Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Defense:
FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Updated January 20, 2006
Stephen Daggett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense. It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope,
major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events
warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS
products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document is available to
congressional staff at [http://beta.crs.gov/cli/
level_2.aspx?P RDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

Defense: FY2006 Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The House approved conference agreements on the FY2006 defense
appropriations (H.R. 2863) and defense authorization (H.R. 1815) bills on December
19, 2005. The Senate approved both measures on December 21, though only after
removing from the appropriations bill a provision to allow oil drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. On December 22, the House approved an enrolling
resolution that removed the ANWR provision, clearing the measure for the President.
The appropriations bill is also a vehicle for other measures, including reallocation of
$29 billion in Hurricane Katrina recovery funds, emergency funding of $3.8 billion
for avian flu preparedness, and an across-the-board spending cut of $8.5 billion. The
President signed the defense appropriations bill into law on December 30, 2005, P.L.
109-148, and he signed the authorization on January 6, 2006, P.L. 109-163. Key
issues resolved by the conference agreements on the defense bills include:
^!Amount of defense appropriations: The Senate cut $7 billion from
the Administration request, and the House trimmed $3 billion. The
conference agreement cuts $4.4 billion, and the across-the-board cut
trims an additional $4.1 billion from DOD.
^!Prisoner abuse: The authorization and appropriations conference
agreements include Senate provisions regulating DOD interrogation
of detainees and prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
^!Tribunals for prisoners: The authorization and appropriations
conference agreements include amended Senate language that
establishes military tribunals to review the status of detainees and
that permits limited appeals of findings to federal courts.
^!Exit strategy in Iraq: The House rejected amendments to the
authorization and appropriations bills to establish an exit strategy.
The Senate approved a measure that requires quarterly reports on
conditions for withdrawal and a schedule for achieving such
conditions but does not set a timetable. The authorization
conference includes an amended version of the Senate measure.
^!Women in combat: The conference agreement requires 30 days
notice to Congress of changes in current regulations.
^!Additional Iraq funding: The appropriations conference agreement
provides $50 billion.
^!Army and Marine end-strength: The authorization conference adds

10,000 to Army and 1,000 to Marine end-strength in FY2006.

^!Navy shipbuilding: The House authorization and appropriations
bills restructured Navy shipbuilding dramatically and terminated the
DD(X) destroyer. The conference agreements do not terminate the
DD(X) and require that it be produced at two shipyards.
^!Reserve health insurance: The Senate authorization allowed all
reservists to enroll in the TRICARE health insurance program. The
conference agreement limits it to those without private insurance.
^!New nuclear weapons: The conference agreement on the Energy
and Water appropriations bill eliminates Department of Energy
funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameTelephone E-Mail
AcquisitionValerie Grasso7-7617vgrasso@crs.loc.gov
Aviation ForcesChristopher Bolkcom7-2577cbolkcom@crs.loc.gov
Arms ControlAmy Woolf7-2379awoolf@crs.loc.gov
Arms SalesRichard Grimmett7-7675rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
Base ClosureDavid Lockwood7-7621dlockwood@crs.loc.gov
Defense BudgetStephen DaggettAmy Belasco7-76427-7627sdaggett@crs.loc.govabelasco@crs.loc.gov
Defense IndustryGary PaglianoDaniel Else7-17507-4996gpagliano@crs.loc.govdelse@crs.loc.gov
Defense R&DMichael DaveyJohn Moteff7-70747-1435mdavey@crs.loc.govjmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Ground ForcesEdward BrunerSteven Bowman7-27757-7613ebruner@crs.loc.govsbowman@crs.loc.gov
Health Care; MilitaryRichard Best7-7607rbest@crs.loc.gov
IntelligenceRichard BestAl Cumming7-76077-7739rbest@crs.loc.govacumming@crs.loc.gov
Military ConstructionDaniel Else7-4996delse@crs.loc.gov
Military PersonnelDavid Burrelli7-8033dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Military Personnel;Lawrence Kapp7-7609lkapp@crs.loc.gov
Reserves
Missile DefenseSteven HildrethAndrew Feickert7-76357-7673shildreth@crs.loc.govafeickert@crs.loc.gov
Naval ForcesRonald O’Rourke7-7610rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Nuclear WeaponsJonathan Medalia7-7632jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Peace OperationsNina Serafino7-7667nserafino@crs.loc.gov
ReadinessAmy Belasco7-7627abelasco@crs.loc.gov
Space, MilitaryMarcia Smith7-7076msmith@crs.loc.gov
War PowersLouis FisherRichard Grimmett7-86767-7675lfisher@crs.loc.govrgrimmett@crs.loc.gov

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Headlines: Highlights of Congressional Action..........................1
Brief Overview of Major Issues in the Defense Bills..................1
Status of Legislation................................................8
Key Issues for Congress............................................11
Iraq Policy and Troop Withdrawals...............................13
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan................................15
Should Ongoing War Costs be Funded in Regular or in Supplemental
Appropriations? ......................................15
Guns versus Butter — 302(b) Allocations..........................20
Military Personnel Pay and Benefits..............................23
Increases in Active Duty End-Strength............................25
Navy Shipbuilding — A Budgetary “Ship Wreck”?..................27
Retiring an Aircraft Carrier and Reducing the Carrier Force to 11.......33
C-130J Aircraft Termination....................................33
F/A-22 Fighter Termination.....................................35
Other Programs with Cost Increases and Schedule Delays.............35
Missile Defense..............................................46
Army Modularization..........................................49
Civilian Personnel Policy.......................................50
Easing Environmental Regulations Affecting Military Facilities........51
New Nuclear Weapons.........................................51
Women in Combat and Other “Social Issues”.......................53
Base Closures................................................54
“Buy American” Requirements, Border Security, and Other Issues......55
For Additional Reading............................................56
CRS Defense Budget Products..................................56
CRS Defense Budget-Related Products............................56
Legislation ......................................................58
Concurrent Budget Resolution...................................58
Defense Authorization.........................................58
Defense Appropriations........................................59
Appendix A: What the Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills Cover
...........................................................60
Appendix B: Overview of the Administration Request...................61
Key Features of the Administration Request........................62
Continued Growth in Military Personnel and in Operation and
Maintenance Costs....................................62
Slower Growth in Procurement and RDT&E...................63
Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-753).....................64
Long-Term Defense Budget Challenges...........................65

List of Tables
Table 1A. Status of FY2006 Defense Authorization (H.R. 1815, S. 1042).....9
Table 1B. Status of FY2006 Defense Appropriations (H.R. 2863)...........9
Table 2A. FY2006 House and Senate Defense Authorization Bills, Funding by
Title ........................................................9
Table 2B. FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations by Bill and Title..10
Table 2C. Other DOD Emergency Funding in FY2006 Defense
Appropriations Bill, Division B..................................11
Table 3. Additional Funding for Overseas Operations....................19
Table 4. House and Senate Initial 302(b) Allocations....................21
Table 5. House and Senate Action on Statutory Active Duty End-Strength
Levels, FY2004-FY2006.......................................27
Table 6A. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Authorization...31
Table 6B. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Appropriations...32
Table 7. C-130 Procurement Appropriations...........................35
Table 8A. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Authorization...38
Table 8B. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Appropriations...39
Table 9. Emergency Appropriations for Weapons Procurement............41
Table 10. Congressional Action on FY2006 Missile Defense Funding.......48
Table A1. National Defense Budget Authority by Title,
FY2005-FY2006, Administration Projection.......................61
Table A2. National Defense Budget Authority and Outlays,
FY2000-FY2010, Administration Projection.......................62
Table A3. Department of Defense Budget Authority by Title,
FY2005-FY2011 .............................................63
Table A4. Major Program Adjustments in PBD-753.....................64

Defense: FY2006 Authorization and
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The President signed the FY2006 defense appropriations bill into law, P.L. 109-
148, on December 30, 2005, and he signed the FY2006 defense authorization into
law, P.L. 109-163, on January 6, 2006. On Sunday, December 18, House and Senate
conferees filed agreements both on the FY2006 defense appropriations bill (H.R.

2863) and on the FY2006 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1815). On December 19,

the House approved the appropriations conference agreement by a vote of 308-106
and the authorization conference agreement by a vote of 371-41. On December 21,
the Senate approved the conference agreement on the defense authorization bill, and
it approved the appropriations conference agreement by 93-0, though only after
removing from the bill a provision to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The Senate also approved by a vote of 48-45 an enrolling
resolution (S.Con.Res. 74) instructing the Clerk of the House to enroll the bill
without the ANWR provisions. The House approved the enrolling resolution on
December 22, clearing the bill for the President. The appropriations bill not only
provides funding for the Department of Defense, but it is also a vehicle for other
measures, including reallocation of $29 billion in Hurricane Katrina recovery funds,
emergency funding of $3.8 billion for avian flu preparedness, and an across-the-board
spending cut of $8.5 billion.
Headlines: Highlights of Congressional Action
Brief Overview of Major Issues in the Defense Bills
Headline issues that have emerged in action on the defense bills, include
^!Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The
conference agreement on the appropriations bill included a provision
to allow oil drilling in ANWR, a measure that had been attached to
the budget reconciliation bill but that was rejected in the House. The
provision allocated projected revenues to Alaska, Katrina relief, and
the LIHEAP energy program. Opponents of ANWR drilling resisted
the measure in the Senate, and, in a key test vote, on December 21,
the Senate refused to invoke cloture on the appropriations
conference report by a vote of 56-44 (with 60 votes required). The
Senate then passed the appropriations conference report, minus the
ANWR provison, and approved, by a vote of 48-45, an enrolling
resolution to instruct the Clerk of the House to remove the ANWR

provision from the defense bill. The House approved the resolution
on December 22, thus clearing the appropriations bill, without
ANWR drilling, for the President.
^!Other measures added to the defense appropriations bill: Along
with ANWR drilling, the defense appropriations bill became a
vehicle for several pending congressional measures, including a $29
billion reallocation of funds for Katrina relief and reconstruction, a
$3.8 billion measure for avian flu preparedness, and a 1% across-
the-board cut in FY2006 appropriations totaling $8.5 billion. All of
these measures are included in the enacted bill.
^!Cuts in defense spending in the defense appropriations bill: The
House-passed defense appropriations bill trimmed $3 billion from
the Administration request, and the defense appropriations bill as
passed by the Senate trimmed $7 billion, leaving those amounts
available for non-defense appropriations. The cuts did not include
significant reductions in major weapons programs, but instead came
mainly from eliminating funds that the committees found
unnecessary to carry out requested programs in personnel and
operating accounts. The largest reductions in the military personnel
accounts were for programs that were underexecuted in FY2005.
Congress has made similar cuts for the past couple of years. In part,
it appears, that expenses have been financed through supplemental
funds. The largest reductions in the operation and maintenance
accounts were for depot maintenance workloads that are not needed
because equipment is being used for the war and repair costs are
being covered with supplemental appropriations. So, though
indirectly, large emergency supplemental funding has offset regular
defense appropriations, freeing up non-emergency funds for non-
defense programs. The White House Statement of Administration
Policy on the Senate appropriations bill, issued on September 30,
objected to the Senate reduction and warned of a veto if the final
appropriations bill “significantly underfunds” defense “to avoid a
reduction in non-security spending.” House and Senate
appropriators finally agreed to trim $4.4 billion from the request, and
they added $0.1 billion to the military construction bill. In a
measure attached to the defense appropriations bill, Congress also
approved an across-the-board cut in all appropriations, which trims
an additional $4.1 billion from Department of Defense funds. So, in
all, Congress provided $8.4 billion less for DOD than the
Administration had requested (see Table 2B).
^!Prisoner abuse: Treatment of detainees became a major issue in
Senate consideration of the defense authorization bill and
subsequently of the defense appropriations bill. On the
authorization bill, in July Senator Levin proposed an amendment to
establish an independent commission on treatment of detainees.
Senator McCain proposed one amendment to prohibit cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment of persons in U.S. custody and

another to establish for the Defense Department uniform
interrogation standards as authorized by the Army field manual on
intelligence interrogations. Senator Warner proposed an alternative
amendment to require the Secretary of Defense to establish uniform
standards for detention and interrogation. And Senators McCain and
Graham proposed an amendment to provide statutory authority for
the Defense Department to use military tribunals to determine the
status of detainees. The formal White House Statement of
Administration Policy on the authorization bill warned of a veto if
the bill includes any measure that would establish a commission on
detainees or regulate “the detention, treatment or trial of terrorists.”¹
With action on the authorization bill delayed, Senator McCain
offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that
combined two of his authorization proposals. On October 5, by a
vote of 90-9, the Senate approved an amendment (1) to require the
Defense Department to adhere to regulations in the Army field
manual on interrogations in questioning detainees under DOD
control or on DOD facilities and (2) to prohibit any federal agency
from engaging in cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of
detainees. Subsequently, when the Senate resumed consideration of
the defense authorization, Senator McCain offered the same measure
as an amendment and it was accepted by voice vote on November 4.
Later, Senator Graham withdrew his original proposal to provide
statutory authority for tribunals to review the status of prisoners at
Guantanamo and offered a revised amendment that would require
the Secretary of Defense to establish regulations for the tribunals,
require that the senior civilian in charge of tribunals be confirmed by
the Senate, and allow only limited court appeals of tribunal
decisions. This led to an extensive debate about court oversight of
the tribunal. The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator
Bingaman to allow court review of habeas corpus petitions.
Senators Graham and Levin then agreed on, and the Senate
approved, a compromise version of the Graham amendment that
expanded the range of potential court appeals of tribunals decisions.
The conference agreements on the authorization and appropriations
bills both include, without change, the McCain amendments
requiring DOD adherence to the Army field manual on
interrogations and prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment of detainees. Conferees added a new provision, modeled
on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to ensure that U.S.
government personnel accused of illegal treatment of detainees may
assert as a defense that they did not know that practices were
unlawful. Conferees also added a requirement that Iraqi security
personnel be instructed in interrogation techniques and receive

¹ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of
Administration Policy, S. 1042 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2006,” July 21, 2005, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/s1042sap-

s.pdf].

translated copies of the Army field manual. The conference
agreements also include an amended version of the Graham-Levin
amendment establishing procedures for tribunals.
^!Exit strategy for Iraq: On May 25, the full House rejected by a
vote of 128-300 an amendment to the defense authorization bill by
Representative Woolsey expressing the sense of Congress that the
President should develop a plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.
In floor debate on the defense appropriations bill, Representative
Pelosi offered an amendment to require an Administration report on
measures of progress in Iraq that would permit a withdrawal — in
effect, an exit strategy. The Rules Committee did not agree to
protect the proposal from a point of order, however, and it was
subsequently ruled out of order as legislation on an appropriations
bill. On July 20, the House approved by a vote of 291-137 an
amendment to the foreign affairs authorization bill (H.R. 2601) by
Representative Ros-Lehtinen stating that calls for “an early
withdrawal” from Iraq are counterproductive and that it is U.S.
policy to withdraw only “when it is clear that United States national
security and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq
have been or are about to be achieved.” The Senate debated U.S.
Iraq policy extensively when it resumed action on the authorization
bill in November. On November 15, the Senate rejected a Levin
amendment that would, in effect, have required the Administration
to establish a schedule that would tie withdrawals of troops to
progress in Iraq. But the Senate agreed to a very modestly revised
version of the Levin amendment without the final provision on troop
withdrawals. As agreed to, the amendment states that 2006 should
be a transition year in which Iraqi security forces take on increasing
responsibility for security and that this should lead to U.S. troop
withdrawals, and it requires Administration reports on a schedule for
improved conditions in Iraq that would permit the redeployment of
U.S. forces. Two days later, on November 17, Representative
Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the defense appropriations
subcommittee, opened a new phase of the national debate about Iraq
policy when he called for redeploying U.S. military forces out of
Iraq as soon as possible, arguing that the U.S. presence was making
the security situation worse. On November 18, following a
tumultuous debate, the House rejected by a vote of 403-6 a
resolution (H.Res. 571) proposed by Representative Hunter calling
for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The authorization
conference agreement includes a provision that makes minor
changes in the Senate statement of Iraq policy. The measure
requires quarterly reports on progress in Iraq and establishes a policy
that 2006 should be a turning point in transferring responsibility to
Iraqi security forces. The conference provision removes a Senate
reference to a “schedule” for achieving specified measures of
progress in Iraq and substitutes a requirement for a “plan.” The
appropriations conference report also requires quarterly reports on
progress in Iraq.

^!A “bridge fund” for Iraq and Afghanistan operations: The
House-passed authorization recommended $49.1 billion, the Senate
authorization recommended $50 billion, the House-passed
appropriations provided $45.2 billion, and the Senate-passed
appropriations bill provided $50 billion for ongoing operations in
Iraq and elsewhere as a bridge until FY2006 supplemental
appropriations can be provided next year. Last year, Congress
provided $25 billion. One issue in House action on the authorization
was whether to strengthen reporting requirements on the use of the
money, on equipment repair requirements, on troop levels, and on
the costs of operations in Iraq. The House agreed to a modified
amendment that requires reports on the allocation of funds, on
equipment, and on military construction projects. The
appropriations conference agreement provides $50 billion as a
bridge fund, including, $8 billion for weapons procurement. The
House had provided $2.9 billion and the Senate $8.6 billion for
procurement.
^!Women in combat: As part of an en bloc amendment to the
defense authorization bill, the House approved a measure proposed
by Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter that would
require DOD to notify Congress 60 days in advance of implementing
any changes in policy for assigning women to operational ground
units. The measure was a substitute for a provision in the committee
reported version of the bill that would have (1) codified into law the
Pentagon’s 1994 policy that prohibits assigning women to units that
engage in ground combat operations and (2) prohibited any changes
in current assignments. The full committee measure was, in turn, a
substitute for a more restrictive subcommittee measure that would
have prohibited assigning women to some support units, including
units in which women currently serve, that might accompany combat
units into battle. The authorization conference agreement reduces
the requirement for advance notification to 30 days.
^!Army and Marine Corps end-strength: Both the House
authorization and the Senate Armed Services Committee added to
statutory end-strength. The House authorization added 10,000 in
end-strength to the Army and 1,000 to the Marine Corps in FY2006.
The Senate authorization added 20,000 to Army end-strength. These
increases, which add to those Congress approved last year, would
require DOD to support more than the 30,000 extra troops it is now
temporarily keeping in the force. The Senate authorization is
43,000 troops above the baseline level for the Army and Marine
Corps. The Senate appropriations committee included funds to
support the added end strength in the Senate authorization. The
authorization conference report provides an increase of 10,000 in
Army and 1,000 in Marine Corps end-strength in FY2006. The total
authorized end-strength in the Army is 512,400, which is 30,000
above the “baseline” level before the Iraq war and which, therefore,

is not at odds with current Administration policy. In practice, end-
strength has fallen short of the goal. The authorization conference
agreement also permits the Secretary of Defense to increase the
Army by an additional 20,000 troops and the Marine Corps by an
additional 4,000 troops between FY2007 and FY2009, which
suggests that end-strength may again be an issue next year.
^!Navy shipbuilding: The House authorization bill restructured Navy
shipbuilding dramatically, adding funds for three additional ships
and imposing cost caps on current ships, including a cap on the
DD(X) next generation destroyer program that would be impossible
for the Navy to meet, in effect terminating the program. The House
appropriations bill added funds for four ships and followed the
House authorization in trimming funds for the DD(X). The Senate
authorization prohibited a winner-take-all competition among
shipyards for the DD(X), requiring that the ship by built at two
shipyards, and added advance procurement funds for a second ship,
but otherwise did not substantially alter the Navy request. The
Senate appropriations bill eliminated funds for a T-AKE cargo ship
but supported the DD(X) and other requested shipbuilding. On
November 9, Representative Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the
defense appropriations subcommittee, told reporters that the²
conference agreement would preserve funding for the DD(X). The
appropriations conference agreement provides requested funding for
the DD(X), does not provide advance procurement funds for a
second ship in FY2007, provides one T-AKE cargo ship, as
requested, and adds funds for two additional Littoral Combat Ships,
as in the House bill. The authorization conference agreement
establishes cost caps on specific ships and requires the Navy to
design a new, lower-cost submarine.
^!Cost growth in major weapons programs: The House
authorization not only imposed cost caps on Navy ships, but also
trimmed and restructured funding for the Army Future Combat
System (FCS), cut funding for some satellite programs, and revised
acquisition laws to require a full analysis of alternatives any time
program cost growth exceeds 15%. The House appropriations bill
made most of the same weapons cuts. The Senate authorization bill
did not cut the FCS and made smaller cuts in satellite programs.
The Senate appropriations committee trimmed the FCS by 1/3 as
much as the House, cut some satellite programs, and reduced
funding because of delays in other programs. The appropriations
conference agreement cuts the FCS by $236 million, about midway
between the House and Senate, cuts several satellite programs
substantially, and reduces the troubled Joint Tactical Radio System
(JTRS) by $334 million. The authorization conference agreement

² Peter Cohn and Megan Scully, “Pentagon Urges Quick Action On Defense Spending Bill,”
National Journal Congress Daily, November 9, 2005.

includes several amendments to defense acquisition laws, including
a measure to improve reporting on weapons cost growth, a
requirement for a report on all major programs with unit cost growth
of 50% or more, and a requirement for a report on the role of Lead
Systems Integrators in developing major weapons. The conference
agreement on the authorization did not include the House-passed
measure that would require a full analysis of alternatives for
weapons that exceed 15% cost growth.
^!Missile defense testing: The House authorization added $100
million for additional testing of the ground-based missile defense
system that is now being deployed, but the Armed Services
Committee rejected, among other measures, a proposal to shift
oversight of missile defense testing from the Missile Defense
Agency to the DOD Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. No
amendment to strengthen testing was permitted by the House rule on
the bill. The Senate defense appropriations bill added $200 million
for the ground-based system. The appropriations conference
agreement adds $150 million for testing.
^!Reserve personnel health benefits: The House Armed Services
Committee approved an amendment in markup to make DOD’s
health program for military dependents, known as TRICARE,
available to non-deployed as well as deployed reserve personnel.
The provision was later stricken from the bill before it reached the
floor because its cost would have exceeded caps on mandatory
spending. The House narrowly rejected a motion to recommit the
bill and restore the provision. On July 21, the Senate approved a
Graham-Clinton amendment to the authorization bill to allow all
non-deployed reservists to enroll in TRICARE. The authorization
conference agreement amends the Senate provision to open
TRICARE to non-deployed reservists who are receiving
unemployment compensation or who are not eligible for employer-
provided health insurance, with a premium of 50% of the value of
the benefit.
^!New nuclear weapons: The House authorization eliminated funds
for the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator (RNEP), as did the House-passed energy and water
appropriations bill. The Senate Armed Services Committee did not
cut DOE RNEP funds. And in floor action on the energy and water
appropriations bill, the Senate rejected an amendment proposed by
Senator Feinstein to eliminate DOE funds for the RNEP. The
conference agreement on the energy and water bill eliminates RNEP
funding. On October 25, Senator Domenici released a statement
saying that the Administration supported the elimination of funds
and wanted to focus on non-nuclear weapons for destroying deeply
buried targets. Subsequently, Administration officials have
emphasized that the current policy is to test projectiles that could
penetrate hardened concrete. Some opponents of the RNEP have

complained that this leaves room for the nuclear program to be
resurrected in the future.³
Status of Legislation
On April 28, both the House and the Senate approved a conference agreement
on the FY2006 congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95). The budget
resolution recommends an overall level of funding for national defense and allocates
$843 billion to the appropriations committees as the total amount available in
discretionary funds for all regular FY2006 appropriations bills, including defense.
On May 5, the House Appropriations Committee announced its initial allocation
of funds to the 11 subcommittees under Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act. The 302(b) allocations trim defense appropriations by about $3 billion
compared to the Administration request. On June 8, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported its initial allocations, which cut $7 billion from the defense
appropriations request. Subsequent revised 302(b) allocations have not changed the
defense amounts in either chamber.
The House Armed Services Committee completed marking up its version of the
FY2006 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1815, on May 18. The House passed an
amended version on May 25. The House Appropriations Committee marked up its
version of the FY2006 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) on May 24, and the
House approved the bill on June 20. The Senate Armed Services Committee
completed marking up its version of the defense authorization bill, S. 1042, on May
12, and the Senate began floor action on July 20, but the leadership suspended
consideration after a cloture vote failed on July 26. The Senate resumed
consideration of the bill on November 4 and approved it on November 15.
The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee marked up its version of the
FY2006 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863, as in the House) on September 26.
And the full committee completed its markup on September 28. The Senate
approved the bill on October 6 after rejected a proposal to add elements of the
defense authorization bill as an amendment.
Conference agreements on the authorization and appropriations bills were filed
on December 18 and approved in the House on December 19 and in the Senate on
December 21. The Senate, however, removed a provision from the defense
appropriations bill to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
passed an enrolling resolution instructing the Clerk of the House to delete that
measure. The House approved the enrolling resolution on December 22. The
President signed the defense appropriations bill into law on December 30, and he
signed the defense authorization into law on January 6.

