Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional research reportOct 19, 2006
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and
Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
October 19, 2006
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33405
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
In the week before Congress adjourned for recess on September 30, the House and Senate passed
conference agreements on both the FY2007 national defense authorization bill, H.R. 5122, and
the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631. The President signed the appropriations bill
into law, P.L. 109-289, on September 29, and he signed the authorization bill into law, P.L. 109364, on October 17.
The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $436.6 billion for defense,
including $366.6 billion in regular appropriations and $70 billion in additional appropriations,
mainly as a “bridge fund” for operations abroad. The total of regular appropriations is $4 billion
below the Administration request. The Senate-passed bill provided $9 billion less than the
request, which freed that much to add to non-defense appropriations bills. The White House ,
however, threatened to veto the defense bill if reduced defense by more than $4 billion.
In action on other key issues, the appropriations bill–
•
rejected the Administration proposal to terminate C-17 cargo aircraft production
after FY2007 and provided funds for 22 aircraft;
•
approved a Navy proposal to provide partial funding for 2 DDG-1000
destroyers—formerly the DD(X)—rather than providing full funding for just one
ship as in the House bill;
•
included funds as requested for one T-AKE cargo ship and for 2 Littoral Combat
Ships (LCS), rather than eliminating T-AKE funds and procuring only one LCS,
as in the Senate bill; and
slowed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement, with funds to buy 2 rather than the
requested 5 aircraft, but did not eliminate FY2007 aircraft procurement funds as
had the Senate bill.
•
On key defense policy issues, the authorization bill
•
•
provided a 2.2% pay raise, as requested, rather than or a 2.7% raise as in the
House bill;
approved access for all reservists, except Federal employees with Federal health
insurance, to the DOD TRICARE medical insurance program with a premium of
28% of the cost of the program;
•
rejected House language permitting chaplains to use denominational prayers
according to each chaplain’s conscience, but, instead, in report language, required
the Army and Navy to rescind recent directives on prayer and return to earlier
policies;
•
agreed to a substantially amended Senate change in the Buy American Act to
allow use of foreign-supplied specialty metals in U.S.-built systems; and
did not agree to a Senate provision giving the head of the National Guard fourstar rank and the authority to make independent budget requests, but assigned
these issues to a commission on the reserves.
•
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Status of Legislation....................................................................................................................2
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the FY2007 Defense Budget Request.......................3
Overview of the Administration Request .....................................................................................9
Highlights of the FY2007 Defense Budget Request ...............................................................9
Key Issues in Congress ............................................................................................................. 14
Congressional Action on Major Issues....................................................................................... 19
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date ........................................................ 19
Congressional Budget Resolution.................................................................................. 19
FY2007 National Defense Authorization ....................................................................... 20
FY2007 Defense Appropriations ................................................................................... 20
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of the House Armed Services
Committee Bill ................................................................................................................ 20
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of House Floor Action .................................... 25
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of the Senate Armed Services
Committee Bill ................................................................................................................ 26
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of Senate Floor Action.................................... 30
House Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations .......................................................... 35
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of the House Appropriations
Committee Bill ................................................................................................................ 36
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of House Floor Action .................................. 38
Senate Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations.......................................................... 39
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of the Senate Appropriations
Committee Bill ................................................................................................................ 40
Funding Cuts and Caps on Discretionary Spending and on Emergency Spending........... 41
Other Issues in the Senate Defense Appropriations Bill ................................................. 42
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of Senate Floor Action.................................. 44
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of the Conference Agreement ....................... 50
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of the Conference Agreement ......................... 53
Figures
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2000-FY2011,
Excluding Supplementals ....................................................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2007 Defense Authorization, H.R. 5122, S. 2766 ........................................2
Table 2. Status of FY2007 Defense Appropriations, H.R. 5631 ....................................................2
Table 3. FY2007 Department of Defense Appropriations, House and Senate Action by
Bill and Title............................................................................................................................4
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 4. FY2007 National Defense Authorization, House and Senate Action by Title,
H.R. 5122, S. 2766...................................................................................................................6
Table 5. Congressional Budget Resolution, Recommended National Defense
Budget Function Totals ............................................................................................................7
Table 6. Administration Request for National Defense for FY2007, Budget Authority,
Discretionary and Mandatory ...................................................................................................8
Table 7. House Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122................................................................................................. 26
Table 8. Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Authorization Bill, S. 2766..................................................................................................... 31
Table 9. Initial House 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations............................................................ 36
Table 10. Initial vs. Latest Senate 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations.......................................... 40
Table 11. Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631............................................................................................... 47
Table 12. Side-by-Side Comparison of House, Senate, and Conference Action on Major
Policy Issues in the FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1522/S. 2766........................... 55
Table A-1. Administration Projection of National Defense Funding, FY2007-FY2011 ............... 60
Table A-2. Proposed Missile Defense Funding, FY2007-FY2011 .............................................. 61
Table A-3. Authorized and Actual Active Duty End-Strength, FY2004-FY2007......................... 63
Table A-4. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs: Authorization ................... 64
Table A-5. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapon Programs: Appropriations ................. 69
Table A-6. Emergency Funding, Authorization and Appropriations............................................ 75
Table A-7. Appropriation of Emergency Funds for Procurement: Line Item Detail..................... 76
Appendixes
Appendix. Additional Tables ..................................................................................................... 60
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 83
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 84
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On September 26, 2006, by a vote of 394-22, the House approved a conference agreement on the
FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631. The Senate approved the agreement on
September 29 by a vote of 100-0, and the President signed the bill into law, P.L. 109-289, on the
same day. The bill includes a continuing resolution to run the rest of the government through
November 17, after Congress returns from its election recess. Also on September 29, the House
approved a conference agreement on the FY2007 national defense authorization bill, H.R. 5122
by a vote of 398-23. The Senate approved the agreement on September 30 by unanimous consent.
The President signed the authorization bill into law, P.L. 109-364, on October 17.
The conference agreement on the appropriations bill provides $436.6 billion in new
appropriations for defense, including $366.6 billion1 in regular appropriations and $70 billion in
additional appropriations as a “bridge fund” for operations abroad and for some other purposes.
The total of regular appropriations is $4 billion below the Administration request. The total
amount in the bill was a key issue. The Senate-passed bill provided $9 billion less than the
request, which, in turn, allowed increases above the Administration request in non-defense
appropriations while remaining within the budget resolution cap on total discretionary spending.
But the White House threatened to veto the bill if it trimmed defense by more than $4 billion as a
means of providing additional funds for non-security-related programs.
The $70 billion in additional funds approved in the conference agreement is $20 billion higher
than the $50 billion that each appropriations committee originally provided. In floor action, the
Senate had added $16.2 billion in emergency funding. Of that amount, $13.1 billion was added by
a Stevens-Inouye amendment to provide funds for the Army and Marine Corps to repair, upgrade,
and replace equipment used in overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate also
added $1.8 billion for border security, $700 million for counter drug operations in Afghanistan,
$200 million for enhanced intelligence to track down Osama bin Laden, $65 million for Predator
UAVs, $20 million for peacekeepers in Sudan, and $175 million for wildfire suppression. In the
conference agreement, the $20 billion added to the original $50 billion, is mainly to reset Army
and Marine units. In all, according to the House Appropriations Committee, the bill provides over
$17.1 billion to fully fund Army and $5.8 billion to fully fund Marine Corps reset costs. The
agreement also provides $100 million for Afghan counter-drug operations and $200 million for
wildfire suppression, but does not include the other Senate additions.
Key issues resolved in the authorization conference agreement included whether, as in the House
bill, to alter DOD provisions that require non-denominational prayer, whether, as in the Senate
bill, to promote the head of the National Guard to four-star rank, and whether to approve
multiyear procurement of the F-22 fighter aircraft. The authorization bill also approves Senate
amendments to the Insurrection Act to allow the President substantially expanded authority to
used the armed forces in response to domestic emergencies, allows all off-duty reservists, except
Federal employees with Federal health insurance, to enroll in the TRICARE health insurance
1
An additional $11.2 billion is counted as part of the bill under budgetary rules agreed to by the House and Senate
Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget. This is the cost of
contributions DOD must make to the military retirement fund to cover the actuarially determined cost of future 65-andover retiree medical benefits for current uniformed personnel. These contributions are considered to be permanent
appropriations which count against caps on discretionary spending.
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
program with a premium or 28% of the program’s cost, and provides expanded authority for the
Defense Department to use its funds for security assistance to foreign governments.
Status of Legislation
The House and Senate have reached final agreements on the FY2007 defense appropriations bill,
and on the FY2007 national defense authorization bill. Tables 1 and 2 track congressional action
on those measures.
Table 1. Status of FY2007 Defense Authorization, H.R. 5122, S. 2766
Full Committee
Markup
House
Senate
5/3/06
5/4/06
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
H.Rept.
109-452
5/5/06
5/11/06
396-31
S.Rept.
109-254
5/9/06
6/22/06
96-0
H.Rept.
109-702
9/29/06
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
9/29/06
398-23
9/30/06
U.C.
Public
Law
P.L.
109-364
10/17/06
Table 2. Status of FY2007 Defense Appropriations, H.R. 5631
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
6/7/06
7/13/06
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
H.Rept.
109-504
6/16/06
6/20/06
407-19
S.Rept.
109-292
7/25/06
9/7/06
98-0
H.Rept.
109-676
9/25/06
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
9/26/06
394-22
9/29/06
100-0
Public
Law
P.L.
109-289
9/29/06
Earlier in the year Congress began, but never completed, action on the annual congressional
budget resolution. The Senate passed its version of the resolution, S.Con.Res. 83, on March 16.
The House Budget Committee reported its version of the resolution, H.Con.Res. 376, on March
31, and floor action began on April 6. But the leadership halted debate in the face of internal
Republican opposition to the measure. On May 18, a compromise was announced, and the House
approved the measure by a vote of 218-210.
There has been no conference agreement on the budget resolution, however. In the absence of an
agreement, on May 18, the House also approved a measure “deeming” the provisions of its
version of the budget resolution, including a cap of $872.8 billion on total discretionary spending,
to be in effect for purposes of subsequent House action. The “deeming” resolution was included
in the rule (H.Res. 818) governing debate on the FY2007 Interior and Environment
appropriations bill (H.R. 5386). The Senate attached a “deeming” measure to the FY2006
supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4939).
In action on related legislation, the House passed the Military Quality of Life/Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill, H.R. 5385, on May 19. The bill provides $58 billion for the Department of
Defense, including funds for military construction and family housing, for some military
personnel accounts, for some military operation and maintenance accounts, and for the defense
health program. In the Senate, the military personnel, O&M, and defense health funds are
provided in the regular defense appropriations bill, and the military construction and family
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
housing funds are provided in the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. That
bill, also H.R. 5385, was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 20, but has
not been taken up on the Senate floor. As reported, it provides $16.3 billion for Department of
Defense military construction and family housing.
Facts and Figures: Congressional Action on the
FY2007 Defense Budget Request
The following series of tables show congressional action on defense budget. Additional details
will be added as congressional action proceeds.
Table 3 shows congressional action on the FY2007 appropriations bills that provide funding for
the Department of Defense. These are (1) the defense appropriations bills in the House and the
Senate (H.R. 5631) and (2) the military quality of life/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill in the
House and the military construction/VA bill in the Senate (both H.R. 5385). The House military
quality of life/VA appropriations bill includes about $42 billion for Military Personnel and for
Operation and Maintenance accounts that are provided in the defense appropriations bill in the
Senate. Table 3 shows the total in these accounts by bill.
The conference agreement on the defense appropriation bill this year follows the organization of
the House-passed bill – last year, the conference followed the Senate. So the totals shown in
Table 3 for the conference agreement do not include amounts for military personnel, for
operation and maintenance, and for defense health that will be provided in the military quality of
live/VA appropriations bill, when it is completed.
Please note that while this table shows all appropriations for the Department of Defense, it does
not show funding provided in other appropriations bills for defense-related activities of other
agencies. The largest amount of non-DOD defense-related funding is for Department of Energy
nuclear weapons programs, for which the Administration has requested about $17 billion in
FY2007. Funding for DOE defense programs is provided in the annual energy and water
appropriations bill (H.R. 5427). Other amounts for national defense not show here include FBI
counterintelligence activities financed in appropriations for the Department of Justice and smaller
amounts in other bills.
Congressional Research Service
3
Table 3. FY2007 Department of Defense Appropriations, House and Senate Action by Bill and Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacted
House
Request
House
Passed
House
Versus
Request
Senate
Request
Senate
Passed
Senate
Versus
Request
Military Personnel
96.0
86.1
84.9
-1.2
99.6
99.0
-0.6
86.4
+0.3
Operation and Maintenance
122.4
122.4
120.5
-1.9
130.1
126.3
-3.8
119.8
-2.7
Procurement
75.8
82.9
81.8
-1.1
82.9
81.0
-1.9
80.9
-2.0
RDT&E
71.4
73.2
75.3
+2.2
73.2
73.0
-0.2
75.7
+2.6
Revolving and Management Funds
2.2
2.4
2.4
—
2.4
2.0
-0.4
2.4
—
Other Defense Programsa
22.5
2.4
2.4
—
23.4
23.9
0.4
2.5
+0.1
Related Agencies
0.7
0.9
0.9
—
0.9
0.9
—
0.9
—
General Provisions
-2.2
0.1
-1.9
-2.0
0.1
-2.5
-2.6
-2.2
-2.2
388.9
370.4
366.3
-4.1
412.6
403.6
-9.0
366.4
-4.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
—
50.0
66.2
16.2
70.0
+20.0
438.9
420.4
416.3
-4.1
462.6
469.8
7.2
436.4
+16.0
10.7
11.2
11.2
—
11.2
11.2
—
11.2
+0.1
Total Regular w/ Accrual
399.6
381.6
377.5
-4.1
423.8
414.8
-9.0
377.6
-4.0
Total w/ War and Accrual
449.6
431.6
427.5
-4.1
473.8
481.0
7.2
447.6
+16.0
Conf.
Conf
Versus
Request
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631
Total Regular Appropriations
Additional Appropriations for War
Total with Additional for War
65+ Retiree Medical Accrualb
DOD Programs in Military Quality of Life/VA and Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bills, H.R. 5385
Military Construction
9.6
12.6
11.9
-0.7
12.6
12.3
-0.3
—
—
Family Housing
4.5
4.1
4.0
-0.1
4.1
4.0
-0.1
—
—
Basic Allowance for Housing
—
13.5
13.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
Facilities Sustainment
—
6.2
6.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
Environmental Restoration
—
1.4
1.4
—
—
—
—
—
—
Defense Health Program
—
21.0
21.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
14.0
58.9
58.1
-0.8
16.7
16.3
-0.4
—
—
Total Department of Defense
CRS-4
FY2006
Enacted
House
Request
House
Passed
House
Versus
Request
Senate
Request
Senate
Passed
Senate
Versus
Request
Conf.
Conf
Versus
Request
Grand Total in Defense and Military Construction Appropriations Bills
Total Regular Appropriations
413.6
440.5
435.6
-4.9
440.5
431.1
-9.4
—
—
Total With Additional for War
463.6
490.5
485.6
-4.9
490.5
497.3
7.2
—
—
FY2006 Supplemental, June 2006
67.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total With Supplemental
531.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, House and Senate reports on respective bills, CRS and CBO for Senate floor action; conference report on the defense
appropriations bill, H.Rept. 109-676.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
Other Defense Programs include Defense Health, Drug Interdiction, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, and DOD Inspector General in the Senate bill and all but
Defense Health in the House bill. In DOD briefing charts, Chemical Weapons Demilitarization is shown in Procurement and the other accounts are shown in
Operation and Maintenance.
b.
