# FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45689

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** April 12, 2019
- **Citation:** R45689

## Text

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115245)
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
April 12, 2019

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R45689

SUMMARY

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115245)
The FY2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of P.L.
115-245, provides $667.3 billion in new budget authority to fund all activities of the
Department of Defense (DOD) except for the construction of military facilities and the
operation of military family housing complexes.
While the total amount appropriated for DOD for FY2019 was nearly equal to the
Administration’s request, the act provides more funding than requested for dozens of
weapons acquisition programs, with the gross increase exceeding $10 billion. Those
additions are offset by hundreds of reductions made elsewhere within the budget request.

R45689
April 12, 2019
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense
Policy and Budget
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov
For a copy of the full report,
please call 7-.... or visit
www.crs.gov.

In effect, these reductions allowed Congress to add billions of dollars to the Administration's DOD budget request
without exceeding the cap on defense spending that arose from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123).
That cap applies to discretionary appropriations for DOD's base budget—that is, appropriations designated by
Congress and the President as funding for emergencies or for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). OCO
activities include current operations in Afghanistan and Syria, and any other operations which are so designated
by Congress and the President.
A House-Senate conference committee reported a version of the bill on September 13, 2018. The Senate approved
the conference report on September 18 by a vote of 93-7 and the House did likewise on September 26 by a vote of
361-61. President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law (P.L. 115-245) on September 28, 2018.
FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)
Subcommittee
Markup
House

Senate

6/7/2018

6/26/2018

Conference Report
on H.R. 6157
H. Rept. 115-952

House
Report
(H.R. 6157)

House
Passage
(H.R. 6157)

Senate
Report
(S. 3159)

Senate
Passage
(H.R. 6157)

House

Senate

H. Rept. 115769

6/28/2018
359-49

S. Rept. 115290

8/23/2018
85-7

9/26/2018
361-61

9/18/2018
93-7

Public
Law
P.L. 115-245
Signed
9/28/2018

Notes: The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2019 defense appropriations bill as S. 3159.
Subsequently, the Senate substituted the language of that bill for the language of the House-passed version of H.R. 6157, which it
further amended and then passed. The bill does not include two pieces of DOD’s discretionary budget authority for FY2019: (1)
military construction funds provided by the previously enacted P.L. 115-244, which incorporates the FY2019 appropriations bill for
military construction and for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies; and (2) $7.53 billion in accrual payments to
fund the TRICARE for Life program of medical insurance for military retirees, funding for which is appropriated automatically, as a
matter of permanent law (10 U.S.C. 1111-1117).

As enacted, H.R. 6157 funds the Administration’s major defense initiatives, including an increase of 16,500
active-duty military personnel. Among the weapons procurement programs for which the bill provides substantial
additions add to the amounts requested are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine
Corps (77 aircraft requested and 93 funded) and the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (one requested and three
funded).

Congressional Research Service

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Strategic Context ....................................................................................................................... 3
Budgetary Context .................................................................................................................... 5
Appropriations Overview ................................................................................................................ 7
Military Personnel ..................................................................................................................... 7
Defense Health Program ........................................................................................................... 9
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds ............................................................................ 10
House-backed ‘Readiness’ Increases ................................................................................. 11
Selected Acquisition Programs ....................................................................................................... 11
Strategic and Long-Range Strike Systems ............................................................................... 11
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems .......................................................................................... 13
Military Space Programs ......................................................................................................... 14
Ground Combat Systems......................................................................................................... 15
National Guard and Reserve Force Equipment ....................................................................... 17
Naval Systems ......................................................................................................................... 18
Aviation Systems ..................................................................................................................... 20

Figures
Figure 1. Federal Budget Outlays .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. DOD Budget Authority, FY1958-FY2019 ....................................................................... 7

Tables
Table 1. FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)......................................................... 1
Table 2. FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)......................................................... 2
Table 3. FY2019 Military Personnel (End-Strength) Supported by FY2019 Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245) ............................................................................................... 8
Table 4. Selected Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs .................................... 10
Table 5. Selected Strategic and Long-Range Strike Systems ........................................................ 12
Table 6. Selected Ballistic Missile Defense Systems .................................................................... 13
Table 7. Selected Defense Space Programs ................................................................................... 14
Table 8. Selected Ground Combat Systems ................................................................................... 16
Table 9. Selected Shipbuilding Programs ...................................................................................... 19
Table 10. Selected Aircraft Acquisition Programs ......................................................................... 20

Appendixes
Appendix. ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Introduction
This report provides both an overview of the FY2019 defense appropriations act (P.L. 115-245)
and access to other CRS products providing additional detail and analysis on particular issues and
programs dealt with by that law.
The Overview section of the report immediately following this Introduction covers the legislative
history of the bill and the strategic and budgetary context within which is was debated.
Subsequent sections of the report detail the bill’s treatment of specific issues including
procurement of various types of weapons. Each section dealing with procurement of a certain
type of weapon includes a table presenting basic budget information and links to any relevant
CRS product.

Overview
For FY2019, the Trump Administration requested $668.4 billion to fund programs falling within
the scope of the annual defense appropriations act.1 This included $67.9 billion to be designated
by Congress and the President as funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and
$599.4 billion for DOD’s base budget, comprising all operations not designated as OCO. OCOdesignated funding is related to current operations in Afghanistan and Syria, but includes other
activities that Congress and the President so-designate.
As enacted, H.R. 6157 provides $667.3 billion, a net reduction of $1.09 billion amounting to less
than two-tenths of 1% of the total (i.e., base budget plus OCO) request. Compared with the total
amount provided by the FY2018 defense appropriations bill (P.L. 114-113), the FY2019 act
provides an increase of 2.3%. (See Table 1.)
Table 1. FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)
amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority
Total
FY2018
Approp.

FY2019
budget
request

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Title I - Military Personnel

133.4

140.7

139.3

139.3

Title II - Operation and
Maintenance

189.4

199.5

197.4

194.0

Title III - Procurement

136.3

130.6

133.1

135.2

Title IV – Research and
Development

89.7

91.1

91.2

95.1

Title V - Revolving and
Management Funds

1.7

1.5

1.5

1.6

Title VI - Defense Health Program
and Other DOD

36.6

35.8

36.2

36.3

Bill Title

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157
138.5
193.7
135.4
94.9
1.6
36.2

1 The annual defense appropriations bill provides all discretionary appropriations for DOD, with two exceptions. It does

not appropriate: (1) military construction funds provided by the previously enacted P.L. 115-244, which incorporates
the FY2019 appropriations bill for military construction and for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies; and (2) $7.5 billion in accrual payments to fund the TRICARE for Life program of medical insurance for
military retirees, funding for which is appropriated automatically, as a matter of permanent law (10 U.S.C. 1111-1117).