³ See, for example, Jeffrey Lewis, “NNSA Denies Axeing (sic) RNEP,” November 15, 2005,
at [http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/].

Table 1A. Status of FY2006 Defense Authorization (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)
Full CommitteeConference Report
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Approval
ReportPassageReportPassageReportPublic LawHouseSenateHouseSenate
H.Rept. 5/25/05 S.Rept. 11/15/05H.Rept.12/19/0512/21/05 1/6/06

5/18/05 5/12/05109-89(390-39)109-69(98-0) 109-360(374-41)(v.v.)P.L. 109-

5/20/055/17/0512/18/05 163
Table 1B. Status of FY2006 Defense Appropriations (H.R. 2863)
SubcommitteeConference Report
MarkupApproval
House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Public
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.Rept. 6/20/05S.Rept.10/6/05 H.Rept.12/19/0512/21/0512/30/05

5/24/05 9/26/05 109-119 (398-19)109-141 (97-0)109-359(301-106)(93-0) P.L. 109-

6/10/05 9/28/0512/18/05 148
Table 2A. FY2006 House and Senate Defense Authorization Bills, Funding
by Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^Hou^s^e^Vers^us^Sena^t^e^Vers^us^Vers^us
^Request^P^a^sse^d^Request^P^a^sse^d^Request^Co^nf^.^Request
^Military^P^e^rs^onⁿ^e^l^108.9^108.8^-^0.1^109.2⁺^0.2^108.9^—
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^&^Maiⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^c^e^126.9^124.3^-^2.6^126.4^-^0.5^125.7^-^1.2
^Procu^r^em^en^t^76.6^79.1⁺^2.5^78.2⁺^1.6^77.0⁺^0.3
^R^D^T^&^E^69.4^69.5⁺^0.1^69.8⁺^0.5^70.2⁺^0.8
^Militar^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ⁷^.8⁸^.⁰⁺⁰^.²⁸^.1⁺⁰^.3⁸^.³⁺⁰^.⁵
^Fam^ily^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g⁴^.2^4.2^—^4.1^-^0.1⁴^.1^-⁰^.2
^MilC^on^/Fam^Hsⁱⁿ^g^R^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^—^—^—^-⁰^.1^-⁰^.1^-⁰^.3^-⁰^.3
^O^t^h^e^{r Prog}^ram^s^22.3^22.2^-^0.1^22.4⁺^0.1^22.4⁺^0.1
^Re^vo^l^vⁱ^{ng & M}^a^na^ge^m^e^nt³^.¹³^.²^—²^.⁵^-⁰^.⁶³^.¹^—
^Oth^e^{r DOD Discretio}ⁿ^a^ry^—⁰^.¹^—⁰^.¹^—⁰^.¹^—
^Man^d^at^ory^Prog^ram^s^1.8¹^.8^—^3.7⁺^2.0¹^.8^—
^Gen^e^{ral P}^r^ov^is^ion^s^—^—^—^-¹^.3^-¹^.3^-⁰^.1^-⁰^.1
^T^o^tal^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{of D}^e^fen^s^e^421.1^421.3⁺^0.2^423.2⁺^2.1^421.3⁺^0.2
^A^t^o^m^{ic En}^er^g^y^Def^eⁿ^s^{e A}^c^tiv^ities¹⁷^.⁵¹⁷^.⁰^-⁰^.⁵¹⁷^.⁰^-⁰^.⁵¹⁷^.⁰^-⁰^.⁵
^Oth^e^r^Def^eⁿ^s^e-^Related^A^c^tiv^ities³^.2³^.²^—³^.²^—³^.²^—
^T^o^tal^N^a^ti^on^al^D^e^fen^s^e^441.8^441.6^-^0.3^443.5⁺^1.6^441.5^-^0.3
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^A^u^t^h^ori^zatⁱ^oⁿ^—^49.0⁺^49.0^50.0⁺^50.0^50.8⁺^50.8
^Sources^:^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^89;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^69;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^360.

Table 2B. FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations by Bill and Title
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^Vers^us^Vers^us^Vers^us
^Request^H^o^use^Request^Sena^t^e^Request^Co^nf^.^Request
^Departm^e^{nt of Defens}^{e Appropriations}^B^{ill, H.R. 2863}
^Militar^y^P^e^r^s^oⁿⁿ^e^l⁹⁸^.²⁹⁷^.⁴^-⁰^.⁸⁹⁵^.⁷^-²^.⁶⁹⁷^.⁰^-¹^.²
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d Mai}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^c^e^126.9^124.1^-^2.8^125.0^-^1.9^123.6^-^3.3
^Procu^r^em^en^t^76.6^76.8⁺^0.2^75.8^-^0.8^76.5^-^0.1
^R^D^T^&^E^69.4^71.7⁺^2.3^70.4⁺^1.1^72.1⁺^2.8
^Re^vo^l^vⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^Fund^s³^.¹²^.⁸^-⁰^.⁴¹^.⁷^-1^.⁴²^.²^-⁰^.⁹
^O^t^h^e^{r D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e Prog}^ram^s^22.3^22.5⁺^0.2^22.8⁺^0.5^22.7⁺^0.4
^R^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^0.6⁰^.6^+0.0^0.7⁺^0.1⁰^.7^+0.1
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^Provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^0.1^-^1.6^-^1.7^-^1.9^-^2.0^-^2.2^-^2.2
^H^eal^t^h^A^ccru^a^l^S^c^orek^eepiⁿ^g^*^10.7^10.7^—^10.7^—^10.7^—
^T^o^tal^R^e^gu^l^a^{r A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^407.9^404.9^-^3.0^400.9^-^7.0^403.5^-^4.4
¹^%^A^c^ro^ss-^th^e-^B^o^ard^Cu^t^—^—^—^—^—^-⁴^.1^-⁴^.1
^T^o^tal^R^e^gu^l^a^{r A}^p^p^.^wⁱ^th^A^T^{B C}^u^t^407.9^—^—^—^—^399.4^-^8.5
^A^d^d^itioⁿ^a^{l A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^f^o^r^W^a^r^—⁴⁵^.³⁺⁴⁵^.³⁵¹^.³⁺⁵¹^.³⁵⁰^.⁰⁺⁵⁰^.⁰
^T^o^tal^wⁱ^th^A^d^dⁱ^ti^on^al^{for W}^a^r^407.9^450.2⁺^42.2^452.2⁺^44.3^449.4⁺^41.5
^{DOD Program}^s^{in M}^{ilitary Cons}^truction^{/VA Appropriations}^B^{ill, H.R. 2528}
^Militar^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ⁵^.3⁵^.⁸⁺⁰^.⁵⁵^.9⁺⁰^.5⁶^.²⁺⁰^.⁹
^N^A^T^O^S^ecu^ri^t^y^In^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^Prog^ram⁰^.2^0.2^-^0.0⁰^.2^-⁰^.0^0.2^-^0.0
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g⁴^.2^4.2^-^0.0⁴^.1^-⁰^.1^4.0^-^0.2
^Bas^e^R^ealⁱ^gⁿ^m^en^t^an^{d C}^l^os^u^r^e²^.3^1.9^-^0.3¹^.9^-⁰^.4^1.8^-^0.5
^Gen^e^{ral P}^r^ov^is^ion⁰^.1^0.1⁰^.0^—^-⁰^.1^—^-⁰^.1
^T^o^tal^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{of D}^e^fen^s^e^12.1^12.3⁺^0.1^12.1^-^0.0^12.2⁺^0.1
¹^%^A^c^ro^ss-^th^e-^B^o^ard^Cu^t^—^—^—^—^—^-⁰^.1^-⁰^.1
^To^ta^{l w}ⁱ^{th ATB}^Cut¹²^.¹^—^—^—^—¹²^.¹^—
^G^r^a^{nd To}^t^a^{l f}^o^{r Depa}^rt^m^e^nt^o^f^Def^e^{nse in Def}^e^{nse a}^{nd M}^ilit^a^r^y^Co^nst^r^uctⁱ^oⁿ^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns
^T^o^tal^R^e^gu^l^a^{r A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^420.0^417.2^-^2.8^413.0^-^7.0^411.5^-^8.5
^T^o^tal^Iⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^A^d^dⁱ^ti^on^al^{for W}^a^r^420.0^462.5⁺^42.5^464.3⁺^44.3^461.5⁺^41.5
^Sources^:^Fo^r^d^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^{ill — r}^e^q^u^{est an}^d^coⁿ^f^er^en^{ce ag}^r^eem^en^{t b}^y^{title f}^r^o^m^Coⁿ^g^r^essioⁿ^{al B}^u^d^g^et
^Of^fⁱ^{ce; Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s b}^y^CRS^f^r^o^m^Ho^u^s^e-^an^d^Sen^a^te-^p^assed^b^{ills. Fo}^r^m^ilitar^y^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^/^VA^b^{ill —}
^f^r^o^m^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee tab}^l^{e in}^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^{, N}^o^v^e^m^b^{er 18, 2005. H}^o^u^s^e^am^ouⁿ^t^s^s^h^ow^h^e^re
ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^m^ilitar^y^p^e^r^s^oⁿⁿ^e^{l an}^d^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^an^d^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^ce^titles^o^r^igⁱⁿ^ally^p^r^o^v^id^edⁱⁿ^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e Militar}^y
^Qu^ality^o^f^Lⁱ^f^e^/VA^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ill^th^{at w}^e^r^e^p^r^o^v^id^edⁱⁿ^th^{e d}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^{ill in}^th^{e co}ⁿ^f^er^en^{ce ag}^r^eem^en^t.
^T^h^{is tab}^l^{e sh}^o^w^{s o}ⁿ^ly^{DOD am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s in}^th^e^m^ilitary^coⁿ^s^tru^c^tioⁿ^/^VA^b^{ill an}^dⁿ^o^{t am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s f}^o^{r th}^{e VA}^{. A}^c^ro^ss-^th^e-^b^o^a^rd
^cu^{t to}^{tals b}^y^CRS.
^{* N}^o^te:^A^ccr^u^a^{l p}^a^y^m^en^{ts f}^o^r^m^ilitar^y^r^e^tir^{ee h}^ealth^car^{e b}^eⁿ^e^f^{its ar}^{e p}^e^r^m^an^en^{t ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{. A}^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s ar}^{e g}^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly
^no^{t sho}^w^{n in Ho}^use^aⁿ^d^Se^na^te^r^e^p^o^r^{ts o}ⁿ^the^d^e^fe^nse^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^ia^tio^{ns b}^ill,^b^u^{t a}^r^e^sc^o^r^e^d^b^y^C^B^O^a^s^a^p^a^r^t^o^f^a^nnua^l
^def^eⁿ^s^{e appropriation}^s^an^{d cou}ⁿ^t^ag^ain^s^{t dis}^c^retion^a^ry^s^p^en^din^g^tot^a^l^s^an^{d ag}^ain^s^{t 302(b) s}^u^bcom^m^{ittee allocation}^s^.
^Iⁿ^p^r^io^r^y^e^a^r^s,^the^s^e^a^m^o^{unts w}^e^r^e^inc^l^ud^e^d^{in a}^nnua^{l m}^ilita^r^y^p^e^r^s^o^nne^{l a}^p^p^r^o^p^r^ia^tio^ns.
^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Table 2C. Other DOD Emergency Funding in FY2006 Defense
Appropriations Bill, Division B
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
^Reques^t^Conference
^H^u^rrica^{ne Respo}ⁿ^{se a}^{nd Repa}^ir
^Military^P^e^rs^oⁿⁿ^e^{l 554,535}^554,535
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d Mai}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^ce^1,952,218^1,953,318
^Procu^r^em^en^t^2,288,763^2,309,778
^R^D^T^&^{E 66,532}^41,382
^Re^vo^l^vⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^Fund^s⁷^,²²⁴⁷^,²²⁴
^T^r^u^s^t^F^uⁿ^d^s^:^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^s^a^ry^S^a^l^e^s^S^u^rch^a^rg^e^44,341^44,341
^O^t^h^e^{r D}^o^D^Prog^ram^s^201,860^201,860
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^R^e^du^ctⁱ^oⁿ^—^-^737,089
^Military^C^oⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tion^973,184^918,263
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^495,073^460,073
^T^o^tal^Hu^rri^can^e^R^e^s^p^on^s^e^an^d^R^e^p^aⁱ^r^6,583,730^5,753,685
^P^a^ndemⁱ^{c F}^l^{u P}^repa^redness
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d Mai}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^{ce, D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^Wi^de^10,000^10,000
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e H}^eal^t^h^Prog^ram^120,000^120,000
^T^o^tal^Pan^d^e^mⁱ^{c Fl}^u^Prep^aredⁿ^e^s^s^130,000^130,000
^Re^sc^issioⁿ^s
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d Mai}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^{ce, D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^Wi^de^-^106,000^-^80,000
^R^D^T^&^{E A}^r^m^y^-^48,600^—
^T^o^tal^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^-^154,600^-80,000
^G^r^an^d^T^o^tal^,^Hu^rri^can^e^s^,^Fl^u^,^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s⁶^,559,130^5,803,685
^Source:^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^359.
Key Issues for Congress
A paramount issue in the FY2005 defense debate was whether Congress should
provide funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan before early in calendar year
2005, when the Bush Administration said it planned to request supplemental
appropriations. Ultimately, Congress provided $25 billion for ongoing operations as
a bridge until it could act on FY2005 supplemental funding after the turn of the year.
Subsequently, in May 2005, Congress approved an additional $76 billion in
supplemental appropriations to cover the remainder of FY2005.⁴
With action barely completed on FY2005 funding, advance funding for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan again became an issue as Congress took up the
FY2006 budget. In the FY2006 congressional budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95,
Congress specifically exempted $50 billion in emergency spending for military
contingency operations from a potential point of order in the Senate. [Note: This did

⁴ See CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.

not, in fact, limit the amount Congress could provide for Iraq and Afghanistan in
FY2006. While the budget resolution specifically set aside $50 billion, it also
exempted any amount for military contingency operations from spending limits in the
House and any amount for any defense purpose in the Senate. Under these
provisions, Congress could have provided more than $50 billion without triggering
a point of order either in the House of in the Senate — see below for a detailed
discussion.]
As Congress considered the FY2006 authorization and appropriations bills, one
issue was whether to provide another bridge fund for operations in FY2006, and, if
so, how much, or whether, perhaps, to provide the full estimated costs. The
appropriations conference agreement ultimately provided $50 billion.
A number of other issues were also on the agenda in Congress this year,
including,
^!Whether Congress should, while not directly setting a date for
withdrawing from Iraq, require the Administration to establish a
strategy and measures of progress that will lead to withdrawal;
^!Whether the appropriations committees should trim defense funding
in order to limit cuts in non-defense discretionary programs;
^!Whether Congress should provide additional military personnel
benefits, including (1) greater access to DOD-provided health
insurance for non-deployed military reservists and their dependents
and (2) permanently increased death gratuities and insurance;
^!Whether Congress should require a substantial increase in active
duty end-strength, particularly in the Army, to ease pressures on the
force caused by operations abroad;
^!Whether Congress should increase funding for navy shipbuilding or
should approve advance appropriations or other novel funding
mechanisms;
^!Whether Congress should accept or reject Administration plans to
retire an aircraft carrier and reduce the number of deployable carriers
from 12 to 11;
^!Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination of C-
130J cargo aircraft procurement (a proposal the Administration
subsequently withdrew);
^!Whether Congress should approve the proposed termination, after
FY2008, of F/A-22 fighter procurement;
^!How Congress should exercise oversight over a number of major
weapons programs in which cost have grown or development has
been delayed, including the Army Future Combat System, missile
defense, the multi-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and a number of
space-launch and satellite systems;
^!Whether Congress should restructure priorities in the
Administration’s missile defense development program;
^!How Congress should oversee and finance Army plans for a far-
reaching reorganization of its combat forces to increase the number
of deployable combat brigades and to turn brigades, rather than
divisions, into the major unit of action in future operations;

^!Whether Congress should take steps to regulate the Defense
Department’s restructuring its civilian personnel system following
Congress’s approval, in the FY2004 National Defense Authorization
Act, of the Pentagon’s request for broad authority to reform civil
service pay and performance rules;
^!Whether Congress should approve the Defense Department’s request
for changes in environmental laws and regulations governing
military training in addition to changes Congress approved in the
FY2004 defense authorization;
^!Whether Congress should approve Department of Energy plans to
study new nuclear weapons, including the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, and whether Congress should establish guidelines for the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program;
^!Whether Congress should require changes in DOD policies affecting
a number of “social issues,” including the deployment of women in
combat support units, abortions at military facilities abroad, and
handling of sexual abuse cases;
^!Whether Congress should take any action to restrict military base
closures, even as the a formal base closure process was proceeding;
and
^!Whether Congress should take any action on a number of other
issues, including treatment of military detainees, acquisition of
tanker aircraft, and strengthening of defense “Buy American”
requirements.
The following discussion provides background information on each of these issues
and discusses congressional action to date.
Iraq Policy and Troop Withdrawals
In 2005, Congress began to debate measures aimed at establishing the
conditions that would ultimately permit a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The
Administration and supporters of its Iraq policy insist that military operations in Iraq
are making progress and that political conditions are improving. But critics complain
that it is difficult to see progress on key indicators of success, including the number
of attacks against U.S. soldiers or elements of the new Iraqi regime; the number,
quality, and reliability of trained Iraqi security forces; the overall level of security in
Iraq; and the state of Iraq’s economic infrastructure. No one in Congress so far has
proposed a measure would directly establish a date for withdrawal from Iraq.
Administration supporters argue that it would be a mistake to do so because it would
allow regime opponents to plan for a U.S. exit and might dishearten regime
supporters. Some critics of the U.S. invasion nonetheless oppose withdrawal on
different grounds. Having destroyed the previous regime, some say, the United
States has an obligation to ensure that a post-occupation Iraq not descend into civil
war. But this year, for the first time, there have been efforts in congress to put
pressure on the Administration, first, to define measurable indicators of progress or
deterioration and, second, to define when progress might lead to U.S. troop
wi t hdrawal s.

Congressional Action. On May 25, the House rejected by a vote of 128-300
an amendment to the defense authorization bill by Representative Woolsey stating
the sense of Congress that the President should develop a plan as soon as practicable
to provide for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq and transmit
the plan to Congress.
Later in debate on the defense appropriations bill on June 20, House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi proposed an amendment requiring that the President submit a
report to Congress “on a strategy for success in Iraq that identifies criteria to be used
by the Government of the United States to determine when it is appropriate to begin
the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.” The amendment required
the report to include criteria for assessing Iraqi security forces and for achieving
required capabilities; an estimate of the number of Iraqi forces required to perform
functions U.S. and allied forces now perform; the number of advisors needed to
support the Iraqi government; and measures of political stability in Iraq with
milestones for progress. The amendment did not require setting a date for
withdrawal. The Rules Committee did not agree to exempt the amendment from a
House rule prohibiting legislation on an appropriations bill, and the amendment was
subsequently ruled out of order.
Later, on July 20, by a vote of 291-137, the House approved an amendment to
the foreign affairs authorization bill (H.R. 2601) by Representative Ros-Lehtinen
stating that calls for “an early withdrawal” from Iraq are counterproductive and that
it is U.S. policy to withdraw only “when it is clear that United States national security
and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been or are about to
be achieved.”
Meanwhile, on July 27, General George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces
in Iraq, commented that substantial withdrawals may begin as early as next spring or
summer, if progress continues.⁵ Subsequently, General Casey became less willing
to project troop reductions.
The Senate debated U.S. Iraq policy extensively when it resumed action on the
authorization bill in November. On November 15, the Senate rejected a Levin
amendment that would, in effect, have required the Administration to establish a
schedule that would tie withdrawals of troops to progress in Iraq. But the Senate
agreed to a very modestly revised version of the Levin amendment without the final
provision on troop withdrawals. As agreed to, the amendment states that 2006
should be a transition year in which Iraqi security forces take on increasing
responsibility for security and that this should lead to U.S. troop withdrawals, and it
requires Administration reports on a schedule for improved conditions in Iraq that
would permit the redeployment of U.S. forces. The authorization conference
agreement includes the Senate amendment with some changes. The one substantive
change is to remove any reference to a “schedule” and replace it with “plan.”

⁵ Yochi J. Dreazen, “U.S. Opens Door For Big Pullback In Iraq Next Year,” Wall Street
Journal, July 28, 2005, p. 1.

On November 17, Representative John Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the
defense appropriations subcommittee, recast the national debate about Iraq when he
called for redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq as soon as practical. His key argument
was that the presence of U.S. forces was making the security situation worse and that
Iraqi forces must take on the burden of combating the insurgency. On November 18,
in an effort to force a vote against the Murtha proposal, House Republicans brought
up a resolution by Representative Hunter (H.Res. 571) expressing the sense of the
House calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. House Democrats, including
Representative Murtha, generally denounced the measure as a partisan ploy and it
was rejected by a vote of 403-6.
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
The FY2006 defense budget request did not include funding for ongoing
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration submitted a
supplemental FY2005 budget request to Congress on February 14, 2005, a week after
it submitted its regular FY2006 budget, and, in May, Congress agreed to provide $76
billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in FY2005. The FY2006
regular request, however, covered only DOD’s normal peacetime funding
requirements. Administration officials said they again planned to request funding for
Iraq and Afghanistan in FY2006 in a supplemental appropriations measure to be
submitted early in 2006.
Should Ongoing War Costs be Funded in Regular or in
Supplemental Appropriations? A key issue in Congress was whether Congress
should continue to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with
supplemental appropriations or move these costs into the regular defense budget.
Critics of using supplementals argue that the monthly costs of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan have long since become predictable and therefore belong in the regular
defense budget. They have also expressed concern about what appears to some to be
an increasing number of programs being financed in the supplemental but that do not
fall within what is directly related to costs of ongoing operations including costs of
reorganizing the Army and some weapons acquisition.⁶ Critics complain, finally, that
because supplemental legislation tends to move through Congress quickly, there is
little time for Congress to exercise oversight, and supplementals are not subject to
review by the authorizing committees.
The Administration continues to favor the use of supplementals to fund military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for a number of reasons. Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld has argued that “Supplemental appropriations are prepared much closer to
the time the funds are needed.... This allows for somewhat more accurate estimates
of costs [than in the regular budget cycle], and more importantly, quicker access to
the needed funds.”⁷

⁶ Senator John McCain, quoted in Inside the Army, “Lawmakers Question Proposed FY2006
Budget, Calling Request ‘Skewed’,” February 14, 2005.
⁷ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services
Committee, February 16, 2005.

