boeing Presses Armed Services Panels To Have Navy Buy More Super
Hornets,” National Journal Congress Daily AM, April 29, 2008.
16 Geoff Fein, “Lawmakers Hope To Add Three More Ships To Navy’s FY ‘09 Procurement
Plan,” Defense Daily, February 28, 2008.
17 See CRS Report to Congress RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship(LCS) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS-16
CG-X Design
The CG-X is the current designation for a new ship dedicated to missile defense
missions. Its design was, for many years, expected to be based on the DDG-1000.
Now, however, it appears that the Navy is inclined to build a substantially larger ship.
Some defense committee members have raised questions about the status of the
Navy’s design and about the affordability of the program. There has also been some
support in Congress for building a nuclear powered cruiser.18
Reliable Replacement Warhead
There has been a great deal of controversy in Congress in recent years about the
Energy Department’s plans to design a new nuclear warhead intended, according to
its advocates, to take advantage of new technologies to improve safety and reliability
in a new warhead to replace deteriorating older systems. In the past, Congress has
provided funding only for conceptual design of the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW), but it has not permitted funds to be used for engineering development. The
FY2008 consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 110-161, which included energy and
water appropriations, provided no DOE funds for the RRW. In the FY2009 budget,
DOE has requested $10 million for RRW design, and the Navy has requested $23
million.19
Missile Defense
The Administration requested $9.3 billion for missile defense R&D in FY2009.
While Congress has generally supported about the level of spending the
Administration has requested in recent years, it has frequently reduced funding for
technologically more challenging systems such as the kinetic energy interceptor
program to intercept missiles in the boost phase, and it has increased funding for
currently deployed systems, mainly the Patriot PAC III theater defense system. For
the past two years, Congress has also eliminated money to begin construction at
missile defense sites in Europe, saying in various reports that the funding was
premature because there was no firm agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic
where deployment is planned. The FY2009 request includes $132.6 million for
military construction at an interceptor site in Europe, which is planned in Poland, and
$108.5 million for military construction at a radar site, which is planned in the Czech
Republic.20
18 See CRS Report to Congress RL34179, CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background, Oversight
Issues and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O’Rourke.
19 For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead
Program: Background and Current Developments
, by Jonathan Medalia.
20 For the current status of the program, see CRS Report RL34051, Long-Range Ballistic
Missile Defense in Europe
, by Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek.

CRS-17
Long-Range Non-Nuclear Prompt Global Strike
For the past several years, the Administration has pursued programs that might
permit it to deploy conventional warheads on long-range missiles that now carry
nuclear warheads. In recent years, this effort has focused on the possible deployment
of conventional warheads on Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The
funding requests sought to continue R&D on the reentry vehicle that would carry the
warhead, and have sought to begin modifying and equipping Trident missiles and
submarines to carry the new reentry vehicles. Congress has not approved this
funding. In FY2007, it permitted the continuing R&D on the reentry vehicle, but did
not fund the programs that would modify the missiles and submarines. In FY2008,
Congress again rejected all funding for the conventional Trident modification, and
aggregated the funding for research on the reentry vehicle with other DOD funding
for research on prompt global strike technologies. It directed that DOD explore all
options for achieving the PGS mission, and not focus on the near-term Trident
option. Congress has objected to the Trident option in part because of doubts that the
capability is needed immediately, and in part because of concerns that other nations
might mistake the nature of a U.S. Trident missile launch. Congress appropriated
$100 million for this combined program in FY2008; the Administration has
requested $117 million for FY2009.21
Future Combat Systems
The FY2009 budget request includes $3.6 billion to continue development and
begin production of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS is a computer-
networked array of 14 types of manned and unmanned ground and aerial vehicles
intended to replace the Army’s current fleet of combat vehicles, including M-1
Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry vehicles, beginning in 2015. The Army has
estimated that the entire program could cost $230 billion over many years and the
Defense Department’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) projects the cost
to be $300 billion. Critics have assailed the program on several grounds: some argue
that it is unaffordable; some contend that it is optimized to fight the sort of
conventional battles at which the U.S. Army already excels rather than the
insurgencies, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it may be more likely to
confront; and some object that the program as currently scheduled will take too long
to get more effective weapons into the hands of the troops.22 In FY2006-08, Congress
cut a total of $789 million from the Army’s FCS budget requests. This year, House
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha has suggested that
near-term funding for the program be increased by $20 billion to accelerate
deployment of those elements of FCS nearest completion, at the expense of
cancelling or delaying other elements of the program.23
21 See CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by Amy F. Woolf.
22 See CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and
Issues for Congress
, by Andrew Feickert.
23 Defense News, “Battle Over Proposal to Speed FCS,” by Kris Osborne, March 24, 2008.

CRS-18
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine
For the third consecutive year, the Administration has proposed cancellation of
the effort to develop the General Electric F-136 engine as a potential alternative to
the Pratt & Whitney F-135 currently slated to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The $6.7 billion requested for the F-35 program in FY2009 includes $3.1 billion to
continue development of the plane and $3.7 billion to buy 16 aircraft, but no funds
to continue development of the alternative engine. DOD has argued that the
alternative engine is a needless expense because the process of designing and
developing high-performance jet engines has become much less uncertain than it
once was. But Congress has backed development of the alternate engine since 1996,
likening the current situation to the case of the F-15 fighter in the late 1970s which
was handicapped by problems with its Pratt&Whitney-built engines until Congress
mandated development of an alternative (GE-built) engine. To keep the F-35
alternative engine program going, Congress added $340 million to the FY2007
budget and $480 million to the FY2008 budget.
F-22 Fighter
Congress may want to consider whether to add funds to the Air Force’s F-22
fighter program either to shut down production or to continue it. Although Air Force
officials have argued vigorously for purchase of 381 of the planes, DOD plans to buy
only 183, with the last 20 paid for by $3.4 billion included in the FY2009 budget.
However, the request includes no funds to pay for closing the F-22 production line
in an orderly way that would facilitate its resuscitation at a later date. Reportedly, the
shut down could cost as much as $500 million.24 DOD officials have said they may
include in the FY2009 war cost supplemental request — not yet sent to Congress —
funds to buy four additional F-22s which, they contend, would defer the necessity of
a shut down decision until the next Administration had time to decide whether to
continue production or end it.25 However others deny that funding for four planes
would delay the need for a decision long enough to make a difference.
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker
Critics may try to block funding for the KC-45, a tanker version of the
European-designed Airbus A330 which the Air Force selected rather than a version
of the Boeing 767 to replace aging Boeing-built KC-135 refueling tankers.26 Airbus
builder EADS has partnered by Northrop Grumman to build the KC-45. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) is reviewing a protest of the Air Force
decision filed by Boeing, which contends that the contract was awarded unfairly.
GAO is expected to rule on the protest by June 19. The FY2009 budget request
24 Aviation Week and Space Technology, “Fate of F-22, C-17 Lines Uncertain in Fiscal
2009,” by Amy Butler and David A. Fulgham, February 11, 2008.
25 Ibid.
26 See CRS Report RL34398, Air Force Air Refueling: The KC-X Aircraft Acquisition
Program
, by William Knight and Christopher Bolkcom.