Annual funding for accrual payments by DOD for age-65-and-over Medicare-eligible military retirees is considered a permanent appropriation. The amounts to be
contributed to military retirement funds for the cost of these benefits are not technically subject to annual appropriations, but they are scored as DOD discretionary
funds. As such, they count against the defense subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation and against the total amount of discretionary funds available for appropriation.
CRS-5
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 4 shows congressional action on the House and Senate versions of the FY2007 defense
authorization bill by title. It is important to note that the authorization bill does not directly
provide funds for most defense programs (the exception being some mandatory programs).
Rather, it authorizes the appropriation of funds. In the appropriations bills, Congress may provide
more than, less than, or the same as the amounts authorized to be appropriated, and it may
provide funds for programs never specifically mentioned in authorization bills or associated
report language.
Table 4. FY2007 National Defense Authorization, House and Senate Action by Title,
H.R. 5122, S. 2766
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Request
HousePassed
House
Versus
Request
Senate
Passed
Senate
Versus
Request
Military Personnel
110.8
109.8
-1.0
111.9
+1.1
110.1
-0.7
Operation & Maintenance
130.1
129.8
-0.3
129.5
-0.6
129.0
-1.1
Procurement
82.9
84.6
+1.7
85.7
+2.8
84.2
+1.3
RDT&E
73.2
74.1
+0.9
74.3
+1.1
73.6
+0.5
Military Construction
12.6
12.8
+0.2
13.2
+0.6
13.0
+0.4
Family Housing
4.1
4.1
-0.0
4.1
-0.0
4.1
-0.0
Revolving & Management
2.4
2.5
+0.1
2.4
0.0
2.4
0.0
Other Defense Programsa
23.4
23.6
+0.2
23.4
-0.1
23.8
+0.4
Other Military
Discretionary
0.0
0.1
+0.1
0.1
+0.1
0.1
+0.1
Mandatory Programs
1.9
1.9
-0.0
4.7
+2.7
1.9
-0.0
Rescissions/Inflation
Savings
0.0
-1.6
-1.6
-1.0
-1.0
-0.8
-0.8
441.5
441.7
+0.2
448.3
+6.8
441.5
+0.0
Atomic Energy Defense
Activities
17.0
16.5
-0.5
16.4
-0.6
16.5
-0.5
Other Defense-Related
Activities
4.8
4.7
-0.0
4.7
-0.0
4.7
-0.0
Total National
Defense
463.3
462.9
-0.4
469.4
+6.2
462.8
-0.5
Emergency Authorization
50.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
70.0
+20.0
Total Including
Emergency
513.3
512.9
-0.4
519.4
+6.2
532.8
+19.5
Total Department
of Defense
Conf.
Conf.
Versus
Request
Source: Office of Management and Budget; H.Rept. 109-452, S.Rept. 109-254; H.Rept. 109-702.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
Other Defense Programs include Defense Health Program; Drug Interdiction; Chemical Weapons
Demilitarization; and Office of the Inspector General.
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 5 shows congressional recommendations for defense budget authority and outlays
in versions of the annual budget resolution—S.Con.Res. 83 as passed by the Senate and
H.Con.Res. 376 as passed by the House. These amounts are not binding on the appropriations
committees, however.
Table 5. Congressional Budget Resolution, Recommended National Defense
Budget Function Totals
(billions of dollars)
FY2007a
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Administration Request
Budget Authority
513.0
485.2
505.3
515.3
526.1
Outlays
527.4
494.4
494.3
507.4
522.7
Senate Budget Committee Reported
Budget Authority
545.4
481.7
501.8
511.9
522.8
Outlays
550.5
514.8
508.1
511.2
521.9
Budget Authority
549.4
483.0
502.8
512.9
523.9
Outlays
554.5
516.0
509.1
512.2
523.0
Senate Passed
House Budget Committee Reported
Budget Authority
512.9
484.7
504.8
514.9
525.8
Outlays
534.9
505.5
505.9
512.6
524.9
Sources: Office of Management and Budget; S.Con.Res. 83; H.Con.Res. 376.
a.
For FY2007, the Administration request includes $50 billion for a planned budget amendment for overseas
operations. The Senate recommended levels for FY2007 assume $82 billion for overseas operations. The
House committee-reported level assumes $50 billion, as in the request.
Table 6 shows the Administration’s FY2007 national defense request, by appropriations title,
separating discretionary and mandatory amounts. The total for FY2006 includes a $70 billion
placeholder for supplemental appropriations. The final FY2006 supplemental appropriations bill,
however, H.R. 4239, which was signed into law on June 15, P.L. 109-234, provides $67.7 billion
for national defense programs, $2.3 billion less. The total for FY2007 includes a $50 billion
placeholder for a budget amendment for overseas operations. If the $50 billion placeholder is
removed, the total discretionary request for the Department of Defense is $439.3 billion. This was
the amount most often referred to in DOD press releases as the FY2007 Department of Defense
request when the budget was released in February.
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 6. Administration Request for National Defense for FY2007, Budget Authority,
Discretionary and Mandatory
(billions of dollars)
2005
Actual
2006
Estimate
2007
Request
Military personnel
119.7
113.5
110.8
Operation and maintenance
178.6
177.7
152.0
Procurement
96.6
86.2
84.2
—
70.0
50.0
Research, development, test and evaluation
68.8
71.0
73.2
Military construction
7.3
8.9
12.6
Family housing
4.1
4.4
4.1
Revolving, management, and trust funds and other
3.8
4.8
2.4
478.9
536.6
489.3
Department of Energy defense-related activities
17.0
16.2
15.8
Formerly utilized sites remedial action
0.2
0.1
0.1
Defense nuclear facilities safety board
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
16.4
16.0
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1.2
2.3
2.3
Other discretionary programs
2.4
3.0
2.2
3.7
5.3
4.5
499.8
558.3
509.7
Concurrent receipt accrual payments
1.5
2.3
2.4
Research, development, test, and evaluation
—
—
0.3
Revolving, trust and other DoD mandatory
5.0
0.8
0.8
Offsetting receipts
-1.5
-1.6
-1.5
5.0
1.5
1.9
0.7
1.7
1.0
Radiation exposure compensation trust fund
0.1
0.1
0.0
Other mandatory programs
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
National Defense Discretionary (Function 050)
Department of Defense—Military Discretionary (Subfunction 051)
Anticipated funding for the Global War on Terrora
Total, Department of Defense—Military Discretionary
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (Subfunction 053)
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities Discretionary
Defense-Related Activities (Subfunction 054)
Total, Defense-Related Activities Discretionary
Total, National Defense Discretionary
National Defense Mandatory (Function 050)
Department of Defense—Military Mandatory (Subfunction 051)
Total, Department of Defense—Military Mandatory
Atomic Energy Defense Activities Mandatory (Subfunction 053)
Energy employees occupational illness compensation program and other
Defense-Related Activities Mandatory (Subfunction 054)
Total, Defense-Related Activities Mandatory
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
2005
Actual
2006
Estimate
2007
Request
6.0
3.6
3.3
505.8
561.8
513.0
Total, National Defense Mandatory
Total, National Defense (Function 050)
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2007,
Table 27-1.
a.
These are placeholder amounts for a request for supplemental appropriations for FY2006 and for a budget
amendment for FY2007, not yet submitted. The final FY2006 supplemental provided $67.7 billion for
national defense programs.
Overview of the Administration Request
On February 6, 2006, the White House formally released its FY2007 federal budget request to
Congress. The request included $513.0 billion in new budget authority for national defense in
FY2007, of which $50 billion was a placeholder for a later budget amendment to cover costs of
overseas military operations, $441.2 billion was for regular operations of the Department of
Defense (DOD), $17.0 billion was for Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons programs,
and $4.8 billion was for defense-related activities of other agencies (see Table 6 above).
The $50 billion placeholder is not intended to cover the full costs of military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere in FY2007. Rather, it is a “bridge fund” to cover costs in the initial
months of FY2007. Remaining costs for the rest of the year will, if Congress agrees, be covered
by a later supplemental appropriations bill.2
Along with the FY2007 budget request, the Pentagon released the results of the congressionallymandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of defense policy. The year-long QDR was not a
budget exercise, but it identified the kinds of military capabilities that senior DOD officials
believe should be emphasized in years to come, and it endorsed a few budget decisions that were
reflected in the FY2007 DOD request to Congress.
Highlights of the FY2007 Defense Budget Request
Aspects of the Defense Department’s FY2007 request that appear to be of most immediate
concern to Congress include:
2
On its own initiative, Congress provided a $25 billion bridge fund in the FY2005 defense appropriations act and a $50
billion bridge fund in FY2006. In each year, the White House later requested additional supplemental funds. In
February 2006, the Defense Department requested $67 billion for overseas military operations in FY2006 in addition to
the $50 billion appropriated last fall and $5 billion for DOD for domestic disaster costs. In the FY2006 supplemental
appropriations act, H.R. 4939, P.L. 109-234, Congress provided $66.0 billion for overseas operations and $1.7 billion
for DOD domestic disaster relief and repair. For a full discussion of the FY2006 supplemental, see CRS Report
RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane
Katrina Relief, by (name redacted) et al.
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
(1) The Administration continues to request large amounts for Iraq and
Afghanistan through “additional” or “emergency supplemental” appropriations
not subject to limits on total discretionary federal spending and not subject to
the full congressional authorization and appropriations review process
In the FY2007 budget, the Administration has, for the first time, requested part of the funding to
carry on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan before the start of the fiscal year in the form
of a $50 billion budget amendment to the FY2007 request. In this, the Administration has
followed Congress’s lead—Congress provided a “bridge fund” of $25 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill and of $50 billion in FY2006. By
submitting a budget amendment, the Administration gains a more direct and formal voice in
proposing how to allocate the additional funds. The Administration will continue, however, to
request more additional funding in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to be submitted
next year. Both the “bridge fund” and later supplemental appropriations will be requested over
and above proposed limits on overall discretionary spending.
The key point remains this: Either in the form of a bridge fund or of emergency supplemental
appropriations, the Administration is requesting that additional war funding not count against
restrictive caps on regular annual defense and non-defense appropriations. War expenditures,
however, have become a very large part of total annual defense spending, and, for that matter, of
total defense and non-defense appropriations. For FY2006, Congress approved a $50 billion
bridge fund for war costs last fall, and, in June of 2006, it approved additional supplemental
appropriations of $66 billion, for a total of $116 billion. A few comparisons may help put this
amount into perspective.
•
Regular DOD appropriations for FY2006 were $411 billion, so the $116 billion
for war increases defense funding by 28%.
•
In last year’s budget resolution, the FY2006 cap on total “non-emergency”
appropriations, both for defense and for non-defense programs, was $843 billion,
which was subsequently trimmed by 1% to $835 billion. The $116 billion for war
adds 14% to federal discretionary funding.
•
At the end of last year’s budget cycle, Congress imposed an across-the-board cut
of 1% in all appropriations bills, which trimmed federal spending by $8.4 billion,
7% of the amount it is providing for war costs.
An equally important point is that DOD requests for “additional” or “emergency” war
appropriations are not subject to nearly the extent of review that Congress exercises over regular
defense spending. The Administration decision to submit a budget amendment for a bridge fund
is, at most, only a limited step in the direction of greater oversight. The amendment has not been
submitted in advance of House action on the FY2007 defense authorization bill. Moreover,
neither supplemental appropriations requests nor budget amendments are supported by the kind of
detailed budget justification material that Congress expects to be provided with regular DOD
funding requests. In part because of that, there appears to be a growing sentiment in Congress to
the effect that full funding for ongoing military operations should be considered through the
regular, annual defense authorization and appropriations process.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Figure 1. DOD Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2000-FY2011,
Excluding Supplementals
(2) The regular DOD appropriations request for FY2007 is for $439.3 billion, $28.5
billion above the FY2006 enacted amount, an increase of 7%
Viewed in this way, the FY2007 budget appears to carry on the substantial defense buildup that
has been underway for the past several years. But the story is a bit more complicated than that.
The increase appears so large in part because Congress cut the FY2006 request by $8.5 billion—a
$4.4 billion cut in the regular process and an additional across-the-board reduction of $4.1 billion
at the end of the appropriations process.3 Moreover, in an effort to stay within tight limits on
overall appropriations for FY2007, the Office of Management and Budget trimmed DOD’s
FY2007 budget by $3.8 billion compared to the amount that was planned last year for FY2007.
Out-year budget projections for the regular defense budget show spending leveling off to very
modest rates of growth. The average increase between FY2005 and FY2011 is 1.7% per year
above inflation, far below the 5% per year growth between FY2001 and FY2005 (see Figure 1).
That said, when additional and supplemental appropriations for war are included, total defense
spending is continuing to grow. The total increase in defense between FY2005 and FY2006 will
be about $56 billion if Congress approves the pending FY2006 supplemental. The increase
between FY2006 and FY2007 could be as great.
So, the summary story line might be termed the “tale of two budgets.” The budget is getting very
tight for programs that are funded strictly within the regular defense budget—military service
officials have testified that the congressional cuts in the FY2006 defense budget are requiring
3
For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32924, Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations, by (name re
dacted).
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
substantial reductions in some operations. At the same time, supplemental appropriations are
soaring, and money is readily available for programs that are tied to the war effort.
(3) The Administration’s FY2007 request rejects congressional proposals to
increase Army and Marine Corps end-strength and cuts Air Force and Navy
personnel levels
For FY2006 Congress authorized active duty end-strength of 512,400 for the Army of 179,000 for
the Marine Corps. By the end of FY2007, however, the Defense Department plans to restore
Army and Marine Corps end-strength to the pre-FY2004, pre-Iraq, “base-line” level—482,400 for
the Army, which is 30,000 troops lower than the current authorization, and 175,000 for the
Marine Corps, which is 4,000 lower. Many Members of Congress have urged that the current
authorized levels be made permanent in order to ease the pace of operations on ground forces.
The Administration vigorously opposes a permanent increase, however, arguing that costs are
high and that forces can be organized more efficiently to provide required combat troops.
Meanwhile, the Air Force plans to eliminate at least 40,000 full-time equivalent positions over the
next five years through a mixture of reductions in active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel.
And the Navy is cutting 12,000 active duty personnel between FY2006 and FY2007. Though no
additional Navy cuts have been announced formally, it is widely expected that the Defense
Department will trim an additional 20,000 or so positions from the Navy over the next few years.
(4) The Administration’s FY2007 request provides funds for 333,000 Army
National Guard (ARNG) troops rather than the 350,000 authorized and reflects a
decision to reduce the number of combat brigades in the ARNG from 34 to 28
The Army has been unable to recruit and retain enough troops in the National Guard to reach its
authorized end-strength. In the FY2007 request, the Army has requested funding only for 333,000
troops, though, after the budget was released, Army officials said that they would shift money
into personnel and other related accounts if recruitment and retention improves. In its future
plans, however, the Army projects ARNG end-strength of 333,000.