The Administration has also argued that if costs for Iraq and Afghanistan were
included in the regular budget, they would be difficult to remove once operations
ceased. On February 9, 2005, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director
Joshua Bolten told the Senate Budget Committee that “as a budgeting matter, it is
very important that we not let [war costs] float into the base, because then I think we
will have been fiscally irresponsible in not preventing those costs from being
permanently in the defense base.”⁸
One element of the debate is what precedents earlier operations provide. In
2003, a CRS memo reported that the initial funding for most conflicts — from World
War II, to Korea, to Vietnam, to the 1991 Persian Gulf War — was generally
provided through supplemental appropriations.⁹ That memo did not, however,
address funding for wars after the initial phases. On that question, the precedents are
mixed. While the Korean conflict was financed mainly with supplementals, World
War II and Vietnam were funded both with supplementals and with regular
appropriations. In Vietnam, the Administration first asked for a $700 million
supplemental for FY1965 in May of 1965; then for a $1.7 billion addition to the
regular FY1966 defense appropriations bill, which was requested as a budget
amendment in the summer of 1965; and then, in January of 1966, as troop levels in
Southeast Asia were climbing, a supplemental of $12.3 billion for FY1966 and
regular appropriations of $10.3 billion for FY1967, both requested when the FY1967
budget was submitted.
So, in the case of Vietnam, the Johnson Administration asked for emergency
supplementals when necessary, but also requested funds in regular appropriations
bills as soon as those bills were on the congressional agenda, even though troop
levels were in flux and the duration of the conflict could not be foreseen.
Most recently, CRS reviewed precedents for funding of ongoing military
contingency operations in the 1990s. CRS reported that in action on the FY1996
defense appropriations bill, Congress, on its own initiative, decided to include
funding for ongoing operations in Southwest Asia in regular appropriations bills
rather than in supplementals, and it directed the Administration to request funding
for ongoing military operations in regular bills in the future. Subsequently, in the
FY1997 defense budget and in later requests, the Clinton Administration included
funding for ongoing operations, including operations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia, and
Kosovo, in the regular defense budget.¹⁰
Congressional Action. In floor debate on the FY2005 supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, Senator Byrd offered an amendment, SA 464,

⁸ Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten, testifying before the Senate
Budget Committee, February 9, 2005.
⁹ CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Budgeting for Wars in the Past, by
Stephen Daggett, March 27, 2003.
¹⁰ CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Funding for Military Contingency
Operations in the Regular Defense Appropriations Bills in the 1990s, by Stephen Daggett,
April 6, 2005. See also CRS Report RL32141, Funding for Military and Peacekeeping
Operations: Recent History and Precedents, by Jeff Chamberlin.

expressing the sense of the Senate that funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
after FY2006 should be requested and appropriated in regular annual funding bills.
The amendment passed by a vote of 61-31 on April 28, 2005. Notably, Senator
Stevens, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator
Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, both supported the
amendment. The appropriations conference agreement includes the Byrd amendment
as a statement of the sense of the Senate.
If Senator Warner and Senator Stevens had subsequently chosen to propose
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular FY2006 defense bills, there were no
procedural hurdles in the way. Funding caps in the FY2006 congressional budget
resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, do not appear to be a barrier. To be permissible in view
of caps on overall discretionary spending established by the budget resolution, the
appropriations bills would have to designate funding for operations abroad as either
as “defense emergency appropriations” (in the Senate) or as funding for “contingency
operations in support of the global war on terrorism” (in the House and, for up to $50
billion, in the Senate) — see the box below for a further explanation.
Provisions of the FY2006 Concurrent Budget Resolution
(H.Con.Res. 95) Permitting Additional Funding for
Overseas Military Contingency Operations
The budget resolution allows a point of order to be made against a provision
in an appropriations bill that designates funds as an “emergency” unless the
funding meets certain restrictive criteria. To constitute an emergency, under
§402(c) funding must be
(A) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial);
(B) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time;
(C) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;
(D) .... unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(E) not permanent, temporary in nature.
Presumably, a point of order could apply against funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
under that provision.
But other sections of the budget resolution essentially void that possibility.
Under §402(a), in the House, if funding is designated as being for “contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism,” then caps on spending do not
apply. Under §402(b)(11), in the Senate, up to $50 billion for contingency
operations in support of the global war on terrorism is specifically exempted from
spending caps. That would appears to limit additional funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan to $50 billion. But under §402(b)(10) any discretionary
appropriations for defense designated as emergency appropriations are exempted
from a point of order, which makes the $50 billion figure moot.
So the budget resolution provides no specific restriction on the amounts that
may be appropriated for military operations abroad — the spending limits that the
resolution establishes do not apply to additional funds for that purpose.

That said, in its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the Senate
Armed Services Committee provided $50 billion in additional funding for operations
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the House-passed authorization recommends
$49.1 billion, the House-passed defense appropriations bill provides $45.2 billion,
and the Senate-passed defense appropriations bill provides $50.0 billion. The
appropriations conference agreement provides $50 billion.

Table 3. Additional Funding for Overseas Operations
(millions of dollars)
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^Auth.^Auth.^Auth.^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.
^M^{ilitary Pers}^onnel⁹^,390.0^11,596.0^11,788.3⁸^,015.8⁶^,206.6⁶^,206.6
^A^r^m^y^6,689.3⁹^,517.6⁸^,827.¹⁵^,877.4⁵^,009.4⁴^,713.2
^A^r^m^y^R^e^s^e^rv^e^137.2^—^137.2^138.8^121.5^138.8
^A^r^m^y^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^ard^67.0^—^72.3^67.0^232.3^234.4
^N^a^v^y^300.0^350.0^276.0^282.0⁰^.2^144.0
^Nav^y^Reserv^e^—^—^—^—¹⁰^.⁰¹⁰^.⁰
^Mariⁿ^e^C^o^rps^662.6^811.8^662.6^667.8^455.4^455.0
^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce¹^,011.0^916.6^977.8^982.8^372.5^508.0
^Aⁱ^{r Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Gu}^ard^—^—⁵^.³^—⁵^.³³^.2
^Ben^e^fⁱ^t^s^522.9^—^830.0^—^—^—
^Op^erati^on^an^d^M^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^c^e^33,686.4^35,302.6^32,772.2^32,238.⁶^32,405.4^33,217.8
^A^r^m^y^20,305.0^22,139.8^19,828.²^20,398.5^21,915.5^21,348.9
^A^r^m^y^R^e^s^e^rv^e^26.4^—^44.4^35.7^53.7^48.2
^A^r^m^y^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^ard^159.5^—^196.3^159.5^201.3^183.0
^N^a^v^y^1,838.0¹^,944.3¹^,658.⁰¹^,907.8¹^,806.4¹^,810.5
^Nav^y^R^e^s^e^rv^e^—^2.4⁹^.4^—^9.4⁶^.4
^Mariⁿ^e^C^o^rps¹^,791.8¹^,808.2¹^,588.3¹^,827.2¹^,275.8¹^,833.1
^Mariⁿ^e^C^o^rps^R^e^s^e^rv^e^—^—^4.0^24.0^28.0^28.0
^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce³^,195.4²^,635.6²^,^404.2³^,559.9²^,014.9²^,483.9
^Aⁱ^{r Fo}^{rce Reserv}^e^—^—⁷^.⁰^—⁷^.⁰⁵^.0
^Aⁱ^{r Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Gu}^ard^—^—¹³^.⁴^—¹³^.⁴⁷^.2
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^Wi^de^2,870.3³^,470.1¹^,778.4^826.0^980.0^805.0
^Iraqi^F^r^eedom^F^uⁿ^d^1,000.0³^,302.²⁵^,240.7³^,500.0⁴^,100.0⁴^,658.7
^C^l^as^sⁱ^fⁱ^{ed Prog}^ram^s^2,500.0^—^[2,500.0]^—^—^—
^Oth^{er p}^r^ogram^s²^,546.0^977.8²^,233.4²^,055.0²^,744.0²^,544.0
^Workⁱⁿ^g^C^a^pi^t^a^l^F^uⁿ^d^s¹^,700.0^—^2,055.0²^,055.0²^,716.4²^,516.4
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e H}^eal^t^h^Prog^ram^846.0^977.8^178.4^—^—^—
^D^r^{ug I}ⁿ^t^e^r^dⁱ^c^tⁱ^o^n,^A^f^ghaⁿⁱ^st^aⁿ^—^—^—^—²⁷^.⁶²⁷^.⁶
^Procu^rem^en^t³^,371.8¹^,100.2³^,477.3²^,857.3⁹^,851.7⁷^,980.9
^Aⁱ^rcraf^t^Procu^r^em^en^t^,^A^r^m^y^—^70.3^40.6^—^348.1^232.1
^{Missile P}^r^o^c^u^r^em^en^{t, A}^r^m^y^—^—^—^—⁸⁰^.⁰⁵⁵^.⁰
^Wpn^s^&^T^r^ack^{ed C}^o^m^b^at^V^e^hⁱ^cl^es^{., A}^r^m^y^574.6^27.8^485.5^455.4^910.7^860.2
^A^m^m^uⁿ^ition^,^A^r^m^y^105.7^—^109.5^13.9^335.8^273.0
^O^t^h^e^{r Procu}^r^em^en^t^,^A^r^m^y^1,945.4^271.7¹^,659.8¹^,501.3³^,916.0³^,174.9
^Aⁱ^rcraf^t^Procu^r^em^en^t^,^N^a^v^y^—^183.8^15.0^—^151.5^138.8
^Weapon^s^Procu^r^em^en^t^,^N^a^v^y^36.8^165.5^56.7^81.7^56.7^116.9
^A^m^m^uⁿ^ition^,^Nav^y^/Marin^{e C}^o^rps^144.7^104.5^147.9^144.7^48.5^38.9
^O^t^h^e^{r Procu}^r^em^en^t^,^N^a^v^y^15.3^30.8^—^48.8^116.0^49.1
^Procu^r^em^en^t^,^Mariⁿ^e^C^o^rps^445.4^89.2^644.4^389.9²^,303.7¹^,710.1
^Aⁱ^rcraf^t^Procu^r^em^en^t^,^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce^—^104.7^214.0^115.3^118.1^115.3
^{Missile P}^r^o^c^u^r^em^en^{t, A}ⁱ^{r Fo}^rce^—^—^—^—¹⁷^.⁰¹⁷^.⁰
^O^t^h^e^{r Procu}^r^em^en^t^,^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce^—^51.9^—^2.4^17.5^17.5
^Procu^r^em^en^t^,^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^Wi^de^103.9^—^103.9^103.9^132.1^182.1
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^{ard &}^R^e^s^e^rv^{e Equ}ⁱ^pm^en^t^—^—^—^—^1,300.0¹^,000.0
^R^e^s^e^arch^&^D^e^vel^o^p^m^en^t^75.0^—^83.7^88.1^92.3^50.6
^R^D^T^&^{E A}^r^m^y^—^—^8.7^—^72.0^13.1
^RDT^&^{E Nav}^y^—^—^—¹³^.¹^—^—
^RDT^&^{E A}ⁱ^{r Fo}^rce^—^—^—^—¹⁷^.⁸¹²^.⁵
^R^D^T^&^{E D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^Wi^de^75.0^—^75.0^75.0²^.5^25.0
^T^o^tal^49,069.2^50,000.0^50,355.0^45,254.6^51,300.0^50,000.0
^Sources^:^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^359;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^360.

Guns versus Butter — 302(b) Allocations
In 2004, for the first time in many years, Congress debated a high-profile
proposal to trim defense spending as part of broader efforts to reduce the federal
budget deficit. In the Senate, the Budget Committee reported a budget resolution for
FY2005 (S.Con.Res. 95) that recommended $7 billion less for defense than the
Administration had requested. On the floor, however, the Senate voted
overwhelmingly to restore the funds by a margin of 95-4. In the House, Budget
Committee Chairman Jim Nussle considered but then dropped a proposal to
recommend $2 billion less for defense than the Administration requested.
But even though the FY2005 budget resolution did not recommend a reduction,
in the end, appropriators trimmed about $2 billion from the Administration request
in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4613. P.L. 108-287), making that
amount available partly for other defense bills, including military construction, and
partly for non-defense programs. This has been a recurring process. The
appropriations committee defense cuts in FY2005 did not go as far in FY2004, when
the committee rescinded $3.5 billion in funds in the regular FY2004 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2658, P.L. 108-87) and another $1.8 billion in the FY2004
omnibus appropriations measure (H.R. 2673, P.L. 108-199) as means of offsetting
funding in non-defense bills. (The $1.8 billion rescission in the omnibus bill,
however, was later restored in the emergency funding title of the FY2005 defense
appropriations bill.)
This year the debate on the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) did not
feature a face-to-face showdown over defense spending like the one last year. But,
again, as last year and as in the FY2004 budget, in the end, overall deficit pressures
appear to have led the appropriations committees to trim defense as a means of
moderating cuts in non-defense programs needed to keep within caps on total
discretionary spending.¹¹ Budget constraints may well become progressively more
severe over the next few years.¹²
Congressional Action. Under Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act, the annual congressional budget resolution must specify the total amount of
discretionary funds available to the appropriations committees. The committees are
then required by Section 302(b) to report back how those funds will be allocated
among the various subcommittees. These reports, thus, are known as the “302(b)
allocations.” Budget limits are enforced by establishing a point of order against a
reported bill or an amendment to a bill that would exceed each subcommittee’s

302(b) allocation, though the full appropriations committees may, and often do,

revise the allocations over the course of the year. So the 302(b) allocations are a
critical part of the appropriations process that determine how much will be available
in total for each bill.

¹¹ See Andrew Taylor, “Lewis May Shift Defense Spending,” CQ Today, April 26, 2005.
¹² See CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and
Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.

The FY2006 congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) provides a 302(a)
allocation to the appropriations committees of $843.02 billion. On May 5, House
Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis released his proposed initial 302(b)
allocations. These allocations were later revised on May 12, May 18, and June 22,
but the revisions did not change the defense figures. For the defense subcommittee,
the allocation was $363.44 billion, which is $3.28 billion below the Administration
request for programs under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. For the military quality
of life/veterans affairs subcommittee, the allocation is $85.158 billion, which is $1.05
billion above the request. The 302(b) allocations do not determine how the funds
will be divided among programs under each subcommittee, so some of the extra
money for the MQL/VA subcommittee could be for the Department of Defense and
some for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The allocations allowed about $2.9
billion more for non-defense programs than the request — in effect, roughly $3
billion was shifted from defense to non-defense programs.
Table 4. House and Senate Initial 302(b) Allocations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Allo^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ^Allo^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Allo^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ^vs^FY²⁰⁰⁵^v^s^Request
^H^o^{use Appro}^p^ria^t^io^{ns Co}^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^352,424^366,720^363,440^+11,016^-³^,280
^[L^es^s^r^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^{and ot}^her^s^a^vi^ngs^]^[^5,164]^{[ — ]}^[^5,000]^[-164]^[+^5,000]
^[Defens^e^pr^ogr^{am level}^]^[^357,588]^[366,720]^[368,^440]^[+10,852]^[+1,720]
^Militar^y^Qu^ality^o^f^Lⁱ^f^e^/VA⁷⁹^,²⁷⁹⁸⁴^,¹⁰⁸⁸⁵^,¹⁵⁸⁺⁵^,8⁷⁹⁺¹^,0⁵⁰
^O^t^h^e^{r S}^u^bcom^mⁱ^t^t^ees^387,578^391,475^394,422^+6,844^+2,947
^T^o^t^a^l^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^s^p^en^diⁿ^g^819,281^842,303^843,020^+23,739⁺⁷¹⁷
^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^ria^t^io^{ns Co}^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^—^407,706^400,706^—^-⁷^,000
^Militar^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^/^Veter^aⁿ^s^A^f^f^a^ir^s^—⁴³^,⁵⁸⁵⁴⁴^,³⁸²^—⁺⁷⁹⁷
^O^t^h^e^{r S}^u^bcom^mⁱ^t^t^ees^—^390,974^397,932^—^+6,958
^T^o^t^a^l^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^s^p^en^diⁿ^g^—^842,265^843,020^—⁺⁷⁵⁵
^Sources^:^H^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee, May}^{5, 2005, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{78, May}^{12, 2005;}^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{85, May}^18,
^2005;^H^.^R^e^pt^.^109-^145,^Juⁿ^e^22,^2005;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{77, Ju}ⁿ^e^{9, 2005;}^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{95, Ju}ⁿ^e^{29, 2005;}^S^.^R^e^pt^.^109-^115,
^Ju^l^y^{28, 2005.}
In releasing its initial allocations, the House Appropriations Committee made
one key argument about the defense total. The allocation to the defense
subcommittee assumed that the defense appropriations bill would include $5 billion
of rescissions of prior year defense funds which can be applied to offset increases in
FY2006 programs in the defense appropriations bill. If so, the $3.28 billion cut from
the request would be more than offset by rescissions, and there would be room for
a $1.72 billion increase in actual programs.
Some may quibble with this argument. One quibble is that there are often
rescissions of prior year funds in all appropriations bills, and they are normally
applied as offsets to increases in new funds elsewhere in each bill. In effect, the
initial House 302(b) allocations require that defense rescissions be available partly

to offset increases in total non-defense appropriations compared to the
Administration’s request. A different quibble is that defense rescissions may later
be “backfilled” by increased emergency supplemental appropriations later in the
process. The FY2004 omnibus appropriations bill, for example, rescinded $1.8
billion in prior year defense funds to offset non-defense amounts. The
Iraq/Afghanistan emergency funding provisions of the FY2005 defense
appropriations bill, however, repealed the rescission. So, in effect, emergency
defense appropriations were used to offset increased FY2004 non-defense funding.
The version of the defense appropriations bill that the House Appropriations
Committee marked up on June 7, and the amended version passed on June 20,
provided $363.7 billion of which $363.4 billion was for discretionary (rather than
mandatory) programs, equal to the initial House 302(b) allocation and $3.28 billion
below the request.
On June 9, the Senate Appropriations Committee formally approved and
released its initial 302(b) allocations. The Senate allocations trimmed $7 billion from
the Administration request for the defense bill and added $797 million for the
military construction/Veterans Affairs subcommittee. So in all, the allocation
provided $6.2 billion more for non-defense discretionary programs than the
Administration request — by any standards, a dramatic shift of funds.
In later action on the defense appropriations bills, both the House and the Senate
complied with the initial 302(b) allocations. The House-passed appropriations bill
was $3.0 billion below the Administration request, and the Senate-passed bill was
$7.0 billion less. Neither bill, however, made deep cuts in overall funding for major
weapons, though both selectively trimmed some programs. Rather the cuts came
mainly in military personnel, in operation and maintenance, and in revolving fund
accounts (see Table 2B above).
The difference between the House and Senate on overall defense funding was
a key issue to be resolved in conference negotiations on the defense appropriations
bill. For its part, in its Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate bill, the
White House warned of a veto if defense was cut substantially to pay for increased
non-defense appropriations. In the run up to the conference, House and Senate
appropriators resolved the difference by agreeing on a total closer to the House level.
On November 2, the House approved revised 302(b) estimates that reflect the
compromise with the Senate. The Senate reported its revised allocations on
November 10. The revisions trim defense by $4.4 billion below the Administration
request. This amount was reflected in the conference on the defense appropriations
bill. Meanwhile, the conference agreement on the military construction/VA
appropriations bill added $0.1 billion for Department of Defense programs. Division
B of the defense appropriations bill included an across-the-board cut of 1%, or $8.5
billion, in total non-emergency FY2006 appropriations. Of that, $4.1 billion is cut
from the Department of Defense. So, in all, Congress cut $8.4 billion from the
Administration’s original request for the Department of Defense, a dramatic
reflection of the budget constraints being imposed by budget deficits and competing
demands for funds.

Military Personnel Pay and Benefits
Beginning in 1999 and continuing through last year, Congress has repeatedly
enhanced retirement, health, and other benefits for military personnel, sometimes
with Administration support and sometime over its objections. Benefit increases
have included
^!“TRICARE for Life,” which provides full medical coverage to
Medicare-eligible military retirees;
^!concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability
benefits for those with a 50% or greater disability;
^!repeal of a 1986 law that reduced retirement benefits for new
military enlistees;
^!a phased-in plan to fully offset off-base housing costs;
^!and increased imminent danger pay and family separation
allowances.
Last year, Congress approved two additional measures — a program to provide
health insurance to deactivated reservists for a period of time if they agree to reenlist
and elimination of a provision that reduced benefits to survivors of military retirees
after the survivors qualified for Social Security at age 62. Collectively, the measures
enacted since 1999, along with substantial military pay raises, have increased the cost
of active duty military personnel by more than 30% above inflation since 1999.¹³
In the FY2006 defense bills, a number of proposals to improve military
personnel benefits were again on the agenda. In particular, Congress renewed the
FY2005 debate over health benefits for military reservists. As noted, in the FY2005
defense authorization, Congress approved a program to provide federal health
insurance for specified periods of time to families of deactivated reservists who
reenlist, but Congress rejected proposals to guarantee access to health insurance for
all reservists. This issue came up again in the FY2006 authorization debate.
Congressional Action. In the FY2005 supplemental appropriations bill
(H.R. 1268), Congress approved (1) a permanent increase to $100,000 in the death
gratuity for service members killed the line of duty, made retroactive to October 7,
2001; (2) a payment of $150,000 to survivors of service members killed in combat
zones since October 7, 2001; and (3) an increase in the maximum amount of
insurance for service members from $250,000 to $400,000. These provisions apply
only through September 30, 2005, however.
In action on the supplemental, the Senate also approved a measure to make up
any loss in pay for federal employees who are called to active duty as members of the
military reserves. The House, however, did not include such a provision, and the
conference agreement rejected the Senate measure. This issue came up again in
action on the FY2006 defense appropriations bill in the Senate (see below).

¹³ See CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and
Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.

In their versions of the FY2006 defense authorization, both the House and the
Senate Armed Services Committee provided a permanent increase in the death
gratuity to $100,000 and in the maximum life insurance benefit to $400,000.
The House Armed Services Committee also approved an amendment in the full
committee markup that would have made TRICARE generally available to military
reservists. The proposal was a subject of extensive debate. Opponents complained
about the cost and also argued that employers might “game” the system in an effort
to reduce their costs by reducing their insurance plans or otherwise encouraging
employees to sign onto to TRICARE. Opponents also warned that federal employees
who serve in the reserves would have an incentive to abandon the federal employee
health benefit program (FEHBP) and sign up for the cheaper TRICARE system,
which would drive up FEHBP costs for others. Proponents argued that reservists
have earned the right to guaranteed health insurance. In the committee, the
amendment was approved by a vote of 32-30.
Subsequently, the committee approved a routine measure that allows the
chairman of the committee to delete provisions of the bill that would be subject to a
point of order for increasing mandatory spending above limits provided in the budget
resolution. When the Congressional Budget Office provided an estimate that the
provision would require an increase in mandatory expenditures, Committee
Chairman Duncan Hunter then deleted the TRICARE for reservists provision on the
grounds that it would be subject of a point of order on the floor. The Rules
Committee did not agree to make in order an amendment to restore a revised version
of the plan. On the floor, Representative Taylor subsequently proposed a motion to
recommit the bill to committee with instructions to restore the TRICARE for
reservists provision with a change that would have eliminated the mandatory
spending impact of the measure. That motion was defeated by a vote of 211-218.
The Senate, however, added a provision providing TRICARE to reservists to the
defense authorization bill. On July 21, the Senate approved a Graham-Clinton
amendment to allow all non-deployed reservists to enroll in TRICARE.
Later, in action on the defense appropriations bill on September 29, the Senate
approved an amendment by Senator Durbin to make up any loss in pay for federal
employees who are called to active duty as members of the military reserves. And
on November 9, the Senate approved an amendment to the defense authorization by
Senators Bayh and Durbin to replace income losses by reservists mobilized for more
than 180 days, or mobilized for more than 24 months out of 60, or mobilized within
six months of previous activation. In action on the authorization, the Senate also
approved an amendment by Senator Reid to define veterans unable to work as 100%
disabled for purposes of eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and
veterans disability benefits.
The conference agreement on the defense authorization bill resolves all of this
issues. Specifically, the authorization
^!Permits reservist (which includes members of the National Guard)
who are receiving unemployment compensation or who are
ineligible for employer-provided health insurance to sign up for

individual or family coverage through TRICARE with a premium of

50% of the value of the program (Section 702);

^!Provides up to $3,000 a month to replace lost income for
involuntarily mobilized reservists who complete 18 continuous
months of service, complete 24 months of service over a 60 month
period, or are mobilized for 180 days or more within six months of
completing an earlier mobilization of 180 days or more (Section

614);

^!Provides that full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and
veterans disability benefits for those who are unemployable because
of service-connected disabilities will be available by the end of 2009
rather than phased in by the end of 2013 (Section 663); and
^!Permanently increases the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000
and expands the eligibility for additional life insurance of $150,000
for service members killed in Iraq or Afghanistan between October

7, 2001 and May 11, 2005 (Section 664).

