Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional research reportJan 20, 2006
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
January 20, 2006
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL32924
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The House approved conference agreements on the FY2006 defense appropriations (H.R. 2863)
and defense authorization (H.R. 1815) bills on December 19, 2005. The Senate approved both
measures on December 21, though only after removing from the appropriations bill a provision to
allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On December 22, the House approved
an enrolling resolution that removed the ANWR provision, clearing the measure for the President.
The appropriations bill is also a vehicle for other measures, including reallocation of $29 billion
in Hurricane Katrina recovery funds, emergency funding of $3.8 billion for avian flu
preparedness, and an across-the-board spending cut of $8.5 billion. The President signed the
defense appropriations bill into law on December 30, 2005, P.L. 109-148, and he signed the
authorization on January 6, 2006, P.L. 109-163. Key issues resolved by the conference
agreements on the defense bills include:
• Amount of defense appropriations: The Senate cut $7 billion from the
Administration request, and the House trimmed $3 billion. The conference
agreement cuts $4.4 billion, and the across-the-board cut trims an additional $4.1
billion from DOD.
•
Prisoner abuse: The authorization and appropriations conference agreements
include Senate provisions regulating DOD interrogation of detainees and
prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
•
Tribunals for prisoners: The authorization and appropriations conference
agreements include amended Senate language that establishes military tribunals
to review the status of detainees and that permits limited appeals of findings to
federal courts.
•
Exit strategy in Iraq: The House rejected amendments to the authorization and
appropriations bills to establish an exit strategy. The Senate approved a measure
that requires quarterly reports on conditions for withdrawal and a schedule for
achieving such conditions but does not set a timetable. The authorization
conference includes an amended version of the Senate measure.
•
Women in combat: The conference agreement requires 30 days notice to
Congress of changes in current regulations.
•
Additional Iraq funding: The appropriations conference agreement provides $50
billion.
•
Army and Marine end-strength: The authorization conference adds 10,000 to
Army and 1,000 to Marine end-strength in FY2006.
•
Navy shipbuilding: The House authorization and appropriations bills restructured
Navy shipbuilding dramatically and terminated the DD(X) destroyer. The
conference agreements do not terminate the DD(X) and require that it be
produced at two shipyards.
•
Reserve health insurance: The Senate authorization allowed all reservists to
enroll in the TRICARE health insurance program. The conference agreement
limits it to those without private insurance.
•
New nuclear weapons: The conference agreement on the Energy and Water
appropriations bill eliminates Department of Energy funds for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Headlines: Highlights of Congressional Action............................................................................1
Brief Overview of Major Issues in the Defense Bills .............................................................1
Status of Legislation....................................................................................................................6
Key Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................ 10
Iraq Policy and Troop Withdrawals ..................................................................................... 12
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan ........................................................................................ 14
Should Ongoing War Costs be Funded in Regular or in Supplemental
Appropriations? ......................................................................................................... 14
Guns versus Butter—302(b) Allocations ............................................................................. 18
Military Personnel Pay and Benefits.................................................................................... 21
Increases in Active Duty End-Strength ................................................................................ 23
Navy Shipbuilding—A Budgetary “Ship Wreck”? ............................................................... 25
Retiring an Aircraft Carrier and Reducing the Carrier Force to 11........................................ 32
C-130J Aircraft Termination................................................................................................ 32
F/A-22 Fighter Termination................................................................................................. 34
Other Programs with Cost Increases and Schedule Delays ................................................... 34
Missile Defense .................................................................................................................. 47
Army Modularization.......................................................................................................... 50
Civilian Personnel Policy .................................................................................................... 51
Easing Environmental Regulations Affecting Military Facilities .......................................... 52
New Nuclear Weapons ........................................................................................................ 52
Women in Combat and Other “Social Issues” ...................................................................... 54
Base Closures ..................................................................................................................... 55
“Buy American” Requirements, Border Security, and Other Issues ...................................... 56
For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 56
CRS Defense Budget Products ............................................................................................ 56
CRS Defense Budget-Related Products ............................................................................... 57
Legislation ................................................................................................................................ 58
Concurrent Budget Resolution ............................................................................................ 58
Defense Authorization......................................................................................................... 58
Defense Appropriations....................................................................................................... 59
Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2006 Defense Authorization (H.R. 1815, S. 1042).......................................7
Table 2. Status of FY2006 Defense Appropriations (H.R. 2863) ..................................................7
Table 3. FY2006 House and Senate Defense Authorization Bills, Funding by Title ......................8
Table 4. FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations by Bill and Title ...................................8
Table 5. Other DOD Emergency Funding in FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill,
Division B ............................................................................................................................. 10
Table 6. Additional Funding for Overseas Operations ................................................................ 16
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 7. House and Senate Initial 302(b) Allocations ................................................................. 19
Table 8. House and Senate Action on Statutory Active Duty End-Strength Levels,
FY2004-FY2006.................................................................................................................... 25
Table 9. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Authorization.................................... 29
Table 10. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Appropriations ................................ 30
Table 11. C-130 Procurement Appropriations ............................................................................ 33
Table 12. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Authorization ................................... 37
Table 13. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Appropriations ................................. 39
Table 14. Emergency Appropriations for Weapons Procurement ................................................ 41
Table 15. Congressional Action on FY2006 Missile Defense Funding ....................................... 49
Table B-1. National Defense Budget Authority by Title, FY2005-FY2006, Administration
Projection .............................................................................................................................. 61
Table B-2. National Defense Budget Authority and Outlays, FY2000-FY2010,
Administration Projection ...................................................................................................... 62
Table B-3. Department of Defense Budget Authority by Title, FY2005-FY2011 ........................ 63
Table B-4. Major Program Adjustments in PBD-753 ................................................................. 64
Appendixes
Appendix A. What the Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills Cover........................... 60
Appendix B. Overview of the Administration Request............................................................... 61
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 65
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 66
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The President signed the FY2006 defense appropriations bill into law, P.L. 109-148, on December
30, 2005, and he signed the FY2006 defense authorization into law, P.L. 109-163, on January 6,
2006. On Sunday, December 18, House and Senate conferees filed agreements both on the
FY2006 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) and on the FY2006 defense authorization bill
(H.R. 1815). On December 19, the House approved the appropriations conference agreement by a
vote of 308-106 and the authorization conference agreement by a vote of 371-41. On December
21, the Senate approved the conference agreement on the defense authorization bill, and it
approved the appropriations conference agreement by 93-0, though only after removing from the
bill a provision to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate also
approved by a vote of 48-45 an enrolling resolution (S.Con.Res. 74) instructing the Clerk of the
House to enroll the bill without the ANWR provisions. The House approved the enrolling
resolution on December 22, clearing the bill for the President. The appropriations bill not only
provides funding for the Department of Defense, but it is also a vehicle for other measures,
including reallocation of $29 billion in Hurricane Katrina recovery funds, emergency funding of
$3.8 billion for avian flu preparedness, and an across-the-board spending cut of $8.5 billion.
Headlines: Highlights of Congressional Action
Brief Overview of Major Issues in the Defense Bills
Headline issues that have emerged in action on the defense bills, include
•
Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The conference agreement
on the appropriations bill included a provision to allow oil drilling in ANWR, a
measure that had been attached to the budget reconciliation bill but that was
rejected in the House. The provision allocated projected revenues to Alaska,
Katrina relief, and the LIHEAP energy program. Opponents of ANWR drilling
resisted the measure in the Senate, and, in a key test vote, on December 21, the
Senate refused to invoke cloture on the appropriations conference report by a
vote of 56-44 (with 60 votes required). The Senate then passed the appropriations
conference report, minus the ANWR provison, and approved, by a vote of 48-45,
an enrolling resolution to instruct the Clerk of the House to remove the ANWR
provision from the defense bill. The House approved the resolution on December
22, thus clearing the appropriations bill, without ANWR drilling, for the
President.
•
Other measures added to the defense appropriations bill: Along with ANWR
drilling, the defense appropriations bill became a vehicle for several pending
congressional measures, including a $29 billion reallocation of funds for Katrina
relief and reconstruction, a $3.8 billion measure for avian flu preparedness, and a
1% across-the-board cut in FY2006 appropriations totaling $8.5 billion. All of
these measures are included in the enacted bill.
•
Cuts in defense spending in the defense appropriations bill: The Housepassed defense appropriations bill trimmed $3 billion from the Administration
request, and the defense appropriations bill as passed by the Senate trimmed $7
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
billion, leaving those amounts available for non-defense appropriations. The cuts
did not include significant reductions in major weapons programs, but instead
came mainly from eliminating funds that the committees found unnecessary to
carry out requested programs in personnel and operating accounts. The largest
reductions in the military personnel accounts were for programs that were
underexecuted in FY2005. Congress has made similar cuts for the past couple of
years. In part, it appears, that expenses have been financed through supplemental
funds. The largest reductions in the operation and maintenance accounts were for
depot maintenance workloads that are not needed because equipment is being
used for the war and repair costs are being covered with supplemental
appropriations. So, though indirectly, large emergency supplemental funding has
offset regular defense appropriations, freeing up non-emergency funds for nondefense programs. The White House Statement of Administration Policy on the
Senate appropriations bill, issued on September 30, objected to the Senate
reduction and warned of a veto if the final appropriations bill “significantly
underfunds” defense “to avoid a reduction in non-security spending.” House and
Senate appropriators finally agreed to trim $4.4 billion from the request, and they
added $0.1 billion to the military construction bill. In a measure attached to the
defense appropriations bill, Congress also approved an across-the-board cut in all
appropriations, which trims an additional $4.1 billion from Department of
Defense funds. So, in all, Congress provided $8.4 billion less for DOD than the
Administration had requested (see Table 4).
•
Prisoner abuse: Treatment of detainees became a major issue in Senate
consideration of the defense authorization bill and subsequently of the defense
appropriations bill. On the authorization bill, in July Senator Levin proposed an
amendment to establish an independent commission on treatment of detainees.
Senator McCain proposed one amendment to prohibit cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment of persons in U.S. custody and another to establish for the
Defense Department uniform interrogation standards as authorized by the Army
field manual on intelligence interrogations. Senator Warner proposed an
alternative amendment to require the Secretary of Defense to establish uniform
standards for detention and interrogation. And Senators McCain and Graham
proposed an amendment to provide statutory authority for the Defense
Department to use military tribunals to determine the status of detainees. The
formal White House Statement of Administration Policy on the authorization bill
warned of a veto if the bill includes any measure that would establish a
commission on detainees or regulate “the detention, treatment or trial of
terrorists.”1 With action on the authorization bill delayed, Senator McCain
offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that combined two of his
authorization proposals. On October 5, by a vote of 90-9, the Senate approved an
amendment (1) to require the Defense Department to adhere to regulations in the
Army field manual on interrogations in questioning detainees under DOD control
or on DOD facilities and (2) to prohibit any federal agency from engaging in
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees. Subsequently, when the
Senate resumed consideration of the defense authorization, Senator McCain
1
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy, S.
1042—National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,” July 21, 2005, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/109-1/s1042sap-s.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
offered the same measure as an amendment and it was accepted by voice vote on
November 4. Later, Senator Graham withdrew his original proposal to provide
statutory authority for tribunals to review the status of prisoners at Guantanamo
and offered a revised amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish regulations for the tribunals, require that the senior civilian in charge of
tribunals be confirmed by the Senate, and allow only limited court appeals of
tribunal decisions. This led to an extensive debate about court oversight of the
tribunal. The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Bingaman to allow court
review of habeas corpus petitions. Senators Graham and Levin then agreed on,
and the Senate approved, a compromise version of the Graham amendment that
expanded the range of potential court appeals of tribunals decisions. The
conference agreements on the authorization and appropriations bills both include,
without change, the McCain amendments requiring DOD adherence to the Army
field manual on interrogations and prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment of detainees. Conferees added a new provision, modeled on the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, to ensure that U.S. government personnel
accused of illegal treatment of detainees may assert as a defense that they did not
know that practices were unlawful. Conferees also added a requirement that Iraqi
security personnel be instructed in interrogation techniques and receive translated
copies of the Army field manual. The conference agreements also include an
amended version of the Graham-Levin amendment establishing procedures for
tribunals.
•
Exit strategy for Iraq: On May 25, the full House rejected by a vote of 128-300
an amendment to the defense authorization bill by Representative Woolsey
expressing the sense of Congress that the President should develop a plan to
withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. In floor debate on the defense appropriations
bill, Representative Pelosi offered an amendment to require an Administration
report on measures of progress in Iraq that would permit a withdrawal—in effect,
an exit strategy. The Rules Committee did not agree to protect the proposal from
a point of order, however, and it was subsequently ruled out of order as
legislation on an appropriations bill. On July 20, the House approved by a vote of
291-137 an amendment to the foreign affairs authorization bill (H.R. 2601) by
Representative Ros-Lehtinen stating that calls for “an early withdrawal” from
Iraq are counterproductive and that it is U.S. policy to withdraw only “when it is
clear that United States national security and foreign policy goals relating to a
free and stable Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.” The Senate debated
U.S. Iraq policy extensively when it resumed action on the authorization bill in
November. On November 15, the Senate rejected a Levin amendment that would,
in effect, have required the Administration to establish a schedule that would tie
withdrawals of troops to progress in Iraq. But the Senate agreed to a very
modestly revised version of the Levin amendment without the final provision on
troop withdrawals. As agreed to, the amendment states that 2006 should be a
transition year in which Iraqi security forces take on increasing responsibility for
security and that this should lead to U.S. troop withdrawals, and it requires
Administration reports on a schedule for improved conditions in Iraq that would
permit the redeployment of U.S. forces. Two days later, on November 17,
Representative Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the defense appropriations
subcommittee, opened a new phase of the national debate about Iraq policy when
he called for redeploying U.S. military forces out of Iraq as soon as possible,
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
arguing that the U.S. presence was making the security situation worse. On
November 18, following a tumultuous debate, the House rejected by a vote of
403-6 a resolution (H.Res. 571) proposed by Representative Hunter calling for
immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The authorization conference
agreement includes a provision that makes minor changes in the Senate statement
of Iraq policy. The measure requires quarterly reports on progress in Iraq and
establishes a policy that 2006 should be a turning point in transferring
responsibility to Iraqi security forces. The conference provision removes a Senate
reference to a “schedule” for achieving specified measures of progress in Iraq
and substitutes a requirement for a “plan.” The appropriations conference report
also requires quarterly reports on progress in Iraq.
•
A “bridge fund” for Iraq and Afghanistan operations: The House-passed
authorization recommended $49.1 billion, the Senate authorization recommended
$50 billion, the House-passed appropriations provided $45.2 billion, and the
Senate-passed appropriations bill provided $50 billion for ongoing operations in
Iraq and elsewhere as a bridge until FY2006 supplemental appropriations can be
provided next year. Last year, Congress provided $25 billion. One issue in House
action on the authorization was whether to strengthen reporting requirements on
the use of the money, on equipment repair requirements, on troop levels, and on
the costs of operations in Iraq. The House agreed to a modified amendment that
requires reports on the allocation of funds, on equipment, and on military
construction projects. The appropriations conference agreement provides $50
billion as a bridge fund, including, $8 billion for weapons procurement. The
House had provided $2.9 billion and the Senate $8.6 billion for procurement.
•
Women in combat: As part of an en bloc amendment to the defense
authorization bill, the House approved a measure proposed by Armed Services
Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter that would require DOD to notify Congress
60 days in advance of implementing any changes in policy for assigning women
to operational ground units. The measure was a substitute for a provision in the
committee reported version of the bill that would have (1) codified into law the
Pentagon’s 1994 policy that prohibits assigning women to units that engage in
ground combat operations and (2) prohibited any changes in current assignments.
The full committee measure was, in turn, a substitute for a more restrictive
subcommittee measure that would have prohibited assigning women to some
support units, including units in which women currently serve, that might
accompany combat units into battle. The authorization conference agreement
reduces the requirement for advance notification to 30 days.
•
Army and Marine Corps end-strength: Both the House authorization and the
Senate Armed Services Committee added to statutory end-strength. The House
authorization added 10,000 in end-strength to the Army and 1,000 to the Marine
Corps in FY2006. The Senate authorization added 20,000 to Army end-strength.
These increases, which add to those Congress approved last year, would require
DOD to support more than the 30,000 extra troops it is now temporarily keeping
in the force. The Senate authorization is 43,000 troops above the baseline level
for the Army and Marine Corps. The Senate appropriations committee included
funds to support the added end strength in the Senate authorization. The
authorization conference report provides an increase of 10,000 in Army and
1,000 in Marine Corps end-strength in FY2006. The total authorized end-strength
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
in the Army is 512,400, which is 30,000 above the “baseline” level before the
Iraq war and which, therefore, is not at odds with current Administration policy.
