FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportJun 7, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context
and Selected Issues for Congress
June 7, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46812
SUMMARY
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context
and Selected Issues for Congress
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act is one of 12 annual appropriations measures
typically reported by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the largest in
terms of discretionary funding. The act funds activities of the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) except for military construction and family housing programs. The legislation also funds
certain activities of the intelligence community.
R46812
June 7, 2021
Brendan W. McGarry
Analyst in U.S. Defense
Budget
On February 10, 2020, President Donald J. Trump submitted a budget request for FY2021 that included $753.5 billion for
national defense-related activities, including discretionary and mandatory programs. The request aligned with the statutory
spending limit, or cap, for national defense-related activities in the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 112-25), as amended by
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA; P.L. 116-37). The request included $69 billion in defense funding designated for
Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO, which is effectively exempt from the cap.
The portion of the request falling within the scope of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, totaled $690.17
billion. That figure included $688.99 billion for defense activities and $1.18 billion for intelligence activities. The request
was $8.17 billion (1.2%) less than the FY2020 enacted amount, which included emergency funding provided for hurricane
relief and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. The House-passed Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2021 would have provided $686.72 billion in budget authority in FY2021—$11.62 billion (1.7%) less than the FY2020
enacted amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee draft bill would have provided $688.07 billion in budget authority in
FY2021—$10.27 billion (1.5%) less than the FY2020 enacted amount. The enacted version of the legislation (P.L. 116-260),
signed into law on December 27, 2020, provided $688.06 billion in budget authority for FY2021—$10.28 billion (1.5%) less
than the FY2020 enacted amount.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, provided funding for an end-strength of 2.15 million military
personnel in the active and reserve components—10,300 more personnel than the FY2020 enacted amount—and for a 3%
military pay raise. The legislation provided funding in new appropriation accounts for the Space Force (e.g., Procurement,
Space Force and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Space Force) as part of DOD’s ongoing efforts to establish
the Space Force within the Department of the Air Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. The legislation also provided
funding for a new budget activity (e.g., Budget Activity 6.8) for software and digital technology pilot programs.
Among the programs for which Congress added funding were the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, F-35
Lightning II strike fighter aircraft, and Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense system. Among the
programs for which Congress reduced funding were the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Navy’s hypersonic weapons
program known as Conventional Prompt Strike, and upgrades to the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.
Among the issues debated by one or both chambers during consideration of the bill but not included in the enacted version
were additional funding for the DOD response to the COVID-19 pandemic; a prohibition on the use of funding to construct a
wall, fence, or barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border; a reduction of dollar-amount limits on general and special transfer
authorities; funding to rename certain Army installations, facilities, roads, and streets named for leaders of the Confederacy;
and repeal of Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs), among others. Congress addressed some of these
matters in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283), enacted prior to the appropriations
bill.
This report compares funding levels for certain defense accounts and programs in the enacted FY2020 appropriations, the
Trump Administration’s FY2021 request, and FY2021 legislation. Other CRS reports provide in-depth analysis and
contextual information on defense and foreign policy issues.
Congressional Research Service
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Legislative Activity ......................................................................................................................... 1
Selected Actions ........................................................................................................................ 1
Bill Overview ............................................................................................................................ 4
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Strategic Context ....................................................................................................................... 7
Budgetary Context .................................................................................................................... 8
FY2021 Defense Budget Request ........................................................................................... 10
Selected Policy Matters ................................................................................................................. 12
COVID-19 ............................................................................................................................... 12
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) .............................................................................. 14
Border Wall and Related Matters ............................................................................................ 15
Border Barrier Construction ............................................................................................. 15
Counter-Narcotics Support ............................................................................................... 17
Transfer Authorities .......................................................................................................... 18
Confederate Names ................................................................................................................. 19
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) ......................................................... 20
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) ............................................................................. 21
Iran .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Military Personnel ................................................................................................................... 22
End-Strength ..................................................................................................................... 22
Pay Raise........................................................................................................................... 24
Childcare Program ............................................................................................................ 24
Selected Acquisition Matters ......................................................................................................... 25
Software and Digital Technology Pilot Programs ................................................................... 25
Mid-Tier Acquisition and Rapid Prototyping Programs ......................................................... 26
Strategic Nuclear Forces ......................................................................................................... 27
Long-Range, Precision Strike Weapons .................................................................................. 29
Missile Defense Programs ....................................................................................................... 31
Military Space Programs ......................................................................................................... 33
Ground Combat Systems......................................................................................................... 35
Navy Shipbuilding .................................................................................................................. 37
Military Aircraft Programs ...................................................................................................... 40
Outlook .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Figures
Figure 1. Days between Start of Fiscal Year and Enactment of Annual Defense
Appropriations Act, FY1977-FY2021 .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Outlays by Budget Enforcement Category and Revenues, FY2001-FY2030
(Projected) .................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Portion of FY2021 President’s National Defense Budget Request within the
Scope of the Defense Appropriations Act ................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Department of Defense Budget Authority, FY1948-FY2025 (Projected)...................... 12
Congressional Research Service
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Tables
Table 1. FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Selected Dates and Actions ................................... 3
Table 2. FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act Funding Summary .................................................. 5
Table 3. Requested and Enacted Amounts in Annual Defense Appropriations Acts,
FY2012-FY2021 .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4. General and Special Transfer Authority Limits in the DOD Appropriations Act,
2021: Legislative Comparison.................................................................................................... 18
Table 5. Summary of Military Personnel End-Strength, FY2021 ................................................. 23
Table 6. Selected Long-Range, Nuclear-Armed Weapons Systems .............................................. 28
Table 7. Selected Long-Range Strike Weapons Systems .............................................................. 30
Table 8. Selected Missile Defense Programs ................................................................................. 32
Table 9. Selected Military Space Programs ................................................................................... 34
Table 10. Selected Ground Combat Systems ................................................................................. 35
Table 11. Selected Shipbuilding Programs .................................................................................... 38
Table 12. Selected Military Aircraft Programs .............................................................................. 41
Table A-1. Hearings of the House Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee
(HAC-D), 2020........................................................................................................................... 44
Table A-2. Hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee
(SAC-D), 2020 ........................................................................................................................... 44
Table B-1. Budget Data Sources for Appropriations Tables .......................................................... 45
Appendixes
Appendix A. Hearings of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Defense
Subcommittees, 2020 ................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix B. Budget Data Sources for Appropriations Tables ...................................................... 45
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 52
Congressional Research Service
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Introduction
The annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act primarily provides funding for most
activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), including the Departments of the Army, Navy
(including Marine Corps), and Air Force (including Space Force); Office of the Secretary of
Defense; and Defense Agencies. The legislation also appropriates funding for certain intelligence
activities, including the Intelligence Community Management Account (for staffing expenses
related to the National and Military Intelligence Programs) and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System Fund (a mandatory account that provides payments of
benefits).
The act does not provide funding for DOD-related military construction and family housing
programs, Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) programs, or the TRICARE for Life program
of medical insurance for military retirees. Funding for military construction and family housing
programs is provided in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Act. Funding for Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) programs is provided in the Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Funding for TRICARE for Life is
appropriated automatically each year (10 U.S.C. §§1111-1117).
This report provides an overview of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, and
serves as a reference to other CRS products that provide additional information, context, and
analysis relevant to certain aspects of the legislation. The following section provides an overview
of congressional action on the legislation. The subsequent section summarizes the budgetary and
strategic context within which Congress debated the President Trump’s FY2021 budget request.
Other sections describe the legislation’s treatment of certain policy issues and major components
of the request, including selected weapons acquisition programs.
Appropriations Process
For more information on the defense appropriations process, see CRS In Focus IF10514, Defense Primer: Defense
Appropriations Process, by James V. Saturno and Brendan W. McGarry. For more information on the federal budget
process, see CRS Report R46240, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by James V. Saturno.
Legislative Activity
Selected Actions
On February 10, 2020, President Donald J. Trump submitted an FY2021 budget request that
included $753.5 billion for national defense-related activities, including discretionary and
mandatory programs.1 Of that amount, the portion falling within the scope of the annual defense
appropriations bill totaled $690.2 billion.2
1 Government Publishing Office, Budget of the United States Government, FY2021, Analytical Perspectives, Table 24-
1, Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program, at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2021-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2021-PER-8-5-1.pdf.
2 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
The House Committee on Appropriations reported a version of the FY2021 defense
appropriations bill, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations released draft legislation. These
bills had some common and other differing provisions.
On July 8, 2020, the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee marked up and
approved by voice vote its version of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021.3 On
July 14, the House Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 30-22, approved its version of the
bill.4 On July 16, the committee reported the bill (H.R. 7617) and accompanying report (H.Rept.
116-453). The legislation became a vehicle for a package of six appropriations acts. On July 31,
by a vote of 217-197,5 the House passed the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and
Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2021
(H.R. 7617). The House bill included an amended version of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2021, as Division A.
On October 1, 2020, with no FY2021 regular appropriations bills enacted by the start of the fiscal
year, Congress enacted the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L.
116-159) to fund government agencies through December 11. The continuing resolution funded
most DOD programs and activities at FY2020 levels, with certain exceptions (or anomalies). The
exceptions permitted the procurement of the first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine in
FY2021 under a two-boat contract and extended an authority provided in Section 3610 of the
CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) that allows DOD to reimburse contractors for paid leave, including
sick leave.6 Congress passed four additional FY2021 continuing resolutions, for a total of five,
before enacting regular appropriations to fund government agencies through the remainder of the
fiscal year.7
Continuing Resolutions
For background and analysis on continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R46582, Overview of Continuing
Appropriations for FY2021 (P.L. 116-159), by James V. Saturno and Kevin P. McNellis and CRS Report R45870,
Defense Spending Under an Interim Continuing Resolution: In Brief, coordinated by Pat Towell.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not mark up or report a version of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. On November 10, 2020, Senator Richard Shelby, chair of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, released drafts of all 12 annual appropriations bills along
with draft accompanying explanatory statements.8 According to committee press statements, the
3 House Appropriations Committee, “Appropriations Subcommittee Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Funding Bill,”
press release, July 8, 2020, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-subcommitteeapproves-fiscal-year-2021-defense-funding-bill. The subcommittee released the text and a summary of its version of
the defense appropriations bill.
4 House Appropriations Committee, “Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Funding Bill,”
press release, July 14, 2020, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committeeapproves-fiscal-year-2021-defense-funding-bill.
5 See Roll no. 178, at https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2020178.
6 For a list of these anomalies, see CRS Report R46582, Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2021 (P.L. 116159), by James V. Saturno and Kevin P. McNellis, p. 15.
7 The five continuing resolutions were: P.L. 116-159, P.L. 116-215, P.L. 116-225, P.L. 116-226, and P.L. 116-246. For
more information, see CRS.gov, Appropriations Status Table, Continuing Resolutions tab, at
https://www.crs.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable/Index.
8 The 12 draft bills and explanatory statements are on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s website linked to the
majority press release at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
release of the draft bills was intended to further negotiations on annual appropriations between
the House and the Senate.9
On December 21, 2020, by a vote of 327-85, the House agreed to a Senate amendment
comprising four appropriations acts, including the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2021, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division C of H.R. 133). On the
same day, by a vote of 92-6, the Senate agreed to an amended version of the House-passed
legislation. On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed the bill into law (P.L. 116-260) (see
Table 1).
Table 1. FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Selected Dates and Actions
House
Public
Law
Senate
Bill
Report #,
Date
Reported
Vote #
(yeas,
nays),
Date
Passed
Conf.
Rept. #,
Vote #,
Date
Passed
Bill
Report #,
Date
Reported
Vote #
(yeas,
nays),
Date
Passed
Conf.
Rept. #,
Vote #,
Date
Passed
P.L. #,
Date
Signed
H.R.
7617
(Div.
A)
H.Rept.
116-453,
07/16/20
178,
(y217n197),
07/31/20
—
Draft
texta
Draft
report,
11/10/20a
—
—
—
H.R.
133
(Div.
C)
—
250,
(y327n85),
12/21/20
No
conference
report
submitted;
JES released
by House
Rules
Committee.
H.R.
133
(Div.
C)
—
289,
(y92-n6),
12/21/20
No
conference
report
submitted;
JES released
by House
Rules
Committee.
P.L. 116260,
12/27/20
Source: CRS analysis of Congress.gov; House Appropriations Committee, “Appropriations Subcommittee
Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Funding Bill,” press release, July 8, 2020, at
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-subcommittee-approves-fiscal-year-2021defense-funding-bill; House Appropriations Committee, “Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2021
Defense Funding Bill,” press release, July 14, 2020, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/pressreleases/appropriations-committee-approves-fiscal-year-2021-defense-funding-bill; and Senate Appropriations
Committee, “Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Produce Bipartisan Results,” press
release, November 10, 2020, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-ineffort-to-advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results.
Notes: JES is joint explanatory statement.
a. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not mark up or report a version of the bill. On November 10,
2020, the chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Richard Shelby, released drafts of all
12 annual appropriations bills along with draft accompanying explanatory statements and 302(b)
subcommittee allocations.
advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results.
9 Ibid. See also the statement from Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Senator Patrick Leahy, “Senate
Approps Vice Chair Leahy Statement On The Release Of The FY 2021 Senate Appropriations Bills,” November 10,
2020, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/minority/senate-approps-vice-chair-leahy-statement-on-therelease-of-the-fy-2021-senate-appropriations-bills-.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
The law was enacted 87 days after the start of the FY2021 fiscal year. Figure 1 shows the dates
of enactment for the annual defense appropriations act since FY1977, when the federal
government transitioned to a fiscal year beginning October 1, 1976.
Figure 1. Days between Start of Fiscal Year and Enactment of Annual Defense
Appropriations Act, FY1977-FY2021
(in days)
Source: CRS analysis of dates of enactment of public law from CRS Report 98-756, Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Bills: FY1961-FY2020, and P.L. 116-260.
