# FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR46361

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** May 15, 2020
- **Citation:** R46361

## Text

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 11693 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)
Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
May 15, 2020

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R46361

SUMMARY
R46361

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 11693 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

May 15, 2020

The FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of H.R. 1158, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2020, provides a total of $687.8 billion in discretionary budget
authority, all to fund activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), except for $1.1 billion for
certain activities of the intelligence community.

For a copy of the full report,
please call 7-.... or visit
www.crs.gov.

As enacted, the bill provides 99.6% of the funding requested by President Trump requested for
programs falling within the scope of this bill.

Senate
CommitteeReported
S. 2474

House-passed
H.R. 2968

FY2020 Request

Pat Towell
Specialist in U.S. Defense
Policy and Budget
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov

Enacted
P.L. 116-93
Division A

Base Budget

$526.6 B

$614.7 B

Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO)

$164.0 B

$68.1 B

0.0

0.0

$1.7 B

$1.8 B

$690.6 B

$682.8 B

$687.5 B

$687.8 B

Disaster Relief
Total

$615.2 B
$70.7 B

$615.3 B
$70.7 B

Sources: H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate
Appropriations Committee report to accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R.
1158, the Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613 -H10960.

To comply with the FY2020 cap on DOD base budget funding that was in effect at the time the FY2020 budget request was
submitted, the Administration included in its request $97.9 billion intended for DOD base budget activities, but which was
designated as part of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request and thus was exempt from the cap for all practical
purposes. The Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate treated these funds as part of the base budget request.
Activities funded by the annual defense appropriations act accounted for more than 90% of the budget authority included in
the Trump Administration’s $761.8 billion budget request for national defense-related activities in FY2020. The balance of
the request consisted of activities funded by other appropriations bills (e.g., DOD’s military construction program and
defense-related nuclear energy work of the Energy Department) and certain amounts appropriated automatically as a result of
permanent law.

Congressional Research Service

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
Base Budget, OCO, and Emergency Spending .......................................................... 3
Legislative History .................................................................................................... 4
Strategic Context ............................................................................................................ 5
Budgetary Context .......................................................................................................... 6
Selected Elements of the Act............................................................................................. 8
Military Personnel Issues ............................................................................................ 8
Strategic, Nuclear-armed Systems .............................................................................. 10
Hypersonic Weapons................................................................................................ 10
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems .............................................................................. 12
U.S. Homeland Missile Defense Programs ............................................................. 12
Defense Space Programs........................................................................................... 13
Space Force O&M Funding ................................................................................. 13
Ground Combat Systems .......................................................................................... 14
Army Modernization Plan.................................................................................... 14
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) ........................................................ 15
Military Aviation Systems ......................................................................................... 16
Chinook Helicopter Upgrades .............................................................................. 16
F-15 Fighter ...................................................................................................... 16
Shipbuilding Programs ............................................................................................. 18

Figures
Figure 1. FY2020 Administration Budget Request Falling Within Scope of the FY2020
Defense Appropriations Act ........................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Outlays by Budget Enforcement Category, FY2001-FY2029 .................................... 7

Tables
Table 1. FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-93, Division A) .................................. 2
Table 2. FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2968; S. 2474; H.R. 1158; P.L. 11693) ............................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3. FY2020 Military End-Strength.............................................................................. 8
Table 4. Selected Strategic Offensive Systems ................................................................... 10
Table 5. Selected Hypersonic Weapons-related R&D Programs ............................................ 11
Table 6. Selected Ballistic Missile Defense Systems ........................................................... 13
Table 7. Selected Defense Space Programs........................................................................ 14
Table 8. Selected Ground Combat Systems ....................................................................... 15
Table 9. Selected Military Aviation Systems ...................................................................... 16
Table 10. Selected Naval Systems.................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Appendixes
Appendix. CRS Reports, In Focus, and Insights ................................................................. 20

Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................ 22

Congressional Research Service

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Introduction
This report provides an overview of the FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-93) and
serves as an access portal to other CRS products providing additional context, detail, and analysis
relevant to particular aspects of that legislation.
The following Overview tracks the legislative history of the FY2020 defense appropriations act
and summarizes the budgetary and strategic context within which it was being debated.
Subsequent sections of the report summarize the act’s treatment of major components of the
Trump Administration’s budget request, including selected weapons acquisition programs and
other provisions.

Overview
For FY2020, the Trump Administration requested a total of $750.0 billion in discretionary budget
authority for national defense-related activities. This included $718.3 billion (95.8% of the total)
for the military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD). The balance of the national
defense budget request is for defense-related activities of the Energy Department and other
agencies. 1
Of the amount requested for DOD, $689.5 billion fell within the scope of the annual defense
appropriations bill, as did $1.1 billion for certain expenses of the intelligence community. This
bill does not include funding for military construction and family housing, which is provided by
the appropriations bill that funds those activities, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and certain
other agencies. Also not included in the FY2020 defense bill is $7.8 billion in accrual payments to
fund the TRICARE for Life program of medical insurance for military retirees, funding for which
is appropriated automatically each year, as a matter of permanent law (10 U.S.C. 1111-1117).
(See Figure 1.)

1See CRS Insight IN11083, FY2020 Defense Budget Request: An Overview, by Brendan W. McGarry and Christopher

T . Mann.

