Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations

February 25, 2009 (RL34473)

Contents

Tables

Appendixes

Summary

Soon after the 111th Congress convened, it began drafting H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, generally referred to as the "economic stimulus" bill. This bill added a total of $8.5 billion to amount previously appropriated for DOD in FY2009. Of the additional funds provided by H.R. 1, $4.6 billion was for accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations provided by Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009, generally referred to as the "continuing resolution," which President George W. Bush signed into law on Sept. 30, 2008. The economic stimulus bill also provided an additional $2.9 billion for accounts funded by the regular military construction appropriations provided by Division E of the continuing resolution. Congress' disposition of FY2009 funding for DOD in H.R. 1 (other than funding for military construction) is discussed in this report on pp. 3-5, below. The balance of the report discusses the President's regular DOD budget request for FY2009 and Congress' disposition of that request in the regular defense authorization and appropriations legislation.

The President's FY2009 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 budget authority for the base budget of the Department of Defense (DOD)—i.e., activities not associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—$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. It also included a placeholder of $70 billion for 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, including $542.5 billion for the baseline budget and a $70 billion allowance for war-related costs. On September 17, the Senate passed the authorization bill by a vote of 88-8.

The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill (H.R. 5658) on May 22, authorizing $612.5 billion for national defense, including $70 billion for war-related costs. The bill denied 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 $611.1 billion, worked out informally, 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 bill September 27 by voice vote and the President signed it on October 14 (P.L. 110-417). The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $477.6 billion, $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 $477.6 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 was incorporated into H.R. 2638, the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. The bill included $477.6 billion in regular FY2009 defense appropriations and $25.0 billion in military construction appropriations. The House passed the compromise bill September 24 (370-58). The Senate passed the bill September 27 (78-12), and the President signed it September 30 (P.L. 110-329).


Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

Soon after the 111th Congress convened, it began drafting H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, generally referred to as the "economic stimulus" bill. On January 28, the House passed a version of the bill which would have provided, in Title III, $4.9 billion for accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations provided by Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009, generally referred to as the "continuing resolution," which President George W. Bush signed into law on September 30, 2008. The House version of the economic stimulus bill also provided in Title X of the economic stimulus bill $6.0 billion for accounts funded by the regular military construction appropriations provided by Division E of the continuing resolution.

The Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 1 on February 10, which would have provided an additional $3.7 billion for DOD accounts other than military construction in FY2009 and 3.4 billion for military construction.

House-Senate conferees on the economic stimulus bill agreed February 10 on a compromise version that added $4.6 billion to the non-construction DOD accounts and funded by the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Act and $2.9 billion for military construction accounts(see Table 1). The House and Senate each adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on February 13, 2009, with the House approving it by a vote of 246-183 and the Senate approving it by a vote of 60-38. Provisions of H.R. 1 relevant to accounts funded in the FY2009 defense appropriations bill are analyzed in pp, 3-5, below. (Provisions of the economic stimulus relevant to military construction accounts are analyzed in CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed] (pdf).)

The balance of this report analyzes the FY2009 defense appropriations bill that was incorporated into the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329), which the President signed September 30, 2008. That bill provided $477.6 billion in discretionary defense appropriations for the so-called "base budget" of the Department of Defense, that is, for regular operations other than combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee had marked up its version of the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $477.6 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 $477.6 billion.

Neither chamber held full committee markups of a FY2009 defense appropriations bill, and neither chamber considered a defense appropriations bill on the floor. Instead, a compromise version of the two subcommittee bills—in effect, a conference agreement on FY2009 defense appropriations—was negotiated informally by members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees and was incorporated into the FY2009 continuing resolution, along with full-year versions of the FY2009 homeland security and military construction/veterans affairs appropriations bills. The bill was passed by the House September 24, 2008 and by the Senate September 27, 2008 and was signed by the President September 30 (See Table A-2 in the Appendix to this report.).

Together with defense funds appropriated in other acts for military construction and emergency war costs and the permanent appropriation for accrual payments to the Tricare for Life fund for military retirees, the defense appropriations act brought the total for DOD appropriations in FY2009 to $578.9 billion, as of December 31, 2008 (see Table 1).

In a related action, the President signed into law on October 14, 2008 the FY2009 defense authorization bill (S. 3001) authorizing $611.1 billion for national defense, including $68.6 billion for war-related programs (see Table A-1 in the Appendix to this report).

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 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 April 30, the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the FY2009 authorization bill, which it reported to the floor on May 12 as S. 3001. It also authorized the appropriation of $612.5 billion in new budget authority for national security programs, including $542.5 billion for the base budget and an additional $70 billion allowance for war-related costs.

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. Because of the controversy over the earmarks provision, the Senate acted on only four of the several dozen amendments to the bill that were proposed before it passed the bill on September 17, 2008 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 final version of the bill authorizing $611.1 billion, a reduction of $1.4 billion from the Administration's request as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. All but a very small amount of the authorization bill's reduction was taken from the $70 billion requested for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On September 24, the House passed the compromise version of the authorization bill as an amended version of the Senate-passed S. 3001. The bill was passed by a vote of 392-39 under suspension of the rules, a procedure which did not permit amendments but which required approval by a two-thirds vote. The Senate passed the amended version of S. 3001 by voice vote on September 27, thus clearing the measure for the President who signed it on October 14, 2008.

Since neither the defense authorization bill nor the defense appropriations bill was the result of a formal conference committee, neither was accompanied by a traditional conference report. However, explanatory statements associated with the compromise version of each measure, fleshing out the details of the final legislation, were published in the Congressional Record.1

Table 1. FY2008-09 DOD Appropriations
Through December 31, 2008

(amounts in billions of dollars)

 

FY2008 Enacted

FY2009 Request

FY2009 Enacted

Annual DOD Appropriations Bill

Military Personnel

105.3

114.9

114.4

Operation and Maintenance

140.1

154.8

152.9

Procurement

98.2

102.1

101.1

RDT&E

77.3

79.6

80.5

Revolving and Management Funds

2.7

3.5

3.2

Other Defense Programs:

26.3

26.9

27.4

Related Agencies

1.0

1.0

1.0

General Provisions/Rescissions (non-emergency)

-2.2

-1.2

-2.9

Total, DOD Appropriations Act (non-emergency)

448.7

481.6

477.6

Mine-Resistant, Armor-Protected Vehicles (MRAP) (emergency)

11.6

Total, Annual DOD Appropriations Act

460.3

481.6

477.6

Tricare for Life Accrual (permanent appropriation)

10.9

10.4

10.4

Other Emergency Appropriations (Bridge Fund)

171.1a

66.1

65.9b

Annual Military Construction Appropriations Act

24.9

24.4

25.0

"Stimulus Package" funds for accounts covered by Annual DOD Appropriations Act

n/a

n/a

4.6

"Stimulus Package" funds for DOD accounts covered by Annual Military Construction Appropriations Act

n/a

n/a

2.9

Total Defense and Mil/Con Appropriations

667.2

582.5

586.4

Source: CRS from based on Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part I, pp. H9291-H9294.

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Does not include funds appropriated for these accounts by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "economic stimulus" bill).

a. Includes emergency war funding provided in three acts: P.L. 110-92 (First Continuing Resolution, FY2008); P.L. 110-161 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, FY2008); and P.L. 110-252 (Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY2008). Also includes approximately $5.7 billion for non-war emergency DOD funding.

b. Emergency war funding (or "bridge fund") provided in P.L. 110-252 (Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY2008).

Economic Stimulus Funding, DOD

H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the "economic stimulus," added $4.6 billion to DOD accounts funded in the regular FY2009 defense appropriations bill enacted September 30, 2008 as Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009.

The additional DOD funds provided by the economic stimulus bill were aimed largely at programs that would serve one of two goals. A total of $4.24 billion was for maintenance of DOD facilities of which $400 million is for medical facilities, $153.5 million is for renovation of barracks, and the remaining $3.69 billion is for repair and maintenance of other facilities and for projects that would improve the energy efficiency of DOD facilities. An additional $300 million is for research and development projects that would improve DOD's energy efficiency.

Representative David R. Obey, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, introduced the bill on January 26, 2009, three weeks after the 111th Congress convened. Following referral to the Committees on Appropriations and Budget, the bill was brought up for consideration on the floor on January 27 (Congressional Record, pp. H557-H583, H620-H749). After debate and amendment, H.R. 1 was passed by the Yeas and Nays, 244-188 (Roll no. 46). As passed by the House, the bill would have added $4.9 billion to the DOD accounts funded by the regular FY2009 Defense Appropriations Act that comprised Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009. (see Table 2)

The Senate received the economic stimulus bill on January 29. It was laid before the Senate by Unanimous Consent on February 2, when Sen. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, proposed on behalf of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, to amend H.R. 1 by substituting the text of S. 336, the chamber's own version of the bill (Congressional Record S 1237-S1243, S1266-S1273). The Senate adopted several floor amendments before passing the bill Feb. 10 by a vote of 61-37. As passed by the Senate, the bill would have added $3.7 billion to the accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations act. (see Table 2)

A conference report on the economic stimulus bill, adopted by both the House and the Senate on February 13, 2009 increased accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations bill by a total of $4.6 billion. President Obama signed the bill into law on February 17, 2009. (see Table 2)

Table 2. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1)

(budget authority in $ millions)

Account

House

Senate

Enacted

Operations and Maintenance, Army

1,490.8

1,169.3

1,474.5

Operations and Maintenance, Navy

624.4

571.8

657.1

Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps

128.5

112.2

113.9

Operations and Maintenance, Air Force

1,236.8

927.1

1,096.0

Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve

110.9

79.5

98.3

Operations and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

62.2

44.6

55.1

Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

45.0

32.3

39.9

Operations and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

14.9

10.6

13.2

Operations and Maintenance, Army National Guard

302.7

215.6

266.3

Operations and Maintenance, Air National Guard

29.2

20.9

25.8

Total, Facility Infrastructure Investments

4,045.3

3,184.0

3840.0

Defense Production Act Purchases

0

100.0

0

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

87.5

0

75.0

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

87.5

0

75.0

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

87.5

0

75.0

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide

87.5

200.0

75.0

Total, Energy Research and Development

350.0

200.0

300.0

Defense Health Program

454.7

250.0

400.0

Office of the Inspector General

15.0

15.0

15.0

Grand Total, DOD Programs

4,865.0

3,749.0

4,555.0

Source: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (P.L. 111-5)

Note: This table includes only funds for DOD accounts usually funded in the annual DOD appropriations bill.

Overview of the Administration FY2009 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.2 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.3

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 [author name scrubbed] 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 [author name scrubbed].

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.

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 3).

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 3. Department of Defense Baseline Budget Request
Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2008-FY2009

(amounts in billions of dollars)

 

FY2008 Enacted (Excluding War Funds)

FY2009 Request (Excluding 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.

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 and the President signed in October 14 (P.L. 110-417).

Table 4. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization, S. 3001

Full Committee Markup

House Report

House Passage

Senate Report

Senate Passage

Conf. Report

Conference Report Approval

Public Law

House

Senate

House

Senate

5/14/08

4/30/08

H.Rept. 110-652

5/22/08
384-23

S.Rept. 110-335

9/17/08 88-8

Cong. Record
pp. H8718-
H9081

392-39 9/24/08

9/27/08 voice vote

P.L. 110-417
10/14/08

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up an unnumbered version of the FY2009 defense appropriations bill on July 30. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its own unnumbered bill on September 10. But in neither chamber did the full Appropriations Committee markup the bills drafted by the two defense subcommittee. Nor was a defense appropriations bill brought to the floor of either the House or Senate. Instead, House and Senate negotiators worked out a compromise version which was incorporated into the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638) which included the compromise defense appropriations bill as Division C. The House passed that bill on September 24. The Senate passed it September 27 and the President signed in September 30 (P.L. 110-329).