Defense Authorizations and Appropriations
For historical information on defense authorizations and appropriations, see CRS Report 98-756, Defense
Authorization and Appropriations Bills: FY1961-FY2020, by Nese F. DeBruyne and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
Bill Overview
Of the FY2021 budget request for national defense, the portion falling within the scope of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, totaled $690.17 billion. The request was $8.17
billion (1.2%) less than the FY2020 enacted amount, which included emergency funding for
expenses related to Hurricanes Michael and Florence, flooding, and earthquakes that occurred in
FY2019, and for the federal response to the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic.10
10 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf. FY2020 enacted amount of $12.36 billion in emergency funding
includes $1.77 billion for natural disaster relief in P.L. 116-93 and $10.59 billion for COVID-19 response in P.L. 116127 and P.L. 116-136.
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
The original House-passed Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 would have
provided $686.72 billion in budget authority in FY2021—$11.62 billion (1.7%) less than the
FY2020 enacted amount and $3.45 billion (0.5%) less than the FY2021 request.11
The Senate Appropriations Committee-released draft of its Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill, 2021, would have provided $688.07 billion in budget authority in FY2021—$10.27 billion
(1.5%) less than the FY2020 enacted amount and $2.11 billion (0.3%) less than the FY2021
request.12
The enacted legislation provided $688.06 billion in budget authority for FY2021—$10.28 billion
(1.5%) less than the FY2020 enacted amount and $2.11 billion (0.3%) less than the FY2021
request (see Table 2).13
Table 2. FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act Funding Summary
(in billions of dollars of budget authority)
FY2020
Enacted
FY2021
Request
FY2021
House-passed
FY2021
Senate
committeedrafted
Military Personnel
142.45
150.52
149.36
149.62
149.44
Operation and Maintenance
199.42
196.63
196.70
194.80
192.21
Procurement
133.88
130.87
133.63
133.30
136.53
Research and Development
104.43
106.22
104.35
104.08
107.14
Revolving and Management Funds
1.56
1.35
1.35
2.60
1.47
DHP and Other DOD Programs
36.32
34.72
35.32
35.37
36.02
Related Agencies
1.07
1.18
1.13
1.14
1.15
General Provisions
-3.80
0.03
-3.56
-1.49
-4.55
615.32
621.52
618.29
619.42
619.41
OCO
70.67
68.65
68.44
68.65
68.65
Emergency
12.36a
Total
698.34
690.17
686.72
688.07
688.06
Title
Subtotal, Base Budget
FY2021
Enacted
Source: House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617, Comparative
Statement of New Budget (Obligational) Authority for FY2020 and Budget Requests and Amounts
Recommended in the Bill for 2021, p. 440; CRS analysis of H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to
accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021,
November 10, 2020, p. 2; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F,
committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
11 CRS analysis of H.R. 7617 (Division A).
12 Senate Appropriations Committee, Explanatory Statement to accompany its version of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020, p. 2, at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DEFRept.pdf.
13 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Notes: DHP is Defense Health Program. The term base budget generally refers to funding for planned or
regularly occurring costs to man, train, and equip the military force. OCO is Overseas Contingency Operations
(Title IX is titled, “Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism”). Numbers may not sum due
to rounding.
a. FY2020 enacted amount of $12.36 billion in emergency funding includes $1.77 billion for natural disaster
relief in the annual defense appropriations act (P.L. 116-93) and $10.59 billion for COVID-19 response in
the second and third supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-127 and P.L. 116-136).
Table 3 shows the difference in requested and enacted amounts provided by the annual
Department of Defense Appropriations Acts over the past decade.
Table 3. Requested and Enacted Amounts in Annual Defense Appropriations Acts,
FY2012-FY2021
(in billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year
Requested Amount
Enacted Amount
Difference (%)
2012
649.63a
622.86a
-4.1%
2013
601.23b
597.09b
-0.7%
2014
590.33c
565.09c
-4.3%
2015
547.88d
547.75d
0.0%
2016
571.72e
566.62e
-0.9%
2017
569.86f
571.45f
0.3%
2018
623.33g
647.44g
3.9%
2019
668.41h
667.32h
-0.2%
2020
690.62i
687.76i
-0.4%
2021
690.17j
688.06j
-0.3%
Source: CRS analysis of funding tables in conference reports or explanatory statements accompanying annual
defense appropriation acts. For specific references, see footnotes in notes below.
Notes: Amounts include base, OCO funding, and—for years in which it was provided as part of regular defense
appropriations—emergency funding. Amounts exclude scorekeeping adjustments and appropriations for
subsequent fiscal years. Page numbers below contain hyperlinks to source documents.
a. Funding table in conference report (H.Rept. 112-331) to accompany Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, p. 796;
b. Funding table in explanatory statement to accompany the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013
(Division C of P.L. 113-6) in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 159 (March 11, 2013), p.
S1546;
c. Funding table in joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2014 (Division C of P.L. 113-76) in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160 (January 15,
2014), p. H832;
d. Funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
(Division C of P.L. 113-235) in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160 (December 11, 2014),
p. H9647;
e. Funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016
(Division C of P.L. 114-113) in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015),
p. H10055;
f.
Funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017
(Division C of P.L. 115-31) in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 163 (May 3, 2017), p.
H3702;
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
g.
h.
i.
j.
Funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018
(Division C of P.L. 115-141) in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164 (March 22, 2018), p.
H2434;
Funding table in joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2019 (Division A of P.L. 115-245) released by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 13,
2018, p. 147;
Funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020
(Division A of P.L. 116-93) in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019),
p. H10960;
Funding table in explanatory statement in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of
2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021),
p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Background
Strategic Context14
President Trump’s FY2021 budget request for DOD was shaped in part by the department’s
efforts to align its priorities with strategic guidance documents, including the 2018 National
Defense Strategy (NDS). The 11-page unclassified summary identified strategic competition with
China and Russia as “the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security.”15 This marked a shift
in strategic emphasis from countering terrorism and insurgencies in the Middle East in the years
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The NDS summary called for additional and steady funding to counter evolving threats from
China and Russia: “Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal
priorities for the Department, and require both increased and sustained investment, because of the
magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for
those threats to increase in the future.”16 The NDS, released prior to the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic, did not address the question of pandemics or climate change as national security
threats.
The NDS summary called for upgrading the U.S. military’s competitive advantage in part by
upgrading (or modernizing) nuclear; space and cyberspace; command, control, communications,
computers and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); and missile defense
systems. It described the importance of speed in integrating into weapons new technologies (e.g.,
artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed energy, hypersonic weapons): “Success no
longer goes to the country that develops a new technology first, but rather to the one that better
integrates it and adapts its way of fighting.”17
The National Defense Strategy Commission was established by Sec. 942 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA; P.L. 114-328) to provide an independent
assessment of the National Defense Strategy. In a 2018 report, the Commission generally agreed
14 This section was coordinated with Kathleen J. McInnis, Specialist in International Security, and Ronald O’Rourke,
Specialist in Naval Affairs.
15 Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America:
Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, p. 2, at
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf.
16 Ibid, pp. 6-7.
17 Ibid, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
with DOD’s strategic approach, particularly its orientation towards strategic competition with
other great powers. At the same time, the Commission asserted that successive Administrations
and Congresses have underestimated the scale of this reorientation, the urgency with which it
must occur, and the resources required to make it happen. For example, the commission
recommended that policymakers increase defense spending by 3% to 5% per year in real terms
(i.e., adjusting for inflation)—or alter the expectations of the strategy and America’s global
strategic objectives.18 Some Members of Congress have recommended increasing the defense
budget by 3%-5% per year in real terms to prepare for long-term strategic competition with China
and Russia.19
Others have argued DOD could carry out the strategy with less funding. In 2019, Robert O. Work,
who served as deputy secretary of defense during the Obama Administration, said, “You can
execute this National Defense Strategy at $700 billion a year, without question, if you make the
right choices. You can completely screw up the strategy at $800 billion a year if you make the
wrong choices.”20 Some Members of Congress have proposed reducing the defense budget by as
much as 10% to fund non-defense priorities such as health care, housing, and educational
opportunities.21
Selected CRS Products
For background and analysis on the National Defense Strategy, see CRS Insight IN10855, The 2018 National
Defense Strategy, by Kathleen J. McInnis and CRS Report R45349, The 2018 National Defense Strategy: Fact Sheet, by
Kathleen J. McInnis. For background and analysis on potential national-security implications of COVID-19, see CRS
Report R46336, COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment—Overview of Issues and Further
Reading for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, Kathleen J. McInnis, and Michael Moodie. For background and analysis
on great power competition, see CRS Report R43838, Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Budgetary Context
Congressional action on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, occurred as federal
spending continued to exceed revenues. The trend has raised questions about whether pressure to
reduce the federal deficit may impact defense budget plans.
In September 2020, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a federal deficit of $3.3
trillion in 2020, or 16% of gross domestic product—the highest percentage since 1945.22 This
amount was $2.2 trillion more than CBO had estimated in March of 2020. CBO described the
projected increase as “mostly the result of the economic disruption caused by the 2020
18 Eric Edelman and Gary Roughead (co-chairs), Providing for the Common Defense: The Report of the National
Defense Strategy Commission, United States Institute for Peace, November 2018, p. 52, at
https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf.
19 See, for example, Joe Gould, “HASC’s new lead Republican on making Space Force permanent and budget fights to
come,” Defense News, February 4, 2021, at https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/02/04/hascs-new-leadrepublican-on-making-space-force-permanent-and-budget-fights-to-come/.
20 Center for a New American Security, The National Defense Strategy Commission Report: Debating the Key Issues,
January 15, 2019, at https://www.cnas.org/events/the-national-defense-strategy-commission-report-debating-the-keyissues.
21 See, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders, “Sanders: Cut the Pentagon by 10% to Hire More Teachers, Build More
Homes, and Create More Jobs,” press release, June 25, 2020, at https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/sanderscut-the-pentagon-by-10-to-hire-more-teachers-build-more-homes-and-create-more-jobs/.
22 Congressional Budget Office, An Update to the Budget Outlook: 2020 to 2030, September 2020, at
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-09/56517-Budget-Outlook.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
coronavirus pandemic and the enactment of legislation in response.”23 Over the next decade,
mandatory spending and net interest payments on the national debt are projected to increase faster
than discretionary spending.24 See Figure 2.
Figure 2. Outlays by Budget Enforcement Category and Revenues, FY2001-FY2030
(Projected)
(in trillions of dollars)
Source: CRS analysis of Congressional Budget Office, 10-Year Budget Projections (Tables 1-1, 1-4)
accompanying An Update to the Budget Outlook: 2020 to 2030, September 2020.
Notes: Area above dotted line reflects deficit. 2019 reflects actual figures; 2020-2030 reflect projections.
In recent decades, during periods of widening gaps between revenues and outlays, Congress has
sometimes enacted legislation intended to reduce the deficit in part by limiting defense spending.
After the deficit had reached nearly 6% of GDP in 1983,25 Congress enacted the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (also known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act;
P.L. 99-177).26 This legislation created annual deficit limits and stated that breaching them would
trigger automatic funding reductions equally divided between defense and non-defense spending.
In 1990, Congress passed the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), which included
statutory limits on discretionary spending. These discretionary spending limits were in effect
through 2002, and in certain years included a specific limit on defense spending.27 After the
deficit reached nearly 10% in 2009,28 Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA;
P.L. 112-25), which reinstated statutory limits, or caps, on discretionary spending for fiscal years
2012-2021 and included separate annual limits for defense spending. Discretionary spending
23 Ibid. For CRS products on COVID-19, see https://www.crs.gov/resources/coronavirus-disease-2019.
24 Ibid.
25 Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.2, Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or
Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2025, accessed February 16, 2021, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.
26 For more information and analysis, see CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and
2002, by Megan S. Lynch.
27 Ibid. Defense spending limits under P.L. 101-508 were in place in FY1991, FY1992, FY1993, FY1998 and FY1999.
28 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
limits are enforced through a mechanism called sequestration.29 Sequestration automatically
cancels previously enacted appropriations by an amount necessary to reach pre-specified levels.30
The defense spending cap under BCA as amended applies to discretionary base budget authority
for the national defense budget function (050).31 The limit does not apply to certain other types of
funding (e.g., funding for Overseas Contingency Operations [OCO] or emergency
requirements).32 On March 1, 2013—five months into the fiscal year—then-President Barack
Obama ordered the sequestration of budgetary resources across nonexempt federal government
accounts.33 Some observers argue that such legislation disproportionately affects defense
programs and inadequately addresses projected growth in mandatory programs. Others argue that
it is necessary in light of recurring deficits and growing federal debt.34
In a 2020 report, the Congressional Budget Office identified 12 options for reducing the federal
budget deficit through discretionary defense programs, such as reducing the DOD budget,
capping increases in basic pay for military service members, and stopping construction of Fordclass aircraft carriers.35
Selected CRS Products
For background and analysis on the Budget Control Act (BCA) and sequestration, see CRS Video WVB00305,
Budget Control Act: Overview, by Megan S. Lynch and Grant A. Driessen, CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act:
Frequently Asked Questions, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch, and CRS Report R44039, The Defense Budget
and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry. For background and analysis on
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations
Funding: Background and Status, by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern.
FY2021 Defense Budget Request
President Trump’s FY2021 budget request included $753.5 billion in budget authority for
national defense-related activities. Of that amount, $740.5 billion was for discretionary programs
and $13.0 billion was for mandatory programs.36 The budget request conformed to the FY2021
29 For more information, see CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Grant A.
Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.
30 For more background and analysis, see CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process:
Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch.