Congressional Research Service

1

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Figure 1. FY2020 Administration Budget Request
Falling Within Scope of the FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act

The FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of H.R. 1158, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2020, provides a total of $687.8 billion for DOD, which is $2.86
billion less than President Trump requested for FY 2020. (See Table 1.)
Table 1. FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-93, Division A)
amounts in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority
FY2019
enacted

FY2020
request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2968)

Senatepassed
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
(P.L. 116-93,
Division A)

Military Personnel

138,537.0

143,476.5

141,621.6

142,983.8

142,446.1

Operation and
Maintenance

193,682.9

123,944.6

206,673.5

200,610.1

199,415.4

Procurement

135,362.6

118,923.1

130,544.8

132,837.2

133,880.0

Research and
Development

94,896.7

102,647.5

100,455.4

104,282.1

104,431.2

Appropriation Title
Base Budget

Congressional Research Service

2

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

FY2019
enacted

Appropriation Title

FY2020
request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2968)

Senatepassed
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
(P.L. 116-93,
Division A)

Revolving and
Management Funds

1,641.1

1,426.2

1,426.2

1,580.2

1,564.2

Defense Health Program
and Other DOD

36,212.1

35,147.1

35,641.8

35,728.7

36,316.2

Related Agencies

1,036.4

1,072.0

1,072.0

1,053.4

1,070.0

General Provisions

-1,963.0

-2,698.2

-3,904.3

-3,803.2

Subtotal:
Base Budget

599,405.9

526,637.1

614,737.2

615,171.2

615,319.9

67,914.0

163,980.5

68,079.0

70,665.0

70,665.0

Disaster Relief

0.0

0.0

0.0

1,710.2

1,771.4

Grand Total

667,319.9

690,617.6

682,816.2

687,546.5

687,756.3

Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO)

Sources: H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103,
Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany
Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record,
December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613-H10960.
Notes:
a.

b.

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
billion for base budget purposes. 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.
The enacted bill includes $1.77 billion to remedy storm damage to DOD installations that occurred after
the Administration’s FY2020 budget request was submitted to Congress.

Base Budget, OCO, and Emergency Spending
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, DOD has organized its budget requests in
various ways to designate funding for activities that either are related to the aftermath of those
attacks or otherwise are distinct from regularly recurring costs to man, train, and equip U.S.
armed forces for the long haul. The latter are funds that have come to be referred to as DOD’s
“base budget.” Since 2009, the non-base budget funds have been designated as funding for
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 2
Since enactment of the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), which set binding
annual caps on defense3 and non-defense discretionary spending, the OCO designation has taken
on additional significance. Spending designated by the President and Congress as OCO or for
emergency requirements (such as the storm damage remediation funds in the enacted FY2020
defense bill) is effectively exempt from the spending caps.

2 For background and additional detail, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding:

Background and Status, by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern .
3 T his statutory cap on discretionary “defense” spending applies to funding for the National Defense Budget function.

In the Administration’s FY2020 budget request, 95.8% of the discretionary funding requested for National Defense
would go to DOD.

Congressional Research Service

3

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Under the law in effect when the FY2020 budget was submitted to Congress, the defense
spending cap for FY2020 was $576.2 billion. The Administration’s FY2020 budget request for
defense-related programs included that amount for the base budget plus an additional $97.9
billion that also was intended to fund base budget activities but which was designated as OCO
funding, in order to avoid exceeding the statutory defense spending cap.4
The Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and the House treated the
“OCO for base” funds as part of the base budget request. The issue became moot with the
enactment on August 2, 2019 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-37) which raised the
defense spending cap for FY2020 to $666.5 billion. 5
Border Wall Construction
As enacted (P.L. 116-93, Div. A), the FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act included no restrictions on the ability of
President Trump to use appropriated funds to construct barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Section 8127 of
the House-passed version of the bill (H.R. 2968) would have prohibited the use of funds appropriated by this act
or any other act for that purpose. The provision was a response to the Trump Administration’s use of DOD funds
appropriated for other purposes, to construct barriers along the U.S. Border with Mexico. The issue was a
sticking point in year-end negotiations between Congress and the Administration aimed at reaching an overall
agreement on FY2020 appropriations. In the course of negotiations leading to the final package of FY2020
appropriation bills, it was agreed that the bills would include no restrictions on existing presidential authority to
transfer funds.
For background and analysis on this issue, see CRS Report R46002, Military Funding for Border Barriers: Catalogue of
Interagency Decisionmaking, by Christopher T. Mann and Sofia Plagakis; CRS Insight IN11210, Possible Use of FY2020
Defense Funds for Border Barrier Construction: Context and Questions, by Christopher T. Mann; and CRS Insight
IN11052, The Defense Department and 10 U.S.C. 284: Legislative Origins and Funding Questions, by Liana W. Rosen.

Legislative History
Separate versions of the FY2020 defense appropriations bill were reported by the Appropriations
Committees of the House and Senate. After the House committee reported its version (H.R.
2968), the text of that bill was incorporated into H.R. 2740, which the House passed on June 19,
2019, by a vote of 226-203. The Senate committee reported its version of the bill (S. 2474) on
September 12, 2019, but the Senate took no action on that measure. A compromise version of the
defense bill was agreed by House and Senate negotiators and then was incorporated by
amendment into another bill (H.R. 1158), which was passed by both chambers. (See Table 2.)
In the absence of a formal conference report on the bill, House Appropriations Committee
Chairman Nita Lowey inserted in the Congressional Record an Explanatory Statement to
accompany the enacted version of H.R. 1158. 6

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “In order to fully resource national defense
requirements, funding above the current law caps will also be necessary.” OMB, A Budget for a Better America, Fiscal
Year 2020 Budget of the U.S. Government, T able S-7, footnote 3.
4

5

For background and additional information see CRS Insight IN11148, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to
the BCA and Debt Limit, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.
6
Rep. Nita Lowey, "Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 1158, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020," House debate, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 165, Number 204 Book II, (December 17, 2019), p. H10613. Hereinafter, this document will be
referred to as “the Explanatory Statement”.

