Order Code RL34473
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and
Appropriations
Updated September 29, 2008
Pat Towell, Stephen Daggett, and Amy Belasco
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 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 an
unallocated placeholder of $70 billion to cover war costs in the first part of FY2009.
On April 30 the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up 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
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) and the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer. On September 17, the Senate
passed the authorization bill by a vote of 88-8. Because of a controversy over
earmarks, the Senate considered only four amendments to the bill, adopting three.
The House had 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 destroyer
of the DDG-1000 class, allocating those funds instead to buy several other ships.
A compromise between the House and Senate bills, authorizing $612.5 billion,
was worked out informally by the House and Senate Armed Services committees. It
was passed by the House September 24 as an amended version of the Senate-passed
S. 3001 by a vote of 392-39. The Senate passed the compromise bill September 27
by voice vote, clearing the measure for the President.
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $487.7
billion, which the panel said was $4 billion less than the President requested for that
bill. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
appropriations Bill on September 10, also recommending $487.7 billion.
Neither chamber held full committee markups of a FY2009 defense
appropriations bill, and neither chamber considered a bill on the floor. Instead, a
compromise version of the subcommittee bills -- in effect, a conference agreement
on the FY2009 defense appropriations bill -- was incorporated into H.R. 2638, the
FY2009 continuing resolution, which the House passed September 24 by a vote of
370-58. The Senate passed the bill September 27 by a vote of 78-12, clearing the
measure for the President.
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
Christopher Bolkcom
7-2577
cbolkcom@crs.loc.gov
Aviation Forces
Allan Hess
7-0432
mhess@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 FY2009 Defense Appropriations in the FY2009
Continuing Resolution (H.R. 2638) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Highlights of the Final Version of the FY2009 Defense Authorization
Bill (S. 3001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Veto Threats Avoided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Weapons Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Missile Defense Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Military Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acquisition Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Overview of the Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Comparison and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Status of Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% of GDP Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Potential Issues in the FY2009 Base Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Military Pay Raise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Army and Marine Corps End-Strength Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
TRICARE Fees and Co-pays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Projected Navy Strike Fighter Shortfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
LPD-17-Class Ship Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Funding for DDG-1000 Destroyers versus Other Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Littoral Combat Ship Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
CG-X Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Reliable Replacement Warhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Long-Range Non-Nuclear Prompt Global Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Future Combat Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
F-22 Fighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C-17 Cargo Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
“Soft” Power Functions and Interagency Burden-Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
War Funding Issues in the FY2009 DOD Bridge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2009 War Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FY2009 Bridge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Resolution of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Funding for Iraq Security Forces (ISFF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Strict Monitoring of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Fund (JIEDDO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Commanders Emergency Response Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Section 1206 Training and Equipping of Foreign Military Forces . . . 33

---

MRAP Vehicle Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Separating Iraq and Afghanistan Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Caps on Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Congressional Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pay Raise, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Tanker, Cargo, and Patrol Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Fighter Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Future Combat Systems (FCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Anti-Missile Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Shipbuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Civilian Response Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Iraq Policy Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Other Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Agreements with Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Long-term Cost of Operations in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Detainee Interrogations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Intelligence on Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Contracting Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Bill . . . . . . . . . . 44
End-Strength, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Shipbuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Fighter Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
UAVs and Surveillance Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Anti-Missile Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Other Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and Senate
Versions of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill: House and Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee Markups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
List of Tables
Table 1. Department of Defense Baseline Budget Discretionary Budget
Authority, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2A. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization, S. 3001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2B. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2638,
Division C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3. DOD Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4. FY2009 War Bridge Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 5. Side-By-Side Comparison of Iraq Policy Provisions in House and
Senate Defense Authorization Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table A-1. FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: House and Senate
Action by Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table A-2. FY2009 War-Related Defense Authorization: House and Senate
Amounts by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table A-3. FY2009 Ballistic Missile Defense Funding: Authorization . . . . . . . 61

---

Table A-4. House and Senate Action on Selected Army and Marine Corps
Programs: Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table A-5. House and Senate Action on Selected Aircraft Programs:
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table A-6. House and Senate Action on Selected Missile, Space, and
Munitions Programs: Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected Shipbuilding Programs:
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

---

Defense: FY2009 Authorization and
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On September 24, the House passed what was, in effect, a conference agreement
on the FY2009 defense authorization bill (S. 3001) and what was, in effect, a
conference agreement on the FY2009 continuing resolution (H.R. 2638) which
incorporated the FY2009 defense appropriations bill. The amended defense
authorization bill was approved under suspension of the rules, a procedure which did
not permit amendments but which required approval by a two-thirds vote.
Although neither bill was accompanied by a traditional conference report
reconciling House-passed and Senate-passed versions, the compromise versions of
each had been worked out by House and Senate members and an “explanatory
statement” on each measure, fleshing out the details of the final legislation was
published in the Congressional Record.1
On September 27, the Senate approved the compromise versions of both bills,
clearing them for the President. The Senate passed the amended version of the
authorization bill (S. 3001) by a vote of 78-12. It passed by voice vote the
compromise version of the continuing resolution which included the FY2009 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2638)
The House had passed its version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill
(H.R. 5658) on May 22, 2008, by a vote of 384-23. The House version of the bill
would have authorized $612.4 billion, including $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.
On May 12, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 3001, its version
of the authorization bill, which also would authorize the appropriation of $612.5
billion in new budget authority for national security programs, including $542.5
billion for the so-called base budget — that is, the cost of routine defense activities
excluding U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — and an additional $70 billion
allowance for war-related costs.
1
The explanatory statement to accompany the defense authorization bill, S. 3001, was
published in the Congressional Record of September 23 (pp. H8718-H9081). The
explanatory statement to accompany the DOD-related section of the continuing resolution
was published in the Congressional Record of September 24 (pp. H9434-H9870).

---

CRS-2
Controversies over various issues – including a provision that would incorporate
into the legislation hundreds of earmarks listed in the committee’s report on the bill
and an unrelated dispute over offshore oil drilling – delayed Senate action on the
measure until September 8. After the Senate began debating the bill, it acted on four
amendments:
! By Senator Kyl and others, directing that $89 million of the total
appropriated for missile defense research be used to deploy an X-
band, long-range missile-detection radar in a secret location;
Adopted by voice vote;
! By Senator Leahy and others, extending from three years to five
years the period following the end of a war during which the statute
of limitations on contractor fraud would be suspended; Adopted by
voice vote;
! By Senator Vitter and others, increasing by a total of $358 million
the amounts authorized for three missile defense programs; Rejected
39-57; and
! By Senator Bill Nelson, repealing the requirement that military
survivors’ benefits paid from DOD’s Survivor Benefit Plan be
reduced by the amount of any benefits received under the
dependency and indemnity compensation program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs; Adopted 94-2.
As a result of the continuing controversy over the bill’s earmark provision, no
other amendments were considered before the Senate passed the bill September 17
by a vote of 88-8. Another result of the earmark dispute was that the Senate did not
request a conference with the House to reconcile the two versions of the defense bill.
Instead, members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees negotiated
informally a compromise version of the Senate-passed bill – S. 3001 – that
authorized $611.1 billion, a reduction of $1.4 billion from the Administration’s
request.
All but a very small amount of the authorization bill’s reduction – $1.4 billion
– was taken from the $70 billion requested for military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This was the compromise version of S. 3001 passed September 24 by
the House and September 27 by the Senate.
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $487.7
billion, which the panel said was $4 billion less than the President requested for that
bill. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
appropriations Bill on September 10, also recommending $487.7 billion.
Neither chamber held full committee markups of a FY2009 defense
appropriations bill, and neither chamber considered a bill on the floor. Instead, a
compromise version of the two subcommittee bills -- in effect, a conference
agreement on FY2009 defense appropriations -- was incorporated into H.R. 2638, the

---

CRS-3
FY2009 continuing resolution, along with full-year versions of the FY2009 homeland
security and military construction/veterans affairs appropriations bills. This bill was
passed by the House September 24 and by the Senate September 27.
Highlights of FY2009 Defense Appropriations in the FY2009
Continuing Resolution (H.R. 2638)
Neither the House nor the Senate ever held full committee markups of an
FY2009 defense appropriations bill, neither committee issued a report on the bill,
and neither chamber considered a bill on the floor and debated amendments. Instead,
what is in effect a conference agreement on FY2009 defense appropriations, along
with agreements on military construction/VA and homeland security appropriations,
is being considered as Division C of H.R. 2638, the FY2009 continuing resolution.
In all, the FY2009 defense appropriations bill provides $487.7 billion in new
appropriations for the Department of Defense and related agencies,2 which is $4.0
billion below the Administration request, and which, in turn, reflects the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees’ allocations of funds to the each chamber’s
defense subcommittees under Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act (see
below for a discussion of the annual budget resolution and Section 302 allocations).
For most programs, the defense appropriations bill ultimately determines the
level of funding Congress provides. The defense authorization bill recommends
amounts to be appropriated, but, with few exceptions, the final amount of new budget
authority actually made available is determined in appropriations bills.
Appropriations bills may provide more or less than amounts in the authorization, may
eliminate funds for programs approved in the authorization, and may provide funds
for “new start” programs not approved in an authorization bill. The main exception
is that defense authorization bills generally include statutory language that
(1) establishes end-strength levels for uniformed personnel in each of the military
services and reserve components and (2) sets amounts for pay and benefits of
uniformed personnel. The appropriations bills, therefore, do not usually determine
the amount of a military pay raise, though they normally include funds for military
personnel accounts based on pay rates, bonuses, benefits, and end-strength
established in the annual defense authorization.
On military personnel matters, the House-Senate agreement on the FY2009
defense appropriations bill provides funds for a 3.9% increase in base pay for
uniformed personnel, reduces funding to reflect lower-than planned strength levels
in some of the services, and establishes a new health professionals scholarship
program. The bill also includes a general provision, Section 8116, that provides $72
million in FY2009 for a program to provide up to $500 per month in additional
compensation to personnel kept on active duty beyond the end of their normal
enlistment periods under a “Stop Loss” order. The provision does not, however,
require that a specific amount be paid.
2 The total for other agencies in the bill is about $1 billion for CIA retirement and disability
insurance – the bulk of the bill is for the Department of Defense. An additional $25 billion
for Department of Defense is provided in the military construction/VA appropriations bill.