31 The term base budget generally refers to funding for planned or regularly occurring costs to man, train, and equip the
military force. Budget authority is authority provided by law to a federal agency to obligate money for goods and
services. For more information on how BCA affects the defense budget, see CRS Report R44039, The Defense Budget
and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry. The national defense budget
function (identified by the numerical notation 050) comprises three subfunctions: Department of Defense (DOD)–
Military (051); atomic energy defense activities primarily of the Department of Energy (053); and other defense-related
activities (054), such as FBI counterintelligence activities. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10618, Defense
Primer: The National Defense Budget Function (050), by Christopher T. Mann.
32 Since 2009, the term Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO, has been used to describe military operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. For more information, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency
Operations Funding: Background and Status, by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern.
33 Government Accountability Office, SEQUESTRATION: Observations on the Department of Defense's Approach in
Fiscal Year 2013, GAO-14-177R, November 7, 2013, p. 13, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658913.pdf.
34 For more information, see CRS Report R44039, The Defense Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry, p. 3.
35 Congressional Budget Office, Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2021 to 2030, December 2020, at
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56783-budget-options.pdf.
36 Government Publishing Office, Budget of the United States Government, FY2021, Analytical Perspectives, Table 24-
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
discretionary defense limit established by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L.
116-37). BBA 2019 had raised the defense spending cap initially set by the Budget Control Act of
2011 to $671.5 billion in FY2021. BBA 2019 also specified a nonbinding target of $69 billion in
FY2021 for defense OCO funding.
Of the $753.5 billion requested for national defense-related activities in FY2021, the portion
falling within the scope of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, totaled $690.17
billion, including $688.99 billion for DOD and $1.18 billion for other agencies (i.e., certain
activities of the intelligence community). See Figure 3.37 The portion of defense OCO funding
falling within the scope of the legislation totaled $68.65 billion. The remaining $63.3 billion
requested for national defense-related activities in FY2021, including $350 million in OCO
funding, falls outside the scope of the legislation.
Figure 3. Portion of FY2021 President’s National Defense Budget Request within the
Scope of the Defense Appropriations Act
Source: CRS analysis of funding table in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2,
Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765,
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf; and Government
Publishing Office, Budget of the United States Government, FY2021, Analytical Perspectives, Table 24-1, Budget
Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program.
Notes: OCO is funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations; O&M is operation and maintenance;
MILPERS is military personnel; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation; DOE is Department of
Energy; MILCON/FH is military construction and family housing. “Total” and “not included” figures from Table
24-1; “included figures” from explanatory statement funding table. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1: Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program, at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2021-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2021-PER-8-5-1.pdf.
37 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Including military construction and family housing appropriations, the FY2021 DOD budget
request totaled $716.2 billion, excluding emergency funding provided for hurricane relief and
COVID-19 response.38 The level of budget authority requested by DOD for FY2021, when
adjusted for inflation, was higher than during the Vietnam War and the Cold War-era military
buildup of the 1980s, lower than during the height of post-9/11 operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and projected to remain relatively flat over the five-year period through FY2025.
See Figure 4.
Figure 4. Department of Defense Budget Authority, FY1948-FY2025 (Projected)
(in billions of nominal, or current, dollars and constant FY2021 dollars)
Source: Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2021, Table 6-8, Department of
Defense Budget Authority by Public Law Title, April 2020.
Selected CRS Products
For more information on the FY2021 defense budget request, see CRS Insight IN11224, FY2021 Defense Budget
Request: An Overview, by Brendan W. McGarry and CRS Video WVB00314, FY2021 Defense Budget: Issues for
Congress, by Nathan J. Lucas et al.
Selected Policy Matters
This section of the report discusses certain policy matters that generated interest or debate among
Members or objections from the Trump Administration, including matters relating to the
Administration’s redirection of funds to construct barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border and
congressional proposals to rename Army installations, facilities, roads, and streets named after
confederate leaders and officers.
COVID-19
Congressional action on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, occurred during
the COVID-19 pandemic. The enacted version of the legislation did not provide funding
38 Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2021, Table 6-8, Department of Defense Budget
Authority by Public Law Title, April 2020, p. 143, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
explicitly for the department’s pandemic response. Congress provided FY2020 emergency
supplemental funding for DOD pandemic-related activities, elements of which were questioned
by House appropriators, among other Members.
In FY2020, Congress provided DOD with $10.59 billion in emergency supplemental funding to
respond to COVID-19.39 Almost half of that amount was for the Defense Health Program to
provide medical care to military members, dependents, and retirees; procure medical gear such as
ventilators and personal protective equipment; develop vaccines and diagnostic tests; and cover
other anticipated expenses.40 The emergency supplemental legislation also included funding to
cover costs associated with the deployment of military hospital ships intended to ease civilian
hospital demand and other activities; mobilization of National Guard personnel to support
emergency operations; and Defense Production Act (DPA) purchases intended to facilitate the
manufacture and distribution of medical equipment and supplies.
For FY2021, the House Appropriations Committee would have provided $1.36 billion in FY2021
for the department’s pandemic response, including $758 million in procurement funds for certain
suppliers; $450 million in operation and maintenance funds for second, third, and fourth tier
suppliers recovery and resupply activities; and $150 million for the Defense Health Program.41
The committee directed the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to provide quarterly
updates to the congressional defense committees on COVID-19-related expenses incurred in the
previous quarter, including any savings from delayed or cancelled training, exercises, or
deployments. The committee noted that DOD planned to use most of the $1 billion provided in
FY2020 emergency supplemental funding for DPA purchases to address the impact of COVID-19
on the defense industrial base, in part by making loans to private companies, and expressed
concern “that this funding will not support increased medical supply production, as intended by
the additional CARES Act funding.”42 The committee also expressed concern over the
department’s planning and preparation for the pandemic and restructuring of the Military Health
System.43 The committee encouraged the Secretary of Defense to cooperate with the directors of
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Authority on research to address public health vulnerabilities, secure a national
stockpile of life-saving drugs, and address vulnerability points for the military.44
The House-passed bill would have provided $100 million to the Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy appropriation account for certain suppliers.45
39 The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (P.L. 116-127) provided $82 million for the department’s Defense
Health Program (DHP) to waive all TRICARE cost-sharing requirements related to COVID-19. The Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) provided $10.5 billion in emergency funding for the
department.
40 For more information on the Defense Health Program, see CRS In Focus IF11442, FY2021 Budget Request for the
Military Health System, by Bryce H. P. Mendez. For more information on DOD health care activities supported by this
funding, see CRS Report R46316, Health Care Provisions in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, P.L. 116127, coordinated by Sarah A. Lister and Paulette C. Morgan and CRS Report R46481, COVID-19 Testing: Frequently
Asked Questions, coordinated by Amanda K. Sarata and Elayne J. Heisler.
41 H.Rept. 116-453, p. 11.
42 Ibid, p. 12.
43 Ibid. For background and analysis on proposed changes to the military health system, see CRS In Focus IF11273,
Military Health System Reform, by Bryce H. P. Mendez and CRS In Focus IF11458, Military Health System Reform:
Military Treatment Facilities, by Bryce H. P. Mendez.
44 Ibid, p. 13.
45 H.R. 7617, p. 29.
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that it would, to the extent necessary, seek to address
agency needs related to COVID-19 “in future supplemental appropriations vehicles. Accordingly,
funding recommended in the Committee’s regular fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill is focused
on annual funding needs unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic.”46
COVID-19 Implications for DOD
For background and additional analysis, see CRS Report R46336, COVID-19: Potential Implications for International
Security Environment—Overview of Issues and Further Reading for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Kathleen J.
McInnis, CRS Insight IN11273, COVID-19: The Basics of Domestic Defense Response, coordinated by Michael J.
Vassalotti, and CRS Report R43767, The Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for
Congress, by Michael H. Cecire and Heidi M. Peters.
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated discretionary budget
authority designated as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global
War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) in support of the U.S. government response to the attacks and
for other activities. In the years following enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011, OCO
funding was used for non-contingency purposes. Some observers criticized such funding as a
“slush fund,” others praised it as a “relief valve,” and still others noted that it no longer
corresponded to funding for U.S. military operations in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.47
DOD acknowledges that it currently uses the majority of OCO funding for activities other than
costs associated with “direct war” requirements. For example, of the $69 billion requested for
OCO funding in FY2021, DOD identified $21 billion (30%) for “direct war” requirements. The
remainder was for base budget and enduring requirements (i.e., costs that will remain even after
combat operations end).48
For FY2021, the House-passed bill would have provided $68.435 billion in OCO funding—
$0.215 billion (0.3%) less than requested. The House Appropriations Committee referred to the
use of OCO as “an abject failure” and recommended that Congress return to funding contingency
operations through supplemental appropriations
With the possibility of significantly fewer deployed American servicemembers in
Afghanistan combined with more training exercises and less contingencies, activities
funded in the past by OCO could very well be supported within base accounts in the future.
For these reasons, the Committee believes that the Department should cease requesting
funding for the OCO accounts following this fiscal year. The traditional manner of funding
contingency operations through supplementals should return. The OCO experiment has
been an abject failure and has given the Department a budgetary relief valve that has
allowed it to avoid making difficult decisions. 49
46 Explanatory statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2021, p. 2, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DEFRept.pdf.
47 For more information, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status,
by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern, pp. 9-10.
48 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February
2020, Defense Budget Overview, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Revised May
13, 2020, pp. 1-3, 6-1, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
.
49 H.Rept. 116-453, pp. 4-5.
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
In its draft bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee included the Administration’s requested
level of defense OCO funding. The panel explained its recommendation as follows
This funding will ensure that resources, equipment, and supplies are available for our
servicemembers without interruption, and will enable the Department to avoid absorbing
operational costs from within baseline programs that are critical to future readiness and
home-station activities.50
The enacted version of the legislation provided the Administration’s requested level of defense
OCO funding.51
Overseas Contingency Operations Funding
For background and analysis on funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas
Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status, by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern, CRS
Report WPD00012, Overseas Contingencies Operations: Funding and Outlook, by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M.
Morgenstern, and CRS Video WVB00246, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Trends and Issues, by Brendan
W. McGarry.
Border Wall and Related Matters
Border Barrier Construction
Under the Trump Administration, DOD reallocated approximately $10 billion of FY2019 and
FY2020 funding to construct barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. On February 13, 2020, DOD
transferred $3.8 billion from defense procurement programs to the Operation and Maintenance,
Army account for use by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct barriers and roads along the
U.S. southern border.52 The reprogramming repeated, in part, a process the department undertook
twice in 2019 (totaling $2.5 billion) in support of Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
counter-drug activities pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284, in conjunction with a separate set of
emergency transfers ($3.6 billion) under 10 U.S.C. §2808.53
50 Explanatory statement accompanying Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2021, p. 253, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DEFRept.pdf.
51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
52 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2020, “Support for DHS Counter Drug Activity,” February 13, 2020, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2020/reprogramming_action/2001_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf.
53 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2019, “Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming Action,” March 25,
2019, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/1901_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf; “Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming
Action,” May 9, 2019, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/1902_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf; and White House, “President Donald J. Trump’s Border
Security Victory,” fact sheet, February 15, 2019, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donaldj-trumps-border-security-victory/.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
House appropriators considered, but did not enact, a number of provisions that would have
limited or prohibited the use of defense funds to construct barriers along the Southern border.
Section 8134 of the House-passed bill would have prohibited the use of FY2021 or prior-year
defense appropriations to construct “a wall, fence, border barriers, or border security
infrastructure” along the southern border.54 The language also would have prohibited using funds
for the Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense account to construct “fences.”
Section 8135 of the House bill would have required DOD to return any of the unobligated
procurement funds that were transferred on February 13, 2020, to their original accounts and
prohibited their use “for any purpose other than the original purposes for which they were
appropriated.”55 Section 8136 of the House bill would have prohibited DOD from using funds for
active-duty servicemembers supporting security or immigration enforcement operations along the
southern border unless the requesting agency agreed to reimburse DOD for such costs.56The
House Appropriations Committee argued that the department’s use of defense funding to pay for
the border wall was an example of “mismatch between its stated priorities and its fiscal
actions.”57
The Trump Administration objected to the House provisions, arguing that prior-year
appropriations, transfer authority, and the use of active-duty forces on a non-reimbursable basis
were “critical to DOD’s support of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to secure the
Southern Border.”58
The Senate Appropriations Committee-drafted bill and the enacted legislation did not include
comparable provisions. Section 2801 of the previously enacted FY2021 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 116-283) dealt with a related issue and limited to $500 million the amount
of military construction funds available for redirection under a national emergency pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 2808.59 President Trump vetoed the FY2021 NDAA over this and other provisions.60 The
House and Senate each voted to override the veto by margins larger than the two-thirds majority
required by the Constitution.61
DOD Funding for Border Wall
For background and analysis, see CRS Report R45937, Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers, by Christopher
T. Mann, CRS Report R46002, Military Funding for Border Barriers: Catalogue of Interagency Decisionmaking, by
Christopher T. Mann and Sofia Plagakis, and CRS Insight IN11017, Military Construction Funding in the Event of a
National Emergency, by Michael J. Vassalotti and Brendan W. McGarry.
54 H.R. 7617, p. 132.
55 Ibid, pp. 132-133.
56 Ibid, p. 133.
57 H.Rept. 116-453, p. 4.
58 Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, July 30, 2020, pp. 1-2.
59 P.L. 116-283.
60 White House, “Presidential Veto Message to the House of Representatives for H.R. 6395,” statement, December 23,
2020, at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-veto-message-house-representatives-hr-6395/.
61 For more information, see CRS Report R46714, FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act: Context and Selected
Issues for Congress, by Pat Towell.