A more controversial issue is the Army plan to reduce the number of new, modularized ARNG
combat brigades. As Army officials explain, the purpose of the change is to fully man the new
brigades within authorized ARNG end-strength and to fully equip the combat units within
available budget constraints. The change will likely mean that ARNG units in some states that
will not, as had been planned, be outfitted as new, more capable combat brigades, will lose
personnel. The units that remain, therefore, will also likely have less ability to carry out state
disaster response and homeland defense missions. As a result, state governors and some National
Guard leaders have been very critical of the plan.
(5) The FY2007 request includes only a modest 2.2% pay raise for troops
and proposes increases in medical care fees and co-pays for under-age-65
military retirees
Since 1999, Congress has approved substantial increases in military pay and benefits. Compared
to economy-wide indices, uniformed military personnel now cost as much as 33% more, above
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
inflation, than in the late 1990s.4 In the FY2007 budget, the Administration is proposing measures
to rein in the growth of pay and benefits. The proposed 2.2% military pay raise is the lowest since
1994. And the Administration has proposed increasing fees and co-pays for under-age-65 military
retirees who are eligible for medical care through the military Tricare program. This is the first
proposed increase in medical co-pays since the current Tricare medical care system for retirees
and dependents was established in 1995.
(6) The FY2007 request proposes a few reductions in major weapons programs,
some of which have been controversial in Congress
With the Defense Department carrying out its Quadrennial Defense Review in 2005, many
expected some substantial changes in long-term budget priorities, including some cuts in major
weapons programs. The QDR did not, however, make many far-reaching changes in on-going
programs, and only a few reductions in weapons plans are reflected in the FY2007 budget
request. Two have so far been controversial in Congress—
•
A decision to halt procurement of the C-17 cargo plane in FY2007 after buying
180 of the aircraft since the program began in the mid-1980s; and
•
A decision to drop plans to develop and buy engines for the F-35 joint
strike fighter from two manufacturers and, instead, just to buy engines from
one company.
(7) The Quadrennial Defense Review did not result in decisions on major,
ongoing defense budget and program-related issues
The official Department of Defense report on the 2005-2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, 5
which was released along with the Administration’s budget request in February, stated plainly that
the year-long QDR exercise was not intended to be a systematic assessment of major defense
programs. Instead, it was designed to provide a vision of the national security challenges facing
the nation and to identify the kinds of military capabilities that are needed.
True to its word, the QDR report announced very few major program decisions, though it
did mention some. Perhaps the most significant is to add 15,000 special operations troops,
though without increasing overall military end-strength. For the most part, the QDR report
simply endorsed ongoing initiatives, though often with wording carefully designed to keep
options for policy-makers open. The result is to leave undecided some very far-reaching defense
policy issues.
•
For the Navy, the QDR report endorsed increasing “green” and “brown” water
capabilities, construction of new prepositioning ships, 11 rather than 12
deployable aircraft carriers, construction of two attack submarines per year at
lower than current prices, and the conversion of a number of Trident II
submarine-launched missiles to carry conventional (non-nuclear) warheads. But
4
For a discussion, see CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and Beyond, by
(name redacted).
5
Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February, 2006. Available at
http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
the report said nothing about other naval force issues. Notably, it did not mention
the recently-released Navy shipbuilding plan for a combat fleet of 313 ships.
Many question whether that plan is affordable.
•
Regarding fighter aircraft acquisition plans in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine
Corps, the QDR report endorsed a revised Air Force plan to stretch out F-22
procurement, but otherwise did not mention the number of short-range fighter
and ground attack aircraft needed in the long term. The report put a great deal of
emphasis on the need for long-range, prompt, global strike capabilities. This may
appear to be at odds with plans to continue large investments in shorter-range
strike aircraft that may have limited access to areas of combat in future conflicts,
but the report did not address the issue.
•
The report endorsed the Army’s plan to reorganize into more deployable,
modular combat brigades, but notably did not make an explicit commitment to
provide the full funding needed to modularize all active and reserve combat units
as the Army has planned. 6 The report also endorsed the capabilities being
developed in the Army’s Future Combat System development program, but,
notably, did not explicitly endorse the program as a whole.
•
The report said very little at all about satellites and other space programs. The
only mention of a space program was to endorse an Air Force plan to restructure
the Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) program to incorporate
less risky technology. Other space programs have experienced problems like
those in the TSAT program, but these are not mentioned. Space programs overall
have grown dramatically as a share of the defense budget, and cost growth in
major programs has been pandemic. And a major policy issue is how to protect
space based systems from future threats and whether the U.S. security will be
advanced by developing offensive space capabilities. The QDR discusses none of
these issues.
Key Issues in Congress
Last year, congressional action on the annual defense authorization and appropriations bills
featured extensive debates, first, over policy toward treatment of military detainees, and, toward
the end of the year, over the pace of troop withdrawals from Iraq. This year, a continued debate
over Iraq policy reemerged in congressional consideration of the FY2006 supplemental
appropriations bill (H.R. 4939). That debate was renewed first in the House on June 15-16, when
the leadership brought up a resolution (H.Res. 861) declaring “that it is not in the national
security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of
United States Armed Forces from Iraq.” The House approved the resolution by a vote of 256-153.
The following week the Senate debated Iraq policy in floor action on the FY2007 defense
authorization bill. On June 22, the Senate rejected two amendments on Iraq policy, one by
Senator Levin calling for a phased reduction of troops to begin this year (rejected by a vote of 39-
6
For an overview of Army modularization, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
60) and another by Senator Kerry calling for withdrawal of most forces by July 1, 2007 (rejected
by a vote of 13-86).
In addition to Iraq policy, other issues have emerged. What follows is a list of selected issues that
have come up as debate about the FY2007 defense budget has progressed.
•
Funding cuts in the regular FY2007 defense appropriations bill: Last year,
Congress trimmed $4.4 billion from the regular FY2006 defense appropriations
bill and applied the money to non-defense appropriations. Later, at the end of the
process, Congress trimmed defense appropriations by an additional $4.1 billion
as part of an across-the-board 1% cut in all appropriations, as an offset for
Katrina-related funding. This year, the Senate took a step to avoid similar guns
versus butter trade-offs in the FY2007 budget by adding $3.7 billion to the
budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) cap on total discretionary spending. As last
year, there appears to a considerable amount of opposition in Congress to
proposed cuts in non-defense appropriations, and the defense bill may be seen as
a source of offsetting funds because of the amount of money available for
defense in emergency funding for overseas operations.
•
Limits on emergency funding: The Senate-passed FY2007 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 83) puts a cap of $90 billion on total emergency funding. War costs,
including $50 billion that the Administration plans to request as an attachment to
the regular FY2007 defense appropriations bill, plus a later emergency FY2007
supplemental request expected next February, together with requests for funds for
Katrina-recovery, bird flu, border security, agricultural disaster relief, and other
purposes, will almost surely exceed the cap by a substantial amount. If Congress
ultimately approves such a cap, anything above $90 billion would require
offsetting rescissions, including, quite likely, cuts in regular defense funding.
•
Providing full funding for overseas operations in regular defense funding
bills: Both last year and the year before, the Senate added “Sense of the Senate”
language to the defense appropriations bill urging the Administration to request
full funding for ongoing military operations in the regular authorization and
appropriations bills. The Administration did not concur. But there appears to be
more support in Congress for that approach now. On June 14, the Senate
approved by 98-0 an amendment by Senator McCain to require the President to
request funding for Iraq in its regular, annual budget submission.
•
Army and Marine Corps end-strength: The Administration is proposing
ground force active duty end-strengths at the pre-2004 baseline level. Congress
added 30,000 to Army and 4,000 to Marine Corps end-strength in FY2006, and
there appears to be a great deal of support in Congress, particularly, but not only,
among Democrats, for a permanent end-strength increase.
•
Funding for Army National Guard end-strength: The FY2007 Army request
trims about $500 million from Army personnel accounts and additional amounts
from operation and maintenance accounts to reflect a troop level of 333,000 in
the Army National Guard rather than the 350,000 authorized. Congress may
mandate a higher force level.
•
2.2% pay raise: Every year between 2001 and 2006, Congress approved an
increase in basic pay of ½% above the employment cost index (ECI), a measure
of the average growth of nationwide pay and benefits. An increase of ECI + ½%
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
was mandated for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in the FY2004 national defense
authorization act (P.L. 108-136). Now that provision has expired, and the normal
pay raise, established in Section 1009 of Title 37, U.S.C., is equal to the ECI. The
Administration, accordingly, has requested a pay raise equal to the ECI, which,
for calendar year 2007, is 2.2%. If approved, that would be the lowest pay raise
since 1994. There is considerable sentiment in Congress to provide more.
•
Increased TRICARE fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: There is also
considerable sentiment in Congress against the Administration’s proposed
increases in fees and co-pays for TRICARE for retirees. The Administration
argues, however, that rising medical benefits threaten to drive up military
personnel costs substantially, and that concern has gained some traction in
Congress.7
•
Flexibility for the Defense Department to provide support to foreign nations:
The Defense Department made a number of legislative proposals to expand its
flexibility to provide various kinds of support to foreign nations that, in the past,
have generally been provided through foreign assistance programs. Several of
these proposals expand or make permanent temporary measures that Congress
has approved in bills providing funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
most expansive DOD proposal is to permit the Secretary of Defense, with the
approval of the Secretary of State, to use up to $750 million of defense funds per
year to build the capacities of foreign militaries to engage in counterterrorist
operations or to participate in or support stability operations in which the United
States is engaged.8
•
Funding for National Guard and reserve equipment: Funding for Guard
and reserve units has become a more contentious issue in recent years,
particularly as states look to National Guard units as the front line in possible
homeland defense missions.
•
Adding a representative of the Guard and reserve components to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff: Several Senators have sponsored a bill to establish a 4-star rank
reserve officer to serve on the JCS. The services have opposed such a measure.
•
Retiring an aircraft carrier: The Defense Department wants to reduce the
number of deployable aircraft carriers from 12 to 11. Last year, Congress
included a provision in the FY2006 defense authorization act to prohibit such a
reduction. Senator Warner, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, now supports retiring a carrier, but there is still some opposition. The
issue was initially addressed in action on the FY2006 supplemental
7
For a full discussion, see CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, by
(name redacted).
8
DOD’s legislative proposals for inclusion in annual defense authorization bills are formally sent to Congress by the DOD
Office of Legislative Counsel. The FY2007 proposals are posted on the internet at http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/olc/
legispro.html. The proposal for authority to build the capacity of foreign military forces is in the third package of
proposals, dated April 13, 2006. In the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 109-163, Congress provided
one-year authority for DOD to spend up to $200 million to build the capacity of foreign militaries. DOD’s FY2007
legislative proposal would change the FY2006 provision in some ways. It would make the authority permanent, it would
increase the maximum funding to $750 million, it would require concurrence of the Secretary of State rather than of the
President, and it would allow the waiver of provisions in other laws that would otherwise prohibit assistance to specific
countries or for specific purposes.
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
appropriations bill, H.R. 4939, when Senator Warner proposed an amendment to
permit retirement of the U.S.S. Kennedy aircraft carrier. That measure was not
approved in the conference agreement on the bill, however. As a result, the
Senate addressed the issue in the FY2007 appropriation authorization—see
below.
•
Halting C-17 production: The Defense Department did not request funds for
new C-17 cargo aircraft in FY2007, and instead asked for funding only to
terminate production after 180 aircraft have been produced. The Air Force,
however, included in its FY2007 unfunded priorities list (UPL) a proposal for
7 C-17s as replacements for aircraft that may be worn out due to excessive
wartime use. Some legislators want to keep production lines open for the
foreseeable future.
•
B-52, F-117, and U-2 retirements: The Air Force has proposed cutting the
number of active B-52s from 94 to 56 and retiring F-117 stealth attack aircraft
and U-2 reconnaissance planes. In the past, Congress has repeatedly rejected Air
Force proposals to retire B-52s.
•
Stretching out F-22 procurement: The Air Force has requested stretching out F22 production almost until F-35 procurement begins. The financing mechanism
that it has proposed, however, violates long-standing DOD and Office of
Management and Budget policy that requires full funding of complete end-items
of equipment in annual appropriations for procurement programs. The stretch-out
will increase total procurement costs, even though the Air Force wants to
negotiate a multi-year contract for the remaining production. In the past,
Congress has rejected Air Force proposals that violate the full funding policy,
though it has supported incremental funding for more costly Navy ships.9
•
Eliminating funds to develop a second engine supplier for the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter: DOD has proposed eliminating development of an alternate
engine for the F-35. This would save about $1.7 billion in development costs
through FY2011, according to the Air Force,10 but it would also eliminate the
benefits of ongoing competition between engine producers. Congress has held
several hearings on the issue. Even senior DOD officials testifying on the matter
have acknowledged being unenthusiastic about the proposal.
•
A new refueling aircraft for the Air Force: While studies have found that
current KC-135 refueling aircraft remain reliable, the Air Force wants a new
tanker, arguing that possible corrosion of KC-135 air frames is a danger. Most
recently, DOD has approved an initial request for information from industry
about tanker options, the first step in acquiring a new aircraft.11
•
Converting Trident II missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads: The
Quadrennial Defense Review placed a new, high priority on capabilities to strike
9
For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and (name redacted).
10
Jon Steinman and Tony Capaccio, “Pentagon Plans To Scrap F-35 Backup Engine, Cut Costs,” Bloomberg.com,
Dec. 29, 2005.
11
Megan Scully, “Air Force Launches Latest Effort To Replace Aging Tankers,” National Journal Congress Daily
PM, Apr. 25, 2006
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
targets promptly at long range. In the short term, DOD is proposing to convert
several Trident II missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads for rapid strike
missions.12 Congress has balked at providing the funds requested for the program
until it can address key questions. In addition, beginning some time after 2015,
DOD is proposing to build a new, long-range strike system, which could be a
manned or unmanned bomber.
•
Satellite and other space program acquisition: For the past several years,
Congress has expressed its displeasure with large cost growth and extensive
schedule delays in a number of DOD space programs. Congress has cut funds
substantially and mandated restructuring of some programs, including the
Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) and Space Radar programs.
Press accounts have also reported large changes in the highly classified Future
Imagery Architecture program. 13 The Administration has announced a plan to
restructure the TSAT program to rely on less risky technology.14 The continuing
issue for Congress is whether recent changes in space programs have reduced
risk sufficiently and how fast new programs should proceed.
•
Missile defense funding and testing: Missile defense remains the largest
acquisition program in the defense budget. Congress has been reluctant to cut
funding in the past, though it has trimmed some programs and defense
committees have expressed concern about the testing program. The Missile
Defense Agency now deploying ground-based interceptors in Alaska though the
deployed system has not been tested as an integrated whole. One issue for
Congress may be whether to tie funding to the test program.
•
Acquisition reform: Last year, Congress approved a measure intended to
improve tracking of cost growth in weapons programs by requiring that the
Defense Department report changes compared to original estimates of the costs
rather compared to periodically rebaselined program estimates. The result has
been to show a substantial number of acquisition programs with cost growth
exceeding or approaching levels that would trigger a program review under the
requirements of the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Last year Congress rejected,
however, a requirement that programs with excessive cost growth be reevaluated
compared to alternatives.
12
For a thorough discussion and extensive background on the program, see CRS Report RL33067, Conventional
Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted). Also see
Michael R. Gordon, “Pentagon Seeks Nonnuclear Tip For Sub Missiles,” New York Times, May 29, 2006, pg. 1.
