Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Congressional research reportFeb 25, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and
Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
(name redacted)
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
(name redacted)
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
February 25, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34473
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
Soon after the 111th Congress convened, it began drafting H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, generally referred to as the “economic stimulus” bill. This bill added a
total of $8.5 billion to amount previously appropriated for DOD in FY2009. Of the additional
funds provided by H.R. 1, $4.6 billion was for accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD
appropriations provided by Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009, generally referred to as the “continuing resolution,”
which President George W. Bush signed into law on Sept. 30, 2008. The economic stimulus bill
also provided an additional $2.9 billion for accounts funded by the regular military construction
appropriations provided by Division E of the continuing resolution. Congress’ disposition of
FY2009 funding for DOD in H.R. 1 (other than funding for military construction) is discussed in
this report on pp. 3-5, below. The balance of the report discusses the President’s regular DOD
budget request for FY2009 and Congress’ disposition of that request in the regular defense
authorization and appropriations legislation.
The President’s FY2009 budget request, released February 4, 2008, included $611.1 billion in
new budget authority for national defense. This total included $515.4 billion in discretionary
budget authority for the base budget of the Department of Defense (DOD)—i.e., activities not
associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—$2.9 billion in mandatory spending for the
DOD base budget, and $22.8 billion for defense costs of the Department of Energy and other
agencies. It also included a placeholder of $70 billion for war costs in the first part of FY2009.
On April 30, the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the FY2009 defense
authorization bill (S. 3001), authorizing the appropriation of $612.5 billion in new budget
authority, including $542.5 billion for the baseline budget and a $70 billion allowance for warrelated costs. On September 17, the Senate passed the authorization bill by a vote of 88-8.
The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill (H.R. 5658) on May 22,
authorizing $612.5 billion for national defense, including $70 billion for war-related costs. The
bill denied authorization of the $2.5 billion requested for a third destroyer of the DDG-1000 class,
allocating those funds instead to buy several other ships. A compromise between the House and
Senate bills authorizing $611.1 billion, worked out informally, was passed by the House
September 24 as an amended version of the Senate-passed S. 3001 by a vote of 392-39. The
Senate passed the bill September 27 by voice vote and the President signed it on October 14 (P.L.
110-417). The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the FY2009
Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $477.6 billion, $4 billion less
than the President requested for that bill. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
marked up its version of the appropriations bill on September 10, also recommending $477.6
billion. Neither chamber held full committee markups of a FY2009 defense appropriations bill,
and neither chamber considered a bill on the floor. Instead, a compromise version of the
subcommittee bills was incorporated into H.R. 2638, the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. The bill included $477.6 billion in regular
FY2009 defense appropriations and $25.0 billion in military construction appropriations. The
House passed the compromise bill September 24 (370-58). The Senate passed the bill September
27 (78-12), and the President signed it September 30 (P.L. 110-329).
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Economic Stimulus Funding, DOD .............................................................................................4
Overview of the Administration FY2009 Request........................................................................5
Comparison and Context .......................................................................................................6
Status of Legislation....................................................................................................................7
Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% of GDP Debate .......................................................................8
Potential Issues in the FY2009 Base Budget Request................................................................. 12
Military Pay Raise .............................................................................................................. 12
Army and Marine Corps End-Strength Increases ................................................................. 12
TRICARE Fees and Co-pays............................................................................................... 13
Projected Navy Strike Fighter Shortfall ............................................................................... 13
LPD-17-Class Ship Procurement ......................................................................................... 14
Funding for DDG-1000 Destroyers versus Other Ships........................................................ 14
Littoral Combat Ship Funding ............................................................................................. 14
CG-X Design ...................................................................................................................... 14
Reliable Replacement Warhead ........................................................................................... 15
Missile Defense .................................................................................................................. 15
Long-Range Non-Nuclear Prompt Global Strike.................................................................. 15
Future Combat Systems ...................................................................................................... 16
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine........................................................................... 16
F-22 Fighter ........................................................................................................................ 16
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker ................................................................................................... 17
C-17 Cargo Jet .................................................................................................................... 17
“Soft” Power Functions and Interagency Burden-Sharing.................................................... 18
War Funding Issues in the FY2009 DOD Bridge Fund.............................................................. 19
FY2009 War Costs .............................................................................................................. 20
FY2009 Bridge Fund .................................................................................................... 21
Resolution of Issues ............................................................................................................ 22
Funding for Iraq Security Forces (ISFF)........................................................................ 26
Strict Monitoring of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDO) ........... 26
Commanders Emergency Response Program Funding ................................................... 26
Section 1206 Training and Equipping of Foreign Military Forces .................................. 27
MRAP Vehicle Funding ................................................................................................ 28
Separating Iraq and Afghanistan Funding ...................................................................... 28
Caps on Transfers.......................................................................................................... 28
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional Action to Date ............................................................. 29
Congressional Budget Resolution........................................................................................ 29
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill.............................................. 29
Pay Raise, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues .............................................................. 30
Tanker, Cargo, and Patrol Planes ................................................................................... 31
Fighter Planes ............................................................................................................... 31
Future Combat Systems (FCS) ...................................................................................... 32
Anti-Missile Defense .................................................................................................... 32
Shipbuilding ................................................................................................................. 33
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Civilian Response Corps ............................................................................................... 34
Iraq Policy Provisions ................................................................................................... 34
Other Highlights ........................................................................................................... 35
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action ................................................... 36
Agreements with Iraq.................................................................................................... 36
Long-term Cost of Operations in Iraq............................................................................ 36
Detainee Interrogations ................................................................................................. 36
Intelligence on Iran ....................................................................................................... 36
Contracting Regulations ................................................................................................ 36
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Bill ............................................. 37
End-Strength, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues......................................................... 38
Shipbuilding ................................................................................................................. 38
Fighter Aircraft ............................................................................................................. 39
UAVs and Surveillance Planes ...................................................................................... 40
Helicopters.................................................................................................................... 40
Anti-Missile Defenses ................................................................................................... 40
Other Highlights ........................................................................................................... 41
Highlights of the Final Version of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill (S. 3001) ........... 42
Veto Threats Avoided .................................................................................................... 42
Weapons Program Issues............................................................................................... 43
Missile Defense Program Issues .................................................................................... 44
Military Personnel Issues .............................................................................................. 45
Health Care................................................................................................................... 45
Acquisition Policy......................................................................................................... 45
Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and Senate Versions of the
FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill.................................................................................. 46
FY2009 Defense Appropriations Bill: House and Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee Markups.................................................................................................... 52
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Markup .................................................. 52
Senate Defense Appropriations Markup......................................................................... 54
Tables
Table 1. FY2008-09 DOD Appropriations Through December 31, 2008 .....................................3
Table 2. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1) .........................................4
Table 3. Department of Defense Baseline Budget Request Discretionary Budget
Authority, FY2008-FY2009 .....................................................................................................7
Table 4. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization, S. 3001 ..........................................................7
Table 5. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations, H.R. 2638, Division C................................8
Table 6. DOD Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2013 ......................................................................9
Table 7. FY2009 War Bridge Funding ....................................................................................... 24
Table 8. Side-By-Side Comparison of Selected Iraq Policy Provisions in House, Senate,
and Final Defense Authorization Bills .................................................................................... 47
Table A-1. FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: House and Senate Action by
Title ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Table A-2. FY2009 Defense and Military Construction Appropriations: Request and
Final Bill Amounts by Title .................................................................................................... 59
Table A-3. FY2009 Missile Defense Funding: Authorization ..................................................... 61
Table A-4. FY2009 Missile Defense Funding: Appropriations ................................................... 65
Table A-5. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Army and Marine Corps Programs:
Authorization......................................................................................................................... 68
Table A-6. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Army and Marine Corps Programs:
Appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 71
Table A-7. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Shipbuilding Programs:
Authorization......................................................................................................................... 74
Table A-8. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Shipbuilding Programs:
Appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 77
Table A-9. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Aircraft Programs: Authorization............ 79
Table A-10. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Aircraft Programs: Appropriations........ 82
Table A-11. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Missile, Space, Munitions, and
Strategic Programs: Authorization .......................................................................................... 85
Table A-12. Congressional Action on Selected FY2009 Missile, Space, Munitions, and
Strategic Programs: Appropriations ........................................................................................ 87
Appendixes
Appendix. Highlights of Compromise Final Version of FY2009 Defense Appropriations
in the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing
Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638) ............................................................................................. 55
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 89
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 89
Congressional Research Service
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Soon after the 111th Congress convened, it began drafting H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, generally referred to as the “economic stimulus” bill. On January 28,
the House passed a version of the bill which would have provided, in Title III, $4.9 billion for
accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations provided by Division D of the
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009,
generally referred to as the “continuing resolution,” which President George W. Bush signed into
law on September 30, 2008. The House version of the economic stimulus bill also provided in
Title X of the economic stimulus bill $6.0 billion for accounts funded by the regular military
construction appropriations provided by Division E of the continuing resolution.
The Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 1 on February 10, which would have provided an
additional $3.7 billion for DOD accounts other than military construction in FY2009 and 3.4
billion for military construction.
House-Senate conferees on the economic stimulus bill agreed February 10 on a compromise
version that added $4.6 billion to the non-construction DOD accounts and funded by the FY2009
Defense Appropriations Act and $2.9 billion for military construction accounts(see Table 1). The
House and Senate each adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on February 13, 2009, with the
House approving it by a vote of 246-183 and the Senate approving it by a vote of 60-38.
Provisions of H.R. 1 relevant to accounts funded in the FY2009 defense appropriations bill are
analyzed in pp, 3-5, below. (Provisions of the economic stimulus relevant to military construction
accounts are analyzed in CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted)
.)
The balance of this report analyzes the FY2009 defense appropriations bill that was incorporated
into the FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act
(P.L. 110-329), which the President signed September 30, 2008. That bill provided $477.6 billion
in discretionary defense appropriations for the so-called “base budget” of the Department of
Defense, that is, for regular operations other than combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee had marked up its version of the FY2009
Defense Appropriations Bill on July 30, recommending a total of $477.6 billion, which the panel
said was $4 billion less than the President requested for that bill. The Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the appropriations Bill on September 10,
also recommending $477.6 billion.
Neither chamber held full committee markups of a FY2009 defense appropriations bill, and
neither chamber considered a defense appropriations bill on the floor. Instead, a compromise
version of the two subcommittee bills—in effect, a conference agreement on FY2009 defense
appropriations—was negotiated informally by members of the House and Senate Appropriations
committees and was incorporated into the FY2009 continuing resolution, along with full-year
versions of the FY2009 homeland security and military construction/veterans affairs
appropriations bills. The bill was passed by the House September 24, 2008 and by the Senate
September 27, 2008 and was signed by the President September 30 (See Table A-2 in the
Appendix to this report.).
Congressional Research Service
1
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Together with defense funds appropriated in other acts for military construction and emergency
war costs and the permanent appropriation for accrual payments to the Tricare for Life fund for
military retirees, the defense appropriations act brought the total for DOD appropriations in
FY2009 to $578.9 billion, as of December 31, 2008 (see Table 1).
In a related action, the President signed into law on October 14, 2008 the FY2009 defense
authorization bill (S. 3001) authorizing $611.1 billion for national defense, including $68.6
billion for war-related programs (see Table A-1 in the Appendix to this report).
The House had passed its version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5658) on May
22, 2008, by a vote of 384-23. The House version of the bill authorized $612.4 billion, including
$542.4 billion for national defense-related activities of DOD and other federal agencies and an
additional $70 billion for costs related to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On April 30, the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the FY2009
authorization bill, which it reported to the floor on May 12 as S. 3001. It also authorized the
appropriation of $612.5 billion in new budget authority for national security programs, including
$542.5 billion for the base budget and an additional $70 billion allowance for war-related costs.
Controversies over various issues—including a provision that would incorporate into the
legislation hundreds of earmarks listed in the committee’s report on the bill and an unrelated
dispute over offshore oil drilling—delayed Senate action on the measure until September 8.
Because of the controversy over the earmarks provision, the Senate acted on only four of the
several dozen amendments to the bill that were proposed before it passed the bill on September
17, 2008 by a vote of 88-8.
Another result of the earmark dispute was that the Senate did not request a conference with the
House to reconcile the two versions of the defense bill. Instead, members of the House and Senate
Armed Services committees negotiated informally a final version of the bill authorizing $611.1
billion, a reduction of $1.4 billion from the Administration’s request as re-estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office. All but a very small amount of the authorization bill’s reduction
was taken from the $70 billion requested for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On September 24, the House passed the compromise version of the authorization bill as an
amended version of the Senate-passed S. 3001. The bill was passed by a vote of 392-39 under
suspension of the rules, a procedure which did not permit amendments but which required
approval by a two-thirds vote. The Senate passed the amended version of S. 3001 by voice vote
on September 27, thus clearing the measure for the President who signed it on October 14, 2008.
Since neither the defense authorization bill nor the defense appropriations bill was the result of a
formal conference committee, neither was accompanied by a traditional conference report.
However, explanatory statements associated with the compromise version of each measure,
fleshing out the details of the final legislation, were published in the Congressional Record.1
1
The explanatory statement to accompany the defense authorization bill, S. 3001, was published in the Congressional
Record of September 23, 2008 (pp. H8718-H9081). Subsequently, the text of the bill and the explanatory statement
were published as a House Armed Services Committee print (HASC No. 10 ). The explanatory statement to accompany
the DOD-related section of the continuing resolution was published in the Congressional Record of September 24 (pp.
H9434-H9870). Subsequently, the text of the continuing resolution (Division C of which is the FY2009 defense
appropriations bill) and the explanatory statement were printed by the House Appropriations Committee as an
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 1. FY2008-09 DOD Appropriations
Through December 31, 2008
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2008
Enacted
FY2009
Request
FY2009
Enacted
Military Personnel
105.3
114.9
114.4
Operation and Maintenance
140.1
154.8
152.9
Procurement
98.2
102.1
101.1
RDT&E
77.3
79.6
80.5
Revolving and Management Funds
2.7
3.5
3.2
Other Defense Programs:
26.3
26.9
27.4
Related Agencies
1.0
1.0
1.0
General Provisions/Rescissions (non-emergency)
-2.2
-1.2
-2.9
Total, DOD Appropriations Act (non-emergency)
448.7
481.6
477.6
Mine-Resistant, Armor-Protected Vehicles (MRAP) (emergency)
11.6
—
—
Total, Annual DOD Appropriations Act
460.3
481.6
477.6
Tricare for Life Accrual (permanent appropriation)
10.9
10.4
10.4
Other Emergency Appropriations (Bridge Fund)
171.1a
66.1
65.9b
Annual Military Construction Appropriations Act
24.9
24.4
25.0
“Stimulus Package” funds for accounts covered by Annual DOD
Appropriations Act
n/a
n/a
4.6
“Stimulus Package” funds for DOD accounts covered by Annual
Military Construction Appropriations Act
n/a
n/a
2.9
Total Defense and Mil/Con Appropriations
667.2
582.5
586.4
Annual DOD Appropriations Bill
Source: CRS from based on Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, Part I, pp. H9291-H9294.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Does not include funds appropriated for these accounts by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “economic stimulus” bill).
a.