Neither the authorization nor the appropriations conference agreements include
the Senate provision to make up any lost pay for mobilized Federal employees.
Increases in Active Duty End-Strength
For the past two years, there has been a vigorous debate, both within Congress
and between the Congress and the Defense Department, about the size of the Army
and the Marine Corps. Many legislators have argued that the Army, especially, is
being stretched very thin by the need to rotate troops into Iraq, and that the number
of ground troops should be increased substantially. In last year’s defense
authorization bill (H.R. 4200, P.L. 108-375), Congress increased statutory Army end-
strength by 20,000 and Marine Corps end-strength by 3,000 in FY2005, and,
importantly, it established the increased totals as legal minimums. The final bill also
authorized, but did not mandate, additional increases of 10,000 in the Army and
6,000 in the Marine Corps over the next four years — it did not set them as
minimums.
Although the Administration opposed the congressionally mandated end-
strength increases, in substance, the provision did not have much effect. Ever since
the Iraq war began, the Defense Department has used standing authority to waive
earlier end-strength limits. And officials have said that they intend to keep an
additional 30,000 active duty troops in the force through FY2006, in part to fill out
units rotating to Iraq and in part as a buffer while the Army carries out a
reorganization that will increase the number of deployable combat units. So the
Defense Department was already planning to keep more additional troops in service
than Congress mandated. Moreover, Congress has not objected to funding the
additional troops with supplemental appropriations, as the Administration has
requested.

The underlying issue, however, is quite substantive, and it has very large long-
term budget implications — a rule of thumb is that an increase of 10,000 troops adds
at least $1 billion a year in personnel costs, not including costs of equipping
additional units. The Defense Department sees the added 30,000 troops as a
temporary measure. Many legislators, however, believe that the size of the Army and
Marine Corps, and even of the Navy and Air Force, should increase even more and
that the increases should be permanent. In Congress so far this year, Senators Reed,
Hagel, McCain, Kerry and others have proposed a measure (S. 530) that would add
30,000 troops to the Army and 5,000 to the Marine Corps in FY2006, in addition to
the troops added in FY2005. In the House, Representatives Tauscher, Skelton, and
others have proposed a measure (H.R. 1666) to add 30,000 to the Army, 12,000 to
the Marine Corps, 2,000 to the Navy, and 1,000 to the Air Force in FY2006, also in
addition to the FY2005 increases. Some outside groups have proposed adding as
many as 25,000 troops per year to the force for the next several years.¹⁴
Since the proposed increases in FY2006 go far beyond the 30,000 added troops
the Pentagon currently has in the force, the issues is no longer moot, and the debate
is about, in effect, permanent, substantial, and costly increases in the overall size of
the force. This the Administration strongly resists. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,
in particular, has opposed permanent increases, arguing that much can be done, and
is already underway, to restructure forces to make up for the number of troops needed
to fill out deployable combat units. Among other things, Rumsfeld wants to
restructure the Army to reduce non-combat positions and shift personnel into the
combat arms. Moreover, the Pentagon has been attempting to transfer substantial
numbers of jobs from military to civilian positions. The Administration argues that
these measures should be fully implemented before coming to any conclusions about
permanently adding to military end-strength.
Congressional Action. In subcommittee markup of the defense
authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee’s personnel subcommittee
added 10,000 in end-strength to the Army and 1,000 to the Marine Corps in FY2006.
The full committee and the full House subsequently approved that measure. In its
markup, the Senate Armed Services Committee added 20,000 to Army end-strength
in FY2006 (see Table 5). Compared to the enacted FY2004 end-strength
authorization as a baseline, the Senate provision would add 40,000 troops to the
Army and 3,000 to the Marine Corps — 13,000 more than the 30,000 additional
troops the Administration has decided to maintain for Iraq and Army modularization.
The authorization conference agreement follows the House, which provides for Army
end-strength of 512,400, 30,000 above the FY2004 base level.

¹⁴ Edward Epstein, “Support Grows For Beefing Up U.S. Forces,” San Francisco Chronicle,
April 4, 2005, p. 1

Table 5. House and Senate Action on Statutory Active Duty
End-Strength Levels, FY2004-FY2006
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Ar^m^y^482,400^502,400^482,400^512,400^522,400^512,400
^Nav^y^373,800^365,900^352,700^352,700^352,700^352,700
^Mariⁿ^e^C^o^rps^175,000^178,000^175,000^179,000^178,000^179,000
^Aⁱ^{r F}^o^rce^359,300^359,700^357,400^357,400^357,400^357,400
^Sources^:^En^{acted f}^r^om^P^.^L^.^108-^{136 an}^{d P}^.^L^.^108-^{375; r}^e^q^u^es^{t f}^r^om^{DOD, Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^ativ^e
^C^o^uⁿ^s^el^;^H^o^u^s^{e f}^r^om^H^.^R^.^1815,^as^report^e^d;^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^f^r^om^S^.^{1042, as}^report^e^d;^con^f^eren^{ce t}^o^t^a^l^f^r^om
^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 106-}^360.
Navy Shipbuilding — A Budgetary “Ship Wreck”?
The Navy’s FY2006 request includes funding for just four new ships —
^!one Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine,
^!one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS),
^!one LPD-17-class amphibious transport ship, and
^!one T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo ship.
Last year, the Navy’s plan for FY2006 called for six ships. In addition, in December
2004, in order to meet budget limits established by the Office of Management in
Budget, the Defense Department announced some longer-term changes in Navy
shipbuilding in Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-753). Specifically PBD-753
^!reduced the planned procurement rate of DD(X) destroyers in
FY2007-FY2011 to one per year;
^!cut planned Virginia-class submarine production in FY2006-FY2011
to one per year rather than increasing to two per year starting in
FY2009;
^!eliminated funds for an LPD-17 amphibious ship from the FY2008
plan; and
^!delayed by one year to FY2008 planned procurement of a new
aircraft carrier, CVN-21.
The four-ship FY2006 request falls far short of the annual procurement rate the
Navy has, in the past, said is needed to maintain the size of the fleet. The math is
straightforward. Assuming an average service life of 35 years for each ship, a Navy
of 300 ships requires building 300 ÷ 35 = 8.6 ships per year on average. Recently the
Navy has tried to get away from judging its needs on the basis of numbers of ships,
saying that capabilities, rather than numbers, are what matters. But that argument has
not been persuasive in Congress, and, recently, the Navy responded to a
congressionally mandated requirement that it provide an estimate of long-term

shipbuilding requirements with a report that showed two alternatives for FY2035,
one with 260 ships and one with 325 ships.¹⁵
Planned production appears to lead closer to the lower end of that range, if that
much. Projected production rates grow over the next few years, but only because the
Navy plans to ramp up production of the relatively small Littoral Combat Ship to five
per year by FY2009. Retiring Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vernon Clark, has
pointed to long-term rising shipbuilding costs as the main reason for the Navy’s
difficulties.¹⁶
Many Members of Congress, particularly from shipbuilding states, have
expressed alarm about the low rate of Navy shipbuilding. A particular issue has been
a Navy proposal, which was deferred by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, to hold a winner-take-all competition between the two surface
combatant construction shipyards for the right to build all DD(X) destroyers, rather
than to divide the ships between two yards, as for DDG-51 destroyers. Legislators
fear that one shipyard would be forced to close under such a strategy.¹⁷
One possible response is for Congress to increase the FY2006 shipbuilding
budget by shifting funds from other programs. Navy officials and some legislators
have also discussed using alternative funding mechanisms for Navy ships as a means
of allowing more new ship construction to start within a limited budget. Defense
acquisition guidelines generally require “full funding” of weapons procurement —
appropriations are required to be sufficient to finance the number of complete,
useable end items of systems Congress has approved.¹⁸ There are alternatives to the
full funding policy, however, and these are now being discussed actively for Navy
shipbuilding.
One possibility, which Congress has used for some ships in the past, is
“incremental” or “split” funding, in which Congress appropriates only part of the
money needed to complete a ship and plans to appropriate the remainder in future
years. Another is advance appropriations, in which Congress appropriates funds for
the full cost of a ship, but delays the availability of part of all of the funds until the
start of the next fiscal year. While these alternative funding mechanisms may smooth
out annual Navy shipbuilding numbers, they will not allow significantly more ships

¹⁵ See Department of the Navy, “An Interim Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan
for the Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2006,” March 2005.
¹⁶ See Statement of Admiral Vernon Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the
Senate Armed Services Committee, February 10, 2005, pp. 20-21, available on line at
[http://armed-s ervi ces.senate.gov/ statemnt/2005/February/Clark%2002-10-05.pdf].
¹⁷ See CRS Report RS21059, Navy DD(X) and CG(X) Programs: Background and Issues
for Congress; and CRS Report RL32109, Navy DD(X), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition
Programs: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress, both by Ronald O’Rourke.
¹⁸ See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy — Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen Daggett.

to be procured, and they may simply trade a budget problem this year for at least
equally severe problems in the future.¹⁹
Congressional Action. During Senate consideration of the FY2006
congressional budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18), Senator Warner proposed an
amendment, SA 146, to increase the resolution’s limit on the total amount of advance
appropriations by $14 billion and to allow advance appropriations to be used for
Navy shipbuilding. The amendment was never brought up on the floor, however.
The conference report on the budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, does not provide an
increase in the original limit on advance appropriations, though it does include Navy
shipbuilding in a list of accounts for which advance appropriations may be provided
in the Senate. Congress may still provide advance appropriations for ships, but only
if other advance appropriations are reduced, or if there is no objection in the Senate,
or if 60 Senators vote to waive the limit.
Later, in the version of supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268) that the
Senate Appropriations Committee reported to the floor, the committee included a
provision that prohibits funds made available in the supplemental or in any prior acts,
to be used to implement a winner-take-all strategy to acquire the DD(X). The
conference agreement included the Senate measure. This did not, however, apply to
future appropriations, so the matter remains at issue in action on FY2006 bills.
In subcommittee markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the House
Armed Services Committee subcommittee on projection forces took a number of
dramatic steps to restructure Navy shipbuilding. The subcommittee added funds for
three additional ships, including $2.5 billion for 2 DDG-51 destroyers and $384
million for an additional T-AKE dry cargo ship. The subcommittee also provided
$418 million, an increase of $268 million, to begin construction of a new LHA(R)
amphibious assault ship. The subcommittee also took steps to rein in the costs of
new ships. Most significantly, it imposed a cost ceiling of $1.7 billion on what it
calls the “next generation surface combatant.” Since this applies to the DD(X), the
Navy will have to design a less costly substitute destroyer. The subcommittee also
put a cost cap on the Logistics Combat Ship, Virginia-class submarines, and LHA(R),
and it required the Navy to develop a next-generation submarine that, presumably,²⁰
will cost less than Virginia-class boats.
Later, in full committee markup, the House Armed Services Committee took
steps to restore CVN-21 procurement to the FY2007 plan rather than delay it to
FY2008 as the Navy proposed. The committee approved an amendment to add $86.7
million for advanced procurement of the CNV-21, but with a requirement that the
Pentagon must certify that the extra money would allow the Navy to begin production
of the carrier in FY2007.

¹⁹ For a full discussion see CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative
Funding Approaches — Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
²⁰ House Armed Services Committee, Projection Forces Subcommittee, Press Release,
“House Projection Forces Subcommittee Mark Approved Unanimously Without
Amendment for FY06 National Defense Authorization Act,” May 11, 2005.

In stark contrast to the House, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not
radically restructure Navy shipbuilding. In its markup of the FY2006 authorization,
the committee added $175 million in partial funding for the LHA(R) ship, but
otherwise did not increase the number of ships being built in FY2006. The
committee also authorized CVN-21 construction to begin in FY2007, the plan last
year, rather than in FY2008, as the Navy now plans, and provided an additional $86.7
million for the program. On the DD(X), the committee indicated continuing support
for the program by adding $50 million for advance procurement of a second ship, and
it provided that the funds are only available for production at a second shipyard. The
committee specifically prohibited a “winner-take-all” acquisition strategy for the
DD(X).
The House Appropriations Committee generally followed the House
authorization, though with some adjustments. As in the authorization, the committee
cut funds for the DD(X) and it added money for one T-AKE. It added only one
rather than two DDG-51s, however, and it added funds for two Littoral Combat Ships
instead — so in all the committee added 4 ships to the request. The committee added
$50 million to the LHA(R) request, less than the authorization, and urged the Navy
to request full funding for the cost of the ship in the future rather than spreading
funding across several years.
The Senate Appropriations Committee mainly followed the Senate
authorization. It added $50 million for DD(X) for a second ship, added $86.7 million
for CVN-21, but eliminated $380 million for T-AKE construction due to cost
increases and construction delays.
The appropriations conference agreement adds $62 million to accelerate the start
of the CVN-21 aircraft carrier to FY2007, provides funding as requested for the
DD(X) destroyer and adds $50 million for advance procurement for a second ship,
does not add funds for additional DDG-51 destroyers, cuts $100 million from the
LHA (R) amphibious ship program, and, as in the House, adds $384 million for an
additional T-AKE cargo ship (funded in the “National Defense Sealift Fund”
account). So, in the end, Congress rejected the House effort to terminate the DD(X)
and build more DDG-51s, instead. The authorization conference agreement includes
a provision prohibiting acquisition of the DD(X) through a single shipyard.
Congress, nonetheless, remains concerned about weapons cost growth. The
authorization conference agreement sets cost caps on the Virginia-class submarine,
DD(X), and LCS programs.

CRS-31
Table 6A. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^House^Seⁿ^a^te^Con^f^eren^ce
^R^e^que^s^t^Aut^h^ori^z^atⁱ^oⁿ^Aut^h^ori^z^atⁱ^oⁿ^Aut^h^ori^z^atⁱ^oⁿ
^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D
^C^o^mmeⁿ^t^s^#$^$^#^$^$^#$^$^#^$^$
^N-2¹^Carri^{er Rep}^l^acem^en^t^—^564.9^308.0^—^651.6^316.0^—^651.6^308.0^—^651.6^308.0^H^ous^e^,^Se^na^te^{, a}^{nd c}^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^a^dd^$86.7^mⁿ^{. to}
^g^r^a^m^proc^ure^s^h^{ip in FY}^{2007, H}^ous^e^c^onditione^{d on}
^{DOD certif}^icatioⁿ^th^{at ‘0}⁷^{start is p}^o^ssib^l^e.
⁽^X)^D^e^s^t^r^o^y^e^r^—^716.0¹^,114.8^—^—^700.0^—^766.0¹^,124.8^—^766.0¹^,124.8^H^ous^e^cu^t^s^al^l^p^r^o^c^ur^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^nd^pr^ov^ide^s^$700
^mⁿ^.^f^o^r^R^&^D^f^o^r^ne^w^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^{. Se}^na^te^a^{nd c}^onf^.^nd
^a^{dd $50 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^r²^shⁱ^p^ad^van^{ce p}^r^o^c^u^r^em^en^t^.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32924}^G^-^{51 D}^e^s^t^r^o^y^e^r^—^225.4^—²²^,725.4^—^—^250.4^—^—^250.4^—^H^ous^e^a^dds^{$2.5 bn. f}^o^r^{2 s}^h^ips^.^ittora^{l Com}^b^a^t^Ship¹^36.8^576.4¹^36.8^588.5¹^36.8^576.4¹^36.8^576.4^—
^g/w^-^{17 A}^m^phibious^Ship¹¹^,344.7^11.4¹^1,^344.7^11.4¹¹^,344.7^11.4¹^1,344.7^11.4^—
^s^.or^A⁽^R⁾^A^m^phibious^Ship^—^150.4^—^—^418.0^—^—^325.4^—^—^50.0^—^H^o^u^s^e^a^d^d^s^$268^mⁿ^.,^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^a^d^d^s^{$175 m}ⁿ^.
^le^ak^C^onf^{. c}^u^ts^{$100 m}ⁿ^.
^g^ina^l^C^l^a^s^s^Subm^a^r^ine¹^2,401.5^155.8¹^2,^401.5^175.8¹^2,401.5^199.8¹^2,401.5^192.8^H^ous^e^.^Se^na^te^,^an^d^coⁿ^f^.^add^s^m^a^ll^a^m^nts^.^f^o^r
^://wiki^R&D.
^h^ttp^rⁱ^e^r^R^e^f^u^e^ling^O^v^e^r^ha^ul^—^1,513.6^—^—^1,513.6^—^—^1,513.6^—^—^1,513.6^—^—^s^ile^Subm^a^r^ine^C^onv^e^r^sⁱ^on^—^286.5^24.0^—^286.5^24.0^—^286.5^24.0^—^286.5^24.0^—
^K^{E C}^a^r^g^{o Ship}¹^380.1^—²^764.5^—¹^380.1^—²^764.5^—^H^o^u^s^e^an^d^coⁿ^f^.^ad^d^$384^mⁿ^.^f^o^r^oⁿ^e^ad^d^e^d
^sh^ip^.
^o^t^a^l^s⁴⁷^,619.9²^,190.4⁷^10,142.6¹^,^815.7⁴^7,956.7²^,244.4⁵^8,065.3²^,^237.4^H^ouse^adds^$²^.⁵^bn.^{and t}^h^{ree sh}ⁱ^p^s^;^conf^.
^a^d^d^s^oⁿ^{e T-AK}^E.
^rces:^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^D^e^f^e^ns^e^;^H^.^R^e^{pt. 109-}^{89; S.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^69.
^{For CV}^{N-21, the}^House^a^u^t^horiz^a^{tion a}^{dds $86.7 m}^illi^{on on c}^{ondition tha}^t^{DOD c}^e^r^tif^y^tha^t^th^e^a^dde^{d f}^{unds w}^{ill a}^llow^f^u^{ll pro}^c^u^re^m^e^{nt of}^the^s^h^{ip in the}^FY^{2007 budg}^e^t^{. L}^ittora^{l Com}^b^a^t^Ship
^be^r^inc^l^ude^s^c^ons^tr^uc^{tion of}^one^s^h^{ip f}^unde^{d in R}^&^D^.^T^-^A^K^{E pr}^oc^ur^e^m^eⁿ^{t is}^f^unde^{d in the}^N^a^tiona^{l D}^e^f^e^ns^e^Se^a^lif^{t Fund.}

CRS-32
Table 6B. House and Senate Action on Navy Shipbuilding: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^House^Seⁿ^a^te^Con^f^eren^c
^R^e^que^s^t^A^ppr^oprⁱ^atⁱ^o^ns^A^ppr^oprⁱ^atⁱ^o^ns^A^ppr^oprⁱ^atⁱ^o^ns
^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&D^P^r^ocu^rem^en^t^R^&E
^C^o^mmeⁿ^t^s^{# $}^{$ #}^{$ $}^{# $}^$^#^$^$
^N-2¹^Carri^{er Rep}^l^acem^en^t^—^564.9^308.0^—^564.9^310.0^—^651.6^308.0^—^626.9^311.⁰^H^ous^e^doe^s^{not f}^o^llow^a^u^{th. a}^{dd to pus}^{h f}^u^ll
^g^r^a^m^pr^oc^ur^e^m^eⁿ^{t to FY}^{2007. Se}^na^te^a^dds^$86.7
^mⁿ^{. a}^{nd c}^onf^{. $62 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^r^FY^{2007 s}^c^he^dule^.
⁽^X)^D^e^s^t^r^o^y^e^r^—^716.0¹^,114.8^—^—^757.0^—^766.0^1,127.8^—^716.0¹^,156.9^H^ous^e^c^u^ts^a^{ll pr}^oc^ur^e^m^eⁿ^{t a}^{nd c}^u^ts^R^&^D^by
^{$358 m}ⁿ^{. Se}^na^te^a^dds^{$50 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^r^a^d^v^a^nc^e
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32924}^pr^oc^ur^e^m^eⁿ^{t f}^o^r^s^e^c^{ond s}^h^ip.^G^-^{51 D}^e^s^t^r^o^y^e^r^—^225.4^—¹¹^,600.0^—^—^29.8^—^—^200.0^—^H^ous^e^a^dds^{$1.4 bn. f}^o^r^{1 s}^h^{ip (}^v^s^{2 in a}^u^th.)^.
^g/w^Se^na^te^c^u^ts^{$196 m}ⁿ^{. due}^{to v}ⁱ^ola^{tion of}^f^u^ll
^s^.or^f^unding^polic^y^.
^le^ak^{S L}^ittora^{l Com}^b^a^t^Ship¹^36.8^576.4³^476.8^581.9¹^44.4^581.4³^476.8^582.6^H^ous^e^a^{nd c}^onf^{. a}^{dd $440 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^r^{2 s}^h^ips^.
^D^-^{17 A}^m^phibious^Ship¹¹^,344.7^11.4¹^1,^344.7^11.4¹^1,344.7^11.4¹^1,344.7^11.4^—
^://wiki^A⁽^R⁾^A^m^phibious^Ship^—^150.4^—^—^200.4^—^—^150.4^—^—^150.4^—^H^ous^e^a^dds^{$75 m}ⁿ^{. (}^v^s^.^{268 m}ⁿ^{. in a}^u^th.)^.
^h^ttp^ina^l^Cla^s^s^Subm^a^r^ine¹^2,401.5^155.8¹^2,401.5^169.3¹²^,401.5^193.8¹^2,401.5^177.9^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^a^{nd c}^onf^{. a}^{dd R&}^D^f^o^{r m}^u^lti-mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on
^m^odule^.
^rⁱ^e^r^R^e^f^u^e^ling^O^v^e^r^ha^ul^—^1,513.6^—^—^1,320.0^—^—^1,513.6^—^—^1,338.6^—^H^ous^e^tr^im^s^{$194 m}ⁿ^.
^s^ile^Subm^a^r^ine^C^onv^e^r^sⁱ^on^—^286.5^24.0^—^286.5^24.0^—^286.5^24.0^—^286.5^24.0^—
^K^{E Ca}^rg^{o Ship}¹^380.1^—²^714.1^—^—^—^—¹^380.1^—^H^ous^e^a^dds^{$334 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r 1 a}^dditiona^{l s}^h^ip.
^Se^na^te^e^lim^ina^t^e^s^f^unds^.
^t^a^ls⁴⁷^,619.9²^,190.4⁸^8,909.0¹^,853.6³^7,^620.0^2,190.4⁶⁷^,921.5²^,263.8^H^o^u^s^e^a^d^d^s^{$1.3 b}ⁿ^.^aⁿ^d^{4 s}^h^ip^s^.^Seⁿ^a^t^e
^c^u^ts^oⁿ^e^s^h^ip^{. C}^oⁿ^f^{. a}^d^d^s^{2 LC}^{S s}^h^ip^s^.
^rces:^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^D^e^f^e^ns^e^;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{119; S.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^{141; S.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^359.
^L^ittora^{l Com}^b^a^t^{Ship num}^be^{r inc}^l^ude^s^c^ons^truc^{tion of}^one^s^h^{ip f}^unde^{d in R&}^D^.^T^-^A^K^{E proc}^ure^m^eⁿ^{t is}^f^unde^{d in the}^N^a^tiona^{l D}^e^f^e^ns^e^Se^a^lif^{t Fund.}

Retiring an Aircraft Carrier and Reducing
the Carrier Force to 11
PBD-753 not only trimmed the long-term Navy shipbuilding plan, it also
proposed retiring the USS John F. Kennedy, one of two conventionally-powered
aircraft carriers still in service. This would reduce the number of carriers in the fleet
from 12 to 11. The Navy insists that it would still be able to meet its overseas
stationing requirements and its requirements to surge forces in a crisis. Like the
Navy shipbuilding cuts, the proposal to retire the Kennedy, which is based in Florida,
has been controversial in Congress. One element of the debate is whether it is wise
to retire a conventionally powered ship, since the United States has long deployed
one carrier in Japan, and Japan has objected to visits by nuclear-powered ships in the
past. The Navy’s other conventionally-powered carrier, the Kitty Hawk, is scheduled
for retirement in FY2008.
Congressional Action. In floor action on the FY2005 supplemental
appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, the Senate approved (by 58-38 on April 20, 2005) an
amendment by Senator Warner, SA 498, requiring that funds provided to the Navy
in the supplemental be available for repair and maintenance to extend the service life
of the Kennedy and that prohibits funds in the supplemental to be used to reduce the
number of aircraft carriers below 12 until the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
is submitted to Congress. The QDR is required no later than February of next year.
The conference agreement approved the measure with minor changes. An
amendment that would have applied these restrictions to funding provided in prior
acts was ruled out of order, and the issue may well come up again in action on
FY2006 bills.
In its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the Senate Armed
Services Committee directed the Navy to retain 12 carriers until 180 days after the
completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review and also directed the Navy to
perform maintenance and repair of the USS John F. Kennedy to extend the life of the
ship. (See CRS Report RL32731, Navy Aircraft Carriers: Proposed Retirement of
USS John F. Kennedy — Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.)
The House Armed Services Committee did not take any steps to keep the
Kennedy in service. Instead it barred further reductions in the carrier force by
requiring the Navy to maintain a minimum of 11 deployable carriers. The House
Appropriations Committee did not address the issue.
The authorization conference agreement includes a provision amending Title 10
of the U.S. Code, which governs the Defense Department, to require that the Navy
keep 12 operational aircraft carriers in the combat force.
C-130J Aircraft Termination
PBD-753 proposed some other cuts in major weapons programs. One decision,
though it was subsequently reversed, was to terminate procurement of the C-130J
cargo plane after purchasing 12 more KC-130J variants for the Marine Corps in
FY2006. C-130 aircraft are a mainstay of U.S. airlift fleet. The C-130J is a new

variant, with substantially greater capabilities, but which has had significant
problems in meeting operational requirements. Both the DOD Inspector General and
the DOD Director of Operational Testing have issued reports that are quite critical
of current safety and mission performance of the aircraft, and it is now being used in
only restricted roles.
The decision to terminate C-130J procurement was controversial in Congress.
The C-130 has historically had support not only from Georgia, where it is produced,
but from advocates of Air National Guard units all over the country where the aircraft
is deployed. For its part, the Defense Department from the start appeared somewhat
less firm in its determination to terminate the C-130J than on other PBD-753
decisions. Shortly after the budget request was formally released in February, senior
Pentagon officials said that the Department planned to review its C-130J decision in
the course of examining overall air lift requirements.²¹ Finally, just as the House
Armed Services Committee was beginning subcommittee markup of the FY2006
defense authorization, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld sent a letter to Congress
reversing the decision to terminate the production.
Congressional Action. In floor action on the FY2005 supplemental (H.R.
1268) the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Chambliss to prohibit any
funds provided in the act from being used to terminate the C/KC-130J contract. The
Pentagon’s decision not to terminate C-130J production, however, left unresolved
how to divide up FY2006 funding between the Marine Corps KC-130J variant and
the Air Force C-130J.
It its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services
Committee reduced Marine KC-130J procurement from the 12 requested to 4 and
shifted $735 million to the Air Force to buy 9 C-130J airlift aircraft. The House
Armed Services Committee also approved 4 KC-130Js and 9 C-130Js, as did the
House Appropriations Committee. The Senate appropriations provides funds for 6
KC-130Js and 7 C-130Js.
The conference agreement on the defense appropriations bills provides $384
million for 5 KC-130Js and $690 million for 8 C-130Js — see Table 7.