Table 5. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations,
H.R. 2638, Division C

Subcommittee Markup

House Report

House Passage

Senate Report

Senate Passage

Conf. Report

Conference Report Approval

Public Law

House

Senate

House

Senate

7/30/08

9/10/08

 

 

 

 

Cong. Record pp. H9434-H9870

370-58 9/24/08

9/27/08 78-12

P.L. 110-329 9/30/08

Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% of GDP Debate

For several months leading up to action on the FY2009 defense funding legislation, a number of senior military officers, as well as research groups and advocacy organizations, argued 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 4% 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 Administration plan.4

Senior leaders of the military services were 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 previous two years, the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force argued that the Air Force needs an average of $20 billion more each year for the next several years in weapons acquisition accounts. Senior Army officials 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.5

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, increased by almost 40% above inflation (see Table 6). After adjusting for inflation, the requested FY2009 baseline DOD budget was 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 was more than $45 billion—or about one-third—higher than the annual Cold War average.

Table 6. DOD Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2013

(amounts in billions of dollars)

 

Current Year Dollars

Constant FY2009 Dollars

 

Total DOD

Base DOD

Supplemental

Total DOD

Base DOD

Supplemental

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 2008; supplemental appropriations by CRS. Data thru FY2007 are actual amounts. Data for FY2008 is the projected total as of March, 2008. Data from FY2009 is the DOD request and data for subsequent years are DOD projections.

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 grew 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 climbed from $19.4 billion in FY2001, as 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.6 Reasons include the following.

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 Index (ECI), as required by law.11 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.12

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 1995.13 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 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.14

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.15

Funding for DDG-1000 Destroyers versus Other Ships

A directly related issue is whether Congress will agree to continue funding DDG-1000 acquisition. The Administration's FY2009 request includes $2.6 billion for a third DDG-1000. Several legislators on the defense committees have proposed eliminating the funds and using the money instead to buy a mix of LPD-17, TAKE auxiliary ships, and DDG-51 destroyers. This would spread available shipbuilding money more widely to sustain the industrial base, provide funding to programs in which costs are stable and more predictable, and also allocate funds to less expensive ships that might be built, in the long run, in larger numbers to sustain the Navy's 313 ship fleet.

Littoral Combat Ship Funding

The Administration has also requested $920 million for two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). This is a relatively small, lower cost ship with a common hull to support modular designs for several purposes. It is intended to be bought in large numbers over time for operations in relatively close-to-shore waters. The program has suffered significant cost growth, however, raising questions about the number of ships that can be afforded. Last year, Congress cut funding for all but one ship and shifted the savings to purchase other ships. This year may again be a test of congressional support for the ship in view of continuing cost issues.16

CG-X Design

The CG-X is the current designation for a new ship dedicated to missile defense missions. Its design was, for many years, expected to be based on the DDG-1000. Now, however, it appears that the Navy is inclined to build a substantially larger ship. Some defense committee members have raised questions about the status of the Navy's design and about the affordability of the program. There has also been some support in Congress for building a nuclear powered cruiser.17

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.18

Missile Defense

The Administration requested $9.3 billion for missile defense R&D in FY2009. While Congress has generally supported about the level of spending the Administration has requested in recent years, it has frequently reduced funding for technologically more challenging systems such as the kinetic energy interceptor program to intercept missiles in the boost phase, and it has increased funding for currently deployed systems, mainly the Patriot PAC III theater defense system. For the past two years, Congress has also eliminated money to begin construction at missile defense sites in Europe, saying in various reports that the funding was premature because there was no firm agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic where deployment is planned. The FY2009 request includes $132.6 million for military construction at an interceptor site in Europe, which is planned in Poland, and $108.5 million for military construction at a radar site, which is planned in the Czech Republic.19

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 FY2009.20

Future Combat Systems

The FY2009 budget request includes $3.6 billion to continue development and begin production of the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS is a computer-networked array of 14 types of manned and unmanned ground and aerial vehicles intended to replace the Army's current fleet of combat vehicles, including M-1 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry vehicles, beginning in 2015. The Army has estimated that the entire program could cost $230 billion over many years and the Defense Department's Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) projects the cost to be $300 billion. Critics have assailed the program on several grounds: some argue that it is unaffordable; some contend that it is optimized to fight the sort of conventional battles at which the U.S. Army already excels rather than the insurgencies, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it may be more likely to confront; and some object that the program as currently scheduled will take too long to get more effective weapons into the hands of the troops.21 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.22

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.23 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.24 However others deny that funding for four planes would delay the need for a decision long enough to make a difference.

Mid-Air Refueling Tanker

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.25 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.26

"Soft" Power Functions and Interagency Burden-Sharing27

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:

War Funding Issues in the FY2009
DOD Bridge Fund28

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.29

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, FY2009.30 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 7).31

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 7).32

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.33 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.34

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.35 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.36 Those additional troops could offset some if not all of the savings that would result from further troop reductions in Iraq.37

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.

FY2009 Bridge Fund

Prior to calendar year 2008, Congress has funded war costs by including a so-called "bridge fund" in the regular DOD appropriations bill for the pending year to cover part of that year's war costs and then funding war costs for the balance of that year through a supplemental appropriations bill the following spring. But the FY2008 war cost supplemental (P.L. 110-252) enacted June 30, 2008 includes not only the war costs for the balance of FY2008 but also a $65.9 billion bridge fund for FY2009 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 7 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.

Congress halved DOD's procurement request 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. This may indicate that congressional scepticism about war-related procurement funding requests may be growing.38 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 that, 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 Table 7). 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:

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 7).

Table 7. FY2009 War Bridge Funding

(in billions of dollars and percent of total)

Type of Spending

FY2008 War Bridge Fund, P.L. 110-161

FY2009 Bridge Fund: Authorization and Appropriation Action (In billions of dollars or shares of total)

Title

In Billions of $

As Shares of Total

Admin. Req.

Enacted Approp., P.L. 110-252,
6-30-08

Enacted Approp. P.L. 110-252
As Shares of Total

House-Passed Auth.,
H.R. 5658, 5-12-08

Senate-Passed Auth., S. 3001, 9-17-08

House-passed Conf. Auth, 9-24-08

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. Response Programe

[0.5]

[1%]

[1.7]

[1.2]

[2%]

[1.5 or 2X Iraqi fdg]

[0]

[1.5]

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

Source: 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. 3001, conference version and explanatory statement; http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/S3001NDAAforFY2009.pdf; and http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/FY2009NDAAJointExplanatoryStatement.pdf.

Notes:

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.

Funding for Iraq Security Forces (ISFF)

The halving of DOD's request for the ISFF from $2 billion to $1 billion in the enacted version of the FY2009 authorization bill 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.39 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."40 The strict prohibition on funding infrastructure in the authorization conference would presumably supersede report language in the appropriations act that required "equal cost-sharing" for all reconstruction projects above $750,000.41 These changes set new standards that increase Iraqi "burden-sharing" of the cost to rebuild its security forces and reconstruction.

Strict Monitoring of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDO)

Reflecting oversight concerns, the final version of the authorization bill provides $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 final 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 final authorization 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 FY2008.42

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).43

The final version of the authorization bill 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."44

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 designated funding rather than the current practice where funds are transferred from other programs.45

As recommended by both houses, the final version of the authorization 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).46 The FY2008 Supplemental sets a limit of $150 million for FY2008 but did not include a FY2009 cap.47

Reflecting action by both houses, the final 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.48

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.49 According to DOD, the current requirement for 12,000 MRAP vehicles is already funded while the House authorizers suggest that more funding is needed to buy additional V-shaped heavy-duty trucks for training purposes.50

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 final version of the authorization 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.51

This requirement for separate budget displays would not necessarily require that DOD to set up individual accounts for war spending for each operation. Although 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 final version of the authorization 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).52 The level of transfer authority is of considerable concern to DOD because it provides flexibility to adjust funding levels during execution.

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.

The Administration's initial FY2009 budget request included a lump-sum of $70 billion as an initial increment of funding for DOD and other agency costs related to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. On May 2, five days before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) subcommittees began marking up H.R. 5658, the Administration issued a budget amendment formally allocating the $70 billion request among appropriations accounts. However HASC, which also authorized the $70 billion by accounts in H.R. 5658, acknowledged only a handful of the specific allocations included in the May 2 amendment. The bill authorizes $2.0 billion of the $3.7 billion requested to support Afghan Security Forces and $1.4 billion of the $2.0 billion requested for support of Iraqi Security Forces.

Within the $70 billion authorized for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the House bill also allocates nearly $4.9 billion for aircraft procurement programs not included in the Administration's budget request:

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.53

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.54

Pay Raise, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues

H.R. 5658 authorizes a military pay raise of 3.9 percent, rather than 3.4 percent as requested, and bars during FY2009 a proposed increase in TRICARE health insurance and pharmacy fees charged to some military retirees. Congress had prohibited proposed health care fee increases in each of the two previous budgets. To offset the lost revenue the proposed fee increases had been expected to generate, the bill would authorize, subject to appropriation, the transfer to the Defense Health Program of $1.3 billion from the unobligated balances of the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

As requested, the bill would authorize increases in the active-duty end-strength of the Army (by 7,000) and Marine Corps (by 5,000), in line with the Administration's plan to increase the active-duty end-strength of the two services by 92,000 personnel over their end-strength in FY2007. It also would add a total 1,431 personnel to the requested end-strength of the Navy and Air Force (at a cost of $101 million). The Administration had proposed to substitute civilians for this number of Navy and Air Force military personnel in medical care positions. But the House bill reaffirms a provision of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181) prohibiting such military-to-civilian conversions of medical personnel.

The bill also includes a provision that would allow a limited number of service members to take sabbaticals from active service for up to three years and return with no loss of rank or time-in-service.

Tanker, Cargo, and Patrol Planes

The bill denies authorization of $62 billion requested for long lead-time components to begin procurement of the Northrop Grumman KC-45A refueling tanker, but approved the request for $832 million to continue development of the aircraft. Some members have objected to the Air Force's selection of the Northrop Grumman system, based on a European-designed Airbus for this mission, rather than a tanker version of the Boeing 767. According to the committee, denial of the long lead-time funding would not delay the program.

The bill includes a provision (Section 134) requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the process by which the requirements were established that were the basis for selecting a new tanker. Another provision (Section 801) requires the Secretary of the Air Force to review the impact on the decision to buy the European-designed tanker of any subsidies by European governments that are illegal under the agreement reached in Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Although the budget request included no funds either to continue production of the C-17 cargo plane or to shut down the production line, the bill allocates $3.9 billion of the $70 billion requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to buy an additional 15 C-17s. It also includes a provision (Section 131) that would allow the Air Force to retire C-5A cargo planes and replace them with additional C-17s only if a federally funded research and development center concludes that this would be more prudent than upgrading the engines and electronics on the C-5As.

Fighter Planes

The bill authorizes $3 billion requested for 20 F-22 fighters. However, it also adds to the bill authorization of $523 million for long lead-time components that would be used to build an additional 20 F-22s in FY2010. The Administration's request includes neither the funds that would be needed to continue production of the F-22 beyond FY2009 nor the funds that would be needed to close down the production line.

The bill authorizes the requests for $3.1 billion to continue development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and $3.7 billion to buy 16 of the planes. But it would add to the Administration request $525 million to continue development of an alternative engine for the JSF.