In practice, end-strength has fallen short of the goal. The authorization
conference agreement also permits the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army
by an additional 20,000 troops and the Marine Corps by an additional 4,000
troops between FY2007 and FY2009, which suggests that end-strength may
again be an issue next year.
•
Navy shipbuilding: The House authorization bill restructured Navy shipbuilding
dramatically, adding funds for three additional ships and imposing cost caps on
current ships, including a cap on the DD(X) next generation destroyer program
that would be impossible for the Navy to meet, in effect terminating the program.
The House appropriations bill added funds for four ships and followed the House
authorization in trimming funds for the DD(X). The Senate authorization
prohibited a winner-take-all competition among shipyards for the DD(X),
requiring that the ship by built at two shipyards, and added advance procurement
funds for a second ship, but otherwise did not substantially alter the Navy
request. The Senate appropriations bill eliminated funds for a T-AKE cargo ship
but supported the DD(X) and other requested shipbuilding. On November 9,
Representative Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the defense appropriations
subcommittee, told reporters that the conference agreement would preserve
funding for the DD(X). 2 The appropriations conference agreement provides
requested funding for the DD(X), does not provide advance procurement funds
for a second ship in FY2007, provides one T-AKE cargo ship, as requested, and
adds funds for two additional Littoral Combat Ships, as in the House bill. The
authorization conference agreement establishes cost caps on specific ships and
requires the Navy to design a new, lower-cost submarine.
•
Cost growth in major weapons programs: The House authorization not only
imposed cost caps on Navy ships, but also trimmed and restructured funding for
the Army Future Combat System (FCS), cut funding for some satellite programs,
and revised acquisition laws to require a full analysis of alternatives any time
program cost growth exceeds 15%. The House appropriations bill made most of
the same weapons cuts. The Senate authorization bill did not cut the FCS and
made smaller cuts in satellite programs. The Senate appropriations committee
trimmed the FCS by 1/3 as much as the House, cut some satellite programs, and
reduced funding because of delays in other programs. The appropriations
conference agreement cuts the FCS by $236 million, about midway between the
House and Senate, cuts several satellite programs substantially, and reduces the
troubled Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) by $334 million. The authorization
conference agreement includes several amendments to defense acquisition laws,
including a measure to improve reporting on weapons cost growth, a requirement
for a report on all major programs with unit cost growth of 50% or more, and a
requirement for a report on the role of Lead Systems Integrators in developing
major weapons. The conference agreement on the authorization did not include
the House-passed measure that would require a full analysis of alternatives for
weapons that exceed 15% cost growth.
2
Peter Cohn and Megan Scully, “Pentagon Urges Quick Action On Defense Spending Bill,” National Journal
Congress Daily, November 9, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Missile defense testing: The House authorization added $100 million for
additional testing of the ground-based missile defense system that is now being
deployed, but the Armed Services Committee rejected, among other measures, a
proposal to shift oversight of missile defense testing from the Missile Defense
Agency to the DOD Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. No amendment to
strengthen testing was permitted by the House rule on the bill. The Senate
defense appropriations bill added $200 million for the ground-based system. The
appropriations conference agreement adds $150 million for testing.
•
Reserve personnel health benefits: The House Armed Services Committee
approved an amendment in markup to make DOD’s health program for military
dependents, known as TRICARE, available to non-deployed as well as deployed
reserve personnel. The provision was later stricken from the bill before it reached
the floor because its cost would have exceeded caps on mandatory spending. The
House narrowly rejected a motion to recommit the bill and restore the provision.
On July 21, the Senate approved a Graham-Clinton amendment to the
authorization bill to allow all non-deployed reservists to enroll in TRICARE. The
authorization conference agreement amends the Senate provision to open
TRICARE to non-deployed reservists who are receiving unemployment
compensation or who are not eligible for employer-provided health insurance,
with a premium of 50% of the value of the benefit.
•
New nuclear weapons: The House authorization eliminated funds for the
Department of Energy (DOE) to study the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP), as did the House-passed energy and water appropriations bill. The
Senate Armed Services Committee did not cut DOE RNEP funds. And in floor
action on the energy and water appropriations bill, the Senate rejected an
amendment proposed by Senator Feinstein to eliminate DOE funds for the RNEP.
The conference agreement on the energy and water bill eliminates RNEP
funding. On October 25, Senator Domenici released a statement saying that the
Administration supported the elimination of funds and wanted to focus on nonnuclear weapons for destroying deeply buried targets. Subsequently,
Administration officials have emphasized that the current policy is to test
projectiles that could penetrate hardened concrete. Some opponents of the RNEP
have complained that this leaves room for the nuclear program to be resurrected
in the future.3
Status of Legislation
On April 28, both the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement on the FY2006
congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95). The budget resolution recommends an overall
level of funding for national defense and allocates $843 billion to the appropriations committees
as the total amount available in discretionary funds for all regular FY2006 appropriations bills,
including defense.
3
See, for example, Jeffrey Lewis, “NNSA Denies Axeing (sic) RNEP,” November 15, 2005, at
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/.
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
On May 5, the House Appropriations Committee announced its initial allocation of funds to the
11 subcommittees under Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. The 302(b) allocations
trim defense appropriations by about $3 billion compared to the Administration request. On June
8, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its initial allocations, which cut $7 billion from
the defense appropriations request. Subsequent revised 302(b) allocations have not changed the
defense amounts in either chamber.
The House Armed Services Committee completed marking up its version of the FY2006 defense
authorization bill, H.R. 1815, on May 18. The House passed an amended version on May 25. The
House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2006 defense appropriations
bill (H.R. 2863) on May 24, and the House approved the bill on June 20. The Senate Armed
Services Committee completed marking up its version of the defense authorization bill, S. 1042,
on May 12, and the Senate began floor action on July 20, but the leadership suspended
consideration after a cloture vote failed on July 26. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill
on November 4 and approved it on November 15.
The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2006 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2863, as in the House) on September 26. And the full committee
completed its markup on September 28. The Senate approved the bill on October 6 after rejected
a proposal to add elements of the defense authorization bill as an amendment.
Conference agreements on the authorization and appropriations bills were filed on December 18
and approved in the House on December 19 and in the Senate on December 21. The Senate,
however, removed a provision from the defense appropriations bill to allow oil drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and passed an enrolling resolution instructing the Clerk of the
House to delete that measure. The House approved the enrolling resolution on December 22. The
President signed the defense appropriations bill into law on December 30, and he signed the
defense authorization into law on January 6.
Table 1. Status of FY2006 Defense Authorization (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)
Full Committee
Markup
House
Senate
5/18/05
5/12/05
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
H.Rept.
109-89
5/20/05
5/25/05
(390-39)
S.Rept.
109-69
5/17/05
11/15/05
(98-0)
H.Rept.
109-360
12/18/05
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
Public Law
12/19/05
(374-41)
12/21/05
(v.v.)
1/6/06
P.L. 109-163
Table 2. Status of FY2006 Defense Appropriations (H.R. 2863)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
5/24/05
Senate
9/26/05
Conference
Report Approval
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public Law
H.Rept.
109-119
6/10/05
6/20/05
(398-19)
S.Rept.
109-141
9/28/05
10/6/05
(97-0)
H.Rept.
109-359
12/18/05
12/19/05
(301106)
12/21/05
(93-0)
12/30/05
P.L. 109-148
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 3. FY2006 House and Senate Defense Authorization Bills, Funding by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Request
House
Passed
House
Versus
Request
Senate
Passed
Senate
Versus
Request
Conf.
Conf.
Versus
Request
Military Personnel
108.9
108.8
-0.1
109.2
+0.2
108.9
—
Operation & Maintenance
126.9
124.3
-2.6
126.4
-0.5
125.7
-1.2
Procurement
76.6
79.1
+2.5
78.2
+1.6
77.0
+0.3
RDT&E
69.4
69.5
+0.1
69.8
+0.5
70.2
+0.8
Military Construction
7.8
8.0
+0.2
8.1
+0.3
8.3
+0.5
Family Housing
4.2
4.2
—
4.1
-0.1
4.1
-0.2
MilCon/FamHsing Rescissions
—
—
—
-0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.3
Other Programs
22.3
22.2
-0.1
22.4
+0.1
22.4
+0.1
Revolving & Management
3.1
3.2
—
2.5
-0.6
3.1
—
Other DOD Discretionary
—
0.1
—
0.1
—
0.1
—
Mandatory Programs
1.8
1.8
—
3.7
+2.0
1.8
—
General Provisions
—
—
—
-1.3
-1.3
-0.1
-0.1
421.1
421.3
+0.2
423.2
+2.1
421.3
+0.2
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
17.5
17.0
-0.5
17.0
-0.5
17.0
-0.5
Other Defense-Related Activities
3.2
3.2
—
3.2
—
3.2
—
Total National Defense
441.8
441.6
-0.3
443.5
+1.6
441.5
-0.3
—
49.0
+49.0
50.0
+50.0
50.8
+50.8
Total Department of Defense
Emergency Authorization
Sources: H.Rept. 109-89; S.Rept. 109-69; H.Rept. 109-360.
Table 4. FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations by Bill and Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Request
House
House
Versus
Request
Senate
Senate
Versus
Request
Conf.
Conf.
Versus
Request
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2863
Military Personnel
98.2
97.4
-0.8
95.7
-2.6
97.0
-1.2
Operation and
Maintenance
126.9
124.1
-2.8
125.0
-1.9
123.6
-3.3
Procurement
76.6
76.8
+0.2
75.8
-0.8
76.5
-0.1
RDT&E
69.4
71.7
+2.3
70.4
+1.1
72.1
+2.8
Revolving and
Management Funds
3.1
2.8
-0.4
1.7
-1.4
2.2
-0.9
Other Defense Programs
22.3
22.5
+0.2
22.8
+0.5
22.7
+0.4
Related Agencies
0.6
0.6
+0.0
0.7
+0.1
0.7
+0.1
General Provisions
0.1
-1.6
-1.7
-1.9
-2.0
-2.2
-2.2
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Health Accrual
Scorekeeping*
Total Regular
Appropriations
1% Across-the-Board Cut
Total Regular
App. with ATB
Cut
Additional Appropriations
for War
Total with
Additional for
War
Request
House
House
Versus
Request
Senate
Senate
Versus
Request
Conf.
Conf.
Versus
Request
10.7
10.7
—
10.7
—
10.7
—
407.9
404.9
-3.0
400.9
-7.0
403.5
-4.4
—
—
—
—
—
-4.1
-4.1
407.9
—
—
—
—
399.4
-8.5
—
45.3
+45.3
51.3
+51.3
50.0
+50.0
407.9
450.2
+42.2
452.2
+44.3
449.4
+41.5
DOD Programs in Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2528
Military Construction
5.3
5.8
+0.5
5.9
+0.5
6.2
+0.9
NATO Security
Investment Program
0.2
0.2
-0.0
0.2
-0.0
0.2
-0.0
Family Housing
4.2
4.2
-0.0
4.1
-0.1
4.0
-0.2
Base Realignment and
Closure
2.3
1.9
-0.3
1.9
-0.4
1.8
-0.5
General Provision
0.1
0.1
0.0
—
-0.1
—
-0.1
Total Department
of Defense
12.1
12.3
+0.1
12.1
-0.0
12.2
+0.1
1% Across-the-Board Cut
—
—
—
—
—
-0.1
-0.1
Total with ATB
Cut
12.1
—
—
—
—
12.1
—
Grand Total for Department of Defense in Defense and Military Construction Appropriations
Total Regular
Appropriations
420.0
417.2
-2.8
413.0
-7.0
411.5
-8.5
Total Including
Additional for
War
420.0
462.5
+42.5
464.3
+44.3
461.5
+41.5
Sources: For defense appropriations bill—request and conference agreement by title from Congressional
Budget Office; House and Senate amounts by CRS from House- and Senate-passed bills. For military
construction/VA bill—from House Appropriations Committee table in Congressional Record, November 18, 2005.
House amounts show here include funding for military personnel and operation and maintenance titles originally
provided in the House Military Quality of Life/VA appropriations bill that were provided in the defense
appropriations bill in the conference agreement. This table shows only DOD amounts in the military
construction/VA bill and not amounts for the VA. Across-the-board cut totals by CRS.
Note: Accrual payments for military retiree health care benefits are permanent appropriations. Amounts are
generally not shown in House and Senate reports on the defense appropriations bill, but are scored by CBO as a
part of annual defense appropriations and count against discretionary spending totals and against 302(b)
subcommittee allocations. In prior years, these amounts were included in annual military personnel
appropriations.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 5. Other DOD Emergency Funding in FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill,
Division B
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
Request
Conference
554,535
554,535
Operation and Maintenance
1,952,218
1,953,318
Procurement
2,288,763
2,309,778
RDT&E
66,532
41,382
Revolving and Management Funds
7,224
7,224
Trust Funds: Commissary Sales Surcharge
44,341
44,341
Other DoD Programs
201,860
201,860
—
-737,089
Military Construction
973,184
918,263
Family Housing
495,073
460,073
6,583,730
5,753,685
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
10,000
10,000
Defense Health Program
120,000
120,000
130,000
130,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
-106,000
-80,000
RDT&E Army
-48,600
—
-154,600
-80,000
6,559,130
5,803,685
Hurricane Response and Repair
Military Personnel
General Reduction
Total Hurricane Response and Repair
Pandemic Flu Preparedness
Total Pandemic Flu Preparedness
Rescissions
Total Rescissions
Grand Total, Hurricanes, Flu, Rescissions
Source: H.Rept. 109-359.
Key Issues for Congress
A paramount issue in the FY2005 defense debate was whether Congress should provide funding
for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan before early in calendar year 2005, when the Bush
Administration said it planned to request supplemental appropriations. Ultimately, Congress
provided $25 billion for ongoing operations as a bridge until it could act on FY2005 supplemental
funding after the turn of the year. Subsequently, in May 2005, Congress approved an additional
$76 billion in supplemental appropriations to cover the remainder of FY2005.4
4
See CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and
Other Activities, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
With action barely completed on FY2005 funding, advance funding for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan again became an issue as Congress took up the FY2006 budget. In the FY2006
congressional budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, Congress specifically exempted $50 billion in
emergency spending for military contingency operations from a potential point of order in the
Senate. [Note: This did not, in fact, limit the amount Congress could provide for Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2006. While the budget resolution specifically set aside $50 billion, it also
exempted any amount for military contingency operations from spending limits in the House and
any amount for any defense purpose in the Senate. Under these provisions, Congress could have
provided more than $50 billion without triggering a point of order either in the House of in the
Senate—see below for a detailed discussion.]
As Congress considered the FY2006 authorization and appropriations bills, one issue was
whether to provide another bridge fund for operations in FY2006, and, if so, how much, or
whether, perhaps, to provide the full estimated costs. The appropriations conference agreement
ultimately provided $50 billion.
A number of other issues were also on the agenda in Congress this year, including,
•
Whether Congress should, while not directly setting a date for withdrawing from
Iraq, require the Administration to establish a strategy and measures of progress
that will lead to withdrawal;
•
Whether the appropriations committees should trim defense funding in order to
limit cuts in non-defense discretionary programs;
•
Whether Congress should provide additional military personnel benefits,
including (1) greater access to DOD-provided health insurance for non-deployed
military reservists and their dependents and (2) permanently increased death
gratuities and insurance;
•
Whether Congress should require a substantial increase in active duty endstrength, particularly in the Army, to ease pressures on the force caused by
operations abroad;
•
Whether Congress should increase funding for navy shipbuilding or should
approve advance appropriations or other novel funding mechanisms;
•
Whether Congress should accept or reject Administration plans to retire an
aircraft carrier and reduce the number of deployable carriers from 12 to 11;
•
Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination of C-130J cargo
aircraft procurement (a proposal the Administration subsequently withdrew);
•
Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination, after FY2008, of
F/A-22 fighter procurement;
•
How Congress should exercise oversight over a number of major weapons
programs in which cost have grown or development has been delayed, including
the Army Future Combat System, missile defense, the multi-service F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, and a number of space-launch and satellite systems;
•
Whether Congress should restructure priorities in the Administration’s missile
defense development program;
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
•
How Congress should oversee and finance Army plans for a far-reaching
reorganization of its combat forces to increase the number of deployable combat
brigades and to turn brigades, rather than divisions, into the major unit of action
in future operations;
•
Whether Congress should take steps to regulate the Defense Department’s
restructuring its civilian personnel system following Congress’s approval, in the
FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act, of the Pentagon’s request for broad
authority to reform civil service pay and performance rules;
•
Whether Congress should approve the Defense Department’s request for changes
in environmental laws and regulations governing military training in addition to
changes Congress approved in the FY2004 defense authorization;
•
Whether Congress should approve Department of Energy plans to study new
nuclear weapons, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and whether
Congress should establish guidelines for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program;
•
Whether Congress should require changes in DOD policies affecting a number of
“social issues,” including the deployment of women in combat support units,
abortions at military facilities abroad, and handling of sexual abuse cases;
•
Whether Congress should take any action to restrict military base closures, even
as the a formal base closure process was proceeding; and
•
Whether Congress should take any action on a number of other issues, including
treatment of military detainees, acquisition of tanker aircraft, and strengthening
of defense “Buy American” requirements.