13
Andy Pasztor, “U.S.’s Lofty Plans For Smart Satellites Fall Back To Earth: Big Delays and Cost Overruns Give
Washington Pause; Technical Setbacks Loom; Reconsidering 1970s Designs,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2006,
pg. 1.
14
The Government Accountability Office raised some questions about the restructured program—Government
Accountability Office, Space Acquisitions: DOD Needs Additional Knowledge as it Embarks on a New Approach for
Transformational Satellite Communications System, GAO-06-537, May 24, 2006, available on line at
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-537.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional Action on Major Issues
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date
Congressional Budget Resolution
In March, Congress began action on the annual congressional budget resolution, but did not reach
a conference agreement. In its place both the House and the Senate approved measures
“deeming” a cap of $827.8 billion on total discretionary funds to be in place. For amounts
recommended for national defense in the House and Senate resolutions, see Table 5 above.
The Senate Budget Committee reported its version of the budget resolution on March 10, and the
full Senate approved the measure, S.Con.Res. 83, with amendments, on March 16. The committee
recommended a level of defense spending about $3.7 billion below the Administration request. In
floor action, the Senate adopted amendments that added $4 billion to the recommended defense
total. The Senate also approved an amendment by Senator Lott to add $3.7 billion to the
enforceable cap on total discretionary funding. This was intended to avoid cuts in defense
appropriations as offsets for higher levels of non-defense spending.
The Senate measure also put a limit of $90 billion on total emergency funding in FY2007, which
is substantially below the amount that appears likely to be requested to finance ongoing military
operations and domestic disaster-response commitments. This effort in the Senate to place
constraints on emergency spending may become a major issue when Congress takes up an
expected FY2007 supplemental appropriations request early in calendar year 2007.
The House Budget Committee reported its version of the budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 376, on
March 31. The committee measure recommended the Administration-requested level of defense
spending. The leadership did not bring the measure to the floor in April in the face of internal
Republican opposition. In May, however, Republicans agreed on a measure that may provide
room for a substantial increase in funding for some domestic discretionary programs while
officially still adhering to the Administration’s proposed cap on total discretionary spending. The
House passed the revised measure on May 18 after rejecting several alternative budget
resolutions. The House resolution includes a cap only on non-defense emergency funding.
In the end, the House and Senate did not reach a conference agreement on the budget resolution.
In its place, both the House and the Senate passed measures “deeming” all or parts of their
different resolutions to be in effect for purposes of subsequent action on appropriations bills. The
House deeming measure was attached to House Resolution 818, approved on May 18, which was
the rule for floor consideration of the Department of the Interior appropriations bill. The House
deeming language adopted the House-passed budget resolution in its entirety. The Senate
deeming measure was attached to the FY2006 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H.R.
4939, P.L. 109-234, which was signed into law on June 15, 2006. The Senate deeming language
adopted only Sections 401 and 402 of the Senate-passed budget resolution. Section 401
established caps on regular appropriations and Section 402 permitted additional emergency
appropriations for specified circumstances and within specified limits.
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2007 National Defense Authorization
The House Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the FY2007 defense
authorization bill, H.R. 5122, on May 3, and the House passed the measure on May 11.
Highlights of the committee’s bill and of floor action follow.
The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the bill, S. 2766, on May 4 and
reported it on May 9. Floor action in the Senate began on June 12, and the Senate passed by
measure on June 22. Highlights of the committee’s bill and of floor action are discussed below.
Also Table 4, above, shows the amounts authorized in each version of the defense authorization
bill by title. Table A-4 in the Appendix to this report compares House and Senate authorized
funding for selected major weapons programs.
The House approved a conference agreement on the bill on September 29, and the Senate
approved it on September 30.
It is important to note that the defense authorization act does not provide funding for most
defense programs, only the appropriations acts do. The appropriations acts may provide
more than, less than, or the same as the amounts authorized for various programs; may
provide money for programs not authorized, including new starts of programs; and may
put restrictions on the use of funds that are not in the authorization or that are at odds with
provisions in the authorization.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2007 defense
appropriations bill, H.R. 5631, on June 13, and the full House debated and approved the measure
on June 20. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the bill on July 20,
and the full Senate began debate on the bill on August 1 and finally approved the bill on
September 7. A conference agreement on the bill was announced on September 21, reported on
September 25, and approved in the House on September 26 and in the Senate on September 29.
Table 3, above, shows funding provided in the bill and in the Military Quality of Life/VA
appropriations bill in the House and in the Military Construction/VA bill in the Senate.
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of the House Armed
Services Committee Bill
Among the very broad range of issues that the House authorization bill addressed a few major
points stand out. One is that the House Armed Services Committee appeared to have put
somewhat more emphasis than DOD on maintaining current military capabilities than on pursuing
long-term defense transformation. This was particularly true for some programs in which the risk
of delays and cost growth in weapons development appears high.
The committee seemed more inclined to support the current Army modularization program, for
example, than to continue investing increasing amounts in the Future Combat System. Similarly,
the committee slightly trimmed higher risk missile defense technologies in favor of more
immediately deployable systems. And the committee continued, as it did in past years, to cut
funding for satellite programs that may be seen as reaching too far ahead with technologically
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
risky approaches, though cuts in the Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) and the
Space Radar were not nearly as large as congressional cuts in the past two years.
Another key point is that the committee supported larger Army, Marine Corps, and Army
National Guard end-strength than the Administration wants. This may have very large long-term
budget implications.
Also, as in the past, the committee was reluctant to support proposed cuts in weapons programs.
It did not agree to halt production of the C-17 cargo aircraft, for example, and it restored funds to
develop an alternative, second engine supplier for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee also did not fully support Administration proposals to rein in the cost of personnel
pay and benefits, and it added a substantial new health benefit for reservists. The committee
increased the proposed military pay raise from 2.2% to 2.7%, it rejected the DOD proposal to
reduce health care costs by increasing under-65 retiree medical fees and co-pays, and it made all
reservists, except federal employees covered by the government health insurance program,
eligible to enroll in the TRICARE medical insurance program with a fee of 28% of the cost. The
committee did approve one measure to increase co-pays for some prescription drug purchases.
Significantly, the Committee did not approve a number of Administration proposals to give
regional combatant commanders greater authority and resources to build the capabilities of
foreign military forces. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in contrast, approved most of the
Administration’s proposals, although with some restrictions.
Finally, the committee slowed down two programs that might be seen to have negative
international diplomatic consequences—one to develop a laser that might be used as an antisatellite weapon and the other a high-profile Administration proposal to convert some Trident II
missiles to carry conventional (non-nuclear) warheads.
Highlights of committee action include:
•
$50 billion bridge fund for overseas operations: The committee approved $50
billion in emergency funding for costs of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere in FY2007. In FY2006, total costs of overseas operations were
almost $120 billion, so average monthly $12 billion. If that rate continues, the
bridge fund will cover costs for the first five months of FY2006—that is, through
January, 2007. Additional funds will then be needed to cover costs for the
remaining seven months of the year.
•
Ground force end-strength: The committee bill increased Army end-strength by
30,000 (to 512,400), and Marine Corps end-strength by 5,000 (to 180,000). The
bill also authorizes funding for an end-strength of 350,000 for the Army National
Guard, 17,000 above the request. End-strength may be a major dispute between
Congress and the Administration this year.
•
Pay raise: The bill provided a pay raise of 2.7% for uniformed personnel, rather
than the 2.2% requested.
•
Tricare fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: The bill rejected increases in
retiree fees and co-pays through December 31, 2007 and established a task force
to consider ways to control DOD medical costs.
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Tricare for reservists: The committee added an amendment in full committee
markup to allow all reservists—except federal employees eligible for the
government health insurance system—to enroll in Tricare by paying 28% of the
cost of the program (the same cost share as federal employees pay). Last year, in
the conference on the FY2006 authorization bill, Congress rejected a similar
Senate amendment. Instead, Congress made Tricare available, with a fee of 50%
of the cost, to reservists who were unemployed or who did not have access to
employer-provided health insurance. The committee action is especially
significant because the House, for the first time, approved Tricare for reservists
in its version of the defense authorization—the Senate approved it for the past
two years.
•
Budget scoring of TRICARE-for-Life costs: In the FY2001 national defense
authorization act, P.L. 106-398,Congress made over-65 military retirees eligible
to receive medical care through the DOD TRICARE program as a supplement to
Medicare. This has proved to be an expensive increase in benefits. In FY2007,
the DOD budget includes more than $11 billion for contributions to the Medicare
Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to cover the actuarially determined cost of
future benefits for current uniformed personnel. In the FY2005 defense
authorization, P.L. 108-375, Congress approved a measure intended to count
those costs not as expenses of the Defense Department, but as costs to the general
treasury. The provision expressed the sense of Congress that the shift in costs
should not reduce the defense budget, but should, instead, permit an increase in
funding for weapons programs and other defense priorities. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), however, continued to score the contributions
as discretionary funds in the Department of Defense budget, though as permanent
rather than as annual appropriations.15 OMB also urged the chairmen of the
House and Senate Budget Committees to direct the Congressional Budget Office
to score the contributions in the same way, and both chairmen agreed. In its
version of the FY2007 authorization, the House Armed Services Committee
included a provision directly mandating that the costs of TRICARE-for-Life
contributions not be scored as part of the DOD budget after FY2007.
•
Death gratuity for federal civilian personnel: The bill provided the same death
gratuity for civilian personnel killed in support of a military operation as for
uniformed personnel. The FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109163) increased the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000.
•
Funding for readiness: The committee objected to cuts in ship steaming days,
flying hours, and depot maintenance and shifted $856 million from other
programs in service operation and maintenance accounts to finance increases in
these readiness-related activities.
•
Army Future Combat System development: The committee expressed concern
about cost growth, schedule delays, and the long-term affordability of the FCS
program, cut $326 million from the $3.7 billion requested, and mandated a
formal DOD review of program with a go/no go decision to be made by the end
of 2008.
15
For OMB’s rationale, see Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S.
Government, FY2006, Chapter 6, pp. 422-425, on line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Army modularization: The committee expressed concern about the affordability
of the Army’s program to build a new modular brigade-centered force structure in
view of potentially competing costs of the FCS and of resetting the force after
Iraq. The committee added funds for M-1 tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle
upgrades, saying that these programs were required to support modularization. It
also required the Army to provide a long-term funding profile.
•
Guard and reserve equipment: The committee added $318 million for Army
National Guard (ARNG) equipment to support its addition of 17,000 to ARNG
end-strength.
•
Navy shipbuilding: The committee added $400 million in advance procurement
to support building two Virginia-class submarines in FY2009, rather than the one
now planned. The Navy has objected on the grounds that it will require too much
money in FY2009 for submarines at the expense of other programs. The
committee also mandated a submarine fleet of 48 boats, which is what the Navy
currently plans. The committee approved the same amount of funding that the
Navy requested for DD(X)/DDG-1000 destroyer procurement, but allocated all
the funds to buy one ship rather than split the funding between two ships. This is
of concern to some shipyard proponents, who want to begin providing funding to
two shipyards. Last year, the committee had proposed eliminating the DD(X).
Notably, the committee rejected an amendment in the full committee markup by
Representative JoAnne Davis to provide advance funding for common long-lead
items for three new aircraft carriers. Though the committee appears to support the
Navy’s 313 ship plan, it does not seem ready to lock in funding for some aspects
of the Navy program.
•
F-22 procurement profile: The committee rejected the Air Force plan for
incremental procurement of the F-22 and added $1.4 billion in FY2007 ($2
billion was requested) to cover the full cost of buying 20 complete aircraft.
•
F-35 alternate engine and development concurrency: The committee rejected
the Air Force proposal to halt development of an alternate engine for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter and added $408 million for second engine R&D. The
committee also trimmed $241 million from long-lead funding for aircraft to be
procured in FY2008, citing excessively concurrent development and procurement
in the program.
•
C-17 procurement: The committee added $300 million for three C-17s in Title
IX of the bill, which authorizes emergency funding for overseas operations. The
committee also required the Air Force to operate at least 299 heavy-lift cargo
aircraft. So the committee would mandate at least seven more C-17s, rejecting
the Administration’s plan to terminate C-17 production after FY2007.
•
B-52 and U-2 retirements: The committee prohibited any B-52 retirements until
a replacement capability is available (which is not planned until some time after
2015) and prohibited retirement of any U-2s unless DOD certifies that the aircraft
are not needed to mitigate any reconnaissance gaps identified in the Quadrennial
Defense Review.
•
Missile defense: The committee cut a net total of $185 million from missile
defense R&D. It added $20 million for ground-based mid-course defense (GMD)
testing and $40 million for Navy ship-based interceptor systems. It cut $100
Congressional Research Service
23
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
million from the boost-phase Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, $56
million for activating a third GMD site in Europe since no site has been agreed
to, $65 million from the multiple kill vehicle program, and $41 million for a
high-altitude airship sensor program. The committee also prohibited expenditure
of $200 million for the GMD program until the system has completed two
successful intercept tests. The committee also included a policy provision
requiring a report on the purpose, costs, vulnerability, and international
diplomatic implications of space-based interceptors.
16
•
Space systems: The committee cut $80 million from the Transformational
Communications Satellite (TSAT) program and $30 million from the Space
Radar, reflecting continued congressional concern about technical risks in both
programs. The committee provided $20 million and established a new office to
promote development of new, low-cost, rapidly deployable satellites.
•
Anti-satellite weapons: The committee included a policy provision that prohibits
the use of funds to develop laser space technologies for anti-satellite weapons.
This provision may be a response to Air Force development of such capabilities
at a laser and optics test facility in New Mexico. 16
•
Trident II missile conversion: The committee included a policy provision
requiring consultations with allies about the Quadrennial Defense Review
decision to convert Trident II missiles to carry conventional warheads.
•
Information technology funding cut: The committee cut $341 million from
DOD information technology programs, which total $31 billion, as one means of
offsetting increases in other programs.
•
VH-71 Presidential helicopter funding cut: The committee trimmed $39
million from the program due to development delays.
•
Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs: The committee required
the Energy Department to submit a report on plans to transform the nuclear
weapons production complex and specified a number of policy objectives.
•
Cooperative threat reduction with the former Soviet Union: The committee
cut $35 million for a U.S. supported Russian system to convert plutonium to nonweapons-grade fuel because of concerns that the system could, in fact, produce
more plutonium. And the committee cut another $115 million from $290 million
requested for another plutonium conversion technology.
•
Acquisition of programs with large cost growth: The committee approved an
amendment in full committee markup that would require DOD to allow
competing contractors to make challenge bids for work on programs that exceed
critical cost growth ceilings—currently 25% growth over original estimates.
•
DOD support for foreign nations: The committee included in the bill a DOD
proposal to allow up to $200 million a year to be used for logistical support of
foreign nations engaged in combined military operations with the United States
and to permit DOD to provide equipment temporarily to foreign military forces
in combined operations. It did not include the DOD proposal to use defense funds
William J. Broad, “Administration Conducting Research Into Laser Weapon,” New York Times, May 3, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
24
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
to build the capacity of foreign militaries for counterterrorism or stability
operations, as the Senate Armed Services Committee did (see below for a
discussion), nor did it approve other, related Administration proposals.
•
Provisions restricting acquisition of foreign-made items in defense
acquisition: As it has in the past, the House Armed Services Committee included
a number of provisions in its version of the authorization bill to limit defense
acquisition of foreign-made goods. One provision, Section 812, would prohibit
defense contracts with a foreign company that has received government
subsidies. Another, Section 831, would prohibit procurement of a specialty metal
or item critical to national security unless it is reprocessed, reused, or produced n
the United States. Section 832 would establish a board to identify items critical to
national security.