Includes emergency war funding provided in three acts: P.L. 110-92 (First Continuing Resolution, FY2008);
P.L. 110-161 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, FY2008); and P.L. 110-252
(Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY2008). Also includes approximately $5.7 billion for non-war
emergency DOD funding.
b.
Emergency war funding (or “bridge fund”) provided in P.L. 110-252 (Supplemental Appropriations Act,
FY2008).
(...continued)
unnumbered committee print.
Congressional Research Service
3
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Economic Stimulus Funding, DOD
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the “economic
stimulus,” added $4.6 billion to DOD accounts funded in the regular FY2009 defense
appropriations bill enacted September 30, 2008 as Division D of the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009.
The additional DOD funds provided by the economic stimulus bill were aimed largely at
programs that would serve one of two goals. A total of $4.24 billion was for maintenance of DOD
facilities of which $400 million is for medical facilities, $153.5 million is for renovation of
barracks, and the remaining $3.69 billion is for repair and maintenance of other facilities and for
projects that would improve the energy efficiency of DOD facilities. An additional $300 million
is for research and development projects that would improve DOD’s energy efficiency.
Representative David R. Obey, chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, introduced the
bill on January 26, 2009, three weeks after the 111th Congress convened. Following referral to the
Committees on Appropriations and Budget, the bill was brought up for consideration on the floor
on January 27 (Congressional Record, pp. H557-H583, H620-H749). After debate and
amendment, H.R. 1 was passed by the Yeas and Nays, 244-188 (Roll no. 46). As passed by the
House, the bill would have added $4.9 billion to the DOD accounts funded by the regular FY2009
Defense Appropriations Act that comprised Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2009. (see Table 2)
The Senate received the economic stimulus bill on January 29. It was laid before the Senate by
Unanimous Consent on February 2, when Sen. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, proposed on
behalf of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, to amend H.R.
1 by substituting the text of S. 336, the chamber’s own version of the bill (Congressional Record
S 1237-S1243, S1266-S1273). The Senate adopted several floor amendments before passing the
bill Feb. 10 by a vote of 61-37. As passed by the Senate, the bill would have added $3.7 billion to
the accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations act. (see Table 2)
A conference report on the economic stimulus bill, adopted by both the House and the Senate on
February 13, 2009 increased accounts funded by the regular FY2009 DOD appropriations bill by
a total of $4.6 billion. President Obama signed the bill into law on February 17, 2009. (see Table
2)
Table 2. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (H.R. 1)
(budget authority in $ millions)
Account
House
Senate
Enacted
Operations and Maintenance, Army
1,490.8
1,169.3
1,474.5
Operations and Maintenance, Navy
624.4
571.8
657.1
Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps
128.5
112.2
113.9
Operations and Maintenance, Air Force
1,236.8
927.1
1,096.0
Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve
110.9
79.5
98.3
Operations and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
62.2
44.6
55.1
Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
45.0
32.3
39.9
Congressional Research Service
4
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Account
House
Senate
Enacted
Operations and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
14.9
10.6
13.2
Operations and Maintenance, Army National Guard
302.7
215.6
266.3
Operations and Maintenance, Air National Guard
29.2
20.9
25.8
Total, Facility Infrastructure Investments
4,045.3
3,184.0
3840.0
Defense Production Act Purchases
0
100.0
0
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
87.5
0
75.0
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
87.5
0
75.0
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
87.5
0
75.0
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide
87.5
200.0
75.0
Total, Energy Research and Development
350.0
200.0
300.0
Defense Health Program
454.7
250.0
400.0
Office of the Inspector General
15.0
15.0
15.0
4,865.0
3,749.0
4,555.0
Grand Total, DOD Programs
Source: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (P.L. 111-5)
Note: This table includes only funds for DOD accounts usually funded in the annual DOD appropriations bill.
Overview of the Administration FY2009 Request
On February 4, 2008, the Administration released its federal budget request for FY2009 which
included $606.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for national defense. 2 This included
$515.4 billion for the so-called base budget of the Department of Defense (DOD)—the cost of
routine activities excluding U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also included a lump-sum
request for $70 billion to cover war costs in the first part of the year.3
For congressional action on the Administration’s funding request for war costs, see CRS
Report RL34451, FY2008 Spring Supplemental Appropriations and FY2009 Bridge Appropriations
for Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes (P.L. 110-252), by (name re
dacted) et al. For policy issues raised by that request, see CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by (name redacted).
2
The budget request included an additional $4.3 billion in mandatory spending for the national defense function of the
budget (Function 050).
3
On May 2, the White House sent Congress an amendment to its FY2009 budget providing some detail as to how it
would allocate the $70 billion, which included $66 billion for the Department of Defense and $4 billion for
international affairs programs.
Congressional Research Service
5
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
The total national defense request also included $16.1 billion for nuclear weapons and other
defense-related programs of the Department of Energy and $5.2 billion for the defense-related
activities of other agencies.
Because it did not submit a request for funds to cover the full anticipated costs of operations
associated with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration was not in compliance with a provision
of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364, Section 1008)
which requires the President to include in future annual budget requests funds to cover the
anticipated cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, the Administration’s DOD
budget request for FY2008 included a request for $141.7 billion (subsequently increased to
$189.3 billion) to cover anticipated war costs for the entire fiscal year.
When the FY2009 defense request was submitted in February 2008, administration officials
contended that there was too much uncertainty about future troop levels in Iraq to enable them to
provide a funding request for war costs for the entire year.
Pressed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin during a February 5 hearing
to provide an estimate of war costs for all of FY2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
observed that a simple extrapolation of the FY2008 costs would amount to $170 billion, but he
added that he had no confidence in that projection because of the uncertainties concerning U.S.
combat operations.
On May 2, 2008, the Administration submitted an amended budget request that specified funding
levels by account in the FY2009 war costs bridge fund, including a total of $66 billion for DOD
and $4 billion for foreign aid.
Congress incorporated action on the FY2009 war costs request into H.R. 2642 (P.L. 110-252), a
bill making supplemental appropriations for FY2008 and FY2009 for military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan and for other purposes. On June 30, President Bush signed the bill providing
$96.1 billion for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in FY2008 and $65.9
billion for those purposes in FY2009.
Comparison and Context
The President’s $515.4 billion request for DOD’s FY2009 base budget is $35.9 billion more than
Congress appropriated for the FY2008 base budget, a nominal increase of 7.5 %. Adjusting for
the cost of inflation, the FY2009 request would provide a real increase of 5.4 %. Roughly twothirds of the proposed increase would go to the accounts that pay for current operations: funding
for military personnel would increase by $8.8 billion over the FY2008 appropriation, to $125.2
billion; operations and maintenance funding would increase by $15.6 billion, to $179.8 billion
(see Table 3).
The FY2009 base budget request is $3.3 billion larger than the base budget request for that year
the Administration had projected in February 2007. However, compared with the earlier
projection, the actual request for procurement was lower by $6.3 billion and the military
construction request was lower by $2.7 billion. On the other hand, the operations and
maintenance request was $5.4 billion higher and the R&D request $2.4 billion higher than had
been forecast in February 2007.
Congressional Research Service
6
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Table 3. Department of Defense Baseline Budget Request
Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2008-FY2009
(amounts in billions of dollars)
FY2008 Enacted
(Excluding War
Funds)
FY2009 Request
(Excluding War
Funds)
Change
Military Personnel
116,478
125,247
+8,769
Operation and Maintenance
164,187
179,787
+15,600
Procurement
98,986
104,216
+5,231
Research, Development, Test, &
Evaluation
76,536
79,616
+3,080
Military Construction
17,763
21,197
+3,434
Family Housing
2,867
3,204
+337
Revolving & Management Funds
2,692
2,174
-518
479,508
515,440
+35,932
Total DOD
Source: Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request: Summary Justification, February 2008.
Status of Legislation
Congress began action on the annual defense authorization bill with the Senate Armed Services
Committee approving its version (S. 3001) on April 30 and the Senate passing it September 17.
The House Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the bill (H.R. 5658) on May 14
and passed the bill May 22. Instead of convening a House-Senate conference committee to
reconcile the two versions of the bill, House and Senate negotiators worked out a compromise
version, which the House passed September 24 as an amended version of the Senate-passed bill.
The Senate passed the compromise version September 27 and the President signed in October 14
(P.L. 110-417).
Table 4. Status of FY2009 Defense Authorization, S. 3001
Full Committee
Markup
House
Senate
5/14/08
4/30/08
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
H.Rept.
110-652
5/22/08
384-23
S.Rept.
110-335
9/17/08
88-8
Cong.
Record
pp. H
8718H9081
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
Public
Law
392-39
9/24/08
9/27/08
voice
vote
P.L. 110417
10/14/08
The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee marked up an unnumbered version of the
FY2009 defense appropriations bill on July 30. The Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its own unnumbered bill on September 10. But in neither chamber did
the full Appropriations Committee markup the bills drafted by the two defense subcommittee.
Nor was a defense appropriations bill brought to the floor of either the House or Senate. Instead,
House and Senate negotiators worked out a compromise version which was incorporated into the
FY2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R.
Congressional Research Service
7
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
2638) which included the compromise defense appropriations bill as Division C. The House
passed that bill on September 24. The Senate passed it September 27 and the President signed in
September 30 (P.L. 110-329).
Table 5. Status of FY2009 Defense Appropriations,
H.R. 2638, Division C
Subcommittee
Markup
House
7/30/08
Senate
House
Report
House
Passage
9/10/08
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
Cong.
Record pp.
H9434-H
9870
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
370-58
9/24/08
9/27/08
78-12
Public
Law
P.L.
110329
9/30/08
Is the Budget Too Small? The 4% of GDP Debate
For several months leading up to action on the FY2009 defense funding legislation, a number of
senior military officers, as well as research groups and advocacy organizations, argued that
defense spending needs to be substantially higher in the next few years to avoid drastic cuts in
major weapons programs or in the size of the force. Many have called for a baseline defense
budget, not including war-related costs, pegged to about 4% of Gross Domestic Product—an
amount that would be anywhere from $70 to $180 billion per year higher over the next few years
than the Administration plan. 4
Senior leaders of the military services were particularly vocal in arguing for substantial increases
in the defense budget. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, has, for some
time, urged 4% of GDP for defense. For the previous two years, the Chief of Staff and Secretary
of the Air Force argued that the Air Force needs an average of $20 billion more each year for the
next several years in weapons acquisition accounts. Senior Army officials pointed out that the
Army budget, including war costs, has grown to over $230 billion. Though it may come down
some, they say, if forces in Iraq and elsewhere are brought home, several more years of spending
at near that level will be needed to repair, replace, and upgrade equipment consumed by the wartime pace of operations. For their part, Navy leaders now calculate that the long-term
shipbuilding plan they have proposed for the past few years will, in the future, cost an average of
$20 billion a year in FY2007 prices, an increase of about 40% over earlier estimates.5
These arguments for a substantial increase in the defense budget, however, come at a time when,
by historical standards, military spending appears to be very robust. Between FY1998, when the
4
For an example of the 4% argument, see Jim Talent and Mackenzie Eaglen, “Providing for the Common Defense:
Four Percent for Freedom,” Heritage Foundation, December 13, 2007. The target is not intended to be very precise—
proponents have not specified, for example, whether the 4% goal applies to just the Defense Department budget or to
the national defense budget function—a difference, in itself, of $22-23 billion each year.
5
For Admiral Mullen’s views, see Geoff Fein, “National Discussion Needed On Whether To Boost DoD Spending
Above 4 Percent, Chairman Says,” Defense News, February 1, 2008. For statements by Air Force leaders, see Erik
Holmes, “Fewer Airmen, Less Cash: With Fleet Continuing to Age, Wynne Says Drawdown Savings Are Less than
Expected,” Air Force Times, October 1, 2007. For costs of the Navy shipbuilding plan, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy
Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
8
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
post-Cold War decline in defense spending reached its zenith, and FY2008, the baseline
Department of Defense budget, not including war costs, increased by almost 40% above inflation
(see Table 6). After adjusting for inflation, the requested FY2009 baseline DOD budget was more
than $100 billion, or about 20%, greater than the average during the Cold War (measured from
the end of the Korean War in FY1954 through FY1990). Requested funding for weapons
acquisition (procurement plus R&D) in FY2009 was more than $45 billion—or about one-third—
higher than the annual Cold War average.
Table 6. DOD Budget Authority, FY1998-FY2013
(amounts in billions of dollars)
Constant FY2009 Dollars
Current Year Dollars
Total
DOD
Base
DOD
Supplemental
Total
DOD
Base
DOD
Supplemental
FY1998
258.3
255.4
2.8
357.2
353.2
3.9
FY1999
278.4
269.3
9.1
375.1
362.9
12.2
FY2000
290.3
281.8
8.6
381.4
370.1
11.2
FY2001
318.7
299.3
19.4
405.8
381.1
24.6
FY2002
344.9
328.7
16.2
427.7
407.5
20.1
FY2003
437.7
375.1
62.6
526.0
450.8
75.2
FY2004
470.9
401.4
69.5
547.9
467.0
80.9
FY2005
483.9
381.9
101.9
540.7
426.8
113.9
FY2006
536.5
412.4
124.0
580.3
446.1
134.2
FY2007
603.0
431.7
171.3
635.5
455.0
180.5
FY2008
670.5
481.2
189.3
686.3
492.6
193.8
FY2009
588.3
518.3
70.0
588.3
518.3
70.0
FY2010
527.0
527.0
—
514.8
514.8
—
FY2011
533.1
533.1
—
508.5
508.5
—
FY2012
542.4
542.4
—
504.7
504.7
—
FY2013
552.7
552.7
—
501.8
501.8
—
Source: Total DOD budget and deflators from Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates Fiscal
Year 2009, March 2008; supplemental appropriations by CRS. Data thru FY2007 are actual amounts. Data for
FY2008 is the projected total as of March, 2008. Data from FY2009 is the DOD request and data for subsequent
years are DOD projections.
The disconnection between the size of the budget and the appeals for more money appears even
more striking when amounts that have been appropriated for war costs are added to the equation.