The following discussion provides background information on each of these issues and discusses
congressional action to date.
Iraq Policy and Troop Withdrawals
In 2005, Congress began to debate measures aimed at establishing the conditions that would
ultimately permit a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Administration and supporters of its Iraq
policy insist that military operations in Iraq are making progress and that political conditions are
improving. But critics complain that it is difficult to see progress on key indicators of success,
including the number of attacks against U.S. soldiers or elements of the new Iraqi regime; the
number, quality, and reliability of trained Iraqi security forces; the overall level of security in
Iraq; and the state of Iraq’s economic infrastructure. No one in Congress so far has proposed a
measure would directly establish a date for withdrawal from Iraq. Administration supporters
argue that it would be a mistake to do so because it would allow regime opponents to plan for a
U.S. exit and might dishearten regime supporters. Some critics of the U.S. invasion nonetheless
oppose withdrawal on different grounds. Having destroyed the previous regime, some say, the
United States has an obligation to ensure that a post-occupation Iraq not descend into civil war.
But this year, for the first time, there have been efforts in congress to put pressure on the
Administration, first, to define measurable indicators of progress or deterioration and, second, to
define when progress might lead to U.S. troop withdrawals.
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional Action
On May 25, the House rejected by a vote of 128-300 an amendment to the defense authorization
bill by Representative Woolsey stating the sense of Congress that the President should develop a
plan as soon as practicable to provide for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq
and transmit the plan to Congress.
Later in debate on the defense appropriations bill on June 20, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi proposed an amendment requiring that the President submit a report to Congress “on a
strategy for success in Iraq that identifies criteria to be used by the Government of the United
States to determine when it is appropriate to begin the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces
from Iraq.” The amendment required the report to include criteria for assessing Iraqi security
forces and for achieving required capabilities; an estimate of the number of Iraqi forces required
to perform functions U.S. and allied forces now perform; the number of advisors needed to
support the Iraqi government; and measures of political stability in Iraq with milestones for
progress. The amendment did not require setting a date for withdrawal. The Rules Committee did
not agree to exempt the amendment from a House rule prohibiting legislation on an
appropriations bill, and the amendment was subsequently ruled out of order.
Later, on July 20, by a vote of 291-137, the House approved an amendment to the foreign affairs
authorization bill (H.R. 2601) by Representative Ros-Lehtinen stating that calls for “an early
withdrawal” from Iraq are counterproductive and that it is U.S. policy to withdraw only “when it
is clear that United States national security and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable
Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.”
Meanwhile, on July 27, General George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, commented
that substantial withdrawals may begin as early as next spring or summer, if progress continues. 5
Subsequently, General Casey became less willing to project troop reductions.
The Senate debated U.S. Iraq policy extensively when it resumed action on the authorization bill
in November. On November 15, the Senate rejected a Levin amendment that would, in effect,
have required the Administration to establish a schedule that would tie withdrawals of troops to
progress in Iraq. But the Senate agreed to a very modestly revised version of the Levin
amendment without the final provision on troop withdrawals. As agreed to, the amendment states
that 2006 should be a transition year in which Iraqi security forces take on increasing
responsibility for security and that this should lead to U.S. troop withdrawals, and it requires
Administration reports on a schedule for improved conditions in Iraq that would permit the
redeployment of U.S. forces. The authorization conference agreement includes the Senate
amendment with some changes. The one substantive change is to remove any reference to a
“schedule” and replace it with “plan.”
On November 17, Representative John Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the defense
appropriations subcommittee, recast the national debate about Iraq when he called for
redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq as soon as practical. His key argument was that the presence
of U.S. forces was making the security situation worse and that Iraqi forces must take on the
burden of combating the insurgency. On November 18, in an effort to force a vote against the
Murtha proposal, House Republicans brought up a resolution by Representative Hunter (H.Res.
5
Yochi J. Dreazen, “U.S. Opens Door For Big Pullback In Iraq Next Year,” Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2005, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
571) expressing the sense of the House calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. House
Democrats, including Representative Murtha, generally denounced the measure as a partisan ploy
and it was rejected by a vote of 403-6.
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
The FY2006 defense budget request did not include funding for ongoing military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration submitted a supplemental FY2005 budget request to
Congress on February 14, 2005, a week after it submitted its regular FY2006 budget, and, in May,
Congress agreed to provide $76 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in
FY2005. The FY2006 regular request, however, covered only DOD’s normal peacetime funding
requirements. Administration officials said they again planned to request funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2006 in a supplemental appropriations measure to be submitted early in 2006.
Should Ongoing War Costs be Funded in Regular or in Supplemental
Appropriations?
A key issue in Congress was whether Congress should continue to fund military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan with supplemental appropriations or move these costs into the regular
defense budget. Critics of using supplementals argue that the monthly costs of operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan have long since become predictable and therefore belong in the regular defense
budget. They have also expressed concern about what appears to some to be an increasing
number of programs being financed in the supplemental but that do not fall within what is directly
related to costs of ongoing operations including costs of reorganizing the Army and some
weapons acquisition.6 Critics complain, finally, that because supplemental legislation tends to
move through Congress quickly, there is little time for Congress to exercise oversight, and
supplementals are not subject to review by the authorizing committees.
The Administration continues to favor the use of supplementals to fund military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan for a number of reasons. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has argued that
“Supplemental appropriations are prepared much closer to the time the funds are needed.... This
allows for somewhat more accurate estimates of costs [than in the regular budget cycle], and
more importantly, quicker access to the needed funds.”7
The Administration has also argued that if costs for Iraq and Afghanistan were included in the
regular budget, they would be difficult to remove once operations ceased. On February 9, 2005,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Joshua Bolten told the Senate Budget
Committee that “as a budgeting matter, it is very important that we not let [war costs] float into
the base, because then I think we will have been fiscally irresponsible in not preventing those
costs from being permanently in the defense base.”8
6
Senator John McCain, quoted in Inside the Army, “Lawmakers Question Proposed FY2006 Budget, Calling Request
‘Skewed’,” February 14, 2005.
7
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, February 16, 2005.
8
Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, February
9, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
One element of the debate is what precedents earlier operations provide. In 2003, a CRS memo
reported that the initial funding for most conflicts—from World War II, to Korea, to Vietnam, to
the 1991 Persian Gulf War—was generally provided through supplemental appropriations.9 That
memo did not, however, address funding for wars after the initial phases. On that question, the
precedents are mixed. While the Korean conflict was financed mainly with supplementals, World
War II and Vietnam were funded both with supplementals and with regular appropriations. In
Vietnam, the Administration first asked for a $700 million supplemental for FY1965 in May of
1965; then for a $1.7 billion addition to the regular FY1966 defense appropriations bill, which
was requested as a budget amendment in the summer of 1965; and then, in January of 1966, as
troop levels in Southeast Asia were climbing, a supplemental of $12.3 billion for FY1966 and
regular appropriations of $10.3 billion for FY1967, both requested when the FY1967 budget was
submitted.
So, in the case of Vietnam, the Johnson Administration asked for emergency supplementals when
necessary, but also requested funds in regular appropriations bills as soon as those bills were on
the congressional agenda, even though troop levels were in flux and the duration of the conflict
could not be foreseen.
Most recently, CRS reviewed precedents for funding of ongoing military contingency operations
in the 1990s. CRS reported that in action on the FY1996 defense appropriations bill, Congress, on
its own initiative, decided to include funding for ongoing operations in Southwest Asia in regular
appropriations bills rather than in supplementals, and it directed the Administration to request
funding for ongoing military operations in regular bills in the future. Subsequently, in the FY1997
defense budget and in later requests, the Clinton Administration included funding for ongoing
operations, including operations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, in the regular defense
budget.10
Congressional Action
In floor debate on the FY2005 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, Senator Byrd offered
an amendment, SA 464, expressing the sense of the Senate that funding for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan after FY2006 should be requested and appropriated in regular annual funding bills.
The amendment passed by a vote of 61-31 on April 28, 2005. Notably, Senator Stevens, the
Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Warner, the Chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, both supported the amendment. The appropriations conference
agreement includes the Byrd amendment as a statement of the sense of the Senate.
If Senator Warner and Senator Stevens had subsequently chosen to propose funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan in the regular FY2006 defense bills, there were no procedural hurdles in the way.
Funding caps in the FY2006 congressional budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, do not appear to be
a barrier. To be permissible in view of caps on overall discretionary spending established by the
budget resolution, the appropriations bills would have to designate funding for operations abroad
as either as “defense emergency appropriations” (in the Senate) or as funding for “contingency
9
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Budgeting for Wars in the Past, by (name redacted), March 27, 2003.
10
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Funding for Military Contingency Operations in the Regular
Defense Appropriations Bills in the 1990s, by (name redacted), April 6, 2005. See also CRS Report RL32141, Funding
for Military and Peacekeeping Operations: Recent History and Precedents, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
operations in support of the global war on terrorism” (in the House and, for up to $50 billion, in
the Senate)—see the box below for a further explanation.
Provisions of the FY2006 Concurrent Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) Permitting
Additional Funding for Overseas Military Contingency Operations
The budget resolution allows a point of order to be made against a provision in an appropriations bill that designates
funds as an “emergency” unless the funding meets certain restrictive criteria. To constitute an emergency, under
§402(c) funding must be
(A) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial);
(B) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time;
(C) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;
(D) .... unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(E) not permanent, temporary in nature.
Presumably, a point of order could apply against funding for Iraq and Afghanistan under that provision.
But other sections of the budget resolution essentially void that possibility. Under §402(a), in the House, if funding is
designated as being for “contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism,” then caps on spending do
not apply. Under §402(b)(11), in the Senate, up to $50 billion for contingency operations in support of the global war
on terrorism is specifically exempted from spending caps. That would appears to limit additional funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan to $50 billion. But under §402(b)(10) any discretionary appropriations for defense designated as
emergency appropriations are exempted from a point of order, which makes the $50 billion figure moot.
So the budget resolution provides no specific restriction on the amounts that may be appropriated for military
operations abroad — the spending limits that the resolution establishes do not apply to additional funds for that
purpose.
That said, in its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services
Committee provided $50 billion in additional funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere, the House-passed authorization recommends $49.1 billion, the House-passed defense
appropriations bill provides $45.2 billion, and the Senate-passed defense appropriations bill
provides $50.0 billion. The appropriations conference agreement provides $50 billion.
Table 6. Additional Funding for Overseas Operations
(millions of dollars)
House
Auth.
Senate
Auth.
Conf.
Auth.
House
Approp.
Senate
Approp.
Conf.
Approp.
Military Personnel
9,390.0
11,596.0
11,788.3
8,015.8
6,206.6
6,206.6
Army
6,689.3
9,517.6
8,827.1
5,877.4
5,009.4
4,713.2
Army Reserve
137.2
—
137.2
138.8
121.5
138.8
Army National Guard
67.0
—
72.3
67.0
232.3
234.4
Navy
300.0
350.0
276.0
282.0
0.2
144.0
Navy Reserve
—
—
—
—
10.0
10.0
Marine Corps
662.6
811.8
662.6
667.8
455.4
455.0
1,011.0
916.6
977.8
982.8
372.5
508.0
—
—
5.3
—
5.3
3.2
522.9
—
830.0
—
—
—
Air Force
Air National Guard
Benefits
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Auth.
Senate
Auth.
Conf.
Auth.
House
Approp.
Senate
Approp.
Conf.
Approp.
Operation and
Maintenance
33,686.4
35,302.6
32,772.2
32,238.6
32,405.4
33,217.8
Army
20,305.0
22,139.8
19,828.2
20,398.5
21,915.5
21,348.9
Army Reserve
26.4
—
44.4
35.7
53.7
48.2
Army National Guard
159.5
—
196.3
159.5
201.3
183.0
1,838.0
1,944.3
1,658.0
1,907.8
1,806.4
1,810.5
Navy Reserve
—
2.4
9.4
—
9.4
6.4
Marine Corps
1,791.8
1,808.2
1,588.3
1,827.2
1,275.8
1,833.1
—
—
4.0
24.0
28.0
28.0
3,195.4
2,635.6
2,404.2
3,559.9
2,014.9
2,483.9
Air Force Reserve
—
—
7.0
—
7.0
5.0
Air National Guard
—
—
13.4
—
13.4
7.2
Defense-Wide
2,870.3
3,470.1
1,778.4
826.0
980.0
805.0
Iraqi Freedom Fund
1,000.0
3,302.2
5,240.7
3,500.0
4,100.0
4,658.7
Classified Programs
2,500.0
—
[2,500.0]
—
—
—
Other programs
2,546.0
977.8
2,233.4
2,055.0
2,744.0
2,544.0
Working Capital Funds
1,700.0
—
2,055.0
2,055.0
2,716.4
2,516.4
Defense Health Program
846.0
977.8
178.4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
27.6
27.6
3,371.8
1,100.2
3,477.3
2,857.3
9,851.7
7,980.9
Aircraft Procurement,
Army
—
70.3
40.6
—
348.1
232.1
Missile Procurement,
Army
—
—
—
—
80.0
55.0
Wpns & Tracked Combat
Vehicles., Army
574.6
27.8
485.5
455.4
910.7
860.2
Ammunition, Army
105.7
—
109.5
13.9
335.8
273.0
1,945.4
271.7
1,659.8
1,501.3
3,916.0
3,174.9
Aircraft Procurement,
Navy
—
183.8
15.0
—
151.5
138.8
Weapons Procurement,
Navy
36.8
165.5
56.7
81.7
56.7
116.9
Ammunition, Navy/Marine
Corps
144.7
104.5
147.9
144.7
48.5
38.9
Other Procurement, Navy
15.3
30.8
—
48.8
116.0
49.1
Procurement, Marine
Corps
445.4
89.2
644.4
389.9
2,303.7
1,710.1
—
104.7
214.0
115.3
118.1
115.3
Navy
Marine Corps Reserve
Air Force
Drug Interdiction,
Afghanistan
Procurement
Other Procurement, Army
Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Auth.
Senate
Auth.
Conf.
Auth.
House
Approp.
Senate
Approp.
Conf.
Approp.
Missile Procurement, Air
Force
—
—
—
—
17.0
17.0
Other Procurement, Air
Force
—
51.9
—
2.4
17.5
17.5
Procurement, DefenseWide
103.9
—
103.9
103.9
132.1
182.1
National Guard & Reserve
Equipment
—
—
—
—
1,300.0
1,000.0
Research &
Development
75.0
—
83.7
88.1
92.3
50.6
RDT&E Army
—
—
8.7
—
72.0
13.1
RDT&E Navy
—
—
—
13.1
—
—
RDT&E Air Force
—
—
—
—
17.8
12.5
75.0
—
75.0
75.0
2.5
25.0
49,069.2
50,000.0
50,355.0
45,254.6
51,300.0
50,000.0
RDT&E Defense-Wide
Total
Sources: H.Rept. 109-359; H.Rept. 109-360.
Guns versus Butter—302(b) Allocations
In 2004, for the first time in many years, Congress debated a high-profile proposal to trim defense
spending as part of broader efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit. In the Senate, the Budget
Committee reported a budget resolution for FY2005 (S.Con.Res. 95) that recommended $7
billion less for defense than the Administration had requested. On the floor, however, the Senate
voted overwhelmingly to restore the funds by a margin of 95-4. In the House, Budget Committee
Chairman Jim Nussle considered but then dropped a proposal to recommend $2 billion less for
defense than the Administration requested.