•
Prohibition on procurement of items from companies that provide defense
goods to China: The House committee also included a provision, Section 1211,
that would prohibit defense purchases from any company that provides material
on the U.S. Munitions List to China.
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of House Floor Action
On May 9, the House Rules Committee considered almost 100 proposed floor amendments to the
authorization bill. In an initial rule on the bill, it permitted just eight of them, and in a second rule,
permitted 27 more—12 as part of three en bloc amendments and another 15 amendments that
were debated separately. Democrats objected to the Rules Committee’s refusal to permit several
amendments, including an amendment by Representative Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the
Armed Services Committee, that would have reversed a measure in the committee bill that
increased co-pays for some prescription drug purchases.
Perhaps the most high profile amendment to pass (by a vote of 252-171) was a proposal by
Representative Goode to permit the Secretary of Defense to assign military personnel to support
the Department of Homeland Security in border protection. Mr. Goode has offered a similar
amendment for the past several years, and before that, Representative Traficante perennially
offered a similar measure. The amendment has often passed in the House but has never been
accepted in the final conference agreement. This year, there was an extensive floor debate. And
after its approval, the President proposed a program to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops to
support border operations.
The House repeated another perennial debate over an amendment by Representatives Andrews,
Davis (CA), Sanchez (CA), and Harman to permit privately funded abortions for U.S. military
personnel or their dependents at military hospitals overseas. It was rejected by a vote of 191-237.
The House also rejected, by a vote of 124-301, an amendment by Representative Tierney
to cut $4.7 billion from the Missile Defense Agency budget and allocate the funds to other
defense priorities.
And the House rejected, by a vote of 202-220, a motion by Representative Salazar to recommit
the bill to committee with instructions to report back a measure that includes an amendment to
change current procedures under which Survivor Benefit Plan benefits are reduced. Under current
law, benefits to survivors of those who die while in service are reduced by the amount of Veterans
Affairs benefits.
Congressional Research Service
25
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Other amendments permitted by the rule were all approved by voice vote. One measure that
passed was to require a study of the health impact of past ocean dumping of chemical weapons.17
In general debate on the bill, both Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee
repeated lauded the committee bill as a bipartisan measure that was approved in the committee by
a vote of 62-1. Table 7 summarizes House floor action on selected amendments.
Table 7. House Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122
Sponsor
Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference
Outcome
Andrews
Requires a study to determine effects of ocean disposal of
munitions (pp. H2447-48).
Agreed, voice vote
Andrews, for Davis
(CA), Harmon,
Sanchez (CA)
Lifts the current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military
facilities overseas (pp. H2448-51, H2466-67).
Rejected, 191-237
Tanner
Expresses a Sense of Congress that the Army should consider
converting to six-month deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan
(p. H2453).
Agreed, voice vote
Franks (AZ)
Transfers $1 mn to provide health care for Iraqi children
(pp. H2467-68).
Agreed, voice vote
McDermott
Directs a comprehensive study of the health effects of exposure to
depleted uranium munitions (pp. Pages H2531-32)
Agreed, voice vote
Lewis (KY)
Provides that no more than 20% of a service member’s paycheck
can be garnished to recover overpayments through no fault of the
service member (pp. H2537-40).
Agreed, in en bloc
amendment, voice
vote
Taylor (MS)
Requires DOD to equip 100% of U.S. military vehicles in Iraq and
Afghanistan with IED jammers (pp. H2541-42).
Agreed, voice vote
Goode
Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members armed
services to border security (pp. H2526-28, H2542-43).
Agreed, 252-171
Tierney
Reduces missile defense agency funding from $9.3 bn to $4.47 bn,
prohibits deployment of space-based interceptors (pp. H2532-37,
H2543-44).
Rejected, 124-301
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of the Senate Armed
Services Committee Bill
The Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the defense authorization,
S. 2769, on May 4. A few themes stand out in the markup.
One is that the Senate committee approved 30,000 more troops than requested for the Army and
5,000 more for the Marine Corps and also authorized 350,000 troops for the Army National
Guard (ARNG), 17,000 above the number for which the Army requested funding. The House also
approved the same, higher end-strength for ground forces. So Congress did not agree with
Administration plans to reduce active ground forces to the pre-Iraq level.
17
For a discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL33432, U.S. Disposal of Chemical Weapons in the Ocean:
Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
The Senate committee also undertook a number of initiatives to strengthen government-wide
capabilities to engage in counterterrorism and stability operations. One potentially far-reaching
initiative is to agree to an Administration proposal to expand the authority of regional military
commanders to train and equip foreign military forces and to provide humanitarian and other
assistance to foreign nations. These activities have traditionally been managed by the State
Department under legal authorities that include, among other things, human rights conditions. In
bills funding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress has temporarily provided some of this
authority, but the Administration wants Congress to write it into permanent law. The committee
restricted funding for the most far-reaching measure to two years, saying that the program it
should be regarded as a pilot project with an assessment to follow. The committee also required
consultations with ambassadors and did not agree to allow waivers of human rights and other
restrictions on assistance.
The Senate committee appeared more supportive of the Army Future Combat System (FCS) than
the House committee, and provided the full $3.7 billion requested for the program. The
committee did, however, mandate a review of the program, including an independent cost
estimate of the program itself and of all associated Army programs. If the most recent Army cost
estimates for the FCS appear unstable, Congress may consider ending or substantially
restructuring the program.
Highlights of the committee markup include:
•
Total funding: The Committee authorized $517.7 billion for defense
discretionary programs, including $50.0 billion in emergency funding overseas
operations and $467.7 billion in budget including authority for DOD, DOE and
other non-emergency programs. The total is $4 billion above the request and
above the House authorization.
•
Army and Marine Corps end-strength: The committee authorized endstrengths of 512,400 for the Army, 30,000 above the request, and of 180,000 for
the Marine Corps, 5,000 above the request.
•
Army National Guard end-strength: The committee also approved an endstrength of 350,000 for the ARNG, 17,000 above the request, and stipulated that,
if the Army fails to recruit and retain enough personnel to meet the authorized
level, and money saved may be used only to procure ARNG equipment.
•
Military pay raise: The committee approved the requested pay raise of 2.2%
rather than the 2.7% raise the House authorized.
•
TRICARE fees and co-pays for under-65 retirees: As did the House, the
Committee rejected increases in retiree TRICARE fees and co-pays. The
Committee also required the Government Accountability Office to carry out a full
audit of DOD health care costs, including comparisons of the Administration’s
proposed fee increases with increases in federal civilian health insurance fees.
•
Flexibility for DOD to support foreign nations for counterterrorism
operations: The Senate committee agreed to a number DOD’s proposals to allow
regional combatant commanders flexibility to use DOD funds to train and equip
foreign militaries and to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to
foreign governments in support of counterterrorism operations, though with some
amendments. In particular, the committee agreed to make available $200 million
per year for the next two years, rather than $750 million per year indefinitely, to
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
build the capabilities of foreign militaries. The committee specified that no more
than $50 million per year could be used by any one regional combatant
commander, and required detailed consultations with U.S. ambassadors. The
committee also required the President to develop a plan to better coordinate
interagency counterterrorism practices. With the appropriations committees
cutting foreign operations funding for the State Department and AID, the Defense
Department is, in effect taking on many roles that the State Department formerly
carried on.
•
Detainee treatment: The committee required an official government-wide
coordinated legal opinion on whether specified interrogation techniques
constitute cruel and inhuman treatment.
•
Use of armed forces for domestic activities: The committee proposed
amendments to the Insurrection Act that would make it easier for the President to
employ the armed forces to respond to domestic emergencies, such as the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
•
UAV policy: The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a
comprehensive policy on UAVs and to give UAVs a preference in developing
new systems.
•
Navy shipbuilding: The committee added $1.5 billion to the shipbuilding
request for a total of $12 billion. Increases include accelerating LPD
procurement, increased advance procurement funds for the CVN-21 carrier and
the LHA(R) amphibious ship. The committee included $50 million in advance
procurement funding for long-lead items for three new CVN-21-class carriers, a
measure that the House committee specifically rejected in a vote in the full
committee markup.
•
Permitting a reduction from 12 to 11 deployable aircraft carriers: The
committee bill includes a provision repealing last year’s requirement that the
Navy maintain 12 deployable carriers. If approved this would allow retirement of
the USS Kennedy.
•
Continued C-17 production: As in the House bill, the committee bill rejects the
DOD proposal to terminate C-17 production. The Senate bill authorizes funds for
2 aircraft in FY2007 and advance procurement for continued production later.
•
Army Future Combat System (FCS) funding: As opposed to the House, the
Senate committee authorized the full $3.7 billion requested for FCS
development. The committee also, however, required a review of the program,
including an independent cost estimate, though not with a view to a go/no go
decision, as the House mandated.
•
Readiness: The committee used the $50 billion emergency “bridge” fund as a
means of adding funds to regular service accounts to correct some readinessrelated shortfalls. The committee added $515 million in the emergency funds, for
example, for Navy operations, $231 million for Army operations, and $106
million for Marine Corps operations. So, in effect, the committee is ameliorating
constraints on the regular service budgets by adding funds for regular military
operations to the emergency fund.
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Acquisition reform: The committee approved several measures to reform
defense acquisition procedures, though none nearly so far-reaching as the House
committee measure to recompete projects with excessive cost growth. One
Senate committee measure is to align the tenure of program managers with the
progress of their programs and another to require that incentive payments be
more directly linked to acquisition outcomes.
•
Land exchanges to build buffers around military facilities: The Defense
Department has long been concerned about the encroachment of civilian
development on military facilities. The Senate committee approved a measure to
allow DOD to exchange excess land for other land that would be a buffer for
military sites.
•
Cooperative threat reduction with former Soviet states: In contrast to the
House authorization, the Senate committee made no reductions in the $1.7 billion
requested for Department of Energy nonproliferation programs (which finance
plutonium purchases and reprocessing, for example) or the $372 million for the
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
•
R&D science and technology funding target: Congress has required that the
Defense Department invest 3% of the overall budget in basic science and
technology (S&T) R&D programs. DOD has perennially fallen short of that
target. The Senate committee included a provision requiring annual growth of 2%
per year above inflation in S&T accounts.
•
Missile defense funding: The Senate committee approved the full $9.3 billion
requested for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) R&D programs (see Table A-2 for
details of the request), but, like the House, shifted funds away from longer-term,
more risky programs to near term projects. The committee added $200 million
for Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) flight testing and $100 million for
the Navy interceptor system. It cut $200 million from the $406 million requested
for the boost-phase Kinetic Energy Interceptor.
•
Space systems: The committee expressed support for DOD’s restructuring of the
Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) program, but trimmed $70
million from the program (an 8% cut) saying that it could not be executed. The
committee also cut $66 million (a 24% cut) from the Space Radar program and
expressed concern about the lack of a cost sharing agreement with the
intelligence community.
•
Long-range strike/Trident II missile conventional warhead: The committee
expressed support for DOD’s plan to develop prompt global strike capabilities,
and provided the full $127 million requested to convert Trident II missiles to
carry non-nuclear warheads. But, like the House committee, the Senate
committee was concerned about the international diplomatic issues and
prohibited expenditure of more than $32 million on conversion until the
Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State, provides a
report on the matters at issue.
•
B-52 retirements: The committee prohibited the proposed retirement of B-52
bombers until the Air Force reports on force requirements, but also approved a
measure that (1) permits the retirement of up to 18 B-52H aircraft, (2) requires
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
that remaining B-52Hs all be equipped with the specific upgrades, and (3) says
the committee expects no additional B-52H retirements.
•
F-35 Joint Striker Fighter alternative engine: Like the House, the Senate
committee added $400 million to continue development of an alternate second
engine for the F-35.
•
F-35 schedule delays: The committee cut $1.2 billion from F-35 procurement
funds due to schedule delays.
•
F-22 funding: Like the House, the Senate committee rejected the Air Force plan
to stretch out F-22 production and to provide funding incrementally rather than
financing the full cost of deployable aircraft in the year for which funding is
requested. The committee added $1.4 billion for full funding for the requested
20 F-22s.
FY2007 Defense Authorization—Highlights of Senate Floor Action
The Senate began floor consideration of its version of the defense authorization bill, S. 2766, on
June 12. On June 15, the Senate began a debate over Iraq policy. By a vote of 93-6, the Senate
agreed to a motion by Senate Minority Leader Reid to table an amendment by Senator
McConnell, SA 4269, requiring the President to establish a schedule for withdrawing U.S. combat
troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only troops needed to stand up Iraqi security
forces. Senator McConnell brought up the measure that was originally authored by Senator Kerry,
though Senator Kerry himself had not offered it, to force a debate on the matter.
Later, on June 21 and 22, the Senate considered two other Iraq policy amendments, one by
Senator Levin to require that troop reductions begin this year and another by Senator Kerry
requiring that most troops be withdrawn from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The Senate rejected both
measures on June 22.
The Senate considered one other measure related to the war, an amendment by Senator McCain,
SA 4242, to require the President to request funding for ongoing military operations with the
regular federal budget request submitted in February of each year (approved by a vote of 98-0 on
June 13). For the past two years, the Senate has approved amendments by Senator Byrd
expressing the Sense of the Senate urging this, but the Administration has continued to request
funding in supplementals.18 In the past, in bill signing statements Presidents have, on several
occasions, rejected as unconstitutional, legislative provisions that direct the Administration to
include particular programs or activities in budget requests. Administrations have, nonetheless,
sometimes adhered to such congressional requirements. In the conference report on the FY1996
defense appropriations act, P.L. 104-61, Congress required the Administration to request funding
for Southwest Asia operations in the regular FY1997 defense request, though it did so not in the
bill, but only in report language. The Clinton Administration agreed and requested funding for
ongoing operations in Southwest and Bosnia in its FY1997 request.19 The McCain amendment,
18
See Section 8138 of the FY2005 defense appropriations act, P.L. 108-287, and Section 8117 of the FY2006 defense
appropriations act, P.L. 109-148.
19
For a discussion of precedents for funding operations in regular or in supplemental bills from Korea on, see CRS
Report RS22455, Military Operations: Precedents for Funding Contingency Operations in Regular or in Supplemental
Appropriations Bills, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
like the Byrd amendments to the FY2005 and FY2006 defense appropriations bills, would mean
that the full cost of ongoing military operations—almost $120 billion in FY2006—would be
considered along with the rest of the federal budget at the start of next year’s Congress.
Table 8 briefly reviews Senate floor action on selected amendments.
Table 8. Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Authorization Bill, S. 2766
Sponsor/ Number
Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference
Outcome
Lautenberg/Stabenow
#4205
To prohibit increased retail pharmacy co-payments, pages S5837,
S5839-40.
Agreed
voice vote
Dorgan
#4230
To eliminate fraud and abuse and improve competition in Federal
contracting, pages S5845-47, S5852-53, S5854-57, S5861.
Tabled
55-43
McCain
#4242
To require budgeting for ongoing military operations in regular requests,
pages S5859-61, S5862-65.
Agreed
98-0
Feingold
#4256
To strengthen the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction,
pages S5914-17.