---

CRS-4
On major weapon programs,
! The agreement provides $2.5 billion, as requested for Navy DDG-
1000 destroyer procurement, but splits the funding between two
ships, with $1 billion for a second vessel, and requires the Navy to
complete financing of the split buy in the FY2010 budget. The
agreement also requires the DOD Joint Requirements Oversight
Council, comprised of Deputy Chiefs of the military services, to
review the Navy’s decision to reduce DDG-1000 acquisition and
resume production of smaller DDG-51 destroyers. The measure
eliminates $59 million in advance procurement for the DDG-1000
program and adds $200 million in advance procurement to preserve
the option to build additional, DDG-51s. In effect, the bill keeps
both the DDG-1000 and DDG-51 production lines open, for now.
! On other shipbuilding issues, the bill adds $830 million as the first
half of split funding to procure an additional, 10th of the class, LPD-
17 amphibious ship; provides $1.02 billion, $100 million more than
requested, for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, rescinds
$337 million in earlier LCS funding, and directs that funding be
allocated to two ships with contract awards as soon as possible; cuts
$170 million from the $348 million requested for a replacement for
LHA class amphibious ships and shifts funds from the National
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) to the Navy shipbuilding account,
where the ability to reallocate funds is more constrained; and adds
$79 million to the $1.3 billion requested in advance procurement for
Virginia-class attack submarines in order to facilitate production of
two boats per year beginning in FY2010.
! The agreement provides $6.3 billion, the amount requested, to the
Navy and the Air Force for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program,
but trims procurement from 16 to 14 aircraft and allocates $430
million for alternate engine development – a perennial congressional
addition to the Administration request.
! The bill provides $2.9 billion, as requested, to purchase 20 Air Force
F-22 fighters and adds $523 million for advance procurement of an
additional 20 aircraft in future years. The additional amount is to
keep the production line open and allow the next Administration to
decide whether to purchase more than the 181 aircraft now planned.
! The bill shifts $62 million requested in procurement and $832
million requested in R&D for the KC-X tanker replacement program
into an already established “Tanker Replacement Fund,” which is a
no-year transfer account which sets no limit on the number of years
for which funds remain available and from which funds can be
shifted as needed to other accounts. The bill also rescinds $72
million in previously appropriated funds for the tanker program from
Air Force R&D and $239.8 million from the Tanker Replacement
Fund.

---

CRS-5
! The bill provides $3.6 billion for the Army’s Future Combat System,
adding $26 million to accelerate unmanned air and ground vehicle
acquisition, and moving funds between programs to reflect recent
Army adjustments to the program to accelerate near term elements.
! On satellite and other space programs, many of which have suffered
long delays and large cost growth in recent years, the bill adds $150
million for a fourth, current-generation Advanced EHF
communications satellite, cuts $75 million from the $843 million
requested for the Transformational Communications Satellite (T-
SAT) program, transfers $152 million into the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle program, and cuts $163.5 million from launch
vehicle for a second Navy MUOS fleet communications satellite
program to reflect delays. These are fewer changes than in past
years, when SBIRS and the Space Radar, as well T-SAT, were often
cut substantially, perhaps reflecting efforts by the services to be less
technically ambitious in pursuing new space systems.
! The bill adds $750 million for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) programs, including $360 million for 24 C-21
aircraft equipped with sensor suites, $20 million for MQ-9 UAVs for
special operations forces, and $13 million for additional medium
UAVs. Secretary of Defense Gates has acknowledged disputes with
the Air Force, in particular, in allocating sufficient ISR resources to
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On other matters
! The agreement provides $350 million, $150 million less than
requested, for the “Global Train and Equip” program, originally
established by Section 1206 of the FY2006 national defense
authorization act (and still commonly referred to as Section 1206
authority). The Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State, may use Section 1206/Global Train and Equip
funding to provide a wide range of security and other assistance to
foreign nations. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the
bill asserts bluntly that the State Department, rather than the
Department of Defense should be responsible for training and
equipping foreign military forces and that the Administration should
request future funds in the State Department budget. The bill also
trims $123 million from the $389 million requested in military
personnel and operation and maintenance accounts for the newly
established Africa Command (AFRICOM). The cut in AFRICOM
funding reflects the same sentiment as the reduction in Global Train
and Equip funding. While the AFRICOM reduction is not as steep
as in the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee version of
the bill, and the joint explanatory statement expresses support for
AFRICOM, the statement also insists that the State Department and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) should

---

CRS-6
“play a more important role in this new organization supported with
the appropriate manpower and funding required.”
! The joint explanatory statement includes a critique of Air Force
management of major acquisition programs, citing in particular
recent numerous breaches of limits on cost growth under the Nunn-
McCurdy amendment. The statement requires the Secretary of
Defense to report by March 31, 2009, on steps to reform Air Force
practices. The joint explanatory statement also cites inaccurate cost
estimates in many other major programs and requires the Defense
Department to report on which programs since 2004 did not use cost
estimates by the independent DOD Cost Analysis Improvement
Group (CAIG) and to explain why. The bill also directs the Defense
Department to provide funding for the Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund that was established by the FY2008 defense
authorization act, in the regular appropriations process.
Highlights of the Final Version of the FY2009 Defense
Authorization Bill (S. 3001)
Although the House and Senate both passed versions of the FY2009 defense
authorization bill through the usual procedures, the Senate’s final action on its
version (S. 3001) was delayed until September by various controversies. One issue
contributing to the delay was a provision of the defense bill (Section 1002) that
would incorporate into the legislation hundreds of earmarks listed in the committee’s
report on the measure; Another issue was an unrelated dispute over offshore oil
drilling. The Senate passed the bill September 17.
The Senate did not request a conference with the House to reconcile S. 3001
with the House-passed H.R. 5658. Instead, members of the House and Senate Armed
Services committees negotiated informally the compromise version of S. 3001 that
was cleared for the President.
Although the Administration objected to the provision that incorporated into the
Senate-passed bill the earmarks listed in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s
report on the bill, a substantially identical provision (Section 1005) was included in
the compromise version of S. 3001, that incorporated into that measure the hundreds
of earmarks listed in summary tables in the “explanatory statement” that was, for all
practical purposes, equivalent to the explanatory statement in a formal conference
report.
Veto Threats Avoided. The compromise version of S. 3001 did not include
any of the several provisions in either the House and Senate versions of the
authorization bill that had been singled out by Administration officials as grounds for
a veto, if they had been included in the version of the bill sent to President Bush.
Following is a summary of provisions of the House or Senate versions of the
authorization bill that Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England had cited as

---

CRS-7
grounds for a veto in a September 19 letter to leaders of the House and Senate Armed
Services committees:
! A ban on the government’s use of private security contractors in
combat zones; Section 832 of the compromise bill expresses a sense
of Congress that security missions in combat zones should be
performed by U.S. military personnel.
! a ban on the use of contractor employees to interrogate detainees;
Section 1057 of the compromise expresses a sense of Congress that
contractors should not conduct interrogations.
! a requirement that detainee interrogations be videotaped.
Section1058 of the compromise expresses a sense of Congress that
such interrogations be videotaped or otherwise electronically
recorded.
! a requirement that Congress approve, either as a treaty or by
legislation and agreement governing the legal status of U.S. forces
in Iraq. The compromise included no such requirement but retained
in Section 1212 a requirement in the House bill that DOD provide
Congress with a detailed report on such an agreement, should it be
reached.
! a requirement that the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring the payment of
locally prevailing wages on federal construction projects, apply to
military construction projects on Guam, to which Marine Corps units
currently stationed on Okinawa, are being moved. The provision was
dropped.
! provisions that would bar or inhibit DOD from outsourcing on the
basis of a “public-private competition” jobs currently performed by
military or federal civilian personnel. No such provisions were
included in the compromise bill.
! provisions that would halt the construction of facilities to replace
Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., pending a
review, and would prohibit the use of an independent commission
to draw up recommendations for any future rounds of military base
closures. No such provisions were included in the final bill.
! several provisions in the Senate bill relating to the management of
intelligence activities in DOD. All such provisions were dropped.
! four provisions in the House bill – instigated by the Air Force’s
now-cancelled selection of a European-designed mid-air refueling
tanker – three of which the Administration said would require DOD
to discriminate against foreign manufacturers and one of which it
said would require disclosure of contractors’ proprietary

---

CRS-8
information. The provisions were dropped or greatly diluted in their
impact.
! funding cuts “below acceptable levels” to the $657 million requested
for research and development and facilities construction associated
with deployment of an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech
Republic. While the Administration did not specify an “acceptable
level,” the compromise bill cut $208 million compared with the
$421 million that had been cut by the House version.
Weapons Program Issues. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to
submit annually an aircraft procurement plan for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air
Force that would project procurements, retirements and losses over the following 30
years for all types of combat and support aircraft (Section 141). The services have
warned Congress in recent years of coming shortfalls in combat planes as planned
retirements outstrip the acquisition of replacement craft.
The amounts authorized for particular programs were generally consistent with
(and largely superseded by) the amounts actually appropriated by the companion
defense appropriations bill. But the authorization measure included significant policy
provisions bearing on some high profile programs:
Littoral Combat Ship. The bill would defer until FY2010 application to the
Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program of a cost cap set by Congress in the
FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Bill (Section 122). The cap
limits the cost of each LCS to $460 million with the proviso that the cost would be
allowed to exceed that cap by up to $10 million because of inflation.
F-22 Fighter. To buy long lead-time components that would allow the
procurement of additional F-22 fighters in FY2009, the bill authorizes $523 million
not requested by the Administration (funds that also were included in the companion
FY2009 defense appropriations bill). However, the bill would allow DOD to expend
only $140 million of that amount until the next President decides whether to buy
additional F-22s or shut down the program.
White House Helicopters. The bill would authorize $835 million to
continue development of a new fleet of helicopters for the White House, a reduction
of $213 million from the request. The companion FY2009 defense appropriations bill
provides the same amount. Although the project is based on an existing helicopter
of European design, costs have increased significantly, in part because of the high
tech communications equipment being installed in the aircraft. The authorization bill
would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress several reports called
for by the House and Senate versions of the measure, including one that would
analyze the advantages and disadvantages of re-competing the helicopter contract,
which was won in 2005 by Lockheed Martin.
Missile Defense Program Issues. In an explanatory statement
accompanying the compromise version of S. 3001, the House and Senate members
who negotiated the bill objected to the frequency with which the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) had cancelled scheduled flight tests. They directed MDA to consult

