FY2020 Defense Appropriations: Selected Issues Raised by H.R. 2740 (Div. C) and S. 2474
October 23, 2019
FY2020 Defense Appropriations: Selected Issues Raised by
H.R. 2740 (Div. C) and S. 2474
House and Senate negotiators trying to draft a compromise
appropriations bills. The Senate Appropriations Committee
version of the FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act likely
reported its version of the FY2020 Defense Appropriations
will have to deal with elements of the House-passed bill
Act (S. 2474) on September 12, 2019.
(H.R. 2740, Division C) that challenge some of the Trump
Administration’s signature policies. Among these are
One potential obstacle to agreement may have been set
provisions to block construction of a barrier along the U.S.
aside on August 2, 2019, with enactment of the Bipartisan
border with Mexico and provisions that would slow or
Budget Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-37), which set a new
block some parts of the planned modernization of the U.S.
statutory cap on discretionary defense spending for base
strategic arsenal. Those are among several aspects of the
budget activities in FY2020. The Department of Defense
House bill cited by the Office of Management and Budget
(DOD) base budget funds routine activities not associated
(OMB) as potential grounds for a veto in a Statement of
with ongoing military deployments, which are designated as
Administration Policy issued on June 11, 2019.
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). In order to
comply with the lower limits on base budget defense
The House passed its version of the FY2020 Defense
spending that were in place at the time the FY2020 budget
Appropriations bill on June 19, 2019 as part of a
was released, the Administration had designated as OCO
Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2740, Division C).
funding $98 billion intended to fund base budget activities,
In contrast to the House, the Senate has not yet passed any
seeking to exempt those funds from the spending cap.
Table 1. FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2968, S. 2474)
(amounts in mil ions of dol ars of discretionary budget authority)
FY2020
House
Senate
Request
passed H.R. 2968
Committee
FY2020
adjusted
(incorporated into
reported
Appropriations Title
Request
(see table note)
H.R. 2740)
S. 2474
Military Personnel
143,476.5
143,476.5
141,621.6
142,983.8
Operation and Maintenance
123,944.6
207,661.7
206,673.5
200,610.1
Procurement
118,923.1
132,378.1
130,544.8
132,837.2
R&D
102,647.5
103,395.5
100,455.4
104,282.1
Revolving and Management\ Funds
1,426.2
1,426.2
1,426.2
1,580.2
Defense Health Program and other DOD Programs
35,147.1
35,147.1
35,641.8
35,728.7
Related Agencies
1,072.0
1,072.0
1,072.0
1,053.4
General provisions
-2,698.2
-3,904.3
Subtotal: Base Budget
526,637.0
624,557.1
614,737.1
615,171.2
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
163,980.5
66,060.5
68,079.0
70,665.0
Disaster Relief
1,710.2
Grand Total
690,617.6
690,617.6
682,816.2
687,546.5
Sources: H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968 and S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations
Committee report to accompany S. 2474.
Notes: In order to comply with the cap on discretionary appropriations for the FY2020 DOD base budget, the Trump Administration included
in its FY2020 DOD request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), $98.0 bil ion for base budget activities. In Table I, the “FY2020
Request” column presents the Administration’s budget request as submitted to Congress. However, the Armed Services and Appropriations
Committees of both the House and Senate chose, instead, to designate the funds in question as part of the DOD base budget. To facilitate
comparisons between the Administration request and the actions of the House and the Senate committee, the “FY2020 Request Adjusted”
column presents the Administration’s request with funds intended for the base budget included in the appropriate base budget title.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
FY2020 Defense Appropriations: Selected Issues Raised by H.R. 2740 (Div. C) and S. 2474
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees did not
launched missiles with relatively low-yield nuclear
adopt this approach and consolidated all funds requested for
warheads intended to deter an adversary’s threat to
base budget purposes as part of the base budget
make limited use of nuclear weapons in a regional
appropriations. The House and Senate bills each are
conflict.