Future Combat Systems (FCS)

The bill cuts $200 million from the $3.6 billion requested for the Army's FCS program. Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee chair Neil Abercrombie said these cuts were targeted to slow production of some components until they were more thoroughly tested. If the proposal were enacted, it would mark the fourth consecutive budget in which Congress trimmed the funding request for FCS.

The bill also includes several legislative restrictions on the FCS program, including a requirement for annual reports to Congress on cost growth in the program's eight types of manned ground vehicles (Section 213), an independent report on potential vulnerabilities of the digital communications web intended to link FCS components (Section 212), and a provision that would bar the program's lead system integrators, Boeing and SAIC, from producing major components of the program (Section 112).55

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 A-3). 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 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.

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 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

Other Highlights

Among other provisions of H.R. 5658 as passed by the House are the following:

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, 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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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 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. .

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:

S. 3001 authorizes the funds requested to begin deploying in Europe a variant of the defense against intercontinental-range missiles currently deployed in Alaska and California. However, the bill includes a provision (Section 232) that would bar use of the funds to buy interceptor missiles for that deployment or to begin construction on-site until (1) Poland and the Czech Republic have formally ratified agreements to allow the American sites on their territory and (2) the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the interceptor slated for deployment at the European site—which is a considerably modified variant of the version already deployed—has been successfully tested in operationally realistic flight tests.

Other Highlights

Among other provisions of S. 3001 are the following:

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, which held up Senate action on most legislation. The Senate passed the bill September 17 after acting on only four amendments.

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 several provisions in either the House or 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 grounds for a veto in a September 19 letter to leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees:

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 Act (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 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 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, and it requires the creation of five additional positions for general officers serving in acquisition jobs.

It requires establishment for all major acquisition programs of a Configuration Steering Board intended to control costs by controlling proposed changes in the design of the system (Section 814).

Among the bill's other significant provisions relating to DOD's acquisition process are the following:

Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and Senate Versions of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill56

The House and Senate versions of the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) each included a variety of Iraq policy provisions. Some of them required reports to the Congress from the President or from the Secretary of Defense, while others were designed to have a more direct impact on activities in Iraq. The only point of overlap was language in both drafts that would extend a prohibition from the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-181, prohibiting the use of funding to support permanent stationing of U.S. military forces in Iraq or to exercise control over Iraqi oil resources. Table 8, below, provides a side-by-side summary of selected Iraq policy provisions in each bill and the resolution of each issue in the final version of S. 3001.

Table 8. Side-By-Side Comparison of Selected Iraq Policy Provisions in House, Senate, and Final Defense Authorization Bills

House-Passed Bill (H.R. 5658)

Senate-Passed Bill (S. 3001)

Final Bill (S. 3001, P.L. 110-417)

IRAQ PERMANENT BASING

Location: §1211

Key Text: No funding "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" (a)(1); or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" (a)(2)

Comparison with Senate language: Applies to funds authorized by this law or any other law. Includes a definition of permanent stationing: "the stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq on a continuing or lasting basis, as distinguished from temporary, although the basis may be permanent even though it may be dissolved eventually at the request either of the United States or of the Government of Iraq, in accordance with law" (b).

Location: §2913

Key Text: (same as House) No funding "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" (1); or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" (2).

Comparison with House language: Applies only to funds authorized by this law. Does not include any definitions.

Location: §1211

Final bill included the Senate provision.

REPORT ON STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENTS BETWEEN U.S. AND IRAQ

Location: §1212

Requirement: Report from the President to Armed Services and Foreign Relations/ Affairs Committees, no later than 90 days after enactment, on each bilateral agreement relating to: 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." Names 13 specific items to be included in the report.

 

Location: §1212

Requirement: Final bill included the House provision with minor changes. Names 10 (rather than 13) specific items to be covered in the required Report.

COMMENT: A bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a "strategic framework" agreement were signed November 17, 2008. The SOFA will take effect January 1, 2009.

IRAQ PRT STRATEGY AND REPORT

Location: §1213

Requirement: President to establish a strategy "to ensure that United States-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) including embedded PRTs and Provincial Support Teams in Iraq are supporting the operational and strategic goals of Coalition Forces in Iraq" (a)(1); and to "establish measures of effectiveness and performance" to support that strategy (a)(2). 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.

Location: §1213

Requirement: Final bill included the House provision with amendments to: (1) stipulate that the strategy developed for the PRTs be aimed at developing the capacity of Iraqi governmental and other civil institutions to assume increasing responsibility for development and reconstruction activities; and (2) require the inital report 90 days after enactment (rather than 60 days after).

Comment: The U.S.-led PRTs in Iraq work for the U.S. Embassy, not the Coalition Forces, although the Embassy and the Coalition Forces share a single approach.

COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM

Location: §1214

Funding Levels: §1214(a) would authorize $1.7 billion for U.S. CERP in Iraq in FY2008 and $1.5 billion in FY2009.

Limitation: §1214(b) provides that CERP expenditures 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) [N.B. The Government of Iraq has committed only $300 million to I-CERP so far in calendar year 2008.]

Waiver of Limitation: 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."

 

Location: §1214

Funding Levels: Final bill included the House-passed funding levels for FY2008 and FY2009. They dropped the prohibition against spending more than twice the amount spent by the government of Iraq, but added several other limitations, including a prohibition (waivable by the Secretary of Defense) against spending more than $2 million on any single project.

Additional Reporting Requirements: Conferees also enlarged the list of items to be covered in quarterly reports by DOD already required by the FY2006 defense atuhorization bill.

POLICE TRANSITION 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 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."

 

Location: §1218(a)

Requirement: Final bill included the House-passed provision with an amendment making the report due 180 days after enactment (rather than 60 days after) and dropping the stipulation that enough advisers be funded to cover "a majority of the approximately 1,100 Iraqi police stations."

PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS

Location: §§824, 847, 849

Requirement: §824 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.

§847 In addition to other matters concerning which security contractors in combat areas are required by FY2008 NDAA P.L. 110-181, §862(a) ((2) (D) to report, contractors also are required to report instances in which (1) a weapon is discharged against contractor personnel or (2)contractors use "active, non-lethal countermeasures" in response to a perceived immediate threat."

§849 Future contracts for work performed in Iraq or Afghanistan or in an area designated as supporting those missions will require (and current contracts will be amended to require) that, in case of any crime of violence allegedly perpetrated by or against a U.S. contractor, (1) the alleged crime will be reported as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and (2) contractors will provide victim and witness safety and medical and psychological assistance.

Location: §§841, 842

Requirement: §841 The Senate bill included a similar requirement that regulations be modified as required by the House bill, "to ensure that private security contractors are not authorized to perform inherently governmental functions in any area of combat operations."

The Senate bill also included a provision defining operations as "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. [OMB stated that inclusion of this Senate provision in the final bill would cause the President's advisers to recommend a veto.]

[No counterpart provision.]

§842 The Senate bill included a similar provision.

Location: §§832, 853, 854

Requirement: §832 Final bill included a declaration of the "sense of Congress" that (1) security operations in high-threat areas, "ordinarily should be performed by members of the Armed Forces" if they are to 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 those who are conducting the security operations than it is to occur as in the course of self-defense on their part; and (2) the commander of the relevant combatant command will have sole discretion to determine whether or not performance of defined activities are appropriate.

§853 The final bill includes language similar to the House provision.

§854 The final bill includes a provision that applies the two requirements only to contracts entered into starting 180 days after enactment. The provision also directs federal agencies to make "best efforts" to apply the requirements to existing contracts.

 

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. The report is to cover policies and procedures, reintegration programs, procedures for reviewing the status of detainees, cost and the allocation of cost between the U.S.and Iraqi governments, and lessons learned.

Comment: The intent, clarified in the SASC Report, is to consider applications of the lessons from Iraq for U.S. detention practices elsewhere.

Location: §1046

Requirement: The final bill includes language similar to the Senate provision, but drops the Senate's requirements that the report cover the cost of the detention program, detailed monthly data on the detainee population.

 

GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ TO PAY COSTS

Location: §1616

"Large-scale Infrastructure": No funds authorized by this act may be obligated or expended for any large-scale infrastructure projects commenced after enactment. 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" CERP-funded projects are excepted. "Large-scale infrastructure" is defined as any infrastructure construction project estimated to cost $2 million or more.

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". A report on negotiations status is required 90 days after enactment from Secretary of Defense to Congress.

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." No later than 90 days after enactment, President to submit to Congress a report with an assessment of progress.

Location: §1508

Final bill prohibits the use of funds authorized by Title XV of the bill to acquire, convert, rehabilitate or install facilities in Iraq for the use of the government of Iraq or its political subdivisions. The language exempts from that limitation projects funded by CERP or by the DOD military construction budget. It also specifically allows the provision of technical assistance to Iraq for the construction of such facilities.

Final bill includes language similar to the Senate provision.

Final bill includes language similar to the Senate provision except that it excludes the goal of ensuring that Iraqi funds support the Sons of Iraq. The Iraqi government began assuming responsibilitiy for funding the Sons of Iraq in November, 2008..

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 $477.6 billion, $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 $477.6 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 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act, 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 and the President signed it September 30 (P.L. 110-329).

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Markup

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $477.6 billion.57 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.

The subcommittee bill denied the $2.5 billion requested for a third ship of the DDG-1000 class of destroyers, but this action was revised in the final version of the appropriations bill.

On other key weapons systems, the unnumbered House subcommittee bill would appropriate:

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.58

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.59 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.60

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 many agencies, to promote security stability in Africa.61

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 $477.6 billion.62

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 10-9.63

The bill 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.

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.

Appendix. Highlights of Compromise Final Version of FY2009 Defense Appropriations in the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (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, was considered as Division C of H.R. 2638, the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act.

In all, the FY2009 defense appropriations bill provides $477.6 billion in new appropriations for the Department of Defense and related agencies,64 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.

On major weapon programs,

On other matters

Table A-1. FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act:
House and Senate Action by Title

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

House-Passed

Senate-Passed

FinalBill

Department of Defense Discretionary

Military Personnela

125,247

124,660

124,503

124,791

Operation and Maintenance

154,847

154,478

154,022

154,248

Procurement

102,694

102,712

103,911

103,970

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

79,616

79,725

79,733

77,710

Other Defense Programs

28,583

29,179

28,372

29,585

Military Construction and Family Housing

24,400

24,400

24,805

24,938

Subtotal, DOD Programs Authorized in Bill

515,387

515,155

515,346

515,243

DOD Programs Not Requiring Annual Authorizationb

58

58

58

58

Subtotal, Department of Defense Discretionary

515,445

515,212

515,404

515,301

Other Agency Defense-Related Discretionary

Department of Energy Defense-Related Discretionaryc

16,118

16,351

16,122

16,262

Other Defense-Related Discretionaryd

6,201

6,201

6,201

6,201

Subtotal, Other Agency Discretionary

22,319

22,552

22,323

22,463

Total, National Defense Discretionary

537,764

537,764

537,727

537,764

National Defense Mandatory

DOD Concurrent Receipt Accrual Payments

3,901

3,901

3,901

3,901

Other DOD Mandatory

1,135

1,098

1,135

1,135

DOD Offsetting Receipts

-1,780

-1,780

-1,780

-1,780

DOE Energy Employees Occupational Illness

1,155

1,155

1,155

1,155

Radiation Exposure Trust Fund

38

38

38

38

CIA Retirement and Other Agency Mandatory

279

279

279

279

Subtotal, National Defense Mandatory

4,728

4,691

4,728

4,728

Total National Defense Baseline (050)

542,492

542,454

542,455

542,491

War-Related Funding

70,000

70,000

70,000

68,580

Total, National Defense, Including War-Relatede

612,492

612,454

612,455

611,071

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; House Armed Services Committee, "Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 3001," House Committee Print HASC No. 10, September 2008, available on the House Armed Services Committee website: http://armedservices.house.gov/.