Congressional Research Service

4

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Table 2. FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2968; S. 2474; H.R. 1158; P.L. 116-93)
Subcommittee
Markup
House

Senate

5/15/2019 9/10/2019
voice vote voice vote

House
Report
(H.R.
2968)

House
Passage
(H.R.
2740)

Senate
Report
(S.
2474)

H. Rept.
116-84
5/21/2019
30-22

6/19/2019
226-203

S. Rept.
116-103
9/12/20191
6-15

Senate
Passage
(S. 2474)

Conf.
Report
(H.R. 1158)

No action
taken

Joint
Explanatory
Statement
(see note)

Conference Report
Approval
House

Senate

Public
Law

12/17/2019 12/19/2019 P.L. 116-93
280-138
81-11
12/20/2019

Note: The House and Senate agreed on text of the final bill by exchange of amendments without convening a
formal conference committee. An Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, appears in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II),
pp. H10613-H10960.

Strategic Context
The President’s FY2020 budget request for DOD reflects a shift in strategic emphasis based on
the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which called for “increased and sustained
investment” to counter evolving threats from China and Russia. This marks a change from the
focus of U.S. national security policy for nearly the past three decades and a renewed emphasis
on competition between nuclear-armed powers, which had been the cornerstone of U.S. strategy
for more than four decades after the end of World War II.
During the Cold War, U.S. national security policy and the design of the U.S. military
establishment were focused on the strategic competition with the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and on containing the spread of communism globally. In the years following the
collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. policies were designed – and U.S. forces were trained and
equipped – largely with an eye on dealing with potential regional aggressors such as Iraq, Iran,
and North Korea and recalibrating relations with China and Russia.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. national security policy and DOD planning
focused largely on countering terrorism and insurgencies in the Middle East while containing, if
not reversing, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. However, as a legacy of the
Cold War, U.S. and allied military forces had overwhelming military superiority over these
adversaries and, accordingly, counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency operations were conducted
in relatively permissive environments.
The 2014 Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula and subsequent proxy war in eastern
Ukraine fostered a renewed concern in the United States and in Europe about an aggressive and
revanchist regime in Moscow. Meanwhile, China began building and militarizing islands in the
South China Sea in order to lay claim to key shipping lanes and to reinforce its claims to
sovereignty over the South China Sea, itself. Together, these events highlighted anew the salience
in the U.S. national security agenda of competing with other great powers, that is, states able and
willing to use military force unilaterally to accomplish their objectives. At the same time, the
challenges that had surfaced at the end of the Cold War (e.g., fragile states, genocide, terrorism,
and nuclear proliferation) remained serious threats to U.S. interests.
In some cases, adversaries appear to be collaborating to achieve shared or compatible objectives
and to take advantage of social and economic tools to advance their agendas. Some states are also
collaborating with non-state proxies (including, but not limited to, militias, criminal networks,
corporations, and hackers) and deliberately blurring the lines between conventional and irregular

Congressional Research Service

5

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

conflict and between civilian and military activities. In this complex security environment,
conceptualizing, prioritizing, and managing these numerous problems, arguably, is more difficult
than it was in eras past.
The Trump Administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS)7 and the 11-page
unclassified summary of the January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) 8 explicitly reorient
U.S. national security strategy (including defense strategy) toward a primary focus on great
power competition with China and Russia and on countering their military capabilities.
In addition to explicitly making 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
the end of the Cold War, U.S. forces now must assume that their ability to approach military
objectives will be vigorously contested.
The Trump Administration’s strategic orientation, as laid out in the NSS and NDS is consistent
with the strategy outlined in comparable documents issued by prior Administrations, in
identifying five significant external threats to U.S. interests: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran,
and terrorist groups with global reach. In a break from previous Administrations, however, the
NDS views retaining the U.S. strategic competitive edge relative to China and Russia as a higher
priority than countering violent extremist organizations. Accordingly, the new orientation for U.S.
strategy 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).
2018 National Defense Strategy: Focus on Great Power Competition
For additional background and analysis 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 DOD’s heightened focus on great power military competition see CRS
Report R43838, Renewed Great Power Competition: 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
In the more than four decades since the end of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, annual
outlays by the federal government have increased by a factor of nine. The fastest growing
segment of federal spending during that period has been mandatory spending for entitlement
programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (See Figure 2.)

7 Office of the President, National Security Strategy of the United States, December 2017.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf
8 Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, January
2018, https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf

Congressional Research Service

6

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Figure 2. Outlays by Budget Enforcement Category, FY2001-FY2029
(in trillions of dollars)

Source: OMB, Historical Tables, Table 8.1, Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act Category: 1962-2024; CBO,
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028 and the data supplement 10-Year Budget Projections from January
2019.
Notes: Figures from FY2001 through FY2019 from OMB; projections from FY2020 through FY2029 from CBO .

Over the past decade, a central consideration in congressional budgeting was the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) as amended, which was intended to control federal spending by
enforcement through sequestration of government operating budgets in case discretionary
spending budgets failed to meet separate caps on defense and nondefense discretionary budget
authority. 9
The act established binding annual limits (or caps) to reduce discretionary federal spending
through FY2021 by $1.0 trillion. 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

9 For more information, see CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Grant A.

Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.