CRS-19
includes $62 million for components that would be used in the first five KC-45s and
$832 million to continue developing the tanker.
C-17 Cargo Jet
As with the F-22 fighter program, so with the C-17 long-range cargo plane. The
Administration’s FY2009 budget request includes neither funds to buy components
to continue C-17 production, as many have urged, nor the funds that would be
needed to terminate production. As with the case of the F-22, the Administration has
said that the next President should decide the future of the C-17 program. While
some DOD studies have concluded that the 190 C-17s previously funded will suffice,
critics challenge that assessment on several grounds. While some in Congress favor
production of additional C-17s, others favor upgrades to older C-5 cargo planes DOD
plans to retire.27
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of
Congressional Action to Date
Congressional Budget Resolution
Congress has begun, but has not completed, work on the annual congressional
budget resolution, which will include recommended ceilings for FY2009 and the
following four years on budget authority and outlays for national defense and other
broad categories (or “functions”) of federal expenditure. These functional ceilings are
not binding on the Appropriations committees nor do they formally constrain the
authorizing committees in any way. However, the budget resolution’s ceilings on the
so-called “050 function” — the budget accounts funding the military activities of
DOD and the defense-related activities of the Department of Energy and other
agencies — have in the past indicated the general level of support in the House and
Senate for the President’s overall defense budget proposal.
Both the House version of the budget resolution (H Con Res 312), adopted
March 13, and the Senate version ( S. Con Res 70), adopted March 14, set the budget
authority ceiling for the 050 “national defense” function at $612.5 billion. This is
essentially identical to the President’s request ($611.1 billion) with the difference
reflecting recalculation by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the basis of
slightly different technical assumptions.
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill
The House passed H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2009, on May 22 by a vote of 384-23. The bill would
authorize $531.4 billion for national defense-related activities of DOD and other
27 See CRS Report RL34264, Strategic Airlift Modernization: Analysis of C-5
Modernization and C-17 Acquisition Issues
, by William Knight and Christopher Bolkcom.

CRS-20
federal agencies and an additional $70 billion for costs related to military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Administration’s initial FY2009 budget request included a lump-sum of
$70 billion as an initial increment of funding for DOD and other agency costs related
to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. On May 2, five days before the House
Armed Services Committee (HASC) subcommittees began marking up H.R. 5658,
the Administration issued a budget amendment formally allocating the $70 billion
request among appropriations accounts. However HASC, which also authorized the
$70 billion by accounts in H.R. 5658, acknowledged only a handful of the specific
allocations included in the May 2 amendment. The bill authorizes $2.0 billion of the
$3.7 billion requested to support Afghan Security Forces and $1.4 billion of the $2.0
billion requested for support of Iraqi Security Forces.
Within the $70 billion authorized for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
House bill also allocates nearly $4.9 billion for aircraft procurement programs not
included in the Administration’s budget request:
! $3.9 billion to buy 15 C-17 cargo planes;
! $523 million for components that would be needed to fund an
additional 10 F-22 Air Force fighters in FY2010;
! $448 million to repair worn out wing structures on Navy P-3C patrol
planes, which have been used extensively for reconnaissance in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Congress has incorporated the Administration’s $70 billion FY2009 costs
related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into H.R. 2642, the Second FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Bill.28
The House version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill also included a
provision (Sec. 1431) that would exempt it from the President’s Executive Order
13457, which prohibits agencies from complying with congressional earmarks not
specified in statutory language. As is customary, the more than 500 earmarks
associated with H.R. 5658 are specified in the HASC report accompanying the bill
(H Rept 110-652), which it reported to the House on May 16.
In a Statement of Administration Policy issued May 22, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) cited the provision exempting the bill from the
executive order dealing with earmarks as one of many provisions which, if included
in the final version of the bill, would cause the President’s advisors to recommend
a veto. Other provisions of H.R. 5658 cited by OMB as potential reasons for a veto
are reductions totaling more than $700 million in the $10.8 billion requested for
missile defense programs, a prohibition of proposed increases in health care fees and
copays paid by some military retirees, and a provision requiring that any agreement
28 For details, see CRS Report to Congress RL34451, Second FY2008 Supplemental
Appropriations Bill for Military Operations, International Affairs and Other Purposes
, by
Stephen Daggett, et al.

CRS-21
with the Iraqi government concerning the legal status of U.S. military personnel in
that country include a requirement that Iraq pay some of the costs of those forces.29
Pay Raise, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues. H.R. 5658 authorizes
a military pay raise of 3.9 percent, rather than 3.4 percent as requested, and bars
during FY2009 a proposed increase in TRICARE health insurance and pharmacy fees
charged to some military retirees. Congress had prohibited proposed health care fee
increases in each of the two previous budgets. To offset the lost revenue the proposed
fee increases had been expected to generate, the bill would authorize, subject to
appropriation, the transfer to the Defense Health Program of $1.3 billion from the
unobligated balances of the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
As requested, the bill would authorize increases in the active-duty end-strength
of the Army (by 7,000) and Marine Corps (by 5,000), in line with the
Administration’s plan to increase the active-duty end-strength of the two services by
92,000 personnel over their end-strength in FY2007. It also would add a total 1,431
personnel to the requested end-strength of the Navy and Air Force (at a cost of $101
million). The Administration had proposed to substitute civilians for this number of
Navy and Air Force military personnel in medical care positions. But the House bill
reaffirms a provision of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-
181) prohibiting such military-to-civilian conversions of medical personnel.
The bill also includes a provision that would allow a limited number of service
members to take sabbaticals from active service for up to three years and return with
no loss of rank or time-in-service.
Tanker, Cargo, and Patrol Planes. The bill denies authorization of $62
billion requested for long lead-time components to begin procurement of the
Northrop Grumman KC-45A refueling tanker, but approved the request for $832
million to continue development of the aircraft. Some members have objected to the
Air Force’s selection of the Northrop Grumman system, based on a European-
designed Airbus for this mission, rather than a tanker version of the Boeing 767.
According to the committee, denial of the long lead-time funding would not delay the
program.
The bill includes a provision (Section 134) requiring the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the process by
which the requirements were established that were the basis for selecting a new
tanker. Another provision (Section 801) requires the Secretary of the Air Force to
review the impact on the decision to buy the European-designed tanker of any
subsidies by European governments that are illegal under the agreement reached in
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Although the budget request included no funds either to continue production of
the C-17 cargo plane or to shut down the production line, the bill allocates $3.9
billion of the $70 billion requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to buy an
additional 15 C-17s. It also includes a provision (Section 131) that would allow the
29 Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy.

CRS-22
Air Force to retire C-5A cargo planes and replace them with additional C-17s only
if a federally funded research and development center concludes that this would be
more prudent than upgrading the engines and electronics on the C-5As.
Fighter Planes.
The bill authorizes $3 billion requested for 20 F-22 fighters.
However, it also adds to the bill authorization of $523 million for long lead-time
components that would be used to build an additional 20 F-22s in FY2010. The
Administration’s request includes neither the funds that would be needed to continue
production of the F-22 beyond FY2009 nor the funds that would be needed to close
down the production line.
The bill authorizes the requests for $3.1 billion to continue development of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and $3.7 billion to buy 16 of the planes. But it would
add to the Administration request $525 million to continue development of an
alternative engine for the JSF.
Future Combat Systems (FCS). The bill cuts $200 million from the $3.6
billion requested for the Army’s FCS program. Armed Services Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee chair Neil Abercrombie said these cuts were targeted to slow
production of some components until they were more thoroughly tested. If the
proposal were enacted, it would mark the fourth consecutive budget in which
Congress trimmed the funding request for FCS.
The bill also includes several legislative restrictions on the FCS program,
including a requirement for annual reports to Congress on cost growth in the
program’s eight types of manned ground vehicles (Section 213), an independent
report on potential vulnerabilities of the digital communications web intended to link
FCS components (Section 212), and a provision that would bar the program’s lead
system integrators, Boeing and SAIC, from producing major components of the
program (Section 112).30
Anti-Missile Defense. The bill authorizes a total of $10.1 billion for missile
defense programs, which would be $719 million less than the President requested,
but $213 million more than Congress appropriated for these programs in FY2008
(See Table A2). It cuts the amounts requested for several programs intended to deal
with long-range missiles and added to the amounts requested for defenses against
short-range and medium-range missiles which, HASC said in its report, are the more
pervasive threat.
Among the reductions were cuts totaling $372 million from the $954 million
requested to begin deploying in Poland and the Czech Republic an anti-missile
system intended to deal with long-range missiles launched from Iran. The bill also
includes a provision (Section 222) that would bar the proposed European deployment
until (1) the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic have ratified agreements
to accept the stationing of U.S. personnel and equipment on their territories; and (2)
30 (For additional background on DOD’s use of contractors as “lead system integrators,” see
CRS Report to Congress RS22631, Defense Acquisition: Use of Lead System Integrators
(LSIs): Background, Oversight Issues and Options for Congress,
by Valerie Bailey Grasso.