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 amounts for Defense Production Act purchases; National Science Center, Army; Disposal of DOD Real Property; and DOD Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery.

c. Includes amounts for Department of Energy weapons activities, defense environmental cleanup, formerly utilized sites remedial action, and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

d. Includes amounts for FBI counter-intelligence activities, selective service, civil defense, and other non-DOD programs.

e. Total does not show $63 million authorized in the bill for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is not classified as part of the National Defense Budget Function.

Table A-2. FY2009 Defense and Military Construction Appropriations:
Request and Final Bill Amounts by Title

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

FY2008 Enacted

FY2009 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill Vs. Request

FY2009 Defense Appropriations (H.R. 2638 Division C)

Military Personnel

105,292.2

114,896.3

114,443.9

-452.4

Operation and Maintenance

140,062.2

154,847.3

152,949.7

-1,897.6

Procurement

98,201.6

102,132.3

101,051.7

-1,080.6

RDT&E

77,271.5

79,615.9

80,520.8

+904.9

Revolving and Management Funds

2,701.8

3,473.5

3,155.8

-317.7

Other Defense Programs:

 

 

 

 

Defense Health Program (DHP)

23,458.7

24,799.2

25,825.8

+1,026.6

National Defense Stockpile Transfer to DHP

-1,300.0

-1,300.0

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction

1,512.7

1,485.6

1,505.6

+20.0

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities

984.8

1,060.5

1,096.7

+36.3

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

120.0

496.3

-496.3

Rapid Acquisition Fund

102.0

-102.0

Office of the Inspector General

240.0

247.8

271.8

+24.0

Related Agencies, Discretionary

725.5

685.0

710.0

+25.0

General Provisions/Rescissions

-2,160.0

-1,173.0

-2,866.4

-1,693.4

Scorekeeping Adjustments

45.0

20.0

20.0

Tricare for Life Accrual Permanent Appropriations

10,876.0

10,351.0

10,351.0

Total Defense Appropriations, Discretionary

459,332.0

491,739.9

487,736.7

-4,003.2

Related Agencies, Mandatorya

262.5

279.2

279.2

Total Defense Appropriations

459,594.5

492,019.1

488,015.9

-4,003.2

War-Related Appropriations Provided in Other Billsb

Bridge/Supplemental/Emergency Appropriations

171,837.0

66,062.9

65,921.2

-141.8

Total FY2009 Defense Appropriations to Date Including War-Related Supplemental Funding

631,431.5

558,082.0

553,937.0

-4,144.9

FY2009 Military Construction Appropriations (H.R. 2638, Division E)

Military Construction

12,681.1

11,362.9

12,117.7

+754.8

NATO Security Investment Program

201.4

240.9

230.9

-10.0

Family Housing Construction and Operations

2,878.5

3,203.5

3,157.8

-45.7

Chemical Demilitarization Construction

104.2

134.3

144.3

+10.0

Base Realignment and Closure

8,810.2

9,458.8

9,224.0

-234.8

General Provisions

200.0

175.0

+175.0

Total, Military Construction Appropriations

24,875.3

24,400.2

25,049.6

+649.3

Total Defense and Mil/Con Excluding War

484,469.8

516,419.3

513,065.5

-3,353.8

Total Defense and Mil/Con Appropriations

656,306.9

582,482.2

578,986.6

-3,495.6

Sources: Defense appropriations and war-related funding totals from House Appropriations Committee summary table in the Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, pp. H9291-H9294; military construction appropriations totals from House Appropriations Committees summary table in "Explanatory Statement Accompanying H.R. 2638," in Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Volume II, pp. H9867-H9870.

a. "Related Agencies" mandatory amounts are for the CIA retirement and disability fund.

b. FY2009 war-related amounts appropriated through October 2008 were provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, H.R. 2642, P.L. 110-252, enacted June 30, 2008.

Table A-3. FY2009 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization

(amounts in millions of dollars)

PE Number

Program Element Title

FY2008 Estimate

FY2009 Request

House

Senate

Final Bill

Comments

RDT&E Missile Defense Agency

0603175C

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology

108.4

118.7

113.7

118.7

118.7

House cuts $5 mn

0603881C

Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment

1,045.3

1,019.1

964.1

1,012.1

1,012.1

House shifts $65 mn to procurement, adds $10 mn for short-range defense. Senate shifts $65 mn to procurement, adds $28 mn for short range defense, adds $30 mn for Arrow upper tier. Final bill shifts $65 mn to procurement for THAAD, adds $30 mn for Arrow upper tier follow-on, adds $28 mn for upper tier.

0603882C

Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment

2,243.2

2,076.7

1,894.7

2,076.7

1,980.2

House cuts $182 mn for European interceptor site development. Final bill cuts $96.5 mn for European site.

0603883C

Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment

510.2

421.2

378.6

375.4

391.7

House cuts $42.6 mn. Senate cuts $45.8 mn. Final bill cuts $29.5 mn.

0603884C

Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors

586.1

1,077.0

978.2

1,017.2

1,011.2

House cuts $50 mn from site activation and security, cuts $48.9 mn for European radar. Senate cuts $64.8 mn, adds $5 mn for mobile sensor network. Final bill cuts $39 mn for European transportable radar, cuts $21 mn from European radar, cuts $10 mn as premature, and adds $4 mn for mobile sensor network.

0603886C

Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptor

340.1

386.8

286.8

341.8

341.8

House cuts $100 mn from Kinetic Energy Interceptor. Senate cuts $45 mn. Final bill cuts $45 mn as premature.

0603888C

Ballistic Missile Defense Test & Targets

621.9

665.4

690.4

665.4

685.4

House adds $25 mn for target development. Final bill adds $20 mn for target development.

0603890C

Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Core

413.9

432.3

412.3

402.3

402.3

House cuts $20 mn. Senate cuts $30 mn. Final bill cuts $30 mn.

0603891C

Special Programs - MDA

196.9

288.3

138.3

188.3

163.3

House cuts $150 mn. Senate cuts $100 mn. Final bill cuts $125 mn.

0603892C

AEGIS BMD

1,126.3

1,157.8

1,121.8

1,180.8

1,177.8

House shifts $56 mn to procurement, adds $20 mn for signal processors. Senate shifts $57 mn to procurement, adds $80 mn for missile enhancements. Final bill shifts $50 mn to procurement for Standard Missiles, adds $20 mn for signal processors, adds $50 mn for Aegis enhancements.

0603893C

Space Tracking & Surveillance System

231.5

242.4

217.4

192.4

207.4

House cuts $25 mn. Senate cuts $50 mn. Final bill cuts $35 mn as premature.

0603894C

Multiple Kill Vehicle

229.9

354.5

254.5

304.5

304.5

House cuts $100 mn. Senate cuts $50 mn. Final bill cuts $50 mn.

0603895C

Ballistic Missile Defense System Space Programs

16.6

29.8

19.8

19.8

19.8

House, Senate, and final bill cut $10 mn from space test bed.

0603896C

Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle Management and Communicati

447.6

289.3

289.3

289.3

289.3

0603897C

Ballistic Missile Defense Hercules

52.5

56.0

56.0

56.0

56.0

0603898C

Ballistic Missile Defense Joint Warfighter Support

49.4

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

0603904C

Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center (MDIOC)

78.6

96.4

96.4

96.4

96.4

0603906C

Regarding Trench

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

0603907C

Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX)

165.2

Undistributed Reduction

-22.0

-268.7

0901585C

Pentagon Reservation

6.0

19.7

19.7

19.7

19.7

0901598C

Management HQ - MDA

80.4

86.5

81.5

86.5

81.5

House and final bill cut $5 mn from management support.

Subtotal R&D, Missile Defense Agency

8,552.1

8,890.7

8,064.3

8,247.4

8,431.7

House cuts $970 mn. Senate cuts $643 mn. Final bill cuts $459 mn.

Military Construction, Missile Defense Agency

BMDS European Interceptor Site (Poland)

132.6

52.6

132.6

42.6

House cuts $80 mn as not executable in FY2009. Final bill cuts $90 mn.

BMDS AN/TPY-2 #3 Transportable Radar Site

25.5

25.5

House eliminates funds as not executable in FY2009. Final bill eliminates funds.

BMDS European Mid-Course Radar (Czech Republic)

108.6

48.6

108.6

108.6

House cuts $60 mn as not executable. Final bill provides requested funding.

Unspecified Minor Construction

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

MILCON Planning & Design

14.9

14.9

14.9

14.9

Subtotal Military Construction, Missile Defense Agency

285.0

119.5

285.0

169.7

Base Realignment and Closure, Missile Defense Agency

103.2

159.9

159.9

159.9

159.9

Total RDT&E and MilCon, Missile Defense Agency

8,655.3

9,335.7

8,343.8

8,692.4

8,761.2

RDT&E Army

0604869A

Patriot/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program (CAP)

369.8

431.3

431.3

431.3

431.3

0203801A

Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program

30.0

37.9

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

55.3

Subtotal R&D, Army, Joint Staff

453.5

524.4

524.4

524.4

524.4

Procurement Army

7152C49100

Patriot System Summary

497.7

512.1

512.1

512.1

512.1

7845C50001

Patriot/MEADS Cap System Summary

31.0

31.0

31.0

31.0

0962C50700

Patriot Mods

420.1

524.5

524.5

524.5

524.5

Subtotal, Procurement, Army

917.8

1,067.6

1,067.6

1,067.6

1,067.6

Procurement Defense-Wide

 

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Long Lead

140.0

140.0

115.0

House and Senate transfer $65 mn from R&D, add $75 mn. Final bill transfers $65 mn adds $50 mn

 

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Radar Long Lead

40.0

Senate adds $40 mn

 

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)

111.0

77.0

50.0

House adds $111 mn. Senate transfers $57 mn from R&D, adds $20 mn. Final bill transfers $50 mn.

Subtotal Procurement Defense-Wide

251.0

257.0

205.0

Total Missile Defense R&D, MilCon, Procurement

10,026.6

10,927.8

10,186.9

10,541.4

10,518.3

Sources: For FY2008 enacted and FY2009 request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries: Missile Defense Agency, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Armed Services Committee, "Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 3001," House Committee Print HASC No. 10, September 2008.

Note: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a "new start" for which funding has never been authorized.

Table A-4. FY2009 Missile Defense Funding: Appropriations

(amounts in millions of dollars)

PE Number

Program Element Title

FY2008 Estimate

FY2009 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill Vs. Request

Comments

RDT&E Missile Defense Agency

0603175C

Ballistic Missile Defense Technology

108.4

118.7

119.7

+1.0

Final bill cuts $5 mn adds $6 mn for specific projects.

0603881C

Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment

1,045.3

1,019.1

960.0

-59.1

Final bill transfers $65 mn to proc for THAAD and $52 mn to test & targets program element, adds $58 mn for Israeli Arrow.

0603882C

Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment

2,243.2

2,076.7

1,512.7

-564.0

Final bill shifts $350 mn to Two-Stage Interceptor, $27 mn to European Global Engagement, $104 mn to test and targets, cuts $109 mn, adds $40 mn for ground-based system upgrades.