²¹ Dave Ahearn, “C-130J May Gain New Lease On Life: Rumsfeld,” Defense Today,
February 17, 2005.

Table 7. C-130 Procurement Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Conference
^Request^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns
^#$#$#$#$
^{Aircraft Procurem}^{ent, Navy}
^K^C^-^{130 A}ⁱ^rcraf^t¹²^1,092.7⁴^321.1⁶^447.3⁵^384.2
^K^C^-^{130 A}^d^v^aⁿ^{ce Procu}^r^em^en^t^—^—^—^45.6^—^71.0^—^58.0
^C^-^{130 S}^e^ri^es^Modi^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^—^42.7^—^32.7^—^42.7^—^32.7
^{Aircraft Procurem}^{ent, Air Force}
^C^-^{130J A}ⁱ^craf^t^—^99.0⁹^744.0⁷^516.0⁸^690.0
^C^-^{130J A}^d^v^aⁿ^{ce Procu}^r^em^en^t^—^—^—^90.0^—^90.0^—^80.0
^C^-^{130 Modi}^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^—^191.6^—^194.4^—^182.8^—^178.9
^Procurem^{ent, Defens}^e-Wide^{(Special Operations}^Com^m^a^nd)
^MC^-^130H^C^o^m^b^at^T^a^l^oⁿ^II^—^66.3^—^66.3^—^66.3^—^66.3
^Aⁱ^rcraf^t
^C^-^{130 Modi}^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^—^67.3^—^67.3^—^67.3^—^62.0
^Sources^:^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{119, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^141.
F/A-22 Fighter Termination
PBD-753 also proposed terminating production of the Air Force F/A-22 fighter
after FY2008. This would stop the program after about 180 aircraft have been
produced. Air Force budget plans after FY2008 included funds for 96 additional
aircraft, and the Air Force wanted more — its latest goal was about 381. The Air
Force has also been discussing additional aircraft, modified substantially for bombing
missions.
The F/A-22 has been the Air Force’s top priority program.²² It is designed to be
the best air superiority fighter aircraft in the world in the future. Air Force officials
have continued to argue against the cuts, insisting that the whole issue should be
reviewed in the QDR. But officials outside the Air Force have so far provided little
encouragement.
Congressional Action. While there has been some opposition to the F/A-22
cuts in Congress, there were no related legislative proposals. The planned cuts in
funding for the program, however, do not begin until the FY2008 budget, and
production ceases only in FY2009, so there remains some time to consider the
program’s fate. None of the congressional defense committees significantly changed
the program in FY2006.
Other Programs with Cost Increases and Schedule Delays
A perennial issue for Congress is what to do about programs that have
consistently and repeatedly been delayed or in which costs have grown substantially

²² For an overview of the program and a review of key issues, see CRS Report RL31673,
F/A-22 Raptor, by Christopher Bolkcom.

beyond original projections. Sometimes Congress has intervened to reduce or
restructure funding for such programs. At other times, it has held oversight hearings
to determine whether problems are under control.
Navy ships are certainly not the only troubled programs in the defense budget.
Delays and cost growth have plagued a number of high profile weapons programs in
recent years, including the F/A-22 aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,²³ and a
several satellite and space launch programs, including the Space-Based Infrared
System-High (SBIRS-High), the Space Surveillance and Tracking System (SSTS,
which was formerly SBIRS-Low), the Transformational Communications Satellite
(TSAT), the Space Based Radar (now called the Space Radar), and the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). Costs of the Army’s multi-faceted Future
Combat System have also been climbing, and the General Accounting Office has
raised questions about the maturity of technologies being pursued.²⁴
Last year, Congress cut requested funding for TSAT by $300 million, a 39%
reduction, requiring the Air Force to restructure the program, and it cut requested
funding for the Space Based Radar by $253 million, a 77% reduction, essentially
terminating the development effort. This year, the Defense Department has again
asked for funding both for TSAT and for the renamed Space Radar.
Congressional Action. The Senate Armed Services Committee Airland
Subcommittee, chaired by Senator McCain, has held a number of hearings on the
Army Future Combat System (FCS). Recently the Army announced that it was
planning to revise the type of contract under which the FCS was being developed.
It will use a more traditional contract to which standard acquisition regulations will
apply.
In initial House Armed Services Committee subcommittee markup, the FCS, in
particular, was cut significantly. In effect, the FCS and some other programs that
Congress considers to be suffering from problems may end up being “bill payers” for
increases in Navy shipbuilding and some other accounts. In contrast, in its markup
of the FY2006 defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services Committee
approved the full $3.4 billion requested for FCS.
In its full committee markup of the authorization, the House Armed Services
Committee trimmed FCS funding by $400 million and shifted some parts of the
program from the FCS funding line to R&D lines for more basic research. The
committee also reduced funds for the Transformational Communications Satellite
(TSAT) by $400 from $838.5 million to $435.8 million and for the Space-Based
Radar by $125.8 million from $225.8 million to $100.0 million.
Finally, the House Armed Services Committee made some significant changes
in acquisition laws in an effort to control weapons cost growth. The committee

²³ See CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status,
and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.
²⁴ See CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.

established conditions before a development program may be approved for full scale
system development and demonstration (SDD). It also required closer monitoring
of changes from original program baseline cost estimates. And, perhaps most
notably, it mandated a formal analysis of alternatives for any system that exceeds

15% cost growth.

The House Appropriations Committee generally followed the authorization
bill’s recommendations — it trimmed funding for the Future Combat System by
about $400 million, cut the TSAT by $400 million, and cut the Space-Based Radar
by $126 million. The committee also terminated the Joint Air to Surface Standoff
Missile (JASSM) program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $3.3 billion for FCS, $100
million below the request, cut $200 million from the Joint Unmanned Combat Air
System (J-UCAS) program, cut the TSAT by $250 million, reduced the Space Radar
request by $125.8 million, cut SBIRS-High by $100 million, and cut $236.3 million
from the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).
Both the House and the Senate also provided substantial funds for weapons
procurement in the separate title of the bill provided emergency appropriations for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In particular, the funds include substantial
amounts for uparmored HMMWVs and other tactical vehicles. Table 9 shows the
amounts of emergency funds for weapons procurement in the House and Senate
appropriations bills.

CRS-38
Table 8A. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Authorization
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^Ho^u^s^e^Senate^C^oⁿ^f^eren^ce
^Re^q^u^e^s^t^A^u^th^o^r^izatioⁿ^A^u^th^o^r^izatioⁿ^A^u^th^o^r^izatioⁿ
^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D
^C^o^mmeⁿ^t^s^{# $}^$^#^$^{$ #}^$^{$ #}^$^$
^o^m^b^at^S^y^s^t^em^—^—^3,404.8^—^—^2,905.6^—^—^3,404.8^—^—^3,354.8^H^ou^s^e^cu^t^s^{$499.2 m}ⁿ^{. an}^{d res}^t^ru^ct^u^r^es
^prog^ram^el^em^en^t^s^;^con^f^{. cu}^t^s^{$50 m}ⁿ^.
^{r A}^r^m^o^{red V}^e^hⁱ^cl^e²⁴⁰^878.4^26.7²⁴⁰^893.4^41.7²⁴⁰^878.4^26.7²⁴⁰^878.4^26.7^—
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32924}^ack^h^a^w^k^H^e^lⁱ^c^opt^er⁴¹^584.7^115.0⁴⁶^658.2^118.9⁴¹^584.7^115.0⁴¹^584.7^115.0^H^ou^s^e^adds^{5 ai}^rcraf^t
^g/w^e^lⁱ^c^opt^{er Mods}^—^676.0^—^—^676.0^—^—^676.0^—^—^676.0^—^—
^s^.or^actⁱ^cal^R^a^di^{o S}^y^s^t^em^—^27.4^407.5^—^27.4^407.5^—^27.4^368.1^—^27.4^377.5^S^A^S^C^cu^t^s^{$39.4 m}ⁿ^{. con}^f^{. cu}^t^s^{$30 m}ⁿ^.
^le^ak
ⁱ^g^h^t^{er, A}^F²⁴^3,733.5^479.7²⁴³^,733.⁵^479.7²⁴³^,733.5^479.7²⁴³^,733.5^479.7^—
^://wikiⁿ^t^S^t^ri^k^e^Fⁱ^g^h^t^{er, N}^a^v^y^—^—^2,393.0^—^—^2,393.0^—^—^2,393.0^—^—^2,393.0^—
^h^ttpⁿ^t^S^t^ri^k^e^Fⁱ^g^h^t^{er, A}^F^—^152.4²^,474.⁸^—^152.4²^,474.8^—^152.4²^,474.8^152.4²^,474.8^—
^a^rg^{o A}ⁱ^rcraf^t^{, A}^F¹⁵^3,236.3^165.8¹⁵³^,236.3^165.8¹⁵³^,236.3^165.8¹⁵³^,236.3^165.8^—
^H^a^w^k^U^A^V^,^A^F⁵^397.7^308.5⁴^367.8^308.5⁵^397.7^308.5⁵^397.7^308.5^H^ou^s^e^cu^t^s^{1 ai}^rcraf^t
^{or U}^A^V^,^A^F⁹^125.6^61.0¹⁵^210.6^61.0⁹^125.6^66.0⁹^125.6^61.0^H^ou^s^e^adds^{6 ai}^rcraf^t
^F^Fⁱ^g^h^t^{er, N}^a^v^y³⁸^2,822.3^88.7³⁸²^,825.5^88.7³⁸²^,822.3^91.9³⁸²^,825.5^88.7^—
^Aⁱ^rcraf^t^{, N}^a^v^y⁴^336.7^409.¹⁴^336.7^409.1⁴^336.7^409.1⁴^336.7^409.1^—
^{ilt R}^o^{tor A}ⁱ^rcraf^t^{, Nav}^y⁹¹^,060.6^206.4⁹^1,060.6^206.4⁹^1,060.6^206.4⁹^1,060.6^206.4^—
^{ilt R}^o^{tor A}ⁱ^rcraf^t^{, A}^F²^243.7^69.5²^243.7^71.5²^243.7^69.5²^243.7^71.5^—
^s/Spa^c^e
^to-^S^u^r^f^{ace S}^t^an^dof^f^Ms^l.³⁰⁰^150.2^67.0³⁰⁰^150.2^67.0³⁰⁰^150.2^67.0^—^100.0^67.0^C^on^f^.^cu^ts^{$50 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r m}ⁱⁿⁱ^m^u^m^produ^ction
^{ced EHF Satellite}¹^529.0^665.3¹^529.0^665.3¹^529.0^765.3¹^529.0^665.³^S^A^S^C^{added $100 m}ⁿ^{. to R}^&^D
^d^E^x^p^e^nd^a^b^l^e^La^unc^h⁵^838.3^26.1⁵^838.3^26.1⁵^838.3^26.1⁴^784.3^26.1^C^on^f^.^cu^t^s^{$54 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r l}^a^uⁿ^c^h^del^a^y
^B^a^s^e^{d In}^f^r^{ared Sy}^s^t^em^-^—^—^756.6^—^—^756.6^—^—^756.6^—^—^756.6^—
^o^r^m^a^tioⁿ^a^l^—^—^835.8^—^—^435.8^—^—^635.8^—^—^435.8^H^ou^s^e^an^{d con}^f^{. cu}^t^{$400 m}ⁿ^{., S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^cu^t
^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^s^Satellite^{$200 m}ⁿ^.
^Bas^e^{d R}^a^dar^—^—^225.8^—^—^100.0^—^—^150.8^—^—^100.0^H^ou^s^e^an^{d con}^f^{. cu}^{t $125.8 m}ⁿ^{.; S}^A^S^C^cu^t
^{$75 m}ⁿ^.
^:^{DOD; H.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^{89; S}^.^R^e^{pt. 109-}^{69; H.R}^e^{pt. 109-}³⁶⁰

CRS-39
Table 8B. House and Senate Action on Selected Weapons: Appropriations
(amounts in millions of dollars)
^Ho^u^s^e^Senate^C^oⁿ^f^eren^ce
^Re^q^u^e^s^t^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D
^C^o^mmeⁿ^t^s^#^$^{$ #}^$^$^#^$^$^{# $}^$
^y
^—^—^3,404.8^—^—^3,007.4^—^—^3,308.8^—^—^3,^168.8H^A^C^cu^t^{$449 m}ⁿ^{. f}^r^om^ov^eral^l^F^C^S^,^added
^e^Co^m^b^{at Sy}^stem^{$50 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r N}^L^O^S^C^aⁿⁿ^oⁿ^.^S^A^C^cu^t^$100^mⁿ^{. C}^oⁿ^f^{. cu}^t^{$289 m}ⁿ^{. added $50 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^r
^N^L^O^S^Ca^nno^n.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32924}^e^{r A}^r^m^o^{red Veh}ⁱ^cl^e²⁴⁰^878.4^26.7²⁴⁰^882.4^26.7²⁴⁰^878.4^26.7²⁴⁰^881.2^{26.7 —}^ack^h^a^w^k^H^e^lⁱ^c^opt^er⁴¹^584.7^115.0⁴⁵^659.7^115.0⁴¹^584.7^123.0⁴⁵^659.7^122.0H^A^C^an^{d con}^f^{. add $75 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r 4 ai}^rcraf^t^.
^g/w^—^676.0^—^—^676.0^—^—^680.5^—^—^678.3^—^S^A^C^adds^{$4.5 m}ⁿ^{., con}^f^{. $2.3 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r m}^ods^.
^s^.or^e^lⁱ^c^opt^{er Mods}
^le^ak^actⁱ^cal^R^a^di^{o S}^y^s^t^em^—^27.4^407.5^27.4^407.5^—^27.4^368.1^—^27.4^377.5S^A^S^C^cu^t^{$39.4 m}ⁿ^.;^con^f^{. cu}^t^s^{$30 m}ⁿ^.
^://wiki²^Fighter^{, A}^F²⁴^3,733.5^479.7²⁴³^,733.5^479.7²⁴³^,733.5^454.7²⁴³^,733.5^454.7^—
^h^ttpⁿ^t^S^t^ri^k^e^Fⁱ^g^h^t^{er, N}^a^v^y^—^—^2,393.0^—^—^2,399.2^—^—^2,269.0^—^—^2,305.1^S^A^C^cu^t^{$124 m}ⁿ^{., con}^f^{. cu}^t^{$92 m}ⁿ^.
^—^152.4²^,474.8^—^—^2,474.8^—^152.4²^,328.8^—^120.0²^,366.8^H^A^C^cu^t^{$152.4 m}ⁿ^{., con}^f^cu^t^{$32 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^r
^J^o^{int Str}ⁱ^{ke Fighter}^{, A}^F^adv^.^proc.;^S^A^C^cu^t^{$146 m}ⁿ^{., con}^f^{. $108}
^mⁿ^{. f}^r^om^R^&^D
^a^rg^{o A}ⁱ^rcraf^t^{, A}^F¹⁵^3,236.3^165.8¹⁵³^,236.3^165.8¹⁵³^,264.3^167.8¹⁵³^,263.3^167.2^—
^a^{l Haw}^k^UA^{V, A}^F⁵^397.7^308.5³^259.5^329.7⁵^397.7^317.5⁵^363.5^332.4^H^A^C^redu^{ce 2 ai}^rcraf^t^{, con}^f^{. n}^o^ch^an^g^e
^{V, A}^F⁹^125.6^61.0¹³^177.6^63.5⁹^125.6^63.5⁹^125.6^63.5^H^A^C^{added 4 ai}^rcraf^t^{, con}^f^{. n}^o^ch^an^g^e
⁸^E^/^F^Fi^ght^e^r^,^N^a^vy³⁸^2,822.3^88.7³⁸²^,822.3^88.7³⁸²^,830.2^90.7³⁸²^,826.3^87.4^—
ⁱ^rcraf^t^{, Nav}^y⁴^336.7^409.1⁴^336.7^400.0⁴^336.7^409.1⁴^336.7^409.1^—
^T^{ilt Ro}^to^r^Aⁱ^r^c^r^a^f^t^{, Nav}^y⁹¹^,060.6^206.4⁹^1,060.6^206.4⁹^1,060.6^206.4⁹^1,060.6^206.4^—
^T^{ilt Ro}^to^r^Aⁱ^r^c^r^a^f^t^{, A}^F²^243.7^69.5²^232.2^71.5²^243.7^69.5²^243.7^70.5^—
^s/Spa^c^e
^r-^to-^S^u^r^f^{ace Stan}^dof^f^Ms^l³⁰⁰^150.2^67.0^—^2.0^67.0^—^100.0^67.0^—^100.0^67.0^H^A^C^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^at^es^;^S^A^C^an^{d con}^f^{. m}^aⁱⁿ^t^aⁱⁿ^mⁱⁿⁱ^m^u^m^p^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ^cap^ab^ility^.
ⁿ^ced^{EHF Satellite}¹^529.0^665.3¹^529.0^665.3¹^529.0^665.3¹^529.0^665.3^—
^ve^d^E^x^p^e^nd^a^b^l^e^La^unc^h⁵^838.3^26.1⁵^747.3^26.1⁵^784.3^26.1^—^784.3^26.1^H^A^C^{, S}^A^C^,^an^{d con}^f^{. cu}^t^{$91 m}ⁿ^{. f}^o^{r del}^a^y
^cleⁱⁿ^SB^I^R^{S l}^a^unc^h.
^B^a^s^e^{d In}^f^r^{ared Sy}^s^t^em^-^—^—^756.6^—^—^756.6^—^—^656.6^—^—^706.6^S^A^C^cu^t^s^{$100 m}ⁿ^{., con}^f^{. cu}^t^s^{$50 m}ⁿ^{. du}^e
^S^B^I^RS-Hⁱ^gh)^to^co^{st g}^r^o^w^th^.

CRS-40
^Ho^u^s^e^Senate^C^oⁿ^f^eren^ce
^Re^q^u^e^s^t^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D^P^r^ocu^r^em^en^t^R^&^D
^C^o^mmeⁿ^t^s^#^$^{$ #}^$^$^#^$^$^{# $}^$
^sf^o^r^m^a^tioⁿ^a^l^—^—^835.8^—^—^436.8^—^—^585.8^—^—^436.8^H^A^C^an^{d con}^f^{. cu}^t^{$399 m}ⁿ^{., S}^A^C^cu^t^$250
^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^s^Satellite^mn^.^f^o^r^d^e^l^a^ys^.
^B^a^s^e^{d R}^a^dar^—^—^225.8^—^—^100.0^—^—^100.0^—^—^100.0^H^A^C^{, S}^A^C^,^an^{d con}^f^{. cu}^t^{$125.8 m}ⁿ^.
^:^{DOD; H.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^{119; S}^.^R^e^{pt. 109-}^{141; H.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^359.