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Counter-Narcotics Support
For FY2021, DOD requested $769.6 million for the Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug
Activities, Defense account, which funds programs to identify and interdict the transit of illicit
drugs to the United States.62
The House-passed bill would have appropriated $746.2 million for the Drug Interdiction and
Counter-drug Activities, Defense account—$23.4 million less than requested.63 Within this
account, the House Appropriation Committee would have provided $125.2 million less than
requested for Counter-Narcotics Support and $101.8 million more than requested for the National
Guard Counter-Drug Program.64 The panel noted its concern with DOD’s reallocation of funding
from Counter-Narcotics Support:
The Committee is concerned with the misrepresentation by the Department of Defense
regarding the purposes for which funds were requested under this heading in fiscal year
2020. The Department of Defense has reallocated $47,400,000 from Counter-Narcotics
Support for activities that were neither requested by the Department nor appropriated by
Congress, namely to fund southwest border barrier construction. Such actions deny the
Committee its constitutional and oversight responsibilities and the Committee
recommendation for fiscal year 2021 does not continue funding programs that were
reduced as a result of the Department’s actions.65
The Trump Administration objected to the House’s proposed reduction to counter-drug funding,
arguing that it “would hinder DOD’s ability to fulfill its statutory counter-drug missions.”66
The Senate Appropriations Committee would have included $923.4 million for the Drug
Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense account—$153.8 million more than requested.
The panel would have included additional funding for Counter-Narcotics Support ($33.8 million),
the National Guard Counter-Drug Program ($100 million), and National Guard Counter-Drug
Schools ($20 million). Some of the funding for Counter-Narcotics Support would have been for
joint interagency task force projects associated with the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), an
effort intended to strengthen U.S. defense posture in the Indo-Pacific region. The panel noted its
concern that DOD “has not applied significant prioritization to initiatives in the region.”
The enacted version of the legislation included $914.4 million for the Drug Interdiction and
Counter-drug Activities, Defense account—$144.8 million more than requested. The unrequested
funding was for Counter-Narcotics Support ($20.8 million), including a multi-mission support
vessel ($18.0 million) and a joint interagency task force project associated with PDI ($2.8
million); Drug Demand Reduction Program ($4 million); the National Guard Counter-Drug
Program ($100.0 million); and National Guard Counter-Drug Schools ($20.0 million).
Counterdrug Activities
For background and analysis on DOD counterdrug activities, see CRS Insight IN11052, The Defense Department
and 10 U.S.C. 284: Legislative Origins and Funding Questions, by Liana W. Rosen.
62 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Operation
and Maintenance Overview, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Estimates, February 2020, p. 31.
63 H.R. 7617, p. 42.
64 H.Rept. 116-453, p. 344.
65 Ibid, p. 345.
66 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Transfer Authorities
DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities emerged as central in a debate over the
department’s use of the authorities to transfer, without congressional prior approval, FY2019 and
FY2020 defense funds to construct barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. For FY2021, DOD
requested $9.5 billion in general and special transfer authority, including $5 billion in general
transfer authority for base funding and $4.5 billion in special transfer authority for OCO
funding.67 The use of such authorities generally requires the prior approval of certain
congressional committees.
Sections 8005 and 9002 of the House-passed bill would have authorized $1.9 billion in general
and special transfer authority, including $1 billion in general transfer authority and $900 million
in special transfer authority.68 The House Appropriations Committee argued in part, “The granting
of additional budget flexibility to the Department is based on the presumption that a state of trust
and comity exists between the legislative and executive branches regarding the proper use of
appropriated funds. This presumption presently is false.”69
The Trump Administration objected to the House provision, arguing that “limiting DOD’s
transfer authorities would severely constrain its ability to shift funds between accounts to meet
unforeseen or emerging military requirements.”70
The Senate Appropriations Committee included, and the enacted version of the legislation
provided, $6 billion in general and special transfer authority, including $4 billion in general
transfer authority and $2 billion in special transfer authority (see Table 4).71 The explanatory
statement accompanying the enacted legislation directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing how the department has used
such authorities over the past decade.72 The language also directed the head of the Government
Accountability Office to review the DOD report and assess “the extent to which the actions
described in response to the direction above comply with existing appropriations law.”73
Table 4. General and Special Transfer Authority Limits in the DOD Appropriations
Act, 2021: Legislative Comparison
(amounts in billions)
Transfer
Authority
(section)
FY2020
Enacted
(P.L. 116-93)
FY2021
Requested
House-passed
(H.R. 7617)
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
(P.L. 116-260)
GTA (Sec. 8005)
$4.0
$5.0
$1.0
$4.0
$4.0
STA (Sec. 9002)
$2.0
$4.5
$0.5
$2.0
$2.0
67 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2021, Appendix, pp. 310, 343,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2021-APP/pdf/BUDGET-2021-APP.pdf.
68 H.R. 7617, pp. 46, 159.
69 H.Rept. 116-453, p. 4.
70 Statement of Administration Policy, pp. 1-2.
71 Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, pp. 42, 143; and
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division C of P.L. 116-260).
72 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 389, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
73 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Transfer
Authority
(section)
FY2020
Enacted
(P.L. 116-93)
FY2021
Requested
House-passed
(H.R. 7617)
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
(P.L. 116-260)
$6.0
$9.5
$1.5
$6.0
$6.0
Total
Source: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93); Office of Management
and Budget, FY2021 Budget Appendix; House-passed Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division
A of H.R. 7617); Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill,
2021; and enacted Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division C of P.L. 116-260).
Notes: GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority.
DOD Transfer Authorities
For background and analysis on DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities, see CRS Report R46421, DOD
Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background, Status, and Issues for Congress, by Brendan W. McGarry.
Confederate Names
The May 25, 2020, death of George P. Floyd Jr. in the custody of Minneapolis law enforcement
and other high-profile racial incidents spurred widespread protests and generated congressional
interest in a number of topics, including renaming U.S. military bases named for military leaders
of the Confederacy.
Section 8139 of the House-passed bill would have provided $1 million to the Operation and
Maintenance, Army account to rename Army installations, facilities, roads, and streets named
after confederate leaders and officers.74 The House Appropriations Committee noted that its
version of the defense appropriations bill would provide the funding “to the Army for the
renaming of installations, facilities, roads and streets that bear the name of confederate leaders
and officers since the Army has the preponderance of the entities to change.”75
The Trump Administration objected to the House provision, arguing in part that it reflected an
attempt to “rewrite history.”76
The Senate Appropriations Committee-drafted bill, and the enacted legislation, did not include a
comparable provision. Section 370 in the previously enacted FY2021 NDAA dealt with a similar
issue and required the Secretary of Defense to establish a commission to produce, within three
years, a plan to remove from all DOD assets all names, symbols, monuments, and paraphernalia
that honor or commemorate the Confederacy, except for Confederate grave markers.77 President
Trump vetoed the FY2021 NDAA over this and other provisions.78 The House and Senate each
74 H.R. 7617, pp. 134-135.
75 House Appropriations Committee, “Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Funding Bill,”
press release, July 7, 2020, at https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releasesfiscal-year-2021-defense-funding-bill.
76 Statement of Administration Policy, pp. 2-3.
77 For more information, see CRS Report R46714, FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act: Context and Selected
Issues for Congress, by Pat Towell, p. 10.
78 White House, “Presidential Veto Message to the House of Representatives for H.R. 6395,” statement, December 23,
2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-veto-message-house-representatives-h-r6395/.
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
voted to override the veto by margins larger than the two-thirds majority required by the
Constitution.79
Confederate Names and Military Installations
For background and analysis, see CRS Insight IN10756, Confederate Names and Military Installations, by Barbara
Salazar Torreon, CRS Report R44959, Confederate Symbols: Relation to Federal Lands and Programs, coordinated by
Laura B. Comay, and CRS Report R46714, FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act: Context and Selected Issues for
Congress, by Pat Towell.
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs)
In 2001, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF; P.L. 107-40). The
legislation authorized the President to use military force against “those nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks. In 2002, several months before the United States invaded Iraq to oust the
Saddam Hussein regime, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (P.L. 107-243). The legislation authorized the President to use the armed
forces to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq.”
Section 9027 of the House-passed bill would have repealed P.L. 107-40 240 days after enactment
of the legislation. Section 9028 of the House-passed bill would have repealed P.L. 107-243 upon
enactment of the legislation.80 Representative Barbara Lee, who introduced amendments to repeal
the AUMFs, argued in part that “the 2001 AUMF has been cited at least 41 times in 19 countries
to wage war with little or no congressional oversight” and that leaving the 2002 AUMF
authorizing force against Iraq “on the books indefinitely creates a danger that Presidents will use
it to justify military action that Congress never intended to authorize.”81
The Trump Administration objected to the House provisions, arguing in part that “repealing the
AUMFs would risk the military’s ability to pursue and defeat terrorists who seek to harm the
United States and our interests at home and abroad and would also cast doubt on the continued
authority of the United States to use force against terrorist groups, including its detention
authority.”82
The Senate Appropriations Committee-drafted bill and the enacted legislation did not include
comparable provisions.
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force
For background and analysis on AUMFs, see CRS Report R43983, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Issues
Concerning Its Continued Application, by Matthew C. Weed and CRS Report R43760, A New Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current Proposals, by Matthew C. Weed.
79 For more information, see CRS Report R46714, FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act: Context and Selected
Issues for Congress, by Pat Towell.
80 H.R. 7617, p. 175.
81 Representative Barbara Lee, “Congresswoman Barbara Lee Amendments to Stop Endless Wars Adopted by House
Appropriations Committee,” press release, July 14, 2020, at https://lee.house.gov/news/press-releases/congresswomanbarbara-lee-amendments-to-stop-endless-wars-adopted-by-house-appropriations-committee.
82 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF)
For FY2021, DOD requested $4.02 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF),
which pays for training, equipping, and sustaining the Afghan military and national police.83
The House-passed bill would have provided $3.05 billion in OCO funding for the Fund—$968
million less than requested.84 The House Appropriations Committee noted the Fund’s “significant
unobligated balances from prior year appropriations” and “the considerable uncertainty associated
with the conflict, including the current level of violence and with respect to intra-Afghan
negotiations.”85
The Trump Administration objected to the House provision, arguing in part that such a level of
funding would “pose significant risk to DOD’s mission given uncertainties associated with the
Afghanistan peace process and continued high levels of violence by the Taliban against the
Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) and the Government of Afghanistan.”86
The Senate Appropriations Committee would have included $3.39 billion in OCO funding for the
ASFF—$624.6 million less than requested “for unjustified increases over fiscal year 2020.”87 The
panel also noted its concerns “that the budget flexibility allowed within the ASFF appropriation
has led to a lack of budget discipline that challenges effective congressional and executive branch
oversight and risks wasteful spending.”
The enacted version of the legislation provided $3.05 billion in OCO funding for the ASFF. The
conference agreement did not include funding for major capital projects and upgrades or the
procurement of new systems.88
Afghanistan
For background and analysis on the Afghanistan, see CRS Report R45122, Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy: In
Brief, by Clayton Thomas and CRS Report R46670, U.S. Military Drawdown in Afghanistan: Frequently Asked Questions,
coordinated by Clayton Thomas.
Iran
On January 3, 2020, U.S. military forces killed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds
Force (IRGC-QF) Commander Major General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike in Baghdad.89
In retaliation, on January 8, 2020, Iran launched a ballistic missile strike at two Iraqi bases—Ayn
83 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer,
Justification for FY 2021 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, February 2020,
p. 5.
84 H.R. 7617, p. 143.
85 H.Rept. 116-453, pp. 376-377.
86 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 5.
87 Explanatory statement accompanying the Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2021, pp. 269-270.
88 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 732, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
89 DOD, “Statement by the Department of Defense,” press release, January 2, 2020, at
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/.
Congressional Research Service
21
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
al-Asad in western Iraq and an airbase near Irbil, in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq—resulting
in approximately 110 U.S. military personnel being diagnosed with various forms of traumatic
brain injury, mostly concussions from the blast.90
Section 9029 of the House-passed bill would have prohibited funds provided by the legislation for
any use of military force in or against Iran unless Congress declared war or enacted specific
statutory authorization for such use of military force that met the requirements of the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§1541 et seq.).91 Representative Barbara Lee, who introduced a previous
version of the provision as an amendment, argued that the language “makes it clear that the
President cannot go to war with Iran without authorization from Congress.”92
The Trump Administration objected to the House provision, arguing in part that it could
“endanger the President’s ability to defend United States forces and interests in the region against
ongoing threats from Iran and its proxies.”93
Neither the Senate Appropriations Committee draft legislation nor the enacted legislation
included the House provision. Section 9022 of the enacted legislation stated instead, “Nothing in
this Act may be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran.”94
Iran
For background and analysis on Iran, see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: Internal Politics and U.S. Policy and Options, by
Kenneth Katzman and CRS Report R44017, Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies, by Kenneth Katzman.
Military Personnel
End-Strength
For FY2021, DOD requested military personnel end-strength totaling 2.15 million personnel,
including 1.35 million active-duty personnel and 802,000 reserve component personnel. The
request represented 13,200 more personnel than the enacted FY2020 level, including 12,000 more
active-duty personnel and 1,200 more reserve component personnel.
The House-passed bill would have provided funding for the requested level of military endstrength.95
The Senate Appropriations Committee would have provided funding for 6,905 more personnel
than the FY2020 level, including 5,705 more active-duty personnel and 1,200 more reservecomponent personnel.96
90 CRS Report R45795, U.S.-Iran Conflict and Implications for U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman, Kathleen J. McInnis,
and Clayton Thomas, pp. 10-11.
91 H.R. 7617, pp. 175-176. Note the section was numbered 9030 in the House committee-reported version of the bill
and numbered 9029 in the House-passed version of the bill.
92 Representative Barbara Lee, “Congresswoman Barbara Lee Amendments to Stop Endless Wars Adopted by House
Appropriations Committee,” press release, July 14, 2020, at https://lee.house.gov/news/press-releases/congresswomanbarbara-lee-amendments-to-stop-endless-wars-adopted-by-house-appropriations-committee.
93 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 3.