 

Two-Stage Interceptor Segment

363.3

+363.3

Final bill adds new program element (PE), shifts $350 mn from midcourse defense and $13 mn from battle management/c2

 

European Mid-Course Radar

76.8

+76.8

Final bill adds new program element, shifts funds from sensors PE.

 

European Global Engagement Manager/ U.S. Communications

27.1

+27.1

Final bill adds new program element, shifts funds from battle management/C2 PE.

0603883C

Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment

510.2

421.2

402.1

-19.1

Final bill cuts $16 mn for second ABL planning, shifts $3 mn to test and targets.

0603884C

Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors

586.1

1,077.0

770.2

-306.8

Final bill shifts $147 to Sea-Based radar, shifts $76 mn to European mid-course radar, cuts $57 mn for European transportable radar, cuts $10 mn for sensors, adds $0.8 mn for AIRS, adds $4 mn for mobile sensors.

0603886C

Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptor

340.1

386.8

386.8

0603888C

Ballistic Missile Defense Test & Targets

621.9

665.4

914.8

+249.4

Final bill adds $201 shifted from other program elements, $8 mn for backup target, $16 mn for RV inventory, $8 mn for Kodiak Island equipment, $16 mn for range upgrades.

0603890C

Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Core

413.9

432.3

404.2

-28.1

Final bill cuts $40 mn general reduction, adds $2.3 mn for battery technology, $9.6 mn for next generation sensor producibility.

0603891C

Special Programs - MDA

196.9

288.3

176.3

-112.0

Final bill cuts $112 mn general reduction.

0603892C

AEGIS BMD

1,126.3

1,157.8

1,117.5

-40.3

Final bill shifts $57 mn to SM-3 procurement, shifts $39 mn to test and targets, adds $16 mn for signal processors, adds $40 mn for Aegis enhancements.

0603893C

Space Tracking & Surveillance System

231.5

242.4

209.6

-32.8

Final bill cuts $30 mn for follow-on program, shifts $2.8 mn to test and targets.

0603894C

Multiple Kill Vehicle

229.9

354.5

284.5

-70.0

Final bill cuts $55 mn for MKV-R and trims $15 mn for excess program growth.

0603895C

Ballistic Missile Defense System Space Programs

16.6

29.8

24.8

-5.0

Final bill cuts $10 mn for space testbed, adds $5 mn for space-based interceptor study.

0603896C

Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications

447.6

289.3

289.3

0603897C

Ballistic Missile Defense Hercules

52.5

56.0

56.0

0603898C

Ballistic Missile Defense Joint Warfighter Support

49.4

70.0

70.0

0603904C

Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center (MDIOC)

78.6

96.4

106.4

+10.0

Final bill adds $10 mn for modeling and simulation.

0603906C

Regarding Trench

2.0

3.0

3.0

0603907C

Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX)

165.2

147.4

+147.4

Final bill transfers $147 mn from BMD sensors.

0901585C

Pentagon Reservation

6.0

19.7

19.7

0901598C

Management HQ - MDA

80.4

86.5

81.5

-5.0

Final bill cuts $5 mn from management support.

Subtotal R&D, Missile Defense Agency

8,552.1

8,890.7

8,523.5

-367.2

Military Construction, Missile Defense Agency—

BMDS European Interceptor Site

132.6

42.6

-90.0

Final bill cuts $90 mn due to delay in ratifying agreement.

BMDS AN/TPY-2 #3 Transportable Radar Site

25.5

-25.5

Final bill eliminates funds as site not selected.

BMDS European Mid-Course Radar Site

108.6

108.6

Unspecified Minor Construction, MDA

3.5

3.5

MILCON Planning & Design, MDA

14.9

14.9

Subtotal Military Construction, Missile Defense Agency

285.0

169.5

-115.5

Base Realignment and Closure, Missile Defense Agency

103.2

159.9

159.9

Total Missile Defense Agency

8,655.3

9,335.6

8,852.9

-482.7

RDT&E Army

0604869A

Patriot/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program (CAP)

369.8

431.3

431.3

0203801A

Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program

30.0

37.9

37.9

RDT&E The Joint Staff

0605126J

Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization

53.7

55.3

55.3

Subtotal R&D, Army, Joint Staff

453.5

524.4

524.4

Procurement Army

7152C49100

Patriot System Summary

497.7

512.1

512.1

7845C50001

Patriot/MEADS Cap System Summary

71.5

71.5

0962C50700

Patriot Mods

420.1

524.5

516.9

-7.6

Final bill cuts $10 mn for unjustified growth, adds $2.4 mn for battery command post.

Subtotal, Procurement, Army

917.8

1,108.1

1,100.5

-7.6

Procurement Defense-Wide

 

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Long Lead

105.0

+105.0

Final bill transfers $65 mn from BMD Terminal Defense Segment R&D, adds $40 mn.

 

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)

57.1

+57.1

Final bill transfers $57 mn from AEGIS BMD R&D.

Subtotal Procurement Defense-Wide

162.1

+162.1

Total Missile Defense R&D, MilCon, Procurement

10,026.6

10,968.2

10,640.0

-328.2

Sources: For FY2008 enacted and FY2009 request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries: Missile Defense Agency, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Appropriations Committee, "Explanatory Statement Accompanying H.R. 2638" in Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part II.

Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Authorization

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

House

Senate

Final Bill

Comments

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Army Aircraft

Joint Cargo Aircraft (AF R&D)

7

269.6

29.8

7

269.6

29.8

7

269.6

29.8

7

264.2

19.8

Final bill cuts $5.4 mn in proc and $10 mn in R&D as unexecutable.

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter

28

438.9

135.7

15

272.9

135.7

20

363.9

135.7

15

272.9

135.7

House cuts $130 mn in proc for 13 aircraft and $36 mn in advance proc to slow ramp up. Senate cuts $75 mn in proc for 8 aircraft. Final bill follows House.

Light Utility Helicopter

36

224.5

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

63

1,063.0

33.9

CH-47 Helicopter

16

443.5

9.9

9.9

16

443.5

9.9

16

443.5

9.9

CH-47 Helicopter Mods

724.2

724.2

724.2

724.2

AH-64 Apache Helo Mods

637.3

234.4

234.4

637.3

234.4

637.3

234.4

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles

M-2 Bradley Base Sustainment, Training Devices

21

488.3

141.1

21

488.3

146.9

21

488.3

141.1

21

488.3

144.1

For M-1 tank and M2 Bradley, House adds $5.8 mn and final bill adds $3 mn in R&D – amount in final bill is for ground system electronics enhancements.

M -1 Abrams Tank Mods, System Enhancement Program, Upgrade Program

29

692.7

29

692.7

692.7

29

692.7

Stryker Armored Vehicle

119

1,174.9

108.0

119

1,019.1

118.2

119

1,174.9

112.5

119

1,141.9

111.5

House cuts $156 mn, final bill cuts $33 mn in proc for Mobile Gun System.

Future Combat System

6

154.6

3,161.6

6

154.6

2,951.6

6

154.6

3,163.6

6

154.6

3,184.6

House cuts $210 mn from R&D. Senate adds $2 mn in R&D for NLOS launch system. Final bill adds $23 mn in R&D of which $15 mn is for recon vehicle, $8 mn for unmanned ground vehicles.

Future Combat System Spin Outs/ Modular Brigade Enhancement

176.7

64.9

176.7

74.9

176.7

64.9

39.0

74.9

House adds $10 mn in R&D. Final bill cuts $138 mn in proc due to delay until FY2010, adds $10 mn in R&D.

Wheeled Vehicles

Hi Mob Multi-Purpose Vehicle

946.7

946.7

946.7

833.5

Final bill cuts $113 mn in proc for ECV variants funded ahead of need.

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

944.7

1.9

944.7

1.9

1,025.4

1.9

844.7

1.9

Senate adds $81 mn for palletized loading system. Final bill cuts $100 mn due to production backlog.

Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles

923.3

2.9

923.3

5.9

966.4

2.9

923.3

2.9

Senate adds $43 mn for heavy equipment transporters.

Armored Security Vehicle

202

195.4

202

195.4

202

195.4

202

181.7

Final bill cuts $14 mn due to cost growth.

Mine Protection Vehicle Family

182.4

182.4

182.4

182.4

Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck

213.3

213.3

213.3

213.3

Radios

SINCGARS Family

84.9

84.9

84.9

House eliminates funds.

Radio, Improved HF Family

48.4

48.4

71.2

48.4

WIN-T Ground Forces Tactical Network

287.6

414.4

242.6

381.3

245.6

414.4

245.6

381.3

House cuts $45 mn, Senate cuts $42 mn in proc; House cuts $33 mn in R&D. Final bill cuts $42 mn in proc for increment 2. $33 mn in proc for increment 3.

Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)

834.7

834.7

834.7

834.7

Night Vision Devices

465.6

112.7

465.6

139.4

494.4

116.2

465.6

122.2

Senate adds $29 mn in proc, House adds $27 mn in R&D, final bill adds $9.5 mn in R&D.

Night Vision Thermal Weapon Sight

416.9

416.9

469.4

416.9

Senate adds $52.5 mn

Marine Corps

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

316.1

275.9

316.1

281.1

House cuts $40 mn from R&D; final bill cuts $35 mn.

Light Armor Vehicle Product Improvement

64.5

64.5

64.5

64.5

Night Vision Equipment

24.9

24.9

24.9

24.9

Radio Systems

95.8

47.9

95.8

95.8

House cuts $48 mn. Final bill = request.

Logistics Vehicle System Replacement

324.6

4.2

146.5

4.2

299.6

4.2

324.6

4.2

House transfers $178 mn to Title XV. Senate cuts $25 mn.

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Armed Services Committee, "Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 3001," House Committee Print HASC No. 10, September 2008.

Note: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a "new start" for which funding has never been authorized.

Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Army and Marine Corps Programs: Appropriations

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Request

Comments

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Army Aircraft

Joint Cargo Aircraft (AF R&D)

7

269.6

29.8

7

264.2

19.8

-5.4

-10.0

Final bill eliminates $5 mn in AF for proc, cuts $10 mn in AF R&D as unexecutable.

Armed Recon Helicopter

28

438.9

135.7

15

241.7

135.7

-13

-197.2

Final bill cuts 13 aircraft and $197 mn in proc due to delays.

Light Utility Helicopter

36

224.5

44

257.1

+8

+32.6

Final bill adds $33 mn for 8 aircraft.

UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter

63

1,063.0

33.9

63

1,064.6

35.7

+1.6

+1.8

CH-47 Helicopter

16

443.5

9.9

16

443.5

13.9

+4.0

CH-47 Helicopter Mods

724.2

720.6

-3.6

AH-64 Apache Helo Mods

637.3

234.4

639.3

234.4

+2.0

Kiowa Warrior Mods

13.7

58.2

2.4

+44.5

+2.4

Final bill adds $42 mn in proc for safety enhancement, $2.5 mn for vibration management.

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles

M-2 Bradley Base Sustainment, Training Devices

21

488.3

141.1

21

322.9

143.5

-165.4

+2.4

Final bill cuts $172 mn in proc for base sustainment, citing amt included in FY2008 supplemental, adds $6.5 mn for training devices for Guard units.

M -1 Abrams Tank Mods, System Enhancement Program, Upgrade Program

29

692.7

29

692.7

Final bill adds $2.4 mn in R&D for M-1 and M-2 for electronic enhancements.

Stryker Armored Vehicle

119

1,174.9

108.0

119

951.0

79.6

-223.9

-28.4

Final bill cuts $224 mn in proc, of which $189 min is due to delay in mobile gun system and $35 mn, following authorization, is due to other delays, cuts $30 mn in R&D for change to acquisition strategy, adds $1.6 mn in R&D for active protection system radar.