---

CRS-9
with certain other DOD agencies before cancelling future tests and to report to the
congressional defense committees on the reasons for any future test cancellations and
MDA’s plan to meet the objectives of the cancelled test.
The bill would also require the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the
feasibility of the proposed systems that are intended to destroy missiles in their
“boost-phase” – the period immediately after launch when their rocket motors are
firing (Section 232) One of the boost-phase defenses covered by that section is the
Airborne Laser – a Boeing 747 armed with a huge laser . Another section of the bill
(Section 235) would require DOD’s director of operational testing to report on the
operational effectiveness, survivability and affordability of the Airborne Laser.
While the bill authorized $449 million of the $667 million requested to begin
deploying anti-missile interceptors in Poland and their associated radar in the Czech
Republic, the bill also would bar expenditure of the funds until after the two host
countries have signed and ratified the agreements necessary for the deployments and
45 days have elapsed from the time Congress receives an independent assessment of
the proposed European deployment conducted by a federally funded research and
development corporation (Section 233). That review was mandated by the FY2008
National Defense Authorization Act.
Military Personnel Issues. The bill would authorize a military pay raise of
3.9 percent, which is one-half of 1 percent higher than the President requested. But
it does not include a provision in the House-passed bill that would have required
military pay raises in FY2010-FY2013 that would be one-half of 1 percent above the
annual increase in the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), which is
a measure of changes in employee compensation in the private sector.
The bill would mandate, for male service members whose spouse gives birth to
a child, 10 days paternity leave in addition to any other leave to which the service
member is entitled. It also would authorize a pilot program to test the value of
allowing a small number of military personnel to leave active duty for a period of up
to three years to focus on personal or professional goals. Participating members
would return to active duty at the same rank and seniority they held when the left
active duty, but the time spent in the program would not could toward the 20 years
of service required to retire.
The bill does not include a Senate-passed provision which would have repealed
an existing legal requirement that, if the survivor of a deceased service member is
eligible both a DOD annuity from the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and an annuity
from the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program (DIC) of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the SBP payment would be reduced by the amount
of the DIC payment.
Health Care. For the third year in a row, the authorization bill reject’s
Administration proposals to increase fees and copayments for military retirees
participating in DOD’s Tricare health care program.
The bill also includes several provisions intended to encourage service members
and Tricare beneficiaries to take steps designed to prevent health problems, such as

---

CRS-10
controlling their weight, abstaining from smoking and exercising. These include a
provision that would waive Tricare copayments for preventive services (Section 711),
authorize a demonstration program testing the effectiveness of monetary and other
incentives to participate in a program to monitor health risk factors, such as weight
and blood pressure (Section 712) and establish a smoking cessation program under
Tricare (Section 713).
Acquisition Policy. The compromise bill dropped a House-passed provision
that would have prohibited the award of any contract for a contractor to act as lead
systems integrator (LSI) on a major acquisition program.
It includes a provision requiring the creation of a career path for military
personnel who specialize in the acquisition field, including the creation of five
additional positions for general officers serving in acquisition jobs.
Among the bill’s other significant provisions relating to DOD’s acquisition
process are the following:
! Requirement to establish for all major acquisition programs a
Configuration Steering Boards intended to control costs by
controlling proposed changes in the design of the system (Section
814);
! Authorization of a streamlined hiring process to fill acquisition jobs
in DOD (Section 833);
! Requirement to establish a government-wide policy (codified in
standard contract clauses) to prevent conflicts of interest for
contractor employees who are managing DOD acquisitions (Section
841);
! Extension from three years to five years of the period after the end
of a congressionally authorized conflict during which no statute of
limitation applies for contractor fraud (Section 855);

---

CRS-11
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.3 This included $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 included a lump-sum request for $70
billion to cover war costs in the first part of the year.4
For congressional action on the Administration’s funding request for war
costs, see CRS Report RL34451, FY2008 Spring Supplemental
Appropriations and FY2009 Bridge Appropriations for Military Operations,
International Affairs, and Other Purposes (P.L. 110-252), by Stephen
Daggett, et al. For policy issues raised by that request, see CRS Report
RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror
Operations since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
The total national defense request also included $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 did not submit a request for funds to cover the full anticipated costs
of operations associated with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration was 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. Last year, the Administration’s DOD budget
request for FY2008 included a request for $141.7 billion (subsequently increased to
$189.3 billion) to cover anticipated war costs for the entire fiscal year.
When the FY2009 defense request was submitted in February 2008,
administration officials contended that there was too much uncertainty about future
troop levels in Iraq to enable them to provide a funding request for war costs for the
entire year.
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.
3 The budget request included an additional $4.3 billion in mandatory spending for the
national defense function of the budget (Function 050).
4 On May 2, the White House sent Congress an amendment to its FY2009 budget providing
some detail as to how it would allocate the $70 billion, which included $66 billion for the
Department of Defense and $4 billion for international affairs programs.

---

CRS-12
On May 2, 2008, the Administration submitted an amended budget request that
specified funding levels by account in the FY2009 war costs bridge fund, including
a total of $66 billion for DOD and $4 billion for foreign aid.
Congress incorporated action on the FY2009 war costs request into H.R. 2642
(P.L. 110-252), a bill making supplemental appropriations for FY2008 and FY2009
for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other purposes. On June 30,
President Bush signed the bill providing $96.1 billion for military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere in FY2008 and $65.9 billion for those purposes in
FY2009.
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.

---

CRS-13
Status of Legislation
Congress began action on the annual defense authorization bill with the Senate
Armed Services Committee approving its version (S. 3001) on April 30 and the
Senate passing it September 17. The House Armed Services Committee marked up
its version of the bill (H.R. 5658) on May 14 and passed the bill May 22. Instead of
convening a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the
bill, House and Senate negotiators worked out a compromise version, which the
House passed September 24 as an amended version of the Senate-passed bill. The
Senate passed the compromise version September 27.
Table 2A. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization, S. 3001
Full Committee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
Cong.
9/27/08
H.Rept.
5/22/08
S.Rept.
9/17/08
392–39
5/14/08 4/30/08
Record
voice
110-652
384-23
110-335
88-8
pp. H8718- 9/24/08
vote
H9081
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up an unnumbered
FY2009 defense appropriations bill on July 30. The Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its own unnumbered bill on September 10. Instead of
convening a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the
bill, House and Senate negotiators worked out a compromise version which was
incorporated into the FY2009 continuing resolution (H.R. 2638, Division C). The
House passed the continuing resolution, including the compromise FY2009 defense
appropriations bill September 24 and the Senate passed it September 27.
Table 2B. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill,
H.R. 2638, Division C
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
Cong.
370-58
9/27/08
7/30/08 9/10/08
Record
pp. H9434-
9/24/08
78-12
H9870

---

CRS-14
Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% of GDP 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.5
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.6
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.
5 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,
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.
6 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-15
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.7 Reasons include —
7 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-16
! 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.8 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),9
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
FY1999.10
7 (...continued)
A Powerpoint Summary,” at [http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/documents
/WD06002.pdf].
8 See, for example, the annual 10 year projections of defense spending by the Government
Electronics and Information Technology Association, at [http://www.geia.org/].
9 TRICARE is a DOD-run health insurance program for military dependents.
10 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-17
! 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.11
! 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
11 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-18
“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-19
Index (ECI), as required by law.12 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.13
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 1995.14 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
12 See CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by
Charles A. Henning.
13 See CRS Report RL34333, Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Force or Specialized
Units? Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
14 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-20
FY2007 and FY2008 budget proposals, and the Senate Armed Services Committee
has done so in drafting its version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill.
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
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 DOG-1000 destroyer. Support for shifting money from
the DOG-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 DOG-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.
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.

---

CRS-21
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
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
17 See CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background,
Oversight Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
18 See CRS Report RL34179, Navy 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.

---

CRS-22
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
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
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.
21 See CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf.

---

CRS-23
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
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.
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.
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.

---

CRS-24
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker
The FY2009 budget request includes $832 million to continue developing a new
mid-air refueling tanker (designated KC-X) and $62 million for components that
would be used to begin building the planes. On February 29, 2008, the Air Force
selected a consortium consisting of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Company (EADS) – the parent company of Airbus – over Boeing
to build the new tankers. But on June 18, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) upheld Boeing’s protest of the Air Force decision and DOD announced that
it would re-compete the award. With the initial contract for 179 aircraft worth $12.1
billion (and the final cost of the purchase estimated to reach approximately $35
billion) proponents of the competing bidders may try to tilt the second competition
toward one firm or the other.
On September 10, Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled the second
competition to select a new tanker. In a statement, Gates said there was not enough
time for DOD to complete the selection process by next January, when a new
Administration will take office and that, accordingly, he had decided to allow the
next Administration to define the requirements budget allocation for the new plane.26
During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on September 10, Gates said
DOD soon would recommend to Congress how to allocate the tanker funds requested
for FY2009. On September 15, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz,
reportedly said in a press conference that it could take the next Administration
between eight months and four years to conduct a new tanker competition.
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
26 “DoD Announces Termination of KC-X Tanker Solicitation,” DOD News Release 758-08,
September 10, 2008.
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-25
“Soft” Power Functions and Interagency Burden-Sharing28
Policymakers are debating the appropriate balance between military and civilian
personnel in operations and activities involving “soft” power functions, i.e., building
and strengthening government institutions and economic systems abroad, as well has
providing humanitarian assistance. As demands have increased on military personnel
to perform such functions over the past several years, especially in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Congress has granted DOD new authorities and funded expanded DOD
activities in areas where civilian agencies were traditionally in the lead. For some
policymakers, the expanded use of the defense budget to fund, and military personnel
to perform, “stabilization and reconstruction” activities reflects shortfalls in civilian
agency budgets and in civilian personnel that should be remedied. Nevertheless,
there is no consensus on an optimal division of labor, authorities, and funding
sources for such functions, or how to achieve that balance, nor on appropriate
interim arrangements.
Among the DOD programs of most concern:
! The Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) provides
funds for commanding officers in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry out
small-scale reconstruction programs, to fund state-building activities
such as supporting local militias such as the Sons of Iraq, and to
provide urgent humanitarian relief. In early 2008, the
Administration requested Congress make CERP authority permanent
and extend its use to other developing countries where U.S. forces
are operating.
! “Section 1206” Global Train and Equip authority allows the
Secretary of Defense to fund, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, the training and equipping of foreign military forces for
counterterrorism operations and to participate in or to support
military and stability operations in which U.S. armed forces
participate. In early 2008, the Bush Administration asked Congress
to codify an expanded version of Section 1206 to increase the annual
authorization from $300 to $750 million and to permit DOD to train
and equip a broad array of security forces in addition to military
forces. It asked for an FY2009 appropriation of $500 million.
28 Prepared by Nina Serafino, Specialist in International Security Affairs.
For more information on this topic and related programs, see CRS Report RL34639,
The Department of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and
Options for Congress; CRS Report RS22855, Section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authority to Train
and Equip Foreign Military Forces; CRS Report RS22871, Department of Defense "Section
1207" Security and Stabilization Assistance: A Fact Sheet; CRS Report RL32862,
Peacekeeping and Conflict Transitions: Background and Congressional Action on Civilian
Capabilities; and CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the
Role of the U.S. Military in Africa.