94 P.L. 116-260, p. 169.
95 House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617, p. 20,
https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt453/CRPT-116hrpt453.pdf.
96 Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
The enacted legislation provided funding for 10,300 more personnel than the FY2020 level,
including 9,100 more active-duty personnel and 1,200 more reserve-component personnel (see
Table 5).97
Table 5. Summary of Military Personnel End-Strength, FY2021
Component
FY2020
Actual
FY2021
Request
Housepassed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
Change
from
FY2020 to
FY2021
Army
480,000
485,900
485,900
485,000
485,900
5,900
Navy
340,500
347,800
347,800
346,730
347,800
7,300
Marine Corps
186,200
184,100
184,100
180,000
181,200
-5,000
Air Force
332,800
333,700
333,700
333,475
333,700
900
Subtotal,
Active-Duty
Forces
1,339,500
1,351,500
1,351,500
1,345,205
1,348,600
9,100
Army
Reserve
189,500
189,800
189,800
189,800
189,800
300
Navy Reserve
59,000
58,800
58,800
58,800
58,800
-200
Marine Corps
Reserve
38,500
38,500
38,500
38,500
38,500
0
Air Force
Reserve
70,100
70,300
70,300
70,300
70,300
200
Army
National
Guard
336,000
336,500
336,500
336,500
336,500
500
Air National
Guard
107,700
108,100
108,100
108,100
108,100
400
Subtotal,
Selected
Reserve
800,800
802,000
802,000
802,000
802,000
1,200
2,140,300
2,153,500
2,153,500
2,147,205
2,150,600
10,300
Total
Source: House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617, p. 20; CRS
analysis of H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft
of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020, pp. 14-15; U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative
Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021,
43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 399, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020, pp. 14-15,
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DEFRept.pdf.
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 399, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Pay Raise
Title 37, Section 1009, of the United States Code (37 U.S.C. §1009) provides a permanent
formula for an automatic annual increase in basic pay that is indexed to the annual increase in the
Employment Cost Index (ECI), a survey prepared by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for “wages and salaries” of private industry workers. The FY2021 budget request
proposed a 3% increase in basic pay for military personnel in line with the formula in current law.
The House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee would have provided funding
for the requested increase in military pay.98
The enacted legislation provided funding for a 3% military pay raise that took effect January 1,
2021.99
Childcare Program
For FY2021, DOD requested approximately $1.2 billion across the military services for its
childcare program—$14 million (1.2%) more than the FY2020 enacted level.100 The largest
employer-sponsored childcare program in the United States, the child development program
serves approximately 200,000 children of uniformed service members and DOD civilians and
employs more than 23,000 employees.101 Despite the overall funding increase sought for the
program, the FY2021 budget requested less funding for Army and Marine Corps childcare
activities.
The House-passed bill would have provided $90 million in unrequested funding to the base
operation support sub-activity group within the Operation and Maintenance, Army appropriation
account and $26 million to the same sub-activity group within the Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps account for childcare programs.102 Noting in part the proposed reductions to such
programs, the House Appropriations Committee said it was “dismayed by the contradiction of the
Department rhetorically supporting military families while continuing to reduce funding for the
very programs on which they rely. Within the immense budget of the Department, quality of life
programs must not be the bill payers for modernization.”103
The Senate Appropriations Committee supported the Trump Administration’s request for the
DOD childcare program.
The enacted legislation included the House’s provisions to provide more funding than requested
for childcare programs.
98 House Appropriations Committee, “H.R. 7617 Division-by-Division Summary,” press release, p. 2,
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/HR-7617_division-bydivision_summary_v3.pdf; and Senate Appropriations Committee, “Defense, 2021 Highlights,” press release, p. 1,
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY21%20BILL%20HIGHLIGHTS_DEFENSE.pdf.
99 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law
116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st
sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 399, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
100 For more information, see CRS Report R45288, Military Child Development Program: Background and Issues, by
Kristy N. Kamarck, pp. 8-9.
101 Ibid, summary.
102 H.Rept. 116-453, pp. 75, 88.
103 Ibid, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Military Personnel Issues
For background and analysis on military personnel issues, see CRS Report R46107, FY2020 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, coordinated by Bryce H. P. Mendez, CRS In Focus IF10260,
Defense Primer: Military Pay Raise, by Lawrence Kapp, and CRS Report R45288, Military Child Development Program:
Background and Issues, by Kristy N. Kamarck.
Selected Acquisition Matters
This section of the report discusses certain acquisition matters that generated interest or debate
among Members or objections from the Trump Administration. These matters include but are not
limited to the funding request for software and digital pilot programs, congressional proposals to
reduce funding for nuclear modernization and sustainment programs, development of a sixthgeneration fighter aircraft and supporting systems, and other acquisition efforts; and the Trump
Administration’s proposal to decommission certain Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs).
Software and Digital Technology Pilot Programs
Some observers have called for the creation of new appropriation accounts or structures to
provide DOD with greater acquisition and budgetary flexibility. For example, in a 2019 report,
the Defense Innovation Board, an independent advisory board, noted that DOD relies on an
acquisition process primarily designed for hardware rather than software, and recommended the
creation of a new multi-year appropriation for digital technology.104 This resulted in DOD
requesting for FY2021 a new Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget
activity (e.g., Budget Activity 6.8) for “Software and Digital Technology Pilot Programs.”
Section 8131 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division C of P.L. 116260) provided $664 million for eight Software and Digital Technology Pilot Programs funded in
Budget Activity 6.8.105 According to the legislation, the funding can “be used for expenses for the
agile research, development, test and evaluation, procurement, production, modification, and
operation and maintenance” of software and digital technologies. At the same time, the
accompanying explanatory statement noted that
objective quantitative and qualitative evidence is needed to evaluate potential expansion of
the approved pilot programs. Further, seeking additional flexibility in the execution of
appropriations should not be a solution to internal accounting and guidance issues that
challenge the Department’s ability to execute these programs.106
The statement encouraged the Secretary of Defense to execute the pilots in FY2021 and FY2022
“while performing a detailed analysis of the Department’s accounting and financial management
process for such pilot programs as compared to existing software and digital technology
programs.” It also directed the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense
104 Department of Defense, Defense Innovation Board, SWAP [Software Acquisitions and Practices] Reports 2019,
Appropriations Subgroup Report, January 15, 2019, at https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/16/2002080473/-1/1/0/DIB_APPROPRIATIONS_SUBGROUP_REPORT_2019.01.15.PDF.
105 P.L. 116-260, p. 154.
106 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public
Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 602, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
committees detailing the department’s assessment plan for each pilot and quarterly reports on the
status of each pilot.
Mid-Tier Acquisition and Rapid Prototyping Programs
The FY2021 President’s budget request included RDT&E funding for multiple acquisition
programs grouped together as “Rapid Prototyping Program.” These efforts use so-called middle
tier of acquisition (MTA) authority for rapid prototyping and fielding, also known as Section 804
Authority. MTA is split into two functions:
1. Prototyping, which is intended to use emerging technology to develop and field
prototypes that demonstrate new capabilities or meet emerging military needs;
and
2. Fielding, which is intended to use proven technology with minimal development
to deploy new systems or upgrade existing systems.
Programs initiated under either approach must be completed or transitioned to a program of
record within five years.
DOD’s Rapid Prototyping Program is intended in part to develop prototypes that reduce technical
and integration risk for major acquisition programs in high-priority technologies, including
autonomous systems, hypersonics; networked command, control, and communications; electronic
warfare; sensors for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); and fire control.107 For
FY2021, DOD requested $102 million for the program in the Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-wide account.
The House-passed bill would have provided $80 million for the program—$22 million less than
the Administration requested due to an unspecified “program decrease.”108
The Trump Administration objected to the House provision, arguing that it would “severely
impact” prototyping projects underway with allies and partners for precision long-range strike
and targeting systems; networked command and control, and communications; and autonomous
air dominance systems.109 The Trump Administration also cited the impact to efforts in the IndoPacific region: “This reduction would stop an ongoing United States and Australia air dominance
capability that combines artificial intelligence-generated tactics and machine-precision execution
with a production-ready attritable [expendable] aircraft, and would delay the initiation of
additional modernization capabilities.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee included $82 million for the program—$20 million less
than requested.110
The enacted legislation provided $92 million for the program—$10 million less than requested
due to an unspecified “program decrease.”111 While House and Senate conferees signaled support
107 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates, February 2020, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Defense-Wide Justification Book Volume 3 of 5, p. 345.
108 H.Rept. 116-453, p. 314.
109 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 3.
110 Explanatory statement accompanying the Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2021, p. 218.
111 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public
Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 688, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
for accelerating the delivery of capability to military personnel, they also “noted that under
current law, several reporting requirements that apply to traditional acquisition programs, to
include independent cost estimates and test and evaluation master plans, are not required for midtier acquisition and rapid prototyping programs.” They raised concerns that such information is
not being provided “as a matter of practice,” that such authorities may limit the military services’
long-term ability to manage acquisition programs; and that budgeting such items with research
and development funding rather than procurement funding “obfuscates costs and limits
transparency and visibility.” Conferees directed the Under Secretaries of Defense (Research and
Engineering) and (Acquisition and Sustainment) and the service acquisition executives to provide
the congressional defense committees with the FY2022 President’s budget request a list of
acquisition programs utilizing prototyping or accelerated acquisition authorities, the rationale for
each acquisition strategy, and a cost estimate and contracting strategy for each program, among
other reporting requirements.112
Defense Acquisition
For background and analysis on recent defense acquisition reform efforts, see CRS Report R45068, Acquisition
Reform in the FY2016-FY2018 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs), by Heidi M. Peters.
Strategic Nuclear Forces
For FY2021, DOD requested $17.7 billion for FY2021 to continue modernizing the nuclear triad
of submarines armed with submarine-launched ballistic missiles, land-based intercontinental
ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers carrying gravity bombs and air-launched cruise
missiles.113 The Trump Administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reiterated the findings of
previous reviews “that the nuclear triad—supported by North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) dual-capable aircraft and a robust nuclear command, control, and communications
system—is the most cost-effective and strategically sound means of ensuring nuclear
deterrence.”114
The House-passed bill would have provided less funding than requested for several of these
programs, including the bomber-launched Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile to replace the
AGM-86 cruise missile and the Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) ballistic missile to
replace the Minuteman III missile. In addition, Section 8133 of the bill would have prohibited the
use of DOD funds to prepare to conduct any explosive nuclear weapons test that produces any
yield.115 Administration officials had reportedly discussed possibly conducting an explosive
nuclear weapons test.116 The House-passed bill also included a provision related to a debate over
whether the Department of Energy had to accept binding funding recommendations from the
112
Ibid, p. 603.
113 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February
2020, Defense Budget Overview, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Revised May
13, 2020, p. 1-7.
114 Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, p. 2, at
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINALREPORT.PDF.
115 H.R. 7617, p. 132.
116 John Hudson and Paul Sonne, “Trump administration discussed conducting first U.S. nuclear test in decades,” The
Washington Post, May 22, 2020, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-administrationdiscussed-conducting-first-us-nuclear-test-in-decades/2020/05/22/a805c904-9c5b-11ea-b60c-3be060a4f8e1_story.html.
Congressional Research Service
27
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC), which is comprised mostly of DOD officials.117 Section 8138
of the bill would have prohibited using DOD funds “to provide guidance on, review, prepare,
approve, or recommend budget request funding levels or initiatives for the Department of
Energy.”118
The Trump Administration objected to the House provisions, arguing that such funding levels
“would not reflect the urgency of nuclear modernization” and that “any delay in funding for
replacement systems would adversely impact the nuclear triad and the deterrence mission.” It
argued that Section 8133 would have impacted DOD’s ability to provide input to DOE’s National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) on the requirement to conduct an underground nuclear
test if a technical need arose or if otherwise directed by the President. It also argued that Section
8138 would have prevented DOD from coordinating the NNSA budget within the NWC.119 The
council is responsible for establishing priorities between DOD and DOE for managing the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile.120
The Senate Appropriations Committee and the enacted legislation did not include the House
provisions. Section 1632 of the enacted FY2021 NDAA dealt with a similar issue and gave DOD
more input over the scope of future NNSA budgets to develop and manufacture nuclear
warheads.121 The committee differed from the House-passed bill in part by recommending more
funding than requested for the Columbia-class submarine.
The enacted legislation included more funding than the Trump Administration requested for the
Columbia-class submarine, and less funding than requested for LRSO, GBSD, bomber upgrades,
and Trident II (D-5) missile modifications (see Table 6).
Strategic Nuclear Forces
For background and analysis on strategic and nonstrategic nuclear forces, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic
Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf and CRS Report RL32572, Nonstrategic
Nuclear Weapons, by Amy F. Woolf.
Table 6. Selected Long-Range, Nuclear-Armed Weapons Systems
(in millions of dollars)
Program
(relevant CRS
report)
Appropriation
Type
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
B-21 Bomber
(R44463)
RDT&E
2,848.4
2,828.4
2,848.4
2,848.4
Bomber
Upgrades
(R43049)
Proc.
111.1
85.2
79.9
79.9
RDT&E
723.2
723.2
722.2
680.8
117 Colin Demarest, “Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette fights to retain NNSA budget reins,” Aiken Standard, July 3,
2020, at https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/energy-secretary-dan-brouillette-fights-to-retain-nnsabudget-reins/article_048a51ef-e73e-5d7e-bac5-4756e9b9ba4f.html.
118 H.R. 7617, p. 134.
119 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 2.
120 See 10 U.S.C. §179 and Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear
Matters, Nuclear Matters Handbook 2016, Washington, DC, Appendix A, at
https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/NMHB/chapters/Appendix_A.htm.
121 For more information, see CRS Report R46714, FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act: Context and Selected
Issues for Congress, by Pat Towell, p. 21.
Congressional Research Service
28
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Program
(relevant CRS
report)
Appropriation
Type
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
Columbia-Class
Ballistic Missile
Submarine
(R41129)
Proc.