CRS-23
the Secretary of Defense has certified to Congress that the interceptor missiles
intended for the European site — a modified variant of the interceptors currently
deployed in Alaska and California — has passed operationally realistic flight tests.
The bill cut $100 million from the $386 million requested to develop a new,
high-speed interceptor missile (designated the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (or KEI)
and it cut $43 million from the $421 million requested to develop an anti-missile
laser carried in a Boeing 747. The KEI and Airborne Laser both are intended to
destroy attacking missiles while in their “boost phase,” that is while they still are
accelerating away from their launchers and, thus, are relatively easy to detect. The
bill included a provision (Section 221) requiring a detailed analysis by a federally
funded research and development center of the technical feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of such boost-phase defenses, compared with various anti-missile
systems already deployed or nearing production.
The bill cuts from the request $100 million of the $354 million to develop a
multiple-warhead interceptor able to hit several attacking missiles. It also cuts $10
million, the entire amount requested for the Space Test Bed, an experiment to test the
feasibility of space-based anti-missile interceptors.
Shipbuilding. In its report, HASC criticized the Navy’s shipbuilding plan as
both unaffordable and unwise — the latter in that it would end production of proven
ship classes while investing large amounts in expensive, new, unproven designs: the
DDG-1000 destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship. Compared with the
Administration’s request, H.R. 5658 significantly increases or decreases funding for
most major shipbuilding programs.
The bill denies the $2.5 billion requested in FY2009 to build a third ship of the
DDG-1000 class. Instead, it adds to the budget a tenth ship of the LPD-17 class of
amphibious landing transports ($1.7 billion) and $278 million to buy long lead-time
components for use in two additional T-AKE-class supply ships, designed to
replenish warships in mid-ocean, that would be funded in FY2009. It also authorizes
$400 million, which the Navy could use either to buy components that could be used
to build an additional DDG-1000 or to resume production of the much less expensive
DDG-51-class destroyers. HASC Seapower Subcommittee chair Gene Taylor has
urged the Navy to use the funds to continue DDG-51 procurement.
To buy two additional Littoral Combat Ships, the bill authorized $840 million
rather than the $920 million requested, on grounds that the contractors could use
components previously purchased for ships of this class that had been cancelled.
The bill authorizes $722 million more than the $3.4 billion requested for
acquisition of Virginia-class submarines. The request would buy one sub in FY2009
and long lead-time components (including a nuclear powerplant) to be used in
another sub slated for purchase in FY2010. The bill’s addition would let the Navy
buy enough long lead-time components in FY2009 to allow the purchase of two subs
in FY2010, thus accelerating by one year the time when the Navy could begin buying
subs at the rate of two per year.

CRS-24
Reflecting HASC’s concern that the Administration’s shipbuilding plan shows
little progress toward meeting its avowed goal of increasing the size of the fleet to
313 ships, the bill did not grant the Administration’s request that Congress waive a
provision of law (10 U.S.C. § 5062) that requires the Navy to maintain 11 aircraft
carriers in service. To avoid the cost of refueling the nuclear-powered carrier
Enterprise, the Navy wants to retire that ship in 2013, which would cause the carrier
force to drop to 10 ships for four years or more, until the carrier George H. W. Bush,
which was funded in FY2005, enters service. Instead of including the requested
waiver in the bill, HASC directed the Secretary of the Navy to report how much it
would cost and how long it would take to return to service the recently retired carrier
John F. Kennedy and to retain in service the carrier Kitty Hawk, which is slated for
retirement.
HASC also directed the Navy secretary to report on the cost and feasibility of
extending the service life of existing Los Angeles-class submarines, many of which
are nearing their scheduled retirement dates.
Prepositioning Ships. The bill denies the $348 million requested for long
lead-time components to be used in a modified version of the LHA-class helicopter
carriers used to carry Marine combat units. The ship — for which the projected total
cost is $3.5 billion — would be the first of a new Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) (or MPF(F)) comprising 10-12 ships from which a Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (typically numbering 20,000 troops with several dozen supporting
helicopters and combat jets) could be put ashore.
Unlike the currently deployed maritime prepositioning force, which consists of
container ships and vehicle-carrying “roll-on, roll-off” (or RO-RO) vessels, the
proposed MPF(F) would include three modified versions of the big helicopter carriers
that are part of the Navy’s amphibious warfare fleet. However, like the current
prepositioning ships, the MPF(F) is not intended to land a force that would have to
fight its way ashore. Such so-called “assault” landings are to remain the province of
the amphibious landing ships. Accordingly, MPF(F) vessels based on amphibious
ship designs — such as the helicopter carriers — will be built without some of the
communications equipment and damage-control features found in their combat-
equipped counterparts.
In its report, HASC challenged the idea of using non-combatant ships — like
those envisioned for the MPF(F) — rather than amphibious landing ships designed
as combat vessels. It directed the Navy to report the number and types of amphibious
ships that would be needed to carry out the MPF(F) mission.
The bill also includes a provision (Section 1013) requiring that helicopter
carriers and other large amphibious landing ships be nuclear-powered. A similar
provision requirement covering aircraft carriers, large surface warships and
submarines was included in the FY2008 defense authorization bill.
Iraq Policy Provisions. The bill authorizes $1 billion of the $2 billion
requested for training and support of Iraqi Security Forces and $1.5 billion for the
Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP), a fund available to U.S.
commanders in Iraq to pay for reconstruction projects. However, the bill also

CRS-25
includes a provision (Section 1214b) requiring that Iraq obligate one dollar on
similar reconstruction projects for every two dollars spent by CERP. The Secretary
of Defense may waive the requirement under certain circumstances.
The bill includes provisions requiring that future budget requests list separately
those items related to operations in Afghanistan (Section 1002) and Iraq (Section
1003). It also would continue an existing prohibition on the use of funds either to
establish permanent bases in Iraq or to control Iraqi oil revenues (Section 1211).
The bill also would require:
! a report by the President on any agreement with the Iraqi
government concerning the legal status of U.S. personnel in Iraq,
U.S. rights of access to bases in that country, the rules of
engagement governing U.S. units in Iraq, or any U.S. security
commitment to Iraq (Section 1212);
! periodic reports by the President on the strategy and performance of
U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq (Section 1213);
! establishment of a performance monitoring system for Provincial
Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan (Section 1215);
! a report by the Secretary of Defense on the command and control
structure for U.S. and NATO-led military forces in Afghanistan
(Section 1216); and
! a report by the Secretary of Defense on (1) the number of police
training teams needed to staff a majority of the 1,100 police stations
in Iraq; (2) the cost of staffing such an effort; and (3) the feasibility
of transferring responsibility for Iraqi police training from DOD to
the Department of State (Section 1218).
Other Highlights. Among other provisions of H.R. 5658 as passed by the
House are the following:
! Denial of authorization for the $10 million requested to develop a
new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, intended
to replace some currently deployed warheads on Trident submarine-
launched ballistic missiles;
! Authorization of $118 million, as requested, for development of a
long-range, conventionally armed missile for “prompt global strike.”
No funds had been requested to develop a conventionally armed
version of the Navy’s Trident submarine-launched, nuclear-armed
missile, which Congress has refused to fund in prior budgets;
! Authorization of $1 billion as requested to continue development of
the VH-71, a new fleet of White House helicopters. Citing cost