On top of a baseline DOD budget that grew from $255 billion in FY1998, in current year prices
not adjusted for inflation, to almost $520 billion in FY2008, supplemental appropriations for warrelated costs climbed from $19.4 billion in FY2001, as an initial response to the 9/11 attacks, to
$63 billion in FY2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, to an estimated $189 billion in FY2008.
While large portions of the supplementals have been consumed by war-related operating costs,
substantial amounts have also been devoted to buying new equipment, particularly for the Army
and the Marine Corps. Although the bulk of this acquisition has been for force protection,
Congressional Research Service
9
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
communications, and transportation, the effect has been to modernize much of the basic
equipment stock of both services, in effect augmenting their baseline budgets.
The fact that so large a level of spending appears to the military services to be so inadequate has
several explanations—and the policy implications are, accordingly matters of varying
interpretation.6 Reasons include the following.
•
Future baseline budgets are widely expected to decline: The Administration plan
to balance the federal budget by FY2012 includes limits on defense as well as
non-defense spending. White House budget projections accommodate an increase
of about 5% above inflation in the FY2009 DOD budget, but project a
cumulative decline of about 3% between FY2009 and FY2012. Many unofficial
projections of the deficit situation are less sanguine than the Administration’s, so
many analysts expect, at best, a flat baseline defense budget for the foreseeable
future.7 Increased costs in part of the budget, therefore, will necessarily come at
the expense of resources available in other areas.
•
Supplemental appropriations are expected to decline as well: Although plans to
withdraw from Iraq are uncertain, the military services expect that supplemental
appropriations will come down within a few years. Costs for training and
equipment maintenance that have been covered in supplementals, then, will
migrate back into the baseline budget at the expense of other programs, and
money to further upgrade ground forces will have to be found elsewhere.
•
Costs of military personnel have grown dramatically in recent years: Since the
end of the 1990s, Congress has approved substantial increases in military pay and
benefits, including pay increases of ½ percent above civilian pay indices in seven
of the past eight years, three rounds of “pay table reform” that gave larger raises
to personnel in the middle grades, increased housing allowances to eliminate onbase and off-base disparities, DOD-provided health insurance for Medicareeligible military retirees (known as “TRICARE” for Life),8 concurrent receipt of
military retired pay and veterans disability benefits that had earlier been offset,
elimination of a reduction in retiree survivor benefits that had occurred at age 62,
and large increases in enlistment and reenlistment bonuses and special pays.
Although bonuses and some other payments may decline in the future, most of
the past increases in pay and benefits have been built into the basic cost of
personnel. CRS calculates that uniformed personnel now cost 40% more, after
adjusting for inflation, than in FY1999.9
6
These issues were discussed in a CRS seminar on the FY2009 defense budget on February 11, 2008. A video of the
seminar is available on line or as a DVD to congressional offices. See “FY2009 Defense Budget: Issues for Congress,
Online, Video,” at http://www.crs.gov/products/multimedia/MM70107.shtml. The seminar slides illustrate points
discussed below, and are available at “FY2009 Defense Budget: Issues for Congress: A Powerpoint Summary,”
available at http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/documents/WD06002.pdf.
7
See, for example, the annual 10 year projections of defense spending by the Government Electronics and Information
Technology Association, at http://www.geia.org/.
8
TRICARE is a DOD-run health insurance program for military dependents.
9
This reflects the military personnel budget divided by the number of active duty personnel, indexed for inflation using
the consumer price index. See the slides cited in Footnote 6 for a graph that illustrates the trend.
Congressional Research Service
10
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
•
Operating costs continue to grow above base inflation: Historically, military
operation and maintenance budgets, which pay for everything from personnel
training, to weapons repairs, to facility operations, to health care, have increased
relative to the size of the force by about 2.5% per year above inflation. These
increases are not as large as in some areas of the civilian economy, such as health
care, but they do not reflect gains in productivity that are common in other
sectors of the economy. Continued growth in operating costs, which is now
widely seen as a fact of life in defense planning, erodes the availability of
resources for weapons modernization and other priorities.
•
Increasing generational cost growth in major weapons programs: It is generally
expected that new generations of weapons will be more expensive than the
systems they replace as weapons technology advances. The rate of generational
cost growth, however, is becoming a matter of increasing concern within the
Defense Department. New stealthy aircraft, multi-mission ships, advanced space
systems, and networked missiles, guns, and vehicles appear to be getting more
expensive than their predecessors at a greater rate than in the past. Unless
budgets increase more rapidly than costs, trade-offs between the costs of new
weapons and the size of the force may be required.
•
Poor cost estimates: The difficulties engendered by accelerating intergenerational weapons cost growth are exacerbated by poor cost estimation. The
Government Accountability Office has documented frequent, substantial
increases in costs of major defense systems compared to original development
estimates. A side-effect of inaccurate cost projections is to exacerbate instability
in the overall defense budget, which entails inefficient production rates for major
weapons programs and increased costs due to changing production plans. 10
•
New requirements based on the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan: The wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have led to very large increases in equipment requirements for
ground forces, particularly for force protection, communications, and
transportation. National Guard combat units that earlier were equipped with older
systems cascaded from active units are now seen as part of the rotation base that
require equally modern equipment. And full sets of current equipment are also
expected to be available not only for next-to-deploy units, but also for units as
they begin to reset from overseas rotations. A key lesson of the war is that what
used to be called “minor procurement” for ground forces was substantially undercapitalized.
•
A broader range of national security challenges: A common presumption before
9/11 was that forces trained and equipped for traditional conflicts between
national armies would be able to cope with what were seen as less demanding
other challenges such as stability operations. Now the view is that forces must be
designed not only for traditional conflicts, but for insurgencies and other irregular
wars, support of allies, threats of catastrophic attacks by non-state actors with
weapons of mass destruction, and entirely new kinds of disruptive attacks on
specific U.S. and allied vulnerabilities. The effect has been to broaden
10
For GAO’s most recent annual overview of defense acquisition cost growth, see Government Accountability Office,
Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-08-467SP, March 31, 2008, available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
requirements without, necessarily, an attendant offsetting reduction in older force
goals.
When these factors are taken as a whole, it is not so surprising that military planners discover
some shortfalls. But, for Congress, it may not be so obvious that the principle answer is simply to
provide more money for defense. As a practical matter, the arguments for more money that senior
military leaders have begun to lay out appear most likely to become matters of debate in Congress
once the next Administration takes office. The next Secretary of Defense, and the 111th Congress,
may, very early on, face a contentious debate about defense resources.
More money is one alternative. Other alternatives may include backing away from plans to add
92,000 active duty troops to the Army and Marine Corps; shifting resources among the military
services to reflect new challenges rather than allocating them roughly the same proportions every
year; reviewing requirements for expensive new technologies in view of the presence or absence
of technologically peer or near peer competitors; and shifting resources from military responses
to global threats toward non-military means of prevention. The defense budget environment,
however, appears likely to be troubling enough that it will force some attention to these matters
earlier in the term of the next President rather than much later.
Potential Issues in the FY2009 Base Budget Request
Following is a brief summary of some of the other issues that may emerge during congressional
action on the FY2009 defense authorization and appropriations bills, based on congressional
action in prior years and early debate surrounding the President’s pending request.
Military Pay Raise
The budget includes $2 billion to give military personnel a 3.4% pay raise effective January 1,
2009, an increase that would keep pace with the average increase in private-sector wages as
measured by the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), as required by law.11 For
several years, some have contended that service members’ pay should increase at a faster rate
than the annual increase in the ECI in order to compensate for a lag in military pay resulting from
budget-constrained pay hikes in the 1990s. DOD officials deny that any such pay-gap exists, but
Congress typically has sided with the advocates of larger increases. For every fiscal year but one
since FY2000, Congress has mandated a military pay increase one-half percent higher than the
rate of increase in the ECI.
Army and Marine Corps End-Strength Increases
The budget includes $20.5 billion to pay for the costs in FY2009 of the $112 billion multi-year
plan to increase active-duty end-strength by a total of 92,000 Army and Marine Corps personnel.
Most of the additional personnel are slated for assignment to newly created combat units—Army
brigade combat teams and Marine regiments—which would enlarge the pool of units available for
overseas deployment. This would make it easier for the services to sustain overseas roughly the
number of troops currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan while allowing soldiers and Marines
11
See CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
12
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
to spend more time between deployments at their home bases for rest and retraining. The plan has
been challenged by some who note that, after the initial investment costs have been covered, the
additional units would cost about $13 billion annually, in a time when the total DOD budget is
expected to be relatively flat. It also has been criticized by some who contend that the Army in
particular needs more units organized and trained especially for counter-insurgency and advisory
missions more than it needs additional traditional combat units.12
TRICARE Fees and Co-pays
For the third consecutive year, the Administration’s budget assumes that part of the cost of the
Defense Health program—$1.2 billion in the pending FY2009 request—will be covered by an
increase in fees, co-payments and deductibles charged to retirees under the age of 65 who
participate in TRICARE, DOD’s medical insurance program for active and retired service
members and their dependents. The increases are intended partly to restrain the rapid growth of
DOD’s annual health-care budget—projected to reach $64 billion by FY2015—and partly to
compensate for the fact that TRICARE fees have not been increased since 1995.13 This year, as in
the two previous years, the proposed fee increases are vehemently opposed by organizations
representing service members and military retirees who argue that giving medical care to retirees
on favorable terms is appropriate given the unique hardships of a military career. Congress
rejected the proposed fee hikes in the FY2007 and FY2008 budget proposals, and the Senate
Armed Services Committee has done so in drafting its version of the FY2009 defense
authorization bill.
Projected Navy Strike Fighter Shortfall
Some analyses of the number of F-18 strike fighters available to the Navy show a substantial
shortfall of aircraft from about the middle of the next decade until about 2025, when the full
planned number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters becomes available. The number of available
aircraft, however, depends on assumptions about the number of hours that current aircraft can fly,
and at what cost for maintenance, upgrades, and overhauls. Boeing has recently offered to sell
additional F/A-18E/F versions of the aircraft to the Navy for about $50 million apiece, as much as
10% cheaper than planned for additional aircraft, if the Navy agrees to buy 170 aircraft in a
multiyear contract that would have early termination penalties. Several Members of Congress
have expressed concerns about the potential shortfall and may propose that the FY2009
authorization approve a new multiyear deal. Future funding for the additional aircraft, however,
might compete with funds for other projects, particularly if defense budgets level off in the
2010s.14
12
See CRS Report RL34333, Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Force or Specialized Units? Background and
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
13
For background, see Government Accountability Office report GAO-07-647, Military Health Care: TRICARE CostSharing Proposals Would Help Offset Increasing Health Care Spending, but Projected Savings Are Likely
Overestimated, May 2007.
14
Megan Scully, “Boeing Presses Armed Services Panels To Have Navy Buy More Super Hornets,” National Journal
Congress Daily AM, April 29, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
13
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
LPD-17-Class Ship Procurement
For the past two years, the Marine Corps has included a request for an additional LPD-17-class
amphibious ship, which would be the 10th to be bought, at the top of its unfunded priorities list.
There has been some support in Congress for adding a 10th LPD, but funding might have to come
at the cost of financing for surface combatant ships such as the DOG-1000 destroyer. Support for
shifting money from the DOG-1000 to LPDs or other ships that have been in production for some
time comes partly from advocates of the Marine Corps and from legislators who represent the
Gulf coast, where the ship would be built. In addition, there has been some support for a shift
because the cost and design of the LPD-17—as for TAKE auxiliary ships and DOG-51
destroyers—has been stable for some time. 15
Funding for DDG-1000 Destroyers versus Other Ships
A directly related issue is whether Congress will agree to continue funding DDG-1000
acquisition. The Administration’s FY2009 request includes $2.6 billion for a third DDG-1000.
Several legislators on the defense committees have proposed eliminating the funds and using the
money instead to buy a mix of LPD-17, TAKE auxiliary ships, and DDG-51 destroyers. This
would spread available shipbuilding money more widely to sustain the industrial base, provide
funding to programs in which costs are stable and more predictable, and also allocate funds to
less expensive ships that might be built, in the long run, in larger numbers to sustain the Navy’s
313 ship fleet.
Littoral Combat Ship Funding
The Administration has also requested $920 million for two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). This is
a relatively small, lower cost ship with a common hull to support modular designs for several
purposes. It is intended to be bought in large numbers over time for operations in relatively closeto-shore waters. The program has suffered significant cost growth, however, raising questions
about the number of ships that can be afforded. Last year, Congress cut funding for all but one
ship and shifted the savings to purchase other ships. This year may again be a test of
congressional support for the ship in view of continuing cost issues. 16
CG-X Design
The CG-X is the current designation for a new ship dedicated to missile defense missions. Its
design was, for many years, expected to be based on the DDG-1000. Now, however, it appears
that the Navy is inclined to build a substantially larger ship. Some defense committee members
have raised questions about the status of the Navy’s design and about the affordability of the
program. There has also been some support in Congress for building a nuclear powered cruiser.17
15
Geoff Fein, “Lawmakers Hope To Add Three More Ships To Navy’s FY ‘09 Procurement Plan,” Defense Daily,
February 28, 2008.
16
See CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
17
See CRS Report RL34179, Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress,
by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
14
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Reliable Replacement Warhead
There has been a great deal of controversy in Congress in recent years about the Energy
Department’s plans to design a new nuclear warhead intended, according to its advocates, to take
advantage of new technologies to improve safety and reliability in a new warhead to replace
deteriorating older systems. In the past, Congress has provided funding only for conceptual
design of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), but it has not permitted funds to be used for
engineering development. The FY2008 consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 110-161, which
included energy and water appropriations, provided no DOE funds for the RRW. In the FY2009
budget, DOE has requested $10 million for RRW design, and the Navy has requested $23
million. 18
Missile Defense
The Administration requested $9.3 billion for missile defense R&D in FY2009. While Congress
has generally supported about the level of spending the Administration has requested in recent
years, it has frequently reduced funding for technologically more challenging systems such as the
kinetic energy interceptor program to intercept missiles in the boost phase, and it has increased
funding for currently deployed systems, mainly the Patriot PAC III theater defense system. For
the past two years, Congress has also eliminated money to begin construction at missile defense
sites in Europe, saying in various reports that the funding was premature because there was no
firm agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic where deployment is planned. The FY2009
request includes $132.6 million for military construction at an interceptor site in Europe, which is
planned in Poland, and $108.5 million for military construction at a radar site, which is planned in
the Czech Republic.19
Long-Range Non-Nuclear Prompt Global Strike
For the past several years, the Administration has pursued programs that might permit it to deploy
conventional warheads on long-range missiles that now carry nuclear warheads. In recent years,
this effort has focused on the possible deployment of conventional warheads on Trident
submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The funding requests sought to continue R&D on the
reentry vehicle that would carry the warhead, and have sought to begin modifying and equipping
Trident missiles and submarines to carry the new reentry vehicles. Congress has not approved this
funding. In FY2007, it permitted the continuing R&D on the reentry vehicle, but did not fund the
programs that would modify the missiles and submarines. In FY2008, Congress again rejected all
funding for the conventional Trident modification, and aggregated the funding for research on the
reentry vehicle with other DOD funding for research on prompt global strike technologies. It
directed that DOD explore all options for achieving the PGS mission, and not focus on the nearterm Trident option. Congress has objected to the Trident option in part because of doubts that the
capability is needed immediately, and in part because of concerns that other nations might
18
For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and
Current Developments, by Jonathan Medalia.