But even though the FY2005 budget resolution did not recommend a reduction, in the end,
appropriators trimmed about $2 billion from the Administration request in the FY2005 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 4613. P.L. 108-287), making that amount available partly for other
defense bills, including military construction, and partly for non-defense programs. This has been
a recurring process. The appropriations committee defense cuts in FY2005 did not go as far in
FY2004, when the committee rescinded $3.5 billion in funds in the regular FY2004 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2658, P.L. 108-87) and another $1.8 billion in the FY2004 omnibus
appropriations measure (H.R. 2673, P.L. 108-199) as means of offsetting funding in non-defense
bills. (The $1.8 billion rescission in the omnibus bill, however, was later restored in the
emergency funding title of the FY2005 defense appropriations bill.)
This year the debate on the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) did not feature a face-toface showdown over defense spending like the one last year. But, again, as last year and as in the
FY2004 budget, in the end, overall deficit pressures appear to have led the appropriations
committees to trim defense as a means of moderating cuts in non-defense programs needed to
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
keep within caps on total discretionary spending.11 Budget constraints may well become
progressively more severe over the next few years.12
Congressional Action
Under Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, the annual congressional budget
resolution must specify the total amount of discretionary funds available to the appropriations
committees. The committees are then required by Section 302(b) to report back how those funds
will be allocated among the various subcommittees. These reports, thus, are known as the “302(b)
allocations.” Budget limits are enforced by establishing a point of order against a reported bill or
an amendment to a bill that would exceed each subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation, though the full
appropriations committees may, and often do, revise the allocations over the course of the year.
So the 302(b) allocations are a critical part of the appropriations process that determine how
much will be available in total for each bill.
The FY2006 congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) provides a 302(a) allocation to the
appropriations committees of $843.02 billion. On May 5, House Appropriations Committee
Chairman Jerry Lewis released his proposed initial 302(b) allocations. These allocations were
later revised on May 12, May 18, and June 22, but the revisions did not change the defense
figures. For the defense subcommittee, the allocation was $363.44 billion, which is $3.28 billion
below the Administration request for programs under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. For the
military quality of life/veterans affairs subcommittee, the allocation is $85.158 billion, which is
$1.05 billion above the request. The 302(b) allocations do not determine how the funds will be
divided among programs under each subcommittee, so some of the extra money for the MQL/VA
subcommittee could be for the Department of Defense and some for the Department of Veterans
Affairs. The allocations allowed about $2.9 billion more for non-defense programs than the
request—in effect, roughly $3 billion was shifted from defense to non-defense programs.
Table 7. House and Senate Initial 302(b) Allocations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
Enacted
FY2006
Request
FY2006
Allocation
Allocation vs
FY2005
Allocation vs
Request
352,424
366,720
363,440
+11,016
-3,280
[Less rescissions and
other savings]
[5,164]
[—]
[5,000]
[-164]
[+5,000]
[Defense program level]
[357,588]
[366,720]
[368,440]
[+10,852]
[+1,720]
Military Quality of Life/VA
79,279
84,108
85,158
+5,879
+1,050
Other Subcommittees
387,578
391,475
394,422
+6,844
+2,947
Total discretionary spending
819,281
842,303
843,020
+23,739
+717
407,706
400,706
—
-7,000
House Appropriations Committee
Defense
Senate Appropriations Committee
Defense
11
12
—
See Andrew Taylor, “Lewis May Shift Defense Spending,” CQ Today, April 26, 2005.
See CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and Beyond, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2005
Enacted
FY2006
Request
FY2006
Allocation
Allocation vs
FY2005
Allocation vs
Request
Military
Construction/Veterans
Affairs
—
43,585
44,382
—
+797
Other Subcommittees
—
390,974
397,932
—
+6,958
Total discretionary spending
—
842,265
843,020
—
+755
Sources: House Appropriations Committee, May 5, 2005, H.Rept. 109-78, May 12, 2005; H.Rept. 109-85, May
18, 2005; H.Rept. 109-145, June 22, 2005; S.Rept. 109-77, June 9, 2005; S.Rept. 109-95, June 29, 2005; S.Rept.
109-115, July 28, 2005.
In releasing its initial allocations, the House Appropriations Committee made one key argument
about the defense total. The allocation to the defense subcommittee assumed that the defense
appropriations bill would include $5 billion of rescissions of prior year defense funds which can
be applied to offset increases in FY2006 programs in the defense appropriations bill. If so, the
$3.28 billion cut from the request would be more than offset by rescissions, and there would be
room for a $1.72 billion increase in actual programs.
Some may quibble with this argument. One quibble is that there are often rescissions of prior year
funds in all appropriations bills, and they are normally applied as offsets to increases in new
funds elsewhere in each bill. In effect, the initial House 302(b) allocations require that defense
rescissions be available partly to offset increases in total non-defense appropriations compared to
the Administration’s request. A different quibble is that defense rescissions may later be
“backfilled” by increased emergency supplemental appropriations later in the process. The
FY2004 omnibus appropriations bill, for example, rescinded $1.8 billion in prior year defense
funds to offset non-defense amounts. The Iraq/Afghanistan emergency funding provisions of the
FY2005 defense appropriations bill, however, repealed the rescission. So, in effect, emergency
defense appropriations were used to offset increased FY2004 non-defense funding.
The version of the defense appropriations bill that the House Appropriations Committee marked
up on June 7, and the amended version passed on June 20, provided $363.7 billion of which
$363.4 billion was for discretionary (rather than mandatory) programs, equal to the initial House
302(b) allocation and $3.28 billion below the request.
On June 9, the Senate Appropriations Committee formally approved and released its initial 302(b)
allocations. The Senate allocations trimmed $7 billion from the Administration request for the
defense bill and added $797 million for the military construction/Veterans Affairs subcommittee.
So in all, the allocation provided $6.2 billion more for non-defense discretionary programs than
the Administration request—by any standards, a dramatic shift of funds.
In later action on the defense appropriations bills, both the House and the Senate complied with
the initial 302(b) allocations. The House-passed appropriations bill was $3.0 billion below the
Administration request, and the Senate-passed bill was $7.0 billion less. Neither bill, however,
made deep cuts in overall funding for major weapons, though both selectively trimmed some
programs. Rather the cuts came mainly in military personnel, in operation and maintenance, and
in revolving fund accounts (see Table 4 above).
The difference between the House and Senate on overall defense funding was a key issue to be
resolved in conference negotiations on the defense appropriations bill. For its part, in its
Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate bill, the White House warned of a veto if
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
defense was cut substantially to pay for increased non-defense appropriations. In the run up to the
conference, House and Senate appropriators resolved the difference by agreeing on a total closer
to the House level. On November 2, the House approved revised 302(b) estimates that reflect the
compromise with the Senate. The Senate reported its revised allocations on November 10. The
revisions trim defense by $4.4 billion below the Administration request. This amount was
reflected in the conference on the defense appropriations bill. Meanwhile, the conference
agreement on the military construction/VA appropriations bill added $0.1 billion for Department
of Defense programs. Division B of the defense appropriations bill included an across-the-board
cut of 1%, or $8.5 billion, in total non-emergency FY2006 appropriations. Of that, $4.1 billion is
cut from the Department of Defense. So, in all, Congress cut $8.4 billion from the
Administration’s original request for the Department of Defense, a dramatic reflection of the
budget constraints being imposed by budget deficits and competing demands for funds.
Military Personnel Pay and Benefits
Beginning in 1999 and continuing through last year, Congress has repeatedly enhanced
retirement, health, and other benefits for military personnel, sometimes with Administration
support and sometime over its objections. Benefit increases have included
•
“TRICARE for Life,” which provides full medical coverage to Medicare-eligible
military retirees;
•
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability benefits for
those with a 50% or greater disability;
•
repeal of a 1986 law that reduced retirement benefits for new military enlistees;
•
a phased-in plan to fully offset off-base housing costs;
•
and increased imminent danger pay and family separation allowances.
Last year, Congress approved two additional measures—a program to provide health insurance to
deactivated reservists for a period of time if they agree to reenlist and elimination of a provision
that reduced benefits to survivors of military retirees after the survivors qualified for Social
Security at age 62. Collectively, the measures enacted since 1999, along with substantial military
pay raises, have increased the cost of active duty military personnel by more than 30% above
inflation since 1999.13
In the FY2006 defense bills, a number of proposals to improve military personnel benefits were
again on the agenda. In particular, Congress renewed the FY2005 debate over health benefits for
military reservists. As noted, in the FY2005 defense authorization, Congress approved a program
to provide federal health insurance for specified periods of time to families of deactivated
reservists who reenlist, but Congress rejected proposals to guarantee access to health insurance
for all reservists. This issue came up again in the FY2006 authorization debate.
13
See CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and Beyond, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional Action
In the FY2005 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268), Congress approved (1) a permanent
increase to $100,000 in the death gratuity for service members killed the line of duty, made
retroactive to October 7, 2001; (2) a payment of $150,000 to survivors of service members killed
in combat zones since October 7, 2001; and (3) an increase in the maximum amount of insurance
for service members from $250,000 to $400,000. These provisions apply only through September
30, 2005, however.
In action on the supplemental, the Senate also approved a measure to make up any loss in pay for
federal employees who are called to active duty as members of the military reserves. The House,
however, did not include such a provision, and the conference agreement rejected the Senate
measure. This issue came up again in action on the FY2006 defense appropriations bill in the
Senate (see below).
In their versions of the FY2006 defense authorization, both the House and the Senate Armed
Services Committee provided a permanent increase in the death gratuity to $100,000 and in the
maximum life insurance benefit to $400,000.
The House Armed Services Committee also approved an amendment in the full committee
markup that would have made TRICARE generally available to military reservists. The proposal
was a subject of extensive debate. Opponents complained about the cost and also argued that
employers might “game” the system in an effort to reduce their costs by reducing their insurance
plans or otherwise encouraging employees to sign onto to TRICARE. Opponents also warned that
federal employees who serve in the reserves would have an incentive to abandon the federal
employee health benefit program (FEHBP) and sign up for the cheaper TRICARE system, which
would drive up FEHBP costs for others. Proponents argued that reservists have earned the right to
guaranteed health insurance. In the committee, the amendment was approved by a vote of 32-30.
Subsequently, the committee approved a routine measure that allows the chairman of the
committee to delete provisions of the bill that would be subject to a point of order for increasing
mandatory spending above limits provided in the budget resolution. When the Congressional
Budget Office provided an estimate that the provision would require an increase in mandatory
expenditures, Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter then deleted the TRICARE for reservists
provision on the grounds that it would be subject of a point of order on the floor. The Rules
Committee did not agree to make in order an amendment to restore a revised version of the plan.
On the floor, Representative Taylor subsequently proposed a motion to recommit the bill to
committee with instructions to restore the TRICARE for reservists provision with a change that
would have eliminated the mandatory spending impact of the measure. That motion was defeated
by a vote of 211-218.
The Senate, however, added a provision providing TRICARE to reservists to the defense
authorization bill. On July 21, the Senate approved a Graham-Clinton amendment to allow all
non-deployed reservists to enroll in TRICARE.
Later, in action on the defense appropriations bill on September 29, the Senate approved an
amendment by Senator Durbin to make up any loss in pay for federal employees who are called
to active duty as members of the military reserves. And on November 9, the Senate approved an
amendment to the defense authorization by Senators Bayh and Durbin to replace income losses
by reservists mobilized for more than 180 days, or mobilized for more than 24 months out of 60,
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
or mobilized within six months of previous activation. In action on the authorization, the Senate
also approved an amendment by Senator Reid to define veterans unable to work as 100% disabled
for purposes of eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability
benefits.
The conference agreement on the defense authorization bill resolves all of this issues.
Specifically, the authorization
•
Permits reservist (which includes members of the National Guard) who are
receiving unemployment compensation or who are ineligible for employerprovided health insurance to sign up for individual or family coverage through
TRICARE with a premium of 50% of the value of the program (Section 702);
•
Provides up to $3,000 a month to replace lost income for involuntarily mobilized
reservists who complete 18 continuous months of service, complete 24 months of
service over a 60 month period, or are mobilized for 180 days or more within six
months of completing an earlier mobilization of 180 days or more (Section 614);
•
Provides that full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability
benefits for those who are unemployable because of service-connected
disabilities will be available by the end of 2009 rather than phased in by the end
of 2013 (Section 663); and
•
Permanently increases the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and expands
the eligibility for additional life insurance of $150,000 for service members killed
in Iraq or Afghanistan between October 7, 2001 and May 11, 2005 (Section 664).
Neither the authorization nor the appropriations conference agreements include the Senate
provision to make up any lost pay for mobilized Federal employees.
Increases in Active Duty End-Strength
For the past two years, there has been a vigorous debate, both within Congress and between the
Congress and the Defense Department, about the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. Many
legislators have argued that the Army, especially, is being stretched very thin by the need to rotate
troops into Iraq, and that the number of ground troops should be increased substantially. In last
year’s defense authorization bill (H.R. 4200, P.L. 108-375), Congress increased statutory Army
end-strength by 20,000 and Marine Corps end-strength by 3,000 in FY2005, and, importantly, it
established the increased totals as legal minimums. The final bill also authorized, but did not
mandate, additional increases of 10,000 in the Army and 6,000 in the Marine Corps over the next
four years—it did not set them as minimums.
Although the Administration opposed the congressionally mandated end-strength increases, in
substance, the provision did not have much effect. Ever since the Iraq war began, the Defense
Department has used standing authority to waive earlier end-strength limits. And officials have
said that they intend to keep an additional 30,000 active duty troops in the force through FY2006,
in part to fill out units rotating to Iraq and in part as a buffer while the Army carries out a
reorganization that will increase the number of deployable combat units. So the Defense
Department was already planning to keep more additional troops in service than Congress
mandated. Moreover, Congress has not objected to funding the additional troops with
supplemental appropriations, as the Administration has requested.
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
The underlying issue, however, is quite substantive, and it has very large long-term budget
implications—a rule of thumb is that an increase of 10,000 troops adds at least $1 billion a year in
personnel costs, not including costs of equipping additional units. The Defense Department sees
the added 30,000 troops as a temporary measure. Many legislators, however, believe that the size
of the Army and Marine Corps, and even of the Navy and Air Force, should increase even more
and that the increases should be permanent. In Congress so far this year, Senators Reed, Hagel,
McCain, Kerry and others have proposed a measure (S. 530) that would add 30,000 troops to the
Army and 5,000 to the Marine Corps in FY2006, in addition to the troops added in FY2005. In
the House, Representatives Tauscher, Skelton, and others have proposed a measure (H.R. 1666) to
add 30,000 to the Army, 12,000 to the Marine Corps, 2,000 to the Navy, and 1,000 to the Air
Force in FY2006, also in addition to the FY2005 increases. Some outside groups have proposed
adding as many as 25,000 troops per year to the force for the next several years.14
Since the proposed increases in FY2006 go far beyond the 30,000 added troops the Pentagon
currently has in the force, the issues is no longer moot, and the debate is about, in effect,
permanent, substantial, and costly increases in the overall size of the force. This the
Administration strongly resists. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in particular, has opposed
permanent increases, arguing that much can be done, and is already underway, to restructure
forces to make up for the number of troops needed to fill out deployable combat units. Among
other things, Rumsfeld wants to restructure the Army to reduce non-combat positions and shift
personnel into the combat arms. Moreover, the Pentagon has been attempting to transfer
substantial numbers of jobs from military to civilian positions. The Administration argues that
these measures should be fully implemented before coming to any conclusions about permanently
adding to military end-strength.
Congressional Action
In subcommittee markup of the defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services
Committee’s personnel subcommittee added 10,000 in end-strength to the Army and 1,000 to the
Marine Corps in FY2006. The full committee and the full House subsequently approved that
measure. In its markup, the Senate Armed Services Committee added 20,000 to Army endstrength in FY2006 (see Table 8). Compared to the enacted FY2004 end-strength authorization as
a baseline, the Senate provision would add 40,000 troops to the Army and 3,000 to the Marine
Corps—13,000 more than the 30,000 additional troops the Administration has decided to
maintain for Iraq and Army modularization. The authorization conference agreement follows the
House, which provides for Army end-strength of 512,400, 30,000 above the FY2004 base level.
14
Edward Epstein, “Support Grows For Beefing Up U.S. Forces,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 4, 2005, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 8. House and Senate Action on Statutory Active Duty End-Strength Levels,
FY2004-FY2006
Enacted
FY2004
Enacted
FY2005
Request
FY2006
House
FY2006
Senate
FY2006
Conf.
FY2006
Army
482,400
502,400
482,400
512,400
522,400
512,400
Navy
373,800
365,900
352,700
352,700
352,700
352,700
Marine
Corps
175,000
178,000
175,000
179,000
178,000
179,000
Air Force
359,300
359,700
357,400
357,400
357,400
357,400
Sources: Enacted from P.L. 108-136 and P.L. 108-375; request from DOD, Office of Legislative Counsel; House
from H.R. 1815, as reported; Senate from S. 1042, as reported; conference total from H.Rept. 106-360.