4,014.7
3,985.4
4,144.7
4,122.2
RDT&E
397.3
386.8
397.3
397.3
Ground-Based
Strategic
Deterrent
(RL33640)
RDT&E
1,524.8
1,464.8
1,509.8
1,449.8
Long-Range
Standoff
Weapon
(RL33640)
RDT&E
474.4
304.4
444.4
385.4
Trident II (D-5)
Missile Mods
(RL33640)
Proc.
1,173.8
1,132.2
1,173.8
1,160.9
RDT&E
173.1
129.3
115.0
128.0
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: Proc. is procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items
corresponding to each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
Long-Range, Precision Strike Weapons
For FY2021, DOD requested funding for a number of precision-strike weapons with ranges from
approximately a few hundred nautical miles to more than 1,000 nautical miles. These types of
weapons include existing technologies such as ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, as well as
emerging technologies such as hypersonic weapons (i.e., maneuvering glide vehicles or missiles
that fly at speeds of at least Mach 5) and long-range artillery cannons. The Trump Administration
had identified such weapons as priorities partly in response to China and Russia’s development of
increasingly advanced air defense systems.
According to DOD, the FY2021 budget sought $3.2 billion for the development of hypersonic
weapons.122 In terms of funding, the biggest programs include the Navy’s Conventional Prompt
Strike,123 the Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, and the Air Force’s Air-Launched Rapid
Response Weapon.
The enacted legislation provided more funding than requested for the Army’s Long-Range
Hypersonic Weapon and less funding than requested for the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike
122 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February
2020, Defense Budget Overview, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Revised May
13, 2020, p. 1-8.
123 This effort is intended to produce a common glide vehicle for use by both the Navy and Army. For more
information, see Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs, Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) website,
accessed April 1, 2021, at https://www.ssp.navy.mil/six_lines_of_business/cps.html.
Congressional Research Service
29
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
program in part because conferees determined the number of missile round procurements to be
“excess to test requirements.”124 The legislation provide less funding than requested for certain
other long-range precision-attack weapons (see Table 7).
Long-Range Strike Programs
For background and analysis on long-range strike programs, see CRS Report R45811, Hypersonic Weapons:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Kelley M. Sayler; CRS Report R41464, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and
Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf; CRS Report R45996, Precision-Guided
Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress, by John R. Hoehn and Samuel D. Ryder; and CRS Report R46721,
U.S. Army Long-Range Precision Fires: Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
Table 7. Selected Long-Range Strike Weapons Systems
(in millions of dollars)
Program
(relevant CRS
report)
Appropriation
Type
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
Hypersonic Weapons
Air-Launched
Rapid Response
Weapon
(R45811)
RDT&E
381.9
381.9
336.9
386.9
Conventional
Prompt Strike
(R45811,
R41464)
RDT&E
1,008.4
973.4
624.7
767.6
Long-Range
Hypersonic
Weapon
(R45811)
RDT&E
801.4
811.4
861.4
861.4
Other Precision-Attack Weapons
Anti-Ship
Tomahawk
Cruise Missile
(R45996)
Proc.
39.1
35.5
0.0
17.8
RDT&E
125.2
125.2
125.2
125.2
Joint Air-toSurface Standoff
Missile (R45996)
Proc.
505.9
500.0
505.9
500.0
RDT&E
70.8
70.8
70.8
70.8
Land-Attack
Tomahawk
Cruise Missile
(R45996)
Proc.
277.7
247.9
195.5
224.7
Long-Range
Anti-Ship Missile
(R45996)
Proc.
188.6
134.1
188.6
153.9
RDT&E
35.8
46.8
46.8
46.8
Proc.
32.9
32.9
31.6
31.6
124 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public
Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 640, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
30
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Program
(relevant CRS
report)
Appropriation
Type
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
Naval Strike
Missile (R45996)
RDT&E
26.4
26.4
26.4
26.4
Precision-Strike
Missile (R45996)
Proc.
49.9
42.4
0.0
49.9
RDT&E
145.4
127.3
115.4
127.3
Strategic LongRange Cannon
(R46721)
RDT&E
65.1
65.1
65.1
65.1
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: Proc. is procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items
corresponding to each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
Missile Defense Programs
For FY2021, DOD requested $20.3 billion for activities related to missile defense, including $9.2
billion for the Missile Defense Agency, $7.9 billion for regional and strategic missile defense
programs, and $3.2 billion for activities intended to preemptively disrupt or defeat missile threats
(a concept sometimes referred to as “left of launch”).125
The request sought funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system intended to
defend U.S. territory against intercontinental ballistic missiles in part with a new interceptor
carrying a non-explosive warhead (called a “kill vehicle”).126 DOD canceled a program to
redesign the kill vehicle on the existing Ground-based Interceptor (GBI), which has a mixed track
record in testing, and proposed developing a new Next Generation Interceptor (NGI). 127 The
request also included funding for shorter-range missile defense programs, including the Navy’s
Aegis ballistic missile defense program and the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) program.128
125 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February 2020, Defense
Budget Overview, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Revised May 13, 2020, p. 49,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
.
126 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February 2020, Program
Acquisition Cost by Weapon System, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, p. 4-2,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Weapons.pdf.
127 Government Accountability Office, Missile Defense: Observations on Ground-based Midcourse Defense
Acquisition Challenges and Potential Contract Strategy Changes, GAO-21-135R, October 21, 2020, at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-135r.pdf.
128 Ibid, pp. 4-3, 4-4.
Congressional Research Service
31
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
The House-passed bill would have provided more funding than requested for development of the
homeland defense radar in Hawaii. It would have provided less funding than requested for
development of GBI and NGI, hypersonic missile attack detection, and other efforts.
The Trump Administration objected to the House-passed funding levels. It argued that funding
reductions to NGI “would limit DOD’s ability to effectively execute this critical program
following the contract award and would impose additional challenges on an already tight
development schedule,” that combined reductions to Aegis ballistic missile defense programs
would delay “critical ground and flight tests required to implement the Administration’s priority
of achieving layered homeland defense,” and that reductions to THAAD would “significantly
impact the development and demonstrations of enhanced interceptor components and alternate
booster options.”129
The Senate Appropriations Committee would have provided more funding than requested for
GMD and NGI, and less funding than requested for THAAD and Patriot.
The enacted legislation challenged certain elements of the Administration’s FY2021 budget
request for missile defense programs. Conferees raised concerns over the “apparent disconnect”
between strategic guidance documents and requested funding for Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
programs.130 They noted that recent high-priority programs—such as developing a space sensor to
track hypersonic threats and procuring a radar to defend Hawaii from ballistic missiles—were
“removed from MDA’s budget, or underwent significant funding reductions.”131 The legislation
provided more funding than requested for GMD, NGI, and the Hawaii radar. It provided less
funding than requested for the THAAD and Patriot programs (see Table 8).
Missile Defense Programs
For background and additional information on missile defense programs, see CRS In Focus IF11623, Hypersonic
Missile Defense: Issues for Congress, by Kelley M. Sayler and Stephen M. McCall and CRS In Focus IF10541, Defense
Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense, by Stephen M. McCall.
Table 8. Selected Missile Defense Programs
(in millions of dollars)
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
1,071.4
993.4
1,301.4
1,288.3
RDT&E
664.1
504.6
864.1
858.1
Hawaii radar
RDT&E
0.0
133.0
65.0
133.0
Guam defense
(land-based
Aegis)
RDT&E
56.6
56.6
56.6
56.6
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
Ground-Based
Midcourse
Defense
RDT&E
NextGeneration
Interceptor
FY2021
Request
FY2021
Enacted
129 Statement of Administration Policy, pp. 4-5.
130 Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division C of P.L. 116-
260), in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 166 (December 21, 2020), p. H7969.
131 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
32
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
762.8
858.3
760.5
856.0
RDT&E
985.8
910.7
952.8
948.8
Terminal (shortrange) defense
(THAAD and
Patriot)
Proc.
1,553.2
1,559.8
1,491.3
1,534.5
RDT&E
420.4
327.7
311.1
311.1
Israeli
cooperative
defense
programs
Proc.
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
RDT&E
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
Hypersonic
defense
RDT&E
206.8
192.8
272.6
272.6
Hypersonic
missile attack
detection
RDT&E
216.0
96.0
184.7
194.7
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
Aegis and Aegis
Ashore (other
than Guam;
RL33745)
Proc.
FY2021
Request
FY2021
Enacted
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: Proc. is procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items
corresponding to each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
Military Space Programs
For FY2021, DOD requested $19 billion for space-related activities, including funding to support
ongoing efforts to establish the Space Force within the Department of the Air Force as the sixth
branch of the armed forces.132 The budget requested funding for the development and
procurement of space-based systems in new appropriation accounts (e.g., Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Space Force and Procurement, Space Force).133
In terms of funding, the largest space-related acquisition programs include the Next-Generation
Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) missile-warning satellites designed to replace the existing
132 This amount is for Major Force Program-12, “National Security Space,” according to DOD, National Defense
Budget Estimates for FY 2021, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) April 2020, p. 105, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf.
133 DOD requested and Congress provided operation and maintenance (O&M) funding for the Space Force in the
Operation and Maintenance, Space Force appropriation account beginning in FY2020. The Air Force requested military
personnel (MILPERS) and military construction (MILCON) funding for the Space Force in FY2021 within the Military
Personnel, Air Force and Military Construction, Air Force, accounts, respectively. The Air Force plans to transfer
MILPERS funding to a Space Force appropriation “once an integrated Department of the Air Force pay system is fully
operational,” according to DOD, Department of the Air Force FY2021 Budget Overview, February 10, 2020, p. 7, at
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY21/SUPPORT_/FY21%20Budget%20Overview_1.pdf?ver=2020
-02-10-152806-743.
Congressional Research Service
33
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
constellation of Space-Based Infrared (SBIR) satellites; Global Positioning System III (GPS III)
satellites intended in part to provide more powerful military communications signals; and
National Security Space Launch (NSSL) that provides launch services and support activities for
medium- to heavy-class national security space satellites.
Both the House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee would have provided less
funding than requested for NSSL. The committee had expressed concern over agencies procuring
launches through direct commercial contracts or other agreements, arguing that “such price and
schedule optimization for individual programs, is likely to have suboptimal results for the
government as a whole.”134 The committee directed the Secretary of Defense and Director of
National Intelligence to use the existing Space Force contract for NSSL-class missions unless
they can certify “that an alternative launch procurement approach for a designated mission is in
the national security interest and best financial interest of the government.”135
The enacted legislation generally supported the requested level of funding for space-based
systems (see Table 9).
Military Space Programs
For background and analysis on military space programs, see CRS Report R46211, National Security Space Launch,
by Stephen M. McCall and CRS Report R43353, Threats to U.S. National Security Interests in Space: Orbital Debris
Mitigation and Removal, by Stephen M. McCall.
Table 9. Selected Military Space Programs
(in millions of dollars)
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
1,043.2
933.3
948.2
996.4
RDT&E
561.0
561.0
451.0
551.0
Global
Positioning
System III
Proc.
650.2
645.2
606.2
620.2
RDT&E
1,149.0
1,134.0
1,088.4
1,161.0
Infrared missile
attack detection
(SBIRS, OPIR)
Proc.
160.9
160.9
135.9
145.9
RDT&E
2,318.9
2,318.9
2,318.9
2,318.9
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
National
Security Space
Launch
(R46211)
Proc.
FY2021
Request
FY2021
Enacted
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: SBIRS is Space-Based Infrared Satellites; OPIR is Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) satellites; Proc. is
procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items corresponding to
each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
134 Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020, p. 150.
135 Ibid, p. 593.
Congressional Research Service
34
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Ground Combat Systems
For FY2021, DOD requested $13 billion for ground systems, including combat vehicles, artillery,
infantry support weapons, and other equipment.136
In terms of funding, some of the Army’s biggest ground programs included modernization of M-1
Abrams tanks and M-1126 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles, and procurement of Joint Light
Tactical Vehicles (JLTV) intended to replace a portion of the High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet. The Army also sought funding for defenses against aircraft,
short-range missiles, and other aerial threats. These systems include Stryker vehicles modified
with anti-aircraft weapons and designated as Maneuver—Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD), as well as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) of artillery missiles
that can be fired from truck-mounted launchers.
The House-passed bill would have provided more funding for Stryker modifications. It would
have provided less funding for Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) intended in part to
intercept unmanned aircraft systems and cruise missiles; the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle
(AMPV) designed to replace the M-113 armored personnel carrier family of vehicles; and
Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) intended to replace the M-2/M-3 Bradley fighting
vehicle; among other programs.
The Senate Appropriations Committee differed from the House-passed bill in part by
recommending less funding than requested for GMLRS.
The enacted legislation provided more funding than requested for Stryker modifications and
development of an M-SHORAD “directed energy,” or DE, variant of the vehicle equipped with a
laser intended to destroy unmanned aerial systems and artillery shells. It provided less funding
than requested for certain other systems (see Table 10).
Ground Combat Systems
For background and analysis on ground combat systems, see CRS Report R46216, The Army’s Modernization
Strategy: Congressional Oversight Considerations, by Andrew Feickert and Brendan W. McGarry, CRS Report R46463,
U.S. Army Short-Range Air Defense Force Structure and Selected Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Andrew Feickert, and CRS Report R45098, U.S. Army Weapons-Related Directed Energy (DE) Programs: Background
and Potential Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
Table 10. Selected Ground Combat Systems
(in millions of dollars)
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
Vehicles and Other Systems
Amphibious
Combat Vehicle
(IF11755)
Proc.
478.9
456.3
452.0
436.8
RDT&E
41.8
31.3
41.8
41.8
136 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February 2020, Program
Acquisition Cost by Weapon System, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request,
introduction, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Weapons.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
193.0
15.9
79.3
63.0
Proc.