19
For the current status of the program, see CRS Report RL34051, Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
15
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
mistake the nature of a U.S. Trident missile launch. Congress appropriated $100 million for this
combined program in FY2008; the Administration has requested $117 million for FY2009.20
Future Combat Systems
The FY2009 budget request includes $3.6 billion to continue development and begin production
of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS is a computer-networked array of 14 types of
manned and unmanned ground and aerial vehicles intended to replace the Army’s current fleet of
combat vehicles, including M-1 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry vehicles, beginning in
2015. The Army has estimated that the entire program could cost $230 billion over many years
and the Defense Department’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) projects the cost to be
$300 billion. Critics have assailed the program on several grounds: some argue that it is
unaffordable; some contend that it is optimized to fight the sort of conventional battles at which
the U.S. Army already excels rather than the insurgencies, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan,
that it may be more likely to confront; and some object that the program as currently scheduled
will take too long to get more effective weapons into the hands of the troops.21 In FY2006-08,
Congress cut a total of $789 million from the Army’s FCS budget requests. This year, House
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha has suggested that near-term
funding for the program be increased by $20 billion to accelerate deployment of those elements
of FCS nearest completion, at the expense of cancelling or delaying other elements of the
program. 22
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine
For the third consecutive year, the Administration has proposed cancellation of the effort to
develop the General Electric F-136 engine as a potential alternative to the Pratt & Whitney F-135
currently slated to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The $6.7 billion requested for the F-35
program in FY2009 includes $3.1 billion to continue development of the plane and $3.7 billion to
buy 16 aircraft, but no funds to continue development of the alternative engine. DOD has argued
that the alternative engine is a needless expense because the process of designing and developing
high-performance jet engines has become much less uncertain than it once was. But Congress has
backed development of the alternate engine since 1996, likening the current situation to the case
of the F-15 fighter in the late 1970s which was handicapped by problems with its Pratt&Whitneybuilt engines until Congress mandated development of an alternative (GE-built) engine. To keep
the F-35 alternative engine program going, Congress added $340 million to the FY2007 budget
and $480 million to the FY2008 budget.
F-22 Fighter
Congress may want to consider whether to add funds to the Air Force’s F-22 fighter program
either to shut down production or to continue it. Although Air Force officials have argued
20
See CRS Report RL33067, Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted).
21
See CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress, by
(name redacted).
22
Defense News, “Battle Over Proposal to Speed FCS,” by Kris Osborne, March 24, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
16
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
vigorously for purchase of 381 of the planes, DOD plans to buy only 183, with the last 20 paid
for by $3.4 billion included in the FY2009 budget. However, the request includes no funds to pay
for closing the F-22 production line in an orderly way that would facilitate its resuscitation at a
later date. Reportedly, the shut down could cost as much as $500 million.23 DOD officials have
said they may include in the FY2009 war cost supplemental request—not yet sent to Congress—
funds to buy four additional F-22s which, they contend, would defer the necessity of a shut down
decision until the next Administration had time to decide whether to continue production or end
it.24 However others deny that funding for four planes would delay the need for a decision long
enough to make a difference.
Mid-Air Refueling Tanker
The FY2009 budget request includes $832 million to continue developing a new mid-air refueling
tanker (designated KC-X) and $62 million for components that would be used to begin building
the planes. On February 29, 2008, the Air Force selected a consortium consisting of Northrop
Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS)—the parent
company of Airbus—over Boeing to build the new tankers. But on June 18, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) upheld Boeing’s protest of the Air Force decision and DOD
announced that it would re-compete the award. With the initial contract for 179 aircraft worth
$12.1 billion (and the final cost of the purchase estimated to reach approximately $35 billion)
proponents of the competing bidders may try to tilt the second competition toward one firm or the
other.
On September 10, Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled the second competition to select a
new tanker. In a statement, Gates said there was not enough time for DOD to complete the
selection process by next January, when a new Administration will take office and that,
accordingly, he had decided to allow the next Administration to define the requirements budget
allocation for the new plane. 25 During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on September
10, Gates said DOD soon would recommend to Congress how to allocate the tanker funds
requested for FY2009. On September 15, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz,
reportedly said in a press conference that it could take the next Administration between eight
months and four years to conduct a new tanker competition.
C-17 Cargo Jet
As with the F-22 fighter program, so with the C-17 long-range cargo plane. The Administration’s
FY2009 budget request includes neither funds to buy components to continue C-17 production, as
many have urged, nor the funds that would be needed to terminate production. As with the case of
the F-22, the Administration has said that the next President should decide the future of the C-17
program. While some DOD studies have concluded that the 190 C-17s previously funded will
suffice, critics challenge that assessment on several grounds. While some in Congress favor
23
Aviation Week and Space Technology, “Fate of F-22, C-17 Lines Uncertain in Fiscal 2009,” by Amy Butler and
David A. Fulgham, February 11, 2008.
24
Ibid.
25
“DoD Announces Termination of KC-X Tanker Solicitation,” DOD News Release 758-08, September 10, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
17
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
production of additional C-17s, others favor upgrades to older C-5 cargo planes DOD plans to
retire.26
“Soft” Power Functions and Interagency Burden-Sharing27
Policymakers are debating the appropriate balance between military and civilian personnel in
operations and activities involving “soft” power functions, i.e., building and strengthening
government institutions and economic systems abroad, as well has providing humanitarian
assistance. As demands have increased on military personnel to perform such functions over the
past several years, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has granted DOD new authorities
and funded expanded DOD activities in areas where civilian agencies were traditionally in the
lead. For some policymakers, the expanded use of the defense budget to fund, and military
personnel to perform, “stabilization and reconstruction” activities reflects shortfalls in civilian
agency budgets and in civilian personnel that should be remedied. Nevertheless, there is no
consensus on an optimal division of labor, authorities, and funding sources for such functions, or
how to achieve that balance, nor on appropriate interim arrangements.
Among the DOD programs of most concern:
•
The Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) provides funds for
commanding officers in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry out small-scale
reconstruction programs, to fund state-building activities such as supporting local
militias such as the Sons of Iraq, and to provide urgent humanitarian relief. In
early 2008, the Administration requested Congress make CERP authority
permanent and extend its use to other developing countries where U.S. forces are
operating.
•
“Section 1206” Global Train and Equip authority allows the Secretary of Defense
to fund, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the training and equipping
of foreign military forces for counterterrorism operations and to participate in or
to support military and stability operations in which U.S. armed forces
participate. In early 2008, the Bush Administration asked Congress to codify an
expanded version of Section 1206 to increase the annual authorization from $300
to $750 million and to permit DOD to train and equip a broad array of security
forces in addition to military forces. It asked for an FY2009 appropriation of
$500 million.
26
See CRS Report RL34264, Strategic Airlift Modernization: Analysis of C-5 Modernization and C-17 Acquisition
Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
27
Prepared by Nina Serafino, Specialist in International Security Affairs.
For more information on this topic and related programs, see CRS Report RL34639, The Department of Defense Role
in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for Congress; CRS Report RS22855, Section 1206 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authority to Train and
Equip Foreign Military Forces; CRS Report RS22871, Department of Defense “Section 1207” Security and
Stabilization Assistance: A Fact Sheet; CRS Report RL32862, Peacekeeping/Stabilization and Conflict Transitions:
Background and Congressional Action on the Civilian Response/Reserve Corps and other Civilian Stabilization and
Reconstruction Capabilities; and CRS Report RL34003, Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the
U.S. Military in Africa.
Congressional Research Service
18
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
•
The Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (CCIF) has traditionally been used to
fund foreign participation in military exercises and the military education and
training of foreign personnel, and certain humanitarian and civil assistance. In
2006 Congress also added to the permitted categories, “civic assistance,
including urgent and unanticipated humanitarian relief and reconstruction
assistance.” For FY2009, the Administration requested $100 million for the CCIF
specifically to meet those needs.
•
“Section 1207” Security and Stabilization funding authorizes DOD to transfer
defense articles, services and other support to assist civilian agency responses to
critical situations, in particular stabilization activities and operations planned and
coordinated by the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). The Administration requested
authority to transfer $200 million for this purpose in FY2009.
•
The Administration has requested $389 million in FY2009 to create U.S. Africa
Command (AFRICOM) to give a senior general unified command over activities
related to Africa that, previously, had been distributed among three regional DOD
commands. Although the new organization is intended to have a large nonmilitary staff and to cooperate extensively with the State Department, Agency for
International Development and other civilian agencies, some question the
wisdom of giving DOD such a prominent leadership role in U.S. policy toward
Africa.
War Funding Issues in the FY2009
DOD Bridge Fund28
To get a more complete picture of war funding, the John Warner FY2007 National Defense
Authorization Act requires the Administration to request a full year’s war cost in the February
budget. Despite this requirement, the Administration included in its FY2009 budget request only
a placeholder figure of $70 billion for bridge funding, with no details, that was intended to cover
the gap between the beginning of the fiscal year and passage of a supplemental. In their spring
markups, the authorization committees used the original $70 billion placeholder figure.
On May 2, 2008, the Administration filled in the details by submitting an amended emergency
war request with $66 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) and $4 billion for
State/USAID programs; however, these materials arrived too late to be taken into account in the
authorization markup this spring.29
Since FY2004, the Defense Department has generally received war funding in two appropriations
acts—a bridge fund included as a separate title in DOD’s baseline appropriations bill to cover the
28
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget.
See Sec. 1008, P.L. 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 for
requirement for annual war costs; see also H.Rept. 110-652, Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009, p. 469. For DOD request, see DOD, Fiscal Year 2009 Global War on Terror Bridge Request, May
2008; http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/Supplemental/
FY2009_Global_War_On_Terror_Bridge_Request.pdf.
29
Congressional Research Service
19
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
first part of the same fiscal year, and a separate supplemental appropriation provided after the
fiscal year has begun.
In the spring of 2008, however, Congress passed H.R. 2642, the FY2008 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252) with funding to cover war costs for the rest of FY2008, and a
bridge fund to cover part of the following fiscal year, FY2009.30 Coupled with DOD’s regular
appropriations for FY2009, this bridge fund is expected to last until June or July 2009, leaving it
to a new Administration to decide how much funding to request for the remainder of the year.
Like the members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, the members of the
House and Senate Armed Services committees, which draft the defense authorization bill, did not
address full-year war costs for FY2009. Instead, the authorizing committees included in their
respective bills funding levels for the FY2009 bridge fund, along with various policy restrictions.
The House passed its bill (H.R. 5658) on May 22, 2008 and the Senate passed its bill (S. 3001) on
September 17, 2008, including levels that differed from funding already included in for FY2009
in the already enacted supplemental (P.L. 110-252, see Table 7).31
Dropping funding levels proposed in the House and Senate bills, the conference version of the
authorization, S. 3001, adopts the funding levels included for FY2009 bridge fund already
enacted in the FY2008 Supplemental except for a $2.1 billion addition for six more C-17
transport aircraft. Thus, S. 3001 includes a total of $68 billion for war funding compared to the
$66 billion appropriated in the FY2009 bridge fund (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252). The conference
authorization bill does, however, include different restrictions on funding and reporting
requirements for the Iraq Security Forces Fund and the Commanders Emergency Response
Program (see Table 7).32
FY2009 War Costs
With passage of the FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110-252), CRS estimates that the total amount of
DOD war funding for this fiscal year is $176 billion excluding funding that is not related to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.33 In February 2008 testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates
suggested that war costs in FY2009 could total $170 billion, which would be about the same level
as the FY2008 request excluding certain one-time costs for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
(MRAP) vehicles. The Administration said it had not submitted a full-year budget because of the
uncertainty of predicting future troop levels in Iraq.34
30
Similarly, Congress appropriated the first tranche of $70 billion for FY2008 war funds in the FY2007 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-161 to fill the gap between the beginning of that fiscal year and passage of a
supplemental.
31
War funding and policy restrictions are primarily in Title XV in H.R. 5658 and Titles XV and XVI in S. 3001.
32
See Sec. 1501, S. 3001 and explanatory statement for conference version; available at
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/S3001NDAAforFY2009.pdf. These caps in the authorization
conference exceed the amount appropriated, in which case, the appropriation level probably sets funding. In this year’s
authorization bills, funding levels for some programs like the ISFF and CERP were initially below appropriated levels,
which would probably have taken precedence over the appropriations act under the “last in time” rule, under which the
latest congressional action is in effect; see GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition (Red Book),
Volume I, p. 2-44; http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf.
33
See Table 4 in CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations
Since 9/11, by (name redacted).
34
Congress appropriated $16.8 billion for MRAP vehicles in FY2008 filling the current requirement for 15,000
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
In later testimony in May 2008, Secretary Gates suggested that “further reductions in the [U.S.]
presence in Iraq during the course of 2009 and, perhaps, later this year” would contribute to
DOD’s ability to return to 12-month tour lengths to which the President committed the
Administration. 35 General Petraeus, former Commander of Multinational Forces, Iraq, and now
head of Central Command, has been assessing troop levels since completion in July 2008 of the
withdrawal of five combat brigades sent to Iraq in 2007 in the “surge.”
With the departure from Iraq of these five additional combat brigades, and the completion of
MRAP purchases funded last year, war costs in FY2009 will be below FY2008’s level. On
September 9, 2008, the President announced a modest additional cut below surge levels of 8,000
troops in Iraq by January 2009 that would be coupled with an increase of troops in Afghanistan to
meet requests from commanders on the ground for additional troops.36 Those additional troops
could offset some if not all of the savings that would result from further troop reductions in Iraq.37
Working from the Administration’s original request, the House and Senate-passed versions of the
FY2009 National Defense Authorization bills (H.R. 5658 and S. 3001) both proposed $70 billion
in emergency bridge funds for DOD. Those bills were $5.8 billion above the amended request and
the amount appropriated in the recently passed FY2008 Supplemental, H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252.