Navy Shipbuilding—A Budgetary “Ship Wreck”?
The Navy’s FY2006 request includes funding for just four new ships—
•
one Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine,
•
one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS),
•
one LPD-17-class amphibious transport ship, and
•
one T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo ship.
Last year, the Navy’s plan for FY2006 called for six ships. In addition, in December 2004, in
order to meet budget limits established by the Office of Management in Budget, the Defense
Department announced some longer-term changes in Navy shipbuilding in Program Budget
Decision 753 (PBD-753). Specifically PBD-753
•
reduced the planned procurement rate of DD(X) destroyers in FY2007-FY2011
to one per year;
•
cut planned Virginia-class submarine production in FY2006-FY2011 to one per
year rather than increasing to two per year starting in FY2009;
•
eliminated funds for an LPD-17 amphibious ship from the FY2008 plan; and
•
delayed by one year to FY2008 planned procurement of a new aircraft carrier,
CVN-21.
The four-ship FY2006 request falls far short of the annual procurement rate the Navy has, in the
past, said is needed to maintain the size of the fleet. The math is straightforward. Assuming an
average service life of 35 years for each ship, a Navy of 300 ships requires building 300 ÷ 35 =
8.6 ships per year on average. Recently the Navy has tried to get away from judging its needs on
the basis of numbers of ships, saying that capabilities, rather than numbers, are what matters. But
that argument has not been persuasive in Congress, and, recently, the Navy responded to a
congressionally mandated requirement that it provide an estimate of long-term shipbuilding
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
requirements with a report that showed two alternatives for FY2035, one with 260 ships and one
with 325 ships.15
Planned production appears to lead closer to the lower end of that range, if that much. Projected
production rates grow over the next few years, but only because the Navy plans to ramp up
production of the relatively small Littoral Combat Ship to five per year by FY2009. Retiring
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vernon Clark, has pointed to long-term rising shipbuilding
costs as the main reason for the Navy’s difficulties.16
Many Members of Congress, particularly from shipbuilding states, have expressed alarm about
the low rate of Navy shipbuilding. A particular issue has been a Navy proposal, which was
deferred by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, to hold a winner-take-all competition
between the two surface combatant construction shipyards for the right to build all DD(X)
destroyers, rather than to divide the ships between two yards, as for DDG-51 destroyers.
Legislators fear that one shipyard would be forced to close under such a strategy.17
One possible response is for Congress to increase the FY2006 shipbuilding budget by shifting
funds from other programs. Navy officials and some legislators have also discussed using
alternative funding mechanisms for Navy ships as a means of allowing more new ship
construction to start within a limited budget. Defense acquisition guidelines generally require
“full funding” of weapons procurement—appropriations are required to be sufficient to finance
the number of complete, useable end items of systems Congress has approved. 18 There are
alternatives to the full funding policy, however, and these are now being discussed actively for
Navy shipbuilding.
One possibility, which Congress has used for some ships in the past, is “incremental” or “split”
funding, in which Congress appropriates only part of the money needed to complete a ship and
plans to appropriate the remainder in future years. Another is advance appropriations, in which
Congress appropriates funds for the full cost of a ship, but delays the availability of part of all of
the funds until the start of the next fiscal year. While these alternative funding mechanisms may
smooth out annual Navy shipbuilding numbers, they will not allow significantly more ships to be
procured, and they may simply trade a budget problem this year for at least equally severe
problems in the future.19
15
See Department of the Navy, “An Interim Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for the Construction of
Naval Vessels for FY2006,” March 2005.
16
See Statement of Admiral Vernon Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, February 10, 2005, pp. 20-21, available on line at
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2005/February/Clark%2002-10-05.pdf.
17
See CRS Report RS21059, Navy DD(X) and CG(X) Programs: Background and Issues for Congress; and CRS
Report RL32109, Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
18
See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and (name redacted).
19
For a full discussion see CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches—
Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional Action
During Senate consideration of the FY2006 congressional budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18),
Senator Warner proposed an amendment, SA 146, to increase the resolution’s limit on the total
amount of advance appropriations by $14 billion and to allow advance appropriations to be used
for Navy shipbuilding. The amendment was never brought up on the floor, however. The
conference report on the budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, does not provide an increase in the
original limit on advance appropriations, though it does include Navy shipbuilding in a list of
accounts for which advance appropriations may be provided in the Senate. Congress may still
provide advance appropriations for ships, but only if other advance appropriations are reduced, or
if there is no objection in the Senate, or if 60 Senators vote to waive the limit.
Later, in the version of supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268) that the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported to the floor, the committee included a provision that prohibits
funds made available in the supplemental or in any prior acts, to be used to implement a winnertake-all strategy to acquire the DD(X). The conference agreement included the Senate measure.
This did not, however, apply to future appropriations, so the matter remains at issue in action on
FY2006 bills.
In subcommittee markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services
Committee subcommittee on projection forces took a number of dramatic steps to restructure
Navy shipbuilding. The subcommittee added funds for three additional ships, including $2.5
billion for 2 DDG-51 destroyers and $384 million for an additional T-AKE dry cargo ship. The
subcommittee also provided $418 million, an increase of $268 million, to begin construction of a
new LHA(R) amphibious assault ship. The subcommittee also took steps to rein in the costs of
new ships. Most significantly, it imposed a cost ceiling of $1.7 billion on what it calls the “next
generation surface combatant.” Since this applies to the DD(X), the Navy will have to design a
less costly substitute destroyer. The subcommittee also put a cost cap on the Logistics Combat
Ship, Virginia-class submarines, and LHA(R), and it required the Navy to develop a nextgeneration submarine that, presumably, will cost less than Virginia-class boats.20
Later, in full committee markup, the House Armed Services Committee took steps to restore
CVN-21 procurement to the FY2007 plan rather than delay it to FY2008 as the Navy proposed.
The committee approved an amendment to add $86.7 million for advanced procurement of the
CNV-21, but with a requirement that the Pentagon must certify that the extra money would allow
the Navy to begin production of the carrier in FY2007.
In stark contrast to the House, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not radically restructure
Navy shipbuilding. In its markup of the FY2006 authorization, the committee added $175 million
in partial funding for the LHA(R) ship, but otherwise did not increase the number of ships being
built in FY2006. The committee also authorized CVN-21 construction to begin in FY2007, the
plan last year, rather than in FY2008, as the Navy now plans, and provided an additional $86.7
million for the program. On the DD(X), the committee indicated continuing support for the
program by adding $50 million for advance procurement of a second ship, and it provided that the
20
House Armed Services Committee, Projection Forces Subcommittee, Press Release, “House Projection Forces
Subcommittee Mark Approved Unanimously Without Amendment for FY06 National Defense Authorization Act,”
May 11, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
funds are only available for production at a second shipyard. The committee specifically
prohibited a “winner-take-all” acquisition strategy for the DD(X).
The House Appropriations Committee generally followed the House authorization, though with
some adjustments. As in the authorization, the committee cut funds for the DD(X) and it added
money for one T-AKE. It added only one rather than two DDG-51s, however, and it added funds
for two Littoral Combat Ships instead—so in all the committee added 4 ships to the request. The
committee added $50 million to the LHA(R) request, less than the authorization, and urged the
Navy to request full funding for the cost of the ship in the future rather than spreading funding
across several years.
The Senate Appropriations Committee mainly followed the Senate authorization. It added $50
million for DD(X) for a second ship, added $86.7 million for CVN-21, but eliminated $380
million for T-AKE construction due to cost increases and construction delays.
The appropriations conference agreement adds $62 million to accelerate the start of the CVN-21
aircraft carrier to FY2007, provides funding as requested for the DD(X) destroyer and adds $50
million for advance procurement for a second ship, does not add funds for additional DDG-51
destroyers, cuts $100 million from the LHA (R) amphibious ship program, and, as in the House,
adds $384 million for an additional T-AKE cargo ship (funded in the “National Defense Sealift
Fund” account). So, in the end, Congress rejected the House effort to terminate the DD(X) and
build more DDG-51s, instead. The authorization conference agreement includes a provision
prohibiting acquisition of the DD(X) through a single shipyard.
Congress, nonetheless, remains concerned about weapons cost growth. The authorization
conference agreement sets cost caps on the Virginia-class submarine, DD(X), and LCS programs.
Congressional Research Service
28
Table 9. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
Procurement
R&D
House Authorization
Senate Authorization
Procurement
Procurement
R&D
R&D
Conference
Authorization
Procurement
R&D
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Comments
CVN-21 Carrier
Replacement
Program
—
564.9
308.0
—
651.6
316.0
—
651.6
308.0
—
651.6
308.0
House, Senate, and conference add
$86.7 mn. to procure ship in FY2007,
House conditioned on DOD
certification that ‘07 start is possible.
DD(X)
Destroyer
—
716.0
1,114.8
—
—
700.0
—
766.0
1,124.8
—
766.0
1,124.8
House cuts all procurement and
provides $700 mn. for R&D for new
design. Senate and conf. add $50 mn.
for 2nd ship advance procurement.
DDG-51
Destroyer
—
225.4
—
2
2,725.4
—
—
250.4
—
—
250.4
—
LCS Littoral
Combat Ship
1
36.8
576.4
1
36.8
588.5
1
36.8
576.4
1
36.8
576.4
—
LPD-17
Amphibious Ship
1
1,344.7
11.4
1
1,344.7
11.4
1
1,344.7
11.4
1
1,344.7
11.4
—
LHA(R)
Amphibious Ship
—
150.4
—
—
418.0
—
—
325.4
—
—
50.0
—
House adds $268 mn., Senate adds
$175 mn. Conf. cuts $100 mn.
Virginal Class
Submarine
1
2,401.5
155.8
1
2,401.5
175.8
1
2,401.5
199.8
1
2,401.5
192.8
House. Senate, and conf. add small
amnts. for R&D.
Carrier Refueling
Overhaul
—
1,513.6
—
—
1,513.6
—
—
1,513.6
—
—
1,513.6
—
—
Missile Submarine
Conversion
—
286.5
24.0
—
286.5
24.0
—
286.5
24.0
—
286.5
24.0
—
T-AKE Cargo
Ship
1
380.1
—
2
764.5
—
1
380.1
—
2
764.5
—
House and conf. add $384 mn. for
one added ship.
Totals
4
7,619.9
2,190.4
7
10,142.6
1,815.7
4
7,956.7
2,244.4
5
8,065.3
2,237.4
House adds $2.5 bn. and three
ships; conf. adds one T-AKE.
Sources: Department of Defense; H.Rept. 109-89; S.Rept. 109-69.
CRS-29
House adds $2.5 bn. for 2 ships.
Note: For CVN-21, the House authorization adds $86.7 million on condition that DOD certify that the added funds will allow full procurement of the ship in the FY2007
budget. Littoral Combat Ship number includes construction of one ship funded in R&D. T-AKE procurement is funded in the National Defense Sealift Fund.
Table 10. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
Procurement
R&D
House Appropriations
Senate Appropriations
Procurement
Procurement
R&D
R&D
Conference
Appropriations
Procurement
R&E
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Comments
CVN-21 Carrier
Replacement
Program
—
564.9
308.0
—
564.9
310.0
—
651.6
308.0
—
626.9
311.0
House does not follow auth. add to
push full procurement to FY2007.
Senate adds $86.7 mn. and conf. $62
mn. for FY2007 schedule.
DD(X) Destroyer
—
716.0
1,114.8
—
—
757.0
—
766.0
1,127.8
—
716.0
1,156.9
House cuts all procurement and cuts
R&D by $358 mn. Senate adds $50
mn. for advance procurement for
second ship.
DDG-51
Destroyer
—
225.4
—
1
1,600.0
—
—
29.8
—
—
200.0
—
House adds $1.4 bn. for 1 ship (vs 2
in auth.). Senate cuts $196 mn. due
to violation of full funding policy.
LCS Littoral
Combat Ship
1
36.8
576.4
3
476.8
581.9
1
44.4
581.4
3
476.8
582.6
House and conf. add $440 mn. for 2
ships.
LPD-17
Amphibious Ship
1
1,344.7
11.4
1
1,344.7
11.4
1
1,344.7
11.4
1
1,344.7
11.4
LHA(R)
Amphibious Ship
—
150.4
—
—
200.4
—
—
150.4
—
—
150.4
—
House adds $75 mn. (vs. 268 mn. in
auth.).
Virginal Class
Submarine
1
2,401.5
155.8
1
2,401.5
169.3
1
2,401.5
193.8
1
2,401.5
177.9
Senate and conf. add R&D for multimission module.
Carrier Refueling
Overhaul
—
1,513.6
—
—
1,320.0
—
—
1,513.6
—
—
1,338.6
—
CRS-30
—
House trims $194 mn.
Request
Procurement
R&D
House Appropriations
Senate Appropriations
Procurement
Procurement
R&D
R&D
Conference
Appropriations
Procurement
R&E
Comments
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
#
$
$
Missile Submarine
Conversion
—
286.5
24.0
—
286.5
24.0
—
286.5
24.0
—
286.5
24.0
T-AKE Cargo
Ship
1
380.1
—
2
714.1
—
—
—
—
1
380.1
—
Totals
4
7,619.9
2,190.4
8
8,909.0
1,853.6
3
7,620.0
2,190.4
6
7,921.5
2,263.8
—
House adds $334 mn. for 1
additional ship. Senate eliminates
funds.
House adds $1.3 bn. and 4 ships.
Senate cuts one ship. Conf.
adds 2 LCS ships.
Sources: Department of Defense; H.Rept. 109-119; S.Rept. 109-141; S.Rept. 109-359.
Note: Littoral Combat Ship number includes construction of one ship funded in R&D. T-AKE procurement is funded in the National Defense Sealift Fund.
CRS-31
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Retiring an Aircraft Carrier and Reducing the Carrier Force to 11
PBD-753 not only trimmed the long-term Navy shipbuilding plan, it also proposed retiring the
USS John F. Kennedy, one of two conventionally-powered aircraft carriers still in service. This
would reduce the number of carriers in the fleet from 12 to 11. The Navy insists that it would still
be able to meet its overseas stationing requirements and its requirements to surge forces in a
crisis. Like the Navy shipbuilding cuts, the proposal to retire the Kennedy, which is based in
Florida, has been controversial in Congress. One element of the debate is whether it is wise to
retire a conventionally powered ship, since the United States has long deployed one carrier in
Japan, and Japan has objected to visits by nuclear-powered ships in the past. The Navy’s other
conventionally-powered carrier, the Kitty Hawk, is scheduled for retirement in FY2008.
Congressional Action
In floor action on the FY2005 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, the Senate approved
(by 58-38 on April 20, 2005) an amendment by Senator Warner, SA 498, requiring that funds
provided to the Navy in the supplemental be available for repair and maintenance to extend the
service life of the Kennedy and that prohibits funds in the supplemental to be used to reduce the
number of aircraft carriers below 12 until the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is submitted to
Congress. The QDR is required no later than February of next year. The conference agreement
approved the measure with minor changes. An amendment that would have applied these
restrictions to funding provided in prior acts was ruled out of order, and the issue may well come
up again in action on FY2006 bills.
In its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee
directed the Navy to retain 12 carriers until 180 days after the completion of the Quadrennial
Defense Review and also directed the Navy to perform maintenance and repair of the USS John
F. Kennedy to extend the life of the ship. (See CRS Report RL32731, Navy Aircraft Carriers:
Retirement of USS John F. Kennedy - Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.)
The House Armed Services Committee did not take any steps to keep the Kennedy in service.
Instead it barred further reductions in the carrier force by requiring the Navy to maintain a
minimum of 11 deployable carriers. The House Appropriations Committee did not address the
issue.
The authorization conference agreement includes a provision amending Title 10 of the U.S. Code,
which governs the Defense Department, to require that the Navy keep 12 operational aircraft
carriers in the combat force.
C-130J Aircraft Termination
PBD-753 proposed some other cuts in major weapons programs. One decision, though it was
subsequently reversed, was to terminate procurement of the C-130J cargo plane after purchasing
12 more KC-130J variants for the Marine Corps in FY2006. C-130 aircraft are a mainstay of U.S.
airlift fleet. The C-130J is a new variant, with substantially greater capabilities, but which has had
significant problems in meeting operational requirements. Both the DOD Inspector General and
the DOD Director of Operational Testing have issued reports that are quite critical of current
safety and mission performance of the aircraft, and it is now being used in only restricted roles.