Congressional Research Service

1

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Total
FY2018
Approp.

FY2019
budget
request

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Title VII - Related Agencies

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.0

Title VIII - General Provisions
(including offsetting rescissions of
prior appropriations)

-0.5

-2.6

-0.9

0.1

582.3

600.3

65.2

68.1

652.3

668.4

Bill Title

Subtotal: Base Budget
Title IX - Overseas Contingency
Operation (OCO)
Total Appropriation

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157
1.0

-2.0
599.4

600.1

68.1

67.9

667.5

668.0

599.4
67.9
667.3

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: The regular FY2018 Defense Appropriations Bill, providing $647.4 billion in discretionary budget
authority, was enacted as Division A of the FY2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1625/P.L. 115-141). Two
bills enacted subsequently, provided additional DOD funds for FY2018: the Third Continuing Resolution for
FY2018 (H.R. 1370/P.L. 115-96) provided $4.5 billion for missile defense and the repair of two Pacific Fleet
destroyers damaged in collisions; the Fifth Continuing Resolution for FY2018 (H.R. 1892/P.L. 115-123) provided
$434 million for recovery from hurricane damage. Discretionary funds provided to DOD by all three bills are
included in the table’s FY2018 column.

The House initially passed H.R. 6197 on June 28, 2018, by a vote of 359-49. On that same day,
the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3159, its own version of the FY2019 Defense
Appropriations bill. Subsequently, the Senate adopted several amendments to H.R. 6157,
including one that substituted the text of the Senate committee bill for the House-passed text. The
Senate also adopted an amendment that added to the defense bill the text of S. 3158, the FY2019
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
which the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved on August 20, 2018. The Senate then
passed H.R. 6197, as amended, on August 23, 2018, by a vote of 85-7.
A House-Senate conference committee reported a version of the bill on September 13, 2018. The
Senate approved the conference report on September 18 by a vote of 93-7 and the House did
likewise on September 26 by a vote of 361-61. President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law
(P.L. 115-245) on September 28, 2018. (See Table 2.)
Table 2. FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)
Subcomm.
Markup
House

Senate

6/7/2018 6/26/2018

House
Report
(H.R.
6157)

House
Passage
(H.R.
6157)

H. Rept.
115-769

6/28/2018
359-49

Conference Report
on H.R. 6157
H. Rept. 115-952

Senate
Report
(S. 3159)

Senate
Passage
(H.R.
6157)

House

Senate

S. Rept.
115-290

8/23/2018
85-7

9/26/2018
361-61

9/18/2018
93-7

Public
Law
P.L. 115245
Signed
9/28/201
8

Notes: The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2019 defense appropriations bill as
S. 3159. Subsequently, the Senate substituted the language of that bill for the language of the House-passed
version of H.R. 6157, which it further amended and then passed.

Congressional Research Service

2

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

The total amount requested for DOD that falls within the scope of the annual defense
appropriations bill and amounts provided in P.L. 115-245 as enacted are relatively close. Within
those gross totals, however, there are differences between the amounts requested and the amounts
provided for hundreds of specific elements within the sprawling DOD budget. Many of these
individual differences reflect congressional judgements about particular issues. However, there
also are patterns of differences that reflect congressional views on broad policy or budgetary
questions:2




Title I of the act, that funds Military Personnel accounts, provides $2.2 billion
less than was requested for pay and benefits. House-Senate conferees said the
reduction should have no adverse impact on the force. According to the
conference report, revised estimates of the budgetary impact of recent changes in
the military retirement system were the basis for a net reduction from the request
of $1.54 billion. Other reductions totaling $430 million were justified by
conferees on the basis of “historical unobligated balances,” that is, an
accumulation of funds in certain accounts that were appropriated in prior years
but were not spent.
Base budget funding provided by the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) title of
the act (Title II) amounts to a net reduction of $5.2 billion from the request.3 In
part, the apparent cut reflects a transfer of nearly $2.0 billion to Title IX of the
act, which funds OCO. The conferees justified additional reductions totaling
$1.34 billion on the basis of either large unobligated balances or “historical
underexecution,” (i.e., a pattern of repeatedly spending less on military personnel
in a given fiscal year than had been appropriated).



On the other hand, total procurement funding for the base budget (Title III) is $4.8 billion
higher than the request. While the act makes hundreds of additions and cuts to the
funding requested for particular items, three broad themes all push the act’s procurement
total upward: $2.48 billion is added to buy aircraft and other equipment for National
Guard and reserve forces; $2.31 billion is added to fully fund or acquire major
components for additional six ships (see Table 9); and $2.13 billion is added to the $8.49
billion requested for procurement of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (see Table 10).



Similarly, base budget funding in the act for research and development (Title IV) is $3.8
billion higher than the request, partly because the legislation would add $2.3 billion to the
$13.7 billion requested for science and technology (S&T) programs – that is, the part of
the R&D effort focused on developing new and potentially useful scientific and
engineering knowledge rather than on designing specific pieces of equipment intended
for production.

Strategic Context
The Trump Administration presented its FY2019 defense budget request – nearly 96% of which is
funded by the annual defense appropriations bill – as responding to an international security
environment that has become increasingly contentious in recent years. Many observers view
events such as China’s construction of military bases in the South China Sea since 2013 and
2 Amounts cited in the following bulleted material are based on CRS analysis of data in H.Rept. 115-952, Conference

report to accompany H.R. 6157.
3 According to the text of Title II of the bill, the reduction from the request amounts to $5.8 billion. However,
provisions in Title VIII of the bill increase the Title II appropriation by a total of $650 million.