Future Combat System

6

154.6

3,161.6

6

154.6

3,220.8

+59.2

Final bill adds $59 mn to R&D, in accordance with Army requested program adjustments

Future Combat System Spin Outs/ Modular Brigade Enhancement

176.7

64.9

67.5

103.4

-109.2

+38.5

Following requested Army adjustments, final bill cuts $109.2 mn from proc, adds $38.5 mn in R&D.

Wheeled Vehicles

Hi Mob Multi-Purpose Veh.

946.7

836.0

-110.7

Final bill cuts $113 mn in proc for expanded capacity vehicle as funded ahead of need, adds $2.5 mn for fire suppression panels.

Family of Medium Tact. Veh.

944.7

1.9

444.7

1.9

-500.0

Final bill cuts $500 mn in proc as funded in FY2008 supplemental.

Family of Heavy Tactical Veh.

923.3

2.9

924.1

4.5

+0.8

+1.6

Armored Security Vehicle

202

195.4

202

181.7

-13.7

Mine Protection Vehicle Family

182.4

186.4

+4.0

Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck

213.3

213.3

Radios/ISR, Army

SINCGARS Family

84.9

87.3

+2.4

Final bill adds $2.4 mn for radio personality modules, prohibits use of any funds until SecDef certifies proc will use full and open competition.

Radio, Improved HF Family

48.4

48.4

WIN-T Ground Forces Tactical Network

287.6

414.4

256.1

394.4

-31.5

-20.0

Final bill cuts $45 mn in proc for funding ahead of need, following authorization, adds $12 mn in proc for fax capability, cuts $20 mn in R&D following authorization.

Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)

834.7

848.2

+13.5

Night Vision Devices

465.6

112.7

469.2

172.1

+3.6

+59.4

Final bill adds $59 mn to R&D.

Night Vision Thermal Weapon Sight

416.9

416.9

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems

316.6

237.9

-78.7

Final bill cuts net of $79 mn – cuts $6 mn due to production delay, transfers $49 mn to Army R&D, adds $1.6 mn for sensor upgrade and $5 mn for MQ-5B Hunter UAV.

Counterfire Radars

14

107.1

14

107.1

Marine Corps

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

316.1

256.1

-60.0

Final bill cuts $60 mn due to delay.

Light Armor Vehicle Product Improvement

64.5

43.5

-21.0

Final bill cuts $21 mn due to C2 upgrade delay.

Air Operations C2 Systems

78.0

38.6

-39.3

Final bill cuts $39 mn due to program restructure.

Night Vision Equipment

24.9

24.9

Radio Systems

95.8

65.8

-30.0

Final bill cuts $30 mn due to delays and unobligated balances.

Logistics Vehicle System Replacement

324.6

4.2

270.5

4.2

-54.1

Final bill cuts $54 mn due to delays and excess program growth.

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Appropriations Committee, "Explanatory Statement Accompanying H.R. 2638" in Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part II.

Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Shipbuilding Programs: Authorization

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

House

Senate

Final Bill

Comments

 

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

 

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

CVN-21 Carrier Replacement Program

3,926.4

261.6

3,926.4

261.6

3,926.4

261.6

3,926.4

264.6

Virginia Class Submarine

1

3,423.6

167.4

1

4,145.6

169.4

1

3,502.6

167.4

1

3,723.6

169.4

House adds $722 mn in advance procurement for 2nd ship in FY2010. Senate adds $79 mn to ramp up to two boats per year in 2011. Final bill adds $300 mn in advance proc to smooth ramp up to two boats per year.

Carrier Refueling Overhaul

1

628.0

1

628.0

1

628.0

1

628.0

Missile Submarine Refueling Overhaul

1

261.2

1

261.2

1

261.2

1

261.2

DD(X)/DDG-1000 Destroyer

1

2,553.8

678.9

400.0

678.9

1

2,553.8

591.7

1

2,553.8

678.9

House deletes $2.502.8 mn for current procurement, adds $349 mn for advance procurement for DDG-1000 or DDG-51. Senate cuts $87 mn in R&D due to cruiser design delay. Final bill approves request.

DDG-51 Destroyer

19.1

19.1

26.7

349.0

19.1

Final bill adds $349 mn for major spares or for ship advance procurement.

LCS Littoral Combat Ship

2

920.0

371.0

1

840.0

371.0

2

797.0

371.0

2

920.0

371.0

House deletes $80 mn, one ship. Senate cuts $123 mn for value of government furnished equipment, provides funds for 2 ships at permitted cost cap.

LPD-17 Amphibious Ship

103.2

1.0

1

1,800.0

1.0

273.2

1.0

600.0

1.0

House adds $1.7 bn for one ship Senate shifts $103 mn from close out costs to procurement and adds $170 mn. Final bill adds $497 mn to the $103 mn requested and allocates all funds to advance proc for two additional ships of the class.

LHA(R) Amphibious Ship

1

348.3

5.4

5.4

1

178.3

5.4

1

178.3

5.4

Requested in National Defense Sealift Fund. House eliminates funds. Senate shifts funds from NDSF to Navy shipbuilding and cuts $170 mn in advance procurement due to delay. Final bill follows the Senate.

Intratheater Connector, Navy

1

174.8

12.0

1

174.8

12.0

1

174.8

12.0

1

174.8

12.0

Outfitting

429.6

429.6

429.6

429.6

Service Craft

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.3

LCAC Service Life Extension

110.9

110.9

110.9

110.9

Prior Year Shipbuilding

165.2

165.2

165.2

165.2

National Defense Sealift Fund

T-AKE Cargo Ship

2

962.4

2

1,240.6

2

962.4

2

962.4

House adds $278 mn in advance procurement for the two final ships, the 13th and 14th of the class, to be fully funded later.

Maritime Prepositioning Force R&D

68.7

68.7

63.3

68.7

House moves funds to Navy R&D

Total Navy Ships

10

14,043.6

1,585.0

8

14,158.5

1,587.0

10

13,999.6

1,500.0

10

15,019.4

1,590.0

Army

Joint High Speed Vessel, Army

1

168.8

2.9

1

168.8

2.9

1

168.8

2.9

1

168.8

2.9

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Armed Services Committee, "Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 3001," House Committee Print HASC No. 10, September 2008.

Note: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a "new start" for which funding has never been authorized.

Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Shipbuilding Programs: Appropriations

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Request

Comments

 

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

 

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

CVN-21 Carrier Replacement Program

3,926.4

261.6

3,906.8

289.2

-19-.6

+27.6

Final bill trims $20 mn in proc for excessive growth in some components, adds $28 mn in R&D.

Virginia Class Submarine

1

3,423.6

167.4

1

3,502.6

190.4

+79.0

+23.0

Final bill adds $79 mn for economic order quantity in proc., adds $23 mn in R&D.

Carrier Refueling Overhaul

1

628.0

1

614.9

-13-.0

Final bill trims $13 mn in proc.

Missile Submarine Refueiling Overhaul

1

261.2

1

261.2

DDG-1000 Destroyer

1

2,502.8

678.9

1

1,508.8

598.0

-994-.0

-80-.9

Final bill directs funding to be split between FY2009 and FY2010, cuts $1 bn from FY2009 amount and directs Navy to finance remainder in FY2010. Cuts $87 mn in R&D for CG(X) missile defense ship delay, adds $7 mn for R&D project.

DDG-1000 Advance Procurement

51.0

-51-.0

Final bill eliminates adv proc funds.

DDG-51 Destroyer

19.1

200.0

19.1

+200.0

Final bill adds $200 mn in advance proc for option to resume production.

LCS Littoral Combat Ship

2

920.0

371.0

2

1,020.0

369.3

+100.0

-1-.7

Final bill adds $100 mn for cost growth, directs Navy to award contracts as soon as practical. Final bill also rescinds $347 mn in FY2008 funding (not shown here).

LPD-17 Amphibious Ship

103.2

1.0

1

933.2

1.0

+1

+830.0

Final bill adds $830 mn and directs that the amount provided is the first increment of funding for one ship to be split funded in FY2009 and FY2010, directs Navy to budget for remainder in FY2010.

LHA(R) Amphibious Ship

1

348.3

2.4

1

178.3

7.8

-170-.0

+5.4

Final bill shifts funding from National Defense Sealift Fund to SCN, cuts $170 mn in proc following authorization.

Intratheater Connector, Navy

1

174.8

12.0

1

174.8

12.0

Outfitting

429.6

429.6

Service Craft

36.3

48.1

+11.8

Final bill adds $12 mn for large harbor tugs.

LCAC Service Life Extension

110.9

110.9

Prior Year Shipbuilding

165.2

165.2

National Defense Sealift Fund

T-AKE Cargo Ship

2

998.7

2

998.7

Final bill does not add $941 mn for 2 additional ships as had the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

Maritime Prepositioning Force R&D

68.7

63.3

-5-.4

Shifts LHA(R) funding to Navy R&D (shown above).

Total Navy/NDSF Ships

10

14,194.0

1,582.1

11

14,167.1

1,550.1

+1

-26-.8

-32-.0

Army

Joint High Speed Vessel, Army

1

168.8

2.9

1

168.8

 

-2-.9

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Appropriations Committee, "Explanatory Statement Accompanying H.R. 2638" in Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part II.

Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Aircraft Programs: Authorization

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

House

Senate

Final Bill

 

 

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

 

 

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Comments

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

7

1,676.2

1,771.5

House adds $31 mn in proc and $262.5 mn in R&D, Senate adds $35 mn in advance proc and $250 mn in R&D, for alternate engine. Final bill cuts $169 mn in proc for one aircraft, adds $35 mn in proc and $248 mn in R&D for alternate engine.

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

7

1,698.1

1,780.2

House adds $262.5 mn and Senate adds $215 mn in R&D for alternate engine development. Final bill cuts $163 mn in proc for one aircraft, adds $248 mn in R&D for alternate engine.

F-22 Fighter, AF

20

3,054.2

700.3

20

3,054.2

700.3

20

3,551.2

700.3

20

3,430.2

700.3

Senate adds $497 mn for line shut down or for advance procurement. Final bill cuts $147 mn due to savings if FY09 is not the last lot, adds $523 mn in advance proc for 20 more aircraft.

F-22, Title XV/XVIa

523.0

 

 

 

House adds $523 mn for advance proc for 20 aircraft

C-17 Cargo Aircraft & Mods, AF

699.1

236.0

659.1

188.0

659.9

188.0

659.1

236.0

House and Senate cut $40 mn for excess spare parts, shift $9 mn to mods, cut $48 mn in R&D for performance improvement program. Final bill cuts $40 mn for excess spare parts.

C-17, Title XV/XVIa

15

3,900.0

6

2,076.0

House adds $3.9 billion for 15 aircraft. Final bill adds $2.1 bn for 6 aircraft.

C-130J Cargo Aircraft, AF

96.0

52.4

96.0

27.4

121.0

52.4

121.0

27.4

Final bill shifts $25 mn from mods to proc, cuts $25 mn in R&D for international block upgrade.

KC-130J Aircraft, Navy

2

153.5

24.4

2

153.5

24.4

2

153.5

24.4

2

153.5

24.4

KC-X Tanker Replacement, AF

61.7

831.8

831.8

893.4

831.8

Senate shifts $62 mn from procurement to R&D, House cuts $62 mn. Final bill deletes $62 mn in proc and shifts all $832 mn in R&D to Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.

Combat Search & Rescue Helicopter (CSAR-X)

15.0

305.1

265.1

265.1

265.1

House, Senate, and final bill delete proc funds and cut $40 mn from R&D due to program delay.