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
The decision to terminate C-130J procurement was controversial in Congress. The C-130 has
historically had support not only from Georgia, where it is produced, but from advocates of Air
National Guard units all over the country where the aircraft is deployed. For its part, the Defense
Department from the start appeared somewhat less firm in its determination to terminate the C130J than on other PBD-753 decisions. Shortly after the budget request was formally released in
February, senior Pentagon officials said that the Department planned to review its C-130J
decision in the course of examining overall air lift requirements. 21 Finally, just as the House
Armed Services Committee was beginning subcommittee markup of the FY2006 defense
authorization, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld sent a letter to Congress reversing the decision to
terminate the production.
Congressional Action
In floor action on the FY2005 supplemental (H.R. 1268) the Senate approved an amendment by
Senator Chambliss to prohibit any funds provided in the act from being used to terminate the
C/KC-130J contract. The Pentagon’s decision not to terminate C-130J production, however, left
unresolved how to divide up FY2006 funding between the Marine Corps KC-130J variant and the
Air Force C-130J.
It its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services Committee
reduced Marine KC-130J procurement from the 12 requested to 4 and shifted $735 million to the
Air Force to buy 9 C-130J airlift aircraft. The House Armed Services Committee also approved 4
KC-130Js and 9 C-130Js, as did the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate appropriations
provides funds for 6 KC-130Js and 7 C-130Js.
The conference agreement on the defense appropriations bills provides $384 million for 5 KC130Js and $690 million for 8 C-130Js—see Table 11.
Table 11. C-130 Procurement Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
House
Appropriations
Senate
Appropriations
Conference
Appropriations
#
$
#
$
#
$
#
$
KC-130 Aircraft
12
1,092.7
4
321.1
6
447.3
5
384.2
KC-130 Advance Procurement
—
—
—
45.6
—
71.0
—
58.0
C-130 Series Modifications
—
42.7
—
32.7
—
42.7
—
32.7
C-130J Aicraft
—
99.0
9
744.0
7
516.0
8
690.0
C-130J Advance Procurement
—
—
—
90.0
—
90.0
—
80.0
C-130 Modifications
—
191.6
—
194.4
—
182.8
—
178.9
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
21
Dave Ahearn, “C-130J May Gain New Lease On Life: Rumsfeld,” Defense Today, February 17, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Request
#
$
House
Appropriations
#
Senate
Appropriations
Conference
Appropriations
$
#
$
#
$
Procurement, Defense-Wide (Special Operations Command)
MC-130H Combat Talon II
Aircraft
—
66.3
—
66.3
—
66.3
—
66.3
C-130 Modifications
—
67.3
—
67.3
—
67.3
—
62.0
Sources: H.Rept. 109-119, S.Rept. 109-141.
F/A-22 Fighter Termination
PBD-753 also proposed terminating production of the Air Force F/A-22 fighter after FY2008.
This would stop the program after about 180 aircraft have been produced. Air Force budget plans
after FY2008 included funds for 96 additional aircraft, and the Air Force wanted more—its latest
goal was about 381. The Air Force has also been discussing additional aircraft, modified
substantially for bombing missions.
The F/A-22 has been the Air Force’s top priority program. 22 It is designed to be the best air
superiority fighter aircraft in the world in the future. Air Force officials have continued to argue
against the cuts, insisting that the whole issue should be reviewed in the QDR. But officials
outside the Air Force have so far provided little encouragement.
Congressional Action
While there has been some opposition to the F/A-22 cuts in Congress, there were no related
legislative proposals. The planned cuts in funding for the program, however, do not begin until
the FY2008 budget, and production ceases only in FY2009, so there remains some time to
consider the program’s fate. None of the congressional defense committees significantly changed
the program in FY2006.
Other Programs with Cost Increases and Schedule Delays
A perennial issue for Congress is what to do about programs that have consistently and repeatedly
been delayed or in which costs have grown substantially beyond original projections. Sometimes
Congress has intervened to reduce or restructure funding for such programs. At other times, it has
held oversight hearings to determine whether problems are under control.
Navy ships are certainly not the only troubled programs in the defense budget. Delays and cost
growth have plagued a number of high profile weapons programs in recent years, including the
F/A-22 aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,23 and a several satellite and space launch programs,
including the Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High), the Space Surveillance and
22
For an overview of the program and a review of key issues, see CRS Report RL31673, F-22A Raptor, by (name redact
ed).
23
See CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues,
by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Tracking System (SSTS, which was formerly SBIRS-Low), the Transformational
Communications Satellite (TSAT), the Space Based Radar (now called the Space Radar), and the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). Costs of the Army’s multi-faceted Future Combat
System have also been climbing, and the General Accounting Office has raised questions about
the maturity of technologies being pursued. 24
Last year, Congress cut requested funding for TSAT by $300 million, a 39% reduction, requiring
the Air Force to restructure the program, and it cut requested funding for the Space Based Radar
by $253 million, a 77% reduction, essentially terminating the development effort. This year, the
Defense Department has again asked for funding both for TSAT and for the renamed Space
Radar.
Congressional Action
The Senate Armed Services Committee Airland Subcommittee, chaired by Senator McCain, has
held a number of hearings on the Army Future Combat System (FCS). Recently the Army
announced that it was planning to revise the type of contract under which the FCS was being
developed. It will use a more traditional contract to which standard acquisition regulations will
apply.
In initial House Armed Services Committee subcommittee markup, the FCS, in particular, was
cut significantly. In effect, the FCS and some other programs that Congress considers to be
suffering from problems may end up being “bill payers” for increases in Navy shipbuilding and
some other accounts. In contrast, in its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate
Armed Services Committee approved the full $3.4 billion requested for FCS.
In its full committee markup of the authorization, the House Armed Services Committee trimmed
FCS funding by $400 million and shifted some parts of the program from the FCS funding line to
R&D lines for more basic research. The committee also reduced funds for the Transformational
Communications Satellite (TSAT) by $400 from $838.5 million to $435.8 million and for the
Space-Based Radar by $125.8 million from $225.8 million to $100.0 million.
Finally, the House Armed Services Committee made some significant changes in acquisition laws
in an effort to control weapons cost growth. The committee established conditions before a
development program may be approved for full scale system development and demonstration
(SDD). It also required closer monitoring of changes from original program baseline cost
estimates. And, perhaps most notably, it mandated a formal analysis of alternatives for any system
that exceeds 15% cost growth.
The House Appropriations Committee generally followed the authorization bill’s
recommendations—it trimmed funding for the Future Combat System by about $400 million, cut
the TSAT by $400 million, and cut the Space-Based Radar by $126 million. The committee also
terminated the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $3.3 billion for FCS, $100 million below the
request, cut $200 million from the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) program, cut
24
See CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress, by
(name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
the TSAT by $250 million, reduced the Space Radar request by $125.8 million, cut SBIRS-High
by $100 million, and cut $236.3 million from the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).
Both the House and the Senate also provided substantial funds for weapons procurement in the
separate title of the bill provided emergency appropriations for operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In particular, the funds include substantial amounts for uparmored HMMWVs and
other tactical vehicles. Table 14 shows the amounts of emergency funds for weapons
procurement in the House and Senate appropriations bills.
Congressional Research Service
36
Table 12. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
Procurement
#
$
R&D
House Authorization
Senate Authorization
Procurement
Procurement
$
#
$
R&D
$
#
$
R&D
Conference
Authorization
Procurement
$
#
$
R&D
$
Comments
House cuts $499.2 mn. and
restructures program elements;
conf. cuts $50 mn.
Army
Future Combat System
—
—
3,404.8
—
—
2,905.6
—
—
3,404.8
—
—
3,354.8
Stryker Armored
Vehicle
240
878.4
26.7
240
893.4
41.7
240
878.4
26.7
240
878.4
26.7
—
UH-60 Blackhawk
Helicopter
41
584.7
115.0
46
658.2
118.9
41
584.7
115.0
41
584.7
115.0
House adds 5 aircraft
CH-47 Helicopter Mods
—
676.0
—
—
676.0
—
—
676.0
—
—
676.0
—
Joint Tactical Radio
System
—
27.4
407.5
—
27.4
407.5
—
27.4
368.1
—
27.4
377.5
SASC cuts $39.4 mn. conf. cuts
$30 mn.
F/A-22 Fighter, AF
24
3,733.5
479.7
24
3,733.5
479.7
24
3,733.5
479.7
24
3,733.5
479.7
—
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
Navy
—
—
2,393.0
—
—
2,393.0
—
—
2,393.0
—
—
2,393.0
—
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
AF
—
152.4
2,474.8
—
152.4
2,474.8
—
152.4
2,474.8
152.4
2,474.8
—
C-17 Cargo Aircraft, AF
15
3,236.3
165.8
15
3,236.3
165.8
15
3,236.3
165.8
15
3,236.3
165.8
—
Global Hawk UAV, AF
5
397.7
308.5
4
367.8
308.5
5
397.7
308.5
5
397.7
308.5
House cuts 1 aircraft
Predator UAV, AF
9
125.6
61.0
15
210.6
61.0
9
125.6
66.0
9
125.6
61.0
House adds 6 aircraft
F/A-18E/F Fighter, Navy
38
2,822.3
88.7
38
2,825.5
88.7
38
2,822.3
91.9
38
2,825.5
88.7
—
EA-18G Aircraft, Navy
4
336.7
409.1
4
336.7
409.1
4
336.7
409.1
4
336.7
409.1
—
—
Aircraft
CRS-37
Request
Procurement
#
R&D
$
$
House Authorization
Senate Authorization
Procurement
Procurement
#
R&D
$
$
#
R&D
$
$
Conference
Authorization
Procurement
#
R&D
$
$
Comments
V-22 Tilt Rotor Aircraft,
Navy
9
1,060.6
206.4
9
1,060.6
206.4
9
1,060.6
206.4
9
1,060.6
206.4
—
CV-22 Tilt Rotor
Aircraft, AF
2
243.7
69.5
2
243.7
71.5
2
243.7
69.5
2
243.7
71.5
—
300
150.2
67.0
300
150.2
67.0
300
150.2
67.0
—
100.0
67.0
Conf. cuts $50 mn. for
minimum production
Advanced EHF Satellite
1
529.0
665.3
1
529.0
665.3
1
529.0
765.3
1
529.0
665.3
SASC added $100 mn. to R&D
Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle
5
838.3
26.1
5
838.3
26.1
5
838.3
26.1
4
784.3
26.1
Conf. cuts $54 mn. for launch
delay
Space-Based Infrared
System-High
—
—
756.6
—
—
756.6
—
—
756.6
—
—
756.6
—
Transformational
Communications
Satellite
—
—
835.8
—
—
435.8
—
—
635.8
—
—
435.8
House and conf. cut $400 mn.,
Senate cut $200 mn.
Space-Based Radar
—
—
225.8
—
—
100.0
—
—
150.8
—
—
100.0
House and conf. cut $125.8
mn.; SASC cut $75 mn.
Missiles/Space
Jt Air-to-Surface
Standoff Msl.
Sources: DOD; H.Rept. 109-89; S.Rept. 109-69; H.Rept. 109-360
CRS-38
Table 13. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
Request
Procurement
#
$
Senate
Appropriations
House Appropriations
R&D
Procurement
$
#
$
R&D
Procurement
$
#
$
Conference
Appropriations
R&D
Procurement
$
#
$
R&D
$
Comments
HAC cut $449 mn. from overall FCS,
added $50 mn. for NLOS Cannon. SAC
cut $100 mn. Conf. cut $289 mn. added
$50 mn. for NLOS Cannon.
Army
—
—
3,404.8
—
—
3,007.4
—
—
3,308.8
—
—
3,168.8
Stryker
Armored
Vehicle
240
878.4
26.7
240
882.4
26.7
240
878.4
26.7
240
881.2
26.7
—
UH-60
Blackhawk
Helicopter
41
584.7
115.0
45
659.7
115.0
41
584.7
123.0
45
659.7
122.0
HAC and conf. add $75 mn. for 4
aircraft.
CH-47
Helicopter Mods
—
676.0
—
—
676.0
—
—
680.5
—
—
678.3
—
SAC adds $4.5 mn., conf. $2.3 mn. for
mods.
Joint Tactical
Radio System
—
27.4
407.5
27.4
407.5
—
27.4
368.1
—
27.4
377.5
SASC cut $39.4 mn.; conf. cuts $30 mn.
F/A-22 Fighter,
AF
24
3,733.5
479.7
24
3,733.5
479.7
24
3,733.5
454.7
24
3,733.5
454.7
—
F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, Navy
—
—
2,393.0
—
—
2,399.2
—
—
2,269.0
—
—
2,305.1
SAC cut $124 mn., conf. cut $92 mn.
—
152.4
2,474.8
—
—
2,474.8
—
152.4
2,328.8
—
120.0
2,366.8
HAC cut $152.4 mn., conf cut $32 mn.
for adv. proc.; SAC cut $146 mn., conf.
$108 mn. from R&D
C-17 Cargo
Aircraft, AF
15
3,236.3
165.8
15
3,236.3
165.8
15
3,264.3
167.8
15
3,263.3
167.2
—
Global Hawk
5
397.7
308.5
3
259.5
329.7
5
397.7
317.5
5
363.5
332.4
HAC reduce 2 aircraft, conf. no change
Future Combat
System
Aircraft
F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, AF
CRS-39
Request
Procurement
#
Senate
Appropriations
House Appropriations
R&D
Procurement
R&D
$
$
#
$
$
Procurement
#
R&D
$
$
Conference
Appropriations
Procurement
#
R&D
$
$
Comments
UAV, AF
Predator UAV,
AF
9
125.6
61.0
13
177.6
63.5
9
125.6
63.5
9
125.6
63.5
HAC added 4 aircraft, conf. no change
F/A-18E/F
Fighter, Navy
38
2,822.3
88.7
38
2,822.3
88.7
38
2,830.2
90.7
38
2,826.3
87.4
—
EA-18G Aircraft,
Navy
4
336.7
409.1
4
336.7
400.0
4
336.7
409.1
4
336.7
409.1
—
V-22 Tilt Rotor
Aircraft, Navy
9
1,060.6
206.4
9
1,060.6
206.4
9
1,060.6
206.4
9
1,060.6
206.4
—
V-22 Tilt Rotor
Aircraft, AF
2
243.7
69.5
2
232.2
71.5
2
243.7
69.5
2
243.7
70.5
—
Jt Air-to-Surface
Standoff Msl
300
150.2
67.0
—
2.0
67.0
—
100.0
67.0
—
100.0
67.0
HAC terminates; SAC and conf.
maintain minimum production capability.
Advanced EHF
Satellite
1
529.0
665.3
1
529.0
665.3
1
529.0
665.3
1
529.0
665.3
—
Evolved
Expendable
Launch Vehicle
5
838.3
26.1
5
747.3
26.1
5
784.3
26.1
—
784.3
26.1
HAC, SAC, and conf. cut $91 mn. for
delay in SBIRS launch.
Space-Based
Infrared SystemHigh (SBIRSHigh)
—
—
756.6
—
—
756.6
—
—
656.6
—
—
706.6
SAC cuts $100 mn., conf. cuts $50 mn.
due to cost growth.
Transformational
Communications
Satellite
—
—
835.8
—
—
436.8
—
—
585.8
—
—
436.8
HAC and conf. cut $399 mn., SAC cut
$250 mn. for delays.
Space-Based
Radar
—
—
225.8
—
—
100.0
—
—
100.0
—
—
100.0
HAC, SAC, and conf. cut $125.8 mn.
Missiles/Space
Sources: DOD; H.Rept. 109-119; S.Rept. 109-141; H.Rept. 109-359.