FY2009 Bridge Fund
Prior to calendar year 2008, Congress has funded war costs by including a so-called “bridge
fund” in the regular DOD appropriations bill for the pending year to cover part of that year’s war
costs and then funding war costs for the balance of that year through a supplemental
appropriations bill the following spring. But the FY2008 war cost supplemental (P.L. 110-252)
enacted June 30, 2008 includes not only the war costs for the balance of FY2008 but also a $65.9
billion bridge fund for FY2009 to cover DOD war costs until a new Administration submits and a
new Congress approves a FY2009 supplemental. Expected to last until June or July 2009, the
FY2009 bridge fund was intended to give time to a new Administration to determine the future
course in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like previous bridge funds, over 70% of the appropriated FY2009 bridge fund in P.L. 110-252 is
dedicated to operation and maintenance funding to ensure that funding for operations is available
well into the fiscal year (see Table 7 below). This appropriations act includes relatively small
amounts for procurement—$4 billion compared to the $67 billion requested by DOD for all of
FY2008—selecting those items that may be more urgently needed such as force protection
upgrades or more uparmored HMMWVs for the Army.
(...continued)
vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan. For $170 billion figure, see Deputy Secretary England testifying to House Budget
Committee, FY2009 Budget for the Department of Defense, February 27, 2008.
35
Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Transcript, “Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009
Budget Request,” May 20, 2008, p. 13.
36
White House, Speech by President Bush at National Defense University, Distinguished Lecture Program, “President
Bush Discusses Global War on Terror,” 9-9-08.
37
Department of Defense, DoD News Briefing with Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon, July 23, 2008;
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4265.
Congressional Research Service
21
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
This leaves potentially controversial decisions about whether it is appropriate to cast as war costs
service requests for major weapon systems such as EA-18 G electronic warfare aircraft or V-22
Osprey tilt rotor aircraft for the Navy, C-17 transport aircraft for the Air Force, or substantial
upgrades to Army Abrams tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles, which some observers argue are
more appropriately considered in the baseline budget as part of ongoing modernization programs.
Congress halved DOD’s procurement request in the FY2008 supplemental appropriations act
passed in late May (P.L. 110-252) reflecting in part on DOD’s informal proposals this spring to
withdraw procurement requests for $6.7 billion in order to pay for higher fuel costs and other
unanticipated needs. This may indicate that congressional scepticism about war-related
procurement funding requests may be growing. 38 Although the House and Senate authorizers
initially included funding for major weapons systems recommended such as F-22 aircraft for the
Air Force, all but the C-17 aircraft were dropped in the conference version that, instead, adopted
funding levels for the FY2009 bridge already enacted in the FY2008 Supplemental (P.L. 110252).
Resolution of Issues
Although the conference version of S. 3001, the FY2009 NDAA generally adopts the funding
levels in the already enacted FY2008 Supplemental (HG.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252), it adds $2.1
billion for six more C-17 aircraft that is not included in that enacted bridge appropriations act.
This brings the authorization total for the FY2009 bridge fund to $68 billion compared to the $66
billion appropriated (see Table 7). The conference bill also resolves most of the outstanding
differences between the two houses and P.L. 110-232, the enacted supplemental.
The FY2009 NDAA conference bill, does, however, add various restrictions and reporting
requirements on the use of funds for several high-interest programs—the Iraq Security Forces
Fund, Commanders Emergency Response Program, and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). The conference bill:
•
authorizes $1 billion, half the request, for the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF)
but prohibits using these funds for infrastructure;
•
authorizes $1.5 billion, $200 million less than requested and $300 million more
than appropriated for the Commanders’ Emergency Response program with a
prohibition on projects over $2 million unless waived by the Secretary of
Defense;
•
authorizes $350 million for Section 1206 authority to build and equip foreign
militaries for counter-terror operations;
•
adopts the appropriated funding level for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
(MRAP) vehicles transfer fund; and
•
adopts the Senate proposal to require separate budget displays for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Neither of the two authorizing bills, nor the already passed FY2009 bridge fund address the
overall funding for the full year’s war costs for FY2009. That will be decided by the next
38
Department of Defense, “Draft Adjustment to the FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending Request,” March 2008.
Congressional Research Service
22
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Administration. The current Administration did not submit a request for a full year’s war funding
in part because of the uncertainty about future troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the
conference bill, differences between House and Senate authorizers and amounts already
appropriated are largely resolved (see Table 7).
Congressional Research Service
23
Table 7. FY2009 War Bridge Funding
(in billions of dollars and percent of total)
Type of Spending
FY2008 War Bridge
Fund, P.L. 110-161
FY2009 Bridge Fund: Authorization and Appropriation Action (In billions of dollars or shares of total)
Enacted
Approp. P.L.
110-252
As Shares of
Total
House-Passed
Auth.,
H.R. 5658, 5-1208
Senate-Passed
Auth., S. 3001,
9-17-08
House-passed
Conf. Auth, 924-08
In Billions
of $
As Shares
of Total
Admin.
Req.
Enacted
Approp., P.L.
110-252,
6-30-08
Military Personnel
1.1
2%
3.8
1.2
2%
1.2
0.8
1.2
Operation &
Maintenance
50.2
72%
44.9
51.9
79%
52.0
47.0
51.9
Defense Health
0.6
1%
0.1
1.3
2%
1.3
0.8
1.3
Working Capital
Fd/Othera
1.2
1%
2.2
0.0
0%
0.0
1.0
0.0
Procurement
6.1
9%
2.8
4.4
7%
9.5
11.2
6.5
RDT&E
0.0
0%
0.4
0.4
1%
0.4
0.2
0.4
Military Construction
0.0
0%
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0.5
0.0
Iraq Freedom Fund
3.7
5%
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0.2
0.0
Afghan. Sec. Forces
Fund
1.4
2%
3.7
2.0
3%
2.0
3.0
3.7
Iraq Sec. Forces Fund
1.5
2%
2.0
1.0
2%
1.0
0.2
2.0
JIEDDOb
4.3
6%
3.0
2.0
3%
2.5
3.0
3.0
MRAPc
0.0
0%
2.6
1.7
2%
[2.6]
[.6]
2.6
Global Train & Equipd
[.2]
0%
[.8]
[0.2]
0%
[.3]
[.3]
[.4]
Commanders’ Emerg.
Response Programe
[0.5]
[1%]
[1.7]
[1.2]
[2%]
[1.5 or 2X Iraqi
fdg]
[0]
[1.5]
Coalition Support Capf
[.3]
[0%]
[.9]
[.2]
[0%]
[.2]
[0]
[.9]
Rapid Acquisition Fund
0.0
0%
0.1
0.0
0%
0.0
0.0
0.1
Title
Special Funds
CRS-24
Type of Spending
FY2008 War Bridge
Fund, P.L. 110-161
FY2009 Bridge Fund: Authorization and Appropriation Action (In billions of dollars or shares of total)
Enacted
Approp. P.L.
110-252
As Shares of
Total
House-Passed
Auth.,
H.R. 5658, 5-1208
Senate-Passed
Auth., S. 3001,
9-17-08
House-passed
Conf. Auth, 924-08
In Billions
of $
As Shares
of Total
Admin.
Req.
Enacted
Approp., P.L.
110-252,
6-30-08
Transfer Authorityg
[4.0]
[6%]
[4.0]
[4.0]
[6%]
[4.0]
[3.0]
[4.0]
TOTAL
70.0
100%
66.0
65.9
100%
65.9
70.0
68.0
Title
Source: CRS calculations based on Division L in P.L. 110-161, FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations; P.L. 110-252 FY2008 Supplemental as enacted on June 30, 2008; H.R.
5658, H.Rept. 110-652; S. 3001, S.Rept. 110-335; S. 3001, conference version and explanatory statement; http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/
S3001NDAAforFY2009.pdf; and http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/FY2009NDAAJointExplanatoryStatement.pdf.
Notes:
a.
Working Capital Fund finances fuel and spare parts inventories.
b.
JIEDDO = Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, a transfer fund that funds RDT&E, Procurement and operational training to defeat Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs).
c.
MRAP = Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle fund, a transfer account for heavy trucks with V-shaped hulls that have proven resistant to IEDs.
d.
Congress set a funding cap on the amount that can be spent to train and equip foreign militaries in counter-terrorist operations for FY2007 and FY2008 under Section
1206 authority in P.L. 109-364, the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act. In Sec. 9109, the FY2008 Supplemental set a funding limit of $150 million (P.L. 110252).
e.
Authority and funding caps for CERP, a program where commanding officers have discretion to provide funds to local authorities for reconstruction activities, is set in
annual authorization and appropriations acts.
f.
Coalition support funds are for logistical support to allies conducting counter-terror operations in the region, primarily Pakistan.
g.
Transfer authority sets a cap on the amount of funds in the act that can be transferred from one account to another as long as the four congressional defense
committees approve.
CRS-25
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Funding for Iraq Security Forces (ISFF)
The halving of DOD’s request for the ISFF from $2 billion to $1 billion in the enacted version of
the FY2009 authorization bill reflects broad and growing sentiment to push the Iraqis to pay more
of the cost of reconstituting their security forces in reaction to large and growing Iraqi oil
revenues that are documented in a recent GAO report.39 In addition to the funding cut, the
authorizers prohibit funding for any facilities used by Iraqi forces, limiting funding to equipment,
supplies, services, training and facility repair (see Sec. 1508, S. 3001).
This prohibition adopts the stricter House version rather than limiting infrastructure funding to
smaller projects as proposed by the Senate. Senate authorizers argued that “the Iraqi Government
is well able to afford to finance its own infrastructure needs at this point.”40 The strict prohibition
on funding infrastructure in the authorization conference would presumably supersede report
language in the appropriations act that required “equal cost-sharing” for all reconstruction
projects above $750,000.41 These changes set new standards that increase Iraqi “burden-sharing”
of the cost to rebuild its security forces and reconstruction.
Strict Monitoring of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
(JIEDDO)
Reflecting oversight concerns, the final version of the authorization bill provides $2.2 billion
rather than the $3 billion requested, and requires that the Director of JIEDDO develop a science
and technology investment strategy for countering Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), as well
as annual reporting. In addition, the final bill requires five-day advance notification of obligations
and 15-day notice of transfers (Sec. 1503-1505, S. 3001).
Commanders Emergency Response Program Funding
Another high visibility and rapidly growing program where the $1.5 billion authorization cap in
the final authorization bill is below the request is the Commanders Emergency Response Program
(CERP), which allows individual commanding officers to dispense funds for small-scale
reconstruction projects, or to pay local militias such as the Sons of Iraq. The CERP program has
grown from $180 million in FY2004, its first year, to $956 million in FY2007 to $1.7 billion in
FY2008.42
39
GAO, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus,” GAO-08-1031, August, 2008, p.
14.
40
Sec. 1616 in S. 3001 as reported and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 428; see also Sec. 1512 in H.R. 5658 as passed by the
House. Section 1613 in S. 3001 as reported by the Senate lists equipment, supplies, services, and training as the only
types of expenses that can be funded in the ISFF; Sec. 1616 applies the prohibition to any “large-scale infrastructure
projects” above $2 million; see also Table 8.
41
Section entitled “Iraq Security Forces” in P.L. 110-252 and report language on p. S4337, Congressional Record, May
19, 2008.
42
Congressional Record, May 19, 2008, explanatory statement for, p. S4324. H.R. 2642, FY2008 Supplemental (P.L.
110-252). As later congressional action, the funding in the supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-252) took
precedence over the authorization cap of $977 that was set earlier.
Congressional Research Service
26
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Instead of adopting the House-proposed restrictions limiting U.S. funding for CERP) to no more
than twice Iraqi funding, the authorization bill requires reporting of all projects over $500,000
and certifications for projects over $1 million. The bill also requires detailed reporting, including
for Iraqi government contributions, and prohibits funding for projects above $2 million unless
there are contributions from other countries, the Iraqi government, or private organizations or the
Secretary of Defense submits a waiver (Sec. 1214, S. 3001).43
The final version of the authorization bill does, however, exempt CERP projects from the overall
prohibition on infrastructure spending (Sec.1508) as was proposed in the Senate version. In
addition, the appropriations act requires equal cost sharing of all reconstruction projects over
$750,000 in report language as the “necessary first step in decreasing the Government of Iraq’s
reliance on U.S. funds for reconstruction.”44
Section 1206 Training and Equipping of Foreign Military Forces
In its FY2009 request, the Administration proposed a broadening of Sec.1206 authority to include
training of foreign and border police as well as military forces, an increase in the current funding
cap from $300 million to $750 million, and $500 million in designated funding rather than the
current practice where funds are transferred from other programs.45
As recommended by both houses, the final version of the authorization bill rejects most of the
Administration’s proposals and limits Section 1206 authority to train and equip foreign militaries
for counter-terror operations, reflecting congressional concerns about the foreign policy
implications of expanding DOD authority. The bill extends authorization for the Section 1206
program for three years. It also raises the annual cap to $350 rather than the $750 million
requested (Sec. 1206, S. 3001).46 The FY2008 Supplemental sets a limit of $150 million for
FY2008 but did not include a FY2009 cap.47
Reflecting action by both houses, the final authorization bill raises the limit for Sec. 1208
authority to fund foreign irregular forces from $25 million to $35 million until FY2013 and also
specifies that the irregular forces would work with U.S. special forces. 48
43
For earlier House version, see Sec. 1214 in H.R. 5658 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 110-652, p. 454; the
Secretary of Defense would also have to notify the Armed Services and Appropriations committees.
44
Congressional Record, p. S2808. S. 3001 includes no specific authorization level for CERP, making no change to the
$977 million level set for both FY2008 and FY2009 in the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 1205,
P.L. 110-181, H.Rept. 110-477, p. 1014); Sec. 9104, P.L. 110-252 sets a cap of $1.2217 billion to fund CERP.
45
See CRS Report RS22855, Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on
Department of Defense Authority to Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces, by (name redacted); see also DOD,
FY2009 Legislative Request, September 2, 2008 and section by section analysis; http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/
legislpro.html.
46
For more information, see CRS Report RS22855, Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2006: A Fact Sheet on Department of Defense Authority to Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces, by (name re
dacted) and CRS Report RL34639, The Department of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major
Issues, and Options for Congress, coordinated by (name redacted). The House raised the cap to $400 million and the
Senate retained the current $300 million cap; see H.Rept. 110-652, p. 452 and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 400.
47
See Sec. 9109, P.L. 110-252 for FY2008 cap; no general provision in Chapter 2, the FY2009 bridge.
48
See Sec. 1208 in H.R. 5658 and H.Rept. 110-652, p. 452; Sec. 1203 in S. 3001 and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 399 for
earlier versions.