Agreed
voice vote
Biden
#4257
To state the policy of the United States on the nuclear programs of Iran,
pages S5917, S5921-22
Agreed
99-0
Warner/ Levin
#4280
To repeal the statutory requirement in place since FY1985 that the
Defense Department submit an annual report on Allied Contributions
to the Common Defense, page 5933
Agreed
voice vote
Inhofe
#4284
To modify the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 to
permit certain military cooperation with and aid to nations that have not
exempted U.S. troops from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court, page 5936.
Agreed
voice vote
Lugar
#4285
To repeal restrictions on funding for chemical weapons demilitarization
programs in Russia under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,
page S5936.
Agreed
voice vote
Santorum
#4234
To authorize assistance for pro-democracy programs and activities
inside and outside Iran and to enhance the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of
1996, pages S5917-21.
Rejected
45-54
Warner
#4286
To amend Buy American Act provisions regarding acquisition of certain
specialty metals, page S5936.
Agreed
voice vote
McConnell
#4265
To require the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq and
urge the convening of an Iraq summit, pages S5927-29.
Tabled
93-6
Feingold
#4192
To provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by
December 31, 2006, pp. S5913-14.
Withdrawn
Sessions
#4295
To require a report on reporting requirements applicable to the
Department of Defense, pages S5995-96.
Agreed
voice vote
Obama/ Coburn
#4254
To require the use of competitive procedures for Federal contracts
worth over $500,000 related to hurricane recovery, subject to existing
exceptions, pages S5995-96.
Agreed
voice vote
June 14, 2006
June 15, 2006
June 16, 2006
Congressional Research Service
31
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Sponsor/ Number
Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference
Outcome
McConnell
#4272
To affirm the Iraqi Government position of no amnesty for terrorists
who have attacked U.S. forces, pages S6110-17.
Agreed
64-34
Nelson (FL)/ Menendez
#4265
To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq
should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed,
or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States,
page S6117
Agreed
97-19
Ensign/Reid
#4308
To provide for expansion of the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps
program, pages S6117-18
Agreed
voice vote
Bond/Leahy
#4271
Bond/Leahy) Amendment No. 4271, to increase the grade of the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau from 3 to 4 stars and to enhance the
Chief’s authority to over certain budget requirements, pages S6117,
S6118-19
Agreed
voice vote
Ensign
#2352
To authorize the temporary use of the National Guard to provide
support for border security along the southern land border of the
United States, pages S6117, S6119-20
Agreed
voice vote
Ensign
#4354
To require a report on technologies to defeat the threat to military
rotary wing aircraft posed by portable air defense systems and rocket
propelled grenades, pages S6117, S6120
Agreed
voice vote
Jeffords
#4215
To provide for 2 programs to authorize the use of leave by caregivers
for family members of certain individuals performing military service,
pages S6117, S6121-22
Agreed
voice vote
Warner/ Levin
#4355
To increase authorized FY2006 general transfer authority from $3.75 to
$5 billion, Pages S6117, S6122
Agreed
voice vote
Warner/ Levin
#4356
To authorize additional emergency supplemental appropriations for
FY2006, pages S6117, S6122
Agreed
voice vote
Thune
#4217
To require a report on the future aerial training airspace requirements,
pages S6117, S6122
Agreed
voice vote
Warner
#4360
To require a report on the desirability and feasibility of joint officer
promotion selection boards, pages S6117, S6122
Agreed
voice vote
Dorgan
#4292
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the
awarding and carrying out of contracts for activities in Afghanistan and
Iraq, pages S6108-10
Rejected
44-52
Frist
#4323
(To Amendment No. 4322), to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws
requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions, page S6105
Withdrawn
Kennedy
#4322
To provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage, pages
S6191-S6203
Withdraw
after vote of
52-46
Enzi
#4376
To promote job creation and small business preservation in the
adjustment of the Federal minimum wage, pages S6191, S6203-04
Withdrawn
after vote of
45-53
Kerry
#4442
To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq
in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of
Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on
terror, pages S6324-35
Rejected
13-86
June 20, 2006
June 21, 2006
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Sponsor/ Number
Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference
Outcome
Levin
#4320
To state the sense of Congress on the United States policy on Iraq,
pages S6324, S6335
Agreed
98-1
Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the bill, page
S6335
Agreed
voice vote
Hutchison
#4377
To include a delineation of the homeland defense and civil support
missions of the National Guard and Reserves in the Quadrennial
Defense Review, page S6336
Agreed
voice vote
Harkin Modified
#4266
To require semiannual reports on efforts to investigate and prosecute
cases of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the
war on terror, pages S6346, S6347
Agreed
voice vote
Inhofe
#4495
To require annual reports on United States contributions to the United
Nations, pages S6346, S6347
Agreed
voice vote
Reid Modified
#4307
To appoint a coordinator for policy toward North Korea and require
reports to Congress, pages S6346, S6347-48
Agreed
voice vote
Lott Modified
#4326
To make funds available for the Arrow ballistic missile defense system,
pages S6346, S6348
Agreed
voice vote
Allard
#4497
To provide for an independent review of the organization and
management of the Department of Defense for national security in
space, pages S6346, S6349
Agreed
voice vote
Cantwell Modified
#4202
To require reports on the diversion of equipment from reserve units,
pages S6346, S6350
Agreed
voice vote
Martinez
#4500
To give priority in allocating replacement equipment to states that have
suffered a natural disaster, pages S6346, S6350
Agreed
voice vote
Menendez/Lautenberg
#4441
To require a plan to replace equipment withdrawn or diverted from the
reserve components for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation
Enduring Freedom, pages S6346, S6350
Agreed
voice vote
Feingold
#4502
To require an annual report on the amount of the acquisitions made by
the Department of Defense from outside of the United States, pages
S6346, S6351
Agreed
voice vote
McCain
#4503
To require an annual report on foreign military sales and direct sales to
foreign customers of significant military equipment manufactured inside
the United States, pages S6346, S6351
Agreed
voice vote
Graham/ Nelson (NE)
#4504
To expand the authority of the Secretaries of the military departments
to remit or cancel indebtedness of members of the Armed Forces, pages
S6346, S6351-52
Agreed
voice vote
Reid
#4197
To modify the effect date of the termination of the phase-in of
concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans disability compensation
for veterans with service-connected disabilities rated as total by virtue
of unemployability, pages S6346, S6354
Agreed
voice vote
Chambliss
#4365
To reduce the eligibility age for receipt of non-regular military service
retired pay for members of the Ready Reserve in active federal status or
on active duty for significant periods and to expand eligibility of
members of the Selected Reserve for coverage under the TRICARE
program, pages S6346, S6355-56, S6373-7
Agreed
voice vote
McCain
#4241
To name the Act after John Warner, a Senator from Virginia, pages
S6346, S6356
Agreed
voice vote
Coburn
#4371
To improve the provisions relating to the linking of award and incentive
fees to acquisition outcomes, pages S6346, S6356
Agreed
voice vote
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Sponsor/ Number
Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference
Outcome
Biden
#4244
Relating to military vaccination matters, pages S6346, S6356-57
Agreed
voice vote
Coburn Modified
#4491
To reform the Department of Defense’s Travel System into Pay-ForUse-of-Service System, pages S6370-73, S6376
Agreed
voice vote
Coburn
#4370
To require the Secretary of Defense to report on and classify
congressional earmarks of funds available to the Department of Defense,
pages S6374, S6376
Agreed
voice vote
Chambliss
#4261
To authorize multiyear procurement of F-22A fighter aircraft and F-119
engines, pages S6336-45, S6376-77
Agreed
70-28
Sessions
#4471
To provide, with an offset, additional funding for missile defense testing
and operations.
Agreed
98-0
Warner
#4520
To require a report before taking steps to reduce the number of
Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from 500 to 450, pages
S6377-78
Agreed
voice vote
Cantwell
#4374
To provide for a study of the health effects of exposure to depleted
uranium, pages S6377-78
Agreed
voice vote
Biden
#4458
To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations
peacekeeping operations in 2005, 2006, and 2007, pages S6677-78
Agreed
voice vote
Clinton
#4264
To enhance the services available to members of the Armed Forces
returning from deployments to assist them and their family members, in
transitioning to civilian life, pages S6377, S6379-81
Agreed
voice vote
Bayh
#4489
To add an independent panel as part of the Quadrennial Defense
Review, pages S6377, S6381-82
Agreed
voice vote
Feingold
#4526
To require the President to develop a comprehensive strategy toward
Somalia, pages S6377, S6382
Agreed
voice vote
Feingold
#4527
To require a report on the feasibility of establishing a United States
military regional combatant command for Africa, pages S6377, S6383
Agreed
voice vote
McCain/ Warner
#4434
To ensure proper education, training, and supervision of
personnel providing special education services for dependents of
members of the Armed Forces under extended benefits under
TRICARE, pages S6377, S6383
Agreed
voice vote
Akaka Modified
#4393
To transfer custody of the Air Force Health Study assets to the Medical
Follow-up Agency, pages S6377, S6383
Agreed
voice vote
Warner/ Levin
#4529
To require the Defense Department to submit Supplemental and Cost
of War Execution reports, pages S6377, S6384
Agreed
voice vote
Reed
#4311
To provide that acceptance by a military officer of appointment to the
position of Director of National Intelligence or Director of the Center
Intelligence Agency shall be conditional upon retirement of the officer
after the assignment, rages S6377, S6384
Agreed
voice vote
Reid Modified
#4439
To require reports on the implementation of the Darfur Peace
Agreement, pages S6377, S6385
Agreed
voice vote
Clinton
#4361
To require that Congress be apprised periodically on implementation of
the Darfur Peace Agreement, pages S6377, S6386
Agreed
voice vote
Levin
#4533
To make available an additional $450,000,000 for RDT&E Defense-wide
and provide an offsetting reduction for a certain military intelligence
program, pages S6377, S6386
Agreed
voice vote
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Sponsor/ Number
Purpose/Congressional Record Page Reference
Outcome
Vitter
#4534
To authorize prepositioning of Department of Defense assets to
improve support to civilian authorities, pages S6377, S6386
Agreed
voice vote
Domenici
#4451
To require annual reports on the expanded use of unmanned aerial
vehicles in the national airspace system, pages S6377, S6387
Agreed
voice vote
Burns/Dole
#4538
To provide for the enhancement of funeral ceremonies for veterans,
pages S6377, S6388
Agreed
voice vote
Biden
#4423
To provide that not funds may be used to establish a permanent U.S.
military base in Iraq, or to exercise control over the oil resources of
Iraq, pages S6377, S6388
Agreed
voice vote
Allard
#4366
To require an independent review of the organization and management
of the Department of Defense for national security in space, pages
S6377, S6389
Agreed
voice vote
Kerry
#4204
Stating the Sense of Congress that the President should convene an
international summit o promote a comprehensive political agreement in
Iraq, pages S6377, S6389
Agreed
voice vote
Obama
#4541
To require a report on Air Force plans for the realignment of aircraft,
weapons systems, and functions at active and Air National Guard bases
as a result of the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment,
pages S6377, S6390
Agreed
voice vote
House Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations
Ultimately, the total amount provided for national defense in the regular appropriations bills (not
including emergency appropriations) is determined by the allocation of funds among
appropriations subcommittees. Under Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
the annual congressional budget resolution allocates a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority to the appropriations committees. Under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the
appropriations committees are required to report back on the allocation of the total to the
subcommittees.
The House-committee-passed FY2007 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 376, approves a total of
$872.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is $475 million below the Administration
request, and the resolution allocated that amount to the appropriations committee under Section
302(a) of the Budget Act. The Senate-passed budget resolution approves $877.0 billion in
discretionary spending, $3.7 billion above the Administration request, and allocates the total to
the appropriations committee.
On May 4, the House Appropriations Committee reported its initial subcommittee allocations
under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act. Table 9 shows the committee action. It is important to
note that these allocations may be revised periodically as congressional action on the
appropriations bills proceeds.
The initial House allocations trim $4.0 billion from the defense subcommittee, compared to the
Administration request, $824 million from the Military Quality of Life/VA subcommittee, and
$2.4 billion from the foreign operations subcommittee. These cuts, compared to the request, in
defense and foreign affairs allow increases, again compared to the Administration request, mainly
in Labor-HHS appropriations and homeland security appropriations. Last year, Congress trimmed
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
$4.4 billion from DOD programs in the regular appropriations bills. The initial House allocations
appear to follow the same approach.
Table 9. Initial House 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
Allocation
Allocation
Versus
Request
Agriculture
16.8
17.3
17.8
+0.5
Defense
358.3
381.4
377.4
-4.0
Energy and Water Development
30.2
29.5
30.0
+0.5
Foreign Operations
20.7
23.7
21.3
-2.4
Homeland Security
30.3
31.0
32.1
+1.1
Interior/Environment
25.9
25.5
25.9
+0.4
Labor, HHS, Education
141.1
137.8
141.9
+4.1
Legislative
3.8
4.2
4.0
-0.2
Military Quality of Life/VA
85.0
95.5
94.7
-0.8
Science, State, Justice, Comm
57.2
59.7
59.8
+0.1
Transportation, Treasury, HUD
64.1
67.6
67.8
+0.2
Total 302(a) Allocation
833.3
873.3
872.8
-0.5
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of the House
Appropriations Committee Bill
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2007 defense
appropriations bill on June 7, and the full committee marked up the bill, which became H.R.
5631, on June 13. Among the committee’s decisions, a few themes stand out.
First, in accordance with the committee’s 302(b) allocations, the committee approved a total
$377.6 billion in the bill, $4.1 billion below the Administration request. The committee made
about $2 billion of the cuts in “General Provisions” of the bill. Of these cuts $823 million are in
rescissions of prior year funds (amounts identified by the committee in cooperation with the
Defense Department), $949 million in revised inflation estimates, and $100 million in savings
from foreign currency fluctuations. These are perennial sources of savings in appropriations bills.
They have generally been used, however, to offset congressional additions to the budget rather
than to trim the total amount in the bill.
The committee also cut a net of $1.1 billion from procurement, $1.9 billion from operation and
maintenance (O&M), and $1.2 billion from military personnel accounts, while it added $2.1
billion to R&D accounts. Of the cuts in military personnel, $784 million are from projected
underexecution of approved personnel levels as reported by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and $288 million from the Air Force to reflect a shift of Operation Noble Eagle
Congressional Research Service
36
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
costs (which provides security at military bases and air defense overflights) to the additional
emergency appropriations in Title IX of the bill. In O&M, $433 million of savings are from
shifting Operation Noble Eagle costs to Title IX, and substantial additional amounts are from
shifting to Title IX funds for the regular pay of military technicians who are mobilized for
overseas operations. 20 In the procurement accounts, many of the committees cuts from the request
are from following the authorization bill in shifting part of the requested amounts for several
programs, such as M-1 tank upgrades, to emergency war funds in Title IX.
Second, the committee did not provide funds for the 2.7% military pay raise approved in the
House-passed authorization bill nor did it provide funds for increases in end-strength over the
requested levels. This avoided the need for any increases in the military personnel accounts
compared to the request. If the authorization conference report provides a 2.7% pay raise rather
than the 2.2% requested, the appropriators may then either agree to add funds to the bill in
conference or, instead, require the Defense Department to absorb the costs and transfer funds
from other accounts. The committee approved an increase of general transfer authority to $4.75
billion in the regular bill with an additional $2.5 billion in Title IX to accommodate such
requirements. On end-strength levels, the committee appears to assume that any increases will
continue to be funded from emergency appropriations for war costs in FY2007, as they have been
in the past.