Congressional Research Service

7

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

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 repeatedly has enacted legislation to raise the annual spending caps. However, at the
time the Administration submitted its budget request for FY2020, the national defense spending
cap for that year remained $576 billion – a level enacted in 2013 that was $71 billion lower than
the revised cap for FY2019.
To avert a nearly 11% reduction in defense spending, the Administration’s FY2020 base budget
request conformed to the then-binding defense cap. But the Administration’s FY2020 request also
included $165 billion designated as OCO funding (and thus exempt from the cap) of which $98
billion was intended for base budget purposes. The Armed Services and Appropriations
Committees of the House and Senate disregarded this tactic, and considered all funding for base
budget purposes as part of the base budget request.

Selected Elements of the Act
Military Personnel Issues
Military End-strength
P.L. 116-93 funds the Administration’s proposal for a relatively modest net increase in the
number of active-duty military personnel in all four armed forces, but includes a reduction of
7,500 in the end-strength of the Army. According to Army budget documents, the reduction was
based on the fact that the service had not met higher end-strength goals in FY2018. 10
The act also funds the proposed reduction in the end-strength of the Selected Reserve – those
members of the military reserve components and the National Guard who are organized into
operational units that routinely drill, usually on a monthly basis. (See Table 3)
Table 3. FY2020 Military End-Strength

FY2019
actual

FY2020
request

Change
from
FY2019 to
FY2020
request

Housepassed
(H.R.2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S.2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

Active-duty
Army

487,500

480,000

-7,500

478,000

480,000

480,000

Navy

335,400

340,500

+5,100

340,500

340,500

340,500

10

Department of the Army, Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Estimates, Military Personnel, Army, Justification Book,
Washington, DC, March 2019, p. 5.
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2020/Base%20Budget/Military%20Personnel/01%
20Military%20Personnel%20Army.pdf

Congressional Research Service

8

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

FY2019
actual

FY2020
request

Change
from
FY2019 to
FY2020
request

Housepassed
(H.R.2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S.2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

Marine
Corps

186,100

186,200

+100

186,200

186,200

186,200

Air Force

329,100

332,800

+3,700

332,800

332,800

332,800

1,388,100

1,339,500

+1,400

1,337,500

1,339,500

1,339,500

817,700

800,800

-16,900

800,800

800,800

800,800

Total:
Active-duty
Selected
Reserve

Source: H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103,
Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany
Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record,
December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613-H10960.

Military Pay Raise
As was authorized by the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 116-92), P.L. 116-93
funds a 3.1% increase in military basic pay that took effect on January 1, 2020.

Sexual Assault Prevention and Treatment
The act appropriates $61.7 million for DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
(SAPRO), adding to the amount requested $35.0 million for the Special Victims ’ Counsel (SVC)
program11 . The SVC organization provides independent legal counsel in the military justice
system to alleged victims of sexual assault.
The act also provides $3.0 million (not requested) to fund a pilot program for treatment of
military personnel for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to sexual trauma. The program was
authorized by Section 702 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232).

Child Care
P.L. 116-93 added a total of $110 million to the $1.1 billion requested for DOD’s childcare
program. This is the largest employer-sponsored childcare program in the United States, with
roughly 23,000 employees attending to nearly 200,000 children of uniformed service members
and DOD civilians. 12
The act and its accompanying explanatory statement let stand a requirement in the Senate
Appropriations Committee report on S. 2474 for the Secretary of Defense to give Congress a
detailed report on DOD’s childcare system including plans to increase its capacity and a
prioritized list of the top 50 childcare center construction requirements.

11 P. 35D
12 For additional background, see CRS Report R45288, Military Child Development Program: Background and Issues,

by Kristy N. Kamarck, p. 9.

Congressional Research Service

9

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Military Personnel Issues
For information and additional analysis concerning military personnel issues dealt with in the companion FY2020
National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 116-92), see CRS Report R46107, FY2020 National Defense Authorization
Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Bryce H. P. Mendez.

Strategic, Nuclear-armed Systems
P.L. 116-93 generally supports the Administration’s FY2020 budget request to continue the
across-the-board modernization of nuclear and other long-range strike weapons started by the
Obama Administration. The Trump Administration’s FY2020 budget documentation described as
DOD’s “number one priority” this modernization of the so-called nuclear triad: ballistic missilelaunching submarines, long-range bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs).
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.

Table 4. Selected Strategic Offensive Systems
($ in millions)
Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

Approp.
Type

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Columbia-class Ballistic Missile Submarine
(Ohio-class replacement)
(R41129)

Proc.

$1,698.9

$1,612.0

$1,821.9

$1,820.9

R&D

$419.1

$419.1

$434.1

$427.1

B-21 Bomber
(R44463)

R&D
$3,003.9

$3,003.9

$2,898.1

$2,982.5

Bomber Upgrades (B-52, B-1, B-2)
(R43049)

Proc.

$101.3

$101.3

$58.6

$76.4

R&D

$718.7

$714.3

$679.2

$667.8

Long-Range Standoff Weapon
(bomber-launched missile)

R&D
$712.5

$712.5

$712.5

$712.5

Ground-based Strategic Deterrent
(ICBM) and W-87-1 warhead

R&D
$570.4

$461.7

$657.5

$557.5

Program
(relevant CRS product)

Source: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation; H.Rept. 116-84,House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613 H10960.
Notes: In the column headed “Approp. Type”. “Proc.” means “procurement” and “R&D” means research and
development. The Appendix lists the full citation of each CRS product cited in this table by its ID number.