Congressional Research Service

3

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Russia’s seizure of Crimea in March 2014 as marking an end to the post-Cold War era that began
in the late 1980s and 1990s with the decline and collapse of the Soviet Union.
Many observers of contemporary international security trends contend that the United States and
its allies are entering an era of increased strategic complexity. Very broadly speaking, during the
Cold War and beyond, U.S. national security challenges were difficult, yet relatively
straightforward to conceptualize, prioritize, and manage. U.S. national security and foreign
policies during the Cold War were focused on its strategic competition with the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and on containing the spread of communism globally. In the years following
the end of the Cold War, U.S. national security policies and practices were largely designed to
curtail genocide in the Balkans and Iraq, while simultaneously containing regional aggressors
such as Iran and North Korea and recalibrating relations with China and Russia.
The terrorist attacks on U.S. territory on September 11th, 2001 ushered in an era of national
security policy largely focused on countering terrorism and insurgencies in the Middle East while
containing, if not reversing, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. As a legacy of
the Cold War’s ending, U.S. and allied military forces had overwhelming military superiority
over adversaries in the Middle East and the Balkans. Accordingly, operations were conducted in
relatively permissive environments.
The 2014 Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula and subsequent proxy war in eastern
Ukraine fostered concern in the United States and in Europe about an aggressive and revanchist
Russia. Meanwhile, China began building and militarizing islands in the South China Sea in order
to lay claim to key shipping lanes. Together, these events highlighted anew the salience in the
U.S. national security agenda of dealing with other great powers, that is, states able and willing to
employ military force unilaterally to accomplish their objectives. At the same time, the security
challenges that surfaced at the end of the Cold War – fragile states, genocide, terrorism, and
nuclear proliferation, to name a few – have remained serious threats to U.S. interests. In this
international context, conceptualizing, prioritizing, and managing these myriad problems,
arguably, is more difficult than it was in eras past. The situation is summarized by the December
2017 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), which notes:
The United States faces an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of
threats that have intensified in recent years. 4

Likewise, the January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) argues:
We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing
rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and
volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.5

The Trump Administration’s 2017 NSS and the 11-page unclassified summary of the NDS
explicitly reorients U.S. national security strategy (including defense strategy) toward a primary
focus on great power competition with China and Russia and on countering Chinese and Russian
military capabilities.
In addition to explicitly making the great power competition the primary U.S. national security
concern, the NDS also argues for a focus on bolstering the competitive advantage of U.S. forces,
which, the document contends, has eroded in recent decades vis-à-vis the Chinese and Russian
threats. The NDS also maintains that, contrary to what was the case for most of the years since
4 Office of the President, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017. p. 1.
5 Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening

the American Military’s Competitive Edge, January 2018, at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf?mod=article_inline.

Congressional Research Service

4

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

the end of the Cold War, U.S. forces now must assume that their ability to approach military
objectives will be vigorously contested.
The new U.S. strategy orientation set forth in the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS is sometimes referred
to a “2+3” strategy, meaning a strategy for countering two primary challenges (China and
Russia) and three additional challenges (North Korea, Iran, and terrorist groups), although given
the radically differing nature of these challenges, one might posit that such a heuristic
oversimplifies the contours of the strategic environment.
2018 National Defense Strategy: Focus on ‘High-End’ Combat Capability
For additional background on the National Defense Strategy, see CRS Report R45349, The 2018 National Defense
Strategy: Fact Sheet, by Kathleen J. McInnis.
For further background and analysis on the increased DOD focus on great power military competition, see CRS
Report R43838, A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,
by Ronald O'Rourke, and CRS Report R44891, U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O'Rourke and Michael Moodie.

Budgetary Context
Congressional action on all FY2019 appropriations bills was shaped by an effort to rein in federal
spending, out of concern for the increasing indebtedness of the federal government. The fastest
growing segment of federal spending in recent decades has been mandatory spending for
entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (See Figure 1.)

Congressional Research Service

5

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Figure 1. Federal Budget Outlays
amounts in billions of dollars

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 8-1 “Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act
Category, 1962-2023.”

The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) was intended to reduce spending by $2.1
trillion over the period FY2012-FY2021, compared to projected spending over that period. One
element of the act established binding annual limits (or caps) to reduce discretionary federal
spending through FY2021 by $1.0 trillion. Separate annual caps on discretionary appropriations
for defense-related activities and non-defense activities are enforced by a mechanism called
sequestration. Sequestration provides for the automatic cancellation of previous appropriations, to
reduce discretionary spending to the BCA cap for the year in question.
The caps on defense-related spending apply to discretionary funding for DOD and for defenserelated activities by other agencies, comprising the national defense budget function which is
designated budget function 050. The caps do not apply to funding designated by Congress and the
president as emergency spending or spending on OCO.
The Budget Control Act
For additional information on the BCA and its impact on the defense budget see CRS Report R44039, The Defense
Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry , CRS Report R42972,
Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch, and CRS In Focus
IF10657, Budgetary Effects of the BCA as Amended: The “Parity Principle”, by Grant A. Driessen.

Congress has raised the annual spending caps repeatedly, most recently with the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), which set the national defense funding cap for FY2019 at
$647 billion. Because the cap applies to defense-related spending in other agencies as well as to

Congressional Research Service

6

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

DOD, and because the annual defense appropriations bill covers most but not all of DOD’s
discretionary budget, the portion of the cap applicable to FY2019 defense appropriations bill is
approximately $600 billion. The Administration’s request for the bill was consistent with that cap,
as is the enacted bill.
The total FY2019 DOD request – including both base budget and OCO funding – continued an
upswing that began with the FY2016 budget, which marked the end of a relatively steady decline
in real (that is, inflation-adjusted) DOD purchasing power. Measured in constant dollars, DOD
funding peaked in FY2010, after which the drawdown of U.S. troops in OCO operations drove a
reduction in DOD spending. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2. DOD Budget Authority, FY1958-FY2019
In constant FY2019 dollars

Source: DOD Comptroller, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2019 (the Green Book), Table 6-10.
Notes: Includes all DOD budget authority, discretionary and mandatory, base budget and OCO.

Appropriations Overview
Military Personnel
The law funds the Administration’s proposal to increase the size of the armed forces by
15,600 personnel in the active components – with nearly half of that increase destined for
the Navy – and by a total of 800 members of the Air Force Reserve and Air National
Guard. The Senate-passed version of the bill would have funded less than half the amount

Congressional Research Service

7

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

of the proposed increase in active-duty personnel and none of the amount of the proposed
increase in the reserve component. (See Table 3.)
The Senate Appropriations Committee report on S. 3159 (which became the basis for the Senatepassed version of the appropriations bill) stated no reason for recommending less than half the
amount of the Administration’s proposed increase. However, on this point, the Senate version of
the appropriations bill mirrored the Senate-passed version of the companion John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515; P.L. 115-232),
which also would have approved half the amount of the proposed increase in the active-duty
components and none of the amount of the proposed reserve component increase. In the Senate
Armed Services Committee report to accompany its version of the NDAA, the panel expressed
concern that, because unemployment is at historically low levels, the services might have trouble
recruiting enough additional personnel to fill a larger force while maintaining their current
standards for enlistment.
As with the FY2019 defense appropriations bill, the conference report on the FY2019
NDAA authorized the Administration’s proposed increase in military end-strength.
Table 3. FY2019 Military Personnel (End-Strength) Supported by
FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)
FY2018
authorized

FY2019
budget
request

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

P.L. 115-245

Active Components
Army

483,500

487,500

487,500

485,741

487,500

Navy

327,900

335,400

335,400

331,900

335,400

Marine Corps

186,000

186,100

186,100

186,100

186,100

Air Force

325,100

329,100

329,100

325,720

329,100

1,322,500

1,338,100

1,338,100

1,329,461

1,338,100

Army Reserve

199,500

199,500

199,500

199,500

199,500

Army National Guard

343,500

343,500

343,500

343,500

343,500

Navy Reserve

59,000

59,100

59,100

59,000

59,100

Marine Corps Reserve

38,500

38,500

38,500

38,500

38,500

Air Force Reserve

69,800

70,000

70,000

69,800

70,000

Air National Guard

106,600

107,100

107,100

106,600

107,100

Subtotal: Reserve Components

816,900

817,700

817,700

816,900

817,700

Subtotal: Active Components
Reserve Components

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.