On major weapons programs, as is usually the case, the House appropriators generally followed
the House authorization bill. As in the authorization, the appropriations—
•
Cut $326 million from Army Future Combat System R&D;
•
Cut funding for Transformational Communications Satellite R&D, though by
$100 million rather than by $80 million;
•
Cut funding for Space Radar R&D, though by $66 million rather than by $30
million;
•
Added $50 million for DDG-51 destroyer modernization, though not the $200
million in the authorization;
•
Added $1.4 billion to cover the full cost of procuring 20 F-22 aircraft, rejecting
the Air Force incremental funding plan;
•
Added $200 million in R&D to develop a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter (the authorization approved $245 million);
•
Reduced funds to commence F-35 procurement;
•
Eliminated funds to shut down C-17 cargo aircraft production,
•
Eliminated $38 million requested to convert Trident II D-5 missiles to carry
conventional warheads; and
•
Shifted some procurement funds that were requested in the regular appropriations
accounts to be funded with emergency funds for the war.
20
This is also a way of shifting costs that normally would be counted in the regular appropriations to emergency
accounts. Technically, emergency funding is used to pay “incremental” costs of contingency operations—i.e., expenses
over and above the normal operating costs of the forces. Pay of mobilized military technicians is not an incremental
expense of the operations.
Congressional Research Service
37
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
In contrast to the authorization, the House appropriators—
•
Did not add $400 million in advance procurement for a second Virginia-class
attack submarine in FY2009; and
•
Eliminated funding requested to begin procurement of 12 EA-18G electronic
warfare versions of the F-18 aircraft and instead shifted funds to add 12 F/A18E/F aircraft.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of House Floor Action
Traditionally, House floor debate on the defense appropriations bill is very brief and, although the
bill generally comes to the floor with an open rule, very few amendments are proposed. This year,
however, a number of controversial amendments were considered on the floor, including several
proposals to strip specific congressional earmarks of funds from the bill.
The House considered the bill on the floor on June 20, 2006. A number of less controversial
amendments were approved by voice vote, including amendments
•
By Representative Murtha to restore funding for the Perpetually Available and
Secure Information Systems program;
•
By Representative Granger to delete a provision in the committee bill that would
prevent foreign sales of the F/A-22 fighter;
•
By Representative Castle to prohibit award fees for performance that does not
meet contract requirements;
•
By Representative Markey to prohibit funds in the bill from being used in
contravention laws or regulations to implement the UN Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
•
By Representative Inslee to prohibit the use of funds to implement some
provisions of the National Security Personnel System that a Federal court found
not to preserve adequate collective bargaining and adverse action appeals
procedures; and
•
By Representative Holmes to prohibit the use of funds to privatize base operation
support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital.
The House also debated and rejected several amendments on matters of U.S. national security
policy, including a measure to prohibit National Security Agency surveillance activities not
authorized through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a measure to prohibit
military action against Iran without advance congressional approval, and a measure to delete a
provision in the committee bill to prohibit the establishment of permanent basing rights
agreement in Iraq. The measures that the House rejected include amendments
•
By Representative Steve King to strike section 9012 of the Committee bill which
prohibits funds from being used to enter into a basing rights agreement with Iraq
(failed 50 - 376);
•
By Representative Chocola to prohibit the use of funds from being available for
the development, deployment, or operation the Defense Travel System (failed
141 - 285);
Congressional Research Service
38
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
By Representative Schiff to prohibit funds from being used to engage in
electronic surveillance in the United States except as authorized under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (failed 207 - 219);
•
By Representative Hinchey to prohibit any of the funds from being used to
initiate military operations against Iran except in accordance with Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution (failed 158 - 262); and
•
By Representative Hinchey to prohibit any funds from being used for any
contract with the Lincoln Group (failed 153 - 268).
Four amendments were proposed and then withdrawn by their sponsors, specifically amendments
•
By Representative Jackson-Lee to require that not less than $10 million be used
for prosthetic research;
•
By Representative Engel to comment the Navy for having the highest percentage
of Alternative Fuel Vehicles acquired by any federal agency during FY2005;
•
By Representative Stearns to prohibit the use of funds to interpret voluntary
religious discussions as “official” as specified in the Air Force revised interim
guidelines concerning free exercise of religion; and
•
By Representative Filner to prohibit funds from being used to place a social
security account number on any military identification card.
Finally, the House rejected several amendments by Representative Flake to remove certain
earmarks of funds for specific projects, including funding for
•
the Wind Demonstration Project;
•
the Institute for Exploration at Mystic Aquarium in New London, Connecticut;
•
the JASON Education Foundation;
•
the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation;
•
the Illinois Technology Transition Center;
•
the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative;
•
the Lewis Center for Education Research;
•
the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program; and
•
the Leonard Wood Research Institute.
Senate Appropriations Committee 302(b) Allocations
The Senate Appropriations Committee announced its initial 302(b) allocations to the
subcommittees on June 22, 2006. The allocations provide $9.1 billion less than the
Administration requested for the defense subcommittee, leaving substantially more for other
subcommittees, particularly Labor-HHS-Education, with $5 billion more than the Administration
requested (see Table 10).
Congressional Research Service
39
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 10. Initial vs. Latest Senate 302(b) Subcommittee Allocations
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
Initial
Allocation
6/22/06
Versus
Request
Latest
Allocation
9/26/06
Versus
Request
Agriculture
18.4
17.4
18.2
+0.8
18.2
+0.8
Commerce, Justice, Science
49.4
49.6
51.0
+1.4
51.0
+1.4
Defense
399.3
423.6
414.5
-9.1
414.3
-9.2
District of Columbia
0.6
0.6
0.6
—
0.6
Energy & Water
30.2
29.5
30.7
+1.3
30.7
+1.3
Homeland Security
30.5
31.0
31.7
+0.7
31.9
+0.9
Interior
25.9
25.5
26.0
+0.5
26.0
+0.5
Labor-HHS-Education
141.2
137.8
142.8
+5.0
142.8
+5.0
Legislative Branch
3.8
4.2
4.0
-0.2
3.9
-0.3
Military Construction/VA
44.0
52.8
52.9
+0.1
52.9
+0.1
State, Foreign Operations
30.1
33.7
31.3
-2.4
31.3
-2.4
Transportation, Treasury,
Judiciary, HUD
67.9
67.1
69.0
+1.9
69.0
+1.9
Total 302(a) Allocation
841.3
872.8
872.8
—
872.8
—
Source: Senate Appropriations Committee.
The committee’s initial 302(b) allocations put the Senate directly at odds with the White House
on budget priorities and, to a degree, on the use of emergency appropriations to fund programs
requested in the regular, non-emergency defense budget. The White House Statement of
Administration Policy (SAP) on the House-reported version of the defense appropriations bill,21
issued on June 20, complained that the House bill cut $4 billion from the request and shifted
about $2 billion from the regular “base” DOD budget to the emergency spending accounts in Title
IX of the House measure. “Base funding requirements,” the White House said, “should not be
shifted to supplemental bills as a way to increase non-security related discretionary funding.”
Moreover, the SAP warned very strongly, in text that was underlined in the official letter, that the
President would veto a defense bill that cut spending too deeply: “If the President is presented
with a final DOD appropriations bill that significantly underfunds the Department of Defense to
shift funds to non-security spending, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto that bill
[emphasis in the original].”
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of the Senate
Appropriations Committee Bill
The Senate committee version of the defense appropriations bill would make available $453.5
billion for the defense programs in covers, including $50 billion in funding for overseas
21
Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5631—Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, FY2007,” June 20, 2006, on line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/
hr5631sap-h.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
operations. An additional $11.3 billion is available as a permanent appropriation for retiree
medical benefits, increasing the total appropriation for FY2007 to $464.8 billion (see Table 3).
Funding Cuts and Caps on Discretionary Spending and on
Emergency Spending
Perhaps the most controversial issue in the Senate bill is that the total amount is $9.1 billion
below the Administration request. A House cut of $4.1 billion in its version of the bill prompted
the White House to threaten a veto if the final bill “underfunds” defense in order to shift funds to
non-defense programs. The Senate 302(b) allocations straightforwardly shift $9.5 billion from
defense and military construction appropriations to non-defense appropriations bills.
Though usually remaining unspoken, the premise of the Senate and House 302(b) cuts in defense
is that the cuts can be made up from funding provided as additional money for overseas
operations. So a directly related issue is the extent to which the Senate bill shifts funding from the
regular defense appropriations accounts to Title IX of the bill that provides additional funding for
Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House
version of the appropriations bill also complained about this practice. The White House estimated
that the House bill shifts about $2 billion of funding from the regular defense bill to the amounts
provided as additional appropriations that are exempted from the $872.8 billion cap on total
discretionary funding in FY2007. The Senate bill provides funds for many of the same programs
as the House bill as additional appropriations, including funds for M-1 tank and Bradley Fighting
Vehicle upgrades, to continue C-17 production, and for V-22 tilt rotor aircraft.
There is a further complication in the Senate. Section 402 of the Senate-passed budget resolution,
S.Con.Res. 83, (1) establishes the $872.8 billion cap on FY2007 discretionary funding, (2)
exempts funding that is designated as “emergency” appropriations from the cap, but also, (3) sets
a cap of $86.3 billion on emergency funding in FY2007 (the total was reduced from $90 billion in
a floor amendment). The FY2006 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4939 “deems” all of
these requirements to apply in the Senate in the absence of a conference agreement on the budget
resolution.
This presents a problem for the appropriators, however, because costs of a later emergency
FY2007 supplemental request for Iraq and Afghanistan, expected next February, together with
costs of Katrina-recovery and other disaster relief, bird flu preparations, border security,
agricultural disaster relief, and other purposes, will almost surely exceed the cap by a substantial
amount. It will still be possible to go ahead with emergency funding for these purposes, but only
with offsetting rescissions of funds for costs that exceed the cap.
As a result, the Senate Appropriations Committee took a step to reduce the potential need for
offsets by declaring only part of the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the bill as FY2007
emergency funding. Within Title IX of the bill, only funds in Chapter 1, Military Personnel, and
Chapter 2, Operation and Maintenance, are designated as emergency funding exempt from the
FY2007 caps. These chapters provide $42.1 billion of the $50 billion in Title IX. Funds in
Chapter 3, Procurement, Chapter 4, RDT&E, Chapter 5, Revolving and Management Funds, and
Chapter 6, Related Agencies, which provide $7.9 billion, are simply made available “on
enactment” of the bill. The effect is to have these amounts scored as FY2006 rather than FY2007
money. This is the key point. The additional $7.9 billion in FY2006 funds will not trigger a point
of order for exceeding FY2006 discretionary spending levels, since room remains under the
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
FY2006 budget caps due to the $8 billion across-the-board cut in appropriations that Congress
made at the end of last year.
Other Issues in the Senate Defense Appropriations Bill
Aside from the overall budget issues, the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the defense
appropriations bill addresses a number of other key policy matters.
The $9.1 billion of cuts in spending come mainly in operation and maintenance (O&M), $3.8
billion, and in general provisions of the bill, $2.6 billion (see Table 3 above). Within O&M, the
major cuts include
•
$332 million in Army depot maintenance because of a reduced peacetime
requirement, a cut of about 1/3 in the $974 million requested—Title IX of the bill
provides $2.5 billion for Army depot maintenance and another $2.5 billion for
Army reset, which involves some similar maintenance at the unit level;
•
$245 million for an Army peacetime training offset, referring to training not done
because troops are deployed abroad, a cut that otherwise might offset
requirements for additional funds in Title IX;
•
$188 million in Army unobligated balances;
•
$215 million for a Navy peacetime training offset;
•
$200 million for unexplained growth in Air Force air operations;
•
$160 million from deterring some Air Force facilities repairs;
•
$275 million for an overstatement of Air Force civilian personnel;
•
$400 million for Air Force peacetime flying hour requirements;
•
$200 million for a reduction based on the increase from prior year Air Force
requirements;
•
$108 million in Air Force unobligated balances;
•
$220 million in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) funds realigned in part
to Title IX; and
•
$108.8 million in defense-wide unobligated balances.
Within General Provisions of the bill, the major cuts include
•
$53.2 million cut from Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
(FFRDCs);
•
$985.3 million in rescissions of prior year appropriations;
•
$92 million from unspecified Army and Air Force efficiencies;
•
$71 million from advisory and assistance services;
•
$85 million in travel funds; and
•
$520 million for changed economic assumptions, applied proportionately to
amounts for procurement, R&D, and some other titles of the bill.
Congressional Research Service
42
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
On personnel-related policy, the committee
•
provided funds for a pay raise of 2.2%, though the authorization conference
agreement may agree to a 2.7% raise as in the House bill;
•
agreed to an increase of 30,000 in Army and 5,000 in Marine Corps active duty
end-strength, though with funds provided in Title IX (the report does not
explicitly make that point, but the funding totals in Title IX reflect amounts the
Administrations estimates would be need for what it calls “overstrength”); and
•
provided $164 million to support an Army National Guard end-strength of
350,000 rather than the 333,000 for which funding was requested.
On major weapons programs, the committee
•
cut 6 helicopters and $40 million from the 18 aircraft and $141 million requested
in the Army Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program;
•
cut 223 aircraft and $18 million from the 39 aircraft and $199 million requested
for the Army Light Utility Helicopter program;
•
cut $78 million for Bradley Fighting Vehicle mods, but added funds in Title IX;
•
cut $254 million from the $3.7 billion requested for Future Combat System
R&D, compared to a $326 million cut in the House bill;
•
cut $220 million for 1 of the 2 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) requested,
complaining that Navy cost figures in the past were incomplete and therefore
understated costs;
•
eliminated $455 million requested in the National Defense Sealift fund to build
one T-AKE cargo ship saying that the Navy had not begun building 5 previously
funded ships and that $2.4 billion of prior year funding remains unexpended;
•
added $117 million for one oceanographic survey ship;
•
eliminated the almost $1.3 billion requested in the Navy and Air Force to begin
procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but added $340 million in R&D to
continue development of an alternative aircraft engine for the program;
•
like the House, added $1.4 billion to fully fund procurement of 20 F-22
fighter aircraft;
•
rejected the Administration proposal to shut down C-17 production after FY2007
and shifted $329 million requested in the regular budget to fund the shutdown to
Title IX to purchase 7 aircraft;
•
cut 4 aircraft and $257 million from the 12 aircraft and $905 million requested
for the Navy EA-18G aircraft and added $219 million for 4 F/A-18E/F aircraft—
the House had cut all 12 EA-18s and added funds for 12 F/A-18s;
•
cut $230 million of the $867 million requested for Transformational
Communications Satellite R&D, compared to $100 million cut in the House bill;
•
cut $109 million of the $266 million requested for the Space Radar compared to
$66 million cut in the House bill; and
Congressional Research Service
43
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
provided $340 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, compared to
$500 million in the House bill.
For additional details on selected major weapons programs, see Table A-5.
FY2007 Defense Appropriations—Highlights of Senate
Floor Action
The Senate began floor action on the defense appropriations bill on the evening of August 1, and
both the majority and minority leaders expressed the hope that the Senate could complete action
before adjourning for the August recess on Friday, August 3. On August 3, however, Senator Reid
said that as many as 50 Democratic amendments remained to be addressed. Although Senator
Stevens argued that the Senate should stay through the night, in the end the leadership agreed to
resume consideration of the fill when the Senate returned on September 5. The Senate took up the
bill on September 5 and completed action on September 7.