---

CRS-26
! The Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (CCIF) has traditionally
been used to fund foreign participation in military exercises and the
military education and training of foreign personnel, and certain
humanitarian and civil assistance. In 2006 Congress also added to
the permitted categories, “civic assistance, including urgent and
unanticipated humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance.” For
FY2009, the Administration requested $100 million for the CCIF
specifically to meet those needs.
! “Section 1207” Security and Stabilization funding authorizes DOD
to transfer defense articles, services and other support to assist
civilian agency responses to critical situations, in particular
stabilization activities and operations planned and coordinated by the
State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and
Stabilization (S/CRS). The Administration requested authority to
transfer $200 million for this purpose in FY2009.
! The Administration has requested $389 million in FY2009 to create
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) to give a senior general unified
command over activities related to Africa that, previously, had been
distributed among three regional DOD commands. Although the
new organization is intended to have a large non-military staff and
to cooperate extensively with the State Department, Agency for
International Development and other civilian agencies, some
question the wisdom of giving DOD such a prominent leadership
role in U.S. policy toward Africa.
War Funding Issues in the FY2009 DOD Bridge
Fund29
To get a more complete picture of war funding, the John Warner FY2007
National Defense Authorization Act requires the Administration to request a full
year’s war cost in the February budget. Despite this requirement, the Administration
included in its FY2009 budget request only a placeholder figure of $70 billion for
bridge funding, with no details, that was intended to cover the gap between the
beginning of the fiscal year and passage of a supplemental. In their spring markups,
the authorization committees used the original $70 billion placeholder figure.
On May 2, 2008, the Administration filled in the details by submitting an
amended emergency war request with $66 billion for the Department of Defense
(DOD) and $4 billion for State/USAID programs; however, these materials arrived
too late to be taken into account in the authorization markup this spring.30
29 Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget.
30 See Sec. 1008, P.L. 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 for requirement for annual war costs; see also, H.Rept. 110-652, Duncan
(continued...)

---

CRS-27
Since FY2004, the Defense Department has generally received war funding in
two appropriations acts — a bridge fund included as a separate title in DOD’s
baseline appropriations bill to cover the first part of the same fiscal year, and a
separate supplemental appropriation provided after the fiscal year has begun.
In the spring of 2008, however, Congress passed H.R. 2642, the FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252) with funding to cover war costs for
the rest of FY2008, and a bridge fund to cover part of the following fiscal year,
FY2009.31 Coupled with DOD’s regular appropriations for FY2009, this bridge fund
is expected to last until June or July 2009, leaving it to a new Administration to
decide how much funding to request for the remainder of the year.
Like the members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, the
members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, which draft the
defense authorization bill, did not address full-year war costs for FY2009. Instead,
the authorizing committees included in their respective bills funding levels for the
FY2009 bridge fund, along with various policy restrictions. The House passed its bill
(H.R. 5658) on May 22, 2008 and the Senate passed its bill (S. 3001) on September
17, 2008, including levels that differed from funding already included in for FY2009
in the already enacted supplemental (P.L. 110-252, see Table 4).32
Dropping funding levels proposed in the House and Senate bills, the conference
version of the authorization, S. 3001, adopts the funding levels included for FY2009
bridge fund already enacted in the FY2008 Supplemental except for a $2.1 billion
addition for six more C-17 transport aircraft. Thus, S. 3001 includes a total of $68
billion for war funding compared to the $66 billion appropriated in the FY2009
bridge fund (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252). The conference authorization bill does,
however, include different restrictions on funding and reporting requirements for the
Iraq Security Forces Fund and the Commanders Emergency Response Program(see
Table 4).33
30 (...continued)
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, p. 469. For DOD request,
see DOD, Fiscal Year 2009 Global War on Terror Bridge Request, May 2008;
[http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/Supplemental/FY2009_Glob
al_War_On_Terror_Bridge_Request.pdf].
31 Similarly, Congress appropriated the first tranche of $70 billion for FY2008 war funds in
the FY2007 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-161 to fill the gap between the
beginning of that fiscal year and passage of a supplemental.
32 War funding and policy restrictions are primarily in Title XV in H.R. 5658 and Titles XV
and XVI in S. 3001.
33 See Sec. 1501, S. 3001 and explanatory statement for conference version;
[http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/S3001NDAAforFY2009.pdf].
These caps in the authorization conference exceed the amount appropriated, in which case,
the appropriation level probably sets funding. In this year’s authorization bills, funding
levels for some programs like the ISFF and CERP were initially below appropriated levels,
which would probably have taken precedence over the appropriations act under the “last in
time” rule, under which the latest congressional action is in effect; see GAO, Principles of
(continued...)

---

CRS-28
FY2009 War Costs
With passage of the FY2008 Supplemental (P.L.110-252), CRS estimates that
the total amount of DOD war funding for this fiscal year is $176 billion excluding
funding that is not related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.34 In February 2008
testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates suggested that war costs in FY2009 could total
$170 billion, which would be about the same level as the FY2008 request excluding
certain one-time costs for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The
Administration said it had not submitted a full-year budget because of the uncertainty
of predicting future troop levels in Iraq.35
In later testimony in May 2008, Secretary Gates suggested that “further
reductions in the [U.S.] presence in Iraq during the course of 2009 and, perhaps, later
this year” would contribute to DOD’s ability to return to 12- month tour lengths to
which the President committed the Administration.36 General Petraeus, former
Commander of Multinational Forces, Iraq, and now head of Central Command, has
been assessing troop levels since completion in July 2008 of the withdrawal of five
combat brigades sent to Iraq in 2007 in the “surge.”
With the departure from Iraq of these five additional combat brigades, and the
completion of MRAP purchases funded last year, war costs in FY2009 will be below
FY2008’s level. On September 9, 2008, the President announced a modest additional
cut below surge levels of 8,000 troops in Iraq by January 2009 that would be coupled
with an increase of troops in Afghanistan to meet requests from commanders on the
ground for additional troops.37 Those additional troops could offset some if not all
of the savings that would result from further troop reductions in Iraq.38
Working from the Administration’s original request, the House and Senate-
passed versions of the FY2009 National Defense Authorization bills (H.R. 5658 and
S. 3001) both proposed $70 billion in emergency bridge funds for DOD. Those bills
were $5.8 billion above the amended request and the amount appropriated in the
recently passed FY2008 Supplemental, H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252.
33 (...continued)
Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition (Red Book), Volume I, p. 2-44; [http://www.gao
.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf].
34 See Table 4 in CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global
War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
35 Congress appropriated $16.8 billion for MRAP vehicles in FY2008 filling the current
requirement for 15,000 vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan. For $170 billion figure, see
Deputy Secretary England testifying to House Budget Committee, FY2009 Budget for the
Department of Defense, February 27, 2008.
36 Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Transcript, “Department
of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request,” May 20, 2008, p. 13.
37 White House, Speech by President Bush at National Defense University, Distinguished
Lecture Program, “President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror,” 9-9-08.
38 Department of Defense, DoD News Briefing with Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon, July
23, 2008; [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4265].

---

CRS-29
FY2009 Bridge Fund. While Congress has included a bridge fund in DOD’s
regular appropriations to cover part of that year’s war costs until submission and
passage of a supplemental in previous years, this year Congress added a bridge fund
for the following fiscal year, FY2009 to the supplemental.
Thus, the FY2008 Supplemental (P.L.110-252), that was enacted June 30, 2008
includes not only war funds for FY2008 but also a $65.9 billion in a bridge fund to
cover DOD war costs until a new Administration submits and a new Congress
approves a FY2009 supplemental. Expected to last until June or July 2009, the
FY2009 bridge fund was intended to give time to a new Administration to determine
the future course in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like previous bridge funds, over 70% of the appropriated FY2009 bridge fund
in P.L. 110-252 is dedicated to operation and maintenance funding to ensure that
funding for operations is available well into the fiscal year (see Table 4 below). This
appropriations act includes relatively small amounts for procurement — $4 billion
compared to the $67 billion requested by DOD for all of FY2008 — selecting those
items that may be more urgently needed such as force protection upgrades or more
uparmored HMMWVs for the Army.
This leaves potentially controversial decisions about whether it is appropriate
to cast as war costs service requests for major weapon systems such as EA-18 G
electronic warfare aircraft or V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft for the Navy, C-17
transport aircraft for the Air Force, or substantial upgrades to Army Abrams tanks or
Bradley fighting vehicles, which some observers argue are more appropriately
considered in the baseline budget as part of ongoing modernization programs.
Based on the halving of DOD’s procurement request by Congress in the FY2008
supplemental appropriations act passed in late May (P.L. 110-252) reflecting in part
on DOD’s informal proposals this spring to withdraw procurement requests for $6.7
billion in order to pay for higher fuel costs and other unanticipated needs, it appears
that congressional scepticism about war-related procurement funding request may be
growing.39 Although the House and Senate authorizers initially included funding for
major weapons systems recommended such as F-22 aircraft for the Air Force, all but
the C-17 aircraft were dropped in the conference version which, instead, adopted
funding levels for the FY2009 bridge already enacted in the FY2008 Supplemental
(P.L. 110-252).
Resolution of Issues
Although the conference version of S. 3001, the FY2009 NDAA generally
adopts the funding levels in the already enacted FY2008 Supplemental (HG.R.
2642/P.L.110-252), it adds $2.1 billion for six more C-17 aircraft that is not included
in that enacted bridge appropriations act. This brings the authorization total for the
FY2009 bridge fund to $68 billion compared to the $66 billion appropriated (see
39 Department of Defense, “Draft Adjustment to the FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending
Request,” March 2008.