CRS-26
overruns in the Lockheed Martin program, which is based on a
European-designed aircraft, HASC directed DOD to report
alternatives for future production;
! Prohibition for one year of so-called “A-76” competitions in which
private contractors bid to take over work currently performed by
federal employees (Section 325);
! A requirement that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
draft a government-wide definition of “inherently governmental
functions” that should be performed by federal employees rather
than by contractors (Section 322).
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action
The House passed H.R. 5658 May 22 by a vote of 384-23 after two days of
debate, during which it adopted several amendments bearing the U.S. military
posture in the Middle East and a wide-ranging amendment to federal contracting law.
Agreements with Iraq. An amendment by Representative Barbara Lee,
adopted by a vote of 234-183, denies legal effect to any agreement obligating the
United States to defend Iraq unless the agreement is a treaty ratified with the advice
and consent of the Senate or is specifically authorized by Congress.
Long-term Cost of Operations in Iraq. An amendment by Representative
Braley, adopted by a vote of 245-168, requires the President to submit to Congress
a report on the long-term cost (through FY2068) of U.S. operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, including the costs of operations, reconstruction and health care and
disability benefits.
Detainee Interrogations. An amendment by Representative Holt, adopted
by a vote of 218-192, requires recording by videotape or other electronic method of
any interrogation of a detainee under the jurisdiction or effective control of DOD.
An amendment by Representative David Price, adopted by a vote of 240-168,
would prohibit the interrogation of detainees by contractors, although it would allow
the use of contractors as interpreters.
Intelligence on Iran. An amendment by Representative Spratt, adopted by
voice vote, would require the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress
an annual update of the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s
nuclear weapons program. The amendment also requires the President to notify
Congress within 15 days of determining that Iran has accelerated, decelerated or
ceased work on any significant element of its nuclear weapons program or that Iran
has met any major milestone in its effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Contracting Regulations. The House also adopted by voice vote an
amendment by Representative Waxman incorporating several provisions intended to

CRS-27
reduce the federal government’s use of sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts,
establish government-wide conflict-of-interest rules governing contractor employees
working in government contracting offices, and create a government-wide database
of any judicial proceeding, contract suspension or disbarment of any federal
contractor.
Among the other amendments to H.R. 5658 acted on by the House were the
following:
! An amendment by Representative Akin that would have restored
$193 million of the $200 million the bill would cut from the $3.6
billion request for the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS)
program, was rejected 128-287.
! An amendment by Representative Franks that would have restored
$719 million the bill cuts from the Administration’s $10.1 billion
request for anti-missile programs was rejected 186-229.
! An amendment by Representative Tierney that would have cut an
additional $966 million from the anti-missile budget was rejected
122-292.
! An amendment by Representative Pearce that would have restored
the $10 million requested to continue development of the Reliable
Replacement Warhead, a request the bill denies in its entirety, was
rejected 145-271.
! An amendment by Representative McGovern requiring the Secretary
of Defense to make public, on request, the names, ranks and
countries of origin of students and instructors at the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, was adopted 220-
180.
! An amendment by Representative Hodes, adopted by voice vote,
requires the DOD Inspector General and the General Accounting
Office to report on whether a prohibition on the use of appropriated
funds for domestic propaganda was violated by a Pentagon program
to provide special briefings for military analysts who are frequent
press commentators.
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Bill
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved S. 3001, the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2009, on April 30 and reported the bill to the
Senate on May 12 (S.Rept. 110-335). The bill authorizes a total of $612.5 billion in
new budget authority, including $542.5 billion for the base budget and a $70 billion
placeholder allowance for war-related costs. This is essentially the amount requested
by the President except for minor differences that reflect score-keeping adjustments
by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

CRS-28
The bill incorporates $2.0 billion worth of reductions to the Administration’s
military personnel and operation and maintenance budget requests which, to SASC,
would have no adverse impact on DOD operations. This includes cuts of $1.1 billion
from military personnel accounts and $212 million from operations and maintenance
accounts based on an historic pattern of DOD requesting for those amounts than it
spent in a given year, reductions totalling $198 million based on what the committee
said was an erroneously high request for civilian pay, and a reduction of $497 million
in the amount requested for depot maintenance of Air Force planes.
The $497 million the bill cuts from the Air Force maintenance account was
requested to repair a weak section of the structure of older F-15 fighters, after one of
the planes broke apart in mid-air during a training flight. In its report, SASC said a
much smaller number of planes had been found to need reconstruction than had been
assumed in the budget request.
President Bush’s Executive Order 13457 prohibits agencies from complying
with congressional earmarks not specified in statutory language; S. 3001 includes a
provision (Section 1002) that would incorporate into the bill the detailed funding
tables in the accompanying committee report, which would circumvent E.O. 13457.
These funding tables spell out how the Senate intends DOD and the services to
allocate the lump sums authorized for each appropriations account — for instance,
the accounts for procurement of aircraft for the Army and for research and
development for the Navy. Member’s earmarks, which are listed at the end of the
report in a separate table by sponsor, amount authorized, and intended beneficiary,
also are listed in the funding tables but are described there in more general terms
(rather than in terms of the specific entity intended to receive the authorized funding).
End-Strength, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues. On several
important military personnel questions, S. 3001 agrees with the House-passed
FY2009 authorization bill (H.R. 5658). Both bills approve the requested addition of
12,000 troops to the active-duty end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps, as a
step toward a planned increase of 92,000 troops over the FY2007 level. Similarly,
both bills authorize a 3.9% raise in military pay effective January 1, 2009, rather than
the 3.4% raise in the budget request, an increase that costs an additional $316
million.
Like the House bill, S. 3001 prohibits the Administration’s proposed increase
in fees, co-payments, and pharmacy prices charged some military retirees by DOD’s
TRICARE health insurance system. The bill adds to the budget request $1.2 billion
to make up for the loss of anticipated revenue from the proposed fee increases.
Unlike the House bill, however, and pursuant to an Administration request, the SASC
bill repeals a provision of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (Section 721 of
P.L. 110-181) that prohibits replacing military medical personnel with civilians, as
the Administration has proposed.
Shipbuilding. Unlike the House bill, S. 3001 authorizes $2.5 billion requested
for a third DDG-1000 class destroyer. However, the Senate bill also would expand
the Administration’s shipbuilding plan, rejecting the request for $103 million to shut
down production of LPD-17 class amphibious landing transports and adding to the
bill $273 million for long lead-time components that would allow the Navy to budget