The most high profile debate when the Senate returned was on an amendment by Senator Reid
and other Democrats expressing the sense of the Senate on the need for a new direction in Iraq
policy and in the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense – a direct rebuke to Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld. The Senate debated the measure for much of the day on September 6,
though it was finally ruled out of order by the chair as not germane.
The largest substantive change in the bill on the Senate floor was an amendment by Senator
Stevens and Senator Inouye, the chairman and ranking member of the defense subcommittee,
respectively, to add $13.1 billion in emergency funds to repair and replace equipment being used
by Army and Marine units in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between the time the bill was reported on
July 20 and the time the it came up on the floor, an ongoing debate about Army and Marine Corps
readiness became increasingly heated. In June, Army and Marine Corps officials testified to
congressional committees about the estimated costs of “resetting” units to repair, upgrade, and
replace equipment either worn out or lost in overseas operations or left in the theater by units
returning to home. The Army estimated as yet unfunded, long term reset costs of $17 billion and
the Marine Corp estimated costs of $12-13 billion. In addition, in July, leaders of the Army
National Guard have said that it would take $21 billion over the next few years to reset ground
forces and to reequip the force to meet official requirements for new “modular” units.
In response, Senators Reed and Dayton announced that they would propose an amendment to the
appropriations bill to add $10 billion to “reset” Army and Marine Corps units returning from
operations abroad. This led Senator Stevens to work with DOD and the White House on an
alternative, which ultimately became his and Senator Inouye’s surprise $13.1 billion amendment.
The second largest addition of emergency funding was an amendment by Senators Sessions and
Kyl to add $1.8 billion for border security. This was to fund fences and vehicle borders that the
Senate authorized in action on the Immigration Reform Act, S. 2611, in May, but that was not
funded in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, H.R. 5441. Now that the Senate has
approved the funding as part of the defense bill, the issue is (1) whether the defense bill, rather
than the homeland security appropriations bill is the proper vehicle for it and (2) whether and how
to find offsets for the increased funding.
Congressional Research Service
44
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
A third debate on the Senate floor did not involve a large amount of money, but nonetheless
became quite contentious. On August 2, Senator Durbin proposed an amendment earmarking $2
million in Army R&D funds for a program to improve imaging of brain injuries. Senator Stevens
opposed the amendment, arguing that the Senate needed to limit the amount of money it
perennially adds to the defense appropriation bill for medical R&D programs, many of which,
such as breast cancer and prostate cancer research, are at best only indirectly related to military
requirements. Senator Inouye supported Senator Stevens and the Senate tabled the amendment by
a largely party-line vote of 54-43. Subsequently, a number of veterans organizations complained
that requested FY2007 funding for an Army-funded center for treating brain injuries was lower
than the FY2006 level. When the Senate returned in September, Senator Allen offered an
amendment to add $19 million for brain injury programs.
Between the time it began debate on August 1 and the time it passed the appropriations bill on
September 7, the Senate disposed of almost 90 amendments. As is usually the case, most of the
amendments were non-controversial measures to add relatively small amounts for specific
projects. In action on the more significant amendments, the Senate
•
on the opening evening of debate on August 1, approved a proposal by Senators
Stevens and Inouye, Senate Amendment (SA) 4751, to add $13.1 billion in
emergency funds22 to reequip Army and Marine Corps units returning from
Iraq—this amendment was as an alternative, approved by the White House and
the Defense Department, to an amendment earlier proposed by Senators Reed
and Dodd to add $10.2 billion to “reset” Army and Marine forces;
•
approved an amendment by Senators Bond and Leahy, SA 4827, to specify that
$2.4 billion of the $13.1 billion provided in the Stevens/Inouye amendment be
allocated to National Guard and Reserve units;
•
approved, by a vote of 94-3, an amendment by Senator Sessions, SA 4775,
adding $1.8 billion in emergency funds for fences and vehicle barriers on the
Mexican border—this was a substitute for a similar amendment, SA 4788, by
Senator Kyl;
•
rejected, by a vote of 54-43, an amendment by Senator Durbin, SA 4781, to add
$2 million, with an offset, for an Army medical R&D program—in this, the
Senate supported Senator Stevens’s effort to limit the amount medical R&D
earmarks;
•
approved a proposal by Senator Coburn, SA 4848, to require the Defense
Department to list, identify the location, and assess the utility of all congressional
earmarks in the defense bill;
22
Technically, the amendment designates the additional funding as “emergency” appropriations in the Senate and as
“appropriations for contingency operations” in the House. Section 402 of the Senate-passed FY2007 budget resolution
exempts funds that are designated as an “emergency requirement” from the cap that the resolution places on total
discretionary funding. Section 402 of the House-passed resolution exempts funding “for contingency operations
directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations.” In the Senate, most
of the $50 billion provided in Title IX as “Additional Appropriations” are designated as emergency funds, though, as
discussed above, $7.9 billion of the amount is made available when enacted, presumably in FY2006. In the House, all
of the $50 billion in Title IX for “Additional Appropriations” are designated as being for “contingency operations
directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations.”
Congressional Research Service
45
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
approved another proposal by Senator Coburn, SA 4784, with Senator Obama, to
require the Defense Department to post electronically all reports to Congress
required by the act within 48 hours after they are submitted and to post all budget
justification material;
•
approved, by a vote of 96-0, another amendment by Senator Coburn, SA 4785, to
require reports on the risk of improper Department of Defense payments for
travel;
•
approved an additional amendment by Senator Coburn, SA 4787, to limit DOD
funding for conferences to $70 million;
•
approved an amendment by Senator Allen, SA 4883, to provide $19 million for a
DOD/VA brain injury center;
•
rejected by a vote of 30-70 an amendment by Senators Feinstein and Leahy, SA
4882, to require that rules of engagement prohibit cluster munitions from being
used near large groups of non-combatants;
•
tabled by a vote of 54-44 an amendment by Senators Kennedy and Reid, SA
4885, to require that quarterly reports on Iraq include more information on trends
toward civil war;
•
tabled by a vote of 50-48 an amendment by Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes to
privatize base support services at the Walter Reed Hospital;
•
considered an amendment by Senator Rockefeller, SA 4906, that was then
withdrawn, to eliminate parts of the bill authorizing intelligence activities, a
measure the Senator proposed to urge passage of the intelligence authorization
bill;
•
approved, by a vote of 98-0, an amendment by Senator Conrad, SA 4907, to add
$200 million in emergency funds enhance intelligence community efforts to
capture Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda;
•
approved, after rejected a motion to table the measure by a vote of 45-51, an
amendment by Senator Schumer, SA 4897, to provide $700 million in emergency
funds (in Title VI of the bill, rather than in Title IX), for counter-drug programs
in Afghanistan;
•
approved an amendment by Senator Boxer, SA 4913, to require a report on
procedures and guidelines the event of further sectarian violence in Iraq;
•
approved an amendment by Senators Kennedy and Hatch, SA 4857, to prohibit
privatization of civilian work if contractors have an advantage because they
provide inferior retirement benefits;
•
approved an amendment by Stevens and Murkowski, SA 4917, to allow the
Secretary of the Army to reimburse servicemembers and their families for
financial hardships due to extended deployment overseas;
•
approved an amendment by Senators Reid and Obama, SA 4912, to provide $20
million in emergency funds to assist the African Union force in Sudan;
•
approved and amendment by Senator Bingaman, SA 4915, to appropriate $275
million in emergency FY20006 funds for wildfire suppression;
Congressional Research Service
46
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
•
approved, by a unanimous vote of 98-0, an amendment by Senators Reed and
Bayh, SA 4911, to provide $65.4 million in emergency funds to procure Predator
UAVs for Special Operations forces; and
•
tabled by a vote of 51-44 an amendment by Senator Menendez, SA 4909, to
prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program designed to monitor news
media in the United States and the Middle East and promote positive coverage of
the war in Iraq.
Table 11 provides a list of Senate action on these and some other selected amendments to the bill.
Table 11. Senate Floor Action on Selected Amendments: Defense
Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5631
#
Purpose
Sponsor
Status
Stevens
Agreed to in Senate by
Unanimous Consent.
Amendments Agreed To
August 1, 2006
4751a
To appropriate as additional appropriations $7,800,000,000 for
the Army and $5,300,000,000 for the Marine Corps for the reset
of equipment due to continuing combat operations and to
designate such amounts as emergency requirements.
August 2, 2006
4772
To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to
provide award fees to any defense contractor for performance
that does not meet the requirements of the contract.
Carper
Agreed to in Senate by
Unanimous Consent.
4775a
To provide $1,829,100,000 for the Army National Guard for the
construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, and 461 miles
of vehicle barriers along the southwest border.
Sessions
[To SA 4788] as
modified agreed to in
Senate by Yea-Nay Vote.
94 - 3. Record Vote
Number: 220.
4788a
To provide $1,829,000,000 for the Army National Guard for the
construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, and 500 miles
of vehicle barriers along the southwest border.
Kyl
Agreed to in Senate by
Unanimous Consent.
[Note: Amended by SA
4775].
4819a
To make available up to an additional $6,700,000,000 to fund
equipment reset requirements resulting from continuing combat
operations, including repair, depot, and procurement activities.
Dodd
Agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 97 - 0.
Record Vote Number:
221.
August 3, 2006
4784
To require the posting of certain reports of the Department of
Defense on the Internet website of the Department of Defense.
Coburn
As modified agreed to in
Senate by Voice Vote.
4785
To ensure the fiscal integrity of travel payments made by the
Department of Defense.
Coburn
As modified agreed to in
Senate by Yea-Nay Vote.
96 - 0. Record Vote
Number: 224.
Congressional Research Service
47
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
#
Purpose
Sponsor
Status
4787
To limit the funds available to the Department of Defense for
expenses relating to conferences.
Coburn/
Obama
Agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote after Senate
failed table the
amendment by Yea-Nay
Vote. 36-60 Record Vote
Number: 223
4801
To make available from Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, up to
$10,000,000 for the Carrier Replacement Program for advance
procurement of nuclear propulsion equipment.
DeWine
As modified agreed to in
Senate by Unanimous
Consent.
4802
To require a new National Intelligence Estimate on prospects for
security and stability in Iraq.
Kennedy
As modified agreed to in
Senate by Unanimous
Consent.
4827a
To ensure that of the $13.1 billion provided by SA 4751, $2.4
billion is available for National Guard and Reserve equipment.
Bond
As modified agreed to in
Senate by Unanimous
Consent.
4848
To require notice to Congress and the public on earmarks of
funds available to the Department of Defense.
Coburn
Agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 1.
Record Vote Number:
226.
4851
To prohibit the use of funds for establishing United States
military installations in Iraq or exercising United States control
over the oil resources of Iraq.
Biden
Agreed to in Senate by
Unanimous Consent.
4858
To prohibit the use of funds by the United States Government to
enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would
subject members of the Armed Forces to the jurisdiction of Iraq
criminal courts or punishment under Iraq law.
Boxer
Agreed to in Senate by
Yea-Nay Vote. 97 - 0.
Record Vote Number:
225.
Allen
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
September 6, 2006
4883
To make available from Defense Health Program up to
$19,000,000 for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center.
September 7, 2006
4907a
To add $200 million in emergency funds to enhance intelligence
community efforts to bring Osama bin Laden and other key
leaders of al Qaeda to the justice they deserve.
Conrad
Agreed to in Senate by a
unanimous vote of 96
yeas. Vote No. 235.
4897a
To make available up to an additional $700 million for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combat the growth
of poppies in Afghanistan, to eliminate the production and trade
of opium and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the
proceeds for terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere, and to designate the additional amount as emergency
spending.
Schumer
Agreed to in Senate by
Voice Vote. Senate
earlier failed to table the
amendment by 45 yeas
to 51 nays. Vote No.
237.
4913
To require a report on procedures and guidelines the event of
further sectarian violence.
Boxer
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
4857
To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be available for the conversion to contractor performance of
certain activities or functions of the Department of Defense in
cases where the contractor receives a competitive advantage by
offering inferior retirement benefits to workers who are going to
be employed in the performance of such activities or functions
than those offered by the Department to comparable civilian
employees.
Kennedy/
Hatch
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
Congressional Research Service
48
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
#
Purpose
Sponsor
Status
4900a
To make available up to $2,000,000 for infrastructure for the
Afghanistan military legal system.
Graham
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
4917
To provide the Secretary of the Army the ability to reimburse
servicemembers and their families for financial hardships due to
extended deployment overseas.
Stevens/
Murkowski
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
4912a
To increase by $20,000,000 the amount made available by
chapter 2 of title IX for Operation and Maintenance, DefenseWide for the purpose of assisting the African Union force in
Sudan.
Reid/
Obama
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
4915a
To appropriate $275 million for emergency wildfire suppression.
Bingaman
Agreed to in Senate by
unanimous consent.
4911a
To make available an additional $65,400,000 for additional
appropriations for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the
procurement of Predators for Special Operations forces, and to
designate the amount as an emergency requirement.
Reed/ Bayh
Agreed to in Senate by a
unanimous vote of 98
yeas. Record Vote No.
238.
Durbin
Motion to table agreed
to in Senate by Yea-Nay
Vote. 54 - 43. Record
Vote Number: 222.
Sessions
Not agreed to in Senate
by Yea-Nay Vote. 31 67. Record Vote
Number: 227.
Amendment Rejected
August 2, 2006
4781
To appropriate, with an offset, an additional $2,000,000 for
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army for the
improvement of imaging for traumatic brain injuries.
August 3, 2006
4844
To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, up to $77,000,000 for the Conventional
Trident Modification Program.
September 6, 2006
4882
To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Feinstein/
Leahy
Not agreed to in Senate
by Yea-Nay Vote. 30-70.
Record Vote No. 232.
4885
To include information on civil war in Iraq in the quarterly
reports on progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.
Kennedy/
Reid
Motion to table agreed
to in Senate by Yea-Nay
Vote. 54 -44. Record
Vote No. 233.
4895
To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to enter into or carry out
a contract for the performance by a contractor of any base
operation support service at Walter Reed Army Medical
Hospital pursuant to a private-public competition conducted
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 that was
initiated on June 13, 2000, and has the solicitation number
DADA 10-03-R-0001.
Mikulski/
Sarbanes
Motion to table
amendment agreed to in
Senate by Yea-Nay Vote.
50-48. Record Vote No.
234.
Menendez
Motion to table
amendment agreed to in
Senate by Yea-Nay Vote.
51-44. Record Vote No.
236.
September 7, 2006
4909
To prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program
designed to monitor news media in the United States and the
Middle East and create a database of news stories to promote
positive coverage of the war in Iraq.
Congressional Research Service
49
Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations
#
Purpose
Sponsor
Status
Amendments Ruled out of Order
August 2, 2006
4768
To provide emergency supplemental appropriations for border
security and immigration reform.
Cornyn
Ruled out of order by
the chair.
4795
To provide for the extension and modification of certain tax
relief provisions, and for Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act amendments.
Reid
Ruled out of order by
the chair.
4805
To improve Federal contracting and procurement by eliminating
fraud and abuse and improving competition in contracting and
procurement and by enhancing administration of Federal
contracting personnel.
Dorgan
Ruled out of order by
the chair.
4806
To prohibit the suspension of royalties under certain
c
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.