C-40 Aircraft

1

88.0

1

88.0

House and final bill add 1 aircraft

F-15 Mods

12.3

184.2

12.3

184.2

12.3

184.2

12.3

184.2

C-130/C-130 J Aircraft Mods, AF

482.2

172.6

487.2

179.3

449.4

172.6

461.7

174.1

Final bill shifts $25 mn from C-130J mods to proc, adds $4.5 mn for C-130 mods.

C-5 Cargo Aircraft Mods, AF

583.1

125.1

496.4

125.1

583.1

125.1

526.7

125.1

House cuts $87 mn as excess to requirements. Final bill cuts $56 mn.

Global Hawk UAV, AF

5

712.2

284.3

5

712.2

284.3

5

743.2

284.3

5

712.2

284.3

Senate adds $31 mn in proc for National Airspace System (NAS) radar

MQ-1 Predator UAV, AF

38

378.7

24.8

38

378.7

24.8

38

409.7

34.8

38

378.7

30.8

Senate adds $31 mn in proc for NAS radar. Senate adds $10 mn, final bill adds $6 mn in R&D for sense and avoid system.

MQ-9 Reaper UAV, AF

9

161.4

43.6

9

161.4

43.6

9

161.4

43.6

9

161.4

43.6

EA-18G Aircraft, Navy

22

1,651.6

128.9

22

1,606.6

128.9

22

1,651.6

128.9

22

1,651.6

128.9

House cuts $45 mn due to foreign sales-related savings

F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy

23

1,911.3

71.2

23

1,870.8

71.2

23

1,911.3

71.2

23

1,911.3

71.2

House cuts $45 mn due to foreign sales-related savings, adds $4.5 mn for smart bomb rack

V-22 Osprey Aircraft, Navy

30

2,220.4

68.8

30

2,220.4

68.8

30

2,220.4

68.8

30

2,220.4

68.8

CV-22 Osprey Aircraft, AF

6

423.3

18.6

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

6

163.0

38.2

VH-71A Executive Helicopter

1,047.8

 

 

1,047.8

 

 

1,047.8

835.0

Final bill cuts $213 mn in R&D for increment II.

UH-1Y/AH-1Z

20

474.1

3.8

20

474.1

3.8

20

474.1

3.8

20

474.1

3.8

MH-60S Helicopter, Navyb

18

549.7

47.3

18

549.7

47.3

18

549.7

47.3

18

549.7

47.3

MH-60R Helicopter, Navyb

31

1,185.8

70.3

31

1,175.8

70.3

31

1,185.8

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

110.6

1,132.0

E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft, Navyc

3

589.1

54.1

3

589.1

54.1

2

423.6

54.1

3

589.1

54.1

Senate cuts $166 mn for 1 aircraft due to radar development delays

JPATS Trainer Aircraft, AF

33.2

7.5

33.2

7.5

27.7

7.5

27.7

7.5

JPATS Trainer Aircraft, Navy

44

289.3

44

289.3

44

289.3

44

289.3

P-3/EP-3 Aircraft Mods

370.3

370.3

530.3

370.3

Senate adds $160 mn for life sustainment improvements

P-3 Mods, Title XV/XVIIa

448.3

House adds $448 mn for wing repairs

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Armed Services Committee, "Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 3001," House Committee Print HASC No. 10, September 2008.

Notes: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a "new start" for which funding has never been authorized.

a. Title XV of the House bill and Titles XV and XVI of the Senate bill authorize war-related "emergency" funding. This table shows funding in those titles only for selected programs, or where committees differed in providing funding in the base bill or in war-related titles.

b. The Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) on S. 3001 appears to report incorrectly the request for and, subsequently, House, Senate, and final action on, MH-60S and MH-60R procurement. In the JES, the net amounts shown for procurement are reversed, with the amount for MH-60S actually reflecting the MH-60R request and vice versa. The amounts shown in the JES for advance procurement are correct. This table shows the correct request and shows House, Senate, and final amounts based on each bill version's changes to the request.

c. The line item is labeled as "E-2C" procurement, but the model actually being acquired is the "E-2D" version.

Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Aircraft Programs: Appropriations

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Request

 

 

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

 

 

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Comments

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, AF

8

1,810.7

1,524.0

7

1,665.5

1,739.0

-1

-145-.2

+215.0

Final bill defers one aircraft saving $180 mn in proc, adds $35 mn in advance proc and $215 mn in R&D for alternate engine.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Navy

8

1,860.9

1,532.7

7

1,655.0

1,749.3

-1

-205-.9

+216.6

Final bill defers one aircraft saving $163 mn in proc, reduces advance proc by $43 mn, adds $215 mn in R&D for alternate engine, $1.6 mn for R&D project.

F-22 Fighter, AF

20

3,054.2

700.3

20

3,430.2

607.3

+376.0

-93-.0

Final bill cuts $147 mn in proc for last lot cost, adds $523 mn in advance proc for 20 additional aircraft, cuts $93 mn in R&D for previously provided funding and for excess lab and program growth.

C-17 Cargo Aircraft & Mods, AF

699.1

236.0

635.1

236.0

-64-.0

Final bill cuts $40 mn in proc for excess engine spares request, $7 mn in mods for improper pricing, $17 mn in mods for budgeting ahead of need.

C-130J Cargo Aircraft, AF

96.0

52.4

121.0

27.4

+25.0

-25-.0

Final bill shifts $25 mn from mods line to proc, cuts $25 mn in R&D for international block upgrade.

HC-130/MC-130 Aircraft, AF

6

587.7

6

539.7

-48-.0

Final bill cuts $48 mn due to revised cost estimate.

KC-130J Aircraft, Navy

2

153.5

24.4

2

153.5

24.4

KC-X Tanker Replacement, AF

61.7

831.8

23.0

-61-.7

-808-.8

Final bill transfers $870 mn in proc and R&D funds to Tanker Replacement Fund. In general provisions, rescinds $72 mn from prior year AF R&D and $239.8 mn from Tanker Replacement Fund.

Multi-Intelligence Manned Aircraft & Sensors, AF

360.0

+360.0

Final bill adds $360 mn for multi-intelligence manned aircraft and sensors.

Combat Search & Rescue Helicopter (CSAR-X), AF

15.0

305.1

233.0

-15-.0

-72-.0

Final bill cuts $15 mn in proc for budgeting ahead of need, cuts $72 mn in R&D for request ahead of need and unobligated balance available.

B-2 Mods

330.4

352.4

348.9

365.1

+18.5

 

Final bill shifts $18.5 mn from R&D at AF request.

B-1 Mods

71.8

128.9

41.5

143.0

-30-.3

Final bill cuts shifts $21 mn from proc to R&D, cuts $9 mn due to delay, adds $1.6 mn for smart bomb rack.

F-15 Mods

12.3

184.2

19.7

199.4

+7.4

+15.2

Final bill adds $5 mn in proc for oxygen generating system, $2 mn for improved radio communications.

F-16 Mods

273.7

124.0

275.1

127.2

+1.4

F-22 Mods

327.0

327.0

C-130/C-130 J Aircraft Mods, AF

482.2

172.6

470.2

179.8

-12-.0

+7.2

Final bill shifts $25 mn from mods to proc, adds $13 mn in proc for specified projects, adds $7.2 mn in R&D for specified projects.

C-37B Gulfstream Executive Aircraft

1

70.2

+1

+70.2

Final bill adds $70 mn for one aircraft.

C-40 Boeing Passenger Aircraft

1

88.0

+1

+88.0

Final bill adds $88 mn for one aircraft.

C-5 Cargo Aircraft Mods, AF

583.1

125.1

471.0

127.5

-112-.1

+2.4

Final bill cuts total of $112 mn from proc due to Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, excess unobligated balances, reduced FY2010 quantity.

Global Hawk UAV, AF

5

712.2

284.3

5

712.2

311.5

+27.2

Final bill shifts $42 mn in R&D from E-10 program, cuts $15 mn due to program execution.

MQ-1 Predator UAV, AF, DW

38

378.7

38.5

38

378.7

50.9

+12.4

MQ-9 Reaper UAV

9

161.4

43.6

9

161.4

46.6

+3.0

EA-18G Aircraft, Navy

22

1,651.6

128.9

22

1,598.6

130.1

-53-.0

+1.2

Final bill cuts $53 mn in proc due to overhead savings from increased foreign military sales.

F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy

23

1,911.3

71.2

23

1,862.3

73.6

-49-.0

+2.4

Final bill cuts $49 mn in proc due to savings from increased foreign military sales. Urges additional purchases in future, focus on cost controls.

V-22 Osprey Aircraft, Navy

30

2,220.4

68.8

30

2,220.4

68.8

CV-22 Osprey Aircraft, AF

6

423.3

18.6

6

423.3

18.6

CV-22 Special Ops Mods, SOF

6

163.0

38.2

6

163.0

40.2

+2.0

VH-71A Executive Helicopter

1,047.8

835.0

-212-.8

Final bill cuts $213 mn in R&D for increment II.

UH-1Y/AH-1Z

20

474.1

3.8

18

433.3

3.8

-2

-40-.8

Final bill cuts $41 mn in proc by deferring 2 aircraft.

MH-60S Helicopter, Navy

18

549.7

47.3

18

549.7

47.3

MH-60R Helicopter, Navy

31

1,185.8

70.3

31

1,193.8

70.3

+8.0

Final bill adds $8 mn in proc for ASW enhancements.

Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft

110.6

1,132.0

110.6

1,132.0

E-2C Hawkeye Aircraft, Navya

3

589.1

54.1

3

385.7

54.1

-203-.4

Final bill cuts $166 mn in proc following authorization, cuts $38 mn in adv proc as excess to need.

JPATS Trainer Aircraft, AF

33.2

7.5

27.7

13.5

-5-.5

+6.0

JPATS Trainer Aircraft, Navy

44

289.3

44

288.0

-1-.3

P-3/EP-3 Aircraft Mods

370.3

3.6

355.6

3.6

-14-.7

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Appropriations Committee, "Explanatory Statement Accompanying H.R. 2638" in Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part II.

a. The line item is labeled as "E-2C" procurement, but the model actually being acquired is the "E-2D" version.

Table A-11. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Missile, Space, Munitions, and
Strategic Programs: Authorization

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

House

Senate

Final Bill

Comments

 

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

 

 

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

 

Space Based Systems

Fleet Satellite Communications Follow-on/Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)

507.5

516.8

507.5

516.8

507.5

516.8

507.5

516.8

Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite (AEHF)

16.6

388.0

16.6

388.0

116.6

388.0

116.6

388.0

Senate and final bill add $100 mn for advance proc of 4th satellite.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)

4

1,205.3

33.7

4

1,205.3

33.7

4

1,205.3

33.7

4

1,205.3

33.7

Global Positioning System (GPS)

136.0

819.0

136.0

819.0

136.0

819.0

136.0

819.0

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)

289.5

289.5

289.5

289.5

Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

2

1,718.0

529.8

2

1,718.0

529.8

2

1,718.0

559.8

2

1,718.0

559.8

Senate and final bill add $30 mn in R&D for ground operations and training.

Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT)

843.0

843.0

1,193.0

785.0

Senate adds $350 mn, criticizes decision to delay the program. Final bill cuts $58 mn.

Wideband Global Satellite Communications (WGS)

22.5

12.4

22.5

12.4

22.5

12.4

22.5

12.4

Missiles and Munitions

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)

428

441.6

62.8

428

441.6

62.8

428

441.6

62.8

240

332.8

62.8

Final bill cuts $109 mn for 188 missiles to smooth production ramp.