CRS-29
for an additional LPD-17 in FY2010. It also adds $79 million to the $1.3 billion
requested for long lead-time components to allow the Navy to begin budgeting for
two submarines per year starting in FY2011.
Noting delays in the construction of helicopter carriers at the Northrop
Grumman shipyard in Pascagoula, MS, that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina,
SASC concluded that the contractor was unlikely to proceed as quickly as the budget
assumed to assemble long lead-time components for an LHA(R) class helicopter
carrier slated to be part of the planned Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future).
Accordingly, the bill authorizes $178 million of the $348 million requested for that
purpose. It also includes a provision (Section 1432) requiring the Navy to fund that
ship — and others slated for the MPF(F) that are basically amphibious landing ships
— through its ship construction account instead of through a revolving fund for
sealift ships, which gives the service more leeway to reallocate funds.
The bill adds $25 million to the $165 million requested to begin a $10 billion,
long-term program to modernize the 61 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers — its most
numerous class of warships — so they can operate for 40 years, rather than the 20
years that the committee cited as the norm for vessels of that size. But the committee
also directed the Navy to provide detailed justification of its decision to have the
ships upgraded in several stages by shipyards near their homeports instead of having
each one get a full upgrade from either the Northrop Grumman yard in Pascagoula
or the General Dynamics-owned Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME, the two yards where
all the ships were built.
Citing delays in finalizing the design of a new class of cruisers (designated
CG(X) that would replace the 22 Aegis cruisers in the anti-aircraft and missile
defense mission, the bill cut $121 million from the $313 million requested to prepare
to begin building the first CG(X) in FY2011.
Fighter Aircraft. In addition to authorizing $3.1 billion, as requested, to buy
20 F-22 fighters, the bill authorizes $497 million to be used either to shut down the
F-22 production line or to buy long lead-time components that would allow the Air
Force to buy 20 additional planes in FY2010.
The bill also authorizes, as requested, $3.1 billion to continue development of
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $3.3 billion to buy 16 of the planes, and $396 million
for long lead-time components to support future purchases. But it also adds to the
budget request $500 million to continue congressional effort to make DOD fund
development of a General Electric engine that could replace the Pratt & Whitney
engine currently used in the F-35. The added funds include $430 million to continue
developing the alternate engine, $35 million to develop improvements in the Pratt &
Whitney powerplant — to “level the playing field,” in the words of the SASC report
— and an additional $35 million to buy long lead-time components that would be
needed in future production of the alternate engine.
Citing warnings by the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force that the retirement
of older fighter planes combined with delays in fielding the F-22 and F-35 could
leave the services short of planes to equip their squadrons, the committee included
in the bill a provision (Section 171) requiring DOD to give Congress annually a

CRS-30
30-year plan detailing projected changes in its inventory of all major types of aircraft.
The committee also urged the Navy to prepare to sign a multi-year contract for more
F/A-18E/F strike fighters than it currently plans to buy, as a hedge against delays in
the acquisition of F-35s.
UAVs and Surveillance Planes. The bill authorizes $1.3 billion requested
to buy 52 Global Hawk and Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), some of
which would be armed but all of which are equipped for surveillance missions. It
trims $48 million from the $480 million requested to develop a long-range UAV for
maritime surveillance. But it authorizes $371 million requested for shorter-range
Army and Navy UAVs.
The bill adds to the budget request $98 million to develop an improved
ground-surveillance radar (designated R-TIP) which the committee urged the Air
Force to consider backfitting on the existing E-8 J-STARS planes. It authorizes $111
million requested for long lead-time components that would be used to begin
production of a modified Boeing 737 (designated P-8) that the Navy will use as a
long-range sub-hunter and reconnaissance plane and it authorizes $160 million, not
requested, to repair aging P-3 patrol planes that the P-8 is intended to replace.
Helicopters. Because the losing contractors have filed an official protest of
the Air Force’s selection of the Boeing Chinook as its new search and rescue
helicopter (designated CSAR-X) intended to retrieve downed pilots from enemy
territory, the bill authorizes $265 million of the $305 million requested to develop
the aircraft and none of the $15 million requested to buy long lead-time components
in preparation for manufacture. The bill authorizes the $1.0 billion requested to
continue development of the VH-71, intended to replace the aging helicopters that
serve the White House. But in its report, the committee cited a rash of problems
besetting the program which, it said, might experience of 70% cost overrun. The
report directs the Navy to submit to Congress a detailed report on the status of the
program.
Anti-Missile Defenses. Following the same general approach as the
companion House bill, S. 3001 would authorize less for anti-ballistic missile
defenses than the administration requested. Of the $10.9 million requested, the House
bill would authorize $9.9 billion and the Senate bill $10.2 billion (Table A-2).
Moreover, within those overall totals, both bills authorize more than was
requested for systems that are ready, or nearly ready, for deployment to deal with
existing short-range and medium-range missiles. On the other hand, both bills
authorize less than requested for programs that would not enter production that soon,
many of which are intended to deal with intercontinental-range missiles.
In its report, SASC places great emphasis on an analysis by the Joint Staff —
the body of officers that provide technical expertise to the Joint Chiefs of Staff —
which concludes that, to meet the needs of combatant commanders around the globe,
DOD needs about twice as many of the Army’s THAAD interceptors and the Navy’s
SM-3 interceptors missiles than it currently plans to buy. Both systems are designed
to knock down medium-range missiles, which fly much slower than intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs). S. 3001 would add to the budget request $135 million to

CRS-31
field additional THAAD and SM-3 missiles and THAAD radars and an additional
$80 million to improve the anti-missile capability of the Navy’s Aegis system, which
uses the SM-3 missile.
Among the reductions the bill would make in anti-missile programs are cuts of:
! $269 million (undistributed) from the Missile Defense Agency;
! $10 million, the entire amount requested, for the Space Test Bed;
and
! $50 million of $354 million requested for the Multiple Kill Vehicle,
intended to let one interceptor knock out several attacking warheads.
S. 3001 authorizes the funds requested to begin deploying in Europe a variant
of the defense against intercontinental-range missiles currently deployed in Alaska
and California. However, the bill includes a provision (Section 232) that would bar
use of the funds to buy interceptor missiles for that deployment or to begin
construction on-site until (1) Poland and the Czech Republic have formally ratified
agreements to allow the American sites on their terriritory and (2) the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that the interceptor slated for deployment at the
European site — which is a considerably modified variant of the version already
deployed — has been successfully tested in operationally realistic flight tests.
Other Highlights. Among other provisions of S. 3001 reported by the Senate
Armed Services Committee are the following:
! authorizes the services to let a limited number of personnel leave
active service for up to three years and return with no loss of rank or
time-in-service to test the feasibility of allowing service members
more flexibility in pursuing their careers,
! requires DOD to conduct a comprehensive study of the risk that
critical installations could be cut off from their current sources of
energy;
! requires DOD to establish ethics standards to prohibit conflicts of
interest on the part of contractor employees who perform acquisition
functions for the Department;
! bars private security contractors from performing in an area of
combat operations any “inherently governmental functions,” which
are defined to include “security operations if they will be performed
in highly hazardous public areas where the risks are uncertain and
could reasonably be expected to require deadly force that is more
likely to be initiated by contractor personnel than by others;
! prohibits contractor employees from interrogating detainees during
or in the aftermath of hostilities, a restriction that would take effect
one year after enactment of the bill;

CRS-32
! requires the armed services to ensure that field commanders “urgent
requirements” for specific equipment be presented to senior service
officials for review within 60 days of submission;
! adds $350 million to the $843 million requested to develop the
Transformational Satellite (TSAT), which would be a key node in a
planned, high-volume, global laser-communication network;
! authorizes the $10 million requested in the Energy Department’s
defense-related budget for research on the Reliable Replacement
Warhead, but denies authorization for the $23 million in the Navy’s
budget request for that proposed new nuclear warhead;
! prohibits, with a few exceptions, the use of funds authorized by the
bill to pay for infrastructure projects in Iraq costing more than $2
million.
Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and
Senate Versions of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill31

The House-passed and the Senate committee-reported versions of the FY2009
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) include Iraq policy provisions. Some
are requirements for reports to the Congress from the President or from the Secretary
of Defense, while others are designed to have a more direct impact on activities in
Iraq. The only point of overlap is language in both drafts that would extend a
prohibition from the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, P.L. 110-181, against the use of
funding to support permanent stationing of U.S. military forces in Iraq or to exercise
control over Iraqi oil resources. Table 4, below, provides a side-by-side summary
of Iraq policy provisions in each bill.
Table 4. Side-By-Side Comparison of Iraq Policy Provisions in
House and Senate Defense Authorization Bills
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 5658)
Senate-Reported Bill (S. 3001)
IRAQ PERMANENT BASING
IRAQ PERMANENT BASING
Location: §1211
Location: §2913
Key Text: No funding “to establish any military Key Text: (same as House) No funding “to
installation or base for the purpose of providing establish any military installation or base for the
for the permanent stationing of United States purpose of providing for the permanent
Armed Forces in Iraq” (a)(1); or “to exercise stationing of United States Armed Forces in
United States control of the oil resources of Iraq” Iraq” (1); or “to exercise United States control of
(a)(2)
the oil resources of Iraq” (2).
Comparison with Senate language: Includes a Comparison with House language: Does not
definition of “permanent stationing” — “the include any definitions.
stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq
31 This discussion was prepared by Catherine Dale, Specialist in International Security,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