Hypersonic Weapons
P.L. 116-93 generally supported the Administration’s effort to develop an array of long-range
missiles that could travel at hypersonic speed – that is, upwards of five times the speed of sound

Congressional Research Service

10

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

(3,800 mph) – and that would be sufficiently accurate to strike distant targets with conventional
(non-nuclear) warheads. Although ballistic missiles travel as fast, the types of weapons being
developed under the “hypersonic” label differ in that they can maneuver throughout most of their
flight trajectory.
DOD has funded development of hypersonic weapons since the early 2000s. However, partly
because of reports that China and Russia are developing such weapons, DOD identified
hypersonic weapons as an R&D priority in its FY2019 budget request and is seeking – and
securing from Congress – funding to accelerate the U.S. hypersonic program. The FY2020 DOD
budget request continued this trend, and Congress supported it in the enacted FY2020 defense
appropriations bill.
P.L. 116-93 also provided more than three times the amount requested to develop defenses against
hypersonic missiles. Such weapons are difficult to detect and track because of the low altitude at
which they fly and are difficult to intercept because of their combination of speed and
maneuverability.
The act also added $100 million, not requested, to create a Joint Hypersonics Transition Office to
coordinate hypersonic R&D programs across DOD. In the Explanatory Statement accompanying
the enacted FY2020 defense bill, House and Senate negotiators expressed a concern that the rapid
growth in funding for hypersonic weapons development might result in duplication of effort
among the services and increased costs.
Selected Hypersonic Weapons-related Programs
For background and additional information, see CRS Report R45811, Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Kelley M. Sayler.

Table 5. Selected Hypersonic Weapons-related R&D Programs
($ in millions)

Agency

Program Element
project name(s)

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

Army

Hypersonics
Land-based Hypersonic Missile

228.0

234.0

378.6

404.0

Navy

Precision Strike Weapons Development
Conventional Prompt Strike Weapon

593.0

410.4

563.0

512.2

Air
Force

Hypersonics Prototyping
Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon
and Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon

576.0

576.0

576.0

576.0

DARPA

Advanced Aerospace Systems

279.7

279.7

279.7

279.7

Prompt Global Strike Capability Development

107.0

0.0

107.0

51.0

Hypersonics Capability Development

0.0

85.0

0.0

0.0

Subtotal: offensive weapons:

1,766.7

1,568.1

1,887.3

1,805.9

MDA

Hypersonic Defense

157.4

159.3

395.3

390.2

MDA

Ballistic Missile Defense System Space Programs
(Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor)

0.0

0.0

108.0

108.0

Congressional Research Service

11

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Agency

Program Element
project name(s)

Subtotal: counter-hypersonic defense
Joint Hypersonics Transition Office

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

157.4

159.3

503.3

498.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Sources: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation, H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613 H10960.
Note: In the “Agency” column, DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and MDA is the
Missile Defense Agency.

Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
In general, P.L. 116-93 supported the Administration’s proposals to strengthen defenses against
ballistic missile attacks, whether by ICBMs aimed at U.S. territory, or missiles of shorter range
aimed at U.S. forces stationed abroad, or at the territory of allied countries. The missile defense
budget request reflected recommendations of the Administration’s Missile Defense Review,
published in January 2019. 13 (See Table 6)
Ballistic Missile Defense
For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10541, Defense Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense, by Stephen M.
McCall.

U.S. Homeland Missile Defense Programs
Compared with the Administration’s budget request, P.L. 116-93 shifted several hundred million
dollars among various components of the system intended to defend U.S. territory against
ICBMs. In the explanatory statement accompanying the bill, House and Senate negotiators
indicated that the impetus for these changes was DOD’s August 2019 cancellation of an effort to
develop an improved warhead -- designated the Replacement Kill Vehicle (RKV) -- to be carried
by the system’s Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs).
Partly by reallocating funds that had been requested for the RKV programs, the act provides a
total of $515.0 million to develop an improved interceptor missile that would replace the GBI and
its currently deployed kill vehicle. It also provides:



$285 million for additional GBI missiles and support equipment; and
$180 million for R&D intended to improve the reliability GBIs.

13 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Missile Defense Review 2019, accessed at

https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/17/2002080666/-1/-1/1/2019-MISSILE-DEFENSE-REVIEW.PDF.

Congressional Research Service

12

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Table 6. Selected Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
amounts in millions of dollars

Program
(relevant CRS product)
U.S. Homeland Defenses: Currently
deployed system (GMD) and Planned
Replacement

Approp.
Type

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S.2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

Proc. (GMD)

9.5

9.5

343.0

285.5

R&D (GMD)

1,254.6

1,065.5

1,801.7

1,401.8

R&D (new
components)

843.8

843.8

824.6

860.2

Aegis BMD: Missiles and support
equipment for ship-based and Aegis Ashore

Proc.

848.4

848.4

824.6

$822.1

R&D

935.7

888.6

931.8

945.5

Terminal (short-range) Defenses:
(THAAD and Patriot)

Proc.

1,555.7

1,555.7

1,476.8

1,495.5

R&D

424.3

424.3

395.5

419.3

Israeli Co-operative Defense

Proc.