493.1
430.8
460.7
277.3
M-1 Abrams
tank upgrades
(R44229)
Proc.
1,425.3
1,395.5
1,369.5
1,343.2
Mobile
Protected
Firepower
(R44968)
RDT&E
135.5
135.5
128.9
128.9
Optionally
Manned Fighting
Vehicle
(R45519)
RDT&E
327.7
229.5
123.9
183.9
Paladin selfpropelled
howitzer
Proc.
435.8
435.8
463.4
463.4
RDT&E
427.3
421.0
233.6
233.6
Stryker troop
carrier mods
(R44229)
Proc.
847.2
1,164.2
1,194.7
1,164.2
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
Armored MultiPurpose Vehicle
(IF11741)
Proc.
Bradley infantry
fighting vehicle
upgrades
(R44229)
FY2021
Request
FY2021
Enacted
Short-Range Missile and Anti-Aircraft Defenses
Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket
System
(GMLRS) and
mods
Proc.
1,383.8
1,388.8
1,323.8
1,324.7
RDT&E
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.6
Indirect Fire
Protection
Capability
Proc.
106.3
25.0
62.5
62.5
RDT&E
235.8
118.5
162.0
162.0
Iron Dome
Proc.
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
M-SHORAD
(IN10931)
Proc.
537.0
532.9
521.4
517.3
M-SHORAD
(DE)
RDT&E
246.5
256.5
246.5
256.5
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 765, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: Proc. is procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items
corresponding to each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
Congressional Research Service
36
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Navy Shipbuilding
For FY2021, DOD requested approximately $20 billion for the Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy appropriation account.137 According to DOD budget documentation, this figure includes
funding for eight battle force ships, including one Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine
(SSBN), one Virginia-class attack submarine (SSN), two DDG-51 destroyers, one FFG(X)
guided-missile frigate, one Landing Platform Dock (LPD)-17 Flight II, and two TATS towing,
salvage, and rescue ships.138 Congress procured the LPD ship (LPD-31) in 2020.139
The House-passed bill would have provided more funding than originally requested for a second
Virginia-class attack submarine. It would have provided less funding than requested for large- and
medium-sized unmanned surface vessels, among other vessels. Section 8129 of the House-passed
bill would have prohibited funds to design and develop certain ships unless such contracts
specified that all hull, mechanical, and electrical components were manufactured in the United
States. Section 8130 of the bill would have prohibited funds for decommissioning any Littoral
Combat Ships (LCSs).
The Trump Administration objected to the House provisions. It argued that Section 8129 would
have undermined “the Navy’s ability to ensure that United States ships are procured in a costeffective and timely manner by imposing restrictions on nearly all components for the covered
shipbuilding programs.” According to the Trump Administration, Section 8130 would have
prevented the decommissioning of the first four LCSs. It argued that the hulls of the ships “have
different configurations from those of the rest of the LCS fleet,” making their conversion into
“operational and deployable warships” cost prohibitive.140
The Senate Appropriations Committee would have provided funding for vessels not included in
the request: a Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) amphibious ship, with a flight deck designed for
operating helicopters and vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) fixed-wing aircraft; and
an Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ship, a commercial-based catamaran intended to quickly
transport personnel and cargo in theater. It would have provided less funding for certain other
vessels.
The enacted legislation provided $3.37 billion more than the $19.9 billion requested for the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation account.141 The increase arose in large part by
Congress’s decision to procure two Virginia-class attack submarines in FY2021 rather than one,
as originally requested by the Administration, and to provide funding for the unrequested EPF
and LHA ships (see Table 11).
The accompanying explanatory statement criticized the service’s budget justification materials for
incrementally funded shipbuilding programs (including LPD-31), under which the cost of a
137
DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February 2020, Defense
Budget Overview, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, Revised May 13, 2020, p. 916,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
.
138 Ibid.
139 For more information, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
140 Statement of Administration Policy, pp. 4-5.
141 For a detailed breakdown of this funding, see Table 6 in CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and
Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
37
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
weapon is divided into two or more annual portions.142 The reported stated, “The House and
Senate Appropriations Committees do not believe that future Navy budget requests can be
supported absent improved budget justification materials for incrementally funded shipbuilding
programs,” and directed the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller) to provide to the congressional defense committees templates for improved budget
justification materials and briefs for all shipbuilding programs. 143
The enacted legislation included modified versions of the House provisions. Section 8134 of the
act prohibited funds to design and develop elements of certain ships unless such contracts
specified “that all auxiliary equipment, including pumps and propulsion shafts are manufactured
in the United States.” Section 8135 of the enacted legislation prohibited the use of FY2021
appropriations for decommissioning the USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) or the USS Coronado (LCS
4).144
Navy Shipbuilding Plans
For background and analysis on Navy shipbuilding plans, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and
Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, CRS Testimony TE10057, Future Force
Structure Requirements for the United States Navy, by Ronald O'Rourke; CRS Report RL33153, China Naval
Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke; and
CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
Table 11. Selected Shipbuilding Programs
(in millions of dollars)
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
DDG-51-class
Aegis destroyer
(RL32109)
Proc.
Expeditionary
Fast Transport
(EPF)
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
3,069.6
2,960.5
3,414.6
3,379.1
Proc.
0.0
0.0
260.0
260.0
Ford-class
aircraft carrier
(RS20643)
Proc.
2,643.2
2,511.2
2,643.2
2,565.4
Guided-missile
frigate (FFG)
(R44972)
Proc.
1,053.1
1,053.1
1,053.1
1,053.1
142 For more information on this funding 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 CRS In Focus
IF10599, Defense Primer: Procurement, by Heidi M. Peters and Brendan W. McGarry.
143 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public
Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 548, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
144 Section 8135 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division C of P.L. 116-260), in the House,
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 166 (December 21, 2020), p. H7365.
Congressional Research Service
38
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
464.0
259.2
91.2
93.7
RDT&E
194.0
125.8
170.7
152.4
Landing
Helicopter
Assault (LHA)
(R43543)
Proc.
0.0
0.0
500.0
500.0
Landing
Platform Dock
(LPD) (R43543)
Proc.
1,155.8
1,155.8
1,125.8
1,155.8
Next
Generation
Logistics Ship
(NGLS)
(IF11674)
RDT&E
30.0
20.0
30.0
24.0
Nuclearpowered carrier
refueling and
modernization
(RS20643)
Proc.
1,895.8
1,895.8
1,548.5
1,548.5
Light
Amphibious
Warship (LAW)
(R46374)
RDT&E
30.0
20.0
30.0
24.0
Towing, salvage,
and rescue ship
(TATS)
Proc.
168.2
157.8
168.2
157.8
Virginia-class
attack
submarine
(RL32418)
Proc.
4,235.9
6,776.4
4,707.9
6,776.4
Program (CRS
Report)
Appropriation
Type
Large- and
Medium-Sized
Unmanned
Surface Vessels
(R45757)
RDT&E
Large
Unmanned
Undersea Vessel
(R45757)
FY2021
Request
FY2021
Enacted
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: Proc. is procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items
corresponding to each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
Congressional Research Service
39
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Military Aircraft Programs
For FY2021, DOD requested $56.9 billion for aircraft and related systems.145 These systems
include fighter and attack aircraft, bombers, cargo and tanker aircraft, specialized support aircraft,
and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAV/UAS). In terms of funding, the
biggest such program is the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter aircraft.
The House-passed bill would have provided more funding than requested for the F-35 aircraft,
CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter, and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter, among other
programs. It would have reduced by approximately half the Air Force’s request for $1.04 billion
in research and development funding for a sixth-generation fighter aircraft and supporting
systems, known as Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD). The House would have decreased
funding for the program to pay for costs associated with upgrading, or recapitalizing, existing
fighter aircraft.146
The Trump Administration objected to the House provision, arguing in part that such a move
“would severely impact the program’s ability to field NGAD capabilities needed in the 2030
timeframe to meet the growing challenges of peer adversaries.”147
The Senate Appropriations Committee differed from the House-passed bill in part by
recommending less funding than was requested for MQ-4 Triton/RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV and F22 fighter modifications.
In the largest departure from the request, the enacted legislation provided $1.6 billion more than
$9.6 billion requested (including for aircraft modifications) to procure 17 additional F-35 aircraft.
The increase in quantity included 12 F-35As for the Air Force and 5 F-35Cs for the Navy and
Marine Corps, for a total of 96 of the fifth-generation stealth aircraft.148 The Air Force and Navy
had requested the additional aircraft in their respective lists of “unfunded priorities,” a document
each of the armed services is required to submit to Congress.149 The accompanying explanatory
statement also included a reporting requirement related to Turkey’s removal from the F-35
program for buying Russia’s S-400 air defense system. The statement directed the head of the F35 program to submit a quarterly report to the congressional defense committees on the status of
contributions by Turkish suppliers in the F-35 supply chain until they are removed.150
The enacted version of the legislation also provided more funding than requested for CH-47 and
UH-60 helicopters. It provided less funding than requested for F-15 fighter aircraft (and
145 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, February 2020, Program
Acquisition Cost by Weapon System, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request, p. 1-1, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Weapons.pdf.
146 H.Rept. 116-453 p. 290.
147 Statement of Administration Policy, p. 4.
148 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public
Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 391, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
149 For copies of these lists, see “Services’, COCOMs’ FY-21 unfunded priorities lists,” Inside Defense, February 21,
2020, at https://insidedefense.com/document/services-cocoms-fy-21-unfunded-priorities-lists; for the statutory
requirement in United States Code, see 10 USC 222a.
150 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public
Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., March 2021, 43-750 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), p. 392, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT43749.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
modifications), KC-46A refueling tankers, F/A-18E/F fighter attack aircraft (and modifications),
NGAD, and MQ-9 Reaper UAV (see Table 12).
Fighter Programs
For background and more information on the F-35 and the Next Generation Air Dominance program, see CRS
Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, by Jeremiah Gertler and CRS In Focus IF11659, Air Force
Next-Generation Air Dominance Program: An Introduction, by Jeremiah Gertler.
Table 12. Selected Military Aircraft Programs
(in millions of dollars)
Program
(CRS Report)
Appropriation
Type
FY2021
Request
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
FY2021
Enacted
Fighters
F-15 and mods
(IF11521)
Proc.
1,784.6
1,757.0
1,529.3
1,571.1
RDT&E
629.3
619.3
629.3
619.3
F/A-18E/F, EA18G and mods
(RL30624)
Proc.
2,975.8
2,800.8
2,836.1
2,775.5
RDT&E
361.4
373.4
365.4
375.4
F-22 mods
(RL31673)
Proc.
393.8
393.8
350.3
363.5
RDT&E
665.0
665.0
607.0
665.0
F-35 and mods
(RL30563)
Proc.
9,683.6
11,114.5
10,858.5
11,348.8
RDT&E
931.9
940.6
675.9
841.2
NextGeneration Air
Dominance
(future fighter)
(IF11659)
RDT&E
1,044.1
537.6
974.1
904.1
Helicopters
AH-64
Proc.
961.5
961.5
961.5
961.5
CH-47
Proc.
179.1
371.2
298.1
368.1
Future vertical
lift, attack
reconnaissance
aircraft
(IF11367)
RDT&E
647.9
672.9
712.9
717.9
Improved
helicopter
engine
RDT&E
249.3
224.3
245.5
241.3
UH-60
Proc.
1,003.2
1,126.5
991.4
1,114.7
Tanker
KC-46A tanker
(RL34398,
IN11537)
Proc.
2,850.2
2,707.4
2,665.3
2,665.3
RDT&E
106.3
106.3
76.2
76.2
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
Congressional Research Service
41
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
House-Passed
Senate
committeedrafted
267.0
257.0
267.0
257.0
Proc.
204.0
276.4
119.9
257.9
RDT&E
361.2
361.2
273.2
340.6
Proc.
224.5
161.8
195.1
161.8
RDT&E
183.3
173.4
128.3
128.3
Program
(CRS Report)
Appropriation
Type
MQ-25
RDT&E
MQ-4/RQ-4
MQ-9 (R42136)
FY2021
Request
FY2021
Enacted
Source: CRS analysis of House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-453) to accompany H.R. 7617;
H.R. 7617 (Division A); Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations Committee draft of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021, November 10, 2020; U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133 / Public Law 116–260, [Legislative Text and
Explanatory Statement] Book 1 of 2, Divisions A-F, committee print, 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 2021, 43-750
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2021), at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT43749/pdf/CPRT117HPRT43749.pdf.
Notes: Proc. is procurement; RDT&E is research, development, test and evaluation. The line item or items
corresponding to each program are listed in Appendix B. Figures rounded to the nearest tenth.
Outlook
Among the longer-term issues raised by debate on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2021, were:
How might federal deficits constrain defense budget plans?
The projected increase in the federal deficit in 2020 associated with the economic disruption
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic raises questions about whether pressure to reduce the gap
between revenues and outlays will impact defense budget plans.
How might changes to the National Defense Strategy (NDS) affect defense
budget priorities?
The Trump Administration’s National Defense Strategy summary did not address certain issues,
such as pandemics or climate change, as national security threats. The Biden Administration may
seek to incorporate such elements or domestic economic priorities in its strategic guidance
documents, or to alter the great power construct as presently configured.
How might the expiration of discretionary spending caps affect funding for
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)?
The expiration of the Budget Control Act’s discretionary spending limits after FY2021 raises
questions for Congress about whether to continue authorizing and appropriating specially
designated funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)—and, if continued, whether to
increase, decrease, or maintain the current level of OCO funding.
Congressional Research Service
42
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
How might the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress balance shorter- and
longer-term defense budget priorities?
The annual DOD budget process provides an opportunity for DOD and Congress to make
tradeoffs among funding for operating and maintaining the force; paying for personnel; procuring
weapons, equipment, and services; researching and developing new technology; and carrying out
other activities. The National Defense Strategy Commission recommended that Congress balance
funding for DOD to emphasize readiness, capacity, and capability across the force.151 Others have
used the terms “force structure” for capacity and “modernization” or “investment” for capability.