The enacted version of the appropriations bill funds the Administration’s recommended
2.6 % increase in military basic pay effective January 1, 2019 (as both the House and

Congressional Research Service

8

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Senate versions would have done). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates
the cost of this raise to be $1.8 billion.6
FY2019 Military Personnel Policy Issues
For information and analysis concerning military policy issues treated in the companion FY2019 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 5515), see CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Issues, by Bryce H. P. Mendez et al.

Defense Health Program
In terms of total funding, the act appropriates $34.0 billion for the Defense Health Program
(DHP) in FY2019, which represents an increase of less than 1% over the Administration’s $33.7
billion request.7 As usual, those similar totals mask a number of differences. Compared with the
request, the enacted bill cuts:




$213 million to force DOD to deal with what House and Senate conferees
labelled “excess growth” in the cost of pharmaceuticals;
$215 million in anticipation that the funds will not be needed because the
program will continue to exhibit its pattern of historical underexecution; and
$597 million to correct what the House Appropriations Committee said was
erroneous accounting for congressional action on the FY2018 DHP budget.

Among the amounts the enacted bill would add to the request are:



$10 million for training therapeutic service dogs; and
$2 million to coordinate the actions of DOD and the Department of Veterans
Affairs to study the possible adverse health effects of the widespread use of open
burning pits to dispose of trash at U.S. military sites in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate-passed version of the bill would have added to the request $750 million for
maintenance and repair of DHP facilities, but this was not included in the final version of the bill.

Congressionally-Directed Medical R&D
Continuing a 28-year-long pattern, the act adds to the Administration’s DHP budget request funds
for medical research and development. Beginning with a $25 million earmark for breast cancer
research in the FY1992 defense appropriations act (P.L. 102-172), Congress has added a total of
$13.2 billion to the DOD budget through FY2018 for research on a variety of medical conditions
and treatments.

6 See CBO Cost Estimate for S. 2987, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for FY2019, June 8,

2018 at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/s2987.pdf.
7 In addition to funds appropriated in this account, DOD’s medical-related expenses also include $8.9 billion in
personnel costs for military personnel who staff health care units, $371 million for military construction projects, and
$7.5 billion in accrual contributions into the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (commonly referred to as
TRICARE for Life) to provide for the future health care costs of currently serving personnel – and their family
members – when they retire and become eligible for Medicare. (DOD Comptroller, FY2019 Defense Budget Overview,
Feb. 13, 2018, Figure 5.2)

Congressional Research Service

9

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

The Administration’s DHP budget request included $710.6 million for research and
development.8 The House-passed version of H.R. 6157 would have added $775.6 million, most of
which was allocated to one of 27 specific medical conditions or treatments. The Senate version
would have added to the request $963.2 of which $431.5 million was allocated among 10 specific
diseases or treatments.9 The enacted version of the bill appropriates a total of $2.18 billion for
DHP-funded medical research, an increase of $1.47 billion over the request that covers each of
the particular medical conditions and treatments that would have been funded by either chamber’s
bill.
As has been typical for several years, the largest amounts for particular diseases in both the
House and Senate versions of the FY2019 bill are aimed at breast cancer, prostate cancer, and
traumatic brain injury (TBI). (See Table 4.)
Table 4. Selected Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs
amounts in millions of dollars
FY2018
enacted

FY2019
Housepassed

FY2019
Senatepassed

Breast Cancer

130

130

120

130

Prostate Cancer

100

100

64

100

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Psychological Health

125

125

60

125

Final

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H.Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.

Congressionally Directed Medical Research
For additional information on the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, see CRS In Focus IF10349,
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Funding for FY2019, by Bryce H. P. Mendez and CRS Report
R45399, Military Medical Care: Frequently Asked Questions, by Bryce H. P. Mendez.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds
The act cuts $4.8 billion from the Administration’s $199.5 billion request for base budget O&M
funds, making the final appropriation $194.7 billion.10 However, more than one-third of the
apparent reduction ($2.0 billion) is accounted for by funds that the bill appropriates as part of the
budget for OCO, despite their having been requested in the base budget.
For dozens of additional cuts from the base budget O&M request, House-Senate conferees cited
rationales that imply that the reductions need not have an adverse impact on DOD activities:


Cuts totaling $1.3 billion were justified by the assumption that particular
programs would underspend their budget requests by that amount, often on the

8 Smaller amounts for medical R&D also are included in the Army, Navy, and Air Force budgets.
9 The balance of the Senate add-on and a small part of the House addition was for broad categories of research grants,

such as “Peer-reviewed Medical Research.”
10 According to the text of Title II of the bill, which includes the O&M appropriations, the reduction from the base
budget request amounts to $5.8 billion. However, Sections 8118 and 8128 of the bill increase the Title II appropriation
by a total of $1.0 billion.

Congressional Research Service

10

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)




basis of what the conferees called a pattern of historical underexecution of their
annual appropriations;
Cuts totaling $1.3 billion were justified on grounds that DOD had not justified its
request for those funds; and
Cuts totaling $343 million were justified on grounds that the requests amounted
to unrealistically large increases over the prior year’s appropriation.

House-backed ‘Readiness’ Increases
The House-passed version of the bill would have added a total of $1.0 billion spread across the
active and reserve components of the armed forces to “restore readiness.” According to the House
committee report, the funds were intended to be spent on training, depot maintenance, and base
operations according to a plan DOD was to submit to Congress 30 days in advance of
expenditure. The funds were not included in the enacted version of the bill.

Selected Acquisition Programs
Strategic and Long-Range Strike Systems
The Administration’s FY2019 budget request continued the across-the-board modernization of
the U.S. strategic arsenal that had been launched by the Obama Administration.11 Within that
program, the initial House and Senate versions of H.R. 6157 funded the major initiatives with
some changes, many of which reflected routine budget oversight. (See Table 5.)
Strategic Arms Modernization Program
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background,
Developments, and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.