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0

R&D

300.0

300.0

300.0

300.0

Source: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation, H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613 H10960.
Notes: In the column headed “Approp. Type”. “Proc.” means “procurement” and “R&D” means research and
development. The Appendix lists the full citation of each CRS product cited in this table by its ID number.

Defense Space Programs
P.L. 116-93 was generally supportive of the Administration’s funding requests for acquisition of
military space satellites and satellite launches. (See Table 7.)

Space Force O&M Funding
Congress approved $40.0 million of the $72.4 million requested for operation of the newly
created Space Force, authorized by P.L. 116-92, the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act.
The Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill asserted that DOD had provided insufficient
justification for the Space Force budget request. Therefore, DOD received nearly 44% less in
Space Force operating funds than it requested. The Explanatory Statement also directed the
Secretary of the Air Force to give the congressional defense committees a month-by-month
spending plan for FY2020 Space Force O&M funding.
Creation of Space Force
For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF11244, FY2020 National Security Space Budget Request: An Overview,
by Stephen M. McCall and Brendan W. McGarry; and CRS In Focus IF11326, Military Space Reform: FY2020 NDAA
Legislative Proposals, by Stephen M. McCall.

Congressional Research Service

13

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Table 7. Selected Defense Space Programs
amounts in millions of dollars

Program
(relevant CRS product)

Approp.
Type

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 11693

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(R46211)

Proc.

1,237.6

1,237.6

1,237.6

1,237.6

R&D

432.0

432.0

462.0

432.0

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

Proc.

234.0

218.0

234.0

227.0

R&D

1,395.3

1,193.7

1,930.8

1,470.3

Global Positioning System (GPS III)

Proc.

446.1

446.1

426.1

426.1

R&D

1,280.5

1,270.4

1,256.2

1,256.2

O&M

72.4

15.0

72.4

40.0

Space Force

Source: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation, H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613H10960.
Notes: In the column headed “Approp. Type”. “Proc.” means “procurement”, “R&D” means research and
development, and O&M means “operation and maintenance”. The Appendix lists the full citation of each CRS
product cited in this table by its ID number.

Ground Combat Systems
The act supported major elements of the Army’s plan to upgrade its currently deployed fleet of
ground-combat vehicles. One departure from that plan was the act’s provision of 30% more than
was requested to increase the firepower of the Stryker wheeled troop-carrier. The program would
replace that vehicle’s .50 caliber machine gun – effective against personnel – with a 30 mm
cannon that could be effective against lightly armored vehicles. (See Table 8.)

Army Modernization Plan
The act sends a mixed message regarding congressional support for the Army’s strategy for
developing a new suite of combat capabilities. The service plans to pay for the new programs – in
part -- with funds it anticipated in future budgets that were slated to pay for continuation of
upgrade programs for existing systems. Under the Army’s new plan, those older programs would
be truncated to free up the anticipated funds. In effect, this means that planned upgrades to legacy
systems would not occur so investments in development of new systems could be made sooner.
The Army has proposed that programs to upgrade Bradley fighting vehicles and CH-47 Chinook
helicopters be among those utilized as these “bill-payers”. The enacted bill provides one-third less
than was requested for Bradley upgrades, with the $223.0 million that was cut being labelled by
the Explanatory Statement as “excess to need.” However, the enacted version of the
appropriations bill – like the versions of that bill passed by the House and Senate – provides
nearly triple the amount requested for the Chinook upgrade, appropriating $46.2 million rather
than the $18.2 million requested. The amount appropriated is the amount that had been planned
for the Chinook upgrade in FY2020, prior to the publication of the Army’s new modernization
plan. In the reports accompanying their respective versions of the bill, the House and Senate

Congressional Research Service

14

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Appropriations Committees each had challenged the Army’s plan to forego upgrades to the
existing CH-47 fleet.
Army Modernization Program
For background and additional information on the Army modernization plan published in 2019, see CRS Report
R46216, The Army’s Modernization Strategy: Congressional Oversight Considerations, by Andrew Feickert and Brendan
W. McGarry.

Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV)
P.L. 116-93 reined in the Army’s third effort in 20 years to develop a replacement for the 1980svintage Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, providing $205.6 million of the $378.4 million
requested for the Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program. The program had come
under fire on grounds that it was too technologically ambitious to be managed under a
streamlined acquisition process (Section 804 authority), as the Army proposed.14
The issue became moot after P.L. 116-93 was enacted, when the Army announced on January 16,
2020, that it was cancelling the OMFV contracting plan and restarting it with new design
parameters.
Table 8. Selected Ground Combat Systems
amounts in millions of dollars

Program
(relevant CRS product)

Approp.
Type

M-1 Abrams tank (mods and upgrades)
(R44229)

Proc.

Mobile Protected Firepower (“light-weight”
tank)
(R44968)

R&D

Bradley Fighting Vehicle (upgrades)
(R44229)

Proc.

Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV)
(Bradley replacement)
(R45519)

R&D

Stryker (new vehicles and upgrades)
(R44229)

Proc.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)
(R43240)

Proc.

Paladin Self-propelled Artillery (mods)

Proc.

M-SHORAD
(Stryker equipped with anti-aircraft weapons)

Proc.

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommitte
e reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 11693

2,114.7

2,099.1

2,114.7

2,099.3

310.2

294.0

301.3

285.1

638.8

573.2

415.7

415.7

378.4

378.4

319.9

205.6

698.5

819.1

665.4

911.6

485.7

480.6

444.8

444.8

553.4

553.4

553.4

553.4

262.1

214.4

238.1

233.3

Source: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation, H.Rept. 116-84,House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the

14 For additional detail and background, see CRS Report R45519, The Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle

(OMFV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert .

Congressional Research Service

15

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613 H10960.
Notes: In the column headed “Approp. Type”. “Proc.” means “procurement” and “R&D” means research and
development. The Appendix lists the full citation of each CRS product cited in this table by its ID number.

Military Aviation Systems
P.L. 116-93 generally supports the budget request for the major aviation programs of all four
armed forces. (See Table 9)

Chinook Helicopter Upgrades
An indicator of potential future disagreements between Congress and the Army was the act’s
insistence that a planned upgrade of the service’s CH-47 Chinook helicopter continue as had been
planned prior to submission of the FY2020 budget request. As discussed above, this is one of
several programs to improve currently deployed equipment that the Army wants to curtail in order
to free up funds in future budgets for the wide-ranging modernization strategy it announced in
late 2019.
Prior to tagging the program as a “bill-payer” for new programs, the Army had projected a
FY2020 request of $46.4 million associated with procurement of improved “Block II” CH-47s.
The amended FY2020 request for the program was $18.2 million, reflecting the Army’s decision
to truncate the planned procurement. The enacted version of the FY2020 defense bill – like the
versions passed by the House and approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee – provided
$46.2 million for the program.

F-15 Fighter
The act provides $985.5 million of the $1.05 billion requested for eight F-15s to partly fill the gap
in Air Force fighter strength resulting from later-than-planned fielding of the F-35A Joint Strike
Fighter. The act shifted funds for two of the eight aircraft and some design efforts (a total of
$364.4 million) to the Air Force’s Research and Development account on grounds that those F15s would be used for testing.
The Explanatory Statement accompanying the act directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide
the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees with a review of options
for reducing the Air Force’s shortfall in its planned complement of fighters.
Table 9. Selected Military Aviation Systems
amounts in millions of dollars

Program
(relevant CRS product)

Approp.
Type

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

Fighter Aircraft
F-35 – All variants and mods
(RL30563)

Proc.

9,599.6

10,383.5

11,004.7

11,112.8

R&D

1,611.8

1,611.8

1,382.9

1,499.4

F/A-18 – new aircraft and mods
(RL30624)

Proc.

3,011.1

2,909.2

2,915.9

2,891.3

R&D

327.2

320.3

307.2

300.3

F-15 – new aircraft and mods

Proc.

1,680.1

1,614.9

1,228.2

1,220.6

Congressional Research Service

16

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Program
(relevant CRS product)

Approp.
Type

FY2020
Request

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

R&D

383.4

383.4

741.5

731.5

Proc.

343.8

343.8

172.5

229.5

R&D

496.3

496.3

546.3

546.3

R&D

1,000.0

500.0

960.0

905.0

Proc.

523.0

485.7

510.4

485.5

R&D

438.4

438.4

421.5

421.5

Proc.

770.2

858.4

528.5

748.0

R&D

175.7

148.0

148.0

148.0

R&D

671.3

590.4

657.1

649.1

KC-46A tanker
(RL34398)

Proc.

2,234.5

2,198.5

2,127.8

2,139.7

R&D

59.6

59.6

94.6

59.6

P-8 Poseidon patrol plane

Proc.

1,314.2

1,772.7

1,214.0

1,742.7

R&D

198.7

179.7

170.7

162.7

Proc.

934.7

1,260.5

917.4

1,260.4

R&D

232.8

191.1

235.3

226.6

Air Force One replacement

R&D

757.9

757.9

757.9

757.9

Presidential Helicopter replacement

Proc.

658.1

647.4

625.0

641.0

R&D

187.4

165.0

187.4

176.2

AH-64 Apache

Proc.

1,055.9

1,047.9

1,055.9

1,068.3

UH-60 Blackhawk

Proc.

1,660.6

1,660.4

1,646.6

1,667.5

CH-47 Chinook

Proc.

195.3

214.0

223.3

214.0

R&D

174.4

174.4

168.2

168.2

Proc.

1,022.9

1,008.9

1,008.9

1,062.6

R&D

517.0

517.0

507.0

507.0

V-22 Osprey
(RL31384)

Proc.

1,384.5

1,631.6

1,631.6

1,654.4

R&D

203.0

193.9

216.4

209.1

Search and Rescue Helicopter

Proc.

884.2

876.0

856.7

850.5

R&D

247.0

192.0

247.0

247.0

F-22 mods

Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
Remotely Piloted Vehicles
RQ-4 Global Hawk

MQ-9 Reaper

MQ-25 Stingray
Surveillance and Support Aircraft

E-2D Hawkeye radar surveillance plane

Helicopters and Tilt-rotor Aircraft

CH-53K

Source: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation, H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613H10960.

Congressional Research Service

17

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Notes: In the column headed “Approp. Type”. “Proc.” means “procurement” and “R&D” means research and
development. The Appendix lists the full citation of each CRS product cited in this table by its ID number.
Selected long-range bomber programs are listed in Table 4, above.