generally consistent with the increased defense spending
caps enacted in August. (Table 1)
Aerial Combat
Border Barrier Funding Pushback
The House and Senate bills each would fund more F-35
fighters than the 78 requested (for $9.1 billion). The House
Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill (H.R. 2740) includes
bill would add $1.04 billion for 12 additional aircraft while
several provisions that would generally restrict authorities
making other adjustments to the request that would bring
the President could use to transfer funds appropriated to
the total provided for the program to $9.96 billion. The
DOD from their originally intended use to border barrier
Senate bill would add $1.71 billion for 18 additional F-35s
construction:
while making other adjustments to the program that would
Language in Title VI, which funds DOD’s Drug
bring the total to $10.63 billion.
Interdiction and Counter-Drug efforts, would prohibit
As requested, both bills would fund (with relatively minor
the use of those funds for construction of border fences,
reductions) the procurement of additional fighters of earlier
which is one of the activities specifically authorized for
vintages to supplement the stealthy F-35s, including 24
the program, by law;
F/A-18s ($1.8 billion) and eight F-15s ($1.0 billion). The
Senate bill would fund two of the F-15s ($422.0 million) in
Section 8127 would bar the use for border barrier
the Air Force’s research and development account.
construction of any funds appropriated to DOD;
The House bill would cut $500.0 million from the $1.0
Section 8005 would reduce from $4.0 billion (in
billion requested for the Air Force’s Next Generation Air
FY2019) to $1.0 billion in FY2020 the total amount
Dominance (NGAD) program to develop a networked
appropriated for base budget activities that could be
system of manned and unmanned aircraft for future air
transferred to other purposes; and
combat. According to the House Appropriations
Section 9002 would reduce from $2.0 billion (in
Committee, the basis for the reduction is classified.
FY2019) to $500 million in FY2020 the total amount of
According to the OMB statement on the House bill, that cut
OCO-designated funding that could be transferred.
would have a “severe” impact on DOD’s ability to field
aerial combat capabilities “that will be needed in the 2030
Nuclear Triad Modernization
timeframe to meet the growing challenges of peer
Both versions of the defense bill would approve (with some
adversaries.”
relatively minor differences) the amounts requested for
three major components of the Administration’s strategic
CRS Products
force modernization plan:
CRS Report R45937, Military Funding for Southwest Border
Barriers, by Christopher T. Mann.
For the B-21 bomber, the House bill would provide the
CRS In Focus IF11243, Defense Primer: DOD Transfer and
$3.0 billion requested and the Senate bill would provide
Reprogramming Authorities, by Aaron D. Walenga and Brendan
$2.9 billion, cutting $100 million for a classified reason;
W. McGarry.
For the Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) weapon, a
CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background,
bomber-launched cruise missile, both bills would
Developments, and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.
provide the requested $712.5 million; and
CRS In Focus IF11143, A Low-Yield, Submarine-Launched Nuclear
For the Columbia-class of ballistic missile-launching
Warhead: Overview of the Expert Debate, by Amy F. Woolf.
submarines, the House bill would provide $2.1 billion
Other Resources
and the Senate bill $2.4 billion, bracketing the $2.2
billion request.
Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, Washington,
DC, February 2, 2018.
However, the House and Senate bills would take divergent
Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration
paths on two other components of the nuclear arms plan:
Policy: H.R. 2740, June 11, 2019.
For development of the Ground-Based Strategic
Deterrent (GBSD), a new ICBM to replace the 1970s-
vintage Minuteman, the House bill would cut $108.7
million from the $570.4 million requested, while the
Senate bill would add $87.1 million; and
Pat Towell, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill would deny the
IF11340
request for $19.6 million to equip some Trident II sub-
https://crsreports.congress.gov
FY2020 Defense Appropriations: Selected Issues Raised by H.R. 2740 (Div. C) and S. 2474
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11340 · VERSION 1 · NEW