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32924}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Table 9. Emergency Appropriations for Weapons Procurement
(thousands of dollars)
^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^C^on^f.
^{Aircraft Procu}^rem^en^{t, Arm}^y^—^348,100^232,100
^A^H^—^{64 A}^p^ach^{e Mods}^—^98,800^74,100
^G^u^ardrai^l^Mods^—^25,000^18,700
^H^H^—^60L^MED^E^V^A^C^H^e^lⁱ^c^opt^ers^—^90,000^30,000
^In^teg^r^{ated Mech}^an^{ical Diag}ⁿ^o^s^tics^{— HUMS}^—^25,000^—
^Aⁱ^r^c^r^a^f^t^Su^r^v^iv^ab^ility^Eq^uⁱ^p^m^en^t^—¹¹^,²⁰⁰¹¹^,²⁰⁰
^A^S^{E C}^M^—^69,600^69,600
^C^H^{— 47 R}^e^placem^en^t^—^28,500^28,500
^Mⁱ^s^sⁱ^l^e^Procu^rem^en^{t, A}^r^m^y^—^80,000^55,000
^T^O^W2B^—^80,000^55,000
^Procu^rem^en^{t of W}^e^ap^on^s^an^d^T^r^ack^e^d^C^o^m^b^at^455,427^910,700^860,190
^Vehicles^{, Arm}^y
^B^r^adley^B^a^s^e^Su^s^t^ain^m^en^t^—^{100,000 50,000}
^B^r^ad^ley^Reactiv^{e T}^iles^—^{25,000 -}
^{M1 A}^b^ram^s^T^aⁿ^k^P^o^w^e^{r P}^ack^Im^prov^em^en^{t an}^d^—^{252,700 252,700}
^Iⁿ^teg^r^atioⁿ^Op^tim^izatioⁿ
^Str^y^ke^r^{— Co}^m^b^a^t^L^o^sse^s^—^{50,000 50,000}
^S^t^ry^k^e^r^—^{130,000 130,000}
^C^a^rri^{er Mods}^—^{75,000 62,000}
^CRO^W^S^—^{75,000 75,000}
^G^uⁿ^T^r^u^c^k^s^2,450^—^—
^{M16 ri}^f^l^{e m}^ods^55,300^10,000^9,590
^{M240 m}^e^di^u^m^m^achⁱⁿ^e^{gun m}^o^d^s⁹^,^{372 10,000}^9,000
^{M240 m}^e^di^u^m^m^achⁱⁿ^e^{gun (}⁷^.⁶²^m^m⁾^{107,944 10,000}^18,000
^{M4 carbi}ⁿ^e^m^ods^29,595^130,000^75,000
^{M4 carbi}ⁿ^e^168,237^—^63,000
^{M249 S}^A^{W m}^ods^5,728^9,000^4,500
^{M249 S}^A^{W m}^achⁱⁿ^e^{gun (}⁵^.⁵⁶^m^m⁾⁵⁴^,^{111 5,000}^3,500
^{M107, C}^a^l^.^{50 s}ⁿⁱ^p^{er ri}^f^l^e^9,274^1,000^1,000
^S^m^al^l^A^r^m^s^(S^ol^di^{er En}^h^aⁿ^cem^en^t^Prog^ram⁾^3,416^5,000^5,000
^M2H^B^En^h^aⁿ^{ced .50 C}^a^lⁱ^b^{er Mach}ⁱⁿ^{e G}^uⁿ^Kⁱ^t^s^10,000^—^—
^{Mortar Sy}^s^t^em^s^—^{23,000 15,000}
^Co^uⁿ^t^er^Ro^ck^{et, A}^r^tiller^y^an^d^Mo^r^t^ar^FOB^—^—^36,900
^Procu^rem^en^{t of A}^m^m^uⁿⁱ^ti^on^{, A}^r^m^y^13,900^335,780^273,000
^Fir^s^{t Destin}^atioⁿ^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ²^,⁰⁰⁰^{— -}^{— -}
^A^m^m^uⁿ^itioⁿ^P^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ^Fo^r^{ce P}^r^o^t^ectioⁿ¹¹^,⁹⁰⁰^{— -}^{— -}
^C^T^G^,^{5.56MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^20,753^30,000
^C^T^G^,^{7.62MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^14,889^21,000
^C^T^G^,^{9MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^1,513^—^-
^C^T^G^,^{50 C}^A^L^,^A^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^6,685^15,000
^C^T^G^,^{20MM Ph}^al^an^x^(f^{or C}^-^R^A^{M dev}^e^l^opm^en^t⁾^—^-^—^-^6,000
^C^T^G^,^{25MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^6,999^—^-
^C^T^G^,^{30MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^10,531^20,000
^C^T^G^,^{40MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^42,747^35,000
^C^T^G^,^{60MM MO}^R^T^A^R^{, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^15,335^—^-
^C^T^G^,^{81MM MO}^R^T^A^R^{, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^32,286^—^-
^C^T^G^,^MO^R^T^A^R^{, 120MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^69,963^—^-
^CT^G^,^T^a^{nk T}^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng,^A^l^l^T^y^p^e^s^—^-¹^,¹³²^—^-

^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^C^on^f.
^C^T^G^,^A^R^T^Y^{, 155MM, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^4,593^—^-
^C^T^{G, A}^r^tillery^{, 155MM, A}^{ll T}^y^pes^{— -}^6,999^4,500
^Mo^d^u^lar^A^r^tiller^y^Ch^ar^g^e^Sy^stem⁽^M^A^C^S)^{, A}^l^l^—^-⁸⁴¹⁶⁰⁰
^Ty^p^e^s
^Mⁱ^ne^{s (}^C^o^nve^ntⁱ^o^na^l⁾^,^A^l^l^T^y^p^e^s^—^-⁴⁸⁶^—^-
^S^h^ou^l^d^{er F}ⁱ^{red R}^o^ck^et^s^,^A^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^6,786^5,000
^R^o^ck^et^{, H}^y^{dra 70, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^10,000^—^-
^Dem^o^litioⁿ^Muⁿ^itioⁿ^s^{, A}^{ll T}^y^p^e^s^{— -}¹¹^,²⁵⁷²^,⁹⁰⁰
^G^r^en^ades^{, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^5,529^—^-
^Sⁱ^gⁿ^a^l^s^{, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^1,209^116,000
^Sⁱ^m^u^l^a^t^o^rs^{, A}^l^l^T^y^pes^—^-^1,154^2,000
^Noⁿ^-^L^e^th^{al A}^m^m^uⁿ^itioⁿ^,^A^{ll T}^y^p^e^s^{— -}⁴⁶^,⁷⁸²^{— -}
^I^t^em^{s L}^e^{ss T}^h^an^$⁵^Millioⁿ^{— -}²^,³¹¹^{— -}
^P^r^o^v^isioⁿ^o^f^Iⁿ^d^u^strⁱ^{al Facilities}^{— -}¹⁵^,⁰⁰⁰¹⁵^,⁰⁰⁰
^Oth^{er Procu}^rem^en^{t, A}^r^m^y^1,501,270^3,916,000^3,174,900
^U^p^-^A^rm^{or H}^MMWV^s^:^{M1114, M1151, M1152}^170,000^240,000^170,000
^A^dd-^on^-^A^rm^{or plate f}^o^{r lev}^e^{l Ill an}^{d ballis}^{tic g}^l^as^s^20,000^150,000^50,000
^T^{actical W}^h^{eeled Veh}ⁱ^{cle R}^{ecap Modern}^ization^P^r^og^ram
^{HMMWV R}^ecap^193,000^690,000^463,500
^HMMWVs^{— A}^R^60,000^—^—
^U^p^-^a^rm^{ored H}^MMWV^s^{(M1114) —}^A^R^5,370^—^—
^F^M^T^V^s^50,000^—^45,000
^Lⁱ^g^h^t^Medi^u^m^T^actⁱ^cal^V^e^hⁱ^cl^{e (L}^MT^V⁾^{2.5 t}^oⁿ^15,000^—^—
^Medi^u^m^T^actⁱ^cal^V^e^hⁱ^cl^{e 5 t}^oⁿ^—^A^R^41,000^—^—
^HEMT^T^R^ecap^60,400^48,000^48,000
^T^r^u^c^k^C^a^rg^{o PL}^S^{M1075 —}^A^R^37,000^—^—
^P^L^{S T}^r^ailers^{— A}^R^9,000^—^—
^F^H^T^V^—^70,800^60,000
^FHT^V^T^r^ailers^—^—^12,500
^T^{actical T}^r^ailer^/^Do^lly^Sets^—⁹^,⁰⁰⁰⁹^,⁰⁰⁰
^M915A^{1 R}^e^placem^en^ts^15,000^—^—
^Fr^eig^h^tlin^er^Militar^y^Lⁱⁿ^e^h^a^u^l^T^r^acto^r^s^—¹²^,⁰⁰⁰⁶^,⁰⁰⁰
^Mov^e^m^eⁿ^t^T^r^ackⁱⁿ^g^S^y^s^t^em^—^2,000^2,000
^A^r^m^o^{red S}^ecu^ri^t^y^V^e^hⁱ^cl^es^—^54,400^40,800
^S^I^N^C^G^A^R^S^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^87,000^500,000^450,000
^Hⁱ^g^h^F^r^equ^eⁿ^c^y^R^a^di^{o —}^A^R^21,000^—^—
^R^a^di^{o Im}^prov^{ed, H}^F^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^—^600,000^575,000
^A^r^m^y^D^a^t^a^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^bu^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^y^s^t^em^(D^at^{a R}^a^di^o)^—^—^27,000
^C^o^m^b^at^S^u^rvⁱ^v^{or R}^a^di^os^—^11,100^11,100
^Radⁱ^o^{Set, A}^N^/VDR-²^—^—^—
^Bri^d^g^e^t^o^F^u^t^u^{re N}^e^t^w^ork^s^(A^C^U^S^MO^D^S⁾^—^200,000^175,000
^{Force XXI B}^a^{ttle C}^o^m^m^aⁿ^d^B^D^{E an}^{d B}^e^low^116,900^116,000^116,000
^Def^eⁿ^s^{e adv}^aⁿ^{ced GP}^{S receiv}^e^r^5,000^—^—
^Aⁱ^{r &}^Mi^s^sⁱ^l^e^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e Pl}^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^&^C^oⁿ^t^rol^S^y^s^t^em^—^100,000^100,000
^Man^e^u^v^e^{r C}^oⁿ^t^rol^S^y^s^t^em^(MC^S⁾^—^30,000^30,000
^NA^VST^A^{R Glo}^b^a^{l P}^o^sitioⁿⁱⁿ^g^Sy^stem^(Sp^ace)^—¹⁴^,⁰⁰⁰¹⁴^,⁰⁰⁰
^Dⁱ^gⁱ^t^a^l^T^opog^raphⁱ^c^S^u^pport^S^y^s^t^em^—^18,000^18,000
^Mo^uⁿ^t^ed^B^a^{ttle Co}^m^m^aⁿ^d^oⁿ^th^{e Mo}^v^e³⁰^,⁰⁰⁰³⁰^,⁰⁰⁰³⁰^,⁰⁰⁰
^Proph^et^/^C^O^B^R^A^145,000^—^37,500
^Proph^et^G^r^ouⁿ^d^(T^IA^R^A⁾^—^75,000^37,500
^It^em^s^L^e^s^s^T^h^an^{$5,0M (T}^IA^R^A⁾^—^14,000^-
^Nⁱ^g^h^t^Vⁱ^sⁱ^on^D^e^vⁱ^ces^—^245,000^225,000
^T^h^erm^a^{l W}^eapon^Sy^s^t^em^{— Nig}^h^t^Visⁱ^on^—^73,000^68,000

^Equⁱ^pm^en^t

^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^C^on^f.
^Li^ght^w^eⁱ^ght^Co^unt^e^r^M^o^r^t^a^r^Ra^d^a^r^E^nha^nc^e^m^eⁿ^t^—⁶^,⁰⁰⁰^—
^Sm^{all T}^{actical Optical R}ⁱ^f^l^{e Mou}ⁿ^t^{ed Micro-}^L^a^s^e^r^—^6,000^—
^Ra^nge^Fi^ndⁱ^{ng Sy}^st^e^m
^L^oⁿ^g^Ran^g^e^A^d^v^aⁿ^ced^Sco^u^{t Su}^r^v^eillan^{ce Sy}^stem^—⁵^,⁰⁰⁰⁵^,⁰⁰⁰
^IED^Jam^m^e^rs^35,000^—^—
^L^o^w^cos^t^EC^{M produ}^ctⁱ^oⁿ^10,000^—^—
^Mu^lti-^B^aⁿ^d^{SHF T}^e^r^mⁱⁿ^{al (}^P^h^o^en^ix⁾^{— A}^R¹²^,⁰⁰⁰^—^—
^T^actⁱ^cal^C^o^m^m^oⁿ^D^a^t^a^Lⁱⁿ^k^72,000^—^—
^Bi^om^et^ri^cs^A^u^t^o^m^a^t^e^{d T}^ool^s^e^t^(BA^T⁾^14,700^—^—
^T^actⁱ^cal^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^eⁿ^t^ers^84,000^85,000^72,000
^A^l^l^S^o^u^r^{ce A}ⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^S^y^s^t^em^—^14,000^14,000
^T^actⁱ^cal^Uⁿ^m^aⁿⁿ^e^{d A}^e^ri^al^V^e^hⁱ^cl^{e (T}^U^A^V⁾^(JMIP)^—^174,000^140,000
^I-^G^N^A^T^—^50,000^—
^S^m^ok^{e &}^O^b^s^c^u^r^an^t^S^y^s^t^em^s^—^10,000^—
^H^aⁿ^d^h^e^l^d^S^t^an^dof^f^Miⁿ^e^fⁱ^el^{d D}^e^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^S^y^s^t^em^—^15,000^13,000
^No^m^a^d^Helm^{et Mo}^uⁿ^t^ed^Disp^lay^{— Stry}^k^e^r^—^11,200^—
^B^r^ig^ades
^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^S^L^EP^25,000^10,000^—
^Medi^cal^C^o^m^m^f^o^{r C}^o^m^b^at^C^a^s^u^al^t^y^C^a^{re (MC}⁴⁾^—^33,000^28,000
^C^o^m^b^at^S^u^pport^Medi^cal^—^26,500^23,000
^Q^uⁱ^c^{k Cl}^o^t^H^e^m^o^r^r^ha^ge^Co^nt^r^o^l⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^—^—
^Chi^t^o^sa^{n H}^e^m^o^r^r^ha^ge^Co^nt^r^o^l^D^r^e^ssi^ng⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^—^—
^S^e^l^f^-^c^on^t^aⁱⁿ^{ed R}^e^u^s^abl^e^Bl^{ood C}^oⁿ^t^aiⁿ^e^r^10,000^—^—
^H^MMWV^an^{d T}^actⁱ^cal^T^r^u^c^k^C^r^ew^T^r^aiⁿ^e^rs^25,000^20,000^20,000
^C^o^uⁿ^t^{er R}^o^ck^{et, A}^r^tillery^an^d^{Mortar (C}^-^R^A^M⁾^107,900^80,000^24,000
^Ex^pl^osⁱ^v^{e D}^e^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^(Back^s^cat^t^e^r)^—^68,000^—
^P^e^r^s^isten^t^T^h^r^{eat Detectio}ⁿ^Sy^stem^{, OI}^{F lo}^ss^15,000^—^15,000
^replacem^en^t
^{Aircraft Procu}^rem^en^{t, Navy}^—^151,537^138,837
^P-^{3 S}^S^I^-^K^—^-^6,400^4,600
^P^-^3C^C^eⁿ^t^{er W}ⁱⁿ^g^R^e^placem^en^t^{— -}^13,800^13,800
^A^H^-¹^W^Iⁿ^cr^eased^Su^r^v^iv^ab^ility^{— -}⁶^,⁶⁰⁰⁶^,⁶⁰⁰
^A^H^-¹^{W T}^u^rn^{ed Ex}^h^a^u^s^t^—^-^15,900^15,900
^A^H^-¹^{W T}^u^rn^{ed Ex}^h^a^u^s^t^(S^pares⁾^—^-^1,300^1,300
^C^H^-^{53 S}^u^s^t^aiⁿ^m^en^t^—^-^10,000^10,000
^K^C^-^130T^D^E^C^M^/^N^V^L^G^r^ouⁿ^d^U^p^—^-^24,700^18,000
^UC-³⁵^Aⁱ^r^c^r^a^f^t^Su^r^v^iv^ab^ility^Eq^uⁱ^p^m^en^t^{— -}⁷^,⁵⁰⁰⁷^,⁵⁰⁰
^A^A^R^-^{47 Mi}^s^sⁱ^l^e^Warnⁱⁿ^g^S^y^s^t^em^U^p^g^r^ade^—^-^8,100^8,100
^A^L^Q-^{157 Main}^tain^ability^Im^prov^em^en^t^{— -}^3,000^3,000
^Mo^b^{ile Facility}^P^o^w^e^r^{— -}³^,⁸⁰⁰³^,⁸⁰⁰
^U^H^-^1Y^/^A^H^-^1Z^N^R^E^—^-^10,000^10,800
^F^/^A^-^{18 L}ⁱ^t^eⁿⁱⁿ^g^Pods^—^-^15,000^15,000
^{War C}^oⁿ^s^u^m^abl^e^s^—^-^10,437^10,437
^A^T^F^L^IR^—^-^15,000^10,000
^W^e^ap^on^s^Procu^rem^en^{t, N}^avy^81,696^56,700^116,900
^T^o^m^a^h^a^w^k^Mi^s^sⁱ^l^e^s^81,696^—^-^75,900
^Hellf^ir^{e Missiles (}^T^h^e^r^m^o^b^a^rⁱ^{c an}^d^B^l^ast/Fr^a^g^—^-^50,000^38,000
^Vari^an^t^s⁾
^Pi^on^{eer T}^U^A^V^En^gⁱⁿ^e^s^an^{d A}^vⁱ^oⁿⁱ^cs^—^-^6,700^3,000
^Procu^rem^en^{t of A}^m^m^uⁿⁱ^ti^on^{, N}^{avy an}^d^M^a^riⁿ^e^144,721^48,485^38,885
^Co^rps
^A^m^m^uⁿ^itioⁿ^Req^u^ir^em^en^{ts f}^o^r^FSRG²⁰^,²²¹^{— -}^{— -}

^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^C^on^f.
^155m^m^F^u^ze-^El^ect^ronⁱ^{c T}ⁱ^m^e^M762A¹^10,000^—^-^—^-
^Igⁿⁱ^t^e^r-^Tⁱ^m^e^Bl^as^tⁱⁿ^g^F^u^{ze M81}^5,000^5,000^3,500
^D^e^t^oⁿ^a^t^o^{r, N}^oⁿ^-^El^ect^ri^{c MK}¹⁵⁴^10,000^—^-^—^-
^66m^m^R^o^ck^et^-^Hⁱ^g^h^Ex^pl^osⁱ^v^{e M72A}⁷^11,000^—^-^—^-
^155m^m^Mu^{lti Option}^Fu^{ze M782}^6,000^{— -}^{— -}
^120m^m^T^aⁿ^k^A^m^m^uⁿ^ition^-^{M1028 C}^aⁿⁱ^s^t^er^3,000^3,000^{— -}
^155m^m^Hig^h^Ex^plos^iv^{e P}^r^oj^{ectile M795}^15,000^15,000^12,000
^{.50 C}^a^lⁱ^b^{er C}^a^rt^ri^dg^es^13,000^—^-^—^-
^7.62m^m^C^a^rt^ri^dg^es^1,500^—^-^—^-
^40m^m^{M430 H}^E^D^P^30,000^—^-^—^-
^120m^m^C^a^rt^ri^dg^es^M830A^{1 H}^E^A^T^-^M^P-^T^10,000^—^-^—^-
^C⁴^C^h^arg^e^s^M58A^{4 H}^E^10,000^—^-^—^-
^S^m^al^l^A^r^m^s^an^{d L}^aⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^Part^y^A^m^m^o^—^-^3,200^2,400
^Aⁱ^{r Ex}^pen^d^abl^e^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^—^-^5,800^4,500
^A^s^bl^y^,^Py^{ro MK}³⁴^—^-^16,485^16,485
^Oth^{er Procu}^rem^en^{t, N}^avy^48,800^116,048^49,100
^Ph^y^sⁱ^cal^S^ecu^ri^t^y^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^48,800^106,948^40,000
^C^o^m^b^at^S^u^rvⁱ^v^{or R}^a^di^os^—^9,100^9,100
^Procu^rem^en^{t, M}^a^riⁿ^e^C^o^rp^s^389,900^2,303,700^1,710,145
^Minⁱ^atu^r^{e T}^r^an^s^ceiv^e^{r (B}^lu^{e Force T}^r^ack^er)^7,400^{— -}^{— -}
^Lⁱ^g^h^t^A^r^m^o^{red V}^e^hⁱ^cl^{e (L}^A^V^{) —}^{48 v}^e^hⁱ^cl^es^102,500^—^-^57,000
^Lⁱ^g^h^t^A^r^m^o^{red V}^e^hⁱ^cl^{e (L}^A^V^{) C}^o^m^b^at^L^o^s^s^e^s^—^-^25,000^25,000
^W^eapon^s^uⁿ^d^{er $5 m}^illion^10,⁸⁰⁰^100,000^90,000
^Modu^l^a^{r Weapon}^S^y^s^t^em^—^-^10,000^10,000
^G^uⁱ^d^{ed Mi}^s^sⁱ^l^e^an^{d Equ}ⁱ^pm^en^t^{Mod K}ⁱ^t^s^—^-^1,500^1,000
^G^uⁱ^d^{ed ML}^R^S^Pods^f^o^{r H}^I^MA^R^S^—^-^54,500^30,000
^U^p^A^r^m^o^{red H}^MMWV^:^{M1114, M1151, M1152}^—^-^200,000^178,645
^MT^V^R^—^-^500,000^275,000
^L^o^gⁱ^s^tics^Vehⁱ^{cle R}^e^placem^en^t^{— -}^7,000^3,500
^C^o^m^m^e^rci^a^l^C^a^rg^{o V}^e^hⁱ^cl^es^—^-^7,000^3,500
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^of^T^actⁱ^cal^T^r^ai^l^e^rs^—^-^20,000^15,000
^A^N^/^P^S^Q^-^18A^{, M203 D}^a^y^/^Nⁱ^g^h^t^Sⁱ^g^h^t^—^-^4,000^—^-
^Clo^s^{e Qu}^ar^ter^s^B^a^{ttle Sig}^h^t^{— -}⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^{— -}
^{Mod K}ⁱ^t^s^{, A}^r^m^o^{r an}^{d F}ⁱ^{re S}^u^pport^—^-^12,000^8,000
^C^o^m^m^S^wⁱ^t^c^hⁱⁿ^g^an^{d C}^oⁿ^t^rol^S^y^s^t^em^s^—^-^120,000^92,000
^MA^G^T^F^S^u^pport^(Aⁱ^r^O^p^s^C²^S^y^s^t^em^s⁾^—^-^10,000^5,000
^R^a^{dar S}^y^s^t^em^s^—^-^25,000^18,000
^T^actⁱ^cal^R^e^m^o^t^e^S^eⁿ^s^{or S}^y^s^t^em^—^-^25,000^14,000
^R^e^pai^r^an^{d T}^e^s^t^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^—^-^20,000^15,000
^Fⁱ^{re S}^u^pport^S^y^s^t^em^—^-^30,000^20,000
^In^tellig^en^{ce Su}^{pport Equ}ⁱ^pm^en^t^{— -}^25,000^15,000
^{Mod K}ⁱ^t^s^(In^t^e^l^l⁾^—^-^11,000^3,000
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^Pu^rpos^{e T}^ool^s^—^-^1,000^1,000
^C^o^m^m^aⁿ^d^Pos^t^S^y^s^t^em^s^—^-^100,000^85,000
^C^o^m^m^oⁿ^C^o^m^p^u^t^{er R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^—^-^15,000^12,000
^S^m^al^l^Uⁿⁱ^t^R^e^m^o^t^e^S^c^ou^tⁱⁿ^g^S^y^s^t^em^—^-^7,500^6,000
^Nⁱ^g^h^t^Vⁱ^sⁱ^on^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^225,000^90,000^72,000
^En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^a^l^C^oⁿ^t^rol^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^—^-^3,000^2,000
^Bu^l^k^Lⁱ^quⁱ^d^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^—^-^20,000^14,000
^T^actⁱ^cal^F^u^el^S^y^s^t^em^s^—^-^23,000^16,000
^A^s^s^o^rt^{ed Pow}^e^{r Equ}ⁱ^pm^en^t^—^-^15,000^10,000
^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^—^-^15,000^12,000