Congressional Research Service
27
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
MRAP Vehicle Funding
In its amended submission, DOD requested $2.6 billion in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
(MRAP) vehicle transfer fund to buy additional vehicles for as yet undefined requirements. The
conference bill adopts the $1.7 billion funding level appropriated in the FY2008 supplemental
(P.L. 110-252) rather than setting a cap with funds drawn from other accounts as was in the House
bill or the $600 million level funding in the Senate bill.49 According to DOD, the current
requirement for 12,000 MRAP vehicles is already funded while the House authorizers suggest
that more funding is needed to buy additional V-shaped heavy-duty trucks for training purposes.50
Separating Iraq and Afghanistan Funding
Currently, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is provided in standard appropriation accounts, which
mix funds for the two operations and the funds for DOD’s baseline and war appropriations. While
the final version of the authorization bill does not specify separate amounts for Iraq and
Afghanistan in FY2009 as the Senate bill did, it requires DOD to present separate budget displays
for each operation at the appropriation level and by program, project or activity level in the next
submission (Sec. 1502).
In addition, the conference version requires that DOD provide a “detailed description of the
assumptions underlying the funding for the period covered by the budget request, including the
anticipated troop levels, the operations intended to be carried out, the equipment reset
requirements necessary to support such operations,” as proposed by the House. 51
This requirement for separate budget displays would not necessarily require that DOD to set up
individual accounts for war spending for each operation. Although separate war funding by
operation would improve transparency and help Congress to see the relative cost of the two
operations, DOD is likely to object to designating funds by operation in order to preserve its
flexibility. According to the Senate report, separate funding displays would help prevent
confusion between the two missions, a concern of both Secretary of Defense Gates and the
committee.
Caps on Transfers
Finally, the final version of the authorization bill sets a $4 billion cap on transfer authority for
FY2009 funds, which limits the overall amount that DOD can transfer between accounts as
requested by DOD and adopted by the appropriations act (Sec. 1507, S. 3001).52 The level of
49
For authorization action, see Sec. 1506 and Sec. 1606 in S. 3001 and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 420 and p. 427, which
provides $500 million for MRAPs for Iraq and $100 million for Afghanistan; Sec. 1515 in H.R. 5658, H.Rept. 110-652,
p. 479; for appropriation action, see Sec. 9208, P.L. 110-252.
50
Inside Defense, “DOD Readying for Last Round of MRAP Vehicle Contract Awards,” June 30, 2008; CRS Report
RS22707, Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name r
edacted), p.4 and p. 5, 6-6-08.
51
Sec. 1502, S. 3001; this language may also reflect the fact that a very detailed cost of war amendment added by
Congressman Braley was also added on the floor. See Title XV for Afghanistan and Title XVI for Iraq in S. 3001 as
reported by the Senate and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 417-p. 428. See Sec.1002 and Sec. 1003 in H.R. 5658, and p. 427ff in
H.Rept. 110-652.
52
For authorizing levels, see Sec. 1514 in S. 3001, and S.Rept. 110-335, p. 421 in the Senate and Sec. 1516 in H.R.
5658, and H.Rept. 110-65, p. 479 in the House. For the level in the FY2008 Supplemental for the FY2009 Bridge fund,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
transfer authority is of considerable concern to DOD because it provides flexibility to adjust
funding levels during execution.
Bill-by-Bill Synopsis of Congressional
Action to Date
Congressional Budget Resolution
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY2009 (S.Con.Res. 70), adopted by the Senate on
June 4 and by the House on June 5, set an overall target for national defense budget authority of
$612.5 billion. This is essentially identical to the President’s request ($611.1 billion) with the
difference reflecting recalculation by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the basis of
slightly different technical assumptions. This total covers the so-called 050 function of the
budget, which includes funding for DOD, defense-related nuclear-energy spending by the
Department of Energy, and defense-related programs in other agencies.
The same defense total had been included in both the House version of the budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 312), adopted March 13, and original version of S.Con.Res. 70, adopted March 14
by the Senate.
The $612.5 billion total cap on defense budget authority set by the final version of S.Con.Res. 70,
as in the House-passed resolution, was the sum of two ceilings set by the resolution: For national
defense activities other than military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (budget function 050),
the ceiling is $542.5 billion; operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are covered by a separate ceiling
of $70 billion (budget function 970), which is the amount of the placeholder funding request
included in the President’s FY2009 budget.
Subsequently, the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, under the so-called “302b
allocation” process gave their respective defense subcommittees a budget authority allowance for
FY2009 of $487.7 billion—which, in practice, is the ceiling for the FY2009 defense
appropriations bill.
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the House Bill
The House passed H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2009, on May 22 by a vote of 384-23. The bill would authorize $531.4 billion for national
defense-related activities of DOD and other federal agencies and an additional $70 billion for
costs related to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Administration’s initial FY2009 budget request included a lump-sum of $70 billion as an
initial increment of funding for DOD and other agency costs related to combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. On May 2, five days before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC)
(...continued)
see Sec. 9203 in P.L. 110-252.
Congressional Research Service
29
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
subcommittees began marking up H.R. 5658, the Administration issued a budget amendment
formally allocating the $70 billion request among appropriations accounts. However HASC,
which also authorized the $70 billion by accounts in H.R. 5658, acknowledged only a handful of
the specific allocations included in the May 2 amendment. The bill authorizes $2.0 billion of the
$3.7 billion requested to support Afghan Security Forces and $1.4 billion of the $2.0 billion
requested for support of Iraqi Security Forces.
Within the $70 billion authorized for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the House bill also
allocates nearly $4.9 billion for aircraft procurement programs not included in the
Administration’s budget request:
•
$3.9 billion to buy 15 C-17 cargo planes;
•
$523 million for components that would be needed to fund an additional 10 F-22
Air Force fighters in FY2010;
•
$448 million to repair worn out wing structures on Navy P-3C patrol planes,
which have been used extensively for reconnaissance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has incorporated the Administration’s $70 billion FY2009 costs related to operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan into H.R. 2642, the Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Bill.53
The House version of the FY2009 defense authorization bill also included a provision (Sec. 1431)
that would exempt it from the President’s Executive Order 13457, which prohibits agencies from
complying with congressional earmarks not specified in statutory language. As is customary, the
more than 500 earmarks associated with H.R. 5658 are specified in the HASC report
accompanying the bill (H.Rept. 110-652), which it reported to the House on May 16.
In a Statement of Administration Policy issued May 22, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) cited the provision exempting the bill from the executive order dealing with earmarks as
one of many provisions which, if included in the final version of the bill, would cause the
President’s advisors to recommend a veto. Other provisions of H.R. 5658 cited by OMB as
potential reasons for a veto are reductions totaling more than $700 million in the $10.8 billion
requested for missile defense programs, a prohibition of proposed increases in health care fees
and copays paid by some military retirees, and a provision requiring that any agreement with the
Iraqi government concerning the legal status of U.S. military personnel in that country include a
requirement that Iraq pay some of the costs of those forces.54
Pay Raise, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues
H.R. 5658 authorizes a military pay raise of 3.9 percent, rather than 3.4 percent as requested, and
bars during FY2009 a proposed increase in TRICARE health insurance and pharmacy fees
charged to some military retirees. Congress had prohibited proposed health care fee increases in
each of the two previous budgets. To offset the lost revenue the proposed fee increases had been
expected to generate, the bill would authorize, subject to appropriation, the transfer to the
53
For details, see CRS Report RL34451, FY2008 Spring Supplemental Appropriations and FY2009 Bridge
Appropriations for Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes (P.L. 110-252), by (name redacted)
et al.
54
Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy.
Congressional Research Service
30
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Defense Health Program of $1.3 billion from the unobligated balances of the National Defense
Stockpile Transaction Fund.
As requested, the bill would authorize increases in the active-duty end-strength of the Army (by
7,000) and Marine Corps (by 5,000), in line with the Administration’s plan to increase the activeduty end-strength of the two services by 92,000 personnel over their end-strength in FY2007. It
also would add a total 1,431 personnel to the requested end-strength of the Navy and Air Force (at
a cost of $101 million). The Administration had proposed to substitute civilians for this number of
Navy and Air Force military personnel in medical care positions. But the House bill reaffirms a
provision of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181) prohibiting such
military-to-civilian conversions of medical personnel.
The bill also includes a provision that would allow a limited number of service members to take
sabbaticals from active service for up to three years and return with no loss of rank or time-inservice.
Tanker, Cargo, and Patrol Planes
The bill denies authorization of $62 billion requested for long lead-time components to begin
procurement of the Northrop Grumman KC-45A refueling tanker, but approved the request for
$832 million to continue development of the aircraft. Some members have objected to the Air
Force’s selection of the Northrop Grumman system, based on a European-designed Airbus for this
mission, rather than a tanker version of the Boeing 767. According to the committee, denial of the
long lead-time funding would not delay the program.
The bill includes a provision (Section 134) requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to
the congressional defense committees a report on the process by which the requirements were
established that were the basis for selecting a new tanker. Another provision (Section 801)
requires the Secretary of the Air Force to review the impact on the decision to buy the Europeandesigned tanker of any subsidies by European governments that are illegal under the agreement
reached in Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Although the budget request included no funds either to continue production of the C-17 cargo
plane or to shut down the production line, the bill allocates $3.9 billion of the $70 billion
requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to buy an additional 15 C-17s. It also includes a
provision (Section 131) that would allow the Air Force to retire C-5A cargo planes and replace
them with additional C-17s only if a federally funded research and development center concludes
that this would be more prudent than upgrading the engines and electronics on the C-5As.
Fighter Planes
The bill authorizes $3 billion requested for 20 F-22 fighters. However, it also adds to the bill
authorization of $523 million for long lead-time components that would be used to build an
additional 20 F-22s in FY2010. The Administration’s request includes neither the funds that
would be needed to continue production of the F-22 beyond FY2009 nor the funds that would be
needed to close down the production line.
Congressional Research Service
31
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
The bill authorizes the requests for $3.1 billion to continue development of the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) and $3.7 billion to buy 16 of the planes. But it would add to the Administration
request $525 million to continue development of an alternative engine for the JSF.
Future Combat Systems (FCS)
The bill cuts $200 million from the $3.6 billion requested for the Army’s FCS program. Armed
Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee chair Neil Abercrombie said these cuts were targeted
to slow production of some components until they were more thoroughly tested. If the proposal
were enacted, it would mark the fourth consecutive budget in which Congress trimmed the
funding request for FCS.
The bill also includes several legislative restrictions on the FCS program, including a requirement
for annual reports to Congress on cost growth in the program’s eight types of manned ground
vehicles (Section 213), an independent report on potential vulnerabilities of the digital
communications web intended to link FCS components (Section 212), and a provision that would
bar the program’s lead system integrators, Boeing and SAIC, from producing major components
of the program (Section 112). 55
Anti-Missile Defense
The bill authorizes a total of $10.1 billion for missile defense programs, which would be $719
million less than the President requested, but $213 million more than Congress appropriated for
these programs in FY2008 (see Table A-3). It cuts the amounts requested for several programs
intended to deal with long-range missiles and added to the amounts requested for defenses against
short-range and medium-range missiles which, HASC said in its report, are the more pervasive
threat.
Among the reductions were cuts totaling $372 million from the $954 million requested to begin
deploying in Poland and the Czech Republic an anti-missile system intended to deal with longrange missiles launched from Iran. The bill also includes a provision (Section 222) that would bar
the proposed European deployment until (1) the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic
have ratified agreements to accept the stationing of U.S. personnel and equipment on their
territories; and (2) the Secretary of Defense has certified to Congress that the interceptor missiles
intended for the European site—a modified variant of the interceptors currently deployed in
Alaska and California—has passed operationally realistic flight tests.
The bill cut $100 million from the $386 million requested to develop a new, high-speed
interceptor missile (designated the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (or KEI) and it cut $43 million
from the $421 million requested to develop an anti-missile laser carried in a Boeing 747. The KEI
and Airborne Laser both are intended to destroy attacking missiles while in their “boost phase,”
that is while they still are accelerating away from their launchers and, thus, are relatively easy to
detect. The bill included a provision (Section 221) requiring a detailed analysis by a federally
funded research and development center of the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such
55
For additional background on DOD’s use of contractors as “lead system integrators,” see CRS Report RS22631,
Defense Acquisition: Use of Lead System Integrators (LSIs) - Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress,
by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
32
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
boost-phase defenses, compared with various anti-missile systems already deployed or nearing
production.
The bill cuts from the request $100 million of the $354 million to develop a multiple-warhead
interceptor able to hit several attacking missiles. It also cuts $10 million, the entire amount
requested for the Space Test Bed, an experiment to test the feasibility of space-based anti-missile
interceptors.
Shipbuilding
In its report, HASC criticized the Navy’s shipbuilding plan as both unaffordable and unwise—the
latter in that it would end production of proven ship classes while investing large amounts in
expensive, new, unproven designs: the DDG-1000 destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
Compared with the Administration’s request, H.R. 5658 significantly increases or decreases
funding for most major shipbuilding programs.
The bill denies the $2.5 billion requested in FY2009 to build a third ship of the DDG-1000 class.
Instead, it adds to the budget a tenth ship of the LPD-17 class of amphibious landing transports
($1.7 billion) and $278 million to buy long lead-time components for use in two additional TAGE-class supply ships, designed to replenish warships in mid-ocean, that would be funded in
FY2009. It also authorizes $400 million, which the Navy could use either to buy components that
could be used to build an additional DDG-1000 or to resume production of the much less
expensive DDG-51-class destroyers. HASC Seapower Subcommittee chair Gene Taylor has
urged the Navy to use the funds to continue DDG-51 procurement.
To buy two additional Littoral Combat Ships, the bill authorized $840 million rather than the
$920 million requested, on grounds that the contractors could use components previously
purchased for ships of this class that had been cancelled.
The bill authorizes $722 million more than the $3.4 billion requested for acquisition of Virginiaclass submarines. The request would buy one sub in FY2009 and long lead-time components
(including a nuclear powerplant) to be used in another sub slated for purchase in FY2010. The
bill’s addition would let the Navy buy enough long lead-time components in FY2009 to allow the
purchase of two subs in FY2010, thus accelerating by one year the time when the Navy could
begin buying subs at the rate of two per year.
Reflecting SASC’s concern that the Administration’s shipbuilding plan shows little progress
toward meeting its avowed goal of increasing the size of the fleet to 313 ships, the bill did not
grant the Administration’s request that Congress waive a provision of law (10 U.S.C. § 5062) that
requires the Navy to maintain 11 aircraft carriers in service. To avoid the cost of refueling the
nuclear-powered carrier Enterprise, the Navy wants to retire that ship in 2013, which would cause
the carrier force to drop to 10 ships for four years or more, until the carrier George H. W. Bush,
which was funded in FY2005, enters service. Instead of including the requested waiver in the bill,
HASC directed the Secretary of the Navy to report how much it would cost and how long it
would take to return to service the recently retired carrier John F. Kennedy and to retain in service
the carrier Kitty Hawk, which is slated for retirement.