---

CRS-30
Table 4). The conference bill also resolves most of the outstanding differences
between the two houses and P.L.110-232, the enacted supplemental.
The FY2009 NDAA conference bill, does, however, add various restrictions and
reporting requirements on the use of funds for several high-interest programs — the
Iraq Security Forces Fund, Commanders Emergency Response Program, and the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). The conference
bill:
! authorizes $1 billion, half the request, for the Iraq Security Forces
Fund (ISFF) but prohibits using these funds for infrastructure;
! authorizes $1.5 billion, $200 million less than requested and $300
million more than appropriated for the Commanders’ Emergency
Response program with a prohibition on projects over $2 million
unless waived by the Secretary of Defense;
! authorizes $350 million for Section 1206 authority to build and
equip foreign militaries for counter-terror operations;
! adopts the appropriated funding level for Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles transfer fund; and
! adopts the Senate proposal to require separate budget displays for
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Neither of the two authorizing bills, nor the already passed FY2009 bridge fund
address the overall funding for the full year’s war costs for FY2009. That will be
decided by the next Administration. The current Administration did not submit a
request for a full year’s war funding in part because of the uncertainty about future
troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the conference bill, differences between
House and Senate authorizers and amounts already appropriated are largely resolved
(see Table 4).
Funding for Iraq Security Forces (ISFF). The halving of DOD’s request
for the ISFF from $2 billion to $1 billion in the FY2009 authorization conference
reflects broad and growing sentiment to push the Iraqis to pay more of the cost of
reconstituting their security forces in reaction to large and growing Iraqi oil revenues
that are documented in a recent GAO report.40 In addition to the funding cut, the
authorizers prohibit funding for any facilities used by Iraqi forces, limiting funding
to equipment, supplies, services, training and facility repair (see Sec. 1508, S. 3001).
This prohibition adopts the stricter House version rather than limiting
infrastructure funding to smaller projects as proposed by the Senate. Senate
authorizers argued that “the Iraqi Government is well able to afford to finance its
own infrastructure needs at this point.”41 The strict prohibition on funding
40 GAO, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus,”
GAO-08-1031, August, 2008, p. 14.
41 Sec. 1616 in S. 3001 as reported and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 428; see also Sec. 1512 in H.R.
5658 as passed by the House. Section 1613 in S. 3001 as reported by the Senate lists
equipment, supplies, services, and training as the only types of expenses that can be funded
(continued...)

---

CRS-31
infrastructure in the authorization conference would presumably supersede report
language in the appropriations act that required “equal cost-sharing” for all
reconstruction projects above $750,000.42 These changes set new standards that
increase Iraqi “burden-sharing” of the cost to rebuild its security forces and
reconstruction.
41 (...continued)
in the ISFF; Sec. 1616 applies the prohibition to any “large-scale infrastructure projects”
above $2 million; see also Table 5.
42 Section entitled “Iraq Security Forces” in P.L. 110-252 and report language on p. S4337,
Congressional Record, May 19, 2008.

---

CRS-32
Table 4. FY2009 War Bridge Funding
in billions of dollars and percent of total
Type of Spending
FY2008 War
FY2009 Bridge Fund:
Bridge Fund,
Authorization and Appropriation Action
P.L. 110-161
In billions of dollars or shares of total
Title
In
As
Admin. Enacted Enacted
House-
Senate- House-
Billions Shares Req. Approp., Approp.
Passed
Passed passed
of $
of
P.L. 110- P.L. 110-
Auth.,
Auth.,
Conf.
Total
252,
252
H.R.
S. 3001, Auth,
6-30-08 As Shares 5658, 5- 9-17-08 9-24-08
of Total
12-08
Military Personnel
1.1
2%
3.8
1.2
2%
1.2
0.8
1.2
Operation & Maintenance
50.2
72%
44.9
51.9
79%
52.0
47.0
51.9
Defense Health
0.6
1%
0.1
1.3
2%
1.3
0.8
1.3
Working Capital Fd/Othera
1.2
1%
2.2
0.0
0%
0.0
1.0
0.0
Procurement
6.1
9%
2.8
4.4
7%
9.5
11.2
6.5
RDT&E
0.0
0%
0.4
0.4
1%
0.4
0.2
0.4
Military Construction
0.0
0%
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0.5
0.0
Special Funds
Iraq Freedom Fund
3.7
5%
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0.2
0.0
Afghan. Sec. Forces Fund
1.4
2%
3.7
2.0
3%
2.0
3.0
3.7
Iraq Sec. Forces Fund
1.5
2%
2.0
1.0
2%
1.0
0.2
2.0
JIEDDOb
4.3
6%
3.0
2.0
3%
2.5
3.0
3.0
MRAPc
0.0
0%
2.6
1.7
2%
[2.6]
[.6]
2.6
Global Train & Equipd
[.2]
0%
[.8]
[0.2]
0%
[.3]
[.3]
[.4]
Commanders’ Emerg.
[0.5]
[1%]
[1.7]
[1.2]
[2%] [1.5 or 2X
[0]
[1.5]
Response Programe
Iraqi fdg]
Coalition Support Capf
[.3]
[0%]
[.9]
[.2]
[0%]
[.2]
[0]
[.9]
Rapid Acquisition Fund
0.0
0%
0.1
0.0
0%
0.0
0.0
0.1
Transfer Authorityg
[4.0]
[6%]
[4.0]
[4.0]
[6%]
[4.0]
[3.0]
[4.0]
TOTAL
70.0
100%
66.0
65.9
100%
65.9
70.0
68.0
Notes and Sources:
a. Working Capital Fund finances fuel and spare parts inventories.
b. JIEDDO = Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, a transfer fund that funds RDT&E,
Procurement and operational training to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
c. MRAP = Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle fund, a transfer account for heavy trucks with V-shaped
hulls that have proven resistant to IEDs.
d. Congress set a funding cap on the amount that can be spent to train and equip foreign militaries in counter-
terrorist operations for FY2007 and FY2008 under Section 1206 authority in P.L.109-364, the FY2007 National
Defense Authorization Act. In Sec. 9109, the FY2008 Supplemental set a funding limit of $150 million (P.L.110-
252).
e. Authority and funding caps for CERP, a program where commanding officers have discretion to provide funds
to local authorities for reconstruction activities, is set in annual authorization and appropriations acts.
f. Coalition support funds are for logistical support to allies conducting counter-terror operations in the region,
primarily Pakistan.
g. Transfer authority sets a cap on the amount of funds in the act that can be transferred from one account to
another as long as the four congressional defense committees approve.
CRS calculations based on Division L in P.L. 110-161, FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations; P.L. 110-252
FY2008 Supplemental as enacted on June 30, 2008; H.R. 5658, H.Rept. 110-652; S. 3001, S.Rept. 110-335; S.
3 0 0 1 , c o n f e r e n c e v e r s i o n a n d e x p l a n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t ;
[ht t p : //armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/S3001NDAAforFY2009.pdf;and ]
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/FY2009NDAAJointExplanatoryStatement.pdf.

---

CRS-33
Strict Monitoring of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Fund (JIEDDO). Reflecting oversight concerns, the authorization conference
provides the $2.2 billion rather than the $3 billion requested, and requires that the
Director of JIEDDO develop a science and technology investment strategy for
countering Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), as well as annual reporting. In
addition, the conference bill requires five-day advance notification of obligations and
15-day notice of transfers (Sec. 1503 - 1505, S. 3001).
Commanders Emergency Response Program Funding. Another high
visibility and rapidly growing program where the $1.5 billion authorization cap in the
conference bill is below the request is the Commanders Emergency Response
Program (CERP), which allows individual commanding officers to dispense funds
for small-scale reconstruction projects, or to pay local militias such as the Sons of
Iraq. The CERP program has grown from $180 million in FY2004, its first year, to
$956 million in FY2007 to $1.7 billion in FY2008.43
Instead of adopting the House-proposed restrictions limiting U.S. funding for
CERP) to no more than twice Iraqi funding, the authorization bill requires reporting
of all projects over $500,000 and certifications for projects over $1 million. The bill
also requires detailed reporting, including for Iraqi government contributions, and
prohibits funding for projects above $2 million unless there are contributions from
other countries, the Iraqi government, or private organizations or the Secretary of
Defense submits a waiver (Sec. 1214, S. 3001).44
The conference version does, however, exempt CERP projects from the overall
prohibition on infrastructure spending (Sec.1508) as was proposed in the Senate
version. In addition, the appropriations act requires equal cost sharing of all
reconstruction projects over $750,000 in report language as the “necessary first step
in decreasing the Government of Iraq’s reliance on U.S. funds for reconstruction.”45
Section 1206 Training and Equipping of Foreign Military Forces. In
its FY2009 request, the Administration proposed a broadening of Sec.1206 authority
to include training of foreign and border police as well as military forces, an increase
in the current funding cap from $300 million to $750 million, and $500 million in
43 Congressional Record, May 19, 2008, explanatory statement for, p. S4324. H.R. 2642,
FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110-252). As later congressional action, the funding in the
supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-252) took precedence over the authorization cap
of $977 that was set earlier.
44 For earlier House version, see Sec. 1214 in H.R. 5658 as passed by the House and H.Rept.
110-652, p. 454; the Secretary of Defense would also have to notify the Armed Services and
Appropriations committees.
45 Congressional Record, p. S2808. S. 3001 includes no specific authorization level for
CERP, making no change to the $977 million level set for both FY2008 and FY2009 in the
FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 1205, P.L. 110-181, H.Rept. 110-477,
p. 1014); Sec. 9104, P.L. 110-252 sets a cap of $1.2217 billion to fund CERP.