Kathleen H. Hicks, the former director of the International Security Program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies who was nominated and confirmed to serve as Deputy
Defense Secretary in the Biden Administration, has previously described these elements as the
“iron triangle of painful trade-offs.”152 In 2017, Hicks wrote: “The geometry of the [iron triangle
of painful trade-offs] drives the DOD to maintain a reasonable balance among three factors:
preparing to be ready today (readiness), preparing to be ready tomorrow (investment), and sizing
the force (structure).”153
Should Congress increase DOD budgetary flexibility? If so, how?
The National Defense Strategy Commission made a series of recommendations regarding
congressional appropriations activity. The commission recommended that Congress consider
producing five-year defense budget agreements “to permit greater stability and flexibility for
DOD” and to authorize the department to “expend Operations and Maintenance funds from any
given fiscal year across that fiscal year and the subsequent one.”154 It also recommended
Congress enact on-time annual appropriations and fund whole-of-government efforts to address
the challenges posed by great power competition.
DOD may seek additional budgetary flexibility if defense budgets are projected to flatten or
decline in coming years. As previously discussed, following calls for the creation of new
appropriation accounts or structures, Congress in this act provided funding for several software
and digital technology pilot programs that can “be used for expenses for the agile research,
development, test and evaluation, procurement, production, modification, and operation and
maintenance” of software and digital technologies.
Congress also provides budgetary flexibility to DOD through transfer and reprogramming
authorities.155 A transfer involves shifting funds from one appropriation account to another, while
a reprogramming involves shifting funds within the same account. Members may consider how
changing DOD general and special transfer authority limits or reprogramming thresholds—either
by increasing or decreasing their dollar amounts or percentages—could affect Congress’s ability
to control DOD action through appropriations and DOD’s ability to respond to unanticipated
budgetary or national security conditions.
151 Edelman and Roughead, Providing for the Common Defense, p. 70.
152 Kathleen Hicks, Defense Strategy and the Iron Triangle of Painful Tradeoffs, Center for Strategic and International
Studies, June 21, 2017, at https://defense360.csis.org/defense-strategy-and-the-iron-triangle-of-painful-tradeoffs/.
153 Ibid.
154 Edelman and Roughead, Providing for the Common Defense, p. 46.
155 For more information see, CRS Report R46421, DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background,
Status, and Issues for Congress, by Brendan W. McGarry.
Congressional Research Service
43
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Hearings of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, Defense
Subcommittees, 2020
Table A-1. Hearings of the House Appropriations Committee Defense
Subcommittee (HAC-D), 2020
Date
Topic
February 6, 2020
U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM)a
February 27, 2020
U.S. European Command (EUCOM)a
February 27, 2020
World-Wide Threata
March 3, 2020
National Guard/Reserves
March 4, 2020
U.S. Navy/Marine Corps Budget Request for FY2021
March 4, 2020
U.S. Space Force Organizational Plan
March 5, 2020
Defense Health Program
March 10, 2020
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)a
March 10, 2020
U.S. Army Budget Request for FY2021
March 11, 2020
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)a
March 11, 2020
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)a
March 12, 2020
Member Day
Source: House Appropriations Committee, Hearing: Defense website, accessed November 19, 2020, at
https://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/defense-116th-congress/congress_hearing.
Notes: The subcommittee’s hearing schedule in 2020 was interrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
a. Hearing was closed to the public.
Table A-2. Hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee Defense
Subcommittee (SAC-D), 2020
Date
Topic
March 4, 2020
Review of the FY2021 Budget Request for the National Guard & Reserve
March 11, 2020
Review of the FY2021 Budget Request for the Navy and Marine Corps
Source: Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee hearings website, accessed November 19,
2020, at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/defense.
Notes: The subcommittee’s hearing schedule in 2020 was interrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Congressional Research Service
44
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Budget Data Sources for
Appropriations Tables
Table B-1. Budget Data Sources for Appropriations Tables
CRS Table
(Number)
CRS Program
Label
Appropriation
Account
Congressional
Line #
Congressional Line
Label
Selected LongRange, NuclearArmed
Weapons
Systems (Table
6)
B-21 Bomber
RDT&E, AF
46
Long Range Strike
Bomber
Upgrades
APAF
22
B-1
APAF
23
B-2A
APAF
24
B-1B
APAF
25
B-52
RDT&E, AF
172
B-52 Squadrons
RDT&E, AF
174
B-1B Squadrons
RDT&E, AF
175
B-2 Squadrons
SCN
1
Columbia Class Submarine
SCN
2
Columbia Class Submarine
(AP-CY)
RDT&E, N
52
SSBN New Design
RDT&E, N
47
Advanced Nuclear Power
Systems
Ground-Based
Strategic
Deterrent
(RL33640)
RDT&E, AF
57
Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent
Long-Range
Standoff
Weapon
(RL33640)
RDT&E, AF
97
Long Range Standoff
Weapon
Trident II (D-5)
Missile Mods
(RL33640)
WPN
1
Trident II Mods
Conventional
Prompt Strike
RDT&E, N
91
Precision Strike Weapons
Development Program
Long-Range
Hypersonic
Weapon
RDT&E, A
109
Hypersonics
Air-Launched
Rapid Response
Weapon
RDT&E, AF
49
Hypersonics Prototyping
Strategic LongRange Cannon
RDT&E, A
102
Technology Maturation
Initiatives
Precision-Strike
Missile
MIPA
4
Precision Strike Missile
RDT&E, A
219
Long-Range Precision Fires
Columbia-Class
Ballistic Missile
Submarine
Selected LongRange Strike
Weapons
Systems (Table
7)
Congressional Research Service
Proj.
ID
3219
3334
AY3
45
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
CRS Table
(Number)
CRS Program
Label
Appropriation
Account
Congressional
Line #
Congressional Line
Label
Proj.
ID
RDT&E, A
18
Land-Based Anti-Ship
Missile Technology
AE7
MPAF
4
Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile (JASSM)
MPAF
4
JASSM
RDT&E, AF
200
Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile (JASSM)
Land-Attack
Tomahawk
Cruise Missile
WPN
3
Tomahawk
Anti-Ship
Tomahawk
Cruise Missile
WPN
19
Tomahawk Mods
Mod
Item 3
RDT&E, N
211
Tomahawk and Tomahawk
Mission Planning Center
(TMPC)
4034
Long-Range
Anti-Ship Missile
MIPA
5
Long Range Anti-Ship
Missile (LRASMO)
WPN
17
LRASM
RDT&E, N
93
Offensive Anti-Surface
Warfare Weapons
Development
Naval Strike
Missile (shiplaunched)
WPN
18
LCS OTH missile
RDT&E, N
143
Ship self-defense
Ground-Based
Midcourse
Defense
RDT&E, DW
77
Ballistic Missile Defense
Midcourse Segment
RDT&E, DW
116
Ballistic Missile Defense
Midcourse Defense
Segment Test
NextGeneration
Interceptor
RDT&E, DW
111
Improved Homeland
Defense Interceptors
Hawaii radar
RDT&E, DW
105
Homeland defense radar
Hawaii
Guam defense
(land-based
Aegis)
RDT&E, DW
115
Land-Based SM–3 (LBSM3)
Aegis and Aegis
Ashore (other
than Guam)
PDW
34
Aegis BMD
PDW
35
Aegis BMD AP
PDW
37
SM-3 IIAS
PDW
40
Aegis Ashore Ph. III
PDW
42
Aegis BMD Hardware and
software
RDT&E, DW
82
Aegis BMD
Joint Air-toSurface Standoff
Missile
Selected Missile
Defense
Programs
(Table 8)
Congressional Research Service
OCO
2070
46
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
CRS Table
(Number)
CRS Program
Label
Appropriation
Account
Congressional
Line #
Congressional Line
Label
RDT&E, DW
113
Aegis BMD test
PDW
31
THAAD
MIPA
3
MSE Missile (Patriot)
MIPA
3
MSE Missile (Patriot)
MIPA
16
Patriot Mods
RDT&E, DW
76
BMD Terminal Defense
Segment
RDT&E, DW
112
BMD Terminal Defense
Segment Test
PDW
38
Israeli Programs
PDW
39
Short Range Ballistic
Missile Defense (SRBMD)
RDT&E, DW
88
Israeli Cooperative
Programs
Hypersonic
defense
RDT&E, DW
98
Hypersonic Defense
Hypersonic
missile attack
detection
RDT&E, DW
121
Space Technology
Development and
Prototyping
National
Security Space
Launch
PSF
13
National Security Space
Launch
RDT&E, SF
20
National Security Space
Launch
Global
Positioning
System III
PSF
6
GPS III Follow On
PSF
7
GPS III Space Segment
PSF
8
Global Positioning (Space)
RDT&E, SF
2
NAVSTAR Global
Positioning System (User
Equipment)
RDT&E, SF
12
GPS Follow On (GPS III)
RDT&E, SF
29
NAVSTAR Global
Positioning System (Space
and Control Segments)
RDT&E, SF
33
GPS III Space Segment
RDT&E, SF
37
GPS III Operational
Control segment
Infrared Missile
Attack
Detection
(SBIRS, OPIR)
PSF
11
SBIRS High (Space)
RDT&E, SF
19
Next generation OPIR
Amphibious
Combat Vehicle
PMC
2
Amphib. Combat Veh.
Fam.
Terminal (shortrange) defense
(THAAD and
Patriot)
Israeli
cooperative
defense
programs
Selected Military
Space Programs
(Table 9)
Selected
Ground
Congressional Research Service
Proj.
ID
OCO
47
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
CRS Table
(Number)
Combat
Systems (Table
10)
Selected
Shipbuilding
CRS Program
Label
Appropriation
Account
Congressional
Line #
Congressional Line
Label
RDT&E, N
163
MC Assault Veh. Syst.
Devel.
Armored MultiPurpose Vehicle
WTCV
2
Armored Multi-Purpose
Veh (AMPV)
Bradley infantry
fighting vehicle
upgrades
WTCV
5
Bradley program mods
Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket
System
(GMLRS) and
mods
MIPA
11
Guided MLRS rockets
MIPA
12
MLRS practice rockets
PMC
12
Guided MLRS Rocket
(GMLRS)
PMC
12
Guided MLRS Rocket
(GMLRS)
RDT&E, A
245
Guided Multiple-Launch
Rocket System (GMLRS)
MIPA
13
HIMARS
MIPA
22
MLRS mods
Indirect Fire
Protection
Capability
MIPA
5
IFPC
RDT&E, A
167
IFPC Inc. 2 -- Block 1
Iron Dome
PDW
41
Iron Dome
M-1 Abrams
tank upgrades
WTCV
13
M-1 Mods
WTCV
14
M-1 Upgrades
Mobile
Protected
Firepower
RDT&E, A
127
Armored Systems
Modernization (ASM)-Eng
Dev
M-SHORAD
MIPA
2
M-SHORAD procurement
MIPA
2
M-SHORAD
OCO
M-SHORAD
(DE)
RDT&E, A
169
Emerging Technology
Issues
F13
Optionally
Manned Fighting
Vehicle
RDT&E, A
176
Manned Ground Vehicle
Paladin selfpropelled
howitzer
WTCV
7
Paladin Integrated
Management
RDT&E, A
234
155 mm. SP Howitzer
Improv.
Stryker troop
carrier mods
WTCV
4
Stryker upgrades
DDG-51-class
Aegis destroyer
SCN
10
DDG-51
SCN
11
DDG-51 (AP-CY)
Congressional Research Service
Proj.
ID
OCO
48
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
CRS Table
(Number)
CRS Program
Label
Appropriation
Account
Congressional
Line #
Congressional Line
Label
Programs
(Table 11)
Expeditionary
Fast Transport
(EPF)
SCN
19
Expeditionary Fast
Transport
Ford-class
aircraft carrier
SCN
3
Carrier Replacement
Program (CVN 80)
SCN
4
Carrier Replacement
Program (CVN 81)
Guided-missile
frigate (FFG)
SCN
13
FFG-Frigate
Large- and
Medium-Sized
Unmanned
Surface Vessels
RDT&E, N
27
Large Unmanned Surface
Vehicles (LUSVs)
Large
Unmanned
Undersea Vessel
RDT&E, N
80
Large Unmanned Undersea
Vehicles
RDT&E, N
89
Advanced Undersea
Prototyping
Landing
Helicopter
Assault (LHA)
SCN
17
LHA Replacement
Landing
Platform Dock
(LPD)
SCN
14
LPD Flight II
Next
Generation
Logistics Ship
(NGLS)
RDT&E, N
45
Ship Concept Advanced
Design
Nuclearpowered carrier
refueling and
modernization
SCN
7
CVN Refueling Overhauls
SCN
8
CVN Refueling Overhauls
(AP-CY)
Light
Amphibious
Warship (LAW)
RDT&E, N
45
Ship Concept Advanced
Design
Towing, salvage,
and rescue ship
(TATS)
SCN
22
Towing, Salvage, and
Rescue Ship (ATS)
Virginia-class
attack
submarine
SCN
5
Virginia Class Submarine
SCN
6
Virginia Class Submarine
(AP-CY)
F-35 and mods
APN
3
Joint Strike Fighter CV
4
Joint Strike Fighter CV
(AP-CY)
Selected Military
Aircraft
Programs
(Table 12)
Congressional Research Service
Proj.
ID
4045
4044
49
FY2021 Defense Appropriations Act: Context and Selected Issues for Congress
CRS Table
(Number)
CRS Program
Label
Appropriation
Account
APAF
RDT&E, N
RDT&E, AF
F-15 and mods
APAF
RDT&E, AF
F/A-18E/F, EA18G and mods
APN
RDT&E, N
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.