Shipbuilding Programs
P.L. 116-93 supports major elements of the Navy’s shipbuilding budget request. The request in
turn reflects a 2016 plan to increase the size of the fleet to 355 ships, a target some 15% higher
than the force goal set by the previous Navy plan. The request included – and the act generally
supports – funds to begin construction of a number of relatively large, unmanned surface and
subsurface ships that carry weapons and sensors and would further enlarge the force.
The act departed from the budget request on two issues that involved more than $1 billion apiece:


It denied a total of $3.2 billion budgeted for one of the three Virginia-class
submarines included in the Administration’s request, adding $1.4 billion of those
funds instead to the funds requested (and approved by the act) for the other two
subs. The increase is intended to pay for incorporating into the two funded ships
the so-called Virginia Payload Module -- an 84-foot-long, mid-body section
equipped with four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes for storing and
launching additional Tomahawk missiles or other payloads. 15



It provided a total of $1.2 billion, not requested, for specialized ships and a
landing craft to support amphibious landings by Marine Corps units. (See Table
10.)
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.

Table 10. Selected Naval Systems
amounts in millions of dollars; procurement funds only except as noted
Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

2,347.0

2,066.0

2,236.8

2,276.5

647.9

684.8

631.5

651.5

Virginia-class submarine
(RL32418)

9,925.5

8,458.9

8,325.5

8,334.8

Aegis destroyer
(RL32109)

5,323.3

5,239.3

5,878.3

5,809.3

Frigate
(R44972)

1,281.2

1,281.2

1,281.2

1,281.2

TAO Fleet Oiler (underway refueling ship)
(R43546)

1,054.2

1,054.2

1,054.2

1,054.2

Program
(relevant CRS product)
Ford-class Aircraft Carrier
(RS20643)
Carrier modernization and refueling

FY2020
Request

15 For additional background and analysis, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack

Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

Congressional Research Service

18

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Housepassed
(H.R. 2740)

Senatecommittee
reported
(S. 2474)

FY2020
enacted
P.L. 116-93

150.3

150.3

88.2

150.3

0.0

0.0

650.0

247.1

247.1

747.1

524.1

Expeditionary Fast Transport

0.0

0.0

261.0

261.0

Ship-to-Shore Connector (air-cushion landing craft)

0.0

65.0

0.0

65.0

Program
(relevant CRS product)
ATS Towing and Salvage ship

FY2020
Request

Amphibious Landing Ships and Craft
LHA helicopter carrier
(R43543)
LPD amphibious landing transport
(R43543)

Source: CRS analysis of FY2020 DOD budget documentation, H.Rept. 116-84, House Appropriations
Committee report to accompany H.R. 2968; S.Rept. 116-103, Senate Appropriations Committee report to
accompany S. 2474; and Explanatory Statement to accompany Division A (Defense) of H.R. 1158, the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill for FY2020, Congressional Record, December 17, 2019 (Book II), pp. H10613 H10960.

Notes: The Appendix lists the full citation of each CRS product cited in this table by its ID
number.

Congressional Research Service

19

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

Appendix. CRS Reports, In Focus, and Insights
Following, in numerical order, are the full citations of CRS products cited in this report.

CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, by Jeremiah Gertler.
CRS Report RL30624, Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft Program, by Jeremiah Gertler.
CRS Report RL31384, V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Program, by Jeremiah Gertler.
CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues, by
Amy F. Woolf.
CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Megan S. Lynch.
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 R43838, Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report R44039, The Defense Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry.
CRS Report R44229, The Army’s M-1 Abrams, M-2/M-3 Bradley, and M-1126 Stryker:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report R44463, Air Force B-21 Raider Long-Range Strike Bomber, by Jeremiah Gertler.
CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status, by
Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern.

Congressional Research Service

20

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Grant A. Driessen
and Megan S. Lynch.
CRS Report R44891, U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O'Rourke and Michael Moodie.
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.
CRS Report R45288, Military Child Development Program: Background and Issues, by Kristy N.
Kamarck.
CRS Report R45349, The 2018 National Defense Strategy: Fact Sheet, by Kathleen J. McInnis.
CRS Report R45519, The Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report R45811, Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, by Kelley M.
Sayler.
CRS Report R46002, Military Funding for Border Barriers: Catalogue of Interagency
Decisionmaking, by Christopher T. Mann and Sofia Plagakis.
CRS Report R46107, FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel
Issues, coordinated by Bryce H. P. Mendez.
CRS Report R46211, National Security Space Launch, by Stephen M. McCall.
CRS Report R46216, The Army’s Modernization Strategy: Congressional Oversight
Considerations, by Andrew Feickert and Brendan W. McGarry.

Congressional In Focus
CRS In Focus IF10541, Defense Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense, by Stephen M. McCall.
CRS In Focus IF10657, Budgetary Effects of the BCA as Amended: The “Parity Principle”, by
Grant A. Driessen.
CRS In Focus IF11244, FY2020 National Security Space Budget Request: An Overview, by
Stephen M. McCall and Brendan W. McGarry.
CRS In Focus IF11326, Military Space Reform: FY2020 NDAA Legislative Proposals, by
Stephen M. McCall.

Congressional Insights
CRS Insight IN11052, The Defense Department and 10 U.S.C. 284: Legislative Origins and
Funding Questions, by Liana W. Rosen.
CRS Insight IN11083, FY2020 Defense Budget Request: An Overview, by Brendan W. McGarry
and Christopher T. Mann.
CRS Insight IN11148, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to the BCA and Debt Limit,
by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.

Congressional Research Service

21

FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act: P.L. 116-93 (H.R. 2968, S. 2474, H.R. 1158)

CRS Insight IN11210, Possible Use of FY2020 Defense Funds for Border Barrier Construction:
Context and Questions, by Christopher T. Mann.

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

Congressional Research Service

R46361 · VERSION 1 · NEW

22

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%3AR46361. Public record. Not legal advice.