The enacted version of the bill adds a total of more than $300 million to the amounts requested to
develop three new long-range weapons. Specifically it adds:






$69.4 million to the $345.0 million requested for a new, nuclear-armed
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to replace Minuteman III missiles
deployed in the 1970s, an increase conferees said would meet an unspecified
“unfunded requirement”;
$203.5 million for “program acceleration” to the $263.4 million requested to
develop Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapon sufficiently accurate to
strike a target at great range with a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) warhead; and
$50 million, also to meet an unspecified “unfunded requirement,” to the $614.9
million requested to develop a Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) weapon to replace
the nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) carried by long-range
bombers.

11 For background, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues,

by Amy F. Woolf.

Congressional Research Service

11

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Table 5. Selected Strategic and Long-Range Strike Systems
amounts in millions of dollars
System
(relevant CRS product)
Upgrades to Existing Bombers (B2, B-1, B-52)
(CRS Report R43049, U.S. Air
Force Bomber Sustainment and
Modernization: Background and
Issues for Congress)

Proc.

Columbia-class Ballistic Missile
Submarine
(CRS Report R41129, Navy
Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program:
Background and Issues for Congress)

Proc.

D-5 Trident II Missile Mods

FY2019
budget
requested

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
report
H.R. 6157

221.1

218.2

214.1

217.2

R&D

710.4
723.8

710.5

759.7

3,005.3

2,949.4

3,242.3

R&D

3,173.4
732.9

704.9

686.7

732.9

Proc.

1,078.8

1,044.8

1,078.8

1,056.8

R&D

157.7

145.7

167.9

148.4

B-21 Bomber
(CRS Report R44463, Air Force B21 Raider Long-Range Strike
Bomber)

R&D

Long-Range Stand-off Weapon
[bomber-launched missile]

R&D

Ground-Based Strategic
Deterrent [new ICBM]

R&D

Conventional Prompt Global
Strike
(CRS Report R41464,
Conventional Prompt Global Strike
and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues)

R&D

2,279.2
2,314.2

2,314.2

2,276.5

614.9

699.9

624.9

345.0

441.4

345.0

664.9
414.4
466.9

263.4

273.4

615.9

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept. 115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H.Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: Full citations of CRS products are listed in the Appendix.

Low-Yield Nuclear Warhead
One of the Trump Administration’s more controversial initiatives – the deployment of a nuclear warhead with a
relatively low explosive yield on some Trident submarine-launched missiles – is funded mostly by the Department
of Energy, which develops and manufactures nuclear bombs and missile warheads. The $65 million requested for
this program was provided by P.L. 115-244, the FY2019 Energy and Water Development, Legislative Branch and
Military Construction and Department of Veterans Affairs Consolidated Appropriation Act (Div. A).
The defense appropriations bill includes relatively small (and unspecified) amounts to lay the groundwork for
mounting these warheads on existing missiles, when they become available. However, in its report to accompany
the defense bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee insisted that no funds provided by the defense bill be used
to deploy the new warhead (designated the W 76 Mod 2) until DOD had submitted a report discussing several
issues associated with the project, including the risk that an adversary could misinterpret the launch of a missile

Congressional Research Service

12

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

carrying a single, low-yield warhead with the launch of a Trident carrying up to a dozen more powerful nuclear
warheads.

Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
The act supports the general thrust of the administration’s funding request for ballistic missile
defense, with the sort of funding adjustments that are routine in the appropriations process.
For so-called mid-course defense, intended to protect U.S. territory against a relatively small
number of intercontinental-range warheads, the Administration’s program would expand the fleet
of interceptor missiles currently deployed in Alaska and California, while developing an
improved version of that interceptor. The program also is deploying shorter-range THAAD,
Aegis, and Patriot missiles to provide a so-called terminal defense intended to protect U.S. allies
and forces stationed abroad and to provide a second-layer of protection for U.S. targets. (See
Table 6.)
U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Program
For an overview of U.S. ballistic missile defenses, see CRS In Focus IF10541, Defense Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense.

Accounting for a FY2018 Windfall
The act cuts a total $301.7 million from the amounts requested for various projects associated
with mid-course defense of U.S. territory on grounds that these funds were intended for purposes
Congress already had funded in the FY2018 defense appropriations act (P.L. 115-141). That
measure was enacted two months after the FY2019 budget request was sent to Congress,
reiterating the request for the funds in question.

Missile Defense in South Korea
The act adds more than $400 million to the amounts requested to develop and acquire missile
defenses for South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there. North Korea has tested long-range and
short-range ballistic missiles as well as nuclear weapon.12 The increase includes $284.4 million to
develop a network linking THAAD interceptor missiles and shorter-range Patriot missiles based
in South Korea and Japan with sensors that could track incoming North Korean missiles.
The act also adds $140 million to the $874 million requested to procure THAAD interceptors that
are deployed in Guam, in the Middle East, and in South Korea.
Table 6. Selected Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
amounts in millions of dollars
FY2019
budget
requested

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157

proc.

524.0

508.0

565.0

532.6

r&d

1,008.2

$917.0

876.0

876.0

System
(relevant CRS product)
Mid-Course Ballistic Missile
Defense (including test)

12 For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10472, North Korea’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs, by

Mary Beth D. Nikitin.

Congressional Research Service

13

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

FY2019
budget
requested

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

r&d

1,019.6

753.4

765.8

Aegis and Aegis Ashore
(CRS Report RL33745, Navy
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) Program: Background and
Issues for Congress)

proc.

820.8

791.7

840.8

r&d

891.0

849.5

897.0

Terminal Ballistic Missile
Defense (THAAD, Patriot/PAC3 and Patriot Mods)

proc.

2,368.6

2,378.6

2,508.6

2,518

r&d

340.6

514.7

534.7

524.7

Israeli Cooperative Missile
Defense Programs (incl. David’s
Sling)

proc.

130.0

130.0

130.0

130.0

r&d

300.0

300.0

300.0

300.0

Iron Dome

proc.

70.0

70.0

70.0

System
(relevant CRS product)
Improved Mid-Course Ballistic
Missile Defense (incl. radars and
warhead)

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157
729.8

812.5
864.5

70.0

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: Full citations of CRS products are listed in the Appendix.