CRS-33
on a continuing or lasting basis, as distinguished
from temporary, although the basis may be
permanent even though it may be dissolved
eventually at the request either of the United
States or of the Government of Iraq, in
accordance with law” (b).
Context: Would extend the prohibition in §1222
of NDAA for FY2008, P.L. 110-181
REPORT ON SECURITY AGREEMENTS
Location: §1212
Requirement: Report from the President to
Armed Services and Foreign Relations/ Affairs
Committees, no later than 90 days after
enactment, on legal status of U.S.
military/civilian/ contractor personnel; military
bases; rules of engagement; and “any security
commitment, arrangement, or assurance that
obligates the United States to respond to internal
or external threats against Iraq” (a)(1)(A)(i, ii, iii,
iv). Names 13 more specific items to include in
Report (b).
IRAQ PRT STRATEGY AND REPORT
Location: §1213
Requirement: President to establish a strategy
“to ensure that United States-led Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) including
embedded PRTs and Provincial Support Teams
in Iraq are supporting the operational and
strategic goals of Coalition Forces in Iraq”
(a)(1); and to “establish measures of
effectiveness and performance” to support that
strategy (a)(2).
Report: No later than 60 after enactment, and
every 90 days thereafter to end FY2010, from the
President to Armed Services and Foreign
Relations/Affairs Committees.
COMMENT: The U.S.-led PRTs in Iraq work
for the U.S. Embassy, not the Coalition Forces,
although it may certainly be the case that the
Embassy and the Coalition Forces share a single
overall strategy.
C O M M A N D E R S E M E R G E N C Y
RESPONSE PROGRAM

Location: §1214
Amends: NDAA for FY2006, P.L. 109-163,
§1202(a), as amended by P.L. 110-181 §1205
Requirement: U.S. CERP in Iraq for FY2009
“may not exceed twice the amount obligated by
the Government of Iraq during calendar year
2008 under the Government of Iraq
Commanders’ Emergency Response Program

CRS-34
(commonly known as I-CERP), as established
pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Supreme Reconstruction Council of
the Secretariat of Ministers and the Multi-
National Force-Iraq Concerning Implementation
of the Government of Iraq Commanders’
Emergency Response Program (I-CERP), signed
by the parties on March 25, 2008, and April 3,
2008, respectively.” §1214(b)
Waiver: Secretary of Defense may waive this
limitation if required “to meet urgent and
compelling needs that would not otherwise be
met and which, if unmet, could rationally be
expected to lead to increased threats to United
States military or civilian personnel.”
COMMENT: §1214(a) would authorize $1.5
billion for U.S. CERP in Iraq in FY2009. The
Government of Iraq has committed only $300
million to I-CERP so far in calendar year 2008.
POLICE TRAINING TEAMS REPORT
Location: §1218(a)
Requirement: No later than 60 days after
enactment, Secretary of Defense “in consultation
with” Secretary of State and the Government of
Iraq, to study and submit a report to Armed
Services and Foreign Relations/Affairs
Committees on: “(1) the number of advisors
needed to sufficiently staff enough Iraqi police
training teams to cover a majority of the
approximately 1,100 Iraqi police stations in fiscal
year 2009 and estimated levels in fiscal year
2010; (2) the funding required to staff the Iraqi
police training teams in fiscal year 2009 and
estimated levels in fiscal year 2010; and (3) the
feasibility of transferring responsibility for the
program to staff and support the Iraqi police
training teams from the Department of Defense
to the Department of State.”
PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS
Location: §841
Requirement: No later than 60 days after
enactment, Secretary of Defense to modify
regulations issued pursuant to FY2008 NDAA
P.L. 110-181, §862(a), “to ensure that private
security contractors are not authorized to perform
inherently governmental functions in any area of
combat operations.”
Definitions (b)(1): Operations are “inherently
governmental” if they “(A) will be performed in
highly hazardous public areas where the risks are
uncertain and could reasonably be expected to
require deadly force that is more likely to be
initiated by personnel performing such security
operations than by others; or (B) could

CRS-35
reasonably be expected to require immediate
discretionary decisions on the appropriate course
of action or the acceptable level of risk (such as
judgments on the appropriate level of force,
acceptable level of collateral damage, and
whether the target is friend or foe), the outcome
of which could significantly affect the life,
liberty, or property of private persons or the
international relations of the United States.
Review and Reporting: No later than June 1st of
2009, 2010, and 2011, from Secretary of Defense
to Armed Services Committees, a report on
periodic reviews of private security functions.
COMMENT: The Section falls under the
heading “matters relating to Iraq and
Afghanistan,” but as written, it could apply to
any area of combat operations.
COMMENT: The draft language does not
further define “private security contractors” and
could thus apply to U.S., host nation, and/or
third-country national contractors.
REPORT ON DETENTION OPERATIONS
Location: §1052
Requirement: No later than 90 days after
enactment, Secretary of Defense to report to
Armed Services Committees on detention
operations at theater internment facilities in Iraq
from January 1, 2007 to the present (a). Contents
to include policies and procedures, reintegration
programs, status review procedures, costs, and
lessons learned (b).
COMMENT: The intent, clarified in the SASC
Report, is to consider applications of the lessons
from Iraq for U.S. detention practices elsewhere.
GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ TO PAY COSTS
Location: §1616
Concept: This Section would take steps to limit
the use of funds authorized by this Act (only) and
to increase Government of Iraq funding
contributions in three areas: large-scale
infrastructure; U.S.-Iraqi combined military
operations; and Iraqi Security Forces and “Sons
of Iraq.”
“Large-scale Infrastructure”: No funds
authorized by this Act may be obligated or
expended for any large-scale infrastructure
projects commenced after enactment (a)(1). The
U.S. government shall work with the Government
of Iraq to provide that Iraqi funds are used for
non-large-scale infrastructure projects “before
obligating and expending United States
assistance” (a)(2). All CERP is excepted (a)(3).
“Large-scale infrastructure” is defined as $2
million and above (a)(4).

CRS-36
Combined Operations: The U.S. government
“shall initiate negotiations with the Government
of Iraq on an agreement under which the
Government of Iraq shall share with the United
States Government the costs of combined
operations of the Government of Iraq and the
Multinational Force-Iraq undertaken as part of
Operation Iraqi Freedom” (c)(1). A report on
negotiations status is required 90 days after
enactment from Secretary of Defense to Congress
(c)(2).
COMMENT: The draft language does not
address the proportions in which costs are to be
shared. It does not address whether operations
conducted by Iraqi units with embedded U.S.
Transition Teams are to be considered
“combined operations.”
Iraqi Security Forces: “The United States
Government shall take actions to ensure that Iraqi
funds are used to pay the following: The costs of
the salaries, training, equipping, and sustainment
of Iraqi Security Forces. The costs associated
with the Sons of Iraq.” (d)(1) (A,B). No later
than 90 days after enactment, President to submit
to Congress a report with an assessment of
progress (d)(2).