CRS-40
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 14. Emergency Appropriations for Weapons Procurement
(thousands of dollars)
House
Senate
Conf.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
—
348,100
232,100
AH—64 Apache Mods
—
98,800
74,100
Guardrail Mods
—
25,000
18,700
HH—60L MEDEVAC Helicopters
—
90,000
30,000
Integrated Mechanical Diagnostics—HUMS
—
25,000
—
Aircraft Survivability Equipment
—
11,200
11,200
ASE CM
—
69,600
69,600
CH—47 Replacement
—
28,500
28,500
Missile Procurement, Army
—
80,000
55,000
TOW2B
—
80,000
55,000
455,427
910,700
860,190
Bradley Base Sustainment
—
100,000
50,000
Bradley Reactive Tiles
—
25,000
-
M1 Abrams Tank Power Pack Improvement and Integration Optimization
—
252,700
252,700
Stryker—Combat Losses
—
50,000
50,000
Stryker
—
130,000
130,000
Carrier Mods
—
75,000
62,000
CROWS
—
75,000
75,000
Gun Trucks
2,450
—
—
M16 rifle mods
55,300
10,000
9,590
M240 medium machine gun mods
9,372
10,000
9,000
M240 medium machine gun (7.62mm)
107,944
10,000
18,000
M4 carbine mods
29,595
130,000
75,000
M4 carbine
168,237
—
63,000
M249 SAW mods
5,728
9,000
4,500
M249 SAW machine gun (5.56mm)
54,111
5,000
3,500
M107, Cal. 50 sniper rifle
9,274
1,000
1,000
Small Arms (Soldier Enhancement Program)
3,416
5,000
5,000
M2HB Enhanced .50 Caliber Machine Gun Kits
10,000
—
—
Mortar Systems
—
23,000
15,000
Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar FOB
—
—
36,900
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
13,900
335,780
273,000
First Destination Transportation
2,000
—-
—-
Ammunition Production Force Protection
11,900
—-
—-
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Senate
Conf.
CTG, 5.56MM, All Types
—-
20,753
30,000
CTG, 7.62MM, All Types
—-
14,889
21,000
CTG, 9MM, All Types
—-
1,513
—-
CTG, 50 CAL, All Types
—-
6,685
15,000
CTG, 20MM Phalanx (for C-RAM development)
—-
—-
6,000
CTG, 25MM, All Types
—-
6,999
—-
CTG, 30MM, All Types
—-
10,531
20,000
CTG, 40MM, All Types
—-
42,747
35,000
CTG, 60MM MORTAR, All Types
—-
15,335
—-
CTG, 81MM MORTAR, All Types
—-
32,286
—-
CTG, MORTAR, 120MM, All Types
—-
69,963
—-
CTG, Tank Training, All Types
—-
1,132
—-
CTG, ARTY, 155MM, All Types
—-
4,593
—-
CTG, Artillery, 155MM, All Types
—-
6,999
4,500
Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS), All Types
—-
841
600
Mines (Conventional), All Types
—-
486
—-
Shoulder Fired Rockets, All Types
—-
6,786
5,000
Rocket, Hydra 70, All Types
—-
10,000
—-
Demolition Munitions, All Types
—-
11,257
2,900
Grenades, All Types
—-
5,529
—-
Signals, All Types
—-
1,209
116,000
Simulators, All Types
—-
1,154
2,000
Non-Lethal Ammunition, All Types
—-
46,782
—-
Items Less Than $5 Million
—-
2,311
—-
Provision of Industrial Facilities
—-
15,000
15,000
Other Procurement, Army
1,501,270
3,916,000
3,174,900
Up-Armor HMMWVs: M1114, M1151, M1152
170,000
240,000
170,000
Add-on-Armor plate for level Ill and ballistic glass
20,000
150,000
50,000
HMMWV Recap
193,000
690,000
463,500
HMMWVs—AR
60,000
—
—
Up-armored HMMWVs (M1114)—AR
5,370
—
—
FMTVs
50,000
—
45,000
Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV) 2.5 ton
15,000
—
—
Medium Tactical Vehicle 5 ton—AR
41,000
—
—
HEMTT Recap
60,400
48,000
48,000
Truck Cargo PLS M1075—AR
37,000
—
—
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Recap Modernization Program
Congressional Research Service
42
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Senate
Conf.
9,000
—
—
FHTV
—
70,800
60,000
FHTV Trailers
—
—
12,500
Tactical Trailer/Dolly Sets
—
9,000
9,000
15,000
—
—
Freightliner Military Linehaul Tractors
—
12,000
6,000
Movement Tracking System
—
2,000
2,000
—
54,400
40,800
SINCGARS Family
87,000
500,000
450,000
High Frequency Radio—AR
21,000
—
—
Radio Improved, HF Family
—
600,000
575,000
Army Data Distribution System (Data Radio)
—
—
27,000
Combat Survivor Radios
—
11,100
11,100
Radio Set, AN/VDR-2
—
—
—
Bridge to Future Networks (ACUS MODS)
—
200,000
175,000
Force XXI Battle Command BDE and Below
116,900
116,000
116,000
5,000
—
—
Air & Missile Defense Planning & Control System
—
100,000
100,000
Maneuver Control System (MCS)
—
30,000
30,000
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (Space)
—
14,000
14,000
Digital Topographic Support System
—
18,000
18,000
Mounted Battle Command on the Move
30,000
30,000
30,000
Prophet/COBRA
145,000
—
37,500
Prophet Ground (TIARA)
—
75,000
37,500
Items Less Than $5,0M (TIARA)
—
14,000
-
Night Vision Devices
—
245,000
225,000
Thermal Weapon System—Night Vision Equipment
—
73,000
68,000
Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar Enhancement
—
6,000
—
Small Tactical Optical Rifle Mounted Micro-Laser Range Finding System
—
6,000
—
Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System
—
5,000
5,000
IED Jammers
35,000
—
—
Low cost ECM production
10,000
—
—
Multi-Band SHF Terminal (Phoenix)—AR
12,000
—
—
Tactical Common Data Link
72,000
—
—
Biometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)
14,700
—
—
Tactical Operations Centers
84,000
85,000
72,000
All Source Analysis System
—
14,000
14,000
PLS Trailers—AR
M915A1 Replacements
Armored Security Vehicles
Defense advanced GPS receiver
Congressional Research Service
43
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Senate
Conf.
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) (JMIP)
—
174,000
140,000
I-GNAT
—
50,000
—
Smoke & Obscurant Systems
—
10,000
—
Handheld Standoff Minefield Detection System
—
15,000
13,000
Nomad Helmet Mounted Display—Stryker Brigades
—
11,200
—
25,000
10,000
—
Medical Comm for Combat Casualty Care (MC4)
—
33,000
28,000
Combat Support Medical
—
26,500
23,000
Quick Clot Hemorrhage Control
5,000
—
—
Chitosan Hemorrhage Control Dressing
5,000
—
—
Self-contained Reusable Blood Container
10,000
—
—
HMMWV and Tactical Truck Crew Trainers
25,000
20,000
20,000
Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM)
107,900
80,000
24,000
—
68,000
—
15,000
—
15,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
—
151,537
138,837
P-3 SSI-K
—-
6,400
4,600
P-3C Center Wing Replacement
—-
13,800
13,800
AH-1W Increased Survivability
—-
6,600
6,600
AH-1W Turned Exhaust
—-
15,900
15,900
AH-1W Turned Exhaust (Spares)
—-
1,300
1,300
CH-53 Sustainment
—-
10,000
10,000
KC-130T DECM/NVL Ground Up
—-
24,700
18,000
UC-35 Aircraft Survivability Equipment
—-
7,500
7,500
AAR-47 Missile Warning System Upgrade
—-
8,100
8,100
ALQ-157 Maintainability Improvement
—-
3,000
3,000
Mobile Facility Power
—-
3,800
3,800
UH-1Y/AH-1Z NRE
—-
10,000
10,800
F/A-18 Litening Pods
—-
15,000
15,000
War Consumables
—-
10,437
10,437
AT FLIR
—-
15,000
10,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy
81,696
56,700
116,900
Tomahawk Missiles
81,696
—-
75,900
Hellfire Missiles (Thermobaric and Blast/Frag Variants)
—-
50,000
38,000
Pioneer TUAV Engines and Avionics
—-
6,700
3,000
144,721
48,485
38,885
20,221
—-
—-
Construction Equipment SLEP
Explosive Detection Equipment (Backscatter)
Persistent Threat Detection System, OIF loss replacement
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Ammunition Requirements for FSRG
Congressional Research Service
44
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Senate
Conf.
155mm Fuze-Electronic Time M762A1
10,000
—-
—-
Igniter-Time Blasting Fuze M81
5,000
5,000
3,500
Detonator, Non-Electric MK154
10,000
—-
—-
66mm Rocket-High Explosive M72A7
11,000
—-
—-
155mm Multi Option Fuze M782
6,000
—-
—-
120mm Tank Ammunition-M1028 Canister
3,000
3,000
—-
155mm High Explosive Projectile M795
15,000
15,000
12,000
.50 Caliber Cartridges
13,000
—-
—-
7.62mm Cartridges
1,500
—-
—-
40mm M430 HEDP
30,000
—-
—-
120mm Cartridges M830A1 HEAT-MP-T
10,000
—-
—-
C4 Charges M58A4 HE
10,000
—-
—-
Small Arms and Landing Party Ammo
—-
3,200
2,400
Air Expendable Countermeasures
—-
5,800
4,500
Asbly, Pyro MK 34
—-
16,485
16,485
Other Procurement, Navy
48,800
116,048
49,100
Physical Security Equipment
48,800
106,948
40,000
—
9,100
9,100
389,900
2,303,700
1,710,145
Miniature Transceiver (Blue Force Tracker)
7,400
—-
—-
Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)—48 vehicles
102,500
—-
57,000
—-
25,000
25,000
Weapons under $5 million
10,800
100,000
90,000
Modular Weapon System
—-
10,000
10,000
Guided Missile and Equipment Mod Kits
—-
1,500
1,000
Guided MLRS Pods for HIMARS
—-
54,500
30,000
Up Armored HMMWV: M1114, M1151, M1152
—-
200,000
178,645
MTVR
—-
500,000
275,000
Logistics Vehicle Replacement
—-
7,000
3,500
Commercial Cargo Vehicles
—-
7,000
3,500
Family of Tactical Trailers
—-
20,000
15,000
AN/PSQ-18A, M203 Day/Night Sight
—-
4,000
—-
Close Quarters Battle Sight
—-
5,000
—-
Mod Kits, Armor and Fire Support
—-
12,000
8,000
Comm Switching and Control Systems
—-
120,000
92,000
MAGTF Support (Air Ops C2 Systems)
—-
10,000
5,000
Radar Systems
—-
25,000
18,000
Combat Survivor Radios
Procurement, Marine Corps
Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) Combat Losses
Congressional Research Service
45
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Senate
Conf.
Tactical Remote Sensor System
—-
25,000
14,000
Repair and Test Equipment
—-
20,000
15,000
Fire Support System
—-
30,000
20,000
Intelligence Support Equipment
—-
25,000
15,000
Mod Kits (Intell)
—-
11,000
3,000
General Purpose Tools
—-
1,000
1,000
Command Post Systems
—-
100,000
85,000
Common Computer Resources
—-
15,000
12,000
Small Unit Remote Scouting System
—-
7,500
6,000
225,000
90,000
72,000
Environmental Control Equipment
—-
3,000
2,000
Bulk Liquid Equipment
—-
20,000
14,000
Tactical Fuel Systems
—-
23,000
16,000
Assorted Power Equipment
—-
15,000
10,000
Construction Equipment
—-
15,000
12,000
Engineering Mod Kits
—-
5,000
3,500
Engineer and Other Equipment Less Than $5m
—-
7,000
4,500
Field Medical Equipment
—-
8,500
8,500
Family of EOD Equipment and EOD Systems
—-
140,000
23,000
High Power Jammmers UUNS
—-
362,700
362,700
Z Backscatter UUNS
—-
29,000
—-
PSS-14 Metal Detectors and Other Items
1,300
—-
—-
EOD Systems (demolition equipment)
—-
—-
5,300
Tactical Radios (PRC-117 and PRC-150 radios)
25,000
—-
—-
JTRS Legacy Bridge—EPLRS
17,900
—-
—-
—
250,000
194,000
115,300
118,058
125,300
—-
10,000
10,000
C-17 Modifications—LAIRCM installs
84,000
84,000
84,000
C-130 Modifications—LAIRCM installs
7,200
—-
7,200
War Consumables—Initial/replacement of towed decoys and rocket
launcher motors
24,100
24,058
24,100
Missile Procurement, Air Force
—
17,000
17,000
Hellfire Missiles
—
17,000
17,000
Other Procurement, Air Force
2,400
17,500
17,500
HMMWV, Up-Armored
2,400
2,400
2,400
—
2,000
2,000
Night Vision Equipment
Radio Systems
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
ANG F—16/ A—10 Litening Pods
Advanced Ground Blue Force Tracker
Congressional Research Service
46
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Senate
Conf.
463L Cargo Nets
—
4,100
4,100
Cargo Pallets
—
9,000
9,000
103,900
132,075
182,075
MH-47 infrared engine exhaust suppressor
7,700
7,700
—-
High performance mobility FLIR (ground)
10,800
—-
10,800
High performance mobility FLIR (maritime)
6,000
—-
6,000
Multi-band inter/intra team radio
13,500
—-
—-
Multi-band multi mission radio
65,900
—-
45,900
RAMS
—-
950
950
ALGL
—-
10,760
—-
ALQ-172
—-
2,700
2,700
AN/PAS-21
—-
10,452
6,000
TACTICOMP
—-
8,000
7,025
ITWS
—-
3,400
3,400
AGMS
—-
21,146
15,000
HPMMR
—-
2,584
1,600
TACLAN
—-
1,983
1,000
SWORD (moved to PDW line 64)
—-
2,000
—-
SOF Ordnance Replenishment
—-
10,000
10,000
Small Arms and Weapons
—-
31,300
31,300
Body Armor
—-
3,700
3,700
MH-47 Battle Loss Conversion
—-
15,400
15,400
A/MH-6M Little bird Helicopters
—-
—-
21,300
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
—
1,300,000
1,000,000
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
—
1,300,000
1,000,000
2,857,314
8,551,683
7,980,932
Procurement, Defense Wide
Total procurement
Sources: H.Rept. 109-119, S.Rept. 109-141; H.Rept. 109-359.
Missile Defense
Missile defense is the largest acquisition program in the Defense Department’s current six-year
plan, with a projected budget of more than $60 billion over the FY2006-FY2011 period. The
Administration is requesting $8.7 billion for missile defense development and procurement in
FY2006. PBD-753 directed the missile defense agency to reduce planned funding by $5 billion
over the six-year period, with a cut of $1 billion in FY2006 and $800 million per year each year
thereafter. As a result, there have been some significant changes in the long-term development
plan. In FY2006, the biggest reduction is in funding for a program known as the Ballistic Missile
Defense System Interceptor, a program to develop a high-acceleration booster and warhead
known as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). Congress trimmed funding for the KEI last year,
and some have questioned whether a program aimed, in large part, at allowing interceptors to
Congressional Research Service
47
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
destroy enemy missiles in the boost phase is practical at all. KEI funding remains in future budget
plans, however.
Missile defense is often a matter of debate in Congress. A key issue recently has been whether the
testing program is adequate. In December, 2002, the White House announced a decision to
accelerate deployment of an initial, limited-capability, ground-based interceptor system to be
operational by the fall of 2004. The Missile Defense Agency is currently in the process of
deploying 20 interceptor missiles in Alaska and, for test purposes, in California, but the Defense
Department has not yet declared the system operational. Recent tests of the deployed missile and
warhead have failed, and the booster-warhead combination that is being deployed has yet to
tested successfully. Another recurrent issue in Congress is whether funding for more long-term
and uncertain technologies, such as space-based interceptors, should be reduced in favor of
increased funding for more immediately deployable systems, such as the Patriot PAC-3 short
range missile defense.
Congressional Action
In preliminary markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1815) in the House Armed
Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee, Representative Spratt offered an amendment
to require the Missile Defense Agency to schedule a missile defense interceptor test as soon as
possible. As an alternative, the subcommittee approved a measure that would add $100 million to
support additional testing of the ground-based system that is currently being deployed. The full
committee rejected proposals that would have required successful testing before continuing with
deployment and that would have transferred oversight of tests from the Missile Defense Agency
to the independent DOD Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. The House rule on the
authorization bill did not permit any additional amendments on missile defense funding or testing.
The committee bill requires a report comparing the Airborne Laser program and the Kinetic
Energy Interceptor program for the purpose of intercepting missiles in the boost phase.
The Senate Armed Services Committee also added funds for the mid-course defense system that
is now being deployed, and specified that $100 million of the added money is to enhance the
ground-based missile defense test program.
The House Appropriations Committee added $100 million for testing of the ground-based defense
and provided $82 million for a multiple kill vehicle. The committee restructured the budget for
the program to make different elements of the program more visible. The committee divided the
midcourse defense program into two parts, one for ground-based defenses and one for sea-based
defenses. The committee also divided the sensor program into separate program elements for
satellites and for radars.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided an additional $200 million for the ground-based
midcourse defense system and $65 million more for the U.S.-Israeli Arrow program.
Table 15 shows final congressional appropriations action on missile defense by program element.