Military Space Programs
While Congress and the Administration weighed alternative ways to organize a new organization
– a Space Force13 – to address long-standing criticisms of DOD’s acquisition of space satellites
and associated launchers, the debate was not cited by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees in their reports on the FY2019 defense appropriations bill. Nor was it cited by House
and Senate conferees in their Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany the conference report on
the bill. The enacted bill funded – with largely modest changes – the Administration’s requests
for several major defense-related space programs. (See Table 7.)
The most sizeable departure from the Administration’s request was the addition of $200 million
to the $245.4 million requested in R&D funding associated with the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV), which is the program for acquiring satellite launch rockets and launch services
for relatively heavy DOD space payloads.
Table 7. Selected Defense Space Programs
amounts in millions of dollars
FY2019
budget
requested

Housepassed H.R.
6157

Senate
passed
H.R. 6157

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157

proc.

1,704.5

1,704.5

1,445.6

1,514.5

r&d

245.4

245.4

445.4

445.4

proc.

138.4

108.4

138.4

108.4

System
(relevant CRS product)
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(EELV)

13 For background, see CRS In Focus IF10950, Toward the Creation of a U.S. “Space Force”.

Congressional Research Service

14

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

System
(relevant CRS product)

FY2019
budget
requested

Housepassed H.R.
6157

Senate
passed
H.R. 6157

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157

Space-Based Infra-Red System,
High (SBIRS High)

r&d

60.6

60.6

60.6

60.6

Evolved SBIRS/Overhead Persistent
Infra-Red (OPIR)

r&d

643.1

633.1

743.1

643.1

Global Positioning System (GPS III)

proc.

71.5

71.5

71.5

71.5

r&d

1,405.2

1,387.2

1,325.2

1,325.2

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: Full citations of CRS products are listed in the Appendix.

Ground Combat Systems
The act supports the general thrust of the Administration’s program to beef up the capacity of
Army and Marine Corps units to prevail in full-scale, high-tech combat with the forces of nearpeer adversaries, namely Russia and China. The increased DOD emphasis on conventional
combat with major powers is rooted in the 2018 National Defense Strategy of which DOD
published an unclassified synopsis on January 19, 2018.14
In addition to modernizing the ground forces’ existing capabilities, the Administration’s FY2019
budget request included stepped-up investments to improve two capabilities the Army identifies
as among its top modernization priorities: mobile defenses against cruise missiles and drone
aircraft; and improved firepower and mobility for infantry units. While taking some reductions
from the amounts requested for some programs – cuts based on program delays, the availability
of prior-year funds, and so forth – the bills would provide funding above the requested level to
accelerate other programs. (See Table 8.)
Army Future Priorities
For background and analysis on recent Army planning, see CRS Insight IN10889, Army Futures Command (AFC), by
Andrew Feickert.

Existing Capabilities15
The act funded most of the roughly $2.5 billion requested to continue upgrading the Army’s fleet
of M-1 tanks, built between 1980 and 1996. For the program to continue modernizing the
service’s Bradley armored troop carriers – which is roughly contemporary with the tank fleet – it
would cut nearly a quarter of the $1.04 billion requested, mostly on grounds of a “change of
acquisition strategy.”

14 DOD, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge,

January 19, 2018, accessed at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-StrategySummary.pdf
15 Amounts discussed in this section are procurement funding, only.

Congressional Research Service

15

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

The act provided more funds than requested in order to accelerate modernization of two other
components of the Army’s current combat vehicle fleet, adding:




$110.0 million to the $310.8 million requested to replace the chassis and
powertrain of the M-109 Paladin self-propelled with the more powerful and
robust chassis of the Bradley troop carrier; and
$94.0 million to the $265.3 million requested to replace the flat underside of
many types of Stryker wheeled combat vehicles with a V-shaped bottom intended
to more effectively deflect the explosive force of buried landmines.

The act generally funded programs to replace two older types of tracked vehicles, providing:


$447.5 million (of $479.8 million requested) to continue procurement of the
Advanced Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), intended to replace the Vietnam Warvintage M-113 tracked personnel carrier; and



$167.5 million, as requested, for procurement of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle
(ACV), a successor to the Marine Corps’ equally dated AAV-7 amphibious troop
carrier.

Infantry Firepower and Mobility
The Administration requested a total of $449 million to develop and begin purchasing vehicles
intended to boost the lethality and mobility of Army infantry units – that is, forces not equipped
with M-1 tanks and other armored vehicles. Nearly 90% of those funds were for development of a
relatively light-weight tank (designated Mobile Protected Firepower or MPF) with the balance of
the money intended to begin purchasing four-wheel-drive, off-road vehicles for reconnaissance
missions and troop transport, designated Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) and Ground
Mobility Vehicle (GMV), respectively.
The act funds the three programs with some relatively small reduction reflecting concerns that
their development or testing schedules are unrealistically ambitious.

Anti-Aircraft Defense
The FY2019 budget request includes nearly $450 million for programs intended to beef up
mobile Army defenses against aircraft, including unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles.
These include a Stryker combat vehicle equipped to launch Stinger missiles (designated IMSHORAD) and a larger, truck-mounted missile launcher (designated IFPC).
The act cut the total R&D request for the programs by nearly 25% for various, relatively typical
rationales including development program delays.
Table 8. Selected Ground Combat Systems
amounts in millions of dollars
FY2019
budget
request

Housepassed
H.R.
6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157

Proc.

2,492.5

2,492.5

2,486.2

2,486.2

R&D

164.8

149.8

165.8

165.8

Proc.

880.4

811.8

720.4

720.4

System
(relevant CRS product)
M-1 Abrams tank (mods and upgrades)
M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (new and mods)

Congressional Research Service

16

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

FY2019
budget
request

Housepassed
H.R.
6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157

R&D

167.0

154.8

87.0

87.0

Proc.

418.8

569.6

525.9

525.9

R&D

40.7

37.2

30.7

37.2

Proc.

309.4

358.5

392.6

392.6

R&D

58.9

49.2

45.4

45.4

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)
CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored
Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and
Issues for Congress

Proc.

710.2

674.0

709.0

672.8

R&D

118.2

112.0

118.2

112.0

Amphibious Combat Vehicle
CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps
Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background
and Issues for Congress

Proc.

167.5

159.6

167.5

167.5

R&D

98.2

76.1

48.9

66.1

Infantry Firepower and Mobility Programs
(MPF, GMV, and LRV)
CRS Report R44968, Infantry Brigade Combat
Team (IBCT) Mobility, Reconnaissance, and
Firepower Programs

Proc.

47.0

43.0

47.0

42.7

R&D

401.8

325.9

394.9

375.1

Air Defense Programs (IM-SHORAD and
IFPC)
IN 10931

Proc.
R&D

176.9
326.8

141.9
268.7

173.2
275.8

176.9
252.6

System
(relevant CRS product)

Paladin Self-propelled artillery
Stryker Combat Vehicle (new and mods)

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: Full citations of CRS products are listed in the Appendix.