HASC also directed the Navy secretary to report on the cost and feasibility of extending the
service life of existing Los Angeles-class submarines, many of which are nearing their scheduled
retirement dates.
Congressional Research Service
33
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Prepositioning Ships
The bill denies the $348 million requested for long lead-time components to be used in a
modified version of the LHA-class helicopter carriers used to carry Marine combat units. The
ship—for which the projected total cost is $3.5 billion—would be the first of a new Maritime
Prepositioning Force (Future) (or MPF(F)) comprising 10-12 ships from which a Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (typically numbering 20,000 troops with several dozen supporting
helicopters and combat jets) could be put ashore.
Unlike the currently deployed maritime prepositioning force, which consists of container ships
and vehicle-carrying “roll-on, roll-off” (or RO-RO) vessels, the proposed MPF(F) would include
three modified versions of the big helicopter carriers that are part of the Navy’s amphibious
warfare fleet. However, like the current prepositioning ships, the MPF(F) is not intended to land a
force that would have to fight its way ashore. Such so-called “assault” landings are to remain the
province of the amphibious landing ships. Accordingly, MPF(F) vessels based on amphibious
ship designs—such as the helicopter carriers—will be built without some of the communications
equipment and damage-control features found in their combat-equipped counterparts.
In its report, HASC challenged the idea of using non-combatant ships—like those envisioned for
the MPF(F)—rather than amphibious landing ships designed as combat vessels. It directed the
Navy to report the number and types of amphibious ships that would be needed to carry out the
MPF(F) mission.
The bill also includes a provision (Section 1013) requiring that helicopter carriers and other large
amphibious landing ships be nuclear-powered. A similar provision requirement covering aircraft
carriers, large surface warships and submarines was included in the FY2008 defense
authorization bill.
Civilian Response Corps
The bill incorporates the text of the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act of
2008, H.R. 1084, as passed by the House on March 5, 2008. The provisions of this act would
authorize the President to furnish, after notifying Congress, up to $100 million in assistance
annually from FY2008 through FY2010, for stabilizing and reconstructing a country or region in
conflict or civil strife, or in transition from that status. It also would codify the establishment of
the State Department Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS),
authorize the Secretary of State to establish a response readiness corps, including a civilian
reserve corps, and authorize the appropriation of funds for through FY2010 to cover personnel,
education, training, equipment, travel, and deployment costs.
Iraq Policy Provisions
The bill authorizes $1 billion of the $2 billion requested for training and support of Iraqi Security
Forces and $1.5 billion for the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP), a fund
available to U.S. commanders in Iraq to pay for reconstruction projects. However, the bill also
includes a provision (Section 1214b) requiring that Iraq obligate one dollar on similar
reconstruction projects for every two dollars spent by CERP. The Secretary of Defense may
waive the requirement under certain circumstances.
Congressional Research Service
34
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
The bill includes provisions requiring that future budget requests list separately those items
related to operations in Afghanistan (Section 1002) and Iraq (Section 1003). It also would
continue an existing prohibition on the use of funds either to establish permanent bases in Iraq or
to control Iraqi oil revenues (Section 1211).
The bill also would require
•
a report by the President on any agreement with the Iraqi government concerning
the legal status of U.S. personnel in Iraq, U.S. rights of access to bases in that
country, the rules of engagement governing U.S. units in Iraq, or any U.S.
security commitment to Iraq (Section 1212);
•
periodic reports by the President on the strategy and performance of U.S.-led
Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq (Section 1213);
•
establishment of a performance monitoring system for Provincial Reconstruction
Teams in Afghanistan (Section 1215);
•
a report by the Secretary of Defense on the command and control structure for
U.S. and NATO-led military forces in Afghanistan (Section 1216); and
•
a report by the Secretary of Defense on (1) the number of police training teams
needed to staff a majority of the 1,100 police stations in Iraq; (2) the cost of
staffing such an effort; and (3) the feasibility of transferring responsibility for
Iraqi police training from DOD to the Department of State (Section 1218).
Other Highlights
Among other provisions of H.R. 5658 as passed by the House are the following:
•
Denial of authorization for the $10 million requested to develop a new nuclear
weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, intended to replace some currently
deployed warheads on Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles;
•
Authorization of $118 million, as requested, for development of a long-range,
conventionally armed missile for “prompt global strike.” No funds had been
requested to develop a conventionally armed version of the Navy’s Trident
submarine-launched, nuclear-armed missile, which Congress has refused to fund
in prior budgets;
•
Authorization of $1 billion as requested to continue development of the VH-71, a
new fleet of White House helicopters. Citing cost overruns in the Lockheed
Martin program, which is based on a European-designed aircraft, HASC directed
DOD to report alternatives for future production;
•
Prohibition for one year of so-called “A-76” competitions in which private
contractors bid to take over work currently performed by federal employees
(Section 325);
•
A requirement that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) draft a
government-wide definition of “inherently governmental functions” that should
be performed by federal employees rather than by contractors (Section 322).
Congressional Research Service
35
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Defense Authorization: Highlights of House Floor Action
The House passed H.R. 5658 May 22 by a vote of 384-23 after two days of debate, during which
it adopted several amendments bearing the U.S. military posture in the Middle East and a wideranging amendment to federal contracting law.
Agreements with Iraq
An amendment by Representative Barbara Lee, adopted by a vote of 234-183, denies legal effect
to any agreement obligating the United States to defend Iraq unless the agreement is a treaty
ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate or is specifically authorized by Congress.
Long-term Cost of Operations in Iraq
An amendment by Representative Braley, adopted by a vote of 245-168, requires the President to
submit to Congress a report on the long-term cost (through FY2068) of U.S. operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, including the costs of operations, reconstruction and health care and disability
benefits.
Detainee Interrogations
An amendment by Representative Holt, adopted by a vote of 218-192, requires recording by
videotape or other electronic method of any interrogation of a detainee under the jurisdiction or
effective control of DOD.
An amendment by Representative David Price, adopted by a vote of 240-168, would prohibit the
interrogation of detainees by contractors, although it would allow the use of contractors as
interpreters.
Intelligence on Iran
An amendment by Representative Spratt, adopted by voice vote, would require the Director of
National Intelligence to submit to Congress an annual update of the November 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The amendment also requires the
President to notify Congress within 15 days of determining that Iran has accelerated, decelerated
or ceased work on any significant element of its nuclear weapons program or that Iran has met
any major milestone in its effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Contracting Regulations
The House also adopted by voice vote an amendment by Representative Waxman incorporating
several provisions intended to reduce the federal government’s use of sole-source and costreimbursement contracts, establish government-wide conflict-of-interest rules governing
contractor employees working in government contracting offices, and create a government-wide
database of any judicial proceeding, contract suspension or disbarment of any federal contractor.
Among the other amendments to H.R. 5658 acted on by the House were the following:
Congressional Research Service
36
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
•
An amendment by Representative Akin that would have restored $193 million of
the $200 million the bill would cut from the $3.6 billion request for the Army’s
Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, was rejected 128-287.
•
An amendment by Representative Franks that would have restored $719 million
the bill cuts from the Administration’s $10.1 billion request for anti-missile
programs was rejected 186-229.
•
An amendment by Representative Tierney that would have cut an additional $966
million from the anti-missile budget was rejected 122-292.
•
An amendment by Representative Pearce that would have restored the $10
million requested to continue development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead,
a request the bill denies in its entirety, was rejected 145-271.
•
An amendment by Representative McGovern requiring the Secretary of Defense
to make public, on request, the names, ranks and countries of origin of students
and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, was
adopted 220-180.
•
An amendment by Representative Hodes, adopted by voice vote, requires the
DOD Inspector General and the General Accounting Office to report on whether
a prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for domestic propaganda was
violated by a Pentagon program to provide special briefings for military analysts
who are frequent press commentators.
FY2009 Defense Authorization: Highlights of the Senate Bill
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved S. 3001, the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2009, on April 30 and reported the bill to the Senate on May 12 (S.Rept.
110-335). The Senate passed the bill September 17 by a vote of 88-8.
The bill authorizes a total of $612.5 billion in new budget authority, including $542.5 billion for
the base budget and a $70 billion placeholder allowance for war-related costs. This is essentially
the amount requested by the President except for minor differences that reflect score-keeping
adjustments by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
During floor debate on the bill, the Senate adopted three amendments:
•
By Senator Kyl and others, directing that $89 million of the total appropriated for
missile defense research be used to deploy an X-band, long-range missiledetection radar in a secret location; Adopted by voice vote;
•
By Senator Leahy and others, extending from three years to five years the period
following the end of a war during which the statute of limitations on contractor
fraud would be suspended; Adopted by voice vote;
•
By Senator Bill Nelson, repealing the requirement that military survivors’
benefits paid from DOD’s Survivor Benefit Plan be reduced by the amount of
any benefits received under the dependency and indemnity compensation
program of the Department of Veterans Affairs; Adopted 94-2.
Congressional Research Service
37
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
The Senate rejected by a vote of 39-57 an amendment by Senator Vitter and others that would
have increased by a total of $358 million the amounts authorized for three missile defense
programs.
The bill incorporates $2.0 billion worth of reductions to the Administration’s budget requests for
military personnel and operation and maintenance which, according to SASC, would have no
adverse impact on DOD operations. This includes cuts of $1.1 billion from military personnel
accounts and $212 million from operations and maintenance accounts based on an historic pattern
of DOD requesting for those amounts than it spent in a given year, reductions totalling $198
million based on what the committee said was an erroneously high request for civilian pay, and a
reduction of $497 million in the amount requested for depot maintenance of Air Force planes.
The $497 million the bill cuts from the Air Force maintenance account was requested to repair a
weak section of the structure of older F-15 fighters, after one of the planes broke apart in mid-air
during a training flight. In its report, SASC said a much smaller number of planes had been found
to need reconstruction than had been assumed in the budget request.
President Bush’s Executive Order 13457 prohibits agencies from complying with congressional
earmarks not specified in statutory language; S. 3001 includes a provision (Section 1002) that
would incorporate into the bill the detailed funding tables in the accompanying committee report,
which would circumvent E.O. 13457. These funding tables spell out how the Senate intends DOD
and the services to allocate the lump sums authorized for each appropriations account—for
instance, the accounts for procurement of aircraft for the Army and for research and development
for the Navy. Member’s earmarks, which are listed at the end of the report in a separate table by
sponsor, amount authorized, and intended beneficiary, also are listed in the funding tables but are
described there in more general terms (rather than in terms of the specific entity intended to
receive the authorized funding).
End-Strength, Tricare, and Other Personnel Issues
On several important military personnel questions, S. 3001 agrees with the House-passed FY2009
authorization bill (H.R. 5658). Both bills approve the requested addition of 12,000 troops to the
active-duty end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps, as a step toward a planned increase of
92,000 troops over the FY2007 level. Similarly, both bills authorize a 3.9% raise in military pay
effective January 1, 2009, rather than the 3.4% raise in the budget request, an increase that costs
an additional $316 million.
Like the House bill, S. 3001 prohibits the Administration’s proposed increase in fees, copayments, and pharmacy prices charged some military retirees by DOD’s TRICARE health
insurance system. The bill adds to the budget request $1.2 billion to make up for the loss of
anticipated revenue from the proposed fee increases. Unlike the House bill, however, and
pursuant to an Administration request, the SASC bill repeals a provision of the FY2008 Defense
Authorization Act (Section 721 of P.L. 110-181) that prohibits replacing military medical
personnel with civilians, as the Administration has proposed.
Shipbuilding
Unlike the House bill, S. 3001 authorizes $2.5 billion requested for a third DDG-1000 class
destroyer. However, the Senate bill also would expand the Administration’s shipbuilding plan,
Congressional Research Service
38
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
rejecting the request for $103 million to shut down production of LPD-17 class amphibious
landing transports and adding to the bill $273 million for long lead-time components that would
allow the Navy to budget for an additional LPD-17 in FY2010. It also adds $79 million to the
$1.3 billion requested for long lead-time components to allow the Navy to begin budgeting for
two submarines per year starting in FY2011.
Noting delays in the construction of helicopter carriers at the Northrop Grumman shipyard in
Pascagoula, MS, that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina, SASC concluded that the contractor
was unlikely to proceed as quickly as the budget assumed to assemble long lead-time components
for an LHA(R) class helicopter carrier slated to be part of the planned Maritime Prepositioning
Force (Future). Accordingly, the bill authorizes $178 million of the $348 million requested for
that purpose. It also includes a provision (Section 1432) requiring the Navy to fund that ship—
and others slated for the MPF(F) that are basically amphibious landing ships—through its ship
construction account instead of through a revolving fund for sealift ships, which gives the service
more leeway to reallocate funds.
The bill adds $25 million to the $165 million requested to begin a $10 billion, long-term program
to modernize the 61 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers—its most numerous class of warships—so
they can operate for 40 years, rather than the 20 years that the committee cited as the norm for
vessels of that size. But the committee also directed the Navy to provide detailed justification of
its decision to have the ships upgraded in several stages by shipyards near their homeports instead
of having each one get a full upgrade from either the Northrop Grumman yard in Pascagoula or
the General Dynamics-owned Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME, the two yards where all the ships
were built.
Citing delays in finalizing the design of a new class of cruisers (designated CG(X) that would
replace the 22 Aegis cruisers in the anti-aircraft and missile defense mission, the bill cut $121
million from the $313 million requested to prepare to begin building the first CG(X) in FY2011.
Fighter Aircraft
In addition to authorizing $3.1 billion, as requested, to buy 20 F-22 fighters, the bill authorizes
$497 million to be used either to shut down the F-22 production line or to buy long lead-time
components that would allow the Air Force to buy 20 additional planes in FY2010.
The bill also authorizes, as requested, $3.1 billion to continue development of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, $3.3 billion to buy 16 of the planes, and $396 million for long lead-time
components to support future purchases. But it also adds to the budget request $500 million to
continue congressional effort to make DOD fund development of a General Electric engine that
could replace the Pratt & Whitney engine currently used in the F-35. The added funds include
$430 million to continue developing the alternate engine, $35 million to develop improvements in
the Pratt & Whitney powerplant—to “level the playing field,” in the words of the SASC report—
and an additional $35 million to buy long lead-time components that would be needed in future
production of the alternate engine.