Air Intercept Missile -AIM 9X

480

134.7

12.4

480

134.7

12.4

480

134.7

12.4

480

134.7

12.4

Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM)

180.8

180.8

180.8

180.8

Joint Air-to-Surface Missile (JASSM)

260

240.3

13.0

260

240.3

13.0

115

160.3

13.0

260

220.3

13.0

Senate cuts $80 mn in proc due to delays. Final bill cuts $20 mn to maintain ramp.

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)

3,816

115.0

5,195

155.0

3,816

115.0

3,816

115.0

House adds $40 mn in proc.

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)

496

149.1

22.5

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

2,612

133.2

144.6

Javelin Advanced Tank Weapon

605

259.3

605

259.3

605

259.3

605

259.3

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System

355.5

6.2

355.5

6.2

355.5

6.2

355.5

6.2

Standard Family of Missilesa

70

228.0

234.7

70

228.0

234.7

70

228.0

234.7

70

228.0

234.7

Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missile

207

281.1

14.2

207

281.1

17.2

207

281.1

14.2

207

281.1

15.2

Trident II Ballistic Missile

24

1,093.2

24

1,093.2

24

1,093.2

24

1,093.2

Reliable Replacement Warhead

23.3

All eliminate funds for RRW study. House and final bill provide $13 mn for arming, fuzing, and firing system that could be used for RRW or an existing refurbished weapon.

Prompt Global Strike

117.6

124.6

87.6

120.6

House adds $7 mn for advanced hypersonic weapon. Senate cuts $15 mn for biconic reentry vehicle, adds $45 mn for hypersonic boost glide vehicle. Final fill adds $3 mn for advanced hypersonic weapon.

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Armed Services Committee, "Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 3001," House Committee Print HASC No. 10, September 2008.

Notes: The defense authorization act generally does not determine the final amount provided for a program or project. The authorization bill authorizes the appropriation of funds, but the amount available is determined by the appropriations. An appropriations bill may provide more than or less than the amount authorized, may provide funds for a program for which no funds are authorized, and may provide funds for a "new start" for which funding has never been authorized.

a. Standard Family of Missiles procurement quantity and amount shown here do not include missiles procured in Procurement, Defense-Wide, by the Missile Defense Agency for BMD.

Table A-12. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Missile, Space, Munitions, and
Strategic Programs: Appropriations

(amounts in millions of dollars)

 

Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Request

 

 

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

Procurement

R&D

 

 

#

$

$

#

$

$

#

$

$

Comments

Space Based Systems

Fleet Satellite Communications Follow-on/Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)

507.5

516.8

344.0

516.8

-163-.5

Final bill cuts $164 mn from proc due to delays.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite (AEHF)

16.6

388.0

166.6

388.0

+150.0

Final bill adds $150 mn in advance proc for 4th satellite.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)

4

1,205.3

33.7

4

1,357.3

33.7

+152.0

Final bill adds $216 mn for launch capability contract, cuts $64 mn for planned GPS satellite launch.

Global Positioning System (GPS)

136.0

819.0

136.0

792.0

-27-.0

Final bill cuts $27 mn in R&D for GPS III space segement contract delay.

Operational Responsive Space

110.0

197.2

+87.2

Final bill adds $87 mn for R&D projects, of which $75 mn for infrared sensor payload.

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)

289.5

289.5

Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

2

1,718.0

529.8

2

1,718.0

544.8

+15.0

Final bill adds $15 mn in R&D for

Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT)

843.0

768.0

-75-.0

Final bill cuts $75 mn for program recution, contract award delay.

Wideband Global Satellite Communications (WGS)

22.5

12.4

22.5

52.4

+40.0

Final bill adds $40 mn in R&D for "program sustain and evolution."

Missiles and Munitions

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)

428

441.6

62.8

286

297.7

62.8

-142

-143-.9

Final bill cuts $54 mn and 4 missiles in proc from Navy and $90 mn and 138 missiles from Air Force requests.

Air Intercept Missile -AIM 9X

480

134.7

12.4

480

134.7

12.4

Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM)

180.8

180.8

Joint Air-to-Surface Missile (JASSM)

260

240.3

13.0

175

200.3

33.0

-85

-40-.0

+20.0

Final bill shifts $20 mn in proc to R&D for JASSM-ER, cuts $20 mn in proc to maintain slower ramp up.

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)

3,816

115.0

3,816

115.0

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)

496

149.1

22.5

496

143.0

22.5

-6-.1

Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)

2,612

133.2

144.6

2,612

133.2

146.2

+1.6

Javelin Advanced Tank Weapon

605

259.3

605

259.3

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System

355.5

6.2

355.5

6.2

Standard Family of Missilesa

70

228.0

234.7

70

226.0

237.7

-2-.0

+3.0

Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missile

207

281.1

14.2

207

281.1

18.2

+4.0

Trident II Ballistic Missile

24

1,093.2

24

1,088.3

10.0

 

-4-.9

+10.0

See comment below re Reliable Replacement Warhead.

Reliable Replacement Warhead

23.3

-23-.3

Final bill eliminates funds, but provides $10 mn for Trident II MK5 Reentry Body-associated arming, fusing, and firing system R&D, that could be used for RRW integration.

Prompt Global Strike

117.6

74.6

-43-.0

Final bill cuts $43 mn for alternative reentry system.

Sources: For request, Department of Defense, RDT&E Program Descriptive Summaries, FY2009, February 2008, Department of Defense, Procurement Programs (P-1), FY2009, February 2008, and Department of Defense, RDT&E Programs (R-1), FY2009, February 2008. For congressional action, House Appropriations Committee, "Explanatory Statement Accompanying H.R. 2638" in Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part II.

a. Standard Family of Missiles procurement quantity and amount shown here do not include missiles procured in Procurement, Defense-Wide, by the Missile Defense Agency for BMD.

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

Phone

E-mail

Acquisition

Valerie Grasso

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Aviation Forces

[author name scrubbed]

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Arms Control

Amy Woolf

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Arms Sales

Richard Grimmett

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Base Closure

Daniel Else

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Defense Budget

[author name scrubbed]

[author name scrubbed]

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Defense Industry

Gary Pagliano

Daniel Else

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Defense R&D

John Moteff

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Ground Forces

Edward Bruner

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Health Care; Military

Richard Best

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Intelligence

Richard Best

Al Cumming

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Military Construction

Daniel Else

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Military Personnel

David Burrelli

Charles Henning

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

National Guard & Reserves

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Missile Defense

Steven Hildreth

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Naval Forces

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Nuclear Weapons

Jonathan Medalia

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Peace Operations

Nina Serafino

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Readiness

[author name scrubbed]

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Space, Military

Steven Hildreth

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

War Powers

Richard Grimmett

[phone number scrubbed]

[email address scrubbed]

Footnotes

1.

The explanatory statement to accompany the defense authorization bill, S. 3001, was published in the Congressional Record of September 23, 2008 (pp. H8718-H9081). Subsequently, the text of the bill and the explanatory statement were published as a House Armed Services Committee print (HASC No. 10 ). 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). Subsequently, the text of the continuing resolution (Division C of which is the FY2009 defense appropriations bill) and the explanatory statement were printed by the House Appropriations Committee as an unnumbered committee print.

2.

The budget request included an additional $4.3 billion in mandatory spending for the national defense function of the budget (Function 050).

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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 [author name scrubbed].

6.

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: A Powerpoint Summary," available at http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/documents/WD06002.pdf.

7.

See, for example, the annual 10 year projections of defense spending by the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association, at http://www.geia.org/.

8.

TRICARE is a DOD-run health insurance program for military dependents.

9.

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.

10.

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, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf.

11.

See CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by [author name scrubbed].

12.

See CRS Report RL34333, Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Force or Specialized Units? Background and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

13.

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.

14.

Megan Scully, "Boeing Presses Armed Services Panels To Have Navy Buy More Super Hornets," National Journal Congress Daily AM, April 29, 2008.

15.

Geoff Fein, "Lawmakers Hope To Add Three More Ships To Navy's FY '09 Procurement Plan," Defense Daily, February 28, 2008.

16.

See CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

17.

See CRS Report RL34179, Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

18.

For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments, by Jonathan Medalia.

19.

For the current status of the program, see CRS Report RL34051, Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

20.

See CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

21.

See CRS Report RL32888, The Army's Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

22.

Defense News, "Battle Over Proposal to Speed FCS," by Kris Osborne, March 24, 2008.

23.

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.

24.

Ibid.

25.

"DoD Announces Termination of KC-X Tanker Solicitation," DOD News Release 758-08, September 10, 2008.

26.

See CRS Report RL34264, Strategic Airlift Modernization: Analysis of C-5 Modernization and C-17 Acquisition Issues, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

27.

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/Stabilization and Conflict Transitions: Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response/Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and Reconstruction Capabilities; and CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa.

28.

Prepared by [author name scrubbed], Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget.

29.

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 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_Global_War_On_Terror_Bridge_Request.pdf.

30.

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.

31.

War funding and policy restrictions are primarily in Title XV in H.R. 5658 and Titles XV and XVI in S. 3001.

32.

See Sec. 1501, S. 3001 and explanatory statement for conference version; available at 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 Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition (Red Book), Volume I, p. 2-44; http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf.

33.

See Table 4 in CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by [author name scrubbed].

34.

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.

35.

Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Transcript, "Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request," May 20, 2008, p. 13.

36.

White House, Speech by President Bush at National Defense University, Distinguished Lecture Program, "President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror," 9-9-08.

37.

Department of Defense, DoD News Briefing with Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon, July 23, 2008; http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4265.

38.

Department of Defense, "Draft Adjustment to the FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending Request," March 2008.

39.

GAO, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus," GAO-08-1031, August, 2008, p. 14.

40.

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 in the ISFF; Sec. 1616 applies the prohibition to any "large-scale infrastructure projects" above $2 million; see also Table 8.

41.

Section entitled "Iraq Security Forces" in P.L. 110-252 and report language on p. S4337, Congressional Record, May 19, 2008.

42.

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.

43.

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.

44.

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.

45.

See 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, by [author name scrubbed]; see also DOD, FY2009 Legislative Request, September 2, 2008 and section by section analysis; http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/legislpro.html.

46.

For more information, see 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, by [author name scrubbed] and CRS Report RL34639, The Department of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for Congress, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. 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.

47.

See Sec. 9109, P.L. 110-252 for FY2008 cap; no general provision in Chapter 2, the FY2009 bridge.

48.

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.

49.

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.

50.

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 [author name scrubbed], p.4 and p. 5, 6-6-08.

51.

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.

52.

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.

53.

For details, 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 [author name scrubbed] et al.

54.

Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy.

55.

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 [author name scrubbed].

56.

This discussion was prepared by [author name scrubbed], Specialist in International Security, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

57.

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.

58.

See CRS Report RL34398, Air Force Air Refueling: The KC-X Aircraft Acquisition Program, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

59.

"DoD Announces Termination of KC-X Tanker Solicitation," DOD News Release 758-08, September 10, 2008.

60.

Mariana Malenic, "New Tanker Contract Could Be Up To Four Years Away, Air Force Chief Says," Defense Daily, September 16, 2008.

61.

"Lawmakers' Questions about Military's Role in Africa Spur Steep AFRICOM Cuts," InsideDefense.com, September 9, 2008

62.

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.

63.

Otto Kreisher, "Senate Appropriations Subpanel Clears $487 billion Defense Package," CongressDaily, September 10, 2008.

64.

The defense appropriations division of the bill provides $1 billion for CIA retirement and disability insurance and the rest for the Department of Defense. Division E of the overall bill provides $25 billion for Department of Defense for military construction and family housing programs.