---

CRS-34
designated funding rather than the current practice where funds are transferred from
other programs.46
As recommended by both houses, the conference bill rejects most of the
Administration’s proposals and limits Section 1206 authority to train and equip
foreign militaries for counter-terror operations, reflecting congressional concerns
about the foreign policy implications of expanding DOD authority. The bill extends
authorization for the Section 1206 program for three years. It also raises the annual
cap to $350 rather than the $750 million requested (Sec. 1206, S. 3001).47 The
FY2008 Supplemental sets a limit of $150 million for FY2008 but did not include
a FY2009 cap.48
Reflecting action by both houses, the conference authorization bill raises the
limit for Sec. 1208 authority to fund foreign irregular forces from $25 million to $35
million until FY2013 and also specifies that the irregular forces would work with
U.S. special forces.49
MRAP Vehicle Funding. In its amended submission, DOD requested $2.6
billion in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle transfer fund to buy
additional vehicles for as yet undefined requirements. The conference bill adopts the
$1.7 billion funding level appropriated in the FY2008 supplemental (P.L. 110-252)
rather than setting a cap with funds drawn from other accounts as was in the House
bill or the $600 million level funding in the Senate bill.50 According to DOD, the
current requirement for 12,000 MRAP vehicles is already funded while the House
46 See CRS Report RS22855, Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authorization to Train and Equip Foreign
Military Forces, by Nina M. Serafino; see also DOD, FY2009 Legislative Request,
September 2, 2008 and section by section analysis; [http://www.dod.mil/dodgc
/olc/legislpro.html].
47 For more information, see CRS Report RS22855, Section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authorization to
Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces, by Nina M. Serafino and CRS Report RL34639,
The Department of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and
Options for Congress, by Nina M. Serafino et. al. The House raised the cap to $400 million
and the Senate retained the current $300 million cap; see H.Rept. 110-652, p. 452 and
S.Rept. 110-335, p. 400.
48 See Sec. 9109, P.L. 110-252 for FY2008 cap; no general provision in Chapter 2, the
FY2009 bridge.
49 See Sec. 1208 in H.R. 5658 and H.Rept. 110-652, p. 452; Sec. 1203 in S. 3001 and S.Rept.
110-335, p. 399 for earlier versions.
50 For authorization action, see Sec. 1506 and Sec. 1606 in S. 3001 and S.Rept. 110-335, p.
420 and p. 427, which provides $500 million for MRAPs for Iraq and $100 million for
Afghanistan; Sec. 1515 in H.R. 5658, H.Rept. 110-652, p. 479; for appropriation action, see
Sec. 9208, P.L. 110-252.

---

CRS-35
authorizers suggest that more funding is needed to buy additional V-shaped heavy-
duty trucks for training purposes.51
Separating Iraq and Afghanistan Funding. Currently, funding for Iraq
and Afghanistan is provided in standard appropriation accounts, which mix funds for
the two operations and the funds for DOD’s baseline and war appropriations. While
the authorization conference bill does not specify separate amounts for Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2009 as the Senate bill did, it requires DOD to present separate
budget displays for each operation at the appropriation level and by program, project
or activity level in the next submission (Sec. 1502).
In addition, the conference version requires that DOD provide a “detailed
description of the assumptions underlying the funding for the period covered by the
budget request, including the anticipated troop levels, the operations intended to be
carried out, the equipment reset requirements necessary to support such operations,”
as proposed by the House.52

This requirement for separate budget displays would not necessarily require that
DOD to set up individual accounts for war spending for each operation. While
separate war funding by operation would improve transparency and help Congress
to see the relative cost of the two operations, DOD is likely to object to designating
funds by operation in order to preserve its flexibility. According to the Senate report,
separate funding displays would help prevent confusion between the two missions,
a concern of both Secretary of Defense Gates and the committee.
Caps on Transfers. Finally, the authorization conference bill sets a $4
billion cap on transfer authority for FY2009 funds, which limits the overall amount
that DOD can transfer between accounts as requested by DOD and adopted by the
appropriations act (Sec. 1507, S. 3001).53 The level of transfer authority is of
considerable concern to DOD because it provides flexibility to adjust funding levels
during execution.
51 Inside Defense, “DOD Readying for Last Round of MRAP Vehicle Contract Awards,”
June 30, 2008; CRS Report RS22707, Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert, p.4 and p. 5, 6-6-08.
52 Sec. 1502, S. 3001; this language may also reflect the fact that a very detailed cost of war
amendment added by Congressman Braley was also added on the floor. See Title XV for
Afghanistan and Title XVI for Iraq in S. 3001 as reported by the Senate and S.Rept. 110-
335, p. 417-p. 428. See Sec.1002 and Sec. 1003 in H.R. 5658, and p. 427ff in H.Rept. 110-
652.
53 For authorizing levels, see Sec. 1514 in S. 3001, and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 421 in the Senate
and Sec. 1516 in H.R. 5658, and H.Rept. 110-65, p. 479 in the House. For the level in the
FY2008 Supplemental for the FY2009 Bridge fund, see Sec. 9203 in P.L. 110-252.

---

CRS-36
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of
Congressional Action to Date
Congressional Budget Resolution
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY2009 (S.Con.Res. 70), adopted
by the Senate on June 4 and by the House on June 5, set an overall target for national
defense budget authority of $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. This total covers the so-called 050 function of the budget, which
includes funding for DOD, defense-related nuclear-energy spending by the
Department of Energy, and defense-related programs in other agencies.
The same defense total had been included in both the House version of the
budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 312), adopted March 13, and original version of
S.Con.Res. 70, adopted March 14 by the Senate.
The $612.5 billion total cap on defense budget authority set by the final version
of S.Con.Res. 70, as in the House-passed resolution, was the sum of two ceilings set
by the resolution: For national defense activities other than military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan (budget function 050), the ceiling is $542.5 billion; operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan are covered by a separate ceiling of $70 billion (budget function
970), which is the amount of the placeholder funding request included in the
President’s FY2009 budget.
Subsequently, the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, under
the so-called “302b allocation” process gave their respective defense subcommittees
a budget authority allowance for FY2009 of $487.7 billion – which, in practice, is the
ceiling for the FY2009 defense appropriations bill.
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
federal agencies and an additional $70 billion for costs related to military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan.54
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,
54 For highlights of the compromise final version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill,
see pp. x-x.

---

CRS-37
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.55
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
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.56
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
55 For details, see CRS Report RL34451, FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Global
War of Terror Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen
Daggett, et al.
56 Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy.

---

CRS-38
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
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.

---

CRS-39
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).57
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)
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
57 For additional background on DOD’s use of contractors as “lead system integrators,” see
CRS Report RS22631, Defense Acquisition: Use of Lead System Integrators (LSIs):
Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Valerie Bailey Grasso.

---

CRS-40
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-AGE-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.
Reflecting SASC’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.

---

CRS-41
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.
Civilian Response Corps. The bill incorporates the text of the
Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act of 2008, H.R. 1084, as
passed by the House on March 5, 2008. The provisions of this act would authorize
the President to furnish, after notifying Congress, up to $100 million in assistance
annually from FY2008 through FY2010, for stabilizing and reconstructing a country
or region in conflict or civil strife, or in transition from that status. It also would
codify the establishment of the State Department Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS), authorize the Secretary of State to
establish a response readiness corps, including a civilian reserve corps, and authorize
the appropriation of funds for through FY2010 to cover personnel, education,
training, equipment, travel, and deployment costs.
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
includes a provision (Section 1214b) requiring that Iraq obligate one dollar on similar

---

CRS-42
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
overruns in the Lockheed Martin program, which is based on a

---

CRS-43
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
reduce the federal government’s use of sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts,

---

CRS-44
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 Senate passed the bill September 17 by a
vote of 88-8.58
58 For highlights of the compromise final version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill,
(continued...)

---

CRS-45
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).
During floor debate on the bill, the Senate adopted three amendments:
! By Senator Kyl and others, directing that $89 million of the total
appropriated for missile defense research be used to deploy an X-
band, long-range missile-detection radar in a secret location;
Adopted by voice vote;
! By Senator Leahy and others, extending from three years to five
years the period following the end of a war during which the statute
of limitations on contractor fraud would be suspended; Adopted by
voice vote;
! By Senator Bill Nelson, repealing the requirement that military
survivors’ benefits paid from DOD’s Survivor Benefit Plan be
reduced by the amount of any benefits received under the
dependency and indemnity compensation program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs; Adopted 94-2.
The Senate rejected by a vote of 39-57 an amendment by Senator Vitter and
others that would have increased by a total of $358 million the amounts authorized
for three missile defense programs.
The bill incorporates $2.0 billion worth of reductions to the Administration’s
budget requests for military personnel and operation and maintenance which,
according 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.
58 (...continued)
see pp. x-x.

---

CRS-46
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
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.

---

CRS-47
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
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

---

CRS-48
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
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

---

CRS-49
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.
Other Highlights. Among other provisions of S. 3001 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;
! 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.

---

CRS-50
Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and
Senate Versions of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill59
The House and Senate 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
5, below, provides a side-by-side summary of Iraq policy provisions in each bill.
Table 5. Side-By-Side Comparison of Iraq Policy Provisions in
House and Senate Defense Authorization Bills
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 5658)
Senate-Passed 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 for the establish any military installation or base for the
permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in purpose of providing for the permanent stationing
Iraq” (a)(1); or “to exercise United States control of the oil of United States Armed Forces in Iraq” (1); or “to
resources of Iraq” (a)(2)
exercise United States control of the oil resources
Comparison with Senate language: Includes a definition of Iraq” (2).
of “permanent stationing” — “the stationing of United Comparison with House language: Does not
States Armed Forces in Iraq on a continuing or lasting include any definitions.
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

59 This discussion was prepared by Catherine Dale, Specialist in International Security,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-51
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 5658)
Senate-Passed Bill (S. 3001)
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.
COMMANDERS EMERGENCY 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
(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 FY2009 and estimated levels in FY2010; (2)
the funding required to staff the Iraqi police training teams

---

CRS-52
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 5658)
Senate-Passed Bill (S. 3001)
in FY2009 and estimated levels in FY2010; 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 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.