Congressional Research Service
48
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 15. Congressional Action on FY2006 Missile Defense Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
House
Appropriations
Senate
Appropriations
Amount
Change
to
Request
567.1
567.1
PATRIOT PAC-3
489.7
PATRIOT Modifications
Conference
Appropriations
Amount
Change
to
Request
Amount
Change
to
Request
—
567.1
—
567.1
—
489.7
—
489.7
—
489.7
—
77.4
77.4
—
77.4
—
77.4
—
7,775.2
7,630.7
-144.5
7,837.8
+62.6
7,913.8
+138.6
0603175C Ballistic
Missile Defense (BMD)
Technology
136.2
128.4
-7.9
125.6
-10.6
162.3
+26.1
0603879C Advanced
Concepts, Evaluations
and Systems
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0603881C BMD
Terminal Defense
Segment
1,143.6
1,123.7
-19.9
1,208.6
+65.0
1,198.9
+55.3
0603882C BMD
Midcourse Defense
Segment
3,266.2
—
-3,266.2
—
-3,266.2
—
-3,266.2
060XXXXC BMD
Groundbased Midcourse
—
2,267.1
+2,267.1
2,541.7
+2,541.7
2,489.3
+2,489.3
060XXXXC BMD
Seabased Midcourse
—
892.1
+892.1
930.4
+930.4
939.1
+939.1
0603883C BMD Boost
Defense Segment
483.9
464.9
-19.0
493.9
+10.0
490.9
+7.0
0603884C BMD Sensors
529.8
—
-529.8
—
-529.8
—
-529.8
060XXXXC BMD
Satellites
—
231.4
+231.4
—
—
240.0
+240.0
060XXXXC Space
Surveillance & Tracking
System
—
—
—
245.5
+245.5
—
—
060XXXXC BMD
Radars
—
289.7
+289.7
294.3
+294.3
294.3
+294.3
0603886C BMD System
Interceptor
229.7
218.7
-10.9
115.0
-114.7
216.0
-13.7
0603888C BMD Test &
Targets
617.5
614.5
-2.9
624.5
+7.0
627.2
+9.8
0603889C BMD
Products
455.2
383.6
-71.5
425.2
-30.0
394.7
-60.5
0603890C BMD Systems
Core
447.0
404.4
-42.6
417.0
-30.0
420.2
-26.9
Request
FY2006
Procurement Army
RDT&E Missile
Defense Agency
Congressional Research Service
49
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
House
Appropriations
Senate
Appropriations
Amount
Change
to
Request
349.5
349.5
060XXXXC BMD
Program Support
—
0901585C Pentagon
Reservation
0901598C Management
HQ - MDA
Conference
Appropriations
Amount
Change
to
Request
Amount
Change
to
Request
—
299.5
-50.0
324.5
-25.0
141.0
+141.0
—
—
—
—
17.4
22.4
+5.0
17.4
—
17.4
—
99.3
99.3
—
99.3
—
99.3
—
RDT&E Army
305.0
305.0
—
305.0
—
305.0
—
0604865A/0604869A
PATRIOT PAC3/MEADS
288.8
288.8
—
288.8
—
288.8
—
0203801A PATRIOT
Improvement
16.2
16.2
—
16.2
—
16.2
—
RDT&E The Joint
Staff
81.5
81.5
—
81.5
—
81.5
—
0605126J Joint Theater
Air and Missile Defense
Organization
81.5
81.5
—
81.5
—
81.5
—
Total Missile Defense
8,728.8
8,584.3
-144.5
8,791.4
+62.6
8,867.4
+138.6
Request
FY2006
0603891C Special
Programs - MDA
Sources: H.Rept. 109-119; S.Rept. 109-141; H.Rept. 109-359.
Army Modularization
The Army is undertaking a wholesale reorganization of its combat forces. The reorganization is
designed to create a more flexible and more readily deployable force based primarily on separate
modular brigades that can be deployed individually or in combination, rather than on divisions
composed of three combat brigades and associated support elements. By the end of FY2007, the
Army plans to increase the number of deployable brigades in the active duty force from 33 to at
least 43 and possibly as many as 48 “Brigade Units of Action.” The Army National Guard will
also be reorganized from a force with 15 separate brigades and 19 divisional brigades into one
with 33 deployable Brigade Units of Action.25
The Army now projects that its modularization plan will cost $48 billion over the seven-year
FY2005-FY2011 period, up from about $28 billion when the plan was originally decided on.26 In
FY2005 and FY2006, the Army has not included funds to cover the costs in its regular or baseline
25
For an overview of the plan and a review of key issues, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign:
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
26
See testimony of Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey and Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker before
the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, March 2, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
50
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
budget. Instead, it has asked for $5 billion in the FY2005 supplemental to cover costs and plans to
request supplemental funds for FY2006 as well. PBD-753 (see discussion of Administration
request, below) directed the Defense Department to add $5 billion annually beginning in FY2007
to the Army’s regular budget to cover modularization costs thereafter.
Congress has generally supported the Army reorganization, though some questions have been
raised about it. The big issue has been whether to include funding in supplementals or in regular
appropriations, but his appears to have been resolved—funds will be in supplementals in FY2005
and FY2006 and in the regular budget thereafter. A key unanswered question is whether the Army
will be able to fill out the deployable brigade structure without a permanent increase in endstrength. Through FY2006, the Defense Department is keeping 30,000 troops in the force above
earlier end-strength levels, in part as a rotation base for Iraq and in part to provide a buffer as the
Army reorganizes. Costs are being covered in supplemental appropriations. The Defense
Department leadership expects the Army to fill out units after FY2006 without additional endstrength by reassigning personnel within the force and by shifting military jobs to civilians. Many
in Congress doubt that the Army will be able to fill out the new brigades in the future simply by
reassigning personnel.
Another key issue is whether, in the long run, the new Army force design will meet strategic
requirements. Among others, retired Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, who was one of the
original champions of a brigade-centered force, has argued that the new brigades are not
sufficiently well-equipped to have the necessary flexibility and that the Army is still preserving
too many layers of command. 27
Congressional Action
In the conference agreement on the FY2005 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1268,
Congress provided the full $5 billion requested for Army modularization.
Civilian Personnel Policy
In the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136), Congress agreed to an
Administration request to give the Secretary of Defense very broad authority to reorganize
DOD’s civilian personnel system. DOD is now implementing changes. Some of the steps the
department has taken to date have led to disagreements with some employees and some unions.
Last year, Congress considered, but ultimately did not act on amendments to the personnel
legislation to ensure certain traditional civil service procedures. Similar measures may be
proposed this year. In addition, Congress has frequently taken steps to regulate procedures for
privatizing civilian defense jobs.
Congressional Action
Neither the House nor the Senate has yet considered any measures that would regulate
implementation of new personnel procedures.
27
Col. MacGregor has proposed brigades of 5,000 to 6,000 troops, which would be 30%-60% larger than 3,800 troop
brigades the Army plans. See Elaine M. Grossman, “General Unscrambles New Jargon for Reformulated Army
Divisions,” Inside the Pentagon, February 12, 2004.
Congressional Research Service
51
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Easing Environmental Regulations Affecting Military Facilities
For the past four years, the Defense Department has proposed a number of legislative measures,
under the rubric of the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, to ease the application of
several environmental statutes to military training. In the FY2003 defense authorization (P.L.
107-314), Congress agreed to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as it applies to accidental
injuries to birds caused by military aircraft. In the FY2004 defense authorization (P.L. 108-136),
Congress agreed to changes in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and in the Endangered Species
Act. Last year, the Administration proposed somewhat revised versions of proposals it made in
prior years to amend the Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Congress did not act on those proposals, however.
This year, the Defense Department has again proposed a package of legislative changes in
environmental statutes affecting military training facilities. One DOD proposal would exempt
missions generated by military readiness activities from requirements to “conform” to State
Implementation Plans (SIP) for achieving federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. A
second proposal would provide that military munitions on operational ranges may not be defined
as “solid waste” under RCRA and CERCLA. In effect, this would allow munitions and
munitions-related contamination to remain on a training range indefinitely, as long as the range
remained operational. 28
Congressional Action
Neither the House nor the Senate has addressed the new Administration proposals in action on the
defense authorization.
New Nuclear Weapons
Last year, in after vigorous floor debates, both the House and the Senate rejected amendments to
the defense authorization bill to eliminate funds for studies of new nuclear weapons, including
funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and the Advanced Concepts Initiative
(ACI) to study low yield weapons. The conference agreement on the FY2005 Energy and
Commerce appropriations bill (Division C of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L.
108-447), however, eliminated requested funds both for RNEP and for ACI.
In the FY2006 budget, the Administration again requested funds for studies of the RNEP, though
the request was substantially lower than in the past, and the Department of Energy (DOE)
removed from its long-term funding plan a budget wedge for RNEP development that totaled
almost $500 million between FY2005 and FY2009. The FY2006 request includes $4 million for
RNEP in the FY2006 Department of Energy (DOE) budget and $4.5 million in the Air Force.
Budget projections also include $14 million for RNEP in DOE in FY2007, and $3.5 million in the
Air Force. Projections after FY2007 show no additional funding, though it could be restored at
any time. 29
28
See CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of Defense (DOD), by (name red
acted).
29
See CRS Report RL32347, “Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005-FY2007, by
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
52
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
The FY2006 budget includes no funds for ACI, but another potential issue has emerged. The
conference agreement on the FY2005 energy and water appropriations bill did not provide funds
for ACI, but instead made the $9 million requested available for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) program that was intended, as the conference report explains, to “improve the
reliability, longevity, and certifiability of existing weapons and their components.” But in
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
Linton Brookes, the Director of DOE nuclear weapons programs, implied that the RRW program
might be used to develop a entirely new, more reliable warhead. 30 This prospect raised alarm
among arms control groups and may become a matter fo debate in Congress.
Congressional Action
In preliminary markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1815), the House Armed
Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee eliminated RNEP funds from the Department
of Energy (DOE) budget and added the money to the Air Force. A press release by subcommittee
Democrats said that the purpose is to direct funding to non-nuclear, “conventional,” “bunker
buster” weapons. A press release by the full committee following the full committee markup,
however, says that the bill includes $4 million for a DOD (not DOE) study “to include
conventional as well as nuclear penetrator options.”
The strategic forces subcommittee also established a policy for the RRW program, which
Representative John Spratt said requires that the goal of the program be to reduce the likelihood
of a return to nuclear testing and to shrink the nuclear arsenal. He did not, however, rule out
development of a new warhead.
The Senate Armed Services Committee took the opposite approach. In its version of the FY2006
authorization bill, it provided the $4.0 million requested for RNEP in DOE, but eliminated Air
Force funding. In its markup of the FY2006 energy and water appropriations bill (H.R. 2419), the
House energy and water appropriations subcommittee also eliminated funds for RNEP from the
Department of Energy budget. The subcommittee also increased funding for the RRW program
from $9 million to $27 million and included in its report a long discussion of policy goals for the
RRW program.
In action on the energy and water appropriations bill (H.R. 2419), the House appropriations
committee eliminated funds for the RNEP and included detailed report language establishing
goals for the RRW program. The House passed the bill without amending these provisions. The
Senate appropriations committee, however, included requested RNEP funds. And on the floor, on
July 1, 2005, the Senate rejected by 43-53 an amendment by Senator Feinstein to eliminate funds
for the RNEP.
The conference agreement on the energy and water bill eliminates RNEP funding. On October 25,
Senator Domenici released a statement saying that the Administration supported the elimination
of funds and wanted to focus on non-nuclear weapons for destroying deeply buried targets.
(...continued)
Jonathan Medalia.
30
See Statement of Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy, Before The Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 4,
2005, at http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2005/April/Brooks%2004-04-05.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
53
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Subsequently, Administration officials have emphasized that the current policy is to test
projectiles that could penetrate hardened concrete. Some opponents of the RNEP have
complained that this leaves room for the nuclear program to be resurrected in the future.
Women in Combat and Other “Social Issues”
Matters that are broadly defined as “social issues” often arise within the military and, accordingly,
in congressional consideration of annual defense bills. In the past, Congress has addressed
matters as diverse as gays in the military, women in combat, housing of male and female recruits
during basic training, and sale of potentially offensive magazines on military bases. Congress
perennially debates proposals to repeal a prohibition on privately funded abortions in military
hospitals overseas for personnel or dependents who otherwise might not have access to abortions
at all. Recently, in view of reports that cases of sexual abuse within the military are not
uncommon, there has been an extensive discussion in Congress of the adequacy of the Defense
Departments policy on sexual abuse and its handling of abuse cases.
A key social issue in Congress this year has been whether women should continue to serve in
units that directly support combat operations and that are deployed along with combat units in
military operations. Currently women are not permitted to serve in combat roles in the Army, but
are often assigned to support units that are physically collocated with combat units. As a result,
women have sometimes been involved in fighting and have suffered some casualties. In Iraq, 35
women have died, which is about 2.2% of the total number of U.S. military personnel killed.
Congressional Action
In House Armed Services Committee subcommittee markup of the FY2006 defense authorization
bill, the personnel subcommittee approved by a 9-7 vote a measure that would bar women from
some combat support units. In the full committee markup, the subcommittee chair, Representative
John McHugh, offered an amendment that instead would codify into statute the existing DOD
policy that prohibits assignment of women to ground combat units and that would prohibit any
changes in assignments. Opponents of the measure, however, argued that it went beyond that and
could restrict assignment of women to some units in which they now serve.
In floor action on the authorization, Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter
proposed a measure that would require that the Defense Department notify Congress 60 days in
advance of any changes in policies on the assignment of women to deployable ground units. This
proposal was approved as part of an en bloc amendment. The conference agreement on the
defense authorization bill includes the House provision, but with a requirement for 30 days
advance notification.
In floor action on the defense appropriations bill, a debate over a measure regarding religious
tolerance at the Air Force Academy turned bitter and halted action on the measure for 45 minutes
when Representative Obey objected to statements by Representative Hostettler. As reported by
the committee, the bill included a provision stating the sense of Congress that “coercive and
abusive religious proselytizing” at the Air Force Academy “as has been reported is inconsistent
with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy.” The
measure required the Air Force to develop and report on a plan “to maintain a climate free from
coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing.”
Congressional Research Service
54
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Representative Hunter objected to the provision and proposed a substitute that voices support for
religious tolerance and required the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and report on
recommendations “to maintain a positive climate of religious freedom and tolerance at the United
States Air Force Academy.” Representative Obey offered a substitute to the Hunter proposal that
restored much of the original language. In response to statements by Representative Hostettler,
Representative Obey moved that the gentleman’s words be taken down, which, if upheld by the
chair, would have allowed no further statements for the day by the speaker. Representative
Hostettler subsequently withdrew his remarks and the debate resumed. In the end, the House
rejected the Obey amendment by a vote of 198-210, and the Hunter amendment prevailed. The
conference agreement on the appropriations bill deleted the House-passed language.
Another issue arose shortly before the Senate began action on the defense authorization, when a
Federal court ruled that the Defense Department could not provide support for a periodic Boy
Scout jamboree because the organization excludes some children on religious grounds. On July
26, by a vote of 98-0, the Senate approved an amendment to the authorization bill by Senator
Frist saying that no Federal law may be construed to limit federal agency support to youth
organizations. The authorization conference agreement includes an amended provision requiring
that no Federal law may restrict military support for several identified youth organizations,
including the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and for other youth organizations that the President
may designate in the future.
Base Closures
In the FY2003 defense authorization bill, Congress approved a new round of military base
closures to be carried out in calendar year 2005, and both last year and the year before, Congress,
in some cases quite narrowly, rejected proposals to repeal or limit the base closure law. The
congressionally approved closure process was underway throughout the current legislative
session. Even so, there was some discussion in Congress about last-minute measures to delay or
derail the process.
Congressional Action
In its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the House Armed Services committee rejected
an amendment proposed by Representative Bradley to delay the base closure round. Later, on the
floor, the full House rejected the same proposal by a vote of 112-316. Meanwhile, in the Senate,
Senator Thune with several cosponsors proposed a freestanding bill (S. 1075) to postpone
closures until, among other things, all major combat forces have returned from Iraq.
Subsequently, Senator Thune proposed a similar measure as an amendment to the defense
authorization bill. That amendment is still technically pending. The base closure commission sent
its final report—with recommendations to close 22 major military facilities and realign 33
others—to the White House on September 8. President Bush approved the report and sent it to
Congress on September 15. Congress then had 45 days to pass a joint resolution to disapprove the
list, or it becomes law. On October 27, 2005, by a vote of 85-324, the House rejected a resolution
(H.J.Res. 65) disapproving of the base closure recommendations.
Congressional Research Service
55
Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
“
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.