CRS-37
Table A-1. FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act:
House and Senate Action by Title
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House-
Senate-
Request
Passed
Reported
Department of Defense Discretionary
Military Personnela
125,247
124,660
124,503
Operation and Maintenance
154,847
154,478
154,022
Procurement
102,694
102,712
103,911
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
79,616
79,725
79,733
Other Defense Programs
28,583
29,179
28,372
Military Construction and Family Housing
24,400
24,400
24,805
Subtotal, DOD Programs Authorized in Bill
515,387
515,155
515,346
DOD Programs Not Requiring Annual Authorizationb
58
58
58
Subtotal, Department of Defense Discretionary
515,445
515,212
515,404
Other Agency Defense-Related Discretionary
Department of Energy Defense-Related Discretionaryc
16,118
16,351
16,122
Other Defense-Related Discretionaryd
6,201
6,201
6,201
Subtotal, National Defense Discretionary
537,764
537,764
537,727
National Defense Mandatory
DOD Concurrent Receipt Accrual Payments
3,901
3,901
3,901
Other DOD Mandatory
1,135
1,098
1,135
DOD Offsetting Receipts
-1,780
-1,780
-1,780
DOE Energy Employees Occupational Illness
1,155
1,155
1,155
Radiation Exposure Trust Fund
38
38
38
CIA Retirement and Other Agency Mandatory
279
279
279
Subtotal, National Defense Mandatory
4,728
4,691
4,728
Total National Defense Baseline (050)
542,492
542,454
542,455
War-Related Funding
70,000
70,000
70,000
Total, National Defense, Including War-Related
612,492
612,454
612,455
Sources: House Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany H.R. 5658, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” H.Rept. 110-652 and H.Rept. 110-652 Part 2, May 16, 2008;
Senate Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany S. 3001, National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” S.Rept. 110-335, May 12, 2008.
Notes:
a. The military personnel total includes $10,351 million for accrual contributions to the military
retirement fund for 65-and-over retiree medical benefits. This amount is a permanent
appropriation.
b. Includes Defense Production Act purchases; National Science Center, Army; Disposal of DOD
Real Property; and DOD Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery.
c. Includes Department of Energy weapons activities, defense environmental cleanup, formerly
utilized sites remedial action, and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
d. Includes FBI counter-intelligence activities, selective service, civil defense, and other agency
programs.

CRS-38
Table A-2. FY2009 Ballistic Missile Defense Funding: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
Confer-
PE Number Program Element Title
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
ence
Comments
RDT&E Missile Defense Agency
0603175C
Ballistic Missile Defense Technology
108.4
118.7
113.7
118.7
— House cuts $5 mn
House shifts $65 mn to procurement, adds
$10 mn for short-range defense. Senate
0603881C
Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment
1,045.3
1,019.1
964.1
1,012.1
— shifts $65 mn to procurement, adds $28 mn
for short range defense, adds $30 mn for
Arrow upper tier
Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense
House cuts $182 mn for European interceptor
0603882C
2,243.2
2,076.7
1,894.7
2,076.7

Segment
site development
0603883C
Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment
510.2
421.2
378.6
375.4
— House cuts $42.6 mn. Senate cuts $45.8 mn
House cuts $50 mn from site activation and
security, cuts $48.9 mn for European radar.
0603884C
Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors
586.1
1,077.0
978.2
1,017.2
— Senate cuts $64.8 mn, adds $5 mn for mobile
sensor network
House cuts $100 mn from Kinetic Energy
0603886C
Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptor
340.1
386.8
286.8
341.8
— Interceptor. Senate cuts $45 mn
0603888C
Ballistic Missile Defense Test & Targets
621.9
665.4
690.4
665.4
— House adds $25 mn for target development
0603890C
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Core
413.9
432.3
412.3
402.3
— House cuts $20 mn. Senate cuts $30 mn
0603891C
Special Programs - MDA
196.9
288.3
138.3
188.3
— House cuts $150 mn. Senate cuts $100 mn
House shifts $56 mn to procurement, adds
$20 mn for signal processors. Senate shifts
0603892C
AEGIS BMD
1,126.3
1,157.8
1,121.8
1,180.8
— $57 mn to procurement, adds $80 mn for
missile enhancements
0603893C
Space Tracking & Surveillance System
231.5
242.4
217.4
192.4
— House cuts $25 mn. Senate cuts $50 mn
0603894C
Multiple Kill Vehicle
229.9
354.5
254.5
304.5
— House cuts $100 mn. Senate cuts $50 mn
House and Senate cut $10 mn from space test
0603895C
Ballistic Missile Defense System Space Programs
16.6
29.8
19.8
19.8
— bed
Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control,
0603896C
447.6
289.3
289.3
289.3
— —
Battle Management and Communication
0603897C
Ballistic Missile Defense Hercules
52.5
56.0
56.0
56.0
— —
0603898C
Ballistic Missile Defense Joint Warfighter Support
49.4
70.0
70.0
70.0
— —
Ballistic Missile Defense Joint National Integration
0603904C
78.6
96.4
96.4
96.4
— —
Center (JNIC)
0603906C
Regarding Trench
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
— —
0603907C
Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX)
165.2



— —

CRS-39
FY2008
FY2009
Confer-
PE Number Program Element Title
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
ence
Comments

MDA Undistributed Reduction



-268.7
— Senate makes $269.7 mn undistributed cut
0901585C
Pentagon Reservation
6.0
19.7
19.7
19.7
— —
0901598C
Management HQ - MDA
80.4
86.5
81.5
86.5
— House cuts $5 mn from management support
Subtotal RDT&E, Missile Defense Agency
8,552.1
8,890.7
8,086.3
8,247.4
House cuts $970 mn. Senate cuts $643 mn.
Military Construction, Missile Defense Agency
BMDS European Interceptor Site

132.6
52.6
132.6
— House cuts $80 mn
BMDS AN/TPY-2 #3

29.6

25.5
— House cuts full $25.5 mn
BMDS European Mid-Course Radar

108.6
48.6
108.6
— House cuts $60 mn
Unspecified Minor Construction

3.5
3.5
3.5

MILCON Planning & Design

10.8
10.8
10.8

Subtotal Military Construction, Missile Defense Agency

285.1
115.5
281.0
House cuts $165.5 mn in MDA MilCon
Base Realignment and Closure, Missile Defense Agency
103.2
159.9
159.9
159.9
— —
Total Missile Defense Agency
8,655.3
9,335.7
8,361.7
8,688.3
— —
RDT&E Army
Patriot/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program
0604869A
369.8
431.3
431.3
431.3
— —
(CAP)
0203801A
Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program
30.0
37.9
37.9
37.9
— —
RDT&E The Joint Staff
0605126J
Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization
53.7
55.3
55.3
55.3
— —
Subtotal R&D, Army, Joint Staff
399.8
469.1
469.1
469.1
— —
Procurement Army
7152C49100 Patriot System Summary
497.7
512.1
512.1
512.1
— —
7845C50001 Patriot/MEADS Cap System Summary

31.0
31.0
31.0
— —
0962C50700 Patriot Mods
420.1
524.5
524.5
524.5
— —
Subtotal, Procurement, Army
917.8
1,067.6
1,067.6
1,067.6
— —
Total Missile Defense R&D, MilCon, Procurement
9,972.9
10,872.5
9,898.5
10,225.1
— —
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense Comptroller, “RDT&E Programs, (R-1), Fiscal Year 2009,” February, 2008; House Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany
H.R. 5658, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” H.Rept. 110-652, May 16, 2008, and H.Rept. 110-652 Part 2, May 20, 2008; Senate Armed Services Committee,
“Report to Accompany S. 3001, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” S.Rept. 110-335, May 12, 2008.