---

CRS-53
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 5658)
Senate-Passed Bill (S. 3001)
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).
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-54
FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill: House and Senate
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Markups
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $487.7
billion, which the panel said was $4 billion less than the President requested for that
bill. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
appropriations Bill on September 10, also recommending $487.7 billion.
Neither chamber held full committee markups of a FY2009 defense
appropriations bill, and neither chamber considered a bill on the floor. Instead, a
compromise version of the two subcommittee bills — in effect, a conference
agreement on FY2009 defense appropriations — was incorporated into H.R. 2638,
the FY2009 continuing resolution, which the House passed September 24 by a vote
of 370-58.60
House Defense Appropriations Markup. The House Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on
July 30, recommending a total of $487.7 billion.61 In addition to funding a military
pay raise of 3.9% (0.5% higher than the President’s request), the bill would provide,
for service members who were retained on active duty involuntarily by a so-called
“Stop Loss” action, an additional $500 per month for each month their service was
extended from October 2001 onward.
On key weapons systems, the unnumbered subcommittee bill would appropriate:
! $6.7 billion, as requested, for development and production of the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter, but with a $785 million cut from production
funding that is nearly offset by increases in the development
program to continue work on an alternative engine ($430 million)
and to increase the amount of testing, partly by purchasing two more
prototypes ($320 million);
! $523 million not requested to buy components to permit continued
production in FY2010 of the F-22 Raptor, in addition to approving
the funds requested to buy 20 of the aircraft in FY2009 ;
! $3.6 billion for the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program,
including an increase of $33 million to accelerate the development
of unmanned ground and aerial vehicles;
60 For highlights of the compromise final version of the FY2009 defense appropriations bill,
see pp. x-x.
61 The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee did not release the text of either the
unnumbered bill or the committee report language that, as a rule, it would present to the full
House Appropriations Committee. The following summary of highlights of the
subcommittee bill is based on a press release by Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha,
issued July 30.

---

CRS-55
! No funds, instead of the $2.5 billion requested, for a third ship of the
DDG-1000 class;
! Additions to the request of $1.6 billion for an LPD-17 amphibious
landing transport, $450 million for components to be used in the
DDG-1000 program, and $941 million for two T-AGE cargo ships.
! $398 million for components to be used in a future Virginia-class
submarine, thus allowing the Navy to begin in 2010 – a year earlier
than currently planned – funding two subs per year instead of one;
! $835 million, which is $212 million less than the budget request, to
continue development of a fleet of new helicopters for use by the
White House;
The subcommittee also approved $893 million, as requested, to develop a new
aerial refueling tanker for the Air Force to replace existing KC-135 tankers built by
Boeing in the 1950s. In addition, the subcommittee directed that, as DOD conducts
a new competition to choose between a tanker offered by Northrop Grumman and
one offered by Boeing, it comply with findings made by Government Accountability
Office (GAO) in its ruling that a previous competition, won by Northrop Grumman,
was invalid.62
On September 10, Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled the second
competition to select a new tanker. In a statement, Gates said there was not enough
time for DOD to complete the selection process by next January, when a new
Administration will take office and that, accordingly, he had decided to allow the
next Administration to define the requirements budget allocation for the new plane.63
During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on September 10, Gates said
DOD soon would recommend to Congress how to allocate the tanker funds requested
for FY2009. On September 15, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz,
reportedly said in a press conference that it could take the next Administration
between eight months and four years to conduct a new tanker competition.64
The House subcommittee bill also would require the Administration to include
in future annual defense budget requests funding to cover the cost for the year of
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill would provide $80.6 million of the $389 million requested to stand up
a new U.S. Africa Command. According to press accounts, subcommittee’s draft
report to accompany the defense bill contended that a high-profile military command
was not the appropriate basis for organizing U.S. government efforts, carried out by
62 See CRS Report RL34398, Air Force Air Refueling: The KC-X Aircraft Acquisition
Program, by Christopher Bolkcom.
63 “DoD Announces Termination of KC-X Tanker Solicitation,” DOD News Release 758-08,
September 10, 2008.
64 Mariana Malenic, “New Tanker Contract Could Be Up To Four Years Away, Air Force
Chief Says,” Defense Daily, September 16, 2008.

---

CRS-56
many agencies, to promote security stability in Africa.65
Action on the subcommittee draft by the full House Appropriations Committee,
which had been scheduled for September 9, was postponed.
Senate Defense Appropriations Markup. The Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on
September 10. Like its counterpart House panel, the Senate subcommittee
recommended a total of $487.7 billion.66
The subcommittee accepted by voice vote an amendment by Senator Domenici
that would continue a nuclear nonproliferation agreement under which Russia is
converting 500 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium to a less potent form of
uranium that can be used to fuel nuclear powerplants. To protect U.S. producers of
nuclear reactor fuel, the amendment limits the amount of uranium fuel Russia can
sell to U.S. powerplants.
An amendment by Senator Dorgan that would have rescinded funds
appropriated for reconstruction in Iraq and for training and equipping Iraqi security
forces, was rejected by a vote of 10-9.67
The unnumbered bill approved by the Senate subcommittee would fund a
military pay raise of 3.9% (0.5% higher than the President’s request).
The bill would fund procurement of 14 of the 16 requested F-35 Joint Strike
Fighters and would add to the request $495 million to continue developing an
alternative engine for the F-35.
It also would fund, as requested, procurement of a third destroyer of the DDG-
1000 class. It would add funds to buy components that would enable the purchase in
a future budget of a DDG-51 class destroyer ($397 million), an LPD-17 class
amphibious landing transport ($273 million), and an LHA(R) class helicopter carrier
($178 million).
The bill would provide $362 million of the $893 million the Air Force requested
for the replacement mid-air refueling tanker. The Senate subcommittee marked up
its bill on the same day that DOD cancelled the second competition to select the new
tanker.
65 “Lawmakers’ Questions about Military’s Role in Africa Spur Steep AFRICOM Cuts,”
InsideDefense.com, September 9, 2008
66 Like its counterpart House subcommittee, the Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee did not release the text of either the unnumbered bill or the committee report
language that it approved. The following summary of highlights of the subcommittee bill
is based on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s September 10 press release which, in
general, does not list the amounts appropriated for specific acquisition programs.
67 Otto Kreisher, “Senate Appropriations Subpanel Clears $487 billion Defense Package,”
CongressDaily, September 10, 2008.

---

CRS-57
It would deny all funds requested for procurement of the Stryker Mobile Gun
System, a version of the Stryker armored car armed with a tank-like cannon. It also
would deny funds requested to integrate with the Navy’s Trident submarine-launched
ballistic missile a proposed new nuclear warhead designated the Reliable
Replacement Warhead.

---

CRS-58
Table A-1. FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act:
House and Senate Action by Title
(amounts in millions of dollars)
House-
Senate-
Request
Passed
Passed
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-59
Table A-2. FY2009 War-Related Defense Authorization:
House and Senate Amounts by Account
(thousands of dollars)
Senate
Request
House
Afghanistan
Iraq
Total
Military Personnel
Army
3,500,000
— 500,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
Navy
95,000
— 25,000
75,000
100,000
Marine Corps
85,000
—
62,500
187,500
250,000
Air Force
105,000
—
25,000
75,000
100,000
Army Reserve
—
—
25,000
75,000
100,000
Navy Reserve
—
—
7,500
22,500
30,000
Marine Corps Reserve
—
—
5,000
15,000
20,000
Army National Guard
20,000
—
100,000
300,000
400,000
Total Military Personnel
3,805,000
1,194,000
750,000
2,250,000
3,000,000
Operation and Maintenance
Army
35,560,055 37,363,243
9,000,000 27,000,000 36,000,000
Navy
238,437
3,500,000
500,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
Marine Corps
2,200,000
2,900,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
Air Force
3,644,078
5,000,000
500,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
Defense-Wide
3,193,494
2,648,569
688,750
1,811,250
2,500,000
Army Reserve
—
79,291
12,500
37,500
50,000
Navy Reserve
—
42,490
7,500
22,500
30,000
Marine Corps Reserve
34,000
47,076
10,000
30,000
40,000
Air Force Reserve
—
12,376
3,750
11,250
15,000
Army National Guard
—
333,540
75,000
225,000
300,000
Air National Guard
—
52,667
12,500
37,500
50,000
Drug Interdiction and Counter-
Drug Activities, Defense
130,000
188,000
150,000
—
150,000
Defense Health Program/Medical
Support Fund
400,000
1,100,000
155,000
460,000
615,000
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
3,666,259
2,000,000
3,000,000
—
3,000,000
Iraq Security Forces Fund
2,000,000
1,000,000
—
200,000
200,000
Iraq Freedom Fund
—
—
—
150,000
150,000
Total Operation and
Maintenance
51,066,323 56,267,252
15,115,000 35,985,000 51,100,000
Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army
—
84,000
250,000
750,000
1,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army
—
—
12,500
37,500
50,000
W&TCV Procurement, Army
—
822,674
375,000
1,125,000
1,500,000
Ammunition, Army
—
46,500
87,500
262,500
350,000
Other Procurement, Army
80,536
1,255,050
1,100,000
3,300,000
4,400,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
—
—
25,000
75,000
100,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy
—
—
12,500
37,500
50,000
Ammunition, Navy & MC
—
—
75,000
225,000
300,000
Other Procurement, Navy
—
476,248
25,000
75,000
100,000
Procurement, Marine Corps
—
565,425
250,000
750,000
1,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
1,209,300
4,624,842
400,000
400,000
800,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force
—
—
12,500
37,500
50,000
Ammunition, Air Force
—
—
12,500
37,500
50,000
Other Procurement, Air Force
—
1,500,644
150,000
450,000
600,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide
—
177,237
62,500
187,500
250,000
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicle Fund
2,610,000
—
100,000
500,000
600,000

---

CRS-60
Senate
Request
House
Afghanistan
Iraq
Total
Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Fund
2,970,444
2,496,300
750,000
2,250,000
3,000,000
Rapid Acquisition Fund
100,000
102,000
—
—
—
Classified
1,540,208
— —
— —
Total Procurement
8,510,488 12,150,920
3,700,000 10,500,000 14,200,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Army
— —
15,000
35,000
50,000
Navy
-- 113,228
15,000
35,000
50,000
Air Force
—
72,041
15,000
35,000
50,000
Defense-Wide
— 202,559
15,000
35,000
50,000
Total Research,
Development, Test and
Evaluation
379,125
387,828
60,000
140,000
200,000
Revolving and Management Funds
Working Capital Fund, Defense-
Wide
2,200,000
— 250,000
750,000
1,000,000
Total Revolving and
Management Funds
2,200,000
—
250,000
750,000
1,000,000
Total War-Related Budget Authority
65,960,936 70,000,000
19,875,000 49,625,000 69,500,000
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.