National Guard and Reserve Force Equipment
Following what has long been the usual practice, the act adds to the DOD budget $2.35 billion for
procurement of aircraft, ground vehicles, and other equipment for National Guard or other reserve
component units. These funds are provided in addition to the $3.64 billion worth of equipment for
Guard and reserve forces that was included in the Administration’s FY2019 budget request.
The increase includes a total of $1.30 billion in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Account (NGREA) which is allocated among the six reserve force components: the Army and Air
National Guard, and the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserve. In their Joint
Explanatory Statement on the final version of the bill, House and Senate conferees directed the
funds to be used “for priority equipment that may be used for combat and domestic response
missions.”
Amounts are not earmarked for specific purchases, but conferees on the defense bill directed that
“priority consideration” in using the funds be given to 18 types of items. The 18 categories range
in specificity from “digital radar warning receivers for F-16s” to “cold-weather and
mountaineering gear and equipment.”
Other congressional initiatives include specific increases for National Guard equipment:

Congressional Research Service

17

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)






$640 million for 8 C-130J cargo planes;
$168 million for 6 AH-64E attack helicopters;
$156 million for 8 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters; and
$100 million for HMMWV (“Hum-vee”) vehicles.

Naval Systems
The act funds the major elements of the Administration’s shipbuilding program, which aims at
enlarging and modernizing the Navy’s fleet. The stated goals of the program are to improve the
Navy’s ability to respond to increasingly assertive military operations by China in the Western
Pacific and Indian Oceans, and to halt, if not reverse, the decline in the technological edge that
U.S. forces have enjoyed for decades. (See Table 9.)
Shipbuilding Plans
For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, esp. Appendix A, “Strategic and Budgetary Context”.

Carrier ‘Block Buy’
The Administration’s $1.60 billion request to fund a Ford-class aircraft carrier was intended as
the fourth of eight annual increments to cover the estimated $12.6 billion cost of what will be the
third ship of the Ford class. That ship, designated CVN-80 and named Enterprise, is slated for
delivery to the Navy at the end of FY2027.
The act, which provides nearly the total amount requested,16 includes a provision that allows the
Navy – under certain conditions – to use the funds for a block buy contract that would fund
procurement of components for both CVN-80 and the planned fourth ship of the Ford class,
designated CVN-81. Proponents of such an arrangement contend that it could accelerate the
delivery of the fourth ship and reduce the overall cost of the two vessels.17 Before the funds could
be used for a block buy, DOD would have to certify to Congress an analysis demonstrating that
the approach would save money, as required by Section 121 of the companion FY2019 National
Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5515 (P.L. 115-232).

Amphibious Landing Ships
The act adds to the Administration’s request $1.1 billion to accelerate the planned production of
ships to support amphibious landings and large air-cushion craft to haul tanks and other combat
equipment ashore. This total includes:




$350 million to begin construction of an LHA-class helicopter carrier;
$350 million to begin construction of either an LPD-17-class amphibious landing
transport or a variant of that ship designated LX(R);
$225 million for an Expeditionary Fast Transport, a catamaran that can carry a
few hundred troops and their gear hundreds of miles at 40 mph; and

16 The bill shifted $25.0 million to the research and development budget for the carrier.
17 For additional background and analysis of the block buy approach, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement

(MYP) and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
and Moshe Schwartz.

Congressional Research Service

18

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)



$182.5 million to buy eight air-cushion landing craft (instead of the five
requested) to haul tanks and other equipment ashore from transport ships.
Table 9. Selected Shipbuilding Programs
amounts in millions of dollars (procurement only)

System
(relevant CRS product)

FY2019
budget
requested

Housepassed
H.R. 6157

#

#

amount

amount

Senate-passed
H.R. 6157
#

amount

Conference
Report
H.R. 6157
#

amount

Ford-class Aircraft Carrier
(CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford
(CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress)

1,598.2

1,598.2

1,573.2

1,573.2

Mid-life Refueling and Overhaul for
Nuclear-powered Carriers

449.6

425.9

449.6

425.9

Virginia-class attack submarine
(CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia
(SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for
Congress)

2

7,169.8

2

7,137.1

2

7,169.8

2

7,137.1

DDG 51-class Aegis destroyer

3

5,645.2

3

5,579.7

3

5,813.8

3

5,891.8

Mods to existing Aegis cruisers and
destroyers

764.4

749.9

745.9

731.4

Littoral Combat Ship
(CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background
and Issues for Congress CRS Report
R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X])
Program: Background and Issues for
Congress)

1

646.2

3

1,558.5

2

1,121.2

3

1,571.2

T-AO 125-class refueling oiler
(CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis
(TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding
Program: Background and Issues for
Congress)

2

1,052.1

2

1,052.1

2

1,052.1

2

1,052.1

LHA-class Amphibious Assault Ship

0.0

0.0

350.0

350.0

LPD 17-class or LX(R)-class
Amphibious Landing Ship

0.0

0.0

500.0

350.0

Expeditionary Fast Transport

0.0

0.0

1

225.0

1

225.0

Expeditionary Seabase Ship

1

650.0

1

647.0

1

650.0

1

647.0

Ship-to-Shore Connector

5

325.4

8

507.9

5

325.4

8

507.9

0.0

1

250.0

Cable Ship

0.0

0.0

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: Full citations of CRS products are listed in the Appendix.

Congressional Research Service

19

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Aviation Systems
Generally speaking, the act funds the Administration’s requests for military aircraft acquisition,
subject to relatively minor cuts reflecting routine congressional oversight. The major departures
from the request were increased funds to accelerate production of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter and
the addition of funds to buy helicopters and C-130 cargo planes for the National Guard.
U.S. Military Aviation
For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10546, Defense Primer: United States Airpower, by Jeremiah Gertler

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The act’s largest addition to the Administration’s request for a single weapons program is the
addition of $1.70 billion to acquire 16 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to the 77 F-35s funded in the
budget request.18 The additional funds provides eight more aircraft in addition to the 48 requested
for the Air Force, two more of the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35s for the Marine
Corps (in addition to the 20 requested), and six more of the aircraft carrier-adapted version – four
for the Navy (in addition to the nine requested), and two for the Marine Corps.
Other notable funding increases in the bill for procurement of combat aircraft include:


$65.0 million to extend the life of A-10 ground-attack planes by replacing their
wings; and



$100.0 million to begin acquisition of a relatively low-tech (and relatively
inexpensive) ground-attack plane designated OA-X for use against other-thantop-tier adversaries.
Table 10. Selected Aircraft Acquisition Programs
amounts in millions of dollars
FY2019
budget
requested

System
(relevant CRS product)

Housepassed H.R.
6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
report
H.R. 6137

#

Amt.

#

Amt.