Citing warnings by the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force that the retirement of older fighter
planes combined with delays in fielding the F-22 and F-35 could leave the services short of
planes to equip their squadrons, the committee included in the bill a provision (Section 171)
requiring DOD to give Congress annually a 30-year plan detailing projected changes in its
inventory of all major types of aircraft. The committee also urged the Navy to prepare to sign a
Congressional Research Service
39
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
multi-year contract for more F/A-18E/F strike fighters than it currently plans to buy, as a hedge
against delays in the acquisition of F-35s.
UAVs and Surveillance Planes
The bill authorizes $1.3 billion requested to buy 52 Global Hawk and Predator unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), some of which would be armed but all of which are equipped for surveillance
missions. It trims $48 million from the $480 million requested to develop a long-range UAV for
maritime surveillance. But it authorizes $371 million requested for shorter-range Army and Navy
UAVs.
The bill adds to the budget request $98 million to develop an improved ground-surveillance radar
(designated R-TIP) which the committee urged the Air Force to consider backfitting on the
existing E-8 J-STARS planes. It authorizes $111 million requested for long lead-time components
that would be used to begin production of a modified Boeing 737 (designated P-8) that the Navy
will use as a long-range sub-hunter and reconnaissance plane and it authorizes $160 million, not
requested, to repair aging P-3 patrol planes that the P-8 is intended to replace.
Helicopters
Because the losing contractors have filed an official protest of the Air Force’s selection of the
Boeing Chinook as its new search and rescue helicopter (designated CSAR-X) intended to
retrieve downed pilots from enemy territory, the bill authorizes $265 million of the $305 million
requested to develop the aircraft and none of the $15 million requested to buy long lead-time
components in preparation for manufacture. The bill authorizes the $1.0 billion requested to
continue development of the VH-71, intended to replace the aging helicopters that serve the
White House. But in its report, the committee cited a rash of problems besetting the program
which, it said, might experience of 70% cost overrun. The report directs the Navy to submit to
Congress a detailed report on the status of the program.
Anti-Missile Defenses
Following the same general approach as the companion House bill, S. 3001 would authorize less
for anti-ballistic missile defenses than the administration requested. Of the $10.9 million
requested, the House bill would authorize $9.9 billion and the Senate bill $10.2 billion. .
Moreover, within those overall totals, both bills authorize more than was requested for systems
that are ready, or nearly ready, for deployment to deal with existing short-range and mediumrange missiles. On the other hand, both bills authorize less than requested for programs that
would not enter production that soon, many of which are intended to deal with intercontinentalrange missiles.
In its report, SASC places great emphasis on an analysis by the Joint Staff—the body of officers
that provide technical expertise to the Joint Chiefs of Staff—which concludes that, to meet the
needs of combatant commanders around the globe, DOD needs about twice as many of the
Army’s THAAD interceptors and the Navy’s SM-3 interceptors missiles than it currently plans to
buy. Both systems are designed to knock down medium-range missiles, which fly much slower
than intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). S. 3001 would add to the budget request $135
million to field additional THAAD and SM-3 missiles and THAAD radars and an additional $80
Congressional Research Service
40
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
million to improve the anti-missile capability of the Navy’s Aegis system, which uses the SM-3
missile.
Among the reductions the bill would make in anti-missile programs are cuts of:
•
$269 million (undistributed) from the Missile Defense Agency;
•
$10 million, the entire amount requested, for the Space Test Bed; and
•
$50 million of $354 million requested for the Multiple Kill Vehicle, intended to
let one interceptor knock out several attacking warheads.
S. 3001 authorizes the funds requested to begin deploying in Europe a variant of the defense
against intercontinental-range missiles currently deployed in Alaska and California. However, the
bill includes a provision (Section 232) that would bar use of the funds to buy interceptor missiles
for that deployment or to begin construction on-site until (1) Poland and the Czech Republic have
formally ratified agreements to allow the American sites on their territory and (2) the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that the interceptor slated for deployment at the European site—
which is a considerably modified variant of the version already deployed—has been successfully
tested in operationally realistic flight tests.
Other Highlights
Among other provisions of S. 3001 are the following:
•
authorizes the services to let a limited number of personnel leave active service
for up to three years and return with no loss of rank or time-in-service to test the
feasibility of allowing service members more flexibility in pursuing their careers,
•
requires DOD to conduct a comprehensive study of the risk that critical
installations could be cut off from their current sources of energy;
•
requires DOD to establish ethics standards to prohibit conflicts of interest on the
part of contractor employees who perform acquisition functions for the
Department;
•
bars private security contractors from performing in an area of combat operations
any “inherently governmental functions,” which are defined to include “security
operations if they will be performed in highly hazardous public areas where the
risks are uncertain and could reasonably be expected to require deadly force that
is more likely to be initiated by contractor personnel than by others;
•
prohibits contractor employees from interrogating detainees during or in the
aftermath of hostilities, a restriction that would take effect one year after
enactment of the bill;
•
requires the armed services to ensure that field commanders “urgent
requirements” for specific equipment be presented to senior service officials for
review within 60 days of submission;
•
adds $350 million to the $843 million requested to develop the Transformational
Satellite (TSAT), which would be a key node in a planned, high-volume, global
laser-communication network;
Congressional Research Service
41
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
•
authorizes the $10 million requested in the Energy Department’s defense-related
budget for research on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, but denies
authorization for the $23 million in the Navy’s budget request for that proposed
new nuclear warhead;
•
prohibits, with a few exceptions, the use of funds authorized by the bill to pay for
infrastructure projects in Iraq costing more than $2 million.
Highlights of the Final Version of the FY2009 Defense
Authorization Bill (S. 3001)
Although the House and Senate both passed versions of the FY2009 defense authorization bill
through the usual procedures, the Senate’s final action on its version (S. 3001) was delayed until
September by various controversies. One issue contributing to the delay was a provision of the
defense bill (Section 1002) that would incorporate into the legislation hundreds of earmarks listed
in the committee’s report on the measure. Another issue was an unrelated dispute over offshore
oil drilling, which held up Senate action on most legislation. The Senate passed the bill
September 17 after acting on only four amendments.
The Senate did not request a conference with the House to reconcile S. 3001 with the Housepassed H.R. 5658. Instead, members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees
negotiated informally the compromise version of S. 3001 that was cleared for the President.
Although the Administration objected to the provision that incorporated into the Senate-passed
bill the earmarks listed in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report on the bill, a
substantially identical provision (Section 1005) was included in the compromise version of S.
3001, that incorporated into that measure the hundreds of earmarks listed in summary tables in
the “explanatory statement” that was, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the explanatory
statement in a formal conference report.
Veto Threats Avoided
The compromise version of S. 3001 did not include any of several provisions in either the House
or Senate versions of the authorization bill that had been singled out by Administration officials
as grounds for a veto, if they had been included in the version of the bill sent to President Bush.
Following is a summary of provisions of the House or Senate versions of the authorization bill
that Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England had cited as grounds for a veto in a September 19
letter to leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees:
•
a ban on the government’s use of private security contractors in combat zones;
Section 832 of the compromise bill expresses a sense of Congress that security
missions in combat zones should be performed by U.S. military personnel.
•
a ban on the use of contractor employees to interrogate detainees; Section 1057
of the compromise expresses a sense of Congress that contractors should not
conduct interrogations.
Congressional Research Service
42
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
•
a requirement that detainee interrogations be videotaped. Section1058 of the
compromise expresses a sense of Congress that such interrogations be videotaped
or otherwise electronically recorded.
•
a requirement that Congress approve, either as a treaty or by legislation and
agreement governing the legal status of U.S. forces in Iraq. The compromise
included no such requirement but retained in Section 1212 a requirement in the
House bill that DOD provide Congress with a detailed report on such an
agreement, should it be reached.
•
a requirement that the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring the payment of locally
prevailing wages on federal construction projects, apply to military construction
projects on Guam, to which Marine Corps units currently stationed on Okinawa,
are being moved. The provision was dropped.
•
provisions that would bar or inhibit DOD from outsourcing on the basis of a
“public-private competition” jobs currently performed by military or federal
civilian personnel. No such provisions were included in the compromise bill.
•
provisions that would halt the construction of facilities to replace Walter Reed
Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., pending a review, and would prohibit
the use of an independent commission to draw up recommendations for any
future rounds of military base closures. No such provisions were included in the
final bill.
•
several provisions in the Senate bill relating to the management of intelligence
activities in DOD. All such provisions were dropped.
•
four provisions in the House bill—added in the wake of the Air Force’s nowcancelled selection of a European-designed mid-air refueling tanker—three of
which the Administration said would require DOD to discriminate against foreign
manufacturers and one of which it said would require disclosure of contractors’
proprietary information. The provisions were dropped or greatly diluted in their
impact.
•
funding cuts “below acceptable levels” to the $657 million requested for research
and development and facilities construction associated with deployment of an
anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic. While the Administration
did not specify an “acceptable level,” the compromise bill cut $208 million
compared with the $421 million that had been cut by the House version.
Weapons Program Issues
The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit annually an aircraft procurement plan for the
Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force that would project procurements, retirements and losses over
the following 30 years for all types of combat and support aircraft (Section 141). The services
have warned Congress in recent years of coming shortfalls in combat planes as planned
retirements outstrip the acquisition of replacement craft.
The amounts authorized for particular programs were generally consistent with (and largely
superseded by) the amounts actually appropriated by the companion defense appropriations bill.
But the authorization measure included significant policy provisions bearing on some high profile
programs:
Congressional Research Service
43
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
Littoral Combat Ship
The bill would defer until FY2010 application to the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program
of a cost cap set by Congress in the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
(Section 122). The cap limits the cost of each LCS to $460 million with the proviso that the cost
would be allowed to exceed that cap by up to $10 million because of inflation.
F-22 Fighter
To buy long lead-time components that would allow the procurement of additional F-22 fighters
in FY2009, the bill authorizes $523 million not requested by the Administration (funds that also
were included in the companion FY2009 defense appropriations bill). However, the bill would
allow DOD to expend only $140 million of that amount until the next President decides whether
to buy additional F-22s or shut down the program.
White House Helicopters
The bill would authorize $835 million to continue development of a new fleet of helicopters for
the White House, a reduction of $213 million from the request. The companion FY2009 defense
appropriations bill provides the same amount. Although the project is based on an existing
helicopter of European design, costs have increased significantly, in part because of the high-tech
communications equipment being installed in the aircraft. The authorization bill would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress several reports called for by the House and Senate
versions of the measure, including one that would analyze the advantages and disadvantages of
re-competing the helicopter contract, which was won in 2005 by Lockheed Martin.
Missile Defense Program Issues
In an explanatory statement accompanying the compromise version of S. 3001, the House and
Senate members who negotiated the bill objected to the frequency with which the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) had cancelled scheduled flight tests. They directed MDA to consult with
certain other DOD agencies before cancelling future tests and to report to the congressional
defense committees on the reasons for any future test cancellations and MDA’s plan to meet the
objectives of the cancelled test.
The bill would also require the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the feasibility of the
proposed systems that are intended to destroy missiles in their “boost-phase”—the period
immediately after launch when their rocket motors are firing (Section 232) One of the boostphase defenses covered by that section is the Airborne Laser—a Boeing 747 armed with a huge
laser . Another section of the bill (Section 235) would require DOD’s director of operational
testing to report on the operational effectiveness, survivability and affordability of the Airborne
Laser.
While the bill authorized $449 million of the $667 million requested to begin deploying antimissile interceptors in Poland and their associated radar in the Czech Republic, the bill also
would bar expenditure of the funds until after the two host countries have signed and ratified the
agreements necessary for the deployments and 45 days have elapsed from the time Congress
receives an independent assessment of the proposed European deployment conducted by a
Congressional Research Service
44
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
federally funded research and development corporation (Section 233). That review was mandated
by the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act.
Military Personnel Issues
The bill would authorize a military pay raise of 3.9 percent, which is one-half of 1 percent higher
than the President requested. But it does not include a provision in the House-passed bill that
would have required military pay raises in FY2010-FY2013 that would be one-half of 1 percent
above the annual increase in the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI), which is a
measure of changes in employee compensation in the private sector.
The bill would mandate, for male service members whose spouse gives birth to a child, 10 days
paternity leave in addition to any other leave to which the service member is entitled. It also
would authorize a pilot program to test the value of allowing a small number of military
personnel to leave active duty for a period of up to three years to focus on personal or
professional goals. Participating members would return to active duty at the same rank and
seniority they held when the left active duty, but the time spent in the program would not could
toward the 20 years of service required to retire.
The bill does not include a Senate-passed provision which would have repealed an existing legal
requirement that, if the survivor of a deceased service member is eligible both a DOD annuity
from the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and an annuity from the Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation program (DIC) of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the SBP payment would be
reduced by the amount of the DIC payment.
Health Care
For the third year in a row, the authorization bill reject’s Administration proposals to increase fees
and copayments for military retirees participating in DOD’s Tricare health care program.
The bill also includes several provisions intended to encourage service members and Tricare
beneficiaries to take steps designed to prevent health problems, such as controlling their weight,
abstaining from smoking and exercising. These include a provision that would waive Tricare
copayments for preventive services (Section 711), authorize a demonstration program testing the
effectiveness of monetary and other incentives to participate in a program to monitor health risk
factors, such as weight and blood pressure (Section 712) and establish a smoking cessation
program under Tricare (Section 713).
Acquisition Policy
The compromise bill dropped a House-passed provision that would have prohibited the award of
any contract for a contractor to act as lead systems integrator (LSI) on a major acquisition
program.
It includes a provision requiring the creation of a career path for military personnel who
specialize in the acquisition field, and it requires the creation of five additional positions for
general officers serving in acquisition jobs.
Congressional Research Service
45
Defense: FY2009 Authorization and Appropriations
It requires establishment for all major acquisition programs of a Configuration Steering Board
intended to control costs by controlling proposed changes in the design of the system (Section
814).
Among the bill’s other significant provisions relating to DOD’s acquisition process are the
following:
•
authorization of a streamlined hiring process to fill acquisition jobs in DOD
(Section 833);
•
requirement to establish a government-wide policy (codified in standard contract
clauses) to prevent conflicts of interest for contractor employees who are
managing DOD acquisitions (Section 841); and
•
extension from three years to five years of the period after the end of a
congressionally authorized conflict during which no statute of limitation applies
for contractor fraud (Section 855).
Comparison of Iraq-Related Policy Provisions in House and Senate
Versions of the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill56
The House and Senate versions of the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) each
included a variety of Iraq policy provisions. Some of them required reports to the Congress from
the President or from the Secretary of Defense, while others were designed to have a more direct
impact on activities in Iraq. The only point of overlap was language in both drafts that would
extend a prohibition fro
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.