^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^C^on^f.
^En^gⁱⁿ^eeriⁿ^g^{Mod K}ⁱ^t^s^—^-^5,000^3,500
^En^gⁱⁿ^{eer an}^{d O}^t^h^e^{r Equ}ⁱ^pm^en^t^L^e^s^s^T^h^an^$5m^—^-^7,000^4,500
^Fⁱ^el^{d Medi}^cal^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^—^-^8,500^8,500
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^of^EO^D^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^an^{d EO}^D^S^y^s^t^em^s^—^-^140,000^23,000
^Hⁱ^g^h^P^o^we^r^J^a^mmme^r^s^UUNS^{— -}^362,700^362,700
^Z^B^ack^{scatter UUNS}^{— -}²⁹^,⁰⁰⁰^{— -}
^PS^S^-^{14 Met}^a^l^D^e^t^ect^ors^an^{d O}^t^h^e^{r It}^em^s^1,300^—^-^—^-
^{EOD Sy}^stem^{s (}^d^em^o^litioⁿ^eq^uⁱ^p^m^en^t)^{— -}^{— -}⁵^,³⁰⁰
^T^actⁱ^cal^R^a^di^os^(PR^C^-^{117 an}^{d PR}^C^-^{150 radi}^os⁾^25,000^—^-^—^-
^JT^R^S^L^e^g^acy^Bri^d^g^e^—^EPL^R^S^17,900^—^-^—^-
^R^a^di^{o S}^y^s^t^em^s^—^250,000^194,000
^{Aircraft Procu}^rem^en^{t, Air Force}^115,300^118,058^125,300
^A^N^G^F^—^16/^A^—^{10 L}ⁱ^t^eⁿⁱⁿ^g^Pods^—^-^10,000^10,000
^C^-^{17 Modi}^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^—^L^A^IR^C^Mⁱⁿ^s^t^al^l^s^84,000^84,000^84,000
^C^-^{130 Modi}^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^—^L^A^IR^C^Mⁱⁿ^s^t^al^l^s^7,200^—^-^7,200
^W^a^{r Co}ⁿ^s^u^m^ab^{les — In}^itial/rep^lacem^en^{t o}^f^to^w^e^d^24,100^24,058^24,100
^decoy^s^an^{d rock}^{et lau}ⁿ^c^h^e^{r m}^o^tors
^Mⁱ^s^sⁱ^l^e^Procu^rem^en^{t, A}ⁱ^{r Force}^—^17,000^17,000
^H^e^l^l^fⁱ^r^{e Mi}^s^sⁱ^l^e^s^—^17,000^17,000
^Oth^{er Procu}^rem^en^{t, A}ⁱ^{r Force}^2,400^17,500^17,500
^H^MMWV^,^U^p^-^A^rm^ored^2,400^2,400^2,400
^A^d^v^aⁿ^{ced Grou}ⁿ^d^B^l^u^e^{Force T}^r^ack^er^—^2,000^2,000
^463L^C^a^rg^{o N}^e^t^s^—^4,100^4,100
^C^a^rg^{o Pal}^l^e^t^s^—^9,000^9,000
^Procu^rem^en^{t, D}^e^fen^s^{e W}ⁱ^d^e^103,900^132,075^182,075
^MH^-^{47 i}ⁿ^f^r^{ared en}^gⁱⁿ^e^ex^h^a^u^s^t^s^u^ppres^s^o^r⁷^,700^7,700^—^-
^Hig^h^p^e^r^f^o^r^m^aⁿ^{ce m}^o^b^ility^FL^I^R⁽^g^r^o^uⁿ^d⁾¹⁰^,⁸⁰⁰^{— -}¹⁰^,⁸⁰⁰
^Hig^h^p^e^r^f^o^r^m^aⁿ^{ce m}^o^b^ility^FL^I^R⁽^m^ar^itim^e)⁶^,⁰⁰⁰^{— -}⁶^,⁰⁰⁰
^Mu^lti-^b^aⁿ^dⁱⁿ^ter^/in^tr^{a team}^r^a^dⁱ^o¹³^,⁵⁰⁰^{— -}^{— -}
^Mu^lti-^b^aⁿ^d^m^u^{lti m}ⁱ^ssioⁿ^r^a^dⁱ^o⁶⁵^,⁹⁰⁰^{— -}⁴⁵^,⁹⁰⁰
^R^A^MS^—^-⁹⁵⁰⁹⁵⁰
^A^L^G^L^—^-^10,760^—^-
^A^L^Q^-¹⁷²^—^-^2,700^2,700
^A^N^/^P^A^S^-²¹^—^-^10,452^6,000
^T^A^C^T^IC^O^M^P^—^-^8,000^7,025
^IT^WS^—^-^3,400^3,400
^A^G^MS^—^-^21,146^15,000
^H^P^MMR^—^-^2,584^1,600
^T^A^C^L^A^N^—^-^1,983^1,000
^S^W^O^R^D^(m^ov^{ed t}^o^PD^{W l}ⁱⁿ^{e 64)}^—^-^2,000^—^-
^S^O^F^O^r^dn^an^{ce R}^e^pl^enⁱ^s^h^m^en^t^—^-^10,000^10,000
^S^m^al^l^A^r^m^s^an^{d Weapon}^s^—^-^31,300^31,300
^Body^A^r^m^o^r^—^-^3,700^3,700
^MH-⁴⁷^B^a^{ttle L}^o^{ss Co}ⁿ^v^e^r^s^ioⁿ^{— -}¹⁵^,⁴⁰⁰¹⁵^,⁴⁰⁰
^A^/^MH-⁶^{M L}^{ittle b}ⁱ^r^d^Helico^p^t^er^s^{— -}^{— -}²¹^,³⁰⁰
^N^a^ti^on^al^G^u^ard^an^d^R^e^s^{erve E}^q^uⁱ^p^m^en^t^—^1,300,000^1,000,000
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^u^{ard an}^{d R}^e^s^e^rv^{e Equ}ⁱ^pm^en^t^—^1,300,000^1,000,000
^T^o^tal^p^r^ocu^rem^en^t²^,857,314^8,551,683^7,980,932
^Sources^:^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{119, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^141;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^359.

Missile Defense
Missile defense is the largest acquisition program in the Defense Department’s
current six-year plan, with a projected budget of more than $60 billion over the
FY2006-FY2011 period. The Administration is requesting $8.7 billion for missile
defense development and procurement in FY2006. PBD-753 directed the missile
defense agency to reduce planned funding by $5 billion over the six-year period, with
a cut of $1 billion in FY2006 and $800 million per year each year thereafter. As a
result, there have been some significant changes in the long-term development plan.
In FY2006, the biggest reduction is in funding for a program known as the Ballistic
Missile Defense System Interceptor, a program to develop a high-acceleration booster
and warhead known as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). Congress trimmed
funding for the KEI last year, and some have questioned whether a program aimed,
in large part, at allowing interceptors to destroy enemy missiles in the boost phase is
practical at all. KEI funding remains in future budget plans, however.
Missile defense is often a matter of debate in Congress. A key issue recently has
been whether the testing program is adequate. In December, 2002, the White House
announced a decision to accelerate deployment of an initial, limited-capability,
ground-based interceptor system to be operational by the fall of 2004. The Missile
Defense Agency is currently in the process of deploying 20 interceptor missiles in
Alaska and, for test purposes, in California, but the Defense Department has not yet
declared the system operational. Recent tests of the deployed missile and warhead
have failed, and the booster-warhead combination that is being deployed has yet to
tested successfully. Another recurrent issue in Congress is whether funding for more
long-term and uncertain technologies, such as space-based interceptors, should be
reduced in favor of increased funding for more immediately deployable systems, such
as the Patriot PAC-3 short range missile defense.
Congressional Action. In preliminary markup of the FY2006 defense
authorization bill (H.R. 1815) in the House Armed Services Committee strategic
forces subcommittee, Representative Spratt offered an amendment to require the
Missile Defense Agency to schedule a missile defense interceptor test as soon as
possible. As an alternative, the subcommittee approved a measure that would add
$100 million to support additional testing of the ground-based system that is
currently being deployed. The full committee rejected proposals that would have
required successful testing before continuing with deployment and that would have
transferred oversight of tests from the Missile Defense Agency to the independent
DOD Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. The House rule on the
authorization bill did not permit any additional amendments on missile defense
funding or testing. The committee bill requires a report comparing the Airborne
Laser program and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program for the purpose of
intercepting missiles in the boost phase.
The Senate Armed Services Committee also added funds for the mid-course
defense system that is now being deployed, and specified that $100 million of the
added money is to enhance the ground-based missile defense test program.
The House Appropriations Committee added $100 million for testing of the
ground-based defense and provided $82 million for a multiple kill vehicle. The

committee restructured the budget for the program to make different elements of the
program more visible. The committee divided the midcourse defense program into
two parts, one for ground-based defenses and one for sea-based defenses. The
committee also divided the sensor program into separate program elements for
satellites and for radars.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided an additional $200 million for
the ground-based midcourse defense system and $65 million more for the U.S.-
Israeli Arrow program.
Table 10 shows final congressional appropriations action on missile defense by
program element.

Table 10. Congressional Action on FY2006 Missile Defense Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Conference
^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns
^C^h^an^ge^C^h^an^ge^C^h^an^ge
^Request^to^to^to
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Am^o^unt^Request^Am^o^unt^Request^Am^o^unt^Request
^Procu^rem^en^{t A}^r^m^y^567.1^567.1^—^567.1^—^567.1^—
^PA^T^R^IO^T^PA^C^-³^489.7^489.7^—^489.7^—^489.7^—
^P^A^TR^I^O^{T M}^o^dⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^77.4^77.4^—^77.4^—^77.4^—
^R^D^T^&^E^Mⁱ^s^sⁱ^l^e^D^e^fen^s^{e A}^g^en^cy^7,775.2⁷^,630.7^-^144.5⁷^,837.8⁺^62.6⁷^,913.8⁺^138.6
^0603175C^B^a^llis^{tic Mis}^s^{ile Def}^eⁿ^s^e^136.2^128.4^-^7.9^125.6^-^10.6^162.3⁺^26.1
⁽^B^M^D⁾^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy
^0603879C^A^d^v^aⁿ^{ced C}^oⁿ^cept^s^,^—^—^—^—^—^—^—
^Ev^alu^a^tion^s^an^{d Sy}^s^t^em^s
^0603881C^BMD^T^e^rmⁱⁿ^al^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^1,143.6¹^,123.7^-^19.9¹^,^208.6⁺^65.0¹^,198.9⁺^55.3
^Segm^ent
^0603882C^BMD^Mi^dcou^rs^e^3,266.2^—^-³^,266.2^—^-³^,266.2^—^-³^,266.2
^D^e^fe^nse^Se^gm^eⁿ^t
⁰⁶⁰^XXXXC^B^M^{D Gro}^uⁿ^d^b^a^sed^—^2,267.1⁺^2,267.1²^,541.⁷⁺^2,541.7²^,489.3⁺^2,489.3
^Mi^dcou^rs^e
⁰⁶⁰^XXXXC^B^M^{D Seab}^ased^—^892.1⁺^892.1^930.4⁺^930.4^939.1⁺^939.1
^Mi^dcou^rs^e
^0603883C^BMD^Boos^t^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^483.9^464.9^-^19.0^493.9⁺^10.0^490.9⁺^7.0
^Segm^ent
^0603884C^BMD^S^eⁿ^s^ors^529.8^—^-^529.8^—^-^529.8^—^-^529.8
^060XXXXC^B^M^{D Satellites}^—^231.4⁺^231.4^—^—^240.0⁺^240.0
⁰⁶⁰^{XXXXC Sp}^{ace Su}^rv^eillan^{ce &}^—^—^—^245.5⁺^245.5^—^—
^T^r^ackⁱⁿ^g^Sy^s^t^em
^060XXXXC^{BMD R}^a^dars^—^289.7⁺^289.7^294.3⁺^294.3^294.3⁺^294.3
^0603886C^BMD^S^y^s^t^em^In^t^e^rcept^o^r^229.7^218.7^-^10.9^115.0^-^114.7^216.0^-^13.7
^0603888C^BMD^T^e^s^t^&^T^a^rg^et^s^617.5^614.5^-^2.9^624.5⁺^7.0^627.2⁺^9.8
^0603889C^BMD^Produ^ct^s^455.2^383.6^-^71.5^425.2^-^30.0^394.7^-^60.5
^0603890C^BMD^S^y^s^t^em^s^C^o^re^447.0^404.4^-^42.6^417.0^-^30.0^420.2^-^26.9
^0603891C^S^p^eci^al^Prog^ram^s^-^MD^A^349.5^349.5^—^299.5^-^50.0^324.5^-^25.0
^060XXXXC^{BMD P}^r^og^ram^S^u^pport^—^141.0⁺^141.0^—^—^—^—
^0901585C^Pen^t^ag^on^R^e^s^e^rv^atⁱ^oⁿ^17.4^22.4⁺^5.0^17.4^—^17.4^—
^0901598C^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^H^Q^-^MD^A^99.3^99.3^—^99.3^—^99.3^—
^R^D^T^&^E^A^r^m^y^305.0^305.0^—^305.0^—^305.0^—
^0604865A^/^0604869A^PA^T^R^IO^T^288.8^288.8^—^288.8^—^288.8^—
^PA^C^-^3/^M^E^A^D^S
^0203801A^PA^T^R^IO^T^Im^prov^em^en^t^16.2^16.2^—^16.2^—^16.2^—
^R^D^T^&^E^T^h^{e Joi}ⁿ^t^S^t^aff^81.5^81.5^—^81.5^—^81.5^—
^{0605126J Joi}ⁿ^t^T^h^eat^{er A}ⁱ^{r an}^d^81.5^81.5^—^81.5^—^81.5^—
^Mⁱ^ssi^l^e^D^e^fe^nse^O^r^gaⁿⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^T^o^tal^Mⁱ^s^sⁱ^l^e^D^e^fen^s^e⁸^,728.8⁸^,^584.3^-^144.5⁸^,791.4⁺^62.6⁸^,867.4⁺^138.6
^Sources^:^H^.^R^e^pt^109-^119;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^141;^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^359.

Army Modularization
The Army is undertaking a wholesale reorganization of its combat forces. The
reorganization is designed to create a more flexible and more readily deployable
force based primarily on separate modular brigades that can be deployed individually
or in combination, rather than on divisions composed of three combat brigades and
associated support elements. By the end of FY2007, the Army plans to increase the
number of deployable brigades in the active duty force from 33 to at least 43 and
possibly as many as 48 “Brigade Units of Action.” The Army National Guard will
also be reorganized from a force with 15 separate brigades and 19 divisional brigades
into one with 33 deployable Brigade Units of Action.²⁵
The Army now projects that its modularization plan will cost $48 billion over
the seven-year FY2005-FY2011 period, up from about $28 billion when the plan was
originally decided on.²⁶ In FY2005 and FY2006, the Army has not included funds
to cover the costs in its regular or baseline budget. Instead, it has asked for $5 billion
in the FY2005 supplemental to cover costs and plans to request supplemental funds
for FY2006 as well. PBD-753 (see discussion of Administration request, below)
directed the Defense Department to add $5 billion annually beginning in FY2007 to
the Army’s regular budget to cover modularization costs thereafter.
Congress has generally supported the Army reorganization, though some
questions have been raised about it. The big issue has been whether to include
funding in supplementals or in regular appropriations, but his appears to have been
resolved — funds will be in supplementals in FY2005 and FY2006 and in the regular
budget thereafter. A key unanswered question is whether the Army will be able to
fill out the deployable brigade structure without a permanent increase in end-strength.
Through FY2006, the Defense Department is keeping 30,000 troops in the force
above earlier end-strength levels, in part as a rotation base for Iraq and in part to
provide a buffer as the Army reorganizes. Costs are being covered in supplemental
appropriations. The Defense Department leadership expects the Army to fill out
units after FY2006 without additional end-strength by reassigning personnel within
the force and by shifting military jobs to civilians. Many in Congress doubt that the
Army will be able to fill out the new brigades in the future simply by reassigning
personnel.
Another key issue is whether, in the long run, the new Army force design will
meet strategic requirements. Among others, retired Army Colonel Douglas
MacGregor, who was one of the original champions of a brigade-centered force, has
argued that the new brigades are not sufficiently well-equipped to have the necessary
flexibility and that the Army is still preserving too many layers of command.²⁷

²⁵ For an overview of the plan and a review of key issues, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S.
Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
²⁶ See testimony of Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey and Army Chief of Staff General
Peter Schoomaker before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, March 2, 2005.
²⁷ Col. MacGregor has proposed brigades of 5,000 to 6,000 troops, which would be 30%-
(continued...)

Congressional Action. In the conference agreement on the FY2005
supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1268, Congress provided the full $5 billion
requested for Army modularization.
Civilian Personnel Policy
In the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136), Congress
agreed to an Administration request to give the Secretary of Defense very broad
authority to reorganize DOD’s civilian personnel system. DOD is now implementing
changes. Some of the steps the department has taken to date have led to
disagreements with some employees and some unions. Last year, Congress
considered, but ultimately did not act on amendments to the personnel legislation to
ensure certain traditional civil service procedures. Similar measures may be
proposed this year. In addition, Congress has frequently taken steps to regulate
procedures for privatizing civilian defense jobs.
Congressional Action. Neither the House nor the Senate has yet considered
any measures that would regulate implementation of new personnel procedures.
Easing Environmental Regulations Affecting Military
Facilities
For the past four years, the Defense Department has proposed a number of
legislative measures, under the rubric of the Readiness and Range Preservation
Initiative, to ease the application of several environmental statutes to military
training. In the FY2003 defense authorization (P.L. 107-314), Congress agreed to
amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as it applies to accidental injuries to birds
caused by military aircraft. In the FY2004 defense authorization (P.L. 108-136),
Congress agreed to changes in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and in the
Endangered Species Act. Last year, the Administration proposed somewhat revised
versions of proposals it made in prior years to amend the Clean Air Act, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress did
not act on those proposals, however.
This year, the Defense Department has again proposed a package of legislative
changes in environmental statutes affecting military training facilities. One DOD
proposal would exempt missions generated by military readiness activities from
requirements to “conform” to State Implementation Plans (SIP) for achieving federal
air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. A second proposal would provide that
military munitions on operational ranges may not be defined as “solid waste” under
RCRA and CERCLA. In effect, this would allow munitions and munitions-related

²⁷ (...continued)
60% larger than 3,800 troop brigades the Army plans. See Elaine M. Grossman, “General
Unscrambles New Jargon for Reformulated Army Divisions,” Inside the Pentagon, February

12, 2004.

contamination to remain on a training range indefinitely, as long as the range
remained operational.²⁸
Congressional Action. Neither the House nor the Senate has addressed the
new Administration proposals in action on the defense authorization.
New Nuclear Weapons
Last year, in after vigorous floor debates, both the House and the Senate rejected
amendments to the defense authorization bill to eliminate funds for studies of new
nuclear weapons, including funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
and the Advanced Concepts Initiative (ACI) to study low yield weapons. The
conference agreement on the FY2005 Energy and Commerce appropriations bill
(Division C of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447),
however, eliminated requested funds both for RNEP and for ACI.
In the FY2006 budget, the Administration again requested funds for studies of
the RNEP, though the request was substantially lower than in the past, and the
Department of Energy (DOE) removed from its long-term funding plan a budget
wedge for RNEP development that totaled almost $500 million between FY2005 and
FY2009. The FY2006 request includes $4 million for RNEP in the FY2006
Department of Energy (DOE) budget and $4.5 million in the Air Force. Budget
projections also include $14 million for RNEP in DOE in FY2007, and $3.5 million
in the Air Force. Projections after FY2007 show no additional funding, though it
could be restored at any time.²⁹
The FY2006 budget includes no funds for ACI, but another potential issue has
emerged. The conference agreement on the FY2005 energy and water appropriations
bill did not provide funds for ACI, but instead made the $9 million requested
available for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program that was intended,
as the conference report explains, to “improve the reliability, longevity, and
certifiability of existing weapons and their components.” But in testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Linton
Brookes, the Director of DOE nuclear weapons programs, implied that the RRW
program might be used to develop a entirely new, more reliable warhead.³⁰ This
prospect raised alarm among arms control groups and may become a matter fo debate
in Congress.

²⁸ See CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense: An Overview of Congressional Action, by David M. Bearden.
²⁹ See CRS Report RL32347, ‘Bunker Busters’: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues,
FY2005 and FY2006; and CRS Report RL32599, ‘Bunker Busters’: Sources of Confusion
in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Debate, both by Jonathan Medalia.
³⁰ See Statement of Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Before The Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 4, 2005, at [http://armed-services.senate.gov/
statemnt/2005/April/Brooks%2004-04-05.pdf].

Congressional Action. In preliminary markup of the FY2006 defense
authorization bill (H.R. 1815), the House Armed Services Committee strategic forces
subcommittee eliminated RNEP funds from the Department of Energy (DOE) budget
and added the money to the Air Force. A press release by subcommittee Democrats
said that the purpose is to direct funding to non-nuclear, “conventional,” “bunker
buster” weapons. A press release by the full committee following the full committee
markup, however, says that the bill includes $4 million for a DOD (not DOE) study
“to include conventional as well as nuclear penetrator options.”
The strategic forces subcommittee also established a policy for the RRW
program, which Representative John Spratt said requires that the goal of the program
be to reduce the likelihood of a return to nuclear testing and to shrink the nuclear
arsenal. He did not, however, rule out development of a new warhead.
The Senate Armed Services Committee took the opposite approach. In its
version of the FY2006 authorization bill, it provided the $4.0 million requested for
RNEP in DOE, but eliminated Air Force funding. In its markup of the FY2006
energy and water appropriations bill (H.R. 2419), the House energy and water
appropriations subcommittee also eliminated funds for RNEP from the Department
of Energy budget. The subcommittee also increased funding for the RRW program
from $9 million to $27 million and included in its report a long discussion of policy
goals for the RRW program.
In action on the energy and water appropriations bill (H.R. 2419), the House
appropriations committee eliminated funds for the RNEP and included detailed
report language establishing goals for the RRW program. The House passed the bill
without amending these provisions. The Senate appropriations committee, however,
included requested RNEP funds. And on the floor, on July 1, 2005, the Senate
rejected by 43-53 an amendment by Senator Feinstein to eliminate funds for the
RNEP.
The conference agreement on the energy and water bill eliminates RNEP
funding. On October 25, Senator Domenici released a statement saying that the
Administration supported the elimination of funds and wanted to focus on non-
nuclear weapons for destroying deeply buried targets. Subsequently, Administration
officials have emphasized that the current policy is to test projectiles that could
penetrate hardened concrete. Some opponents of the RNEP have complained that
this leaves room for the nuclear program to be resurrected in the future.
Women in Combat and Other “Social Issues”
Matters that are broadly defined as “social issues” often arise within the military
and, accordingly, in congressional consideration of annual defense bills. In the past,
Congress has addressed matters as diverse as gays in the military, women in combat,
housing of male and female recruits during basic training, and sale of potentially
offensive magazines on military bases. Congress perennially debates proposals to
repeal a prohibition on privately funded abortions in military hospitals overseas for
personnel or dependents who otherwise might not have access to abortions at all.
Recently, in view of reports that cases of sexual abuse within the military are not

uncommon, there has been an extensive discussion in Congress of the adequacy of
the Defense Departments policy on sexual abuse and its handling of abuse cases.
A key social issue in Congress this year has been whether women should
continue to serve in units that directly support combat operations and that are
deployed along with combat units in military operations. Currently women are not
permitted to serve in combat roles in the Army, but are often assigned to support
units that are physically collocated with combat units. As a result, women have
sometimes been involved in fighting and have suffered some casualties. In Iraq, 35
women have died, which is about 2.2% of the total number of U.S. military personnel
killed.
Congressional Action. In House Armed Services Committee subcommittee
markup of the FY2006 defense authorization bill, the personnel subcommittee
approved by a 9-7 vote a measure that would bar women from some combat support
units. In the full committee markup, the subcommittee chair, Representative John
McHugh, offered an amendment that instead would codify into statute the existing
DOD policy that prohibits assignment of women to ground combat units and that
would prohibit any changes in assignments. Opponents of the measure, however,
argued that it went beyond that and could restrict assignment of women to some units
in which they now serve.
In floor action on the authorization, Armed Services Committee Chairman
Duncan Hunter proposed a measure that would require that the Defense Department
notify Congress 60 days in advance of any changes in policies on the assignment of
women to deployable ground units. This proposal was approved as part of an en bloc
amendment. The conference agreement on the defense authorization bill includes the
House provision, but with a requirement for 30 days advance notification.
In floor action on the defense appropriations bill, a debate over a measure
regarding religious tolerance at the Air Force Academy turned bitter and halted action
on the measure for 45 minutes when Representative Obey objected to statements by
Representative Hostettler. As reported by the committee, the bill included a
provision stating the sense of Congress that “coercive and abusive religious
proselytizing” at the Air Force Academy “as has been reported is inconsistent with
the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy.” The
measure required the Air Force to develop and report on a plan “to maintain a climate
free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing.”
Representative Hunter objected to the provision and proposed a substitute that
voices support for religious tolerance and required the Secretary of the Air Force to
develop and report on recommendations “to maintain a positive climate of religious
freedom and tolerance at the United States Air Force Academy.” Representative
Obey offered a substitute to the Hunter proposal that restored much of the original
language. In response to statements by Representative Hostettler, Representative
Obey moved that the gentleman’s words be taken down, which, if upheld by the
chair, would have allowed no further statements for the day by the speaker.
Representative Hostettler subsequently withdrew his remarks and the debate
resumed. In the end, the House rejected the Obey amendment by a vote of 198-210,