#

Amt.

#

Amt.

24

1,996.4

24

1935.3

24

1,911.8

24

1,923.3

Fighter and Ground-Attack Aircraft
F/A-18

Proc.

F/A-18 mods

Proc.

1,213.5

1,184.8

1,125.6

1,159.7

R&D

301.8

256.2

311.6

313.1

F-35 (all variants) and mods
(CRS Report R44463, Air Force B21 Raider Long-Range Strike
Bomber)

Proc.
R&D

1,262.0

1,262.0

1,023.3

F-22 mods

Proc.

259.7

262.7

259.7

262.7

R&D

603.6

603.6

588.5

588.5

Proc.

695.8

746.5

613.6

671.5

F-15 mods

77

8,798.5

93

10,522.7

89

9,614.2

93

10,412.7

18 Because of routine offsetting reductions reflecting congressional oversight decisions, the bill’s net increase in F-35

funding is trimmed to $1.61 billion.

Congressional Research Service

20

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

FY2019
budget
requested

System
(relevant CRS product)

F-16 mods
A-10 mods
OA-X light attack plane
(CRS In Focus IF10954, Air Force
OA-X Light Attack Aircraft Program)

#

Amt.

Housepassed H.R.
6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
report
H.R. 6137

#

#

#

Amt.

Amt.

Amt.

R&D

330.0

330.2

313.6

340.3

Proc.

324.3

232.4

304.3

303.4

R&D

191.6

191.6

185.9

185.9

Proc.

109.1

174.1

109.1

157.7

R&D

26.7

26.7

26.7

26.7

Proc.

0.0

40.0

300.0

100.0

Unmanned Aerial Systems
RQ-4 Global Hawk [long-range
reconnaissance]

Proc.

3

MQ-9 Reaper [reconnaissance and
ground-attack]

Proc.
R&D

115.3

94.3

115.3

104.3

MQ-25 Stingray [carrier-based
aerial refueling and
reconnaissance]

R&D

718.9

451.4

668.9

518.9

R&D

699.3

3

507.5
29

561.4

642,6

3

502.3
24

487.4

799.3

3

507.5
35

595.6

774.5
507.5

24

411.6

Combat Support and Transport Aircraft
KC-46 tanker
(CRS Report RL34398, Air Force
KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program)

Proc.

15

R&D

88.2

83.2

80.2

80.2

Air Force One replacement

R&D

673.0

673.0

616.4

657.9

VH-92 presidential helicopter
(CRS Report RS22103, VH71/VXX Presidential Helicopter
Program: Background and Issues for
Congress)

Proc.

C-130 (new aircraft only)
(CRS Report R43618, C-130
Hercules: Background, Sustainment,
Modernization, Issues for Congress)

Proc.

P-8 Poseidon

Proc.

6

R&D

10

R&D

JSTARS replacement aircraft

Proc.

649.0

15

6

245.1

1,523.9

10

1,983.8

17

983.4

649.0

15

6

2,120.0

10

1,947.2

10

1,312.8

649.0

15

6

1,420.2

10

1,935.4

17

1,144.9

649.0

2,058.0
31.6

10

197.7
5

2,290.9

245.1

48.0

178.0
6

2,415.5

245.1

31.6

197.7
4

2,293.6

245.1

51.0

R&D
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

2,559.9

1,941.8
198,0

6

1,313.1

R&D

223.6

211.5

238.1

210.6

R&D

0.0

623.0

30.0

0.0

Rotary-wing and Tilt-rotor Aircraft
AH-64 Apache and mods (new
and remanufactured aircraft)

Proc.

UH-60 Blackhawk (new aircraft
and upgrades)

Proc.

Congressional Research Service

60

R&D
R&D

1,376.1

66

31.0
68

1,262.3
35.2

1,463.8

*

31.0
76

1,369.4
35.2

2,096.1

66

24.0
83

1,590.8
35.2

1,544.1
24.0

76

1,413.1
35.2

21

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

FY2019
budget
requested

System
(relevant CRS product)
CH-47 Chinook (new and
remanufactured aircraft)

Proc.

CH-53K

Proc.

Housepassed H.R.
6157

Senatepassed
H.R. 6157

Conference
report
H.R. 6137

#

Amt.

#

Amt.

#

Amt.

#

Amt.

7

148.5

7

140.1

7

148.5

7

140.1

R&D

157.8
8

R&D

1,274.9

129.6
8

326.9
25

8

331.9
25

8

331.9

Proc.
R&D

161.6

152.0

161.6

152.0

Search and Rescue Helicopter

R&D

457.7

457.7

384.7

445.7

1,118.5

53.1
13

1,439.0

820.8

336.9

V-22 Osprey and mods
(CRS Report RL31384, V-22
Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Program)

7

25

1,168.7

Proc.

58.1

798.4

1,183.9

144.9

UH-1/AH-1 (new aircraft and
upgrades)

R&D

820.8

1,188.7

153.8

25

58.1
7

1,307.5

798.4
54.3

13

1,421.5

Sources: House Appropriations Committee, H. Rept.115-769, Report to accompany H.R. 6157, Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rept. 115-290, Report to accompany S.
2159, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2019; H. Rept. 115-952, Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 6157, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Note: Full citations of CRS products are listed in the Appendix.

Congressional Research Service

22

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Appendix.
Following are the full citations of CRS products identified in tables by reference number only.

CRS Reports
CRS Report RS22103, VH-71/VXX Presidential Helicopter Program: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler
CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
CRS Report RL31384, V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Program, by Jeremiah Gertler
CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft Program, by Jeremiah Gertler
CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
CRS Report R41464, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles:
Background and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf
CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues
for Congress, by Andrew Feickert
CRS Report R43049, U.S. Air Force Bomber Sustainment and Modernization: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler
CRS Report R43240, The Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert
CRS Report R43618, C-130 Hercules: Background, Sustainment, Modernization, Issues for
Congress, by Jeremiah Gertler and Timrek Heisler
CRS Report R44463, Air Force B-21 Raider Long-Range Strike Bomber, by Jeremiah Gertler
CRS Report R44968, Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) Mobility, Reconnaissance, and
Firepower Programs, by Andrew Feickert
CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke

Insight, In Focus
CRS Insight IN10931, U.S. Army’s Initial Maneuver, Short-Range Air Defense (IM-SHORAD)
System, by Andrew Feickert
CRS In Focus IF10954, Air Force OA-X Light Attack Aircraft Program, by Jeremiah Gertler

Congressional Research Service

23

FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-245)

Author Contact Information
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

R45689 · VERSION 1 · NEW

24

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who
produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any
other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
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' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45689. Public record. Not legal advice.