---

CRS-61
Table A-3. 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 shifts $65
0603881C
Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment
1,045.3
1,019.1
964.1
1,012.1
— mn to procurement, adds $28 mn for short
range defense, $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 European site
activation and $49 mn for European radar.
0603884C
Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors
586.1
1,077.0
978.2
1,017.2
— Senate cuts $65 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 $57 mn
0603892C
AEGIS BMD
1,126.3
1,157.8
1,121.8
1,180.8
— 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
—
—
—
— —
—
MDA Undistributed Reduction
—
—
—
-268.7
— Senate makes $269.7 mn undistributed cut

---

CRS-62
FY2008
FY2009
Confer-
PE Number Program Element Title
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
ence
Comments
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
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, RDT&E & MilCon, Missile Defense Agency
8,655.3
9,335.7
8,361.7
8,688.3
— —
RDT&E Army
0604869A
Patriot/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program
369.8
431.3
431.3
431.3
— —
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
453.5
524.4
524.4
524.4
— —
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
— —
Procurement Defense-Wide, Missile Defense Agency
House shifts $65 mn from R&D, adds $75 mn
for long lead procurement. Senate shifts $65
—
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
—
—
140.0
180.0
— mn from R&D adds $75 mn for long lead for
missiles, $40 mn for radar.
House shifts $56 mn from R&D, adds $20 mn
—
Standard Missile-3 Shipboard Missile
—
—
111.0
77.0
— for facilities, $35 mn for procurement. Senate
shifts $57 mn from R&D adds $20 mn.
Subtotal, Procurement Missile Defense Agency
—
—
251.0
257.0
— —
Total Missile Defense R&D, MilCon, Procurement
10,026.6
10,927.8
9,953.8
10,280.3
— —
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-63
Table A-4. House and Senate Action on Selected Army and Marine Corps Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Army Aircraft/Helicopters
Joint Cargo Aircraft (AF R&D)
7
269.6
26.8
7
269.6
26.8
7
269.6
26.8
—
—
— —
Armed Reconnaissance
House cuts $130 mn for 13 aircraft.
28
438.9
135.7
15
309.1
135.7
20
363.9
135.7
— — —
Helicopter
Senate cuts $75 mn for 8 aircraft
Light Utility Helicopter
36
224.5
— 36
224.5
— 36
224.5
— — —
—
—
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter
63 1,063.0
33.9
66 1,122.4
33.9
63 1,063.0
33.9
— — —
—
Title XV
— — —
20
113.0
—
— — —
— — —
—
CH-47 Helicopter
16
443.5
9.9
—
--
9.9
16
443.5
9.9
—
—
— —
CH-47 Helicopter Mods
—
724.2
—
—
724.2
—
—
724.2
—
—
—
— —
AH-64 Apache Helicopter Mods
—
637.3
234.4
—
--
234.4
—
637.3
234.4
—
—
— —
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles
M-2 Bradley Vehicle Mods
21
488.3
106.4
21
488.3
106.4
21
488.3
106.4
—
—
— —
M -1 Abrams Tank Mods
29
692.7
35.0
29
692.7
35.0
—
692.7
35.0
—
—
— —
Stryker Armored Vehicle
119 1,174.9
108.0
119 1,019.1
118.2
119 1,174.9
112.5
—
—
— House cuts $156 mn
House cuts $210 mn from R&D, Senate
Future Combat System
6
154.6 3,161.6
6
154.6 2,951.6
6
154.6 3,163.6
—
—
— adds $2 mn for NLOS launch system
Future Combat System Spin Outs
—
176.7
64.9
—
176.7
74.9
—
176.7
64.9
—
—
— House adds $10 mn in R&D
Wheeled Vehicles
Hi Mob Multi-Purpose Vehicles
—
946.7
—
—
946.7
—
—
946.7
—
—
—
— —
Senate adds $81 mn for palletized loading
Family of Medium Tact. Vehicles
—
944.7
1.9
—
944.7
1.9
— 1,025.4
1.9
—
—
— system
Family of Heavy Tactical
—
923.3
2.9
—
923.3
5.9
—
966.4
2.9
—
—
— Senate adds $43 mn
Vehicles
Armored Security Vehicle
202
195.4
—
202
195.4
—
202
195.4
—
—
—
— —
Mine Protection Vehicle Family
—
182.4
—
—
182.4
—
—
182.4
—
—
—
— —
Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical
— 213.3
— — 213.3
— — 213.3
— — —
—
—
Truck
Radios
SINCGARS Family
—
84.9
—
—
--
—
—
84.9
—
—
—
— House eliminates funds from base bill
Radio, Improved HF Family
—
48.4
—
—
48.4
—
—
71.2
—
—
—
— —
WIN-T Ground Forces Tactical
House cuts $45 mn, Senate cuts $42 mn in
— 287.6
414.4
— 242.6
381.3
— 245.6
414.4
— —
—
Network
proc; House cuts $33 mn in R&D.
Joint Tactical Radio System
— --
834.7
— --
834.7
—
—
834.7
—
— —
—
(JTRS)

---

CRS-64
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Night Vision Devices
—
465.6
112.7
—
465.6
139.4
—
494.4
116.2
—
—
— Senate adds $29 mn
Night Vision Thermal Weapon
—
416.9
—
—
416.9
—
—
469.4
—
—
—
— Senate adds $52.5 mn
Sight
Marine Corps
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
—
--
316.1
—
--
275.9
—
—
316.1
—
—
— House cuts $40 mn from R&D
Light Armor Vehicle Product
— 64.5
—
— 64.5
— — 64.5
—
— — —
—
Improvement
Night Vision Equipment
—
24.9
—
—
24.9
—
—
24.9
—
—
—
— —
Radio Systems
—
95.8
—
—
47.9
—
—
95.8
—
—
—
— House cuts $48 mn
Logistics Vehicle System
House tranfers $178 mn to Title XV.
— 324.6
4.2
— 146.5
4.2
— 299.6
4.2
— —
—
Replacement
Senate cuts $25 mn.
Title XV
— -- —
—
178.0
—
— — —
— — —
—
Joint Army and Marine Corps
Mine Resistant Armor Protected
— —
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Vehicles (MRAP)
House approves up to $2.6 billion by
Title XV/XVI
— 2,610.0
— —
[2,610.0]
— — 600.0
— —
—
— transfer from other accounts, Senate cuts
$2 billion.
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-65
Table A-5. 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
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
—
—
— —
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
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

---

CRS-66
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
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-67
Table A-6. House and Senate Action on Selected Missile, Space, and Munitions Programs: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Space Based Systems
Fleet Satellite Communications
Follow-on/Mobile User Objective
—
507.5
516.8
—
507.5
516.8
—
507.5
516.8
—
—
— —
System (MUOS)
Advanced Extremely High
Senate adds $100 mn for advance proc of
—
16.6
388.0
—
16.6
388.0
—
116.6
388.0
—
—
—
Frequency Satellite (AEHF)
4th satellite
Evolved Expendable Launch
4 1,205.3
33.7
4 1,205.3
33.7
4 1,205.3
33.7
—
—
— —
Vehicle (EELV)
Global Positioning System (GPS)
—
136.0
819.0
—
136.0
819.0
—
136.0
819.0
—
—
— —
National Polar-Orbiting
Operational Environmental
—
—
289.5
—
—
289.5
—
—
289.5
—
—
— —
Satellite System (NPOESS)
Space Based Infrared Sytem
2 1,718.0
529.8
2 1,718.0
529.8
2 1,718.0
529.8

—
— —
(SBIRS)
Transformational
—
—
843.0
—
—
843.0
—
— 1,193.0
—
—
— —
Communications Satellite (TSAT)
Wideband Global Satellite
—
22.5
12.4
—
22.5
12.4
—
22.5
12.4
—
—
— —
Communications (WGS)
Missiles and Munitions
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-
428
441.6
62.8
428
441.6
62.8
428
441.6
62.8
—
—
— —
Air Missile (AMRAAM)
Air Intercept Missile -AIM 9X
480
134.7
12.4
480
134.7
12.4
480
134.7
12.4
—
—
— —
Joint Air to Ground Missile
—
—
180.8
—
—
180.8
—
—
180.8
—
—
— —
(JAGM)
Joint Air-to-Surface Missile
260
240.3
13.0
260
240.3
13.0
115
160.3
13.0
—
—
— Senate cuts $80 mn on proc due to delays
(JASSM)
Joint Direct Attack Munition
3,816
115.0
— 5,195
155.0
— 3,816
115.0
—
—
—
— House adds $40 mn in proc.
(JDAM)
Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
496
149.1
22.5
496
149.1
22.5
496
149.1
22.5
—
—
— —
Small Diameter Bomb (SDM)
2,612
133.2
144.6 2,612
133.2
144.6 2,612
133.2
144.6
—
—
— —

---

CRS-68
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Javelin Advanced Tank Weapon
605
259.3
—
605
259.3
—
605
259.3
—
—
—
— —
High Mobility Artillery Rocket
—
355.5
6.2
—
355.5
6.2
—
355.5
6.2
—
—
— —
System
Standard Family of Missiles
70
228.0
234.7
70
228.0
234.7
70
228.0
234.7
—
—
— —
Tactical Tomahawk Cruise
207
281.1
14.2
207
281.1
17.2
207
281.1
14.2
—
—
— —
Missile
Trident II Ballistic Missile
24 1,093.2
—
24 1,093.2
—
24 1,093.2
—
—
—
— —
Global/Strategic Systems R&D
Reliable Replacement Warhead
—
—
23.3
—
—
23.3
—
—
23.3
—
—
— —
Prompt Global Strike
—
—
117.6
—
—
117.6
—
—
117.6
—
—
— —
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-69
Table A-7. 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
—
—
— —

---

CRS-70
Request
House
Senate
Conference
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Procurement
R&D
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Outfitting
—
429.6
— —
429.6
—
—
429.6
—
—
—
— —
Service Craft
—
36.3
— —
36.3
—
—
36.3
—
—
—
— —
LCAC Service Life Extension
—
110.9
— —
110.9
—
—
110.9
—
—
—
— Funding is to upgrade 6 vessels
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
House moves funds to Navy R&D, but
—
—
68.7 —
—
68.7
—
—
63.3
—
—
—
R&D
makes not change in amount.
Total Navy Ships
10 14,157.6 1,582.1
8 14,272.6 1,584.1
10 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.

---