and the Hunter amendment prevailed. The conference agreement on the
appropriations bill deleted the House-passed language.
Another issue arose shortly before the Senate began action on the defense
authorization, when a Federal court ruled that the Defense Department could not
provide support for a periodic Boy Scout jamboree because the organization excludes
some children on religious grounds. On July 26, by a vote of 98-0, the Senate
approved an amendment to the authorization bill by Senator Frist saying that no
Federal law may be construed to limit federal agency support to youth organizations.
The authorization conference agreement includes an amended provision requiring
that no Federal law may restrict military support for several identified youth
organizations, including the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and for other youth
organizations that the President may designate in the future.
Base Closures
In the FY2003 defense authorization bill, Congress approved a new round of
military base closures to be carried out in calendar year 2005, and both last year and
the year before, Congress, in some cases quite narrowly, rejected proposals to repeal
or limit the base closure law. The congressionally approved closure process was
underway throughout the current legislative session. Even so, there was some
discussion in Congress about last-minute measures to delay or derail the process.
Congressional Action. In its markup of the FY2006 defense authorization,
the House Armed Services committee rejected an amendment proposed by
Representative Bradley to delay the base closure round. Later, on the floor, the full
House rejected the same proposal by a vote of 112-316. Meanwhile, in the Senate,
Senator Thune with several cosponsors proposed a freestanding bill (S. 1075) to
postpone closures until, among other things, all major combat forces have returned
from Iraq. Subsequently, Senator Thune proposed a similar measure as an
amendment to the defense authorization bill. That amendment is still technically
pending. The base closure commission sent its final report — with recommendations
to close 22 major military facilities and realign 33 others — to the White House on
September 8. President Bush approved the report and sent it to Congress on
September 15. Congress then had 45 days to pass a joint resolution to disapprove the
list, or it becomes law. On October 27, 2005, by a vote of 85-324, the House rejected
a resolution (H.J.Res. 65) disapproving of the base closure recommendations.
“Buy American” Requirements, Border Security, and Other
Issues
A number of other issues were also on the congressional agenda. Congress has
had a vigorous debate in the past couple of years about proposals to upgrade or
replace the Air Force’s fleet of tanker aircraft. A proposal to lease up to 100 Boeing
KC-767 tanker aircraft has been rejected, and the question now is what, if anything,
to do instead. Also for the past two years, Congress has considered measures
intended to strengthen “Buy American” requirements for purchases of military
equipment. Any or all of these issues could come up again in Congress this year. In
addition, for the past several years, the House has approved measures to allow

military forces to be assigned to border security if requested by the relevant domestic
agencies, but the Senate has objected and the measure has never been included in a
conference agreement.
Congressional Action. The House Armed Services Committee approved
a measure in the authorization that would ban the Defense Department from
acquiring items from companies that receive subsidies from foreign governments.
This is seen as a measure to prevent the European Aeronautic Defence and Space
Company (EADS), which produces Airbus passenger jets, from competing with
Boeing to provide refueling aircraft to the Air Force.³¹ Later, in floor action on the
authorization bill, the House approved an amendment by Representative Manzullo
that would prevent “Buy American” requirements — that require 50% domestic
content for defense purchases — from being waived by any reciprocal trade
agreement with a foreign nation. The conference agreement on the authorization bill
includes neither House provision.
Also, this year as in the past, the House approved an amendment to the
authorization bill to permit the Secretary of Defense to assign U.S. military forces to
border patrol operations if requested by the Department of Homeland Security. The
conference agreement, as in the past, dropped the House provision.
For Additional Reading
CRS Defense Budget Products
CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and
Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry
Nowels.
CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Enhanced Base Security
Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco.
CRS Defense Budget-Related Products
CRS Report RS20859, Air Force Transformation, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL32599, ‘Bunker Busters’: Sources of Confusion in the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator Debate, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32888, The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and
Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.

³¹ See John M. Donnelly and Anne Plummer, “House Defense Measure Would Protect
Boeing From Overseas Competition,” CQ Today, May 19, 2005.

CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy — Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense: An Overview of Congressional Action, by David M. Bearden.
CRS Report RL31673, F/A-22 Raptor, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background,
Status, and Issues, by Christopher Bolkcom.
CRS Report RS21754, Military Forces: What is the Appropriate Size for the United
States?, by Edward F. Bruner.
CRS Report RS21148, Military Space Programs: Issues Concerning DOD’s SBIRS
and STSS Programs, by Marcia S. Smith.
CRS Report RS20851, Naval Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress,
by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32731, Navy Aircraft Carriers: Proposed Retirement of USS John
F. Kennedy — Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32418, Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement
Rate: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RS21059, Navy DD(X) and CG(X) Programs: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32109, Navy DD(X), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs:
Oversight Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches —
Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32665, Potential Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS Report RL32347, “Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues,
FY2005 and FY2006, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by
Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL32975, Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2006 Appropriations, by Sidath
Viranga Panangala.

Legislation
Concurrent Budget Resolution
H.Con.Res. 95 (Nussle)
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for
FY2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for FY2005, and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Reported by the
House Committee on the Budget (H.Rept. 109-17), March 11, 2005. Agreed to in
House (218-214), March 17, 2005. Agreed to in Senate in lieu of S.Con.Res. 18 with
an amendment (Unanimous Consent), April 4, 2005. Conference report (H.Rept.
109-62) filed, April 28, 2005. Conference report agreed to in House (214-211) and
in the Senate, (52-47), April 28, 2005.
S.Con.Res. 18 (Gregg)
An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States Government for FY2006 and including the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 2010. Original measure reported to Senate by
Senator Gregg, without written report, March 11, 2005. Agreed to in Senate:
Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments (51-49), March 17, 2005.
Defense Authorization
H.R. 1815 (Hunter)
To authorize appropriations for FY2006 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for FY2006, and for other
purposes. Marked up by the House Armed Services Committee and ordered to be
reported, May 18, 2005. Reported by the House Armed Services Committee
(H.Rept. 109-89), May 20, 2005. Considered by the House and approved, with
amendments (390-39), May 25, 2005. Measure laid before the Senate by unanimous
consent, Senate struck all after the enacting clause and inserted the text of S. 1042,
Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference (all by unanimous
consent), November 15, 2005. Conference report filed (H.Rept. 109-360), December
18, 2005. House agreed to conference report (374-41), December 19, 2005. Senate
agreed to conference report (voice vote), December 21, 2005. Signed into law by the
President (P.L. 109-163), January 6, 2006.
S. 1042 (Warner)
An original bill to authorize appropriations for FY2006 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of
the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the
Armed Forces, and for other purposes. Marked up by the Senate Armed Services
Committee and ordered to be reported, May 12, 2005. Reported by the Armed
Services Committee (S.Rept. 109-69), May 17, 2005. Considered by the Senate, July

21, 22, 25, and 26. Senate rejected a motion to close further debate (50-48), July 26,

2005. Consideration resumed in the Senate, November 4, 2005. Approved by the
Senate, with amendments (98-0), November 15, 2005. Senate incorporated this
measure in H.R. 1815 as an amendment (unanimous consent), November 15, 2005.

Defense Appropriations
H.R. 2863 (Young of FL)
Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for FY2006 and for other
purposes. Marked up by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, May 24,
2005. Marked up by the House Appropriations Committee, June 7, 2005. Reported
by the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-119), June 10, 2005. House
approved rule (H.Res. 315) on floor debate, June 16, 2005. Debated in the House
and approved, with amendments (389-19), June 20, 2005. Reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, without
written report, September 28, 2005. Senate Report issued (S.Rept. 109-141),
September 29, 2005. Considered in the Senate, September 29, 2005 to October 6,

2005. Approved by the Senate, with amendments, (97-0), October 7, 2005.

Conference report filed (H.Rept. 109-359), December 18, 2005. House agreed to
conference report (308-106), December 19, 2005. Conference report agreed to in
Senate (93-0), December 21, 2005. Signed into law by the President (P.L. 109-148),
December 30, 2005.

Appendix A: What the Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Bills Cover³²
Congress provides funding for national defense programs in several annual
appropriations measures, the largest of which is the defense appropriations bill.
Congress also acts every year on a national defense authorization bill, which
authorizes programs funded in several regular appropriations measures. The
authorization bill addresses defense programs in almost precisely the same level of
detail as the defense-related appropriations, and congressional debate about major
defense policy and funding issues often occurs mainly in action on the authorization.
The annual defense appropriations bill provides funds for military activities of
the Department of Defense (DOD), including pay and benefits of military personnel,
operation and maintenance of weapons and facilities, weapons procurement, and
research and development, as well as for other purposes. Most of the funding in the
bill is for programs administered by the Department of Defense, though the bill also
provides (1) relatively small, unclassified amounts for the Central Intelligence
Agency retirement fund and intelligence community management, (2) classified
amounts for national intelligence activities administered by the National Intelligence
Director, by the CIA, and by other agencies as well as by DOD, and (3) very small
amounts for some other agencies.
At the beginning of the 109^th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee
undertook a substantial reorganization that removed the Defense Health Program,
environmental restoration programs, and military facilities maintenance accounts
from the jurisdiction of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and placed them
under the jurisdiction of the newly-named Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs Subcommittee. The Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently adopted
a reorganization plan that kept the same accounts within the defense appropriations
bill, though it assigned military construction and veterans affairs programs to a
renamed Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. This report
will continue to track funding levels of the programs moved out of the defense
appropriations bill by the House, as they still fall within both the Department of
Defense and overall National Defense budget functions.
Several other appropriations bills also provide funds for national defense
activities of DOD and other agencies. This report does not generally track
congressional action on defense-related programs in these other appropriations bills,
except for a discussion of action on some Department of Energy nuclear weapons
programs in the energy and water appropriations bill.

³² Because the defense authorization and appropriations bills are so closely related, this
report tracks congressional action on both measures.

Appendix B: Overview of the Administration
Request
On February 7, 2005, the Administration released its FY2006 federal budget
request. The request includes $441.8 billion in new budget authority for national
defense, of which $421.1 billion is for military activities of the Department of
Defense (DOD), $17.5 billion for atomic energy defense activities of the Department
of Energy, and $3.2 billion for defense-related activities of other agencies (see
Table A1). The FY2006 request does not include funding for ongoing military
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. On February 14, 2005, the
Administration submitted a supplemental appropriations request for FY2005 that
included $74.9 billion for DOD.³³
Table A1. National Defense Budget Authority by Title,
FY2005-FY2006, Administration Projection
(billions of current year dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^E^s^ti^m^a^te^Request
^Military^P^e^rs^oⁿⁿ^e^l^105.6^111.3
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d Mai}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^c^e^138.4^148.4
^Procu^r^em^en^t^78.3^78.0
^R^D^T^&^E^68.8^69.4
^Militar^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ⁶^.1⁷^.⁸
^Fam^ily^Ho^u^sⁱⁿ^g⁴^.1⁴^.²
^Oth^e^r⁰^.8¹^.⁹
^Subt^o^t^a^l^{, Depa}^rt^m^e^nt^o^f^Def^e^nse^402.0^421.1
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y^{, D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e-^R^e^l^a^t^e^d^18.0^17.5
^Oth^e^{r Def}^eⁿ^s^e-^R^e^lated³^.6³^.²
^T^o^tal^,^Nati^on^al^Defen^s^e^423.6^441.8
^F^Y^{05 S}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^(P.L^{. 109-}¹³⁾^75.9
^Source:^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d Bu}^dg^et^an^{d H}^.^R^.^{1268, as}^en^act^ed.
The FY2006 request represents an increase of 4.3% over the FY2005 enacted
level (excluding the supplemental) in nominal terms, and of 1.9% after adjusting for
inflation. This rate of growth is considerably slower than earlier in the Bush
Administration. Between FY2000 and FY2005, funding for national defense grew
by 38% in nominal terms or about 23% after inflation, an annual inflation-adjusted
growth rate of 4.2%. Administration figures show relatively slow rates of real
growth in the baseline defense budget (excluding supplemental appropriations) for
the next several years (see Table A2).

³³ See CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.

Table A2. National Defense Budget Authority and
Outlays, FY2000-FY2010, Administration Projection
(current and constant FY2006 dollars in billions)
^Bu^d^g^{et au}^th^ori^t^y^O^u^t^l^ays
^Co^nst^a^nt^Rea^l^Co^nst^a^nt^Rea^l
^Fis^c^al^Current^FY²⁰⁰⁶^grow^th^/^Current^FY²⁰⁰⁶^grow^th^/
^year^do^lla^rs^do^lla^rs^decline^do^lla^rs^do^lla^rs^decline
²⁰⁰⁰^304.1^358.0⁺^1.4%^294.5^345.2⁺^4.2%
²⁰⁰¹^335.5^383.7⁺^7.2%^305.5^347.5⁺^0.7%
²⁰⁰²^362.1^403.1⁺^5.1%^348.6^386.2⁺^11.1%
²⁰⁰³^456.2^493.8⁺^22.5%^404.9^438.8⁺^13.6%
²⁰⁰⁴^490.6^516.8⁺^4.6%^455.9^480.1⁺^9.4%
²⁰⁰⁵^423.6^433.5^-^16.1%^465.9^476.5^-^0.7%
²⁰⁰⁶^441.8^441.8⁺^1.9%^447.4^431.3^-^6.1%
²⁰⁰⁷^465.4^454.3⁺^2.8%^448.9^427.9^-^2.1%
²⁰⁰⁸^483.9^461.0⁺^1.5%^466.1^435.7⁺^1.3%
²⁰⁰⁹^503.8^468.1⁺^1.5%^487.7^443.2⁺^2.1%
²⁰¹⁰^513.9^465.6^-^0.5%^504.8^443.2⁺^0.9%
^Source:^C^R^S^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^bas^e^{d on}^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d Bu}^dg^et^dat^a^an^{d def}^l^at^ors
^f^r^om^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e.
^No^te:^In^cl^u^d^es^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2000 t}^h^ro^{ugh FY}^{2004, bu}^t^doesⁿ^o^t
ⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2005 an}^{d bey}^oⁿ^d^.
Key Features of the Administration Request
Within the defense budget, three aspects of the Administration’s FY2006
request stand out:
^!Continued growth in military personnel and in operation and
maintenance costs;
^!A slowdown in growth of funding for RDT&E and procurement; and
^!Some substantial last-minute changes in projected funding for major
weapons programs when, in December, 2004, the Office of
Management and Budget instructed the Defense Department to trim
a net of $30 billion from the total Defense Department FY2006-
FY2011 six-year plan.
Continued Growth in Military Personnel and in Operation and
Maintenance Costs. As Table A1 shows, the FY2006 request for the Department
of Defense is $19.1 billion higher than the FY2005 baseline budget (i.e., excluding
supplemental appropriations). Of that increase, $5.7 billion is for military personnel
and $10.0 billion is for operation and maintenance (O&M). So, over 80% of the
requested DOD increase between FY2005 and FY2006 is for military personnel and
O&M. The growth in personnel and operating accounts reflects an ongoing trend.
Between FY2000 and FY2005, increases in military personnel and operation and

maintenance funding accounted for 60% of the overall, relatively larger increase in
the Department of Defense budget. This still left substantial amounts to boost
weapons acquisition. But as budgets level off, continuing increases in personnel and
operations may limit the new funding available for weapons programs.³⁴
Slower Growth in Procurement and RDT&E. In the FY2006 request, the
Administration proposes $78.0 billion for procurement, a decrease of $300 million
compared to the FY2005 baseline level, and $69.4 billion for RDT&E, an increase
of $600 million. After adjusting for inflation, both represent real reductions in
funding (see Table A3).³⁵ Over the next few years, the Administration plan calls for
only very modest growth in weapons acquisition in the regular defense budget — an
increase in procurement funding is offset by a decline in RDT&E. In all,
procurement plus RDT&E spending increases by 7.3% after adjusting for inflation
over the next six years, about 1.2% per year real growth.
One additional point is important to note. The Administration plan also projects
only modest real growth in operation and maintenance of about 1.8% per year over
the next six years, substantially below the historical growth rate of 2.6%. If, as in
the past, projections of O&M savings prove to be too optimistic, then funds may
migrate from acquisition programs into O&M to protect readiness.
Table A3. Department of Defense Budget Authority by Title, FY2005-FY2011
(discretionary budget authority in billions of constant FY2006 dollars)
^C^h^an^ge^%^C^h^an^ge
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁹^FY²⁰¹⁰^FY²⁰¹¹^FY^05-11^FY^05-11
^Military^P^e^rs^onⁿ^e^l^107.2^108.9^108.6^108.6^108.9^109.1^109.1⁺^1.9⁺^1.7%
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^&^Maiⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^c^e^139.9^147.⁸^150.5^153.4^155.5^155.7^156.2⁺^16.3⁺^11.0%
^Procu^r^em^en^t^79.7^78.0^89.7^97.3^98.9^102.4^106.9⁺^27.2⁺^34.8%
^R^D^T^&^E^70.2^69.4^65.4^63.8^68.0^63.3^53.8^-^16.4^-^23.7%
^Militar^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ⁶^.1⁷^.⁸¹²^.⁰¹³^.⁰¹⁰^.⁴⁹^.7⁹^.⁸⁺³^.⁷⁺⁴⁷^.³^%
^Fam^ily^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g⁴^.2^4.2³^.8^2.9²^.5^2.5²^.4^-¹^.7^-^41.6%
^R^e^v^o^lv^&^Mg^m^t^Fds^/^Oth^e^r²^.1^3.2²^.4^1.6³^.6^3.1⁵^.3^+3.2^+99.2%
^T^o^t^a^l^409.5^419.3^432.5^440.6^447.8^445.7^443.5⁺^34.0⁺^8.1%
^No^te
^Procu^r^em^en^t^{+ R}^D^T^&^E^149.9^147.4^155.1^161.1^166.9^165.7^160.7⁺^10.8⁺^7.3%
^Source:^C^R^S^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^bas^e^{d on}^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e dat}^a^.
^No^te:^Do^{es n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e su}^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^.

³⁴ For a full discussion, see CRS Report RL32877, Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges
for FY2006 and Beyond, by Stephen Daggett.
³⁵ It is important to note, however, that the FY2004 and FY2005 supplemental
appropriations bills include large amounts for procurement, especially for the Army, only
a small part of which is to replace combat losses. The FY2004 supplemental provides $5.5
billion for procurement, the FY2004/FY2005 “bridge” fund in the FY2005 appropriations
bill provides $1.4 billion, and the FY2005 supplemental provides $17.4 billion.

Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-753). The implications of
constraints on weapons funding became rather dramatically apparent in December,
2004, when the Defense Department made a number of significant changes in its
long-term acquisition plans to meet budget targets established by the White House.
In the last few weeks before the President’s FY2006 budget was to be submitted to
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructed the Defense
Department to cut $55 billion from its FY2006-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP). At the same time, OMB told the Pentagon to add $25 billion to the
FY2007-FY2011 Army budget to cover costs of an ongoing reorganization plan,
known as Army Modularization (see below for a further discussion). The net result
was a reduction of $30 billion in the DOD budget over the next six years.
To effect these reductions, DOD issued Program Budget Decision 753 (PBD-
753), which prescribed adjustments to be incorporated into the FY2006 budget
submission in order to meet the OMB mandate. Table A4 lists the major program
changes in PBD-753.
Table A4. Major Program Adjustments in PBD-753
(millions of dollars)
^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁹^FY²⁰¹⁰^FY²⁰¹¹^T^O^T^A^L^S
^Vir^gⁱⁿ^{ia Class}^+64.3^-^299.9^-^482.1^-^2,077.7^-^1,482.7^-^994.6^-5,272.7
^Sub^m^ar^ine
^D^D⁽^X⁾^D^e^s^t^roy^e^r^—^+115.3⁺^78.6^-^1,728.2^-^1,240.0⁺^196.0^-2,578.3
^C^a^rri^{er R}^e^tⁱ^r^em^en^t^134.3^-^157.3^-^288.3^-^276.4^-^304.3^-^306.5^-1,198.5
^LP^D^-¹⁷^+140.0⁺^284.8^-^1,200.0^-^51.7^-^126.0^—^-952.9
^A^m^p^h^ib^io^u^s^Sh^ip
^V^-^{22 O}^s^prey^-^275.4^-^504.3^-^425.7^-^88.1⁺^21.5⁺^19.0^-1,253.0
^C^-^{130J C}^a^rg^o^-^25.7^-^431.1^-^753.4^-^1,215.9^-^1,306.7^-^1,263.7^-4,996.5
^Pl^aⁿ^e
^F^/^A^-^{22 F}ⁱ^g^h^t^er^—^-²^.0^-^11.0^-^3,919.0^-^3,711.0^-^2,830.0^-10,473.0
^J^oⁱⁿ^{t Co}^m^m^oⁿ^-^271.3^-^209.7^-^350.1^-^454.8^-^518.0^-^568.9^-2,372.8
^{Missile (}^J^CM)
^Mi^s^sⁱ^l^e^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^-^1,000.0^-^800.0^-^800.0^-^800.0^-^800.0^-^800.0^-5,000.0
^T^r^an^sf^o^r^m^a^tioⁿ^a^l^-^200.0^-^200.0^—^—^—^—^-400.0
^{Satellite (}^T^SA^T⁾
^S^p^{ace Bas}^e^{d R}^a^dar^-^16.0⁺^15.0^-^64.0⁺^143.0⁺^171.0⁺^343.0⁺^592.0
^E-^10A^Aⁱ^rcraf^t^-^300.0^-^300.0^—^—^—^—^-600.0
^C^oⁿ^t^ract^{or S}^u^pport^-^2,000.0^-^2,000.⁰^-^2,000.0^-^2,000.0^-^2,000.0^-^2,000.0^-12,000.0
^A^r^m^y^B^u^sine^ss^-¹^,500.0^-^1,500.0^-^1,500.0^—^—^—^-4,500.0
^R^een^gⁱⁿ^eerin^g
^WM^D^+295.0⁺^322.0⁺^453.0⁺^439.0⁺^371.0⁺^218.0⁺²^,098.0
^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es
^A^r^m^y^Modu^l^a^ri^t^y^—^+5,000.⁰⁺^5,000.0⁺^5,000.0⁺^5,000.0⁺^5,000.0⁺^25,000.0
^O^t^h^e^{r C}^h^an^g^e^s^-^1,030.2^-^452.⁷^-^978.8^-^1,326.1^-^1,438.3^-^865.7^-6,091.8
^T^o^tal^-^5,985.0^-^1,119.9^-^3,321.8^-^8,355.9^-^7,363.5^-^3,853.4^-^29,999.5
^No^te:^Neg^a^tiv^{e (-}^{) am}^ouⁿ^t^s^repres^en^{t propos}^{ed cu}^ts^{, pos}^itiv^{e (+) am}^ouⁿ^t^s^repres^en^{t propos}^{ed adds}^.

As Table A4 shows, the proposed reductions are heavily weighted towards the
out-years — especially FY2009 and FY2010 — and minimized in FY2007. Several
of these cuts have been controversial in Congress, particularly the Navy shipbuilding
reductions and termination of the C-130J. The fate of these and other programs may
be a major focus of congressional attention in action on this year’s defense bills. As
the House Armed Services Committee was beginning to mark up the defense
authorization bills, the Defense Department announced that it had decided not to
terminate C-130J production.
Long-Term Defense Budget Challenges
Over the next several years, the defense budget will be under a considerable
amount of pressure due to several long-term trends. These include
^!Relatively moderate rates of growth in defense spending in
Administration budget projections and continued downward pressure
on the budget due to efforts to constrain budget deficits;
^!Recent large increases in military personnel costs that have made
uniformed personnel more than 30% more expensive than in 1999;
^!Continued growth in operation and maintenance costs;
^!Cost growth in a number of major weapons programs and recent cuts
in major weapons due to budget constraints; and
^!New perceptions of threats to U.S. security that may lead the
Pentagon to alter its budget priorities substantially.
Taken together, these trends pose some potentially daunting, though by no
means unprecedented, challenges for Congress and the Defense Department in
shaping the defense budget. These issues are reviewed in CRS Report RL32877,
Defense Budget: Long-Term Challenges for FY2006 and Beyond, by Stephen
Daggett. Though Congress seldom addresses these matters directly, long-term
budget pressures underlie many of the issues that Congress will grapple with this
year.