CRS-40
Table A-3. House and Senate Action on Selected Aircraft Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
House adds $31 mn in procurement and
$262.5 mn in R&D, Senate adds $35 mn
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, AF
8 1,810.7
1,524.0
8
1,841.7 1,786.5
8 1,845.7 1,774.0 —

— in advance procurement and $250 mn in
R&D, for alternate engine
House adds $262.5 mn, Senate adds $215
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
8 1,860.9
1,532.7
8
1,860.9 1,795.2
8 1,860.9 1,747.7 —

— mn in R&D for alternate engine
development
Senate adds $497 mn for line shut down
F-22 Fighter, AF
20 3,054.2
700.3
20
3,054.2
700.3
20 3,551.2
700.3 —

— or for advance procurement
House adds $523 mn for advance
Title XV/XVI




523.0






— procurement for 20 aircraft
House and Senate cut $40 mn for excess
spare parts, shift $9 mn to mods, cut $48
C-17 Cargo Aircraft & Mods, AF

699.1
236.0 —
659.1
188.0

659.9
188.0 —

— mn in R&D for performance improvement
program
Title XV/XVI




15.0 3,900.0





— House adds $3.9 billion for 15 aircraft
C-130J Cargo Aircraft, AF

96.0
52.4 —
96.0
27.4

121.0
52.4 —

— —
KC-130J Aircraft, Navy
2
153.5
24.4
2
153.5
24.4
2
153.5
24.4 —

— —
Title XV/XVI











— —
Senate shifts $62 mn from procurement to
KC-X Tanker Replacement, AF

61.7
831.8 —

831.8


893.4 —

— R&D, House cuts $62 mn
House and Senate delete procurement
Combat Search & Rescue

15.0
305.1 —

265.1


265.1 —

— funds and cut $40 mn from R&D due to
Helicopter (CSAR-X)
program delay
C-40 Aircraft



1
88.0






— House adds 1 aircraft
F-15 Mods

12.3
184.2 —
12.3
184.2

12.3
184.2 —

— —
C-130/C-130J Aircraft Mods, AF

482.2
172.6 —
487.2
179.3

449.4
172.6 —

— —
Title XV/XVI
8
82.0









— —
House cuts $87 mn as excess to
C-5 Cargo Aircraft Mods, AF

583.1
125.1 —
496.4
125.1

583.1
125.1 —

— requirements

CRS-41
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Senate adds $31 mn for National Airspace
Global Hawk UAV, AF
5
712.2
284.3
5
712.2
284.3
5
743.2
284.3 —

— System radar
Title XV/XVI
3
354.2

3
354.2

3
354.2



— —
MQ-9 Reaper UAV
9
161.4

9
161.4

9
161.4



— —
Title XV/XVI
15
283.5

15
283.5

15
283.5



— —
House cuts $45 mn due to foreign sales-
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
22 1,651.6
128.9
22
1,606.6
128.9
22 1,651.6
128.9 —

— related savings
House cuts $45 mn due to foreign sales-
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
23 1,911.3
71.2
23
1,870.8
71.2
23 1,911.3
71.2 —

— related savings, adds $4.5 mn for smart
bomb rack
V-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, Navy
30 2,220.4
68.8
30
2,220.4
68.8
30 2,220.4
68.8 —

— —
CV-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft, AF
6
423.3
18.6
6
423.3
18.6
6
423.3
18.6 —

— —
CV-22 Special Ops Mods, SOF
6
163.0
38.2
6
163.0
38.2
6
163.0
38.2 —

— —
VH-71A Executive Helicopter


1,047.8 —

1,047.8

— 1,047.8 —

— —
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
20
474.1
3.8
20
474.1
3.8
20
474.1
3.8 —

— —
MH-60S Helicopter, Navy
18
549.7
47.3
18
549.7
47.3
18
549.7
47.3 —

— —
MH-60R Helicopter, Navy
31 1,185.8
70.3
31
1,175.8
70.3
31 1,185.8
70.3 —

— House trims $10 mn.
Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft

110.6
1,132.0 —
110.6 1,132.0

110.6 1,132.0 —

— —
E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft, Navy
3
589.1
54.1
3
589.1
54.1
3
589.1
54.1 —

— —
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, AF

33.2
7.5 —
33.2
7.5

27.7
7.5 —

— —
JPATS Trainer Aircraft, Navy
44
289.3

44
289.3

44
289.3



— —
P-3 Aircraft Mods

370.3


370.3


370.3



— —
Title XV/XVI




448.3






— House adds $448 mn for wing repairs
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense Comptroller, “Procurement Programs, (P-1), Fiscal Year 2009,” February, 2008; Department of Defense Comptroller, “RDT&E Programs,
(R-1), Fiscal Year 2009,” February, 2008; House Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany H.R. 5658, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” H.Rept.
110-652, May 16, 2008, and H.Rept. 110-652 Part 2, May 20, 2008; Senate Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany S. 3001, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009,” S.Rept. 110-335, May 12, 2008.

CRS-42
Table A-4. Congressional Action on Selected Shipbuilding Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
CVN-21 Carrier Replacement

3,926.4
261.6 —
3,926.4
261.6
— 3,926.4
261.6


— —
Program
House adds $722 mn in advance
procurement for 2nd ship in FY2010.
Virginia Class Submarine
1
3,423.6
167.4
1
4,145.6
169.4
1 3,502.6
167.4


— Senate adds $79 mn to ramp up to two
boats per year in 2011
Carrier Refueling Overhaul
1
628.0

1
628.0

1
628.0



— —
Missile Submarine Refueling
1
261.2

1
261.2

1
261.2



— —
Overhaul
House deletes current procurement, adds
$349 mn for advance procurement for
DD(X)/DDG-1000 Destroyer
1
2,553.8
678.9 —
400.0
678.9
1 2,553.8
591.7


— DDG-1000 or DDG-51 ships. Senate cuts
$87 mn in R&D due to cruiser design
delay
DDG-51 Destroyer


19.1 —

19.1


41.9


— —
House deletes $80 mn, one ship. Senate
cuts $123 mn for value of government
LCS Littoral Combat Ship
2
920.0
371.0
1
840.0
371.0
2
797.0
371.0


— furnished equipment, provides funds for 2
ships at permitted cost cap.
House adds $1.7 bn for one ship. Senate
LPD-17 Amphibious Ship

103.2
1.0
1
1,800.0
1.0

273.2
1.0


— shifts $103 mn from close out costs to
procurement and adds $170 mn
Requested in National Defense Sealift
Fund. House eliminates funds. Senate
LHA(R) Amphibious Ship
1
348.3
2.4 —

2.4
1
178.3
2.4


— shifts funds from NDSF to Navy
shipbuilding, cuts $170 mn in advance
procurement due to delay
Intratheater Connector, Navy
1
174.8
12.0
1
174.8
12.0
1
174.8
12.0


— —
Outfitting

429.6
— —
429.6


429.6



— —
Service Craft

36.3
— —
36.3


36.3



— —

CRS-43
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
LCAC Service Life Extension
6
110.9

6
110.9

6
110.9



— —
Prior Year Shipbuilding

279.2
— —
279.2


279.2



— —
National Defense Sealift Fund
House adds $278 mn in advance
T-AKE Cargo Ship
2
962.4

2
1,240.6

2
962.4



— procurement for two additional ships
Maritime Prepositioning Force


68.7 —

68.7


63.3


— House moves funds to Navy R&D
R&D
Total Navy Ships
16 14,157.6 1,582.1
14 14,272.6 1,584.1
16 14,113.7 1,512.3


— —
Army
Joint High Speed Vessel, Army
1
168.8
2.9
1
168.8
2.9
1
168.8
2.9


— —
Sources: CRS from Department of Defense Comptroller, “Procurement Programs, (P-1), Fiscal Year 2009,” February, 2008; Department of Defense Comptroller, “RDT&E Programs,
(R-1), Fiscal Year 2009,” February, 2008; House Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany H.R. 5658, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” H.Rept.
110-652, May 16, 2008, and H.Rept. 110-652 Part 2, May 20, 2008; Senate Armed Services Committee, “Report to Accompany S. 3001, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009,” S.Rept. 110-335, May 12, 2008.